Was punk necessary?

Was punk necessary?


  • Total voters
    53

snakes&ladders

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Posts
3,291
Reaction score
11
Remember the Janis Joplin post? Janis Joplin was an artist, but IMO what she did as a singer was anything but art. IMO she sounded like a half dead *****, band wagon jumper.

The truth however is that MANY sets of ears every bit as good and qualified as mine don't feel that way. And you know what? They are every bit as correct in their personal assessments as I am. No one can be right in such matters. That's because art *is* subjective. Because it is subjective it can only exist in the mind of the beholder. Art is internal and so is the internal perception based "band wagon jumping" assessment.

I notice too much philiosophying in these remarks....and philosophy has little to do with music. The risk here is confusing people who would like to speak ABOUT MUSIC AS AN ART FORM:):)
 

snakes&ladders

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Posts
3,291
Reaction score
11
Hell yeah, and I say that as a progressive rock fan, too. It was getting a bit overlblown in quarters. Rick Wakeman performing King arthur on Ice, anyone?
The mainstream superstrs were not much bettter. Rod stewart letting his talents ossify and singing drivel. The Stone had become complacent and lethargic. The solo Beatles were erratic in their solo output..
You had souless corporate rock sludge such as Foreigner, Journey, and Styx that had very little or nothing to say. I know many classic rock fans love the aforementioned bands, but it`s only my honest opinion.You may think my bands are awful
And there was horribly atrocious pop put out by Manilow, Olivia newton John, John Denver, and many forgettabel and regrettable performers.
It was time for a change, and I disagree with some about the Pistols. Before Glen Matlock left on his own volition, they were a truly viable and great band. they gavethe music scene a nice kick in the arse, but like a great ship that docks, it dredged up a lot of garbage, too

HOOORAY!!!! Finally some serious exquisite MUSIC talk!!!
 

Foxhound

retired
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Posts
3,589
Reaction score
8
Location
Toronto, Canada
ComfortablyNumb!

Foxhound said:
Punk was a musical movement of the seventies that set out to carve out its own market niche through annoying/offending those who had embraced the flower power movement (mostly punk rockers' elder siblings) by eschewing the artsy fartsy excesses that had crept into rock and reembracing the high energy two and a half minute single. Notice I said market niche. Punk bands didn't eschew commercial success. They hoped to carve out their own market sector.

Wrong that is what your definition is.

Punk rock is a rock music genre that developed between 1974 and 1976 in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. Rooted in garage rock and other forms of what is now known as protopunk music, punk rock bands eschewed the perceived excesses of mainstream 1970s rock. They created fast, hard-edged music, typically with short songs, stripped-down instrumentation, and often political, anti-establishment lyrics. Punk embraces a DIY (do it yourself) ethic, with many bands self-producing their recordings and distributing them through informal channels.

By late 1976, bands such as the Ramones, in New York City, and the *** Pistols and The Clash, in London, were recognized as the vanguard of a new musical movement. The following year saw punk rock spreading around the world. Punk quickly, though briefly, became a major cultural phenomenon in the United Kingdom. For the most part, punk took root in local scenes that tended to reject association with the mainstream. An associated punk subculture emerged, expressing youthful rebellion and characterized by distinctive styles of clothing and adornment and a variety of anti-authoritarian ideologies.

By the beginning of the 1980s, faster, more aggressive styles such as ******** and Oi! had become the predominant mode of punk rock. Musicians identifying with or inspired by punk also pursued a broad range of other variations, giving rise to post-punk and the alternative rock movement. - Wikipedia.

Oh? The two definitions look remarkably similar to me. What then were the key elements in Wikipedia's lengthy description that I left out of my much punchier one?

:wtf:
 
Last edited:

ComfortablyNumb

Unquestionable Presence
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Posts
3,920
Reaction score
17
Location
Serving Time In The Middle Of Nowhere
ComfortablyNumb!



Oh? The two definitions look remarkably similar to me. What then were the key elements in Wikipedia's lengthy description that I left out of my much punchier one?

:wtf:

They are not remarkably similar. You said something along the lines of punk rock being about nihilism. I said that was wrong and that many punk rock bands were political.
They created fast, hard-edged music, typically with short songs, stripped-down instrumentation, and often political, anti-establishment lyrics.
So I put in that lengthy post in hopes you would see that your definition is simplistic and clouded.
 

Foxhound

retired
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Posts
3,589
Reaction score
8
Location
Toronto, Canada
They are not remarkably similar. You said something along the lines of punk rock being about nihilism. I said that was wrong and that many punk rock bands were political.

1. Do you not agree that one of the tenets of punk rock is that "Less is more"? The less is more mindset isn't consistent with being political; it is consistent with nihilism.

2. You seem to have agreed that the punk rockers were reacting against the whole hippie flower child movement. How then is taking the left wing political stance of the Clash rebelling against hippie flower children? The Clash just lumped themselves in with Arlo Guthrie, Joni Mitchell and Country Joe & the Fish when they did that. Would you have me believe that Country Joe & the Fish were a punk band as well?

This picture encompasses the sum total of the political beliefs of an unrepentant, uncompromising punk band:
 

Attachments

  • DeadBoys1.jpg
    DeadBoys1.jpg
    77.2 KB · Views: 12
Last edited:

starman

Let The Children Lose It
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Posts
194
Reaction score
0
1. Do you not agree that one of the tenets of punk rock is that "Less is more"? The less is more mindset isn't consistent with being political; it's consistent with nihilism.

2. You seem to have agreed that the punk rockers were reacting against the whole hippie flower child movement. How then is taking the left wing political stance of the Clash rebelling against hippie flower children? The cCash just lumped themselves in with Arlo Guthrie, Joni Mitchell and Country Joe & the Fish when they did that. Would you have me believe that Country Joe & the Fish were a punk band as well?

This picture encompasses the sum total of the political beliefs of an unrepentant, uncompromising punk band:


You are both partly right. In part, Punk Rock was Nihilistic. In part it was purely rebellious. You have to remember that "Punk Rock" was originally this huge umbrella that many bands got lumped under because of the scenes and fashions they were participating within.

Bands like the *** Pistols were Nihilistic by intentional design. The *** Pistols were nothing less than a commercially contrived poster child for the Punk Rock fashion world. They were so high profile because of their directed novel outrageousness. The Clash with respect to their music moved entirely of their own volition. Same with groups like The Stranglers, etc. Some were, like the *** Pistols, The Damned, etc. were just there to give the movement this snotty cheese cake edge for appearance and depravity.

Punk as in "proto punk" (MC5, Death,Blue Cheer, Stooges) was anti hippie/establishment for certain, but Punk as in UK Punk scene, just a few steps removed from New York Glam/Art Punk scene was anti progressive/main stream rock excessive commercialism. Both shared in certain MAJOR anti political over tones without question.

The term Punk really almost always equates to "anti establishment" or "Rebel". James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause was a punk of the first order, so was Marlon Brando in The Wild One.

Part nihilistic for certain, but there was far too much "mission intent" aesthetic completeness for an over all external Nihilistic judgment to stand undebated.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
29,997
Posts
1,016,300
Members
6,336
Latest member
HenryLucasTG

Members online

No members online now.
Top