Was punk necessary?

Was punk necessary?


  • Total voters
    53

TheFeldster

Mr Kite
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Posts
4,168
Reaction score
10
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Of course it is, and the underground bands, today most of all, seem to draw off of the punk movement quite a bit in their styling, IMO.

But the influences work regardless of mainstream... for example, if I was inspired by the Mona Lisa to paint a picture of my own, that picture would not exist is Da Vinci hadn't painted Lisa in the first place. All art draws off influences like that, meaning that every genre is necessary, regardless of whether you like it or not.
 

snakes&ladders

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Posts
3,287
Reaction score
7
I see your point, but in music, there are certain genres that have NOT contributed an inch to bettering the quality of the music that came after because they were only created to top the charts....and I don't think da Vinci intended to "top the charts" in his sector of art that was painting......he did it with PASSION...that's what's missing in the wimpier music genres out there today :)
 

starman

Let The Children Lose It
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Posts
194
Reaction score
1
I see your point, but in music, there are certain genres that have NOT contributed an inch to bettering the quality of the music that came after because they were only created to top the charts....and I don't think da Vinci intended to "top the charts" in his sector of art that was painting......he did it with PASSION...that's what's missing in the wimpier music genres out there today :)

S&L you have really went out a limb here. What music genres exactly are you referring to?

How can we read other's minds? This exemplifies passion, this does not?

If, as I believe it was you that stated, all music is a form of art, is art not completely subjective interpretively speaking?

Here is a question for you: Is art inside you, or is it outside you?
 

Foxhound

retired
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Posts
3,584
Reaction score
8
Location
Toronto, Canada
Aktivator said:
explain to me how glam rock fits this idea? Glam Rock is one of the roots of punk rock but it also has strong ties to prog. This idea that prog and punk don't mix never made sense to me because of glam.

I disagree that punk evolved from glam. I think that both glam and punk evolved from proto-punk bands like the Troggs, MC5, Stooges, early Alice Cooper - but the glam bands and the punk bands evolved in different directions from the proto punk bands. That's why you could have bands as diverse as the New York Dolls, T-Rex, Ramones, Dead Boys and Sex Pistols all having similar ancestry - like two very different brothers.

Eberg said:
... basically strips rock down to the simplest form possible, but prog makes it complicated and intricate, so i don't really think prog and punk mix at all, two totally different planets in the solar system of music....

I agree. And that's why they could coexist, just as Mercury and Jupiter coexist as planets in the same solar system.

TheFeldster said:
Of course, what Fox would describe as the "excesses" (Queen, Fleetwood Mac and his other pet hates)....

My pet hates are actually Yes and the Electric Light Orchestra. Despite what I regard as their excesses, I don't hate Queen. I'm actually mildly positive toward the band. And one of the main reasons that I'm no great fan of the latter Fleetwood Mac is that it was the Peter Green era of the band that I really like and I resent that early era having been largely overlooked/forgotten by the mass market. There are other prog bands I like such as Jethro Tull, Emerson, Lake & Palmer and King Crimson.

:guitar:
 
Last edited:

snakes&ladders

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Posts
3,287
Reaction score
7
S&L you have really went out a limb here. What music genres exactly are you referring to?

How can we read other's minds? This exemplifies passion, this does not?

If, as I believe it was you that stated, all music is a form of art, is art not completely subjective interpretively speaking?

Here is a question for you: Is art inside you, or is it outside you?

UNrhetorically speaking, art is both within and external to us all. Passion in music means sweating out whatever you wanna embrace and convey, not only jumping onto the latest bandwagon just because the music industry orders you to (by contract) or because the radios want it that way.....know what I mean??!!:):)....oh, of course music like all art forms is subjective...I never stated the contrary!!:):cheers::lmao:
 

starman

Let The Children Lose It
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Posts
194
Reaction score
1
UNrhetorically speaking, art is both within and external to us all. Passion in music means sweating out whatever you wanna embrace and convey, not only jumping onto the latest bandwagon just because the music industry orders you to (by contract) or because the radios want it that way.....know what I mean??!!:):)....oh, of course music like all art forms is subjective...I never stated the contrary!!:):cheers::lmao:

But you DID and ARE. You are judging those "jumping on the band wagon". That's an individual introspective projection. If you want to get down to the mundane, it's what is referred to as a "straw man".


And the answer is that art is ALWAYS internal. Our interpretation of an artist's efforts is what is defined as art. That's why we can walk into a museum that is displaying a great diversity of paintings and personally declare one painting as: "Now that's art!" or "That's NOT art! It's utter nonsense, or downright obscene."

Art, and what is, or is not art, is in the mind of the beholder.

Band wagon jumping and passionless music are also in the mind of the beholder.

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 skank, band wagon jumper. :tongue:

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.
 

Magic

Woman of the World
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Posts
24,793
Reaction score
4,531
Location
Ohio, USA
Art, whether it be on canvas, the spoken word, a statue, or the verse of a song, is something we ebrace first with our senses, then take that which we embrace with the senses and process it within ourselves. The processing is where it becomes either a part of you, or something you find distasteful.

The processing of the "Art" is where personal tastes and choices come into play. Each person's interpretation is different and subjective.


There...that's my 3 cents worth :uh:
 

Stout

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Posts
155
Reaction score
1
Location
New York
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
 

starman

Let The Children Lose It
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Posts
194
Reaction score
1
Art, whether it be on canvas, the spoken word, a statue, or the verse of a song, is something we ebrace first with our senses, then take that which we embrace with the senses and process it within ourselves. The processing is where it becomes either a part of you, or something you find distasteful.

The processing of the "Art" is where personal tastes and choices come into play. Each person's interpretation is different and subjective.


There...that's my 3 cents worth :uh:

I'd pretty much go with the above a thousand percent.

The following is my opinion based on observation.

Art is subjective. What exists prior to it's definition as art is work or effort.

Q: Why is it then that when we go to a museum, if it contains paintings, skulptures, etc., is it not called a Works Museum instead of an Art Museum?

A: Because each work/effort contained therein has already been declared a work of art, or simply "art", by at least one human being. That's the ONLY prerequisite for definitive "art". *In fact, the creator of said work is not exempt from the qualifying process. It is enough that the artist themselves declares their work "art", for it to be such.

Summery: Prospective art is somewhat likened to a subconscious signal that emanates outward with positively no guarantee of concept based reception. There is no exactness involved in either process, transmission or reception. It's reception alone confirms it's existence.

*Check: I actually think I'm full of myself here. Because if someone takes a dump on a city sidewalk and declares it to be art, does that mean it is? The world may never know.

Perhaps the person responsible for said sidewalk defecation should merely be committed to an institution for the artistically insane.

But then, are not all the declared insane subjects contained therein merely more begotten works of art based on a subjective interpretation of their artistic merit?

I'm going back to bed.
 

snakes&ladders

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Posts
3,287
Reaction score
7
But you DID and ARE. You are judging those "jumping on the band wagon". That's an individual introspective projection. If you want to get down to the mundane, it's what is referred to as a "straw man".


And the answer is that art is ALWAYS internal. Our interpretation of an artist's efforts is what is defined as art. That's why we can walk into a museum that is displaying a great diversity of paintings and personally declare one painting as: "Now that's art!" or "That's NOT art! It's utter nonsense, or downright obscene."

Art, and what is, or is not art, is in the mind of the beholder.

Band wagon jumping and passionless music are also in the mind of the beholder.

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 skank, band wagon jumper. :tongue:

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.

My "judgement" as you call it (if there ever was judgement,,,,first define the word "judgement") is CONSTRUCTIVE and in any case, I didn't mean that all the 'bandwagon jumpers' wre necessarily bad, but necessarily UNpassionate "artists" = "artists" who have little PASSION (this is not a judgement on the basis of MY own opinion, but based on RAW fact!!......let the end result = the music itself do the speaking! If someone digs MJ's music he should NOT go around saying that MJ is the King of Pop and go around NOT accepting the others (many!!!) who go around saying his music SUX!! The former are the real UNsubjective "judges" of music, not people who think like I do!!:):):lmao::lmao::cheers::****:
 

Find member

Forum statistics

Threads
30,658
Posts
1,064,853
Members
6,353
Latest member
edmerka

Members online

Top