You and punk!

[Aktivator]

Aktivator:

Okay. So I guess the basic point in your post is that bands like the Electric Light Orchestra didn't take themselves that seriously either, at least they didn't in the seventies and eighties.

You've also frequently contested the point that punk bands were rebelling against the excesses that had crept into rock music.

Do you then disagree that the punk bands of the seventies were out to reembrace the short singles of the early to mid sixties? How would you characterize the punk movement if you don't see rebellion against introspection/excesses in rock as a key defining characteristic? If punk wasn't rebelling against relevance and reembracing mindless fun, what then was it all about?

You don't agree with me but you do admit that punk existed as a distinct movement. How then would you define/characterize punk?

yes punk was a distinct movement but it did follow a line right out of the 60's. It's not like the bands that Punk got its influences from bands that were playing long jams, excess long winded songs. Also punk didn't just start on its own with no influence. Hence where did it come from? Most people say it followed the stooges, mc5, velvet underground to the NY Dolls, glam rock(full of prog roots by the way) all bands that didn't have any excess and never stopped having this fun idea(although I'll debate all rock bands had fun). Everyone likes to take the Ramones as the darlings of early punk but it is stated numerious times they were influenced by Iggy Pop Dictators and The NY Dolls.

Secondly, lets look at the early 70's. You talk about excess and arena rock like it was the only game in town. Mainstream early 70's music was all over the place. There was country Rock, Celtic revival ,soul,Roots-rock ,Progressive bluegrass , art rock/prog rock, Nostalgia,Power-pop ,reggae,dub,salsa,singer/songwriter,L.A. Renewal ,southern rock,glam, early stages of hearvy rock/heavy metal etc.. The masses were all over the place not just listening to arena and prog rock. So were was the need to rebel against only two genres? I think what gets lost in history is it wasn't the bands that rebeled against these genres but the masses left those genres to listen to punk rock and that happened after the birth of punk 74-76.
By 77 you also had disco so some went to disco and others to punk. However, arena rock was also still a big force-look at a guy like Groovy man he and his buddy's weren't going to fall into disco or punk. Don't also forget the hippie crowd was still following the jam band and southern rock(dead and allmans). So early Punk was just another genre and had nothing to do with excess. However, by 78 we are now talking about bands influenced by punk bands and this might be where the rebellion against all other forms really began. Funny thing is that Punk went back underground by 79 and the masses went to new wave which had influences from all corners.

By the way how do you explain a band like The Gang of Four? influences in punk but also jazz? Yeah we understand you went on to follow punk into the 80's which went hardcore but the masses were long gone from the genre by then.

Don't get me started on punk rock's that liked prog/art rock or a guy like Brian Eno who mixed with all of them.


here is agreat read on the history of rock
here is the portion on punk
http://www.scaruffi.com/history/cpt42.html

 

[Foxhound]

Especially when Arena Rock and the bands that were filling arenas were putting out better music. Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, Kansas, Boston, Kiss, Foreigner, Aerosmith, Ted Nugent, Van Halen were filling arenas for all the hungry rock fans, heck, even The Grateful Dead were doing it too. Most people didn't give a crap about ''"Anarchy In The U.K.", and ''God Save the Queen" in the U.S. in the mid-late 70's.

While "arena" rock derives its name from the stadium venues in which bands had taken to giving concerts, playing in arenas/stadiums was not sufficient for a band to be classified as an arena rock band. From Wikipedia:

Arena rock songs feature "slick productions", an emphasis on vocal harmonies on the choruses and an "unnatural emphasis on large, anthemic hooks and choruses", the last trait "setting it apart from its influences".... The format was firmly established by bands such as Boston, Styx, Foreigner, Kiss, Journey, Toto, Queen, Kansas, Heart, REO Speedwagon, Asia, Peter Frampton, Def Leppard, and Genesis.

Personally, I could care less what punks were angry about. I was angry punks were putting out crappy music and complaining about ''Arena Rock''.

But then again anger was not a defining element for punk. The pioneers of punk, e.g. Stooges, Ramones, Dead Boys, Damned, etc., weren't angry at all.

 

[Foxhound]

Aktivator:

But you haven't even attempted to answer my question.

I've been saying that punk rock was a rebellion against the navel gazing and other excesses that had cropped up in rock music and was thus fundamentally an attempt to return rock to its basics - that being just good mindless fun. You have rejected my hypothesis on the basis that fun could not be the differentiating/defining factor separating punk rock from art/arena rock since the bands in the latter category such as Yes and Queen were just as much about fun.

What then would you argue is the differentiating/defining characteristic of punk rock? It's certainly not anger since there are far too many counter examples to make a case for anger.

 

[LG]

There were definitely some "Serious" punk bands, I have already mentioned two of them that I respect and they are both considered "Thinking Man's Punk Bands". I would agree they are the minority in the field, but many bands had something relevant to say in their music.

 

[Foxhound]

I was never a huge fan of the Punk invasion, but The Clash are a magnificent band and are by far my favorite of the entire movement.

It's interesting that I've said on several occasions that the Clash betrayed the punk rock movement to the extent that I don't/can't even consider the Clash a punk band. Check out these words from "The History of Rock Music: 1976-1989" book that Aktivator has kindly brought to our attention:

Unlike the Ramones, the Clash were aware of the sociopolitical status of their country. Unlike the Ramones, the Clash could relate private angst and public life.... on London Calling (aug/nov 1979 - dec 1979), a milestone recording that was the exact opposite of what punk-rock was meant to be: far from being illiterate and nihilistic....

 

[LG]

And that is why I like them, they grew beyond their punk roots, but TRB was another band that did the same thing and they are both considered Punk bands, no matter what other tag is applied.

I disagree about The Clash betraying anything they simply Blossomed into a great band far beyond their early days. And when I saw them live on the Combat Rock tour,,,they were a quintessential Punk band, I'll never forget that concert.

 

[Fisha]

I'm afraid that I'm not clear as to your point. Are you saying that punk rock does or does not have to incorporate an element of rebellion against authority?



But it was precisely mindlessness in which the early punk bands revelled! Bands such as the Stooges, the Dead Boys, the Damned, the Vibrators, the "B" Girls and Teenage Head were rebelling against taking anything, including their own music, seriously.



I disagree. I'm saying that lack of seriousness was at the start, and still should be, integral to punk.



I would therefore say that NOFX are way too political to be proper punks. Now you might want to argue that the Sex Pistols were political, but their political stance was nihilism - which is the only political position consistent with the mindless rebellion of the original punk movement.

My bottom line is that mindless fun, nihilism and rebellion against introspective excess in rock are at the core of punk. Anger is not. Anger is just a secondary element introduced by latter day punk wannabees who thus diluted the original concept.

You're seem to be saying that punk has to be rebelling against authority where as I strongly diagree. Content is only a part of music, the sound is just as important. In the end we're talking about punk as a style of music, not as an ideaology.

If it looks like punk, and sounds like punk it's punk as far as I'm concerned. If it was up to you it seems like punk would all be exactly the same.

Music evolves, the first incarnation of any style is rarely perfected and over 30 years since the origins of punk music things have to have changed and if you ask me for the better, other people might not agree.

Once favourite things I've eard in relation to punk was from the Kurt Cobain biography, heavier than heaven, in it it was recounting Kurts firt run in with punk music and that "he couldn't believe that music could be played that fast and that loud" and that, amongst a few other things, is pretty much punk, I mean there are other genre's that play as fast and as loud but in general they are derivations of punk.

Anyway that was a bit of a rant so back to what you were saying. If you ask me the lack of seriousness in the orgional punk music there was two main reasons for it, one being a lack of technical skill so that was their way of combatting there own limitations. Number 2 is the lack of serious in a way is a form of rebellion in itself. Rebellion is the constant not being overly serious was just one of the ways that it took form.

And there is no law to punk music saying that you can be "too' political especially seing as NOFX also create perhaps more novelty songs than any other punk band.

As well as the comic value I'm posting this so you can have a listen and try and tell me a fundemental difference between the sound of this compared to the origional incarnation of punk
(for the record nubs is a genuine person)

 

[Astrid Kirchherr65]

And that is why I like them, they grew beyond their punk roots, but TRB was another band that did the same thing and they are both considered Punk bands, no matter what other tag is applied.

I disagree about The Clash betraying anything they simply Blossomed into a great band far beyond their early days. And when I saw them live on the Combat Rock tour,,,they were a quintessential Punk band, I'll never forget that concert.

Agreed L.G.

Punk music was flying out into alot of directions .
The Clash were moving it towards using it to vechile their angst in some more sensible way.

this happened it rock music in the 60's too with the 'folk era'

 

[Aktivator]

Aktivator:

But you haven't even attempted to answer my question.


What then would you argue is the differentiating/defining characteristic of punk rock? It's certainly not anger since there are far too many counter examples to make a case for anger.

yes punk was a return to basics but I don't agree with you that it can't be political although most of the bands are not. I think the most common bond is short quick songs with quick to the point lyrics. Although I'm sure someone will jump in with something that doesn't fit that mold.

There is also a punk bond between punk fashion and punk rock. The one thing I remember about going to CBGB's was that is was a wall of black. While common in NYC today back then it was bizarre to see a whole audience in black.

 

[Foxhound]

You're seem to be saying that punk has to be rebelling against authority where as I strongly diagree.

I never said that. I was actually wondering whether you intended to say that.

Content is only a part of music, the sound is just as important. In the end we're talking about punk as a style of music, not as an ideaology.

Precisely. Although I'm even going so far to argue that punk can have no ideology beyond avoiding having any kind of ideology, i.e. nihilism

If you ask me the lack of seriousness in the orgional punk music there was two main reasons for it.... Number 2 is the lack of serious in a way is a form of rebellion in itself. Rebellion is the constant not being overly serious was just one of the ways that it took form.

And there is no law to punk music saying that you can be "too' political....

But that there is a contradiction! You're agreeing that one of the defining characteristics of punk rock originally was a lack of seriousness. But politics is serious stuff. Ergo punk rockers could not be political.