Punk Rock

[IainC]

I'm a big fan of punk but I think the best thing to come out of it was post punk art rock - Bauhaus, Talking Heads, Siouxsie, Sisters etc. Good punk was the stuff with a message even if the musicianship wasn't up to the band's aspirations - SLF, The Police, The Clash, The Undertones. People who just wanted to sound like the Pistols were missing the point massively.

[DraconianOne]

post punk art rock

This phrase here is exactly why this whole discussion is fucking ridiculous. I don't know what this phrase means. But the bands you listed are all bands I like (except the Sisters who I couldn't fucking stand and Andrew Eldritch was a tosser and I really wished I'd elbowed him in the head when I had the chance) that have been variously described as Rock, Gothic, Post-punk, Industrial,  Alternative and so on.  Nine Inch Nails - are they (is he) rock, electronica, nu-metal, alternative, pop or country?  Foetus: industrial, experimental or punk? Einstuerzende Neubauten: Avant-Garde or neo-post-industrial-anti-minimalist-hardcore-thrash-popism?

Labels are for losers.

(Unless, you know, it's labelling a pill bottle as cyanide so you don't confuse it with codeine in which case, label are for sensible clever people)

[IainC]

Andrew 'I don't like goths because they have made up names' Eldritch is indeed a tosser. Post punk art rock isn't a genre or a label, it's just a way to describe a whole raft of different musical styles and directions that took punk as their starting point rather than blues or jazz for example.

[stray]

post punk art rock

This phrase here is exactly why this whole discussion is fucking ridiculous. I don't know what this phrase means. But the bands you listed are all bands I like (except the Sisters who I couldn't fucking stand and Andrew Eldritch was a tosser and I really wished I'd elbowed him in the head when I had the chance) that have been variously described as Rock, Gothic, Post-punk, Industrial,  Alternative and so on.  Nine Inch Nails - are they (is he) rock, electronica, nu-metal, alternative, pop or country?  Foetus: industrial, experimental or punk? Einstuerzende Neubauten: Avant-Garde or neo-post-industrial-anti-minimalist-hardcore-thrash-popism?

Labels are for losers.

(Unless, you know, it's labelling a pill bottle as cyanide so you don't confuse it with codeine in which case, label are for sensible clever people)

Just to give a serious "hipster" answer:

Post punk is a category for "bands that were punk, yet weren't quite playing out traditional rock formulas; truly 'alternative' rock bands, but too experimental to fall in the actual 'alternative' category -- because alternative is now synonymous with shit like Third Eye Blind and Ugly Kid Joe; and not quite 'indie' either -- because indie is now synonymous with some dipshit on myspace".

Or alternatively, bands that are every bit of punk, but called "post-punk" because critics simultaneously want to retain the "punk", yet want to state that these bands are too cool to be in associated with what it has become.  

[Abagadro]

I'm not suggsting that you aren't "hardcore" enough.  I'm suggesting that you are uninformed and therefore making statements that make no sense or are incredibly simplistic.

[Signe]

Most of those categories, or "genres" were just labels made up by pretentious music journos and industry "professionals" to make it easier to write about shit they don't know anything about.  A bit like here, really.   

[Nebu]

The whole idea of "punk" is really tough for me to wrap my head around and I was alive during that era.  Unfortunately, my music industry experience was in the early 80's (was a signed and working recording artist), so I missed being a part of the early stages.  It's not one of those things you can read about or watch a documentary about and really understand well.  I think that point has been made in this thread already but bears some reinforcement. 

I always used to think of the Who as being punk pioneers, but what the hell do I know?

[Signe]

You know lots and I know you know you know lots!

[Righ]

I'm a big fan of punk but I think the best thing to come out of it was

... independent music distribution - in Britain, The Cartel (Rough Trade, Beggars Banquet, et al) and The Chain With No Name. It took self-destruction by the major labels (selling discounted, returnable CDs to supermarkets) to finally undo some of what was done here.

[HaemishM]

Then Cobain died like another stupid cliche, and dragged everyone along with him. Some good bands sustained through it, but for the most part, punk was dead again, and replaced with an image of it.

You forget Green Day's role in all this. Dookie was an incredibe punk album before MTV got a hard-on for it, as was the Breeders album that came out at the same time (the one with Cannonball). But when MTV put Dookie into such heavy rotation, it absolutely killed punk. Everybody had to follow the Green Day formula and the shit just got really old. I can't even listen to that album anymore because of how much it was played.

Cobain's death just made sure he couldn't put out anymore good music.

[Engels]

Is it a characteristic of punk that if it is picked up by MTV it somehow loses its punkness? Cuz that's what I'm hearing you say about Dookie. Or are you saying that there were a slew of poor imitators that tarnished the hallowed Punk halo around Green Day's head? No lo comprendo.

[Cadaverine]

There were a raft of shabby imitation bands(Hi Blink 182!) and after the 5000th time you've heard Longview in one day, you're pretty much saturated, and sick of that sound, making the shabby knockoffs that follow even more intolerable.

Also, MTv is in bed with the major labels in making anything and everything music related mass marketable.

[Mrbloodworth]

You forget Green Day's role in all this. Dookie was an incredibe punk album before MTV got a hard-on for it

No. Always was, and always will be POP-PUNK. (because  Wikipedia is definitive!, but no, really, they always were, not punk, pop-punk)

[stray]

I don't mind MTV... Not as a rule, I mean. I like music videos.

If a band sucks, it usually comes come down to two things. 1) You set about with doing nothing but posturing from the getgo. Or 2) You had one or two good first albums, then signed a contract that obligates/or forces things upon you for subsequent albums. i.e. You're "forced" to issue out an album by this or that deadline -- nothing worse than being put in a room and told to "write"; you're not getting enough time for yourself; you're forced to work with this or that guy, etc.. That hampers the creative process. You start going in auto-pilot mode and crank out shit. Then your contract expires, and you decide to disappear forever.

As for Green Day, I think they're still pretty cool. And yes, it's pop punk. No different than, say, the Go-Go's really. They're tailor made for getting a lot of airplay.

[stray]

I always used to think of the Who as being punk pioneers, but what the hell do I know?

They are in one sense (along with garage rock in general).... If you define "punk" only in terms of sound. But like we're saying, it was never about any one sound. Just approach.

I will use Patti Smith, for example. She was one of the first of these musicians to get a major label LP out. She's generally considered the "Godmother of Punk" or some shit. Yet, she sounds nothing like the Who. Or anything close to what the kids these days define as "punk", for that matter. A lot of her stuff teeter totters between street poet beatnik shit or hippie bands like Jefferson Airplane. She also had this whole stream of consciousness thing going on like Jim Morrison. She was just another rock musician really... But one that was reclaiming a lot of aggression that was lost in the 70's (she wasn't Stevie Nicks, for one).

[Nebu]

They are in one sense (along with garage rock in general).... If you define "punk" only in terms of sound. But like we're saying, it was never about any one sound. Just approach.

They defied convention (i.e. destroying gear on stage).  That's what I considered punk about the Who.  Raw music, rebelious themes, and aggression that was against the establishment (My generation, etc.)

[stray]

Oh, I thought you were just talking about songs.

I didn't mean to ignore Pete's proclivity to destroy perfectly fine Les Paul guitars. 

[edit] Anyhoo, yes... The Who qualify. As do most bands. That's pretty much my point. It's all just rock -- same basic lineage. And all the "punks" were trying to do with give it it's heart back. Sound-wise though, they expressed that in many different ways.

This happens over and over again. Shit stagnates. Elvis leaves for the Army, Buddy Holly dies, and guys like "Fabian" take over. You always need a Bobby D and the British Invasion to come in and shake things up again. Rinse. Repeat.

[Roentgen]

Roentgen - what's your age?  Have you heard of a recent film called American Hardcore?  I thought it was an excellent look back at the glorious early 80s hardcore punk scene.  Worth a look if you're at all interested.  I'll paraphrase one seminal quote from it...

"Rock and roll?  Stadium shows and lights and groupies and money, right?  People would ask me why I was fucking around with this punk rock shit, like how could I ever reach the top of the mountain that way.  I was like, no man, you don't understand... the people I'm with, we're trying to level the mountain."

Oh, and Bad Brains ftw.

I'm 27.  Sounds like a sweet movie.  I'll check it out fo' sho'.

I agree, BB FTW.

[Abagadro]

The Year That Punk Broke is also an interesting flick focusing on 1991 and the transition of punk into "grunge" although I don't know if it is out on DVD.

[stray]

The other movie that goes well with the Year Punk Broke is "Hype!" - the aftermath. Totally hilarious.

[Roentgen]

Yeah, that sucks... It's true that there's an image associated with punk -- but in actuality, it's counter-productive to the whole thing. None of that shit was supposed to matter. Patti Smith or Iggy looked like typical long haired rockers. The New York Dolls and Wayne/Jayne County were dressed in drag. The Bad Brains were all black Rastas. The Ramones and Fred Sonic Smith had the whole chili bowl thing going on. Television looked like short haired schoolboys. Henry Rollins had long hair during his whole time in Black Flag (speaking of which, here's a hilarious interview of Henry from back then. "We don't play for you. We play for us."). [edit] Eh, the context of that interview was that BF started slowing down in their later albums, getting real sludgy. People started bitching that it was metal, and not "punk" enough. Henry was telling them all to fuck off.

Henry didn't always have long hair. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5ZKEuRrR3E

[stray]

Ah yeah.. Think he cut it when he came in, then grew it again. Not that it matters. My only point is that he's just another rocker. I believe his favorite band was the Stooges, and after that... Led Zeppelin.

[Roentgen]

That wasn't a "YOU'RE WRONG, HE SHAVED HIS HEAD, U THINK U NO BUT U DONT" thing.

I really just wanted to post it cuz it's a sweet video.   

EDIT:

I just read the entire thread.

My interpretation of "punk" is to be yourself no matter what.  If you fucking like polyester pants and pocket protectors and you like the tape on your glasses, say fuck you to anyone who gives you shit for it and kick 'em in the nuts. 

It's not an image.  It's not a political ideology.  The people that think it IS and image and ideology are dead wrong.

[stray]

That wasn't a "YOU'RE WRONG, HE SHAVED HIS HEAD, U THINK U NO BUT U DONT" thing.

I really just wanted to post it cuz it's a sweet video.   

[Ingmar]

I don't think it is completely unfair to describe at least some punk as bad on purpose. The movement as a whole devalued musicianship as a deliberate response to prog. That isn't a value judgement.

[stray]

Prog wasn't that important to merit an entire genre of responses to it.

Besides, punks were just songwriters first and foremost. As is the case with popular music in general. The name of the game was never musicianship in the first place, so why all of the sudden would it be some thing only held against them, or some thing they were lashing out against? Why isn't Johnny Cash guilty of the same thing then? He was just as sparse.

In rock, you're considered pretty good if you can simply express yourself well with a good song, nothing more -- yet, that's the really the hardest thing. That's where musicianship really lies, whether you're a virtuoso or not.

[lamaros]

Most of those categories, or "genres" were just labels made up by pretentious music journos and industry "professionals" to make it easier to write about shit they don't know anything about.  A bit like here, really.   

If I wrote this people would say I was trolling, how come you get away with it? 

[Tebonas]

That, or people just hate you! Take your pick 

[Signe]

Most of those categories, or "genres" were just labels made up by pretentious music journos and industry "professionals" to make it easier to write about shit they don't know anything about.  A bit like here, really.   

If I wrote this people would say I was trolling, how come you get away with it? 

I don't know.  Do you write things like that?  I meant it, too.

[Tale]

I have a lot of time for NOFX.

They wrote a song about what happened to punk: Separation of Church and Skate (listen to what they are singing, the video is an amateur job).

Their anti-Bush stuff is clever too.

And then there's The Idiots Are Taking Over.

And Regaining Unconsciousness. The following is genius:

"Looks like witches are in season
You better fly your flag and be aware
Of anyone who might fit the description
Diversity is now our biggest fear
Now with our conversations tapped
And our differences exposed
How you supposed to love your neighbor
With our minds and curtains closed?
We used to worry about Big Brother
Now we've got a Big Father
And an even bigger mutha"

The pop attempt by Green Day to deliver the same message was nice music, but as punk it was fail.

[Mrbloodworth]

Punk rock to me, can not be packaged. Its a local scene, its local bands, its politically or adolescently charged subject matter. Its a transition period for the youth trying to find its way, or an identity diffrent from the conformist (even if its conformity of a diffrent kind).

You wont find it in stores, you'll find it at local shows, or maybe you can get a copy of some songs slapped onto a record able CD for 5$ or a few beers.

[Tale]

I also maintain that THIS is punk evolved from The Clash etc.

Maybe watch them do it live and you'll see what I mean. Terrible sound quality, but even the fire alarm goes off.

[stray]

Doherty's certainly more punk than the actual "genre" of punk. So is Jack White.

And by that I mean they're just playing good, honest rock music. 

[Ingmar]

Prog wasn't that important to merit an entire genre of responses to it.

Besides, punks were just songwriters first and foremost. As is the case with popular music in general. The name of the game was never musicianship in the first place, so why all of the sudden would it be some thing only held against them, or some thing they were lashing out against? Why isn't Johnny Cash guilty of the same thing then? He was just as sparse.

In rock, you're considered pretty good if you can simply express yourself well with a good song, nothing more -- yet, that's the really the hardest thing. That's where musicianship really lies, whether you're a virtuoso or not.

I'm not saying that prog is the only thing that caused punk rock, but I think you're underestimating just how prevalent it was in the early 70s. Heck, Dark Side of the Moon is still one of the top 5 or 6 best selling albums of all time. And yes, Pink Floyd is definitely prog.

Re: your Johnny Cash point, no I wouldn't consider him 'guilty' of the same thing (remember I am not making a value judgement here, so guilty doesn't feel like the right word to use to me). Sparse production (and there is actually plenty of Cash material out there that is plenty produced) is not the same thing as not knowing or caring if you know how to play your instrument. You can bet that if Luther Perkins fucked up a take, they would redo it. You can't say the same for many punk outfits. I'm also not suggesting that all punk bands have that characteristic, especially if you're going to use a big umbrella and include New Wave bands and other offshoot movements, but it is undeniably part of punk.

As for if it is dead or not, it isn't. You can't just go to iTunes and put 'punk' in the search window and expect to come up with anything other than a band using punk as a marketing term, but you can find 'real' punk bands in any local urban music scene in the US, certainly.

[Ingmar]

This phrase here is exactly why this whole discussion is fucking ridiculous. I don't know what this phrase means. But the bands you listed are all bands I like (except the Sisters who I couldn't fucking stand and Andrew Eldritch was a tosser and I really wished I'd elbowed him in the head when I had the chance) that have been variously described as Rock, Gothic, Post-punk, Industrial,  Alternative and so on.  Nine Inch Nails - are they (is he) rock, electronica, nu-metal, alternative, pop or country?  Foetus: industrial, experimental or punk? Einstuerzende Neubauten: Avant-Garde or neo-post-industrial-anti-minimalist-hardcore-thrash-popism?

Labels are for losers.

Labels are also for musicologists (and I will admit there is probably a high degree of overlap between the two groups.) Point being, though, the way one group of people (record companies and marketing folks in general) use labels devalues them for this kind of discussion, but they do have a good use and a reason to exist nonetheless.

(No I am not a practicing musicologist, I moved on to IT because I'm lazy.)