• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Punk rock

CONSagainROMNEY said:
How much of an influence has it had on America?

GENERATION A.D.D.: Why Everything You Think You Know About Punk Rock Is Completely Wrong

Rockism101: How Ronald Reagan Invented Hardcore Punk
Click to expand...

I am on my way to bed so I will tackle it in depth tomorrow, but your first article has so many factual errors and just stupid things to say it is painful. The fact he never even mentioned the MC5 when talking about the origins of punk is a big clue to his cluelessness.
 

The article wasnt really a "history of punk" though. It was an article that was setting some of the false assumptions about punk straight. It does mention that proto-punk was a BS term and in most histories of punk that I've read, the MC5 are labeled as proto-punk. The author also explains that there is no history of the words "punk" and "rock" being used together until the early 1970s. Sure you could make the case for the numerous garage bands of the late 50s/early 60s being "punk rock", but obviously no one was calling it punk rock at that time.

What I think is interesting is how punk rock went from something you could get your ass kicked for being in the 70s and 80s, but by the 90s and beyond it was a quick ticket to teenage coolness which indicates it has become mainstream. But other than the "image" ie tatoos and ripped jeans, faux hawks, piercings, etc. what real impact has punk rock had on American society???
 

The MC5 kicked too much ass to be considered in the same breath as Green Day.
 
Like I said, I will go into details tomorrow, but not mentioning the MC5 in any article about early punk, proto-punk or whatever you want to call it is a clear example of not knowing your ****. I can let not mentioning Television(the band, not the appliance) go, but MC5....
 
rocket88 said:
The MC5 kicked too much ass to be considered in the same breath as Green Day.
Click to expand...

Green Day was just a cheap Stiff Little Fingers ripoff.

 

Well ****, I always thought I was just especially knowledgeable. I never saw that, I just used to own Nobody's Hero and Go For It(though I admit I had to look to remind myself of that later album name). Nobody's Hero was their seminal album.
 

Well I guess the author was remiss in taking into account your MC5 fetish, but that aside its a great article.
BTW, Televsion was punk when they had Richard Hell but when he left the band they were defined as "new wave rock" at the time. New Wave Rock - talking heads, devo, pere ubu, blondie, the modern lovers, the cars, etc was a term that record industry folks came up with to seperate bands like televison from the punk rock bands of the mid/late 70s.
Eventually New Wave Rock denigrated into just "New Wave" - the stuf that was seen on Mtv in the early days...
 

Like most things, the meaning of new wave has changed considerably. At one time, one of the biggest name new wave bands was the Dead Kennedies. Needless to say, the meaning of new wave changed much more than the DKs. One of the problems the author has in not defining his terms. It will be this afternoon, maybe tomorrow, and I will get back to the article.

MC5 is not a fetish, but a band who laid the groundwork for punk. No MC5, no punk as it came to be. And Television was a punk band throughout.
 

Televison played their guitars way too skillfully to be considered punk IMO...and if MC5 laid the groundwork for punk then that makes them proto-punk.
What terms specifically do you think the author was remiss in defining?
 
I use to do art shows at CBGBs.
 
I have a fascination with punk rock and its influence on music in last 30 or so years. I completely missed punk rock back in the day besides the popular stuff that was called punk rock. I've watched a number of documentaries on the subject and though by no means an expert I have a lot of respect for how the movement changed the face of rock. It has had a tremendous influence on popular music. My feeling is that it is music that had to be experienced to truly understand it. There was so much of it under the radar being played in small clubs to a few devoted followers. A lot of punk rock was unlistenable but it hat attitude and edge and expression that is hard to experience over a stereo system.

A lot of people hate Green Day and to be honest I just don't quite understand it. They grew to become a power pop trio basically but their beginnings were very much punk. So they didn't spend the rest of their career playing dives and living in poverty to stay true to their punk origins. There are plenty of other bands to fill thost roles. I like a lot of their music and I respect what they've done. The simply evolved and embraced success. People talk like they are some kind of studio produced boy band.
 
We can argue all we want about punk's origins, but Malcolm Mclaren was punk's single biggest influence.

As to various myths about punk music in general, the one I would point out would be that it's early appeal here in the states was NOT among the working class/disenfranchised/gritty/angry youth, but more to a certain intellectual/art school/bohemian mentality. I was there and the large majority of punks I knew were well educated, and enjoyed punk for its concept.

AS far as lasting influence, I would say that punks biggest contribution is that it helped towards a certain cottage industry in music and returned audience participation/interaction with the band as a central theme. Instead of thousands of people packing a hall or stadium and being wowed by the technical brilliance and stage shows of bands like Yes, Pink Floyd, or Jethro Tull while sitting on their hands and with no relation to the bands other than as consumer, it was a hundred people in a club or warehouse having fun and interacting.
 
CONSagainROMNEY said:
Televison played their guitars way too skillfully to be considered punk IMO...
Click to expand...

In those early days, punk had a lot more to do with attitude than musical style, though. Elvis Costello was considered punk. Blondie was considered punk. The Jam, the Stranglers, and many other bands were considered punk that didn't exactly fit the musical mold as we think of punk today.
 
In their early days Green Day sorta cashed in on punk as a way to get somekind of cred among teens and young adults - the irony is that that kind of consumerism and exploitation seems to be in direct oppositon to one of the tenants that punk is SUPPOSED to hold dear.
 

No, Blondie was new wave not punk.
 

I think that is why we saw the emergence of Hardcore Punk in the late 70s/early 80s - because these pop bands on major labels were wrongly be characterized as "punk"...Blag Flag, Bad Brains, etc wanted to make a clear demarkation between the commercial music of Blondie, Costello, etc and "real" punk...

Btw, Johnny Ramone (a die-hard conservative) once made a comment about how Blondie was not punk, although they could have been if they hadn't decided to sell outl...
 
ChuckBerry said:
I would say power pop.
Click to expand...

I liked "Time of Your Life" and "Basket Case"...by the time their album American Idiot came out I was over them.

Their new song makes me want to punch kittens. Lead singer needs to blow his damned nose or something.
 
Useless factoid;

When my brother lived on 21st St in NYC the previous tenant was Debrah Harry and the apartment was owned by Bonnie Riat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…