• 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

...and I completely dismiss the whole punk rock movement. Utter garbage. Anything that I like that others call punk I just call alternative rock, because that's really what it is. Punk is neanderthalic, untalented, boring music...jock rock for the art school crowd. How the Ramones got so popular is beyond me...
 
...and I completely dismiss the whole punk rock movement. Utter garbage. Anything that I like that others call punk I just call alternative rock, because that's really what it is. Punk is neanderthalic, untalented, boring music...jock rock for the art school crowd. How the Ramones got so popular is beyond me...

Hey I resemble that remark!
 
...and I completely dismiss the whole punk rock movement. Utter garbage. Anything that I like that others call punk I just call alternative rock, because that's really what it is. Punk is neanderthalic, untalented, boring music...jock rock for the art school crowd. How the Ramones got so popular is beyond me...

Okay Grandpa.

Substitute "punk rock" with "rock and roll" and "Check Berry" for the "Ramones" in your post and you have basically what every parent was saying to their kids in 1958!
 
But Gardener, isnt that the misconception that the article is talking about? That just because something was not recognized in the popular mainstream media does NOT mean that it does not exist. DOes it? Do you realize the Great Depression was not called the Great Depression until many years after it ended? Does that mean that it wasn't really the Great Depression? The author of the article points that Classic Rock was not a term that came about until the 1980s, although MOST classic rock was performed and recorded in the 60s and 70s...


So Redress, you are arguing that the defintion of punk is more reliant on POPULAR use of the word rather than the actual action/style/attitude/music that is in evidence. Television - who you declare is punk - predates your 1976 year zero demarcation point (when punk broke as a movement). So does the Ramones, the Dictators, the Saints - but most people would agree that these bands are punk...

Sorry for delay in getting back to you, I needed a smoke.

The reason essentially that 76/77 is used as the dividing line is because that is when punk broke as a recognized scene. The Stooges music was punk, but the Stooges was not a punk band since at the time there was not a punk scene. Yes, it is arbitrary, but any such division of musical style is.



And I got to head out, will post more later. This thread is bringing back such memories.
 
Picking up the pace...

Fallacy 5: Punk rock is a valid way to express your individuality and rebellious nature.

Yeah, Paul Todd is going to kick your ass. Seriously, conformity to the scene was a key element of the early punk movement. Once again the author proves he never got over his snotty youth stage.

Fallacy 6: Bands that sounded and acted like punk rock in the late 60s and early 70s were actually "proto-punk".

Meh. The label is not important, the music is. However, proto-punk works since for reasons explained earlier, punk is considered to have started with Ramones and Pistols.

Fallacy 7: The best way to really know what punk was like is to read books about it.

Punk as a musical style, the best way to learn is to listen. However, there are some great books on the scene that can get you started in the right direction.


I think you are just trying to be a Contrarian at this point. Which is fine. I mean look how far the Party of NO has gotten with that approach...
;)
 
THis is the most revealing passage from the original article.

I was just a whipper snapper living in small town Central Illinois when hardcore began. Like most Ameriteens of the 80's, I was introduced to hardcore via the Repoman soundtrack and from mixed tapes recorded off the local college radio station. It wasn't until the summer of '85 that I experienced the punk scene in Chicago first-hand

It's always amusing to me when people who weren't even there try to lecture those of us who were.
 
THis is the most revealing passage from the original article.

I was just a whipper snapper living in small town Central Illinois when hardcore began. Like most Ameriteens of the 80's, I was introduced to hardcore via the Repoman soundtrack and from mixed tapes recorded off the local college radio station. It wasn't until the summer of '85 that I experienced the punk scene in Chicago first-hand

It's always amusing to me when people who weren't even there try to lecture those of us who were.

IMHO punk was over by '85
 
Sorry for delay in getting back to you, I needed a smoke.

The reason essentially that 76/77 is used as the dividing line is because that is when punk broke as a recognized scene. The Stooges music was punk, but the Stooges was not a punk band since at the time there was not a punk scene. Yes, it is arbitrary, but any such division of musical style is.
Its not arbitrary though, because you are arguing that Punk wasn't punk until the mainstream rock media deemed it to be punk. Yet the mainstream rock media was the very LAST things punks gave a rat's arse about. So this is line of reasoning is in total opposition to what the originators of Punk Rock were all about, and is in fact an insult to them. "F%&k the mainstream corporate rock media! We dont need them!" is what punk rock is about - yet you are saying that the defintion of punk MUST rely on the mainstream rock media's recognition of its existance.
 
So what - is that Green Day is the poster child for Punk poseurism. Honestly, I see teenagers walking around nowdays with their green hair, faux hawks and nose piercings and I dont see any "balls" behind these gestures. Green Day is one of those bands that contributed to the corporatization and consumerizaton of punk rock - something punk rock was supposed to be vehemntly against...today - as the original article points out - Punk is essentially meaningless.

@Redress - by your defintions, MC5 is proto-punk, not punk. The article mentions proto-punk. Why do you feel that it is necesary that the article's writer to name check every proto-punk band whenever using the term "proto-punk"?

patti smith "piss factory":
PATTI SMITH - "PISS FACTORY" 1974. - YouTube

They weren't corporatizing punk music they were corporatizing Green Day music. Just because they did that with music that borrowed heavily from their early influences doesn't make it some kind of betrayal. On one hand people like you would say they are not punk then turn around and criticize them for being some commercial version of punk. I think what Green Day did was be a successful as a lot of punk bands wishes they could have been. "Why did Green Day cash in and I didn't?"
 
THis is the most revealing passage from the original article.

I was just a whipper snapper living in small town Central Illinois when hardcore began. Like most Ameriteens of the 80's, I was introduced to hardcore via the Repoman soundtrack and from mixed tapes recorded off the local college radio station. It wasn't until the summer of '85 that I experienced the punk scene in Chicago first-hand

It's always amusing to me when people who weren't even there try to lecture those of us who were.

The author acknowledges this with the very next lines, which you decided not to include:

It wasn't until the summer of '85 that I experienced the punk scene in Chicago first-hand, but by that time hardcore's heyday had already been and gone. I'd never been a joiner of groups/movements, etc., anyway, but the hardcore scene I experienced seemed like just another highschool lunchroom cafeteria clique that was rather silly. But even this limited and Johnny Come Lately experience of mine provides volumes of greater understanding that if I were to simply read the procession of punk books that attempt to chronicle the true punk experience.

I mean no one here was in the van with Henry Rollins or taking a dump in the bucket at CBGBs as the Romanes farted out their 20 song - 30 minute sets in the mid 1970s. Yet through the miracle of You Tube and the mass media we all can have some insight into these things - even if it is a limited insight.
 
The author acknowledges this with the very next lines, which you decided not to include:



I mean no one here was in the van with Henry Rollins or taking a dump in the bucket at CBGBs as the Romanes farted out their 20 song - 30 minute sets in the mid 1970s. Yet through the miracle of You Tube and the mass media we all can have some insight into these things - even if it is a limited insight.

I was not in any van with Henry Rollins, but I have seen many of the original punk bands and have talked to a few of their members.
 
From this web site: A History Of Punk | Fast 'n' Bulbous

The word “punk” first made an appearance in music journalism in a 1970 essay, “The Punk Muse: The True Story of Protopathic Spiff Including the Lowdown on the Trouble-Making Five-Percent of America’s Youth” by Nick Tosches in Fusion. He described a music that was a “visionary expiation, a cry into the abyss of one’s own mordant bull****,” its “poetry is puked, not plotted.” That same year, Lester Bangs wrote a novella titled Drug Punk, influenced by William Burroughs’ book,Junky, in which there is a line, “****ing punks think it’s a joke. They won’t think it’s so funny when they’re doing five twenty-nine on the island.” Dave Marsh used the phrase “punk rock” in his Looney Tunes column in the May 1971 issue ofCreem, the same issue that introduced the term “heavy metal” as a genre name. Marsh wrote, “Culturally perverse from birth, I decided that this insult would be better construted as a compliment, especially given the alternative to such punkist behavior, which I figured was acting like a dignified asshole.” Tosches, Bangs, Marsh, Richard Meltzer, Greg Shaw and Lenny Kaye used the term to define a canon of proto-punk bands, including the Velvets, Stooges, MC5, the Modern Lovers and the New York Dolls (DeRogatis, Let It Blurt, 118-119).

Just some fuel for the fire.
 
I wouldn't say punk rock has had a lot of influence on mainstream american culture per se, but I do believe that it has a profound influence on the counter culture.

Punk Rock is my favorite type of music by the way, next to folk music.
 
I'm not trying to win anything. And I did live it. It was ****ing wild and a dream come true.


That's cool. Had we met in 1977, I imagine we would have hit it off.
 
I wouldn't say punk rock has had a lot of influence on mainstream american culture per se, but I do believe that it has a profound influence on the counter culture.

Punk Rock is my favorite type of music by the way, next to folk music.

I think it is pretty safe to say that punk rock has had an influence on how open society is regarding fashion. Nose piercings, tatoos, faux hawks, green hair. All of that stuff could have gotten you thrown in jail as late as the 1980s.
Beyond that there could be some arguments made that punk rock was also involved to some degree in opening up main stream acceptance for gays and people with alternative life styles. On the other hand it helped promote the glorification of drug use and basic bad manners.
Beyond that, I'm not sure how much punk rock has contributed to society.
 
Another quote from web site:

[IThat same year (1966), Iggy Pop decided to form a band that would be completely unlike anything anyone had ever heard. After abandoning his stint as a drummer for Sam Lay, of the original Paul Butterfield Blues Band, he formed the Stooges in Detroit, MI with friends who could barely play their instruments. They had very little in the way of programmed musical knowledge to interfere with the ideas they’d be called upon to execute.][/I]

I think the bold part is something a lot of people would argue that punk music was all about. Bands who could barely play instruments but had a message and attitude they wanted to put on display.
 
Green Day was just a cheap Stiff Little Fingers ripoff.



I saw SLF in a tiny club in Fort Collins with the Beltones. SLF were so drunk they messed up and had to restart almost every song but it was still hella fun. Of the funnest, most united punk rock shows I've been to. Total strangers were hugging and dancing. What a blast.
 

This second article fromth OP is by the same author as the first, Here's some of what it says:

How Ronald Reagan Invented Hardcore Punk


Hardcore punk had its beginnings in late 1970s California after Ronald Reagan had been that state's governor for 8 years and then narrowly lost the Republican nomination for POTUS in 1976. Nonetheless, Reagan became the nation's leading Conservative force; and by 1980, when Reagan won the White House, Hardcore suddenly erupted in the nation's captial before gradually spreading across the rest of the US, coming to a climax around the time of the Gipper's re-election in 1984 (as evidenced by the Rock Against Reagan hardcore festival).

Since Hardcore's inception there have been more hardcore songs about Reagan than any other person on Earth. There have been hardcore bands named after him. In fact it seems that if there was no Reagan, Hardcore would have even been more directionless than it is already so often portrayed to be. So the question must be raised: Does Reagan deserve some of the credit?

I was just a whipper snapper living in small town Central Illinois when hardcore began. Like most Ameriteens of the 80's, I was introduced to hardcore via the Repoman soundtrack and from mixed tapes recorded off the local college radio station. It wasn't until the summer of '85 that I experienced the punk scene in Chicago first-hand, but by that time hardcore's heyday had already been and gone. I'd never been a joiner of groups/movements, etc., anyway, but the hardcore scene I experienced seemed like just another highschool lunchroom cafeteria clique that was rather silly. There was one thing that stuck out about hardcore, though, and that was its focus/attack on Reagan. A lot of teens at the time seemed rather eager to jump on the anti-Reagan bandwagon because of his past as a Hollywood actor. There was just so much fodder (for those with teen-age humor mindsets) in which to make fun of Reagan, either due to his slicked hair or cowboy hat or co-starring roles with Bonzo the Chimp. These images and the easy quick-quips against Reagan were more understandable to kids than Reagan's actual policies and plans, but at the same time the jokes and images served as gateways into a better understanding of how the youth were being victimized by Reagan's "trickle down" economics, as well as being instrumental in focusing the hardcore teens attention on Reagan's escalation of military weaponry and the prospect that this buildup could inevitably lead to a nuclear holocaust.

Today it's hard to gauge how much Hardcore as a subculture influenced the American landscape. Some see hardcore as just a rebellious stage that teens go through. Others continue to dedicate their lives to the hardcore way. But whatever the case, its hard to think of any other modern day musical movement that is so associated with a political leader (and his ideology) as much as hardcore is with Reagan.
 
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...

Iggy Pop/the stooges/the ramones and then the DK were the foundations of American Punk

The Clash is interesting as it started as Punk and then went way way beyond any other punk band was able to go
 
IMHO punk was over by '85

As a big thing, yeah, though there where great bands after then. Lazy Cowgirls/Creamers perfectly personified what punk was about and both lasted past then. Hell, Sympathy For The Record Industry, the greatest punk record label ever, did not form until 88.
 
Its not arbitrary though, because you are arguing that Punk wasn't punk until the mainstream rock media deemed it to be punk. Yet the mainstream rock media was the very LAST things punks gave a rat's arse about. So this is line of reasoning is in total opposition to what the originators of Punk Rock were all about, and is in fact an insult to them. "F%&k the mainstream corporate rock media! We dont need them!" is what punk rock is about - yet you are saying that the defintion of punk MUST rely on the mainstream rock media's recognition of its existance.

No, I am saying it was not labeled oubk until punk existed as a movement. Nor did I mention mainstream rock media. The punk movement itself started around 75ish.

While punk bands may not have actively sought mainstream media acceptance, they certainly readily accepted and enjoyed it and used it to promote themselves.,
 
IMHO punk was over by '85

'85

220px-Big_Lizard_in_My_Backyard.webp

10."Gorilla Girl" - 1:33
11."Bitchin’ Camaro" - 3:01
12."Filet of Sole" - 1:57
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom