...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...
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...
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.
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.
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.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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Yes, Winston.
You win.
I'm not trying to win anything. And I did live it. It was ****ing wild and a dream come true.
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.
Green Day was just a cheap Stiff Little Fingers ripoff.
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...
IMHO punk was over by '85
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?