Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Punk
Aug 6, 2020 19:37:43 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2020 19:37:43 GMT
Punk gets too much musical credit when it comes to influence, i've said this on BCB and it didn't go down too well. Stripping music down, DIY attitude to music, act a bit of a dick, people make it sound like punk was the first to do it. I don't think anyone thinks that, or at least shouldn't think that. Sure you could track down an Iggy and The Stooges record from 1970 that was doing a similar thing, presuming you'd be lucky enough to find a copy in a second hand record shop and presuming you'd heard of them in the first place, which 95% of teenagers hadn't. Within the context of 70s Britain punk absolutely had the impact of the shock of the new.
|
|
|
Punk
Aug 6, 2020 19:40:54 GMT
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Aug 6, 2020 19:40:54 GMT
I've seen that Brass Tracks documentary before and it's an absolutely fascinating and deeply insightful time capsule. It should be mandatory viewing for anyone trying to understand why punk happened. The mistake that often gets made, in my view, is to try and explain punk in a purely musical context i.e. " it was a reaction against prog", " it was a reaction against super groups" etc. What it actually was was a reaction against an ossified and restrictive Britain. It was a cultural phenomenon. It's all there in the clip - the stilted, condescending presenter, the self important councillor making rules for how people should live. It's even there in the colour scheme which seems to run from brown to beige. The crappy suits of the authority figures. It looks like ancient history now, like the sixties never happened, and that Britain had somehow got stuck permanently in the early fifties - a shabby, down at heel world where you were expected to know your place. It's one of the best documents you can find of why punk had to happen. I agree with that BUT punk's figureheads themselves used to talk about how they wanted to make something that didn't sound like ELP! so I think you undersell that side, the musical side. But yeah, they were bored with everything. Of all the 20th C cultural movements, punk is perhaps the most discussed - in this country, anyway. You tend to get one or two clearly-defined, oft-repeated narratives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Punk
Aug 6, 2020 19:48:08 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2020 19:48:08 GMT
I've seen that Brass Tracks documentary before and it's an absolutely fascinating and deeply insightful time capsule. It should be mandatory viewing for anyone trying to understand why punk happened. The mistake that often gets made, in my view, is to try and explain punk in a purely musical context i.e. " it was a reaction against prog", " it was a reaction against super groups" etc. What it actually was was a reaction against an ossified and restrictive Britain. It was a cultural phenomenon. It's all there in the clip - the stilted, condescending presenter, the self important councillor making rules for how people should live. It's even there in the colour scheme which seems to run from brown to beige. The crappy suits of the authority figures. It looks like ancient history now, like the sixties never happened, and that Britain had somehow got stuck permanently in the early fifties - a shabby, down at heel world where you were expected to know your place. It's one of the best documents you can find of why punk had to happen. I agree with that BUT punk's figureheads themselves used to talk about how they wanted to make something that didn't sound like ELP! so I think you undersell that side, the musical side. But yeah, they were bored with everything. Of all the 20th C cultural movements, punk is perhaps the most discussed - in this country, anyway. You tend to get one or two clearly-defined, oft-repeated narratives. You get it being reduced to these easily understood signifiers, but it was complex as most cultural movements are. As Bob Stanley says in his history of pop "Ask people about punk and you'll get 50 different definitions - and they'll all be right".
|
|
|
Punk
Aug 6, 2020 20:13:18 GMT
Post by Charlie O. on Aug 6, 2020 20:13:18 GMT
Punk gets too much musical credit when it comes to influence, i've said this on BCB and it didn't go down too well. Stripping music down, DIY attitude to music, act a bit of a dick, people make it sound like punk was the first to do it. I don't think anyone thinks that, or at least shouldn't think that. Sure you could track down an Iggy and The Stooges record from 1970 that was doing a similar thing, presuming you'd be lucky enough to find a copy in a second hand record shop and presuming you'd heard of them in the first place, which 95% of teenagers hadn't. Within the context of 70s Britain punk absolutely had the impact of the shock of the new. It's a bit like people saying Elvis didn't do anything new - that blacks had been playing rock & roll for at least ten years before, it just wasn't called that, etc. From a purely musical standpoint, they're right (to a limited degree - Elvis was certainly sui generis in a lot of little ways) - but it wasn't just the music, it was the cultural explosion that went with it. And as with British punk (and for that matter the British beat boom, psychedelia, who knows what all else), there was a lot that went along with the music - it was the perfect storm.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Aug 6, 2020 20:18:05 GMT
None of those proto-punk bands had vocalists that sounded anything like Rotten. They didn't have the anger. He took it just that one small but important step further, nudged the ball into the hole, got everybody talking.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie O. on Aug 6, 2020 20:40:46 GMT
None of those proto-punk bands had vocalists that sounded anything like Rotten. They didn't have the anger. Rob Tyner certainly had the anger, but he was preaching to the converted. Rotten's lyrics and delivery had that element of I see who and what you are - I've got you on the hook and I'm not letting you off it that Dylan sometimes had in his youth, but cranked up past 11. I don't think anyone's done that as effectively or excitingly since.
|
|
|
Punk
Aug 6, 2020 20:53:22 GMT
via mobile
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Aug 6, 2020 20:53:22 GMT
Absolutely not!
|
|
~ / % ? *
god
disambiguating goat herder
Posts: 5,532
|
Punk
Aug 6, 2020 21:41:57 GMT
Post by ~ / % ? * on Aug 6, 2020 21:41:57 GMT
None of those proto-punk bands had vocalists that sounded anything like Rotten. They didn't have the anger. He took it just that one small but important step further, nudged the ball into the hole, got everybody talking. I think social context matters here, Rotten had to have the anger to make him specific to the time and place. Cause they weren't doing anything special otherwise, and he did it exceptionally well. Lydon was intelligent, savvy and articulate, he was also impulsive and acted out which along with the anger painted him into a corner, where he has been stuck. The US proto punks were also angry and scared. Just by being males in a rock band they were anti-establishment. They were also all eligible for the draft ( which no UK band during the 60s or 70s had to contend with). The FBI had also infiltrated many of the anti-war organizations for which most of these bands played rallies/benefits/shows. Dossiers, taped recordings, trumped up drug charges, etc., The Pistols, Clash, etc., didn't play any riots.The MC5 did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Punk
Aug 6, 2020 21:59:55 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2020 21:59:55 GMT
Punk gets too much musical credit when it comes to influence, i've said this on BCB and it didn't go down too well. Stripping music down, DIY attitude to music, act a bit of a dick, people make it sound like punk was the first to do it. I don't think anyone thinks that, or at least shouldn't think that. Plenty of old timers trying to hold on to their youth do G.
|
|
|
Punk
Aug 7, 2020 12:39:30 GMT
Post by sloopjohnc on Aug 7, 2020 12:39:30 GMT
Punk gets too much musical credit when it comes to influence, i've said this on BCB and it didn't go down too well. Stripping music down, DIY attitude to music, act a bit of a dick, people make it sound like punk was the first to do it. Only punk, the same thing never happened in any other genre of music. I've heard people try to associate 'punk' to other forms of music if someone does try that. "Yeah they stripped down classical music to the basics and they're a bit arrogant, they made classical music punk!!" fuck off. Musically, in the US at least, punk brought back conciseness and brevity in pop music. The 45 was alive again. Bands began incorporating those elements in their music and the musical paradigm shifted. Let me put it this way, in high school, you went to see bands in big indoor and outdoor arenas. Within a year, those bands were dead and the FM radio stations they were played on all but disappeared. I went from seeing Aerosmith with 30,000 other people to seeing them in a club that fit 300 people at most. Same with Foghat, Blue Oyster Cult, etc. I'm sure those bands were going, "What the hell just happened." None of those bands played a song under 4 minutes. While, at the same time, artists and bands like Elvis Costello, Tom Petty, the Police, who were traveling by van and playing small clubs took their place. I saw Tom Petty play a Palo Alto club on his first tour and the Cow Palace, which seats 20,000, the next. Same with the aforementioned artists. None of them played a song over 3 minutes.
|
|
|
Punk
Aug 7, 2020 12:50:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Aug 7, 2020 12:50:40 GMT
Yes, but those artists you mention were a very long way away from punk (or 'punk'). Even at the start you could see they valued skills such as musicianship and songwriting - anathema to punks.
|
|
|
Post by sloopjohnc on Aug 7, 2020 14:11:08 GMT
Yes, but those artists you mention were a very long way away from punk (or 'punk'). Even at the start you could see they valued skills such as musicianship and songwriting - anathema to punks. I kinda thought someone might mention that. I guess what I'm saying is those artists used the energy and ethos of punk as a springboard. Punk, while not as widely accepted, broke down the doors for bands like The Cars, Blondie, Petty, who were the acceptable face of what became new wave. I don't think bands like that would have been played on the radio if not for punk, even if punk itself didn't really get played on FM radio in the US, unless the odd Ramones song or novelty song got played. It took awhile for FM radio to accept punk and new wave as more than just this weird musical anomaly. That's one of the reasons I loved going to the UK in '79 where disparate styles of music were played on the radio. Radio in the US had been largely segmented into genres. If you like C&W, we'll give you more C&W. I grew up with AM radio, where you'd hear Smokey Robinson and Al Green played next to T-Rex, Kiki Dee or Elton John. The surprise was the fun part. Listening to PIL and the Ruts next to Janet Kay or Anita Ward made it fun and surprising again.
|
|
|
Punk
Aug 7, 2020 14:16:19 GMT
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Aug 7, 2020 14:16:19 GMT
Yes, absolutely.
I just don't know that those artists (especially the likes of Costello) would have had such a hard time breaking through without punk. But it's probably not worth arguing and we'll never know anyway.
|
|
|
Punk
Aug 7, 2020 14:19:51 GMT
Post by sloopjohnc on Aug 7, 2020 14:19:51 GMT
Yes, absolutely. I just don't know that those artists (especially the likes of Costello) would have had such a hard time breaking through without punk. But it's probably not worth arguing and we'll never know anyway. Well, in the reverse too. Punk gave guys like Joe Strummer, the Stranglers and the Police a fresh platform they might not have gotten before.
|
|
~ / % ? *
god
disambiguating goat herder
Posts: 5,532
|
Punk
Aug 7, 2020 14:26:33 GMT
Post by ~ / % ? * on Aug 7, 2020 14:26:33 GMT
I think punk was the loud bright noise that got noticed, but artists categorized as new wave were the ones considered accessible and with song craft that were able to exploit the situation the best.
|
|