What the Fuck is Post Punk?

[pauledwardwagemann]

The mailman dropped off a slip of paper at my door this morning informing me that the Simon Reynolds book Rip it up and start again, that I reserved at the library was in. Within minutes I had my 6 month old son Jack strapped into his stroller and was headed out the door on my way to pick it up.
There are however a few biases I know I'll have as I read this book.
One, it is from a totally British perspective. I have nothing against the Brits except that they think that punk started and ended with the Sex Pistols, when in reality Malcolm McLaren fabricated the Sex Pistols in the mold of the New York Dolls (who he briefly managed) and Richard Hell (who he idolized). Punk had been brewing in the dirty back alleys and seedy hotel rooms of America's industrial cities since at least the late 60s, so I've never considered the Sex Pistols as anything more than a snotty British rip-off.
Second of all, I think the music from the era this book wants to glorify (1978-1984) was some of the worst slop ever recorded. I became a teenager 75 days before Mtv first went on the air in August of 1981. I had been born in a small farmer/factory town in Central Illinois to teenage parents for whom guitar rock was more than just music--it was an ethos. An ethos that I enthusiatically adopted as my own. So the last thing on earth I wanted to serve as the soundtrack for my early teen years was a bunch of wimpy synthesizer dance shit. Yet that is exactly what I got, that and a bit of corporate rock and way too much hair metal. It wasn't until I went off to college in 1986 that I discovered college rock radio and I could breath once again.
Still, upon reading the introduction of this book Reynolds makes a good case for Post-Punk being a distinctive genre, and one that has been neglected someone. As a Rockists, this ofcourse peaked my interest. So it is with an openmind that I delve into this book and re-examine the music that I had hated so much so many years ago--Post-punk--and have decided to determine once and for all whether its just a bunch of shit, or actually something of merit.

[maarts]

One, it is from a totally British perspective.

Simon Reynolds is one of the more informative British music journalists, somebody who has been writing about this genre ever since I read NME and Melody Maker in the eighties. Of course he writes it from a British perspective!

Second of all, I think the music from the era this book wants to glorify (1978-1984) was some of the worst slop ever recorded.

Are you sure that your pre-determined hatred of this 'genre' hasn't tainted your perception? Are you really open to this book? You seem to have a strong leaning toward the idea that Americans invented this particular music- in fact music across the continents borrowed from each other ever since the rock and roll-boom from the fifties and amalgamated many influences worldwide. It is a fact though that punk exploded in Brittania first though and incended worldwide. The Ramones might have been 'first' but they were lampooned in their own country before they visited the UK and were heralded there as the important band they were. Bands like the Stooges, MC5 and the Dolls weren't recognised as being of such importance in their own time until later they got their just credits as major influences within the punk movement.

I definitely want to read the book and see if Reynolds 'glorifies' anything. He championed some of the bands in the 80s that I really loved like the Cocteaus, MBV and Pixies so I read quite a few stories from him.

[pauledwardwagemann]

maarts said:

Are you sure that your pre-determined hatred of this 'genre' hasn't tainted your perception? Are you really open to this book? You seem to have a strong leaning toward the idea that Americans invented this particular music- in fact music across the continents borrowed from each other ever since the rock and roll-boom from the fifties and amalgamated many influences worldwide. It is a fact though that punk exploded in Brittania first though and incended worldwide. The Ramones might have been 'first' but they were lampooned in their own country before they visited the UK and were heralded there as the important band they were. Bands like the Stooges, MC5 and the Dolls weren't recognised as being of such importance in their own time until later they got their just credits as major influences within the punk movement.

The fact that the Ramones were lampooned by the mainstream in America does not make them anyless punk--in fact it makes them even more punk. But Punk was rising up from the streets in the US long before the Ramones. The Stooges, the Dictators, the NY Dolls, etc. And the fact that it was neglected by the mainstream was in fact ONE OF ITS defining factors. They were more interested in scoring junk and making music than being teen idols.

One way of looking at the history of rock is as if it were a tennis match. First came good old fashioned straight ahead Rock-n-Roll(Chuck Berry, Gene Vincent, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc). 7 years later came the British Invasion--British bands who were basically taking their own craftsmanship, applying it to the original Rock-n-Roll and improving on it. Since then there has been a sort of back and forth volley across the Atlantic between American Rock and British Rock. One of these volleys was Punk Rock, which originated from The Stooges, the New York Dolls, The Dictators, etc. Malcom McLaren took punk to the UK and turned into the Sex Pistols brand of BritPunk until rather quickly it became the impetis (according to Reynolds) for Brit Postpunk while in the US it evolved into the hardcore stuff of the late 70's/early 80's
As the tennis match continued the States returned the volley with Grunge, a forehand smash that the Brits weakly returned with the lob ball that was Brit Pop (Oasis, Blur, etc).

[Kensterberg]

British Post-punk: Gang of Four, The Cure, Joy Division, New Order, Public Image Ltd., The Fall (they may have started up at the same time as many "punk" bands, but they almost defined aspects of post-punk) ... damn, this was one of the most productive and interesting times and places in the history of rock and roll. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the MTV bands you saw in the early eighties (Duran Duran, Kajagoogoo, etc.) were "Post-Punk" in the sense that this term is (and was) used.

And Gang of Four's first record (Entertainment!) is one of the greatest guitar albums in rock. Incredibly good. Make sure you make the effort to listen to some of the recordings this book talks about, because I think you're gonna be hugely surprised by the sounds these guys were making, in a very good way!

[luke]

kenholzman said:

British Post-punk: Gang of Four, The Cure, Joy Division, New Order, Public Image Ltd., The Fall...

And Gang of Four's first record (Entertainment!) is one of the greatest guitar albums in rock. Incredibly good. !

Seriously, post-punk is probably the greatest genre of music that ever was. Don't bash the most creative, interesting, and intrigueing years in the history of rock music just because you didn't look past MTV until you got to college.

[pauledwardwagemann]

I got into Gang of Four, Wire and Joy Division in the late 80s. I also appreciate the Fall.
Obviously there are going to be some good bands from any genre. But overall, the genre reaks of too much synthesizers, too much drum machine and too much hair spray.

Here's an excerpt from the Simon Reynolds book:

"Some accused these experimentalists [of the postpunk vanguard] of merely lapsing back into the art rock elitism that punk origianlly aimed to destroy."

And if you look at the bands Reynolds glorifies as being the vanguard of Postpunk you will notice that a large number of them have art school backgrounds; Wire, Gang of Four, Cabaret Voltaire, the Raincoats, the Art of Noise, etc.

Anyway, once again my problem is that Reynold's scope seems too narrow--only taking in the British vantage point. For instance he claims Postpunk ran from 1978 to 1984, yet AMERICAN "art school" bands like Talking Heads, Modern Lovers, Pere Ube (even earlier bands like the Doors and the Velvet Underground) had already started this "art rock" movement nearly a decade before. What Reynolds is calling postpunk is IMO less a reaction to Punk than it is an extension/evolution of that 'Art Rock' movement of the US along with the occasional non US group like Roxy Music or Soft Machine (perhaps being from England Reynolds is not familar enough with US art rock or he is neglecting it out of nationalistic shortcomings).

[maarts]

For instance he claims Postpunk ran from 1978 to 1984, yet AMERICAN "art school" bands like Talking Heads, Modern Lovers, Pere Ube (even earlier bands like the Doors and the Velvet Underground) had already started this "art rock" movement nearly a decade before.

That's not true. Modern Lovers, Talking Heads and Pere Ubu released their debuts in 1976, 1977 and 1978 respectively. As they were groundbreaking without a doubt within the American avantgarde-market for sure (I'll add 1978's compilation No New York to that list because that set off the whole No Wave-market in the States which ran independently from the UK and spawned such great artists like Glenn Branca, The Contortions and Arto Lindsay(Lounge Lizards)), the development of British post punk and new wave went slightly different.

For argument's sake then, if you want to stick to the chicken and the egg-theory about who was first, how about going all the way back to 1969 when Can released their debut Monster Movie, 1971 for the first Faust-album ot 1972 for Neu!'s debut? Krautrock was lavishly praised as a major influence on post punk. You can also see in England the mutation of psychedelic rock and jazz by bands like Soft Machine or Henry Cow which were loved by the artrock-lovers themselves. I'll throw in Germany's Slapp Happy in for good measure who recorded some interestingt albums since 1972. All influential bands on the same level as the US-ones.

Outside of the timing of certain releases, the impact of the bands you named wasn't felt thoughout the Britich music community until several years later. The Ramones were cult in the beginning, their debut album was difficult to find in the UK-recordshops.

And again- what it wrong by focussing on the British vantage point in regards to the development of post punk?

[pauledwardwagemann]

maarts said:

And again- what it wrong by focussing on the British vantage point in regards to the development of post punk?

I think what is fundamentally wrong with it is that, like I said before, Brits too often think of punk as beginning and ending with the Sex Pistols totally neglecting real punk, US punk of the early/mid 70s. So the entire premise is out of whack and much too narrow. If Reynolds wants to claim that PostPunk is an uniquely British phenomenon, then that's fine. But I havent seen that he's trying to do that. Maybe he is--but I havent read far enough into the book to see that he's declared that. If that is the case, then maybe PostPunk should be called PostBritPunk...

[Kensterberg]

maarts said:

For instance he claims Postpunk ran from 1978 to 1984, yet AMERICAN "art school" bands like Talking Heads, Modern Lovers, Pere Ube (even earlier bands like the Doors and the Velvet Underground) had already started this "art rock" movement nearly a decade before.

That's not true. Modern Lovers, Talking Heads and Pere Ubu released their debuts in 1976, 1977 and 1978 respectively. As they were groundbreaking without a doubt within the American avantgarde-market for sure (I'll add 1978's compilation No New York to that list because that set off the whole No Wave-market in the States which ran independently from the UK and spawned such great artists like Glenn Branca, The Contortions and Arto Lindsay(Lounge Lizards)), the development of British post punk and new wave went slightly different.

For argument's sake then, if you want to stick to the chicken and the egg-theory about who was first, how about going all the way back to 1969 when Can released their debut Monster Movie, 1971 for the first Faust-album ot 1972 for Neu!'s debut? Krautrock was lavishly praised as a major influence on post punk. You can also see in England the mutation of psychedelic rock and jazz by bands like Soft Machine or Henry Cow which were loved by the artrock-lovers themselves. I'll throw in Germany's Slapp Happy in for good measure who recorded some interestingt albums since 1972. All influential bands on the same level as the US-ones.

Outside of the timing of certain releases, the impact of the bands you named wasn't felt thoughout the Britich music community until several years later. The Ramones were cult in the beginning, their debut album was difficult to find in the UK-recordshops.

And again- what it wrong by focussing on the British vantage point in regards to the development of post punk?

I'm making maarts my proxy in this discussion. Agree completely with everything he's posted thus far.

Some other Post-Punk UK bands ... Echo and the Bunnymen, The Teardrop Explodes, Simple Minds, U2 (yes, U2! listen to Boy and listen to Crocodiles, these guys were part of the same movement, whatever the hell you want to call it), damn, I get excited just thinking about these bands.

I love Post-Punk, arguably the most exciting and truly open-minded time and place in rock history. And yeah, we didn't get anything like this in the US, b/c punk never hit the mainstream here (until Nirvana and SLTS in late '91, so I guess you could argue that our "post-punk" moment would consist of Ween, etc.).

Anyway, to save time and space, I'll just say "what he said!" to all of maarts posts, past and present, in this thread. Excellent job, buddy.

[maarts]

I think what is fundamentally wrong with it is that, like I said before, Brits too often think of punk as beginning and ending with the Sex Pistols totally neglecting real punk, US punk of the early/mid 70s. So the entire premise is out of whack and much too narrow. If Reynolds wants to claim that PostPunk is an uniquely British phenomenon, then that's fine. But I havent seen that he's trying to do that.

OK, if the fundament of your argument is that the USA-development should have been adressed it's no use for me to argue that- again, I haven't read the book. I am curious though that you could agree on Reynolds' claiming the uniqueness of post punk (where did that name originate from? I read music mags ever since Gang Of Four burst onto the scene and it was called wave or new wave) for the British scene if he decides to claim that in the book, yet you argue that Reynolds should have included the US-counterparts in the description? It sounds a bit like a contradiction or you acknowledge there that Reynolds' premisse for the book actually has a point.

I think what is fundamentally wrong with it is that, like I said before, Brits too often think of punk as beginning and ending with the Sex Pistols totally neglecting real punk, US punk of the early/mid 70s.

Reading the various (UK) mags on the celebration of the 30th anniversary of UK punk there's one event that is being namechecked as the true beginning of punk in the UK- July 4, 1976, when the Ramones and The Stranglers played a legendary concert at London's The Roundhouse. MC5 and The Stooges were the godfathers of protopunk and were (later!) acknowledged as such. But after the first wave of rampant punk spread across the globe, it dissoluted in many different forms and melted different forms of music together. The USA had their own scene, independent from but interplaying with the UK-scene and that is why I can understand the book, trying to focus on the events that shaped the musical industry there. One difference was that the UK-post punk movement embraced Jamaican dub and bands like The Clash lapped it up. I have no probs with seeing that punk originated from US beginnings and set root in England later, even though the UK-exponent had a much larger effect internally on the music industry. For the origins of post-punk however I don't think there's a real timeline that determines where that movement started. Hell, what post-punk is is still debatable.

[Mary]

Oh man, British post-punk is the best. Probably my favorite music genre, if it can be called a genre. I do agree that there was also a significant American post-punk scene (and I use the prefix "post" kinda loosely, to identify a particular musical spirit rather than solely a chronological thing) and that whole No New York compilation captured a lot of that. I like some of that stuff - love James Chance, DNA, Bush Tetras, some Lydia Lunch stuff. To say nothing of Sonic Youth, for that matter. And I do think that there's a tendency amongst British critics to underemphasize the contribution of American bands to punk and post-punk. But all that said - can anyone seriously say that DNA belongs in the same pantheon as Gang of Four? That Teenage Jesus and the Jerks are up there with Wire? Sonic Youth is a true classic... but also, it seems, a bit of an exception. When it comes to the classic post-punk bands, it really does seem like the Brits have it all sewed up.

I also think pew is conflating post-punk and new wave. Certainly there's some overlap, and it's not like some hard and fast line, but a lot of the stuff he's complaining about - "synth dance shit" - sounds more like new wave than post-punk to me.

Just for fun.... My Top 10 Post-Punk Bands:

1) Gang of Four
2) Joy Division
3) The Mekons
4) The Birthday Party
5) Wire
6) Sonic Youth
7) Swans
8) Cabaret Voltaire
9) The Contortions
10) The Pop Group

I was pretty strict in what I considered post-punk here. Decided that the Cure and the Smiths and Echo and the Bunnymen were better classified as new wave - but that's definitely debatable.

btw did anyone mention Suicide yet as a major (also American) influence on post-punk? Their debut album is pretty untouchable, and totally visionary for its time.

Another random note, both the Human League and Scritti Politti, who went on to seem like pretty tame and whitewashed and easily palatable new wave bands, started out defiantly experimental and inaccessible. Their early stuff is really shocking if you're only familiar with their more commercial ventures.

Cheers,
M

[maarts]

btw did anyone mention Suicide yet as a major (also American) influence on post-punk? Their debut album is pretty untouchable, and totally visionary for its time.

The Dolls did. Read an interview with them in Uncut this morning.

[Mary]

some post-punk bands I've seen cited quite a bit, but never actually heard. would love to get the scoop on any of these:

the durutti column
eyeless in gaza
comsat angels
savage republic

wow. i'm outta practice.... i used to be able to whip off dozens of these bands just from obsessively reading music mags and following "similar bands" links on allmusic. but suddenly i'm drawing a complete blank. sad. i'm getting old....

[Mary]

maarts said:

btw did anyone mention Suicide yet as a major (also American) influence on post-punk? Their debut album is pretty untouchable, and totally visionary for its time.

The Dolls did. Read an interview with them in Uncut this morning.

Oh yeah, I know they get plenty of recognition now from fellow musicians and critics. I was just wondering if anyone had mentioned them on this board

[Mary]

One band that is supposedly a major influence on post-punk that I just absolutely can't get into, try as I might, is Neu!. I truly don't get the appeal. They put me to sleep. I'm sorry. I know this means I'm woefully inadequate as a truly open-minded and adventurous music listener, but fuck me that band is fucking monotony itself.