|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jun 25, 2006 12:35:42 GMT -5
Post punk for me will always be the following:
The Aupairs
The Pop Group
Gang of Four
Joy Division
PIL (the best in the genre is far as I'm concerned)
Sonic Youth started out as NoWave in my opinion and then went on to be the definition of indie rock.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jun 25, 2006 12:54:44 GMT -5
Yeah I saw you picked up The Obliterati, Rocky- it is a damn good album indeed. And I'd say that in the eighties they have had a lot of Gang Of Four-influences in them with a more sonic onslaught reserved for punkbands. Wow, I haven't listened to VS in two decades almost and I loved songs like Secrets and the Ballad Of Johnny Burma ver much.... and Signals, Calls and Marches have long been favorites of mine. My old band used to cover "That's When I Reach For My Revolver", and stuff like "Dead Pool" and "That's How I Escaped My Certain Fate" will always be in my wheelhouse I think. I don't know what took me so long to pick up The Obliterati (it's been out for a month already!), but shit, I'm glad I did. What a great band. I think in many ways, Mission of Burma is exactly the sound of a band I'd like to be in. I think they're slowly creeping towards my top 5 all time. |
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jun 25, 2006 13:19:41 GMT -5
Wow, I just popped in Mission of Burma for the first time in ages because of Rocky's glowing assessment. Of course the first track is Academy Fight Song and I've always loved this song, so no surprise it sounds fucking fantastic. We'll see when I get into the later songs though....
Re: skvor's list - i love love LOVE every au pairs song I've ever heard, but I can't seem to track down their bloody first album anywhere. I always find Sense and Sensuality, but Playing With a Different Sex must be outta print... *sigh* And that's the one I really want. It isn't even on iTunes.
GodDAMN I love That's When I Reach For My Revolver. Fuck.
Oh, and the Pop Group - if you want one group that absolutely defines post-punk, it's gotta be the Pop Group. Criminally underrated.
I kinda think of no-wave as a sub-genre of post-punk, so I'd agree that Sonic Youth started out no-wave, but for me that means they started out post-punk. The idea behind no-wave seems to square with post-punk - influenced by the outsider, DIY, and confrontational ethos of punk rock, but musically way more daring and experimental.
Cheers,
M
|
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 25, 2006 13:57:43 GMT -5
I think that's actually a pretty good definition if you're trying to make a point internal to punk rock - i.e. trying to differentiate between two fractures which both came out of punk rock - the orthodox punkers vs. the experimentalists. But if you're just trying to figure out wtf post-punk is, and not just how it differs from punk rock proper, it seems like that definition is a little imprecise. That said, it's probably impossible to define this nonsense anyway and I certainly can't be arsed to do it (i like how within 5 minutes of jllm talking to me on a board, i start using the term 'arsed') so I don't know wtf I'm complaining about. I don't know if theres much point to trying to define music genres either (other than its kinda fun) except that it might be a useful tool to put something in perspective by exploring the context of it. Reading a bit more of Reynolds book, he is beginning to set up some markers to define Postpunk. Here's a quote: "The entire postpunk period looks like an attempt to replay virtually every major modernist theme and technique via the medium of pop music." Then Reynolds goes on to give about ten examples or so. Another quote is: "They [postpunkers] were totally confident that there were still places to go with rock, a whole new future to invent." One method for postpunkers of doing this was to challenge the standard Chuck Berry bluesy chords that a lot of Classic Rock was founded on. According to Reynolds the "post punk pantheon of guitar innovators" favored compact, angular, clean and spikey sounding guitar (reminesent of David Byrne) often inspired by ragae or funk. This scrawnier guitar alos allowed for the bass to be more at the forefront of the music's soundscape. Ofcouse another method of inventing a new future for rock was using new technology like the latest synthesizers and drum machines. |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jun 25, 2006 14:51:27 GMT -5
Mary, do you have any MoB other than Signals, Calls and Marches? I love love love that EP, but other than one song near the end, I don't think it really hints at their noisier, more experimental side. Mostly shows their knack for hooks, which they pretty much gave up on by the time they did Vs.. "That's When I Reach for My Revolver" is one of my favorite songs ever though. My old band used to cover it, and man, that would always be my favorite song to play. I loved it so much that I was even cajoled into doing the backing vocals for it (I hate singing in public).
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jun 25, 2006 15:37:26 GMT -5
I don't know how representative this is of PostPunk, but I randomly opened a page in the Simon Reynolds book and started writing down all the names of the 80s bands he was discussing (over a bout a 10 page section) in a chapter detailing what Reynolds calls the 2nd British Invasion. Here's what I got: abc soft cell tubeway army eurythmics cure spandau ballet human league ultroxox scritti polliti orange juice aztec cameras altered images depeche mode fun boy three new order bow wow wow banshees haricutt 100 simple minds duran duran thompson twins whatm culture club adam ant kajagoogoo billy idol devo yazoo ...the new romantics stuff and the new wave/dance synch pop is really the stuff I find most puke-worthy... My main problem with this music is that I cant identify with alot of it, especially the more teenage-girlish aspects of it. The music's got no balls--thats not to say that there arent examples of song sthat I like. EDIT: I'm gonna post some "PostPunk" songs on the YouSendIt thread, if anyone else would like to participate, I'd appreciate it... PEW -- Look at the title of that chapter again, it's about the eighties British Invasion, and all those bands were ones who made at least some commercial impact here in the States. Go check out the US charts from '82 through '85 and you'll find, I believe, every single one of those bands in the Billboard Hot 100 albums or singles. Some of those were great bands, others had at least some great moments, and all of 'em sold some records here (and across the pond). But I don't think that's what the author is saying. You know, maybe if you read the book before you decided you disagree with it, you'd have a better understanding of the author's point. |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jun 25, 2006 16:10:38 GMT -5
Mary, The Aupairs just got a very nice double CD reissue of everything they have ever done. I would highly suggest picking it up so that you can have those songs from their first album.
I definitely agree with you on the No Wave thing. I tell you what though, I have some Teenage Jesus and The Jerks singles that are some of the most bizarre things I have ever heard. I really love it, too!
Mission To Burma is incredible, even the new stuff. Those guys and Wire have proven to me that you can be "old" and still sound very young.
|
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 25, 2006 16:27:17 GMT -5
So you've read the book Ken?
Do you think Reynolds complicates the defintion when he starts drawing comparsions between Postpunk and ProgRock? For instance when he writes:
"Postpunk also rebuilt bridges with rock's own past, vast swatched of which had been placed off-limits when punk declared 1976 to be Year Zero. Punk installed a myth that still persists to this day in some quarters, that the prepunk early seventies were a musical wasteland...In a sense, postpunk WAS progressive rock, but drastically streamlined and reinvigorated, and with a more austere sensibility (no ostentatious virtuosity)..."
Or do you think this comparison helps define Postpunk more accurately.
In a way, alot of what Reynolds is saying would suggest that postpunk is more like anti-punk--other than the claim that both punk and postpunk had the aim of revolutionizing rock, because their approach to do so were nearly opposites. Punk was sort of a cout de tat, while Postpunk was more along the lines of a civil rights movement.
"...it was a particular kind of 'art rck' that postpunk pledged allegiance to, not prog's attmept to merge amplified electric guitars wtih nineteenth-century classical instrumentaton and extended compositions, but teh minimal-is-maximal lineage that runs from the Velvet Underground through Krautrock and the more intellectual Bowie/Rocxy end of glam."
AlSo Ken, so far, if you've read my posts carefully, youll see that I've only disagreed with Reynolds in regards to arguments he has made in the parts of the book that I've read. As I stated with that list of bands, it was a random sample and not necessarily representative of postpunk in total. It was fairly representative of the music from the early 80s that pretty much made my stomach churn and that dominated Mtv during the 2nd British Invasion...its music that I find to be superficial dance music--which is fine for teenage girls or possibly when you get drunk at a wedding, I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jun 25, 2006 16:51:17 GMT -5
I have read the book and I personally think it's great. The one thing that he basically outs is that the whole punk being year zero thing was total bullshit. John Lydon listened to Reggae and other forms of music like Fela Kuti as well as some disco. You can see that after most of the first wave of bands broke up, people went on to form something that was beyond punk. Something that was very apolitical(with the exceptions of The Pop Group and Gang of Four) that evoked emotion and he also pointed out that while most of the punks naturally wanted to get better at playing their instrument because if you really want to be a musician, learning your instrument better is going to give you the oppurtunity to draw a bigger palatte or go for exactly what you want to go for.
Now, Jesus, how can you hate early Human League???!? Sacriledge! You better watch out man, some Sheffield hoodlums are gonna gun for you, sell your record collection for speed, not flush your toilet, and carry off your ladyfriend AND then cut off all of your hair.
I personally love every band that you put in that list Paul. Exactly what made your stomach churn about it? I can tell you that I could spend an eternity listening to Siouxsie and the Banshees and it's a hell of a lot more interesting than any Neil Young I have heard.
|
|
|
|
Post by maarts on Jun 26, 2006 4:39:12 GMT -5
Reading that list- certainly wouldn't have those bands categorized as post punk in the sense I thought. I do like most of the listed bands so I might be interested to read the book.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowiglou on Jun 26, 2006 13:31:23 GMT -5
.........I remember reading an article on Post punk way back then (1981 or 1982)...and they were clustering groups such as Adam and the Ants and Psychedelic Furs in that genre!!!!..............I did rather like Joy Division back then and early New Order (e.g, Movement), but outside of Gang of Four and a few other bands you all list, I really didn't give them much of a listen................and the one 'postpunk' LP that I found almost unlistenable was Flowers of Romance by PiL...............that said, I do understand why we feel the compelling need a la Aristotle to come up with modes of classification......and music nerds are, at heart, taxonmists to the core.........we love lists, classes, genres, etc.................but for me, sometimes the mode of classification just bemuses me..............
as the great philosopher-king Billy Joel once said "its' all rock and roll to me"
[but that book does sound fascinating, so I gotta to get it.....and if any of you love reading about punk you just got to read Englands Dreaming]
|
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 26, 2006 13:57:42 GMT -5
Through the first chapter of his book Reynolds namechecks Jon Savage and his England Is Dreaming quite a bit. I own the Savage book, but its been a few years since I've read it. It still kinda pisses me off that Brits seem to neglect all of the original punk rock that began in the US. Pisses me off because it makes me feel like they arent giving a complete and accurate history (or analysis). It's also leading me to the conclusion that Postpunk doesnt really exist since it relies on a misinformed (underinformed) premise--that being that punk rock began when the Ramones played England on July 4, 1976 and ended when Johnny Rotten asked the crowd at Winterland in San Fransisco "Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?" to end the the show that ended the Sex Pistols tour of America, and thus tolling the end of the Sex Pistols as well.
Also consider that what Reynolds is defining as postpunk was already going on at the same time as punk. It was called New Wave Rock (Bowie, Roxy music, Television, Talking Heads, Pere Ubu, Modern Lovers, Devo, Blondie, etc). And I see no major difference between New Wave Rock and Reynold's Postpunk, except that the name postpunk sounds more artsy-fartsy...So my conclusion is that postpunk doesnt really exist other than as a Brit label for the UK's own brand of New Wave Rock.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jun 26, 2006 14:21:01 GMT -5
I personally love every band that you put in that list Paul. Exactly what made your stomach churn about it? I can tell you that I could spend an eternity listening to Siouxsie and the Banshees and it's a hell of a lot more interesting than any Neil Young I have heard. Well said! It's a fookin' pukka list, apart from Kajagoogoo, obviously. Even the bands on that list you think were always shit if you don't know their beginnings, like Spandau Ballet, actually started off pretty interesting. Journeys to Glory was a perfectly acceptable postpunk effort, to take a completely random example from the list. Skvor - yeah, "Being Boiled" was okay, and I honestly quite enjoyed much of Travelogue. |
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 26, 2006 14:37:15 GMT -5
I personally love every band that you put in that list Paul. Exactly what made your stomach churn about it? I can tell you that I could spend an eternity listening to Siouxsie and the Banshees and it's a hell of a lot more interesting than any Neil Young I have heard. Well said! It's a fookin' pukka list, apart from Kajagoogoo, obviously. Even the bands on that list you think were always shit if you don't know their beginnings, like Spandau Ballet, actually started off pretty interesting. Journeys to Glory was a perfectly acceptable postpunk effort, to take a completely random example from the list. Skvor - yeah, "Being Boiled" was okay, and I honestly quite enjoyed much of Travelogue. You like wham, spandau ballet, the thompson twins, duran duran and culture club? I dont mean this to be offensive, so I hope you dont take it that way, but you dont happen to be gay now, are you? |
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jun 26, 2006 16:33:03 GMT -5
Wham were a fucking joke, admittedly. Early Spandau Ballet (first two albums) wasn't stuff you should sneeringly dismiss as "gay" without first hearing it, unless you actually want to display your ignorance. Yes, it's easy to sneeringly pick up on their True/Gold days, but that doesn't see the whole picture. Thompson Twins weren't really my bag. Duran Duran were and are fucking brilliant, frankly. Even music snobs buy into that now, I thought? Culture Club? Meh. But you've picked the worst stuff out selectively.
|
|
