|
|
Post by loudaab on Apr 7, 2007 21:40:18 GMT -5
Kool, you obviously dont know what a fact is. So, I've been listening to a lot of punk lately...a lot of punk isn't very good. I'm glad punk's dead, I think. I agree. If punk is all you listen to over a long period of time it really starts to turn into mashed potatoes (unless you are like 14 years old). I have a serious suggestion for you though, because this is what I've done. Make a mixed tape in which every other song is a punk song. And make the songs that are not punk songs to be really weird jazz or something, like ornate coleman or just some bizarre found music (like some 50s strip club guitar/saxaphone jazz). I've found that even being somewhat random about the song choices can create a juxtapostion that really produces a deep atmosheric listening experience... |
|
|
|
Post by Ryosuke on Apr 7, 2007 22:02:38 GMT -5
The burden of proof is definitely on PEW, no arguments there. skvor: WTF? Just a second ago you said all I needed to do was not mention my blog anymore and now you turn around and add thsi new stimputlation: that I have to PROVE I'm not a troll?!? Isnt that sorta like proving that there are no such things as ghosts? Or prove there is no God. I mean how do you prove something that doesnt exist doesnt exist? Consider yourself removed from my best friend list... ***But dont worry, send me some naked pictures of your mom and I'll put you back on it...I don't think he meant it in a malicious way. He's just saying that it's up to you to stop acting like a troll. You're overreacting. |
|
|
|
Post by wayved on Apr 7, 2007 22:35:30 GMT -5
WHO GIVES A SHIT?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Apr 8, 2007 8:49:19 GMT -5
Kool, you obviously dont know what a fact is. So, I've been listening to a lot of punk lately...a lot of punk isn't very good. I'm glad punk's dead, I think. I agree. If punk is all you listen to over a long period of time it really starts to turn into mashed potatoes (unless you are like 14 years old). I have a serious suggestion for you though, because this is what I've done. Make a mixed tape in which every other song is a punk song. And make the songs that are not punk songs to be really weird jazz or something, like ornate coleman or just some bizarre found music (like some 50s strip club guitar/saxaphone jazz). I've found that even being somewhat random about the song choices can create a juxtapostion that really produces a deep atmosheric listening experience... How about taking your iPod (or other digital media player) and hitting "shuffle?" That's what the rest of the world has been doing for the last five years. |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Apr 8, 2007 21:29:57 GMT -5
What Ryo said, PEW.
Ryosuke, I would like to take the time here to say that you are awesome and super cool.
I still like my punk rock, I think mainly because it was probably the first thing that I was obsessed about that I learned about on my own. I had all of my dad's old Zeppelin, Eagles, Beatles, Beach Boys etc records but I remember the first time I saw the words "Sex Pistols" on a cassette tape when I was in 8th grade. I'm 29 and that tape is still in my hands and it still gets alot of play. From there on out it was a genuine love affair with all things loud and simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Apr 9, 2007 9:52:27 GMT -5
skvor: WTF? Just a second ago you said all I needed to do was not mention my blog anymore and now you turn around and add thsi new stimputlation: that I have to PROVE I'm not a troll?!? Isnt that sorta like proving that there are no such things as ghosts? Or prove there is no God. I mean how do you prove something that doesnt exist doesnt exist? Consider yourself removed from my best friend list... ***But dont worry, send me some naked pictures of your mom and I'll put you back on it...I don't think he meant it in a malicious way. He's just saying that it's up to you to stop acting like a troll. You're overreacting. Ryo is spot-on here PEW; why did you have to go and upset the delicate balance of a fine thing ? Damn |
|
|
|
Post by bowiglou on Apr 9, 2007 11:24:02 GMT -5
Hi everybody....geez, work/teaching/life has again infringed on RS.com time...wonder if I should ponder retirement? anyway, complete concensus with Herr HOlzman's comments below....I'm an old enough fart to have been around that 70s era, and yes, that ol CBGB crew (Blondie, Television, Talking heads, etc.) were indeed punk.....in their own unique way........ hey, even when I saw REM as a new band circa West LA club in 1983 they were known to cover the Pistols!!!! Melaun -- Not yet -- I've been very rushed this last week. They're sitting on my desk here now ... will probably give 'em a go by Monday or Tuesday at the latest. PEW -- Blondie were very definitely a "punk" band in the popular conciousness of the time. Go back and listen to their first couple of albums again: they were every bit the punks that the Dictators or Television or the Dead Boys were. Hell, Blondie were really as much "punks" as the Ramones were, and no one will argue with a straight face that the Ramones weren't punk. Similarly, it was only their remarkable growth beginning with Fear of Music that Talking Heads moved into something other than "punk rock" or "new wave" with their music. As the band's musical talent became more and more obvious, and their playing moved increasingly into funk and Afro-centric rythyms, they showed the inherent limitation of artificially limiting a band via a preconceived label. David Byrne's jerky vocals and stage movements, the band's totally DIY appearence, and the fact that they were irrevocably outside the conventional rock and roll mainstream of the time all made them punks, if nothing else than at least by default. And as many, many practitioners of "punk rock" have said, being "punk" was/is all about being yourself, and doing things for yourself. The Heads more than fulfilled this requirement. Moreover, in order for a label like "punk" to have any definitional validity, it has to be broad enough to encompass the people it was originally used to describe. Go back and read any contemporary reviews of '77 or of their concerts at the time: Talking Heads were a punk rock band. Just because somebody thirty years after the fact has decided that "punk rock" should apply to only a narrow slice of the musical spectrum doesn't make it so. Both Blondie and Talking Heads (and again, TELEVISION!) were punk rock bands in '77. Punk rock wasn't about playing simplistic music as fast as you possibly could. It wasn't about portraying cartoon charictatures of society (i.e. Dead Kennedys entire catalog), or trying to offend as many people as possible (well, at least it didn't HAVE to be about that), it was about getting off your ass and making music for yourself. You don't have to stay in your garage and practice until you can play like Jimmy Page in order to be a rock and roll guitarist -- you could learn three chords and start your own band, and get up and play as best you can, just as you are. That's what punk rock was. Fuck stereotypical imagery that says that "punk" is just hard, loud, fast music and screaming. Punk rock covered the complex interplay of Television, the quirky outlook and danceability of Talking Heads, and the pop sass and appeal of Blondie, as well as the surf/horror-show aesthetic of the Cramps, the rock-a-billy revivalism and trenchant commentary of X, and the go for broke musical blow-outs of the Minutemen and Husker Du. And a whole lot more. God, I haven't done a rant like this in ages. I'll get off my soap box now. Punk rock rules. |
|
|
|
Post by bowiglou on Apr 9, 2007 11:28:52 GMT -5
I know I'm late to this list but punk (or punk influenced or punk inspired!!) USA bands I'm rather fond of (not in order of preference):
Replacements
Husker Du
X
Ramones
Blondie
Talking Heads
Flesheaters
Wall of Voodoo
VU
Patti Smith
Iggy/Stooges
NY Dolls (the progenitors of punk!!)
Gun Club
Fleshtones
The Nails
Dream Syndicate
Rank and File
|
|
|
|
Post by bowiglou on Apr 9, 2007 11:36:48 GMT -5
really, I didn't know you had semblance of antipathy towards the genius called Jim Morrison!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You guys realize that this isn't going to make a differene, right? He'll just think you're dead wrong, and keep on being the same self. I know that, Ryo, but sometimes you've gotta try to reach out even though you know it will be unsuccesful. Sort of like when I remind Bowiglou just how much the Doors suck, or point out to everyone that Billy Joel is the rock and roll anti-christ.  |
|
|
|
Post by bowiglou on Apr 9, 2007 11:38:54 GMT -5
closely followed by The Archies kinda had a crush on Veronica!!!! 10 best american punk rock bands of all-time?The Teletubbies..... Think I'm gonna head straight back to bed! :s |
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Apr 9, 2007 12:03:53 GMT -5
Hi everybody....geez, work/teaching/life has again infringed on RS.com time...wonder if I should ponder retirement? anyway, complete concensus with Herr HOlzman's comments below....I'm an old enough fart to have been around that 70s era, and yes, that ol CBGB crew (Blondie, Television, Talking heads, etc.) were indeed punk.....in their own unique way........ hey, even when I saw REM as a new band circa West LA club in 1983 they were known to cover the Pistols!!!! Melaun -- Not yet -- I've been very rushed this last week. They're sitting on my desk here now ... will probably give 'em a go by Monday or Tuesday at the latest. PEW -- Blondie were very definitely a "punk" band in the popular conciousness of the time. Go back and listen to their first couple of albums again: they were every bit the punks that the Dictators or Television or the Dead Boys were. Hell, Blondie were really as much "punks" as the Ramones were, and no one will argue with a straight face that the Ramones weren't punk. Similarly, it was only their remarkable growth beginning with Fear of Music that Talking Heads moved into something other than "punk rock" or "new wave" with their music. As the band's musical talent became more and more obvious, and their playing moved increasingly into funk and Afro-centric rythyms, they showed the inherent limitation of artificially limiting a band via a preconceived label. David Byrne's jerky vocals and stage movements, the band's totally DIY appearence, and the fact that they were irrevocably outside the conventional rock and roll mainstream of the time all made them punks, if nothing else than at least by default. And as many, many practitioners of "punk rock" have said, being "punk" was/is all about being yourself, and doing things for yourself. The Heads more than fulfilled this requirement. Moreover, in order for a label like "punk" to have any definitional validity, it has to be broad enough to encompass the people it was originally used to describe. Go back and read any contemporary reviews of '77 or of their concerts at the time: Talking Heads were a punk rock band. Just because somebody thirty years after the fact has decided that "punk rock" should apply to only a narrow slice of the musical spectrum doesn't make it so. Both Blondie and Talking Heads (and again, TELEVISION!) were punk rock bands in '77. Punk rock wasn't about playing simplistic music as fast as you possibly could. It wasn't about portraying cartoon charictatures of society (i.e. Dead Kennedys entire catalog), or trying to offend as many people as possible (well, at least it didn't HAVE to be about that), it was about getting off your ass and making music for yourself. You don't have to stay in your garage and practice until you can play like Jimmy Page in order to be a rock and roll guitarist -- you could learn three chords and start your own band, and get up and play as best you can, just as you are. That's what punk rock was. Fuck stereotypical imagery that says that "punk" is just hard, loud, fast music and screaming. Punk rock covered the complex interplay of Television, the quirky outlook and danceability of Talking Heads, and the pop sass and appeal of Blondie, as well as the surf/horror-show aesthetic of the Cramps, the rock-a-billy revivalism and trenchant commentary of X, and the go for broke musical blow-outs of the Minutemen and Husker Du. And a whole lot more. God, I haven't done a rant like this in ages. I'll get off my soap box now. Punk rock rules. I'm not trying to push my blog here, but i have to ask bowiglou how he can really call the talking head or television as Punk after reading my blog where I explain the difference. It is not 30 years after the fact that these bands were referred to as New Wave Rock--it was in the late 70s. Like I said, the Sire records, the informed journalists of the day, the Rockists and scenesters recoginzed the difference between punk and new wave. It was only the mainstream--people like Ken who really didnt knoe the scene or that music very well--who mistakenly referred to these bands as punk. |
|
|
|
Post by bowiglou on Apr 9, 2007 12:13:23 GMT -5
Hi PEW..well, I don't have time to read your blog, in fact I don't ever read blogs (!!) but the primary reason why I cluster Talking heads and their similar ilk in the punk genre (whatever purpose that taxonomy serves!!), is not based on the same type of musical orientation (77 is very sparse and economical and not particularly loud, though I loved playing it loud back then!) but rather a sense of breaking loose of the shackles that to some extent pervaded much of popular music in the 70s (though I'll be the first to admit I loved 70s culprits such as Fleetwood Mac, Steely Dan and pre-'Dont' you think I"m Sexy' Rod Stewart)........so though Roxy Music and Bowie and Iggy were doing unconventional work back then, the post-1975 NY CBGB denizens, all with different styles (patti smith vs. television vs ramones vs blondie) still seemed (to this observor) to have a common thread...that being not being hemmed in by the constraints that seemed to be fairly pervasive then (except in more avant garde circles).....so yes, Blondies debut sounds nothing like Ramones debut which sounds nothing like X's debut which sounds nothing like Televisions' debut....but they all seemed to share this common spirit of "breaking through to the other side" (just had to sneak a Doors quote in there!!)... Hi everybody....geez, work/teaching/life has again infringed on RS.com time...wonder if I should ponder retirement? anyway, complete concensus with Herr HOlzman's comments below....I'm an old enough fart to have been around that 70s era, and yes, that ol CBGB crew (Blondie, Television, Talking heads, etc.) were indeed punk.....in their own unique way........ hey, even when I saw REM as a new band circa West LA club in 1983 they were known to cover the Pistols!!!! I'm not trying to push my blog here, but i have to ask bowiglou how he can really call the talking head or television as Punk after reading my blog where I explain the difference. It is not 30 years after the fact that these bands were referred to as New Wave Rock--it was in the late 70s. Like I said, the Sire records, the informed journalists of the day, the Rockists and scenesters recoginzed the difference between punk and new wave. It was only the mainstream--people like Ken who really didnt knoe the scene or that music very well--who mistakenly referred to these bands as punk. |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Apr 9, 2007 13:27:19 GMT -5
Also PEW, if you knew the history and if you'd bother to maybe read Legs McNeil's book "Please Kill Me", the term punk had it's origins in a couple of places. 1. It is that which was a magazine of the same name in NYC that covered what was a new and exciting burgeoning music scene. 2. They had used it because it referred to the male hustlers down in the lower east side where CBGB's (RIP) was housed and felt as though they didn't fit in anywhere else.
New Wave has always been and will always be a term used by Record Executives who used it as a selling tool to break weirder artists into the mainstream without the stigma of the term "punk" that was associated with it at the time because it would limit their selling power. In the documentary "Punk", just about every Punk artist interviewed cited this as the real reason and the whole thing was quite humorous to them. I'll trust the artists and people like Ken and Bow who actually lived in that time over Sire records, self-professed elitist "rockists", and anyone who thinks that it's a positive to be called a "scenester".
Now what is upsetting to me is that I can see by Reply #145 that you have already decided to sly back into your old ways. You referenced your blog which I think all of us have agreed that most of us are just not interested in it. In responding to a really cool member of the community (NO Hiatuses Bow!!!! We love having you around. ) you decided to reply in a very argumentative, arrogant, and authoritarian manner that I don't think is befitting of the forum. Bow was there......you can learn a lot from your elders if you'd shut up and stop quoting your blog while they are trying to impart some knowledge on you.
I'm thinking that it might be time to hold a poll and see if you should be here. I just don't think that you are capable of keeping it non-abrasive around here.
|
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Apr 9, 2007 14:08:15 GMT -5
Also PEW, if you knew the history and if you'd bother to maybe read Legs McNeil's book "Please Kill Me", the term punk had it's origins in a couple of places. 1. It is that which was a magazine of the same name in NYC that covered what was a new and exciting burgeoning music scene. 2. They had used it because it referred to the male hustlers down in the lower east side where CBGB's (RIP) was housed and felt as though they didn't fit in anywhere else. New Wave has always been and will always be a term used by Record Executives who used it as a selling tool to break weirder artists into the mainstream without the stigma of the term "punk" that was associated with it at the time because it would limit their selling power. In the documentary "Punk", just about every Punk artist interviewed cited this as the real reason and the whole thing was quite humorous to them. I'll trust the artists and people like Ken and Bow who actually lived in that time over Sire records, self-professed elitist "rockists", and anyone who thinks that it's a positive to be called a "scenester". skvor, youre not telling me anythng new here. I've read Please Kill Me and several other books about the origins of punk. And as for whether you shoudl use teh term Punk or New Wave, instead of trusting the artists and people like Ken and Bow who actually lived in that time, I suggest you do some reading and research, listen to the music in question and then use YOUR OWN MIND to decide which term to use. If Bow and Ken want to use Punk to describe Blondie and Devo, then that is there choice. But it really makes them look uninformed and shackled to a mainstream vantage point to people who know the difference between Punk and New Wave (people who you label as elitists simply beacause they have spent the time and effort doing the research). By the Way, jac has said he used the term "New Wave" to describe these bands and Jac is also from that time. So why are you dismissing his take over Ken and Bows? (I mean if that is yoru only criteria fro using one term or the other--like you say it is?) |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Apr 9, 2007 14:44:58 GMT -5
PEW, if I remember correctly, you are the same individual who has misquoted "Rip It Up And Start It Again" time and time again. "New Wave" was nothing more than shit heads like the Romantics in skinny ties singing bad power pop songs that were sped up a little bit. It's a marketing term and nothing more, plain and simple.
Again with your prissy diatribes actually being so self-important as to shake a finger at me as being not read on the issue is just ridiculous. I have nothing to prove and the fact that I disagree with you doesn't make me uninformed on the issue.
JAC can use the term "new wave" if he wants to but I'm still going to courteously disagree with him unlike the insane meglomania that you seem to be taking a little too much in.
|
|
