JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Mar 31, 2007 21:30:36 GMT -5
Sonic Youth
|
|
|
|
Post by KooL on Mar 31, 2007 21:33:04 GMT -5
Also, I'm on the fence as to whether Patti Smith is punk or proto-punk... In that case, could you do us all a favour and just jump off it? Preferably head first. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 31, 2007 21:35:09 GMT -5
PEW, You're an idiot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Mar 31, 2007 21:36:04 GMT -5
PEW, you're an idiot... The former is something that is inherently a social process -- the only reason that "punk" or "jazz" or "blog" have any meaning is b/c we have a social agreement that defines their meaning. So when we talk about "what is punk rock?" (for example) it is certainly a relevant observation to look at who that term was affixed to at the time it was happening. No it isnt. Popular opinion means nothing, especially when it comes to defining an ethos, a philosophy that is so far OUTSIDE the mainstream popular opinion. Do we really want to rely on Joe and Suzi Mainstream to define what punk rock is? Come on Ken, you've got to be kidding. What's next? We ask the cast of Friends to define House music for us? HTF can define a "punk ethos" when there's no agreement on what constitutes "punk?" You've got to first agree on what constitutes a "punk band" -- and for that, you've got look at what bands were used with that label at the time the label was being contructed. There is no such thing as a "punk" other than how it is used by society. I'm arguing that the term "punk rock" refers primarily to a specific place and time, with only a secondary meaning attaching to describe a genre of music that is defined in large part b/c it exists as an emulation/expansion of the specific "punk rock" moment. These are social phenomenons, and the labels assigned are ultimately kept from being entirely arbitrary only by the agreement between people that the terms used describe the thing being discussed. So "punk ethos" has to be defined by looking at the ethics of folks who were involved in "punk" -- whatever that was! And when we look back to the origin of this term to describe a particular subset of rock and roll in the seventies, we find it firmly attached to not only the Dead Boys, Ramones, and Fear, but also to Talking Heads, Blondie and Television. They are all "punk rock," for better or worse. Indeed, these bands were all present at the creation, so to speak, and if you're talking about a "punk ethos" or historical look at what constitutes "punk rock" then you've got to include all these acts in the discussion. Now, you can (try to) argue that Blondie was somehow a lesser band than the Dead Kennedys, but we all know that's bollocks. I'm bored with this discussion. Shut the fuck up PEW. And go back to your little "official" blog. 'Kay? |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Mar 31, 2007 21:38:55 GMT -5
BTW, NO ONE calls "New Wave" "Art Rock." "Art Rock" was fucking Yes, Genesis and all those other arty fucks. Punk and New Wave were (often used interchangeably in the late seventies, BTW, before the New Wave appellation was ceeded to the synths of the British New Romantic bands like Duran Duran) direct reactions and rejections of the Art Rock school of rock.
You really are an idiot, PEW.
Sonic Youth belong in this discussion, too. But they're not as good as Sleater-Kinney.
|
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Mar 31, 2007 21:41:53 GMT -5
I never considered Blondie, Talking Heads of Television to be punk back in '77. I consigned them to the category of "new wave". They may have shared a similar aesthetic but they just didn't sound like punk rock to me. Punk was Sex Pistols, the Damned, the Clash, Sham 69, Dead Boys, a very guitar heavy, noisy sound and aggresive attitude. Now Richard Hell & the Voidoids were punk and so were the Ramones (minus the "aggresive attitude", almost like a parody of earlier pop music). I loved the Heads and Television (never was too crazy about Blondie, though I bought and enjoyed Parallel Lines), but I never thought of them as punk.
I'm surprised noone has mentioned Nirvana.
|
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Mar 31, 2007 21:43:35 GMT -5
That's just on the basis of sound alone, btw.
|
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Mar 31, 2007 21:45:26 GMT -5
BTW, NO ONE calls "New Wave" "Art Rock." "Art Rock" was fucking Yes, Genesis and all those other arty fucks. No, those bands are called Prog Rock. Sonic Youth is also an Art Rock band (or experiental rock as some Rock!sts call it), not punk. |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Mar 31, 2007 21:46:22 GMT -5
BTW, NO ONE calls "New Wave" "Art Rock." "Art Rock" was fucking Yes, Genesis and all those other arty fucks. No, those bands are called Prog Rock. Sonic Youth is also an Art Rock band (or experiental rock as some Rock!sts call it), not punk. Whatever you say, moron. |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Mar 31, 2007 21:47:09 GMT -5
I guess you've never heard "Teenage Riot"...
|
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Mar 31, 2007 21:49:37 GMT -5
I never considered Blondie, Talking Heads of Television to be punk back in '77. I consigned them to the category of "new wave". They may have shared a similar aesthetic but they just didn't sound like punk rock to me. Punk was Sex Pistols, the Damned, the Clash, Sham 69, Dead Boys, a very guitar heavy, noisy sound and aggresive attitude. Now Richard Hell & the Voidoids were punk and so were the Ramones (minus the "aggresive attitude", almost like a parody of earlier pop music). I loved the Heads and Television (never was too crazy about Blondie, though I bought and enjoyed Parallel Lines), but I never thought of them as punk. Right, this is a good illustration of my point. People who were actually aware of punk rock bands at the time would never have called the New Wave Rock bands 'punk'. It was only the MAINSTREAM that was calling these bands punks and that was do to the fact that they had no idea what a real punk band sounded like. So obviously it is not a good idea (as Ken argues) to allow the popular mainstream opinion to define terms for us. No it isnt. Popular opinion means nothing, especially when it comes to defining an ethos, a philosophy that is so far OUTSIDE the mainstream popular opinion. Do we really want to rely on Joe and Suzi Mainstream to define what punk rock is? Come on Ken, you've got to be kidding. What's next? We ask the cast of Friends to define House music for us? HTF can define a "punk ethos" when there's no agreement on what constitutes "punk?" You've got to first agree on what constitutes a "punk band" -- and for that, you've got look at what bands were used with that label at the time the label was being contructed. There is no such thing as a "punk" other than how it is used by society. I'm arguing that the term "punk rock" refers primarily to a specific place and time, with only a secondary meaning attaching to describe a genre of music that is defined in large part b/c it exists as an emulation/expansion of the specific "punk rock" moment. These are social phenomenons, and the labels assigned are ultimately kept from being entirely arbitrary only by the agreement between people that the terms used describe the thing being discussed. So "punk ethos" has to be defined by looking at the ethics of folks who were involved in "punk" -- whatever that was! And when we look back to the origin of this term to describe a particular subset of rock and roll in the seventies, we find it firmly attached to not only the Dead Boys, Ramones, and Fear, but also to Talking Heads, Blondie and Television. They are all "punk rock," for better or worse. Indeed, these bands were all present at the creation, so to speak, and if you're talking about a "punk ethos" or historical look at what constitutes "punk rock" then you've got to include all these acts in the discussion. Now, you can (try to) argue that Blondie was somehow a lesser band than the Dead Kennedys, but we all know that's bollocks. I'm bored with this discussion. Shut the fuck up PEW. And go back to your little "official" blog. 'Kay? Ken, who was calling these bands punk for christ's sake? Mainstreamers who had no idea? Why must we be forced to accept their uninformed definitions when we can use our own eyes and ears (and those of other people who are actually familiar with the music) to come to our OWN conclusions. I mean do you realize that the mainstream was also calling Tom Petty punk rock at the time? Ken, you are argeuing to blindly accept the opinions of those who are ignorant instead of those who are informed and up on the subject. And that arguement just doesnt hunt, Amigo... |
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Mar 31, 2007 22:01:34 GMT -5
I guess you've never heard "Teenage Riot"... One of my favorite songs (the beginning part at least where Kim Gordan is sing/moaning) but that still doesnt make it punk. Part of punk was not being overly-conscious about the kinds of things that Sonic Youth are famous for being overly conscious about; ie guitar tone and tuning. Also Sonic Youth famously sold out by going with a big label. Now this doesnt automatically disqualify you as punk, but by 1987 (or whenever it was they signed) they actually should have known better... |
|
|
|
Post by KooL on Mar 31, 2007 22:02:26 GMT -5
Hey Pew!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by wayved on Mar 31, 2007 23:43:32 GMT -5
Im not even gonna get involved!
|
|
|
|
Post by wayved on Mar 31, 2007 23:55:09 GMT -5
THE VELVET UNDERGROUND
SONIC YOUTH
BLACK FLAG
X
DEVO (it was about attitude right?)
|
|
