Punk was rubbish
May 29, 2002 3:46 AM Subscribe

Punk was rubbish, so says Nigel Williamson. Tuneless noise of no merit whatsoever which sought to destroy anything that was good. Nothing good came of it and it has left no credible legacy. Well, what would you expect from a guy called Nigel?
posted by Fat Buddha (112 comments total)

Er...so he thinks punk is crap, then says, within a few paragraphs that Siouxsie was good. Then goes on to quote Siouxsie as saying that he was probably right. Um...kay.
Okay, punk isn't "good" musically, I suppose, but I have to ask whether it was supposed to be, which he acknowledges.

So maybe punk was unsuccesful in its supposed goal of overthrowing the old farts, which is what this guy seems to be saying is the real point of the piece, all the way at the end. That doesn't necessarily equate to it being crap.
posted by Su at 4:40 AM on May 29, 2002

Surely any TRUE punk, when questioned about the quality of punk music, would shout loudly in your ear - "IT'S F*CKING SH*T ! " ?

So it is rubbish, right?
posted by Frasermoo at 4:55 AM on May 29, 2002

Nigel also writes: ' The Sex Pistols made one studio album - which I admit was a classic.'

Er... ?
posted by crayfish at 5:03 AM on May 29, 2002

The Stranglers actually had fans?

I think Nigel had heard an excess of professional musicians and wasn't ready for raw r'n'r.

Malcolm MacDonald was worth the price of admission all by himself.
posted by emf at 5:03 AM on May 29, 2002

I'm thinking this guy just blugeoned punk to get you going and then went on to prove himself a hypocrite.
posted by t0rn at 5:23 AM on May 29, 2002

Nothing good came of it? They put across the message that "classic rock" bands were getting too full of themselves. Although I was (and still am) a fan of Led Zeppelin and Yes, I agreed.
posted by mischief at 5:55 AM on May 29, 2002

Thanks for that Stranglers link; superb, even if he does fancy himself as a latterday Richard Allen.
posted by Fat Buddha at 6:00 AM on May 29, 2002

He was just rustling goats. As am I.

Punk was fairly revolutionary in its fuck-it-all way when it was new; it was a bottle of bathtub hooch after being forced to spend the night at a pub that served only girly drinks with umbrellas. But now, when people who are younger than Never Mind the Bollocks dress as Ye Olde Original Punks and listen to oldies from the 1970s, it's as reactionary as dressing up like the Eagles and playing Hotel California, or dressing up like the Bee Gees and playing Saturday Night Fever.
posted by pracowity at 6:09 AM on May 29, 2002

The Sex Pistols can barely play their instruments. Each tuneless thrash that passes for a song sounds the same as the one before. And while the spotty, under-nourished front man knows how to sneer, he certainly doesn't know how to sing. After retrieving our Afghan coats from the cloakroom, we shuffle off into the night, back to our squat to skin up a spliff and listen to the new Little Feat album.

Never had an Afghan coat, but the author expresses my own reaction to the Sex Pistols, although he's being charitable with the term "barely".

Not saying that there wasn't a lot of overproduced crap in those days, but there was a lot of good stuff. The stuff I was listening to in 76-77 reflect a young musician's tastes that were turning away from Yessy art rock and starting to dig into the blues/jazz/roots thang. Waits, Marley, Cooder, Little Feat, Weather Report, Tower of Power, Van Morrison...I was into grooves & chops, man.

I really did like Talking Heads '77, tho.
posted by groundhog at 6:13 AM on May 29, 2002

I don't see any hypocrisy. He's judging punk as a movement with a couple of brilliant highlights that gets too much hype because nothing else came of it.

Personally, I don't care if the only timeless thing to come out of punk was God Save the Queen. That's more than enough to be worth the nostalgia, though it's a little disturbing to think the album is a quarter-century old. It's not far from becoming grandpa music.
posted by rcade at 6:17 AM on May 29, 2002

Punk doesn't need people to like it.
It suits your alienated, terminal sensibilities, or it doesn't.
"Cultural relevance" is entirely an individual concept masquerading as group opinion, and judging artistic merit is masturbation at best.

Also:
Fuck him.
posted by dong_resin at 6:18 AM on May 29, 2002

Correction: Never Mind the Bollocks. I can't believe I got the title wrong of an album that I've played 1,000 times. Maybe it (and I) are closer to the "grandpa music" days than I suspect.
posted by rcade at 6:24 AM on May 29, 2002

While I wouldn't argue with his shuffling off to go listen to Little Feat I do give a big hearty "F@$* Off!!" to his dismissal of punk rock in general. Imagine the privilege of seeing two of the greatest punk bands at their apex and then brushing them off as "racket". What a waste.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:39 AM on May 29, 2002

The Sex Pistols can barely play their instruments.

people who say that make me wonder if they've ever listened to The Sex Pistols. I think it's either because at the time they were out, prog rock and stuff like The Eagles were pretty big, and comparitively The Sex Pistols couldn't hold up as far as instrumentality goes (and if you listened to The Sex Pistols expecting Hotel California you were a moron in the first place) which of course wasn't the point. if The Sex Pistols couldn't play their instruments, then neither could the rockers from the 50s that were basically speeding up. or maybe it's because it's because they heard some rock critic of the day going on about how Sid Vicious was the worst bassist ever (even though he didn't even play on the album).

anyone that wants to doubt the relevancy of punk should pick up the following albums:

of course he's not going to like punk if he's listening to Sham 69. it's campy, unlistenable garbage as far as I'm concerned. and speaking of campy, unlistenable garbage: punk nowadays. I blame NOFX!
posted by mcsweetie at 7:25 AM on May 29, 2002

Don't overlook The Slits
posted by quercus at 7:47 AM on May 29, 2002

It may surprise the English, but the Ramones were the apogee of punk, not the Sex Pistols. The Ramones not only invented their form (before the Sex Pistols were a gleam in Malcom McLaren's eye), they made its most definitive statements, and essentially had the last world. They were the alpha and omega of their niche. And you cannot pronounce judgement on punk, without pronouncing judgement on the Ramones, and there is no question that the Ramones were stupendously original, monumentally influential, and incredibly long-lived. Of course, ninety-nine percent of the bands they inspired blew to high heaven. Johnny Ramone's driving guitar sound was transformed by less-inspired players into that annoying rasp that went on to be punk's most pervasive legacy. But the Ramones, like Louis Jordan, the Beatles, the Bruce Springsteens and the Abbas, were a unique rock music phenomenon, who made their own rules, set their own standards, and dared the world to follow them.
posted by Faze at 7:51 AM on May 29, 2002

It's funny because it's true.
posted by rushmc at 8:08 AM on May 29, 2002

it's as reactionary as dressing up like the Eagles and playing Hotel California, or dressing up like the Bee Gees and playing Saturday Night Fever.

*chuckle* Thank you.

I listened to and enjoyed the Ramones, but I found out later that the two songs I liked were covers. My sister loves the local punk and hardcore scene. I don't give a shit, all sounds like the same bellowing once I've got my earplugs in anyway.

What I'd like to see is something that I think is starting to happen. I loved the emergence of horns in Pop with ska and the "swing revival" in the late 90's (even though i didn't really like the music, I loved the horns) and I really enjoy how Dave Matthews is releasing albums like Listener Supported... you simply can't beat a 3 minute fiddle solo in the middle of a song about getting high on pot! (Jimi Thing). Incubus's use of strange insturments (Like the digirido and the mirmba, not to mention the bongo drums) as well as traditional rock insturments is a joy to listen to live... Now if only all of their songs didn't sound the same. I enjoyed Tenacious D because they were two old farts rocking out on big phatty electric/acoustic guitars.

Punk will always be a musical speedbump to me... a mistreatment of musical insturments were intended for better use. Breadth and range as a musician is what matters, which is why I dislike Britney, the Backstreet Boys (et. al.), Punk, Limp Bizkit, and most of the other music that is being shoveled down America's throat by the studios. On the other hand, I do appreciate everything from classical symphonies to Ella Fitzgerald (and various other jazz artists), the well-written rap ballads that don't have to do with gettin off on some ho's, singers like Poe, the Eagles, Tool, and whoever else demonstrates that they understand music.
posted by SpecialK at 8:11 AM on May 29, 2002

mcsweetie,

the Clash did not consider themselves punk (not according to one interview anyway-- in the Clash on Broadway set). But of course everyone else does consider them punk.

Iwas driving to the hardware store a couple of years ago and I heard some hip-hop/rap song that seemed to be mostly based on the Clash's Lightening Strikes-- anybody know what it is?

" as the 1980s were drowned out in tinny synthesizers and boring drum machines programmed by men with risible perms."

But what about: 1983-- Milo goes to College, The Descendents. (plus all the rest of their albums).
posted by squinky at 8:12 AM on May 29, 2002

Punk is a conceptual moment of ridiculous fury, drawn out as long as it can possibly go (which usually amounts to about two minutes). You either enjoy such a thing once, never, or over and over again. I still enjoy it.

But I don't think that punk was quite the thesis statement that many latter-day critics make it out to be. Punks weren't shouting: "Yes albums are too long! Down with overrefined studio technique!" and I don't think any true punks cared whether radio rock changed after punk. I think the Ramones and their spawn just liked sped-up, overdriven music that had a sense of humor. Wherever the chips fall (or don't) after that is left to pompous gits like Nigel.
posted by argybarg at 8:16 AM on May 29, 2002

posted by Skot at 8:18 AM on May 29, 2002

The Ramones are good, but they never ever raised the stink the Sex Pistols put out with God Save the Queen (on the Queen's jubilee year, a number 1 single effectively banned from radio). And that's what punk is all about: making a big focking mess.

As for music, I still listen to the Clash (not punk with a cover like "London Calling"?). And the Sex Pistols & The Ramones, but to a lot less extent.
posted by magullo at 8:21 AM on May 29, 2002

my own experience with punk comes mostly from joy division. their intent was to form a punk band, at first, and i would say that they did though their sound wasn't a copy of the sex pistols. (or of the velvet underground, whom ian curtis and the group was influenced by.) i felt like they did a lot of worthy music, and maybe barney wasn't the best on guitars (he was good) but peter hook sure as hell was a god with the bass guitar. they carried that musical legacy on with new order.

my experience with punk has left me thinking that punk is whatever mainstream isn't. it takes mainstream music and plays it in reverse. i remember a friend of mine playing a song on which a guy was just wailing; couldn't understand a word. turns out it was a love song (and not a bad one if you go by the lyrics). but i've also heard punk described as a group like mccarthy, from which was formed stereolab, which has itself influenced a lot of indie rock groups. punk is all over the place, and i definitely think it's had a lasting impression.
posted by moz at 8:27 AM on May 29, 2002

This guy should go off and become a cabaret critic. people who don't like punk dont really like rock and roll, IMHO. Punk(along with a lot of hip-hop and metal ) is nothing more than the concentrated essence of rock stripped of all the extraneous BS and pretense and without apology.
Now sometimes "extraneous BS" has added to the greatness of rock, other times it's merely been pretentious. But oftentimes a lot of what's called "respectable" popular music is nothing more than watered down rock with ambition's toward someone else's vision of repectablity. I love rock and roll unapologetically.
In the dictionary next to the word rock and roll, there's a picture of either the Ramones, the Who or Little Richard. That's where it at, kids.
posted by jonmc at 8:40 AM on May 29, 2002

OK, I admit I haven't read the FPP link yet, but I have to weigh in on this.

Nothing good came of it and it has left no credible legacy.

Bullshit. Stooges Stooges Stooges.

Minor Threat, Minutemen, Black Flag, Mission of Burma, Husker Du, The Replacements, the Dickies ...oh, he's talking about British punk? Yeah, all that sucked, 'cept for the Clash.

OK. I'll go read that link now.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 8:41 AM on May 29, 2002

The article should be titled "Face it - [British] punk was rubbish," since Williamson doesn't bother to discuss anything that was going on the United States. The New York Dolls, Television, and the Ramones all preceded the Sex Pistols. And there are (or were) so many flavors of American punk that it's impossible to make a list without leaving someone off or starting a holy war -- but I still like Buddy Holly, Patti Smith, the Talking Heads, Minor Threat, Fugazi, Black Flag, Bad Religion, Murder City Devils, NOFX, and Refused.
posted by subgenius at 8:53 AM on May 29, 2002

Gee, and to think that I count Holidays in the Sun as one of the greatest rock 'n' roll songs ever...
posted by Holden at 9:05 AM on May 29, 2002

Holden - I like a lot of British Punk. Sham 69, the Clash, X Ray Spex , and the Pistols were great. But the American stuff both in New York and LA was better*. Most of the British punk scene has admitted to learning how to play by listening to the first Ramones album.

*I was gonna type "the original" but punk rock originated so to speak in Detroit as any good schoolboy knows..

posted by jonmc at 9:21 AM on May 29, 2002

If the Clash or Generation X are punk, I'm Ethel Merman.
posted by Karl at 9:23 AM on May 29, 2002

It seems like the headline is a bit misleading. He writes in contradictions - as people have said. He calls punk rubbish and non-influential, yet mentions many examples of its influence on music. The writer states :
The truth is that the reverence in which punk is held a quarter of a century after it first rattled the bars of youth culture is based on a series of myths and misconceptions.
True enough, but isn't that rock and roll? Music of the 60's is as influential for its myth as its reality. Most people back then were not, in fact, zoned-out hippies listening to the Doors or Hendrix. But just because something is mythical doesn't make it less influential.
He concludes:
Let's face it. Punk was rubbish. But perhaps it was always meant to be.
I think he must know it was meant to be. Everyone knows the Sex Pistols were a contrived marketing gimmick by Malcolm McLauren. Punk music wasn't about being a good musician. It was about attitude, anger, politics, parody, humour, the shaken up poverty-stricken youth of the Thatcher years - the antithesis of the more popular music of the time.
The Clash may not have been a "real" punk band, but they were a hell of a brilliant ska-rock group. He doesn't mention the contribution punk made in merging previously unrelated musical forms such as ska, dub, and R&B with straight-ahead rock.
Mostly, punk got a lot of people in my generation to think. Think about issues such as race, corporate greed, corruption, religion, freedom . . . I think that alone is worth celebrating.
As for musical influence, well - there are thousands of bands who wouldn't have existed or sound the way they do were it not for punk. Nirvana, U2, The Cure, Sublime. R.E.M., Talking Heads, NIN, Crystal Method, The Smiths, Nick Cave, Beastie Boys, Blur, Bjork, Tori Amos, Garbage . . . just off the top of my head. I think to deny the music influence of punk is rather silly.
posted by sixdifferentways at 9:32 AM on May 29, 2002

Well Joe Strummer only screams "This is punk rock!" in the middle of "Complete Control" but what does he know?
posted by quercus at 9:34 AM on May 29, 2002

I'm not really in to punk rock in general, but I own several Bad Religion albums, and I listen to them often.
posted by CrunchyFrog at 9:34 AM on May 29, 2002

Nigel Williamson announces that the Emperor is naked, and MetaFilter erupts.

I think it was David Lee Roth who said that music styles are really all about haircuts and shoes. It would be hard for a man from mars to discern the great musical gap that supposedly exists between, say, the Ramones and AC/DC.

Punk allowed disaffected youth in the mid-seventies to thumb their noses at their big brother's prog-rock and, more crucially I think, at their big sister's disco. Too bad it also gave permission to the tone-deaf and rhythmically clueless to torment us for the next 25 years.
posted by timeistight at 9:49 AM on May 29, 2002

The Clash are definitely punk and considered themselves to be so. Most British punks would I think, acknowledge their debt to the whole CBGB'S crowd.
I think punk, in its essence was a very briefly flickering flame but it opened the door for so much more it has to be regarded as one of the greatest cultural happenings of the century.
It shook not just the music industry but wider society to its foundations. It opened the door for reggae and influenced artistic types across the spectrum. Without punk inspired fanzines we would not have had magazines like the Face and Time Out, which in turn inspired others. Football in Britain wouldn't have developed grass roots organisations and fanzines which would reclaim the game from the hooligans and the far right.
Most importantly, it demonstrated to young working class men and women that with energy they could create. An art school degree wasn't strictly necessary, it was ideas that mattered. Ok the whole thing quickly became cartoonish but to dismiss it is facile. As has been pointed out its ethos lives on in countless sub genres of hip hop and folk.
The lesson that has been learned and learned well, is that once a new movement becomes old and stale; bloated on its own complacency its time to move on, and this can be done from a bedroom, by anyone with wit and imagination.
posted by Fat Buddha at 9:49 AM on May 29, 2002

It opened the door for reggae. . .

I can't let that go by. Desmond Dekker's The Israelites and Little Millie Small's My Boy Lollipop were gigantic international hits before punk was a gleam in Malcom McLaren's eye.
posted by timeistight at 9:59 AM on May 29, 2002

Everyone knows the Sex Pistols were a contrived marketing gimmick by Malcolm McLauren.

That's what McLaren wants you to think. He wasn't the talent behind the Pistols, Rotten was.

It was about attitude, anger, politics, parody, humour, the shaken up poverty-stricken youth of the Thatcher years - the antithesis of the more popular music of the time.

Thatcher was elected in 1979, when it was all over. But you're right, it was just as much about attitude, politics and fashion than music. I'm too young to have lived through it, but old enough to vaguely remember what went before. The way I saw it, punk was the rebellion of skinny white council-estate youths against both the hypocrisy of the hippies, who had turned into supergroup corporate parodies of themselves, and the irelevance of disco.

It also managed to successfully temporarily oust beards, flares, kaftans and long hair, for which we must all be grateful. Unfortunately for punk the yob element took over in the end and it became a depressing celebration of violence and philistinism, as best epitomised by Sham 69.
posted by Summer at 10:08 AM on May 29, 2002

I'd just like to take this opportunity to mention that Devo's first record is still ahead of it's time.
posted by davebush at 10:15 AM on May 29, 2002

For me, old punk died the day Johnny Rotten appeared on the Judge Judy show.
posted by iconomy at 10:18 AM on May 29, 2002

I salute the taste of BitterOldPunk. FLAG, yeah! MINOR THREAT, hell yeah!

Tom Waits?How can someone talk about crap and then compare him to Led Zep and Springsteen?OK, I don't get Tom Waits.

The Clash are definitely punk and considered themselves to be so.

The Clash, whom I still listen to very often, were not a Punk band because they could play anything.Check the albums, they're all over the place.They took a lot of pride in that and it eventually broke up the band because they couldn't reach an agreement on which way to go.

Most of the Brit Punk bands were useless, but the Sex Pistols...geez, that's an amazing album.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 10:24 AM on May 29, 2002

Disco was actually much more subversive than punk to the idolatry that was at the root of much of the wretched excess of early-seventies music. Punk said that anyone could be a musician, or at least act like one on stage; disco put the musicians back in the dance band and shone the spotlight on the dance floor.

And if you're searching for influence, I'd argue that Nile Rodgers and Bernard Edwards of Chic have had far more influence than any punk. They dressed much better, too.
posted by timeistight at 10:35 AM on May 29, 2002

And that's what punk is all about: making a big focking mess.

How nice. Not a "statement," not "music," but a "mess."

No wonder it leaves me cold.
posted by rushmc at 10:44 AM on May 29, 2002

I find it ironic that Nigel entirely marginalized punk music and everyone who listens to it, and then Fat Buddha goes off and marginalizes everyone named Nigel. Kind of hypocritical.
posted by banished at 10:45 AM on May 29, 2002

Sorry - to add to this discussion at so late a time.

British punk: Cocksparrer, Toy Dolls, Specs (who Jonmc already mentioned) CRASS!!! It's awesome. I love it for so many reasons: the fighting, the attire, and the energy. British punk is a lot different than American music, be it punk, or one of it's many offshoots.

I take exception with what you just said, BarneyFifesBullet. The Clash can still be a punk band and play their instruments well. That has nothing to do with what is or is not Punk. Punk isn't about playing badly; it is about expressing emotion, and discontent with the status quo.
posted by goneill at 11:03 AM on May 29, 2002

Don't forget the Crucifucks, Circle Jerks, X (Jay-sus, no one here listens to X?!), the Go-Go's, and the Bangs (aka The Bangles) -- those last two, gang, *were* in fact punk bands when they started. Oh, yes they were...

British? Don't tell me that Adam & The Ants' first albums weren't punk. Give a song like "Press Darlings" a listen, and then let's talk. New Romantic, maybe *later,* but not at first.

Agnostic Front, Murphy's Law...aw, fuck it. Here's the real Nigel...
posted by metrocake at 11:04 AM on May 29, 2002

Re: the Clash

I'm not too sure that "punkness" is a yes/no thing.

It's possible to use punk elements in various songs, but also to mix in reggae, soul, dub, etc. Does that mean that the band is not punk? When the Clash started, they lived in squats and council flats, and used equipment stolen from their day job: cleaning toilets. Does that make them punk?

If they ride in a limo, or sell a certain number of LPs, does that mean they have to hand in their "punk" card?

One last thing. Have any of you folks debating the punk/not punk viewpoint ever seen these bands live?
posted by websavvy at 11:11 AM on May 29, 2002

Davebush, you are so right. I was digging through old cassettes last week and found a recording of Devo's first album (I have it on vinyl but the turntable is dead -- broken drivebelt) and listened to it. My thoughts were exactly yours -- these guys were ahead of their time. The first side of that album is absolutely amazing. If I were in a band, I'd cover "Space Junk" -- with its theme of airborne paranoia, it sounds as if it were recorded yesterday. It's scary and funny and it rocks.
posted by Holden at 11:21 AM on May 29, 2002

Disco was actually much more subversive than punk to the idolatry that was at the root of much of the wretched excess of early-seventies music.

True, timeistight, but tell that to a gawky English teenager in the late seventies wearing a pair of ridiculous white flares and trying to dance to Donna Summer. No wonder they chose bondage trousers and the pogo.
posted by Summer at 11:26 AM on May 29, 2002

Just my 2 cents worth as a musician and a music fan...

I've never understood the concept of musical genres as a political/societal/tribal movement. I don't care how a band dresses, wears their hair, or votes. I just care about the music. I remember once trying to convince a girl to come to one of my band's shows. (I knew she frequently went to hear local bands.) She asked what our music was like, and I replied that we had a lot of influences from REM & Indigo Girls, plus some 60's bands. Her response - "REM & Indigo Girls, that's sort of college scene music, isn't it? I don't go for the college scene type of music." I could have easily understood if she wasn't into harmonies, counter-melodies or acoustic intruments. But the music wasn't the issue - we had the wrong "scene." Weird.

As far as technical ability - it doesn't make or break a piece of music. A piece of music is good if it says something that resonates with the listener. Technical ability is good to have, because it enables you to say more things. If you want to say the things that J.S.Bach or Frank Zappa said, you need a lot of technical ability. Still, there are some good things left to be said with 3 chords and an octave worth of vocal range. I tried listening to the Sex Pistols, and as far as I could tell what they had to say was "I'm loud, I'm rude and I'm annoying." If that resonates with you, then I have to say they were doing their job.
posted by tdismukes at 11:30 AM on May 29, 2002

Disco was actually much more subversive than punk

Indeed, I don't recall punk inspiring stadium sized book burning.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 11:31 AM on May 29, 2002

If you like Devo, or early space-punk, you should check out Twinkeyz. Definitely more fun than any of the trite canned 'political' English stuff (deliberate flame), more along the lines of the Buzzocks + early Butthole Surfers. Remind yourself: It's only rock and roll.
posted by Karl at 11:41 AM on May 29, 2002

The Clash can still be a punk band and play their instruments well. That has nothing to do with what is or is not Punk.

I'm talking about music.I don't care about clothes and hair.I don't care about scenes, just the music.

Punk isn't about playing badly; it is about expressing emotion, and discontent with the status quo.

I didn't say Punk bands couldn't play and you just described most music ever created.

If they ride in a limo, or sell a certain number of LPs, does that mean they have to hand in their "punk" card?

If you're a hipster, yeah.They don't want anyone else into their scene. If you're into it for the music, no. A lot of bands go downhill if they're lucky enough to make some money, though. They lose their drive.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 12:09 PM on May 29, 2002

I've never understood the concept of musical genres as a political/societal/tribal movement.

To the music industry, that all they are. The terms "race records," "sepia," "rhythm and blues," "soul," and "urban contemporary" might mean different things to music fans, but to the industry who invented or popularized them, they only mean "music marketed to black people."

To site a genre closer to the discussion, what exactly do the Talking Heads, Elvis Costello, Blondie, and even Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers have in common? They were all marketed as "New Wave," which basically seemed to mean: "new rock that isn't punk."
posted by timeistight at 12:12 PM on May 29, 2002

Fantastic link, inpHilltr8r! Thanks.
posted by timeistight at 12:13 PM on May 29, 2002

Er, that should have been "that's all they are" and "To cite a genre." Spell Check can't protect me from all my carelessness.
posted by timeistight at 12:21 PM on May 29, 2002

Websavvy, I saw most of the better known punk bands live and the post punk and ska bands that followed them (not the pistols though).
The Clash in their early days made a very punk like racket but what they definitely had was a punk sensibility; Strummer still has it, regardless of their ability. In Don Letts fantastic recent documentary on them Strummer expounded on the sacking of Topper Headon. The band resented Headons substance of choice, heroin I think, I forget now what it was. The point was, the band wanted the drummer to hammer the beat down, completely driving the music; impossible when spaced out . Some might call it rock and roll, I prefer to think of it as indicative of their punkishness, which was more about attitude than ability.
posted by Fat Buddha at 12:38 PM on May 29, 2002

It's like pornography... 'I know it when I see it'
posted by goneill at 12:59 PM on May 29, 2002

...and what about The Pixies? And Husker Du? And the Thompson Twins?...

oh...wait...scratch that last one... :D
posted by metrocake at 1:23 PM on May 29, 2002

The Minutemen said it best:

me and mike watt's played for years but punk rock changed our life. we learned punk in hollywood, drove up from pedro we were fucking corn dogs, we'd go drink and pogo

The mid 1970s was an abysmal time for rock music. Bunch of damned stoners contemplating their navels, noodling on their guitars for hours while the audience nodded off. Bleah. I listened to country music, which had it's own punk revolution at the time with people like Waylon and Willie and Tompall Glaser. Punk rock was the only thing to get me listening to rock again. It felt like a punch in the stomach, but at least it felt like something, which is something you couldn't say for the rest of what passed for rock music in those days.

Punk rocked shattered the complacency of the music industry, and the shards of broken glass it left have yet to be picked up. In the mid 1960s, there was no "underground"; music was either popular or it was trying to be popular. The consensus started to break up by the late 60s, but punk rock totally shattered it, leaving rock as a set of Balkanized fiefdoms. Popular music has never been the same since.
posted by geneablogy at 2:01 PM on May 29, 2002

timeistight, agreed reggae had been in the uk charts long before punk came along and had been a staple of Skinheads in the late 60's. I was thinking more of heavy dub reggae, the kind that would later inspire Massive Attack, who I would say have a punk sensibility. It is fairly common knowledge that Don Letts didn't have any punk music to play when he was D.J at the Roxy so he played loads of dub reggae, most famously, "Police and Thieves".
The Clash amongst others included these sounds in their ouevre, thus opening it up to those who would not otherwise hear it.
The Clash devoted a whole side of Sandinista to very heavy dub with vocals by Mikey Dread.
posted by Fat Buddha at 2:12 PM on May 29, 2002

Six months and finally I've woken up.

US punk can be dismissed as fairly pointless. A bunch of Art School middleclass poseurs playing at being rebellious, but in reality without ever coming close to changing a single attitude. This isn't to say there was nothing worthwhile about it, but anything that had ANY credibility found more acclaim and success over here in the UK.

UK Punk was a DIY revolution: iconoclastic and depraved. It was, perhaps, the last working class, youth movement. In the late 1970's, before the corporate might of MTV and fashion bibles like The Face magazine came to dominate youth culture, punk rejected the economic and moral constraints of British society by creating an anti-world in which worthless objects like safety pins, bin-liners and hastily drawn slogans on clothing defined a new aesthetic. The elevation of everyday 'found' objects to jewellery and desirable clothing challenged the foundations of the economy. the iconography itself signified glorious moral decay. This re-evaluation of aesthetic values coupled with a laissez-faire, pre AIDS attitude to sex and drugs seriously undermined the status quo at that time.
Punk attacked all of England's sacred cows from the Queen to those New Aristocrats the Rolling Stones and within months of Punks birth countless teenagers realised that reverence towards anything, even previously hallowed pop stars was undeserved - anyone who had the front to do it could do it. A nation of bored youths ripped and customised their clothes, dyed and razored their hair, picked up guitars and stuck two fingers up to the world.
Without Punk there would be no Oasis, Manic Street Preachers or Prodigy. There would be no Damien Hirst or Tracy Emins in the art world had it not been for punk: in literature no Irvine Welsh or Will Self: in fashion there would be no Alexander McQueen or John Galliano.

To many extents the UK still lives in punk's afterglow.. and that is why middle America will NEVER understand, comprehend, emulate or appreciate the attitudes and thought processes of those who lived through it.

I shall now return to my sleep.
posted by Ragamuffin at 2:46 PM on May 29, 2002

Fuck Nigel. Punk changed my life and opened my eyes to artistic, political, business and personal possibilities I had only vaguely grasped before.

To say "ooh, but they couldn't play their guitars as pretty as ___" completely misses the point.
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 2:52 PM on May 29, 2002

"To many extents the UK still lives in punk's afterglow.. and that is why middle America will NEVER understand, comprehend, emulate or appreciate the attitudes and thought processes of those who lived through it."

How very arrogant.

I believe that punk is many things to many people. It's kind of hard discussing things like that because we haven't agreed on our terms. Some people might say that punk is what wears a clothes pin. Others might say punk is music played poorly. Some will say it's an attitude, while another might call it an art movement, or perhaps a turn of fashion.

I prefer to think of punk as a detour around a crappy mainstream. When faced with a music industry that gave them nothing that they liked, they invented a form of music and fashion that allowed them to create their own art. Punk was played without a lot of musical chops at the beginning, but that doesn't mean that learning to play well made someone no longer capable of being or creating "punk". Punk became alternative because it was an alternate culture, created by people who were locked out or alienated by the mainstream. Of course, alternative is the emptiest of words now, because it isn't an alternative to anything.

Of course, that's just my punk. Yours may be different.
posted by websavvy at 2:56 PM on May 29, 2002

Iggy Pop? I'm sorry, but didn't he and the Stooges invent punk in 1969? It only took the UK kids 5-6 years to catch on. (OK, maybe I'm trolling)
posted by tcobretti at 3:09 PM on May 29, 2002

Ok. Maybe Buddy Holly invented punk.
posted by tcobretti at 3:10 PM on May 29, 2002

"how very arrogant" ... perhaps. ...
but "how very true" ...definately ....

In fact whilst still awake i might be tempted to start a new thread.

"Can any American who has never spent more than a few weeks in the UK ever come close to understanding how anyone outside of the mainstream of UK society thinks?"
posted by Ragamuffin at 3:23 PM on May 29, 2002

Ragamuffin: Take that last sentence, swap "UK" and "US" for each other, and chew on *that.* Same is at true for you as is for us.
posted by metrocake at 3:31 PM on May 29, 2002

(Jay-sus, no one here listens to X?!)

LA bus doors open..kicking both doors open...Johnny Hit and Run Pauline...

that felt good...

I listened to country music, which had it's own punk revolution at the time with people like Waylon and Willie and Tompall Glaser

Very insightful, geneablogy. It's all about bringing it all back home, as the Bard of Hibbing would say. You could make the argument that hip-hop(at it's best) did the same thing for R&B.

For me, old punk died the day Johnny Rotten appeared on the Judge Judy show.

ico, appearing on Judge Judy was a VERY punk thing for Johnny to do...

In closing this quote from Tom Carson, (he was talking about the Ramones, who were my particular rock and roll epiphany, but it applies to the whole bloody corpus:

"Punks in the original sense of the word, were the sort of people who were such hopeless losers that they couldn't even be convincing as outlaws; far from romanticizing that status, the Ramones glorified their own inadequacy....and yet they were genuinely sexy,too; in spite of everything they were cool.

As one of those "sort of people" I have to agree and thank the Ramones and all the rest for singing our song.

And THAT my freinds is PUNK ROCK!
posted by jonmc at 3:31 PM on May 29, 2002

"Can any American who has never spent more than a few weeks in the UK ever come close to understanding how anyone outside of the mainstream of UK society thinks?"

As a brit abroad, I could ask the very same question in reverse. People have a habit of forgetting just how large and varied 'american' culture is.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 3:32 PM on May 29, 2002

metrocake: jinx
posted by inpHilltr8r at 3:33 PM on May 29, 2002

Iggy is punk; Buddy Holly was punk; Massive Attack(!) is punk; Waylon and Willie were punk; reggae is punk.

Why stop there? Let's say Hank Williams and Little Richard were punk. How about Louis Jordon? Bix Beiderbecke? Robert Johnson must have been punk. Harmonica Frank?

And I thought I didn't like punk. Silly me.
posted by timeistight at 3:36 PM on May 29, 2002

So the answer is 'no' ?
posted by Ragamuffin at 3:37 PM on May 29, 2002

Ragambuffin:

US punk can be dismissed as fairly pointless. A bunch of Art School middleclass poseurs playing at being rebellious, but in reality without ever coming close to changing a single attitude.

it's pointless to refer to "US punk" as an underground phenomenon, i feel. of course there wasn't a single attitude; the musicians in the states were much too spread out and with far too many influences to be able to define one. being underground removes the possibility of a corporate-defined attitude, such as is possible with pop in the US.

In fact whilst still awake i might be tempted to start a new thread.

"Can any American who has never spent more than a few weeks in the UK ever come close to understanding how anyone outside of the mainstream of UK society thinks?"

could you say the same for yourself having lived in the US? supposing, of course, a matter of months would give you a such better knowledge of contexts and histories that are decades old and specific to regions of the US than would a few weeks.
posted by moz at 3:38 PM on May 29, 2002

Fuck this and fuck that Fuck it all and fuck her fucking brat

Punk rock rules, emphasis on rock. Punks i never cared for.
posted by quercus at 3:43 PM on May 29, 2002

American Philosophy?

What is there to understand that an afternoon with Ronald MacDonald wouldn't teach me?
posted by Ragamuffin at 4:06 PM on May 29, 2002

Ragamuffin, people like you make me ashamed to be an American. So ignorant. Always making prejudiced assumptions. Oh wait! You're a brit. . .

We really are rubbing off on you people.

Shut up! Shut up, you American. You always talk, you Americans. You talk and you talk and say 'let me tell you something' and 'I just wanna say this'. Well, you're dead now, so shut up!
posted by crasspastor at 4:43 PM on May 29, 2002

Well, I guess we've figured out who the troll around here is, Ragamuffin.
posted by websavvy at 4:57 PM on May 29, 2002

So are you lot avoiding the question, or just unable to understand it?
Whilst you continue this line it would be easy for people to throw the accusation at you that 'you only misunderstand different cultures because you have no culture of your own'.
I never claimed to be trying to make any understanding of "American thought processes"... perhaps i'll wait for the musical to come out.
posted by Ragamuffin at 5:19 PM on May 29, 2002

thank you for your comm ents, jonmc.
posted by modularette at 5:35 PM on May 29, 2002

MacLaren, not MacDonald, sorry.
posted by emf at 5:42 PM on May 29, 2002

*blushes*

thanx for the compliment, modularette.
posted by jonmc at 5:43 PM on May 29, 2002

"Can any American who has never spent more than a few weeks in the UK ever come close to understanding how anyone outside of the mainstream of UK society thinks?"

What's my motivation?
posted by rushmc at 5:57 PM on May 29, 2002

Ever feel like you've been cheated?
posted by NortonDC at 6:50 PM on May 29, 2002

Ragamuffin is the kind of person that can really make somebody warm up to another culture.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:28 PM on May 29, 2002

Some responses to the article can be found on the Guardian website. Including a contribution from Captain Sensible.
posted by Fat Buddha at 3:01 AM on May 30, 2002

Ragamuffin - way to diss american punk. painting with a rather wide brush, aren't we? everyone loves a generaliser.
still, when all your detractors can say is 'i know you are, but what am i', it makes for mundane discussion.
these yanks, like the aussies, get pretty tetchy around the culture debate, as should you. unless you can define what 'british culture' means to you for us, which might help debate, please refrain from lowering the level of discourse.
'American Philosophy...Ronald McDonald'

where i live there is a ska-punk revival going on, even SpecialK might dig that. the bands are invariably far too young to remember punk, but still like it. and ska.
in other news, punk-funk is en vogue at the moment. gang of four are hip (again?).

maybe we need a new 'punk' as dance music has mostly been absorbed into the mainstream in the uk. not to mention dance music culture being criminalised.
posted by asok at 3:28 AM on May 30, 2002

OK, I'll bite.

The Ramones go to the UK, kick off a trend that culminates with bands like Sex Pistols, Clash, Buzzcocks, Gang of Four, Sham 69, whatever. Brit kids take it to heart, begin dressing silly, gobbing each other, anarchy anarchy rah rah rah.

This trend quickly peters out, as no one really wants to get repeatedly spit on and beat up for the sake of making a fashion statement. Except gg allin and oops! he's american...

Punk moves back across the pond, reinterpeted through the sensibilities of people like Ian MacKaye, Bob Mould, Paul Westerberg, Patti Smith (can't believe no one has mentioned her in this thread yet), d. boon, etc.

Punk becomes indie, spawns thousands of DIY record labels, eventually metastasizes into "alternative", produces Nirvana, and dies (NOFX).

But pick through a bin of every record that you might be tempted to call "punk rock" and you won't find a better one than Minor Threat, "Complete Discography". Unless it's the first Ramones record.

To many extents the UK still lives in punk's afterglow.. and that is why middle America will NEVER understand, comprehend, emulate or appreciate the attitudes and thought processes of those who lived through it.

Just because it was culturally significant on your tiny little island nation scrabbling so desperately to shore up the remains of its long-gone empire doesn't mean it signifies at all here in the States, Ragamuffin.

I guess that's why when the world thinks of punk rock (when they bother to do so), they think of THE RAMONES. Not a bunch of poser Brits. Will Self. Give me a break. Karen Findley would have eaten him for lunch.

(I can troll with the best of 'em. eh?)

"Can any American who has never spent more than a few weeks in the UK ever come close to understanding how anyone outside of the mainstream of UK society thinks?"

Not sure. Why would I want to? I mean, it's not like the UK is a Power To Be Reckoned With, or anything......

(ducking)
posted by BitterOldPunk at 9:26 AM on May 30, 2002

Factually inaccurate if not written with some spirit.
First Ramones gig in UK was in 1976 ...after UK Punk had kicked off properly.

I accept in advance your apology for STILL not understanding anything about British youth culture of the 70's and 80's .. (you do afterall seem to originate from probably the world's most backward thinking up-it's-own-backside country).

Do NOT confuse UK Punk and US Punk .... simple I would have thought.

"when the world thinks of punk rock (when they bother to do so), they think of THE RAMONES"
HA HA HA HA HA HA

so the world is America then .. ?
posted by Ragamuffin at 9:59 AM on May 30, 2002

Throughout 20 years of recording, the Ramones released 14 albums, none of which ever went gold or even featured a US hit single.

"Thank God the UK appreciates what we are really about"

......................................Joey Ramone 1986
posted by Ragamuffin at 10:10 AM on May 30, 2002

Punk rock does not need to be defended. What purpose does it serve, and what does it matter?
posted by thirteen at 11:00 AM on May 30, 2002

While I am not as inclined as some to dismiss the U.S. contribution to punk I cannot accept that the Ramones were a major influence. As Ragamuffin points out, the whole thing had kicked off (and was probably on the way to dying) before anyone in Britain would have heard of them.
Art school types like Mclaren were undoubtedly inspired by the Stooges and the New York Dolls, not forgetting everyones favourite influence, the Velvet Underground. I suppose the MC5 deserve an honourable mention, but few in Britain would have heard of them at the time.
The Ramones were long haired greasy junkie types; very infra dig in Britain in 76, or indeed in 75 when it all started happening. British punks of the non art school type were more likely to have been influenced by Dr Feelgood and Eddie and the Hotrods, mundane as it seems.
posted by Fat Buddha at 11:58 AM on May 30, 2002

"Can any American who has never spent more than a few weeks in the UK ever come close to understanding how anyone outside of the mainstream of UK society thinks?"

What's my motivation?

Why are you commenting in this thread? ('I don't care' - great argument btw)

Just because it was culturally significant on your tiny little island nation scrabbling so desperately to shore up the remains of its long-gone empire doesn't mean it signifies at all here in the States, Ragamuffin.

Sadly exressing Ragamuffin's 'not getting it' point far more eloquently that he did.
posted by Summer at 12:38 PM on May 30, 2002

ing-glund belongs to me
posted by mlang at 1:22 PM on May 30, 2002

I saw this thread as I was scrolling down. I thought to myself, "how the fuck did i miss this?" Now i'm sad i found it. what a circle jerk (pun! guffaw!) this is. There were some great bands from both sides of the pond back in the day. US saw not only the whole CBGB scene, but the HardCore movement of 80-86 (Flag, CJ's, DK's, Minor Threat, Youth Brigade (the BYO ones), the Descendents, Minutemen, Germs, Husker Du, too many more to name) I love a lot of the british Oi! scene too, with sham, the business, stiff little fingers, UK Subs, and my fav. punk band of all time, the Subhumans. Are we so middle-schoolish as to say, "We were into before you" "no you weren't". Ugh.

Oh and 13: Punk rock does not need to be defended. What purpose does it serve, and what does it matter?

Easy there. Punk was, and still to an extent is, a community first and foremost, with it's own politics, ethics, rules, and distinct personalities. Anyone could ask the same question you did about the weblog community, and even ye olde 006699. If you don't like it, then leave it alone.
posted by Ufez Jones at 2:19 PM on May 30, 2002

Correct my spelling on this, but I just learned a new term and I have no idea how disparraging it is. So bear with me. Here it is:

Whingeing Pom.

I was also going to offer my favorite punk band of all time as well. Same as Ufez, it is the Subhumans.
posted by crasspastor at 2:25 PM on May 30, 2002

Punk was, and still to an extent is, a community first and foremost, with it's own politics, ethics, rules, and distinct personalities. Anyone could ask the same question you did about the weblog community, and even ye olde 006699. If you don't like it, then leave it alone.

I was reluctant to post in this (what I believe to be awful) thread. I posted my opinion same as everybody else, and I think my statement is valid. What is there to be gained by arguing that this guy is wrong? Does punk rock need to be more loved? Is it a victory if this guy changes his mind? I have never heard a decent definition of what punk rock is, and I know of so many dissimilar forms that can lay claim to the name with equal validity. 7 Seconds and Skrewdriver are both punk rock bands, 45 Grave and Christian Death are as punk rock as you can get, and bridge into Goth. Speed Metal, Grindcore, all that stuff has a blurry edge somewhere that laps into the subculture. Punk rock is just a bag that carrys lots of vaguely similar things around. I disagree with your statement, and would maintain that punk rock has no politics, ethics, or rules. Punk Rock can be bleeding edge individual, or completely pink social, and I can't imagine telling either one of those two types that they are wrong.
posted by thirteen at 3:03 PM on May 30, 2002

what's purpose does [punk] serve?

That one is easy...

Punk served as a club for kids who couldn't fit in anywhere else. They felt lonely and ugly and scared of society. The only way they could fight these feelings was to rebel against them, by dressing retardedly (albeit all dressing retardedly, together) and listening to other lonely scared people scream about how pissed they are over not being able to fit in.

Most of the punkers I know or knew were pretty smart and had very original thoughts on a variety of subjects, but always seemed to dumb themselves down when coming across their punk peers. Good conversations dwindled to crys of "Punk Rock Dude" or "That's fuckin Rad man!"

That's all punk did. It let left-out kids pretend that ugly things were really 'fuckin rad' and that they were pseudo-political free thinkers. For every Jello Biafra spoken word disc, there is twice that wasted on punkers (Descendants, for one) farting into their microphones.

UK or US, the kids joined for the same reason.

And none of them seem to remember that in the earlier half of the century, 'Punk' was the equivalent to 'Faggot'.
posted by hellinskira at 4:19 PM on May 30, 2002

hellinskira's description of the social purpose of punk definately describes my personal experience of it. Though, being six years old in 1976, punk to me meant Sex Pistols (only in retrospect, of course), Black Flag, Husker Du, Replacements, Fugazi, Dead Kenedys, Bad Religion, Minor Threat, firehose, All, and lots of other SoCal bands that toured through my little hamlet. For those of us who were neither rich, nor popular, nor jocks, nor the brightest kids in school, nor very convinced that the future was going to be a bright and wonderful place where we would fit in and be happy, hanging out with your friends and listening to some loud music was a way of feeling at home. Peer group, man. Pure and simple. Hanging with your friends--the people who had your back.

But the thing I took away from punk, and one of the things I liked so much about it, was the pan-ironic stance that the best of it seemed to embrace. Since punk was largely born as a reaction to stadium rock and art rock, punk, at it's best, refused to take itself too seriously. To the extent that punk embrased that view, I liked it and still do. To the extent that it was just an excuse to be a complete fuckup, I didn't like it and still don't.

This US vs UK "debate" is as pointless as any ford/chevy, mac/pc, catholic/protestant, young/old, nonsense I've ever heard. Fucking grow up. If Sham 69 jerks your chain, so be it. I don't care if any band I've listed above is or isn't "real" punk to Ragamuffin or anyone else. They all served their purpse at the time. And some of them (Husker Du and The Replacements) are still, to me, worth spinning up once in a while.
posted by wheat at 6:46 PM on May 30, 2002

Why are you commenting in this thread? ('I don't care' - great argument btw)

Bull. Ragamuffin threw out the assumption that we should care. The burden of proof is on him.
posted by rushmc at 6:52 PM on May 30, 2002

All of which goes to prove precisely one thing .......

US Punk and UK Punk were two totally different things.

The original article referred to UK Punk , not it's Art School twee US cousin.

It would seem that those posting from the UK can see the massive difference between the two , whereas those in the US can't.

Different cultures, different attitudes, different experiences, different definitions

UK Punk was....
Subway Sect,
999,
Dickies
Rezillos
Siouxsie & the Banshees,
The Clash
Buzzcocks
X Ray Spex
The Slits
The Sex Pistols
One Way System,
Violators,
Dead Wretched,
Court Martial,
Riot Squad,
The Stinky Toys,
The Damned
Vibrators
Chelsea
Penetration
The Alternators
John Cooper Clarke
Dials
Brent Ford and The Nylons
The Features
Meanies
Johnny Moped
Nicky and The Dots
Photographs
Stiff Little Fingers
UK Subs
The Ruts
Radiators
Sabotage
Social Security
UK Decay
Hammersmith Gorillas
Generation X
Magazine
Chelsea
The Boys
Crass
Special Duties,
Partisans,
Major Accident,
Adicts,
Blitz,
Anti-Pasti,
Peter and the Test Tube Babies,
English Dogs,
Infa-Riot,
Fits,
Action Pact,
Destructors,
Chron Gen,
Uproar,
Anti-Nowhere League,
Ejected,
Vice Squad,
Skeptix,
Gonads,
Antisocial,
Instant Agony,
Erazerhead,
Insane,
External Menace,
Exploited,

and that's just off the top of my head ....... then i could list another 200 I would term 'New Wave' ...from Elvis Costello through The Jam to Joy Division.

Though UK Punk undoubtedly took its early influences from the US there is a whole wide world of difference between what you are calling Punk and what Punk was in the UK.

And in true Punk fashion I can't be ársed anymore to try and explain it to you.

BECAUSE YOU'LL NEVER UNDERSTAND.

and that my dear Yankee friends is the problem .... you THINK you understand .... but you don't listen!
posted by Ragamuffin at 7:22 PM on May 30, 2002

PS.........

I love Patti Smith, The Velvets, The Dolls, Richard Hell, Television, Blondie, MC5, Dictators, Neon Boys, Iggy and The Stooges ..... but it ain't Punk.

So don't jump to conclusions (for a change) and assume that I'm rubbishing the quality or the influences ..... just your definitions.
posted by Ragamuffin at 7:35 PM on May 30, 2002

PPS (to wheat) .....
Black Flag, Husker Du, Replacements, Fugazi, Dead Kenedys, Bad Religion, Minor Threat, Firehose, are all excellent bands ...... but if you scroll back to the original article it was in a British paper and was talking about the UK scene.
posted by Ragamuffin at 7:38 PM on May 30, 2002

That's a lot of words to spend on ignoring that the Ramones invented your favorite genre, Ragamuffin. And the article never limits its scope to the UK take on punk, it just fails to acknowledge its betters. It's a serious oversight, but what can you expect from such a culturally myopic outfit?
posted by NortonDC at 8:12 PM on May 30, 2002

"A sociology lecture...with a bit of psychology... a bit of neurology...a bit of fuckology...NO FUNNNNN"
posted by quercus at 8:27 PM on May 30, 2002

If there's some general agreement that US and UK punk are different things, then why is it necessary to diss US punk as the "Art School twee US cousin" of UK punk? I think the only UK bands on Ragamuffin's list that crossed my radar growing up were The Sex Pistols, Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Damned, The Clash, The Buzzcocks, and Exploited. If you (Ragamuffin) agree that most of the bands on my list are "excellent bands", when why all the attitude whenever you mention "US" and "punk" in the same sentence?

And, just as a note on rhetoric, your continual jibes that US readers will "NEVER UNDERSTAND" UK punk only alienate anyone who might try (defeating your own purpose, unless your purpose is simply to point out that you understand something other people don't, which isn't much of a purpose, now is it?). As a side note, do you think most UK residents understand UK punk? I kinda doubt that they do.

But more to the point, if Israel had a punk rock scene (and maybe the do; I don't know), I doubt I'd understand it quite as well as an Israeli who was really into it. But, assuming I were willing to put in the time and effort, I don't have any doubt that I could come to a respectable understanding of it. And I don't doubt that my understanding of it would surpass that of your average Israeli on the street.

I only bring up this example because I, back when I studied English rather than computing, got sick as hell of people from a particular niche group claiming special access to texts just because they belonged to the particular niche group (quite a circular argument).

For example: "I'm a woman; therfore, I understand what Simone de Bouvoir is saying better than any man ever will."

If the point of art is to increase understanding across different ingroups (rather than just speaking to its own particular ingroup) then these sorts of positions chop away at the very roots of it. If I can't hope to understand--If I'm somehow ontologically incapable of it--then why try? Why bother? Why not just hang with other fair-skinned, overweight, southern, PHP-coding, bass-playing, liberal-leaning, linux fans and bitch amongst ourselves about how noone else can ever understand us.

This way solipsism lies. It's a dangerous, and ultimately fruitless, path.
posted by wheat at 9:55 PM on May 30, 2002

Okay, so I finally went and read the article in question. Here's the executive summary:

Point, the first:
Sousie & the Banshees = good music
The Sex Pistols, The Dammed, Sham69 = bad music

Point, the second:
Not all music that punk defined itself against was bad music.

Point, the third:
New Wave was better than punk

Point, the fourth:
Punk's influence was ephemeral

Of those points, I can only agree with the second. Punk defined itself against area rock and art rock (in the same way that grunge defined itself against 80s hair metal). New movements in the arts always define themselves against previous movements. But new developments don't replace earlier ones. They just change the context--sometimes making earlier ones irrelivant or at least taking away some of the limelight. Nothing new here.

The article is a fluff piece designed to spark controversy and writen with an absolutely unlovable "I told you so" smugness. Reminds me of Joe Queenan's piece a few years back on Jazz (though I generally like Queenan's observations on things).
posted by wheat at 10:13 PM on May 30, 2002

Sorry that i turned this into a UK v US thing. There were in fact great Punk scenes in France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Israel, Australia, Iceland ...... in fact almost everywhere.
Everywhere except in the US that is.

There's a lot of decent music that came out of the US between 1975 and 1982..... but it wasn't Punk. There's a lot of decent music that came out of everywhere that wasn't Punk. There's a lot of decent music that came out of the UK that WAS Punk.

What i was pointing out was the difference between "influence" and "origin".

A Ferrari is an Italian car, designed and built. You wouldn't claim it was American just because of Henry Ford would you? In the same way that Germans wouldn't claim Ferraris are German because of Karl Benz.
posted by Ragamuffin at 3:04 AM on May 31, 2002

Throughout 20 years of recording, the Ramones released 14 albums, none of which ever went gold or even featured a US hit single.

Oh, I see. So UK punk was about writing hit songs. I get it now.

And go tell Agnostic Front they're Art School twee. Dare yuh.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 6:46 AM on May 31, 2002

Oh now you're just getting silly in the extreme. Agnostic Front , i think, weren't even formed until 1982 (by Vinnie Stigma?)..... I was refering to the New York scene pre-1976... which people in this thread keep referring to as 'Punk'. In fact I would have thought you would be agreeing with me ...or are you also of the opinion that Agnostic Front and Patti Smith should be lumped together in the same gendre?

Plus...... if Agnostic Front (as exciting as they are) are US Punk then that just proves my arguement about the VAST differences in attitude, style, music, politics between US Punk and UK Punk.
The reason the original article was written is that it's 25 years since the Pistols released "God Save The Queen" for the original Jubilee ... and we are , this very weekend "celebrating" another Jubilee for Her Majesty The Queen of Scrounge.
Let's at least keep the debate relevant to the era the article was talking about!

My point about The Ramones is that they had hits in the UK but not the US. It was the UK where they ended up based for long periods. it was the UK where LARGE numbers took them to their hearts. It was the UK scene they were more relevant to... but the Ramones were never UK Punk.. and would never have claimed to be..... but they were embraced by UK Punk because of their close similarities musically. They were however always viewed over here as a US rock band...... after all, would a Punk even consider hair that long?
Certainly The Ramones weren't the 'creators' of Punk ... The Ramones were simply The Ramones and existed alongside UK Punk and found an appreciative audience with UK Punks.
posted by Ragamuffin at 10:20 AM on May 31, 2002

I accept in advance your apology for STILL not understanding anything about British youth culture of the 70's and 80's

Well Ragamuffin, I certainly wouldn't claim to have an understanding of British youth culture, then or now, and I won't take issue with the fact that a lot of US "punk" was decidedly middle-class in origin, but I stumbled upon an interesting quote; Pete Townshend, bumping into Paul Cook and Steve Jones at the Speakeasy in '76: "I was telling Paul Cook about the shit that I'd been through and the Who were fucking finished and everything was finished and rock & roll was finished, if this was what it was down to. They were the only band that had a chance. And they had to pick up the fucking banner. I was preachin' and preachin' at 'em...And they weren't interested in rock ideals. I mean all they were into was going round the world and making money and fucking birds...Paul Cook said to me 'The Who aren't going to break up, are they?..We really like the Who...Be a drag if they broke up!'"

"...punk rejected the economic and moral constraints of British society by creating an anti-world blah blah blah" indeed. Sounds like they had a bit more in common with the "...Art School middleclass poseurs playing at being rebellious." than you think.
posted by jalexei at 2:52 PM on May 31, 2002

Good to be here, may sunshine brighten your lives.
posted by tcobretti at 9:34 PM on May 31, 2002

tcobretti, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but if it's "thank you for finally showing up in person instead of lurking about, and giving us the benefit of your own perspective, Ragamuffin", I heartily agree.
posted by yhbc at 9:49 PM on May 31, 2002

« Older The author of this story argues that by disallowin... | Of GM food, the PR industry an... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Punk was rubbish May 29, 2002 3:46 AM Subscribe

Punk was rubbish
May 29, 2002 3:46 AM Subscribe