The shunning of progressive rock continues for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as they induct the most overrated "band" (and I use that term loosely) in the history of rock, the Sex Pistols, and another band that typified style over substance, Blondie, into the Rock hall but continue to ignore incredible musicians like Yes and Genesis and King Crimson. What a fraud. Led by Rolling Stone editor and confirmed prog rock hater Jan Wenner, the Rock hall has apparantly decided that progressive rock is not rock and roll. But how can you simply ignore a whole genre of music, a whole decade plus of radio airplay and sales domination by some of the most successful and influential bands in history? Unbelievable.

The Sex Pistols of course won't show up, acting as if they are still making some anti-establishment statement, when we all know the real reason they won't show is because then they'd have to get up and actually play, and that would once again confirm how they truly sucked as a band, and it would confirm that they really pulled the wool over everyone's eyes for a year or so.

I agree the Sex Pistols don't belong...they were a marketing gimmick. But Blondie deserves a place in the hall. They were more influential than you think...

Don't forget Rush, ELP and King Crimson.

Yes and Blondie should be there :cool: ...ELP was huge for awhile.

King Crimson wasn't a headliner back-in-the-day.
Although they did regularly open for the biggest of bands.

Wasn't Jann Wenner the guy that had a mid-life crisis and went nuts? :eek:

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is simply a marketing bonanza...IT's not about how influential but who sold the most records....

I agree the Sex Pistols don't belong...they were a marketing gimmick. But Blondie deserves a place in the hall. They were more influential than you think...
I don't particularly dislike Blondie--I could take them or leave them, but I don't think they rank up there with Talking Heads, The Clash, Television, Jonathan Richman etc. They morphed into whatever style was popular at the time, so I do dispute their influence.

Don't forget Rush, ELP and King Crimson.
I think I did mention King Crimson. I could name 30 other prog bands that should be in the Hall before the Sex Pistols.

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is simply a marketing bonanza...IT's not about how influential but who sold the most records....
I disagree in part. Yes, its a marketing gimmick to some extent. Yes it SHOULD be about influential bands, and in terms of influence, few would argue that massive influence Yes, Genesis and King Crimson have had, collectively and individually. I disagree that its about who sold a lot of records, because The Sex Pistols didn't really sell that many records. It shouldn't just be about record sales (that would leave bands like Velvet Underground out), but you also cannot ignore sales either. The prog groups I mentioned had both influence and sales.

The Sex Pistols of course won't show up, acting as if they are still making some anti-establishment statement, when we all know the real reason they won't show is because then they'd have to get up and actually play, and that would once again confirm how they truly sucked as a band, and it would confirm that they really pulled the wool over everyone's eyes for a year or so.
I was listening to the radio today and there was some discussion of this and apparently to attend the R&R HOF awards there is something like a $20k a plate (or perhaps its per table) fee so that the family members of the nominees can attend and that had a lot to do with why the Pistols wanted no part of it. Also the whole thing is a joke with the Hall of Fame being in Cleveland but being run entirely out of New York. Why aren't they doing the inductions at the Hall itself?

I also think the major punk bands deserve their spot and despite only having one album there is no denying that the Pistols have continued to influence numerous artists for nearly 30 years, even if it only serves as their introduction to punk. I've always far preferred the Clash between the two and can name probably 100 other punk bands I'd rather listen to but both belong in the hall of fame.


Personally, I hate prog rock but I think key prog bands deserve their spot as well. If its a "Hall of Fame" any band that is influential to multiple generations of artists belongs in it. Yes and Genesis seem to fit that bill and should be no brainers.

As far as shafting goes - two words: Black Sabbath. I wouldn't go so far as to say they invented a genre but they practically wrote the book on metal and their two main lead singers also had pretty decent solo careers to put it modestly.

I would say the HoF is a complete joke but a few years ago some of my best friends got married in Cleveland and I took the afternoon before to visit the Hall and had a great time, so go figure.

I was listening to the radio today and there was some discussion of this and apparently to attend the R&R HOF awards there is something like a $20k a plate (or perhaps its per table) fee so that the family members of the nominees can attend and that had a lot to do with why the Pistols wanted no part of it. Also the whole thing is a joke with the Hall of Fame being in Cleveland but being run entirely out of New York. Why aren't they doing the inductions at the Hall itself?

I also think the major punk bands deserve their spot and despite only having one album there is no denying that the Pistols have continued to influence numerous artists for nearly 30 years, even if it only serves as their introduction to punk. I've always far preferred the Clash between the two and can name probably 100 other punk bands I'd rather listen to but both belong in the hall of fame.


Personally, I hate prog rock but I think key prog bands deserve their spot as well. If its a "Hall of Fame" any band that is influential to multiple generations of artists belongs in it. Yes and Genesis seem to fit that bill and should be no brainers.

As far as shafting goes - two words: Black Sabbath. I wouldn't go so far as to say they invented a genre but they practically wrote the book on metal and their two main lead singers also had pretty decent solo careers to put it modestly.

I would say the HoF is a complete joke but a few years ago some of my best friends got married in Cleveland and I took the afternoon before to visit the Hall and had a great time, so go figure.
Black Sabbath is also being inducted this year, so they aren't shafted any longer. I'm not a Black Sabbath fan but they certainly have influenced an entire genre of music, so they belong.

Don't take my derision of the Sex Pistols as a slap on punk in general (despite what others may have you believe). While I certainly view progressive rock as a genre filled with many more talented musicians than punk, due in large part to the inherent punk ethic and its self imposed limitations, I have posted here that I am a fan of many bands that are punk and punk influenced (Ramones, Talking Heads, The Clash among the obvious, to Velvet influenced bands such as Sonic Youth, to Husker Du, Sugar etc), and many of those punk bands deserve to be in the Hall. I think unfortunately that the Sex Pistols got way too much press because they became a fashion statement more than a music group, and their alleged influence is vastly overstated and overrated. I bet that the number of punk or post punk bands that really listened to and were influenced by the MUSIC of the Sex Pistols is actually miniscule. Again, style over substance. They were a fashion statement, a political statement more than a band like The Who, who were in their time all about the music.

Certainly in terms of influence, Yes and Rush and King Crimson should be in there. Obviously prog rock isn't hot now, but neither is disco. But I can see how it wouldn't be considered rock and roll, since rock and roll is really about visceral effect, not intellectual appeal. I'd argue that some of Rush's and Yes' stuff is amazingly visceral, but most wouldn't agree.

The Sex Pistols, even if it was by accident, have been profoundly influential since they did their thing. Though it's hard to even see it sometimes in the music, there's a very thick line back from Green Day to The Sex Pistols.

I agree that Black Sabbath practically invented the entire metal genre, which has remained a huge thing amongst hormonally inflamed young men ever since. Get the perm, strap on the cucumber, and slam out some power chords. It's worked for decades.

I was listening to the radio today and there was some discussion of this and apparently to attend the R&R HOF awards there is something like a $20k a plate (or perhaps its per table) fee so that the family members of the nominees can attend and that had a lot to do with why the Pistols wanted no part of it. Also the whole thing is a joke with the Hall of Fame being in Cleveland but being run entirely out of New York. Why aren't they doing the inductions at the Hall itself?

I also think the major punk bands deserve their spot and despite only having one album there is no denying that the Pistols have continued to influence numerous artists for nearly 30 years, even if it only serves as their introduction to punk. I've always far preferred the Clash between the two and can name probably 100 other punk bands I'd rather listen to but both belong in the hall of fame.


Personally, I hate prog rock but I think key prog bands deserve their spot as well. If its a "Hall of Fame" any band that is influential to multiple generations of artists belongs in it. Yes and Genesis seem to fit that bill and should be no brainers.

As far as shafting goes - two words: Black Sabbath. I wouldn't go so far as to say they invented a genre but they practically wrote the book on metal and their two main lead singers also had pretty decent solo careers to put it modestly.

I would say the HoF is a complete joke but a few years ago some of my best friends got married in Cleveland and I took the afternoon before to visit the Hall and had a great time, so go figure.

Just a note: in the book "Bang Your Head. The rise and fall of heavy metal" It was said that the RRHOF did want to induct Sabbath, but Ozzy would have nothing to do with it saying that the people who vote you in never bought Sabbath record or went to a single Black Sabbath concert so that makes the whole thing a farce.

Certainly in terms of influence, Yes and Rush and King Crimson should be in there. Obviously prog rock isn't hot now, but neither is disco. But I can see how it wouldn't be considered rock and roll, since rock and roll is really about visceral effect, not intellectual appeal. I'd argue that some of Rush's and Yes' stuff is amazingly visceral, but most wouldn't agree.

The Sex Pistols, even if it was by accident, have been profoundly influential since they did their thing. Though it's hard to even see it sometimes in the music, there's a very thick line back from Green Day to The Sex Pistols.

I agree that Black Sabbath practically invented the entire metal genre, which has remained a huge thing amongst hormonally inflamed young men ever since. Get the perm, strap on the cucumber, and slam out some power chords. It's worked for decades.
I would trace Green Day back more to The Ramones than the Sex Pistols, much more of a bubblegum punk-pop band.
And I would argue that a completely underrated band like Roxy Music has been much more influential musically on all kinds of bands, including punk, than the Sex Pistols could ever dream of being. On top of that, how much respect can you have for a band that basically admitted they sounded like crap and really couldn't play a lick? How many of you out there frequently keep Sex Pistols music in your cd player? I thought so.

Black Sabbath is also being inducted this year, so they aren't shafted any longer. I'm not a Black Sabbath fan but they certainly have influenced an entire genre of music, so they belong.
You're right. The guy on the radio brought them up so I assumed (wrongly) that they had once again been given the shaft.

I do agree that the Pistols were fashion over function, they were afterall crafted in large part thanks to Malcom McClaren's interest in selling bondage wear, but they also did have a number of catchy songs for one album's worth of material. By accident or design they were a key part of launching something that was much larger than they were themselves.

I'd also certainly agree that prog rock musicians are far more talented musically than the majority of punk acts but I also confess that I prefer simple sing along music to sweeping musical epics. Its just a personal taste thing but its also why art is so hard to judge across genres. I think ultimately the rock hall will go through a major identity crisis over the next 20 something years when the majority of relevant musical acts coming through won't be "rock and roll" acts.

The Sex Pistols, The Clash and the Ramones are the most over rated bands in rock history. No arguing here, it's just my opinion :D

How can three bands that have as many detractors as die-hard devotees be the most overrated bands in history? The most overrated band in history is without a doubt The Beatles, not because they weren't great but because anyone who claims they were "the greatest" will likely go unchallenged. :)

On top of that, how much respect can you have for a band that basically admitted they sounded like crap and really couldn't play a lick?


You have to put it in perspective, in that that was kind of the point. It was a reaction to corporate rock acts that were enormous, bloated, and which had drifted close to Vegas in many ways than to the roots of rock and roll. So the whole point was to be anti-craft, and all about pure visceral impact and anti-establishment attitude.

Don't get me wrong, I grew up listening to The Eagles and Steely Dan and Alice Cooper and David Bowie, and love some of their stuff. But they'd drifted far from the roots of rock and roll in the 70s. Punk was about spitting at all that mega-corporate rock act thing, and going the other direction. As various people have said, Eddie Van Halen being the one I happen to remember off hand, there is an ~10 year cycle where the current music become more processed and more corporate and more bloated and slick, and then it all breaks back down and starts over, and then builds back up to the same old s!@t.

In terms of influence, The Beatles are about it, with perhaps Elvis having somewhat more in some ways. The Beatles basically created the modern, self contained, rock band. Their influence is tremendous and it would be hard to claim otherwise, even if you don't like them personally.

It was more food for thought, fuel for the fire and commentary on what "overrated" actually means than anything else.

Personally I do prefer Elvis and a number of 50s rock and roll acts (and quite frankly the Stones) to the Beatles but that's really beside the point.

The Sex Pistols, The Clash and the Ramones are the most over rated bands in rock history. No arguing here, it's just my opinion :D


Thats funny, those are 3 of my favorite punk bands of all time. I'm 38 and still listen to and go to old school punk shows. TSOL and 45 Grave just recently. To each their own I guess.

muncey

In terms of influence, The Beatles are about it, with perhaps Elvis having somewhat more in some ways. The Beatles basically created the modern, self contained, rock band. Their influence is tremendous and it would be hard to claim otherwise, even if you don't like them personally.


Absolutely. Bands like U2 play within the framework. The Beatles... Created the framework.

I would trace Green Day back more to The Ramones than the Sex Pistols, much more of a bubblegum punk-pop band.
And I would argue that a completely underrated band like Roxy Music has been much more influential musically on all kinds of bands, including punk, than the Sex Pistols could ever dream of being. On top of that, how much respect can you have for a band that basically admitted they sounded like crap and really couldn't play a lick? How many of you out there frequently keep Sex Pistols music in your cd player? I thought so.


I bought the Sex Pistols LP when it first came out. I thought it was some of the most horrible sounding trash I'd ever heard. And my poor turntable OD'd from a dirty needle. ;)

How many of you out there frequently keep Sex Pistols music in your cd player?
Never Mind the Bollocks is often heard in my house. It's one of my favorite albums.

Blondie? I bought Parallel Lines when it came out; I was and am underwhelmed. They were a good singles band, but I don't think they deserve the HoF. Roxy Music was much more influential, and in terms of the New York New Wave Scene, Television, Jonathan Richman (Modern Lovers), Richard Hell, Patti Smith (is she in the HoF?) and Talking Heads were much more influential and more deserving of HoF status.

As far as progressive, Yes, ELP, King Crimson, Rush and Genesis are being shafted. I also think that Jethro Tull is worthy, but their Grammy debacle helps to hurt them as well.

As far as progressive, Yes, ELP, King Crimson, Rush and Genesis are being shafted. I also think that Jethro Tull is worthy, but their Grammy debacle helps to hurt them as well.

I think it's safe to say that ELP had more talent in their hair clippings than the Sex Pistols did in there entire bodies. So yes, ELP is getting royaly shafted. Although, I do believe that Carl Palmer's $50K (and that was back when $50K was a lot of money) stainless steel custom-built drum set is displayed there. Which is now actually owned by Ringo Starr.

I think it's safe to say that ELP had more talent in their hair clippings than the Sex Pistols did in there entire bodies. So yes, ELP is getting royaly shafted.
It's tough to compare Progressive and Punk. Rock 'n Roll originally grew as Jazz became more technically complex to play-- Rock 'n Roll was a music anyone could play. Similarly, the Punk sub-genre grew out of a dissatisfaction with the growing technical complexity of the Progressive sub-genre-- it was again about music anyone could play.

It's tough to compare Progressive and Punk. Rock 'n Roll originally grew as Jazz became more technically complex to play-- Rock 'n Roll was a music anyone could play. Similarly, the Punk sub-genre grew out of a dissatisfaction with the growing technical complexity of the Progressive sub-genre-- it was again about music anyone could play.

That's true. Plus when you're talking about comparing music, it's subject to both taste and familiararity. Although I do think that basic talent level is a bit more quantifiable.

I would trace Green Day back more to The Ramones than the Sex Pistols, much more of a bubblegum punk-pop band.
And I would argue that a completely underrated band like Roxy Music has been much more influential musically on all kinds of bands, including punk, than the Sex Pistols could ever dream of being. On top of that, how much respect can you have for a band that basically admitted they sounded like crap and really couldn't play a lick? How many of you out there frequently keep Sex Pistols music in your cd player? I thought so.
Agreed. Greed Day is far more influenced by the Ramones.

The Ramones were by far the most influential and far reaching of the early punk bands. They showed that anyone with a passion can pick up an instrument and start making music. It demystified the music business. Their first tour of England directly inspired the members of The Clash, The Damned, The Sex Pistols, Siouxsie & the Banshees, and many more...kids who had a copy of their debut album then saw them play when they came through.

But if The Ramones were the fathers of Punk, it was Iggy & the Stooges, New York Dolls, and The MC5 who were the grandfathers. They weren't as directly influential, at least not initially, but they very much laid the foundation. All of those bands, though, (particularly New York Dolls) still held on to the "performance" part of the game...where The Ramones came out with a whole different attitude.

That's true. Plus when you're talking about comparing music, it's subject to both taste and familiararity. Although I do think that basic talent level is a bit more quantifiable.
Are you saying that Sid Vicious is (was) not as good a bass player than Greg Lake? :D

How can three bands that have as many detractors as die-hard devotees be the most overrated bands in history? The most overrated band in history is without a doubt The Beatles, not because they weren't great but because anyone who claims they were "the greatest" will likely go unchallenged. :)
I don't think any rational person who knows anything about rock music could argue against the fact that the Beatles are the most influential rock group in music history, whether you like to listen to them or not. The Beatles have influenced and are still influencing any kid that picks up a guitar and wants to play rock and roll, or sits down and starts writing a rock or pop song. Their influence is virtually incalculable, and thus they can NEVER be overrated because if anything, they will always be underrated by those that can't, don't or won't understand or appreciate their vast influence.

Agreed. Greed Day is far more influenced by the Ramones.

The Ramones were by far the most influential and far reaching of the early punk bands. They showed that anyone with a passion can pick up an instrument and start making music. It demystified the music business. Their first tour of England directly inspired the members of The Clash, The Damned, The Sex Pistols, Siouxsie & the Banshees, and many more...kids who had a copy of their debut album then saw them play when they came through.

But if The Ramones were the fathers of Punk, it was Iggy & the Stooges, New York Dolls, and The MC5 who were the grandfathers. They weren't as directly influential, at least not initially, but they very much laid the foundation. All of those bands, though, (particularly New York Dolls) still held on to the "performance" part of the game...where The Ramones came out with a whole different attitude.
I agree for the most part, although I think even the Ramones preceded Iggy and the Stooges by a few years didn't they? I remember when I first heard Beat the Brat at a party. I had this friend who played that over and over. I admit at first, being a serious connosiuer(sp) of bands I was discovering like Genesis, Yes and ELP at age 15, I pretty much dismissed the Ramones as kind of a one-trick joke. And of course, to some extent that was the point. I only later appreciated the back to basics influence they had, althought I always did like the clean guitar sound they had, as opposed to some later punk/thrash bands that ended up simply playing unlistenable sludge. And somewhat ironically maybe for some, that early Beatles simple guitar rock sound was a blueprint for much of what the Ramones did.

I just picked up a fascinating DVD called Punk on the Tomorrow Show with Tom Snyder. I haven't gotten all the way through it, but the parts I have seen are precious. First, rarely do you get to see live video of punk bands on TV. Have to hand it to Snyder, he had the foresight to put this on--The Damned, Iggy, Ramones, Patty Smith, and an absolutely hilarious and priceless interview with the Sex Pistols where Snyder is trying to understand their "anti-music" message (this was a few years after the Sex Pistols broke and Johnny Rotten had formed Public Image Ltd), and Rotten is being an absolutely uncooperative brat--the exchanges are priceless. The DVD has both the full interviews and live clips. Its kind of funny watching the somewhat unhip but trying to be hip Snyder question Paul Weller and Iggy etc on punk, which clearly mystifies Snyder. I highly recommend this DVD to anyone interested in punk rock or music history--this is the kind of stuff we need to see more of.

BTW, I also have a few MC5 albums and talk about some raw, kick ass rock, there is no doubt they influenced a lot of punk bands.

Re The New York Dolls, I see them as kind of posers who were trying to get in on the glam scene while playing more basic rock, but they seem far more interested in wearing makeup for shock value than actually trying to be good at music. There are a few clips of them on stuff like those Whiste Test DVDs and I find their music ability quite lame compared to the Ramones.

Every good prog rocker knows that the most creative use of facial makeup and costumes, long before Kiss, was none other than Peter Gabriel. Talk about your fascinating characters and costumes circa 1972-73.

I agree for the most part, although I think even the Ramones preceded Iggy and the Stooges by a few years didn't they?
The Stooges first album came out in 1969. Their third (and final) album came out in 1973.

The Ramones (self-titled first album) came out in 1976.

Iggy Pop's first solo album came out in 1977 (produced by David Bowie.)

And, yes, I agree the New York Dolls were more glam...but it was their disregard for becoming musical "technicians", and their "we don't care what you think of us" attitude that established them as a precursor to Punk.

Never Mind the Bollocks is often heard in my house. It's one of my favorite albums.

Blondie? I bought Parallel Lines when it came out; I was and am underwhelmed. They were a good singles band, but I don't think they deserve the HoF. Roxy Music was much more influential, and in terms of the New York New Wave Scene, Television, Jonathan Richman (Modern Lovers), Richard Hell, Patti Smith (is she in the HoF?) and Talking Heads were much more influential and more deserving of HoF status.

As far as progressive, Yes, ELP, King Crimson, Rush and Genesis are being shafted. I also think that Jethro Tull is worthy, but their Grammy debacle helps to hurt them as well.
I don't think Patti Smith is in yet but she probably will be soon. I always thought it was interesting that her biggest "hit" was the great Springsteen cover, Because the Night.
Re Springsteen, I think he gets shafted and not as much credit as he should for the return to roots rock thing that happened circa 1975 or so, really before punk really took off in America. At the same time the Ramones were beginning to do their thing around New York, Springsteen was playing garage rock/50's rock and roll Orbison/Eddie Cochran/Bo Diddley/Mitch Ryder in a much more raunchy style than was on the radio, which was becoming more slicked up with the Eagles etc. Springsteen was all about a return to rock and roll basics, yet he is never given credit for it as much as the punk movement was. And there is no doubt as to who did it better, and can still do it, long after the original punk bands are gone.

The Stooges first album came out in 1969. Their third (and final) album came out in 1973.

The Ramones (self-titled first album) came out in 1976.

Iggy Pop's first solo album came out in 1977 (produced by David Bowie.)

And, yes, I agree the New York Dolls were more glam...but it was their disregard for becoming musical "technicians", and their "we don't care what you think of us" attitude that established them as a precursor to Punk.
I guess I was thinking of Iggy's solo stuff then--I didn't realize those Stooges albums were that old.

I don't think any rational person who knows anything about rock music could argue against the fact that the Beatles are the most influential rock group in music history, whether you like to listen to them or not. The Beatles have influenced and are still influencing any kid that picks up a guitar and wants to play rock and roll, or sits down and starts writing a rock or pop song. Their influence is virtually incalculable, and thus they can NEVER be overrated because if anything, they will always be underrated by those that can't, don't or won't understand or appreciate their vast influence.

Interestingly, if you look at current demographics of buyers of Beatles music. There's a dip in sales in the late twenty to thirty something crowd. The sales to the older crowd is obvious. But the large sales to younger people is remarkable. I heard it explained that today's young people are getting back to more sophisticated pop music. And once doing that, they're discovering that all roads lead to The Beatles.

This might make me sound like a jerk, but why should it really matter to anyone as to who is inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? You can still buy all the Yes and Genesis albums you want regardless. Do you need validation? I like these bands and if they make it, good for them, but frankly, I don't need someone else telling me how important a band is or is not.

The Stooges were way before the Ramones-Funhouse was from the late 60's I think...

Her's the thing about the sex pistols. I fully understand what they were trying to do, which Dean stated as well as I've ever read. But there is a basic contradiction in saying your music is less about being smart and more about the primal feelings R+R causes, when you have to explain that before anyone can appreaciate your music. Did any of the founding fathers of rock the SP supposedly were trying to emulate feel compelled to explain the concept behind their sound before people heard it? They let the music stand on its own, and expected people to "get it." Elvis, or the Killer, or Buddy Holly, Little Richard, etc. didn't feel compelled to explain how their music was more about sensation than thought before people could listen to it. The SP always seemed more an intellectual concept to me than actual music, much more so than the progressive bands they held so much scorn for. As good as their goal sounds in theory, it always seemed to me to be more of a rational to explain why they didn't sound very good.

Re Springsteen, I think he gets shafted and not as much credit as he should for the return to roots rock thing that happened circa 1975 or so, really before punk really took off in America. At the same time the Ramones were beginning to do their thing around New York, Springsteen was playing garage rock/50's rock and roll Orbison/Eddie Cochran/Bo Diddley/Mitch Ryder in a much more raunchy style than was on the radio, which was becoming more slicked up with the Eagles etc. Springsteen was all about a return to rock and roll basics, yet he is never given credit for it as much as the punk movement was. And there is no doubt as to who did it better, and can still do it, long after the original punk bands are gone.
I think that Springsteen's emergence as "The New Dylan" in the 70s overshadowed his contribution to roots rock.

The SP always seemed more an intellectual concept to me than actual music ...
Sex Pistols --> intellectual concept? I think they were more like an ironic marketing joke on disaffected youth and record companies (at least according to The Great Rock 'n Roll Swindle). They just happened to accidentally make one great, incredibly rocking album in the process.

There is an excellent Ramones documentary that came out recently on DVD, called The Band of the Centure (I think that's right.)

Sex Pistols --> intellectual concept? I think they were more like an ironic marketing joke on disaffected youth and record companies (at least according to The Great Rock 'n Roll Swindle). They just happened to accidentally make one great, incredibly rocking album in the process.

Yep. They were the brainchild of Malcom McClaren (sp?), who set out to create a "look" and a sub-culture more than anything. They basically recorded one album, released at "Never Mind the Bollocks", then repackaged those same songs with some of the b-sides over and over as compilations. Here are just two of such releases:

The Great Rock 'n Roll Swindle
Flogging a Dead Horse

Pretty funny when you think about it. They laughed all the way to the bank.

The Sex Pistols and the Romones (two terribly untalented bands) didn't invent the punk sound. That distinction goes to The Velvet Underground in some of their earliest efforts. White Light/White Heat invented the sound that both bands lifted almost as is.

The first band to take the Underground's sound to new heights was "The Clash". Without the Clash, punk would have died a sudden and more widely ridiculed death than disco. But Stumer, Jones and co. kept what was cool about punk and gave it substance and musicality. IMO they were the Rolling Stones of Punk and were head and shoulders above any punk band before or since. Green Day? Offspring? Both decent bands, but too derivative to matter.

BTW, there can be no bias or standard where Blondie could be considered more important or influential than Yes or Genesis (not to mention ELP, Tull, Crimson, etc.). Geesh, I'm feeling pretty sure of myself today. :o

The Sex Pistols and the Romones (two terribly untalented bands) didn't invent the punk sound. That distinction goes to The Velvet Underground in some of their earliest efforts.
The Who's My Generation pre-dates that.

This might make me sound like a jerk, but why should it really matter to anyone as to who is inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? You can still buy all the Yes and Genesis albums you want regardless. Do you need validation? I like these bands and if they make it, good for them, but frankly, I don't need someone else telling me how important a band is or is not.
Neither do I, but this is a discussion forum. I guess we should ban all discussion of Oscars, Grammys and the like because those things don't dictate what music or movies I purchase, but people discuss them. Better yet, why don't we all hole up in our rooms and just play our albums and not converse with anyone in the outside world, god forbid we should ever discuss anything or possibly share differing points of view. Sheesh, lighten up Francis.

The Sex Pistols and the Romones (two terribly untalented bands) didn't invent the punk sound.
Punk wasn't a sound. Never was. You'll find *widely* differing "sounds" in the Punk genre. Punk was an attitude, and a belief that music was for the masses...not just to listen to, but to create. That's why the Ramones were so influential. They inspired those who came after them to pick up instruments and start a band. Without The Ramones there would have been no Clash...

Sex Pistols --> intellectual concept? I think they were more like an ironic marketing joke on disaffected youth and record companies (at least according to The Great Rock 'n Roll Swindle). They just happened to accidentally make one great, incredibly rocking album in the process.
As Johnny Rotten shouted out to the crowd in one of their last concerts in S.F.--"Do you ever get the feeling you've been taken?"

The Sex Pistols knew they were a bunch of talentless malcontents put together as a fashion and political marketing tool. In that sense, they differ little from another talentless band, Kiss. Interestingly, I have read that Johnny Rotten actually was a Captain Beefheart and Can fan, not a big fan of roots rock and roll. And so the sham continues....

The Who's My Generation pre-dates that.
I agree. In many ways the first truly "punk" band was The Who. And the difference between the Who and many punk bands was that the Who actually kicked A when they played.

The Beatles have influenced and are still influencing any kid that picks up a guitar and wants to play rock and roll, or sits down and starts writing a rock or pop song. Their influence is virtually incalculable, and thus they can NEVER be overrated because if anything, they will always be underrated by those that can't, don't or won't understand or appreciate their vast influence.
Like I said, it was just food for thought, but let me add that I'm rather heavily involved in the rockabilly/roots rock scene. The majority of the music being played in this scene pre-dates the Beatles, I routinely see the handful of living artists whos careers pre-date the Beatles and a number of current bands that are influenced by these artists, cover their songs and write their own songs in the same roots/americana style which pre-dates the Beatles. If they were to list their influences they would all pre-date the Beatles. Let's not forget that the Beatles started out doing rather lousy covers of American rock and roll tunes. So while they may very well be the greatest band ever according to most measures, I still stand by my comment because of notions like these that go widely undebated that everyone that picks up an instrument does so because of the Beatles because I know for a fact that that just isn't true. I mean the very same argument made that people can't/won't/don't understand or appreciate their influence could very well be made for all the 50s rock acts that go widely unrecognized or underappreciated to this day without which bands like the Beatles would likely never have existed as we know them. That's all I'm saying, of course they're great.

The Sex Pistols and the Romones (two terribly untalented bands) didn't invent the punk sound. That distinction goes to The Velvet Underground in some of their earliest efforts. White Light/White Heat invented the sound that both bands lifted almost as is.


I disagree that the Ramones were untalented. I would say they were talented at what they did, but what they did (perfecting 3 chord rock) was limited and somewhat narrow. But they were very good at what they did do---incorporate girl group vocals of the early 60s, Beach Boys girl songs, and basic 3 chord rock, inject it with some twists and humor, and play straight ahead clean guitar riffs. There is no comparison btw The Sex Pistols and the Ramones IMO. So the Ramones had talent, but it was limited and they were very good at what they did in that narrow window.

I agree that as an influence, when you look not only at punk, but post punk, indie rock, shoegazer etc, Velvet Underground was and still is hugely influential. I have frequently posted about their influence on some of my favorite bands---Stereolab, Cowboy Junkies, Yo La Tengo, Sonic Youth and the list goes on.

I mean the very same argument made that people can't/won't/don't understand or appreciate their influence could very well be made for all the 50s rock acts that go widely unrecognized or underappreciated to this day without which bands like the Beatles would likely never have existed as we know them. That's all I'm saying, of course they're great.


That's true, but when you are talking about influence, the people on the other side of The Beatles who don't look any further back than that to see where The Beatles came from, by definition, aren't influenced directly by those precursor artists. They are indirectly influenced, but if you include that, then some Greek guy with a lute is probably the all time undisputed greatest influence of all time on western music.

As Johnny Rotten shouted out to the crowd in one of their last concerts in S.F.--"Do you ever get the feeling you've been taken?"

The Sex Pistols knew they were a bunch of talentless malcontents put together as a fashion and political marketing tool. In that sense, they differ little from another talentless band, Kiss. Interestingly, I have read that Johnny Rotten actually was a Captain Beefheart and Can fan, not a big fan of roots rock and roll. And so the sham continues....
I hate to be pedantic, but he actually said "cheated," not "taken." :D

Indeed, the "swindle" in The Great Rock 'n Roll Swindle, is the marketing and selling of the Sex Pistols. In it, Malcolm McLaren lists the steps to perpetrate the swindle. They include "make sure they can't play," and "make sure they hate each other." There's a great metaphorical scene where, after the public breakup of the band, Paul Cook (drums) and Steve Jones (guitar) travel to South America where they meet and record with Ronny Biggs (of great train robbery (in)fame)-- this is a meeting of what McLaren claims to be the two greatest successful crimes committed in the U.K.

It's also no surprise that the Sex Pistols' 96 reunion tour was called "The Filthy Lucre Tour."

That's true, but when you are talking about influence, the people on the other side of The Beatles who don't look any further back than that to see where The Beatles came from, by definition, aren't influenced directly by those precursor artists. They are indirectly influenced, but if you include that, then some Greek guy with a lute is probably the all time undisputed greatest influence of all time on western music.
Very true but a lot of current music owes just as much if not more to 50s rock than what is considered the revolutionary period of the Beatles' music. The early punk movement itself was a move back to the simplicity of pre-Beatles rock which is why they were all covering Eddie Cochran, Vince Taylor and similar artists.

Like I said, it was just food for thought, but let me add that I'm rather heavily involved in the rockabilly/roots rock scene. The majority of the music being played in this scene pre-dates the Beatles, I routinely see the handful of living artists whos careers pre-date the Beatles and a number of current bands that are influenced by these artists, cover their songs and write their own songs in the same roots/americana style which pre-dates the Beatles. If they were to list their influences they would all pre-date the Beatles. Let's not forget that the Beatles started out doing rather lousy covers of American rock and roll tunes. So while they may very well be the greatest band ever according to most measures, I still stand by my comment because of notions like these that go widely undebated that everyone that picks up an instrument does so because of the Beatles because I know for a fact that that just isn't true. I mean the very same argument made that people can't/won't/don't understand or appreciate their influence could very well be made for all the 50s rock acts that go widely unrecognized or underappreciated to this day without which bands like the Beatles would likely never have existed as we know them. That's all I'm saying, of course they're great.
You are talking about influences and I am talking about revolutionary and evolutionary advancement of an art form. Obviously the Beatles were influenced by the very music you are talking about--they were big fans of Carl Perkins, Eddie Cochran etc as well as Chuck Berry, Little Richard. Every musician has influences.

Where the Beatles take the next step forward beyond what those great artists did is they were an integral part of a whole societal change in the mid 60s, and they went from singing and playing nice little pop tunes to writing (with Dylan's huge influence) incredible works of poetry that evolved way beyond Be Bop a Lu La. The idea that a teen pop band in 1965 could write a 'serious' ballad like Yesterday was unprecedented at the time. The idea that you could take a pop song and meld it with a chamber orchestra and sing a song about death (Eleanor Rigby) in 1965 was so beyond what had been done up to that point in popular music that it is hard to fathom unless you really know that era or lived it. The idea that you would use songs as a way to comment on society and protest a war, before Dylan and the Beatles was unheard of for the most part. The idea that you would sell an ALBUM of commonly linked thematic songs was virtually unheard of until the mid 60s. The whole process of RECORDING an album with different sounds beyond guitar, bass, drums and vocal was virtually nonexistent before the Beatles in the mid 60s.

So, yes, 50's rock and roll certainly influenced the Beatles, but as great as Carl Perkins was, and even as influential as Elvis was, that type of music did not introduce a fundamental paradigm shift in society and pop culture---that did not occur until Dylan and the Beatles in the mid 60s. That kind of revolution/evolution only occurs in culture once every 50 years or so, if even that IMO. That's why their influence is immeasurable, and I think people under age 40 have difficulty assessing it because they have lived in the world the Beatles helped form their whole life.

but as great as Carl Perkins was, and even as influential as Elvis was, that type of music did not introduce a fundamental paradigm shift in society and pop culture
Now hold up a minute... Elvis and other white performers that played "colored" music getting on the radio in 54 is a very huge part of the beginning of the breakdown of the color barrier in this country. We're still fighting that fight and for every step forward during that era there was probably a step back but it was early rock and roll that was largely responsible for getting the growing amount of suburbanized white youth exposed to a culture they were segregated from.

Now hold up a minute... Elvis and other white performers that played "colored" music getting on the radio in 54 is a very huge part of the beginning of the breakdown of the color barrier in this country. We're still fighting that fight and for every step forward during that era there was probably a step back but it was early rock and roll that was largely responsible for getting the growing amount of suburbanized white youth exposed to a culture they were segregated from.
I'll give you that but the black population sees it more as Elvis the white boy stealing rhythm and blues and calling it his own and making big money off of it.

The Who's My Generation pre-dates that.

I never thought of The Who as a punk band, and can't think of any punk sounding songs they've done. But then again I've never heard the "My Generation" album. From what I recall though I'd consider their earliest stuff to be more garage band psychedelia than punk (Magic Bus, I Can See for Miles, My Generation, etc.)

I never thought of The Who as a punk band, and can't think of any punk sounding songs they've done. But then again I've never heard the "My Generation" album. From what I recall though I'd consider their earliest stuff to be more garage band psychedelia than punk (Magic Bus, I Can See for Miles, My Generation, etc.)
Again, I think in terms of attitude, the Who predated what the punk movement later tried to recapture. Also, listen to their first few years worth of songs, typified by stuff like I Can't Explain. The inability to communicate your feelings for a girl was a Ramones staple. Stuff like I Can See for Miles and Magic Bus was a little bit later and yes, was more psychedelic influenced, although that's about as far as it went.

If you see early films of The Who playing My Generation, they clearly were in the Punk channel in their own way. You can't blame them that they didn't also come up with tattoos and various forms of self mutilation, but they were definitely at that point doing something not unlike punk. Later, as happens with any band that survives and grows, they became much more technically proficient and branched out a lot. But My Generation is pretty dang punk in spirit, and a punk band could have covered it 20 years later and it wouldn't have sounded at all out of place. It would have been faster and sloppier probably.

Here is a link to nice article that does a pretty good job at trying to explain why The Beatles were so great:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12102061_1

Here is a link to nice article that does a pretty good job at trying to explain why The Beatles were so great:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12102061_1
Great article, and actually says much better much of what I said in post #52.

I never thought of The Who as a punk band, and can't think of any punk sounding songs they've done. But then again I've never heard the "My Generation" album. From what I recall though I'd consider their earliest stuff to be more garage band psychedelia than punk (Magic Bus, I Can See for Miles, My Generation, etc.)
My Generation is considered by many to be the first true punk song-- from the nihilist lyrics to the two chord guitar riff that can be played by anyone with two fingers. Their early live shows (Monterray-era) were as much about the decadent performace art of anarchy as they were about playing songs-- very punk.

Pete Townshend called the album Who Are You, The Who's punk album. He also dedicated his (semi-improvised) solo song Rough Boys to the Sex Pistols.

OK - I heard about this thread and had to jump in with my own jerky comments. First off, I'll proudly say The Beatles weren't "The Greatest" (although the Hamburg stuff showed some promise that rather quickly went away). I am not going to attempt to contribute my own punk influence history, but y'all should probably listen to Gecko - he certainly seems to get it.

Re: Sex Pistols - first off, some of you are buying Malcolm McLaren's crap - the Sex Pistols were not originally a gimmick that he master-planned, despite the story told in Swindle (the movie - btw, Swindle has plenty of stuff that was not previously released on/in it). He got the idea to pull together a band after he went around with (aka. babysat) the NY Dolls for a period of time in the US. He thought - hey, here's something I could get to really take off in the UK, but he sort of forced the issue as events were unrolling - beginning with the Pistols (rather, Malcolm) getting paid for them to NOT play. He was a master at taking credit for things that occured, and The Pistols were really good at making things "occur" without even trying. It was pretty easy then, given the tenor of the times. The whole thing would really be pretty funny overall if Malcolm had filtered some of that free money down to them. Someone (gecko, possibly - I only scanned this thread) mentioned the Ramones influencing The Pistols - very true - John Lydon (Rotten) snuck into a show on their first UK tour and felt that if they could do it, he could. While I don't agree with the wording used in their letter, re the HOF induction (it was pretty stupid), I agree with the sentiment. I think the induction essentially does them a disservice. This coming from someone who's gotta have listened to Bollocks hundreds of times over the decades I've been listening to/following punk - seems pathetic to me to be able to say decades now, but that's what it is...

And I think a lot of you are missing the point of what punk was originally - and still can be. To even mention Green Day kind of proves that. Just because you can buy your Green Day or Good Charlotte, etc. CD at Hot Topic does not make them punk (Heh). Green Day and their ilk is barely related to punk. Lest you've forgotten - or don't know - early on, Green Day would double-book shows, then figure out which one would have an A&R guy there, or which one was going to pay them more, and play that one. I can personally assure you that there's reasons beyond "going to college" that the original drummer left...

As far as The Ramones go, yes, they are most known for 3 chord punk rock (I prefer one less chord whenever possible myself), but don't forget they went beyond that at times. The first album is really about short, fast simple music. And an album that a dj wouldn't be able to get out of, due to the short dead wax between tracks. Match that up with the latest Rush or Black Sabbath or any other number of bands at the time and you start to get the picture. Although they were "playing" live for quite some time before that first album. And it wasn't always just 3 chord - you have slightly later stuff like Weasel Face and Endless Vacation. Those are too fast for me to even count - uh, well, actually, I don't even care to try.

A few people have brought up "My Generation" - frankly, to me, the only thing worth ever listening to from The Who is the My Generation import - notoriously under-produced, and while kind of boring at times, certainly is a precedent to what punk moved to. And yes, The Stooges (with Iggy) started well before The Ramones. Although Iggy wasn't diving into broken glass a whole lot until around the time of The Ramones.

However, people like to harken back to the big names when talking about later influences - let's not forget the bands that have been influenced by the hundreds (or more) Killed By Death - type bands that were there in the early days (who were similarly influenced by bands like the Pistols, The Ramones, The Dead Boys, The Damned, The Germs, The Weirdos, The Dils, and numerous other) who have *since* influenced others. This is why this whole "who's influenced by whom" thing can get out of hand.

Greyskies: one thing to remember with "The Filthy Lucre Tour" naming is that the phrase "Filthy Lucre" originated from the media originally in regards to the aforementioned getting paid to not play (although it was not meant to be complimentary). Also, I realize you were kidding, but yeah, Sid Vicious wasn't that great at bass - of course, this coming from someone who is good friends with someone who refers to himself as a "bass holder," but what did that matter (rhetorical question)? He was picked up after Glen Matlock left because he jumped around at Pistols shows and was just a bit of violent, which at that point, fit perfectly into what The Pistols were becoming - particularly in Malcolm's eyes at that time. Partly known for being kicked out of Siouxsie and the Banshees (where he briefly drummed) and for being in Jah Wobble's The Flowers of Romance before that (which eventually became Lydon's PIL), he was also known for being at pretty much all of The Pistols shows as well as being friends with Johnny.

And what does any of this matter in regards to the "esteemed" Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame? Why would anyone even care to be in it, except for reasons of pure vanity? Although, I am sure Green Day would be excited to be inducted.

I did kind of chuckle at the reverence Yes has received in this thread. Yep, nothing better than "Don't Kill Whales - Dig It, Dig It." And yeah, I would agree that the HOF is basically a sham and really doesn't mean anything. You can still get your Yes CD's - should you get any enjoyment from them in the first place, would you get more enjoyment from them if Rick Wakeman et al. were inducted into the HOF? Maybe, but if so, I guess I just don't understand that...

wow, lurch, great post. I've never cared too much for punk but after reading your post I've got a better understanding of why others do. You express your passion and knowledge very clearly=thank you.

So much for my "differing point of view", you sure put me in my place squonk.

Okay, a couple of people have brought up why we even care who's in the R&RHOF. The fact is, it's an honor to be inducted. But it makes the HOF look like a big joke when acts like the Sex Pistols are inducted, and other great acts like ELP have been ignored. Especially since ELP was one of the most innovative bands of the 70's. In fact, if I had to pick just two bands as the most innovative of the 70's, it would be ELP and Pink Floyd. So to see a joke band like the Sex Pistols inducted, who were more-famous-than-listened-to, makes me just simply want to laugh at them, and say they really need to lay off of the drugs.

So to see a joke band like the Sex Pistols inducted, who were more-famous-than-listened-to, makes me just simply want to laugh at them, and say they really need to lay off of the drugs.
I had some fun yesterday picking on the Sex Pistols, but like I said in my first post in this thread-- Never Mind the Bollocks is often played in my house, and I firmly believe that it's one of the greatest rock albums ever recorded.

So much for my "differing point of view", you sure put me in my place squonk.
Its not about trying to put someone in their place. Its about accepting that people may want to discuss something and not trying to muzzle a discussion. If you aren't interested, read another thread. No one has a gun to your head.

I did kind of chuckle at the reverence Yes has received in this thread. Yep, nothing better than "Don't Kill Whales - Dig It, Dig It."


If that's the extent of your knowledge of Yes, then you obviously need to educate yourself a little more on progressive rock.
The bottom line is that while ultimately in terms of what I listen to it doesn't matter at all whether the Sex Pistols are in the Hall and Yes is not, since they do have the honor and since people do take an interest in it, and since people are influenced by this type of honor, rightly or wrongly, it is patently absurd that a band that put one album out who admit themselves they couldn't play a lick and the whole enterprise was somewhat of a joke is in, yet a band with more musical talent and knowledge in their pinkie fingers, who have a 35 year career and dozens of albums, including some of the seminal albums that define a whole genre of rock music is not in. And the reason is simply based on the music bias' of a few people like Jan Wenner who runs the thing.

There are far more people chuckling that the Sex Pistols are Rock and Roll Hall of Famers than would be if Yes were inducted. Including the Sex Pistols themselves.

wow, lurch, great post. I've never cared too much for punk but after reading your post I've got a better understanding of why others do. You express your passion and knowledge very clearly=thank you.

I agree. Great post.

For those interested, here are a few DVD's worth checking out. None are perfect, but taken as a whole they present a pretty good look at the era, the music, and the bands. There is some fantastic archival footage, interviews, etc. strewn about these discs:

Punk - Attitude
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000993W9S/qid=1142442928/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-1876269-1220826?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130

Punk: Early Years
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000CBY19/qid=1142442976/sr=1-15/ref=sr_1_15/002-1876269-1220826?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130

The Filth and the Fury - A Sex Pistols Film
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00003CXHM/ref=pd_sim_d_1/002-1876269-1220826?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=130
(Note: while much of this film is revisionist in nature, there is plenty of great archival footage and interviews, and enough they got "right" to make it worth a look.)

End of the Century - The Story of the Ramones
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000642JG8/ref=pd_sim_d_4/002-1876269-1220826?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=130

The Clash - Westway to the World
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000063UQN/qid=1142443526/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-1876269-1220826?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=130

(Here are a couple from the second wave - early 80's)

X (The Band) - The Unheard Music
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006L0LM0/ref=reg_hu-wl_mrai-recs/002-1876269-1220826?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=130

Another State of Mind
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002NRS0U/qid=1142443784/sr=1-32/ref=sr_1_32/002-1876269-1220826?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130

The Decline of Western Civilization (the first one)
This appears to be out of print? May have to find a copy on ebay.

There are other DVD's, to be sure, but these will give anyone a good overview (and some great music.) Having been a pre-pubescent Punk during the first wave in the late 70's, these DVD's capture the times pretty well.

Additionally, here are some movies that aren't about "punk" per se, but very much capture the social climate of the times, and help explain how the punk movment took off and resonated with the youth of the day:

Over the Edge (1979)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000A0GOEG/qid=1142444231/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-1876269-1220826?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130
(Seriously, if you haven't seen this movie, rent or buy it now. This is one of the best teen-angst movies of all time. Shot in 1979, and featuring a young Matt Dillon in his first ever film role, the movie perfectly captures the late 70's move to suburbia, and it's a great time-capsule of the times...The movie shows what happens when a new housing community is built miles from town, complete with a tennis club and other niceties for the middle class parents...but they completely forget about the kids. Plans for a bowling alley and movie theater are put on hold when an out of state developer wants the land for something else. The one place the kids have to hang out...a rec center...is closed due to underage drinking and pot smoking. This movie captures the spirit and feelings of late 70's youth very well, and shows exactly how and why the punk movement was able to take hold on a large part of that generation.)

Times Square (1980)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004Y6AT/qid=1142444570/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-1876269-1220826?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130
(Much more of a "hollywood" film, trying to tap into the growing punk movement...but very much worth a look. I saw this in the early 80's, and loved it. Bought the DVD last year, and still loved it. The soundtrack is *phenominal*, and the movie does a decent job of portraying the decay of late 70's New York City and it's disafected youth.)

Suburbia (1983)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BRMMJO/qid=1142444933/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-1876269-1220826?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130
(Directed by Penelope Spheeris, who directed Decline of Western Civilization, this movie is about a group of runaways and orphans. It's a very good movie.)

I would add that Tomorrow Show with Tom Snyder Punk DVD I mentioned previously is a fascinating interview and live performance look at punk as it appeared on network TV. I also have the Letts DVD Punk Attitude and the Ramones and Clash DVDs.

A few people have brought up "My Generation" - frankly, to me, the only thing worth ever listening to from The Who is the My Generation import - notoriously under-produced, and while kind of boring at times, certainly is a precedent to what punk moved to.


So you are also dismissing virtually the entire ouput of one of the greatest bands ever? Including Who's Next? Seriously?

This movie captures the spirit and feelings of late 70's youth very well, and shows exactly how and why the punk movement was able to take hold on a large part of that generation.)

A more interesting question would be why the punk movement came and went so quickly and never really took root in the US as it did in Europe. Everyone gets rebellion, and every generation has their form of it. But why did punk so easily degenerate into the new wave fluff synth pop of the 80s and get drowned out by the disco explosion of the late 70s? Sure, it stayed underground and many bands in various forms kept at it without commercial success, but as a social phenomenon it died a rather quick death, which in light of the economic depression of the early 80s and the administration of Reagan you would think the climate would have been ripe for a much bigger punk explosion.

First off, I'll proudly say The Beatles weren't "The Greatest" (although the Hamburg stuff showed some promise that rather quickly went away).


quickly went away? Huh?

A more interesting question would be why the punk movement came and went so quickly and never really took root in the US as it did in Europe. Everyone gets rebellion, and every generation has their form of it. But why did punk so easily degenerate into the new wave fluff synth pop of the 80s and get drowned out by the disco explosion of the late 70s? Sure, it stayed underground and many bands in various forms kept at it without commercial success, but as a social phenomenon it died a rather quick death, which in light of the economic depression of the early 80s and the administration of Reagan you would think the climate would have been ripe for a much bigger punk explosion.
The US (save the infamous NY bankrupcy) was not as economically depressed as the UK. The widespread youth nihilism that begot the punk explosion in the UK was not endemic to the US and so punk did not achieve widespread popularity in the US until it manifested itself as "grunge" in the early 90s.

But why did 70s punk degenerate? Some of the answer is in the maturation of the musicians-- The Clash embraced reggae, Joy Division embraced synths-- as the musician continues to play, he plays better and naturally, he wants to put that into his music. And if he doesn't, each record sounds like the last.

A more interesting question would be why the punk movement came and went so quickly and never really took root in the US as it did in Europe. Everyone gets rebellion, and every generation has their form of it. But why did punk so easily degenerate into the new wave fluff synth pop of the 80s and get drowned out by the disco explosion of the late 70s? Sure, it stayed underground and many bands in various forms kept at it without commercial success, but as a social phenomenon it died a rather quick death, which in light of the economic depression of the early 80s and the administration of Reagan you would think the climate would have been ripe for a much bigger punk explosion.
It didn't come and go...

It was very much alive all throughout the Reagan years. The LA punk scene, in particular, flourished in the 80's. Bands like X, Black Flag, Circle Jerks, Descendents, Social Distortion, The Germs, J.F.A, Dead Kennedy's, and many many more helped fuel the fire for another decade or so.

The "New Wave" stuff, initially, was the "New Wave of Punk", and had much of the same attituted, but with a different style of music. The synth-pop stuff was NOT "New Wave." That's a common misnomer.

Having been in high school in the early/mid 80's, and college until the early 90's, I can tell you without question that punk as a social phenomenon was alive and well. It had become a bit commercial by the end of the 80's, but up until about '87/'88, it was very much alive and real. Watch "Decline of Western Civilazion" for a good look at the 80's LA punk scene. Better yet, see if you can dig up the album covers and show flyers of so many of those bands...they tended to be very political in nature.

BTW, I did not grow up in LA, but very much felt the effects of the punk scene where I was. And remember, "skateboarding is not a crime." :D

The US (save the infamous NY bankrupcy) was not as economically depressed as the UK. The widespread youth nihilism that begot the punk explosion in the UK was not endemic to the US and so punk did not achieve widespread popularity in the US until it manifested itself as "grunge" in the early 90s.
Not so fast...The late 70's in the US had rampant "stagflation" (high inflation coupled with an anemically slow economy), high unemployment rates, and a severe gas crisis. Remember the "A and B" days? Gas lines two blocks long?

It was very much alive all throughout the Reagan years. The LA punk scene, in particular, flourished in the 80's. Bands like X, Black Flag, Circle Jerks, Descendents, Social Distortion, The Germs, J.F.A, Dead Kennedy's, and many many more helped fuel the fire for another decade or so.
It was still niche in the US, not mainstream. Remember, G_d Save the Queen hit no. 1 on the UK charts.

Not so fast...The late 70's in the US had rampant "stagflation" (high inflation coupled with an anemically slow economy), high unemployment rates, and a severe gas crisis. Remember the "A and B" days? Gas lines two blocks long?
Even though I was only in junior high, I remember it. And each car in line had 3/4 of a tank already. :D But the economic situation in the US was still nothing compared to the UK.

The lines were long because we still had the money to afford gas.:)
It was hard times but nothing compared to what GB was like at the time.

I would add that Tomorrow Show with Tom Snyder Punk DVD I mentioned previously is a fascinating interview and live performance look at punk as it appeared on network TV. I also have the Letts DVD Punk Attitude and the Ramones and Clash DVDs.
I meant to add that one...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BTD91W/qid=1142449682/sr=11-1/ref=sr_11_1/002-1876269-1220826?n=130

It was still niche in the US, not mainstream. Remember, G_d Save the Queen hit no. 1 on the UK charts.


Even though I was only in junior high, I remember it. And each car in line had 3/4 of a tank already. :D But the economic situation in the US was still nothing compared to the UK.
It may have not been mainstream *radio*, but it was very widespread and in every corner of the US.

And, yes, economically the UK was worse off than the US...but the US wasn't exactly peaches.

Add to that the self-indulgant behavior of many adults during the mid-late 70's, how family life began to suffer, and the largest move to suburbia since the 50's...and you get a good idea of how disaffected kids in the US were during that time.

It may have not been mainstream *radio*, but it was very widespread and in every corner of the US.

And, yes, economically the UK was worse off than the US...but the US wasn't exactly peaches.

Add to that the self-indulgant behavior of many adults during the mid-late 70's, how family life began to suffer, and the largest move to suburbia since the 50's...and you get a good idea of how disaffected kids in the US were during that time.
Which is probably why I started listening to it in the 80s. :)

I certainly appreciate the punk thing, and like a lot of it. But bands like Yes or King Crimson or Rush created music that showed where the popular music genre can go, of a level of complexity that stands up against classical or jazz levels of technical and musical capabilities. I'm all for a few kids strapping it on and doing primal scream therapy over power chords, and it's created some great music. But the best progressive rock bands speak to the other side of the brain, and it's just kind of unfortunate that more people don't like to have both hemispheres equally massaged.

First off, I'll proudly say The Beatles weren't "The Greatest" (although the Hamburg stuff showed some promise that rather quickly went away)

The hamburg stuff was primarily the Beatles doing cover versions of songs from the 50's and early 60's not sure what you mean by this?

The Beatles whether you like them or not are generally considered the most influential group in history.
They also have the greatest record sales in history.

I would be suprised if there is another entertainment act in our lifetime that equals the impact the Beatles had on the world.

Long live John, Paul, George and Ringo

Previously I listed some movies, now it's time for CD's. I've narrowed it down to a single box set. For those wanting to get a broad overview of the various types of punk being created in the 70's, look no further than:

No Thanks! The '70s Punk Rebellion [BOX SET] (Rhino Records)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000DD539/qid=1142455404/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-1876269-1220826?s=music&v=glance&n=5174

This is a *great* box set, and comes with a terrific companion booklet. While impossible to include EVERY band, this set contains a great cross-section. The big notable exception is the lack of Sex Pistols (it was a licensing thing...) Pick up "Never Mind the Bollocks" and you're all set.

You could buy this box set and leave it at that, getting a great mix of tunes from the big name bands (Clash, Ramones, etc.), and from lesser known to the masses (X-Ray Specs, Adverts, etc.) Or, you could use this as a starting point, picking up individual CD's of the bands you really liked. Or, like some of us, this box set fills in a few small holes, but otherwise all of this music already exists in our collection on either vinyl or CD...but was worth the purchase for the booklet and the few hard to find gems we were having trouble locating.

Enjoy!

Here's the band/song list:


Disc: 1
1. Blitzkrieg Bop - Ramones
2. White Riot - The Clash
3. Heart Of The City - Nick Lowe
4. Boredom - Buzzcocks featuring Howard Devoto
5. (I'm) Stranded - The Saints
6. Neat Neat Neat - The Damned
7. In The City - The Jam
8. Final Solution - Pere Ubu
9. Roadrunner - The Modern Lovers
10. Little Johnny Jewel - Television
11. One Chord Wonders - The Adverts
12. Born To Lose - The Heartbreakers
13. Search And Destroy - Iggy & The Stooges
14. Let Me Dream If I Want To (Amphetamine Blues) - Mink DeVille
15. Oh Bondage Up Yours! - X-Ray Spex
16. 1 2 X U - Wire
17. Blank Generation - Richard Hell & The Voidoids
18. (Get A) Grip (On Yourself) - The Stranglers
19. Cherry Bomb - The Runaways
20. Personality Crisis - New York Dolls
21. Teenage Depression - Eddie & The Hot Rods
22. Two Tub Man - The Dictators
23. Hey Joe (Version) - Patti Smith
24. Your Generation - Generation X

Disc: 2
1. Lust For Life - Iggy Pop
2. Gary Gilmore's Eyes - The Adverts
3. Satday Night In The City Of The Dead - Ultravox!
4. What Do I Get? - Buzzcocks
5. X Offender - Blondie
6. Lookin' After No. 1 - The Boomtown Rats
7. Don't Dictate - Penetration
8. Bingo Master - The Fall
9. Free Money - Patti Smith
10. The Modern World - The Jam
11. Chinese Rocks - The Heartbreakers
12. New Rose - The Damned
13. Ambition - Subway Sect
14. See No Evil - Television
15. Suspect Device - Stiff Little Fingers
16. Mannequin - Wire
17. Baby Baby - The Vibrators
18. Love Comes In Spurts - Richard Hell & The Voidoids
19. First Time - The Boys
20. Sonic Reducer - Dead Boys
21. Shot By Both Sides - Magazine
22. Mystery Dance - Elvis Costello
23. Trash - New York Dolls
24. The Day The World Turned Day-Glo - X-Ray Spex
25. Do Anything You Wanna Do - Eddie & The Hot Rods

Disc: 3
1. Ready Steady Go - Generation X
2. Teenage Kicks - The Undertones
3. Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll - Ian Dury
4. Ever Fallen In Love (With Someone You Shouldn't've?) - Buzzcocks
5. Rocket U.S.A. - Suicide
6. Mongoloid - Devo
7. Homicide - 999
8. Mr. Big - The Dils
9. Warsaw - Joy Division
10. Where Were You? - The Mekons
11. Lexicon Devil - The Germs
12. (My Baby Does) Good Sculptures - The Rezillos
13. The Wait - The Pretenders
14. We Got The Neutron Bomb - The Weirdos
15. Pablo Picasso - The Modern Lovers
16. Action Time Vision - Alternative TV
17. 2-4-6-8 Motorway - Tom Robinson Band
18. We Are The One - The Avengers
19. Borstal Breakout - Sham 69
20. Wasted - Black Flag
21. Sheena Is A Punk Rocker - Ramones
22. I Love Livin In The City - Fear
23. She's So Modern - The Boomtown Rats
24. Ghosts Of Princes In Towers - Rich Kids
25. We're Desperate - X
26. You Drive Me Ape (You Big Gorilla) - The Dickies
27. Dancing The Night Away - The Motors

Disc: 4
1. Hong Kong Garden - Siouxsie & The Banshees
2. Hanging On The Telephone - Blondie
3. Top Of The Pops - The Rezillos
4. Adult Books - X
5. The Sound Of The Suburbs - The Members
6. California =DCber Alles - Dead Kennedys
7. Another Girl, Another Planet - The Only Ones
8. (I Want To Be An) Anglepoise Lamp - The Soft Boys
9. Radio, Radio - Elvis Costello & The Attractions
10. Typical Girls - The Slits
11. Human Fly - The Cramps
12. Psycho Killer - Talking Heads
13. Babylon's Burning - The Ruts
14. If The Kids Are United - Sham 69
15. Alternative Ulster - Stiff Little Fingers
16. Boys Don't Cry - The Cure
17. She Is Beyond Good And Evil - The Pop Group
18. Is She Really Going Out With Him? - Joe Jackson
19. Get Over You - The Undertones
20. Love Like Anthrax - Gang Of Four
21. Peaches - The Stranglers
22. Into The Valley - Skids
23. You Can't Put Your Arms Round A Memory - Johnny Thunders
24. Love Will Tear Us Apart - Joy Division

I've been thinking about getting that box set for awhile and have been waiting for a used copy to show up in my local record store. I already have most of the Ramones catalog and a smattering of others--Talking Heads of course, Clash, some Black Flag, Iggy Pop, Patti Smith.

I have some box sets that have the rock and roll that in many instances inspired punk--a box called Loud, Fast and Out of Control (50's rock) and the Nuggets box sets--a lot of great garage rock in those.

Joe Jackson listed as a punk rocker? Now that's interesting.

Joe Jackson listed as a punk rocker? Now that's interesting.
That's where the booklet comes in handy. They explain their reasoning behind each selection. Some are a bit of a stretch, but they do a pretty good job of explaining their rationale. They had this on sale at Fry's a while back for (I think) about $40. Even at $50-$60 (Amazon), it's a good deal for a 4 CD box.

To clarify and add a few things:

squonk: "If that's the extent of your knowledge of Yes, then you obviously need to educate yourself a little more on progressive rock"

Nope, that's not the extent of my knowledge of Yes (in particular) - to me, it just sums them up perfectly. *I* think they're long-winded and simple (not musically simple). The point is - I don't like them - not their early stuff, not "Owner of a Lonely Heart" era - really, none of it. Do I care if they are in the HOF? Couldn't care less, as just because someone is in the HOF is not going to change my attitude about a band. And it really is a vanity thing to be inducted, so to me, the more a band is honored by it, the more I tend to think they care a whole lot more about attention and less about the music. I'd also prefer to not have to see Rick Wakeman show up in a flowing cape and smile and wave at the cameras on all the news channels (that is, if he was getting along with the rest of them at that time). But again, that's just me. It would appear that you feel personally betrayed, in a way, that a band you think has "more musical talent and knowledge in their pinkie fingers, who have a 35 year career and dozens of albums" is not in. Me - I don't care. I don't care about their talent, as how they use their talent bores me and just seems pretentious most of the time. But those are personal preferences - I just don't think the honoring of them or anyone else in this way really matters in the end.

And don't get me wrong - remember, I think it was a disservice to The Pistols to induct them (in reference to your chuckling comment). I think it is funny, too.

"So you are also dismissing virtually the entire ouput of one of the greatest bands ever? Including Who's Next? Seriously?"

Yep. - dang it, I was going to leave it that, because it would be funny - but no, I have to ruin it by adding to this before posting. I have heard all of their albums (up through the 70's anyway). Some multiple times due to a particular friend and from being a manager at an indie record store in the early-mid 80's. Most of the earlier live footage I have seen of them is pretty good - the albums seem pretty over-produced to me compared to what they seemed capable of live. I simply don't think of them as one of the greatest bands ever. But that's what personal taste is all about.

"quickly went away? Huh?"

Yeah - bad wording. I haven't heard any of this Hamburg stuff in like 22 years or so, but I remember it being really ratty and raw. They didn't record like that for long.

Gecko - Yeah, Decline has been way outta print for some time now. Unfortunately.
As a warning for anyone who might pick it up and not know better, "Suburbia" is a little silly. And the opening scene? That kind of thing never happened at shows. Casey Royer (singer for DI) made fun of that scene for a few years after it came out when they'd play (oh, DI is the band in this bizarre scene - there were so many other accurate ways they could have set up the plot that it was odd they chose to go the route they did). But it is great overall and definitely worth watching - fantastic footage of The Vandals with (the recently deceased) Stevo. Just watch with caution if you're watching for "educational purposes." Also has some great lines.


GreySkies - minor clarification re "Joy Division embraced synths" - actually, Joy Division was gone with the suicide of Ian Curtis in 1980. It was the rest of the band who created New Order who embraced synths. Again, pretty nit-picky, but I like to pick at nits.

More nit-picking - The Germs were pretty much 70's only - and Darby Crash died in 1980. And Gecko, gee, and you forgot the whole No Wave scene (just kidding - you've covered so much here in this thread).


Dean: "But the best progressive rock bands speak to the other side of the brain, and it's just kind of unfortunate that more people don't like to have both hemispheres equally massaged."

I definitely see your point here - however, my problem is that so much of it seems really pretentious and just goes on and on and on and bugs me too much to get anything from it. But that's just my personal thing. Then again, I really like early blues, swing, some classical, etc. When I was a kid in the 70's, I hated almost all music except for some 30's and 40's stuff (hadn't been exposed to blues at that time). Everything else that I had heard was pretty much 60's and 70's rock and really didn't like it, so pretty much didn't like music overall. Until I discovered punk.

Helter: "The Beatles whether you like them or not are generally considered the most influential group in history. They also have the greatest record sales in history."

While the former may be true, and the latter definitely is, to me, that does not necessarily make them "The Greatest." That's such an absolute statement. Then again, if pressed, I don't think I could tell you who I thought was "The Greatest." I have problems with absolutes like that, though. Personally, I don't much care for their pop stuff that much, nor the more hippy stuff. In a way, you proved CoreyM's point however. He said that if people say they were "the greatest" it will go unchallenged. I went with the inverse (which I believe) and yep, it was challenged. Neat (that's not sarcasm - I just think it is at the very least partial proof of Corey's statement, and I really do think that's neat with it all being in the same thread and all). As far as my statement about the Hamburg stuff, see above.

Interesting line-up on that box set. Glad to see "We're Desperate" is on there. I have always thought that it was one of the better songs for summing up punk, both lyrically and musically. "My whole f***ing life is a wreck!" Too bad "Do The Nihil" (by F-Word) didn't make the cut, though.

GreySkies - minor clarification re "Joy Division embraced synths" - actually, Joy Division was gone with the suicide of Ian Curtis in 1980. It was the rest of the band who created New Order who embraced synths. Again, pretty nit-picky, but I like to pick at nits.
Ok, I'll pick this nit-- :) Closer is in regular rotation in my house. Synths abound. Granted, they're not used as sequenced rhythmic devices as they were/are with many New Order songs (and as originally pioneered by The Who :)), but it's pretty clear that they had been embraced by Joy Division. Ian Curtis often played guitar while Benard Sumner was at the keyboard during some of their last shows. This is despite their early reluctance to use synths. It can also be argued that Joy Division would have persued the electronic direction of New Order even if Ian Curtis had not died.

Ah - *those* synth's - I thought you were talking about the overly synthy stuff. I do like a lot of the New Order stuff, so "overly synthy" is not meant to be a negative - although I don't know synthy is actually a word... Heh.

Gecko - Yeah, Decline has been way outta print for some time now. Unfortunately.
As a warning for anyone who might pick it up and not know better, "Suburbia" is a little silly. And the opening scene? That kind of thing never happened at shows. Casey Royer (singer for DI) made fun of that scene for a few years after it came out when they'd play (oh, DI is the band in this bizarre scene - there were so many other accurate ways they could have set up the plot that it was odd they chose to go the route they did). But it is great overall and definitely worth watching - fantastic footage of The Vandals with (the recently deceased) Stevo. Just watch with caution if you're watching for "educational purposes." Also has some great lines.

Yeah, I originally had a longer description of Suburbia with a bit of a warning, but didn't want to scare anyone off...it's still worth watching. I think Over the Edge was FAR more accurate, even though it didn't have anything to do with Punk.


More nit-picking - The Germs were pretty much 70's only - and Darby Crash died in 1980.
Yeah, I forget that sometimes...probably because they gained more in popularity *after* he died, so my introduction to The Germs was in the early 80's...

One more comment to squonk re. Yes before I run out for a bit:
Then again, what would you expect from someone who already admitted (in what was meant to be a humorous way) that they thought The Ramones maybe used too many chords??

I just remembered a funny scene (in relation to this thread) from the movie "SLC Punk." The two main characters...two "punks" living in Salt Lake City and are like fish out of water...were D&D playing nerds when they were younger. There's a flashback to them sitting in one of their rooms, the D&D stuff strewn about the table, and Rush blaring from the stereo. One of them puts in a new cassette someone gave him...it was The Ramones...and they were changed forever.;)

On vh1 recently, They had a New Order biography with the guys there. They said the
synth thing came from the sound man\producer. They said they usually only played for 30 minutes or so at a time. The sound guy started playing the synth stuff as filler until the band came out and played more.


We can only hope a decline of western civilization dvd is in the works.

Having grown up south of LA i can tell punk is alive and well.

Just saw social d a couple month ago

Just saw social d a couple month ago
One of the most underrated American rock 'n roll bands of all time.

After reading through the list of the box set, I was surprised that there wasn't anything by The Tubes in the selections. Oh... but The Tubes had talent... nevermind. ;) Actually, I really don't know what classificatin The Tubes would be under.

Well, The Tubes wouldn't really be punk - musically - they were pretty definitely rock for the most part. Earlier on, live, they had too much of a stage show, also (again, for the most part) - but the "problem" therein is that a lot of their early stage shows were often with the intention of being offensive. Plus, they had the whole bondage thing going for them. So I can see where that might cross your mind, as they did at times display some punk sentiment. Or whatever...

One of the most underrated American rock 'n roll bands of all time.

Until Mike Ness quit heroin, anyway :)

One more comment to squonk re. Yes before I run out for a bit:
Then again, what would you expect from someone who already admitted (in what was meant to be a humorous way) that they thought The Ramones maybe used too many chords??
Hey, no problem. I fully understand that groups such as Yes can be very demanding at times, and it certainly is not something everyone can handle. Its not meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and I like art sometimes to stretch and reach and push boundaries.

What I have never really understood is why someone like me, who loves a lot of different genres of music, can like, understand and appreciate the back to basics approach of groups such as the Ramones, but also love groups like Yes, Renaissance, King Crimson and Genesis. Yet I have very rarely, if ever, encountered a true blue punk rocker who could also acknowledge, like and appreciate progressive rock. It never fails--I always end up debating this stuff with someone who absolutely disdains and abhors progressive rock like Yes, and usually the first word out of their mouth is pretentious. I am fascinated that it doesn't ever seem to work both ways. I think part of the problem is that it admittedly takes much more patience to stay with something like Close to the Edge vs a two and half minute 3 chord punk song.

With regard to the Who, if you had ever seen them live I think you'd probably reassess your opinion. There was simply no better live band in their formative and prime years. And I think if you're honest, you would have to admit that there were a whole lot of punk rockers in the 70's and 80's who weened themselves on Who albums growing up. I know Paul Weller for instance most definitely was.

I agree. I seldom seem to meet people who have my own breadth of appreciation of music. I guess I'm just a sonic slut.

... I think part of the problem is that it admittedly takes much more patience to stay with something like Close to the Edge vs a two and half minute 3 chord punk song....



Oh, I don't know about that, more than once I've had to remove "Brainwashed" by Flipper from the turntable (over Lurch's protestations) after about two or so hours. :D

Yet I have very rarely, if ever, encountered a true blue punk rocker who could also acknowledge, like and appreciate progressive rock.
There was an interview with Bono in the Chicago Tribune a couple of months ago. Bono wanted to "clear the air" with Greg Kot, music critic for the Trib, after GK panned U2's most recent album, panned their first show here on the current tour (not the one that was filmed), accused them of coasting with every album since Pop, and accused them of selling out w/re Vertigo and iPod commercials. Bono was talking about Vertigo and the iPod and he said (I'm going by memory here), "We have to work to get punk on television. The goal was always about getting punk on television ... We were doing television programs on our very first tour ... Television isn't the enemy, progressive rock was and is the enemy."

Ok, I looked the interview up and it's here (http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-0505220011may22,1,2675345.story?page=1). I got the quote sort of right; at least the jist is.

Progressive rock is just another type of music. Only someone who sees music as a zero sum game would think that another type of music is 'the enemy', but it's clearly not a zero sum game. Everyone can like multiple types of music.

Yet I have very rarely, if ever, encountered a true blue punk rocker who could also acknowledge, like and appreciate progressive rock.
I was (am?) a true blue punk rocker...from back in the day. I also listened to Yes (a little bit...didn't hate them, didn't love them), but listened to TONS of Rush, and a decent amount of King Crimson. So, now you know at least one. ;) (Oh, and despite what any other poser "true blue" punk rocker might say, KISS rocks! :D ;) )

Hey, no problem. I fully understand that groups such as Yes can be very demanding at times,.

Yep, you do have to work at liking them. OK, maybe you didn't mean it that way :)

and it certainly is not something everyone can handle. Its not meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and I like art sometimes to stretch and reach and push boundaries

Heh. You make me laugh.

Oh, and punk didn't (at least originally) push boundaries, but Yes did/does? Ok.

What I have never really understood is why someone like me, who loves a lot of different genres of music, can like, understand and appreciate the back to basics approach of groups such as the Ramones, but also love groups like Yes, Renaissance, King Crimson and Genesis. Yet I have very rarely, if ever, encountered a true blue punk rocker who could also acknowledge, like and appreciate progressive rock. It never fails--I always end up debating this stuff with someone who absolutely disdains and abhors progressive rock like Yes, and usually the first word out of their mouth is pretentious.

Well, that might be telling you something. But seriously, that was a nice debate move there (really). I guess my reply would be that it's good of you to slum with us sometimes. Sorry not everyone likes what you do. Now if you were to come back and tell me that bands like The Germs and others sucked, I'd pretty much have to agree with you. But I like 'em - and frankly, that's partly why I do. But I guess you're a much better person than I am. I don't actually have a problem with you thinking that (if you do, as you seem to convey here), either.

I am fascinated that it doesn't ever seem to work both ways. I think part of the problem is that it admittedly takes much more patience to stay with something like Close to the Edge vs a two and half minute 3 chord punk song.

Or it could just be that some people don't like Yes (and similar bands) and that just seems to annoy you? And yeah, I don't typically have a lot of patience with really long songs, but at the same time, can you sit through Flipper's Sex Bomb (it's pretty dang long - and feels even longer than it actually is) and *actually* enjoy it so much that ya just wanna play it again?

With regard to the Who, if you had ever seen them live I think you'd probably reassess your opinion. There was simply no better live band in their formative and prime years.

Hmm. Not sure you read everything I wrote. I did mention that I have seen early live footage of them, and it was pretty darn good. I thought we were talking about recordings, and to that end, I stand by my statement that I think the My Generation import is the only thing worth listening to. Particularly *since* I have seen what they were apparently capable of. However, yes, I do think it probably would have been pretty good to actually see them early on based on the footage I have seen. Especially when they were playing smaller venues. However, I am only 40 years old.

And I think if you're honest, you would have to admit that there were a whole lot of punk rockers in the 70's and 80's who weened themselves on Who albums growing up. I know Paul Weller for instance most definitely was.

Well that's great for them. I guess I miscommunicated - I was speaking for myself, not for all punks of all times. That would be pretty pretentious of me to do - heh.

--Proud member of the lowest common denominator.

GreySkies: Well now that you've brought U2 into it... Have you ever heard their really, really early demo stuff (if you can call it that - it was like it was recorded in a garage) - long before the first album? That stuff was insane. You'd never even know it was U2. A guy I knew years ago was really into U2 and had it on tape. I'd love to be able to find it.

That's a pretty great quote - here it is for those that don't follow the link: "Progressive rock was the enemy in 1976. And it still is. And it has many, many faces. This beast is lurking everywhere. It can describe itself as indie rock. It's the same [blanking] thing. It's misery. I have seen so many great minds struck down by it."

I was (am?) a true blue punk rocker...from back in the day. I also listened to Yes (a little bit...didn't hate them, didn't love them), but listened to TONS of Rush, and a decent amount of King Crimson. So, now you know at least one. ;) (Oh, and despite what any other poser "true blue" punk rocker might say, KISS rocks! :D ;) )

KISS *does* rock! :D I don't care if that Lurch guys says otherwise.

Oh, I don't know about that, more than once I've had to remove "Brainwashed" by Flipper from the turntable (over Lurch's protestations) after about two or so hours. :D

No, see there was this... and then there was this... never mind, forget it, you wouldn't understand anyway.

I agree that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a bit over rated and does things differently than what would be considered normal. For example: I was in complete disagreement with the fact that it was built in Cleveland. Cleveland?
No offense to you Clevelanders (Or is it Clevelandites?), Cleveland is a fine town.
But shouldn't the R&R HoF have been built in a city with "Music in its Blood".
If it was up to me Memphis would have been the best choice for a location given the fact that Rock and Roll was more or less born there.

As far as the Sex Pistols are concerned, I do agree they suck. That said however, they are almost singlehandedly responsible for an creating entire genre of music. Punk Rock. Therefore, IMHO, their induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is warranted. I do agree that bands like Yes and Genesis are overdue for an induction of their own. I miss the progressive era.

Now c'mon Toasted - if you google Cleveland Bands the first thing you get back is: Wedding Bands in Cleveland OH - hmm, uh, guess ya got a point there :)

"As far as the Sex Pistols are concerned, I do agree they suck."

Yeah! Finally! :)

"That said however, they are almost singlehandedly responsible for an creating entire genre of music. Punk Rock."

Well... there were others involved before and at the same time. Although they were probably the most visible at the time.

I agree that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a bit over rated and does things differently than what would be considered normal. For example: I was in complete disagreement with the fact that it was built in Cleveland. Cleveland?
No matter where it is, or how over rated it is, it's a cool place to visit. There is so much on display there, from bands/artists who've been inducted to bands/artists that haven't. It's a living time capsule.

The top floor is reserved for whatever special display they're having at the time. When I was there it was the John Lennon Exhibit. On display were some very cool items, including ripped pieces of brown postal wrap, napkins, and other assorted items that Lennon scribbled some of the earliest versions of his songs. Apparently, he'd scribble down lyrics whenever an idea hit him...no matter where he was or what he had available to write on. Very cool stuff. There were so many other cool things in that exhibit, and in the rest of the Hall, that it's very much worth the trip for music fans.

Here's a bit of trivia for you: the *only* artifacts in the entire HoF that are allowed to be photographed are some of Jerry Garcia's guitars. Garcia stipulated in his will that nobody can ever charge to let people view the items his estate donated. So, they're the only items in the lobby...not actually inside the Hall...and are the only items allowed to be photographed.

No matter where it is, or how over rated it is, it's a cool place to visit. There is so much on display there, from bands/artists who've been inducted to bands/artists that haven't. It's a living time capsule.

The top floor is reserved for whatever special display they're having at the time. When I was there it was the John Lennon Exhibit. On display were some very cool items, including ripped pieces of brown postal wrap, napkins, and other assorted items that Lennon scribbled some of the earliest versions of his songs. Apparently, he'd scribble down lyrics whenever an idea hit him...no matter where he was or what he had available to write on. Very cool stuff. There were so many other cool things in that exhibit, and in the rest of the Hall, that it's very much worth the trip for music fans.

Here's a bit of trivia for you: the *only* artifacts in the entire HoF that are allowed to be photographed are some of Jerry Garcia's guitars. Garcia stipulated in his will that nobody can ever charge to let people view the items his estate donated. So, they're the only items in the lobby...not actually inside the Hall...and are the only items allowed to be photographed.

Again, no offense was meant toward Cleveland and its people and the next time I'm there I want to see the Hall of Fame. Who knows, maybe my opinion of it will change once I actually see it. As far as Rock and Roll memorabilia is concerned, a cool place to visit is the Hard Rock Hotel in Las Vegas. :D

GreySkies: Well now that you've brought U2 into it... Have you ever heard their really, really early demo stuff (if you can call it that - it was like it was recorded in a garage) - long before the first album? That stuff was insane. You'd never even know it was U2. A guy I knew years ago was really into U2 and had it on tape. I'd love to be able to find it.
I've never heard it, but if you happen to find it, PM me-- I'd love to hear it. I remember buying Boy after seeing them on some late night show (Snyder?) performing Stories for Boys.

Here's a bit of trivia for you: the *only* artifacts in the entire HoF that are allowed to be photographed are some of Jerry Garcia's guitars.
Would that be flash photography? Most museums disallow flash photography, but not photography in general.

As far as Rock and Roll memorabilia is concerned, a cool place to visit is the Hard Rock Hotel in Las Vegas. :D

Been there...and honestly it pales in comparison to the HoF. Besides, the BEST thing about the Hard Rock in Vegas is the pool. :D

Would that be flash photography? Most museums disallow flash photography, but not photography in general.
I imagine that's correct. I was there in 2001, so my memory of whether it's all photography or flash photography is a bit murky. Still, it would be virtually impossible to get a shot inside without a flash...unless you used a tripod and a cable-release. It's very dark inside, with only the insides of most display cases lit...and not even that much.

GreySkies: Well now that you've brought U2 into it... Have you ever heard their really, really early demo stuff (if you can call it that - it was like it was recorded in a garage) - long before the first album? That stuff was insane. You'd never even know it was U2. A guy I knew years ago was really into U2 and had it on tape. I'd love to be able to find it.

That's a pretty great quote - here it is for those that don't follow the link: "Progressive rock was the enemy in 1976. And it still is. And it has many, many faces. This beast is lurking everywhere. It can describe itself as indie rock. It's the same [blanking] thing. It's misery. I have seen so many great minds struck down by it."
That's interesting, because I am a big U2 fan as well as a prog rock fan. Go figure. And many people who hate U2 are quick to throw that word out--pretentious. I don't know what Bono has against prog rock, especially since its all underground now, but I would be interested to hear the punk rockers' take on Bono viewing U2 as a "punk" band still.

Well, that might be telling you something. But seriously, that was a nice debate move there (really). I guess my reply would be that it's good of you to slum with us sometimes. Sorry not everyone likes what you do. Now if you were to come back and tell me that bands like The Germs and others sucked, I'd pretty much have to agree with you. But I like 'em - and frankly, that's partly why I do. But I guess you're a much better person than I am. I don't actually have a problem with you thinking that (if you do, as you seem to convey here), either.


I think you missed my point. Has nothing to do with who is a better person or not. I simply find that almost without exception, people who like progressive rock are far more open and appreciative of various forms of music than people who tend to focus on punk rock. That has been my experience. I have many punk rock and post punk albums in my collection--how many Yes and Genesis cds do you own? I thought so. In general, since punk was to a large degree about attitude, the pro-punk music press set about to create this kind of allie-enemy thing, and by and large prog rock became the enemy, even though the real enemy was schlocky AOR slicked up stuff like Journey, Little River Band, Starship etc who dominated the radio playlists of the mid to late 70's. With a few notable exceptions like Roundabout by Yes, most prog rock groups were just as absent from regular radio playlists as punk was. But a lot of youngsters, including you apparantly, bought into this "all prog rock is abhorrent and pretentious" mindset that the pro-punk music press foisted upon you. And a lot of it is just simply a product of when you grew up and what you were exposed to--I know many a younger brother who absolutely hate their big brothers prog rock because that is what he listened to.

I have this same kind of debate with my dad about art, and he's over 70. He for the life of him can't see the value in any art which is not an exact realistic depiction of reality. He would say of Van Gogh--why is he painting the sky all swirly and wavy like that--it looks like a kid did that---that's no good. That Jackson Pollock--what a load of pretentious garbage. Can't he paint something realistic and simple? Etc. No matter how I try to convince him that there is more to art than just painting a straightforward realistic picture of something, he won't acknowledge the value of stuff that may be a bit more demanding and stretches art in a different way. So too with a lot of progressive rock. Its perfectly fine to like straightforward 3 chord simple rock--I like a lot of it myself. But there are those of us who appreciate when the human mind goes beyond that and seeks to create art that may be a little more demanding and challenging. That doesn't mean its pretentious--it just means that after a while, the nice little realistic paintings of the apples in a bowl on the side of the road are not enough, and some of us seek to explore maybe more abstract expressions of art and music.

As far as the Sex Pistols are concerned, I do agree they suck. That said however, they are almost singlehandedly responsible for an creating entire genre of music. Punk Rock. Therefore, IMHO, their induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is warranted.


Wrong, as Gecko and others have pointed out (your second sentence--the first sentence I agree with). There were many bands that preceded them that were doing it better and earlier. This is exactly why inducting these clowns in the Hall of Fame is so ludicrous--it validates these mistaken perceptions of the Sex Pistols as these great revolutionary pioneers of music when all they were was a marketing gimmick to sell clothes and spout off some anti-establishment rebellion. They are a sham, a scam, talentless charlatans that had one big song. Take a look at their interview on that Tom Snyder DVD. Talk about pompous and pretentious, you can't get any more so than Johnny Rotten, and the biggest joke is that he had no talent to back it up and he later contradicted everything he was supposedly about anyway by reuniting and making money after he vowed he'd never play rock music again. Its one thing to be pompous because you are arguably the greatest keyboard player on earth, and you have the chops to back it up (Rick Wakeman). Its yet another to be pompous and pretentious when you are a talentless twit and hack who couldn't write 3 coherent notes of music even if you spotted him the middle C(Johnny Rotten et al).

skonk, I usually love your posts, but I have to say you're being very patonizing towards lurch in this one. For one thing, you say you like punk as well as prog. and that it never goes the other way around. Then you call the SP clowns,,,I don't remember lurch calling Yes names. You also imply it takes more intelligence to appreaciate Yes, and seemed shocked that those who like punk would disagree. No offense-I tend to agree with your opinion of punk, though I have to admit it never grabbed me enough to want to listen to enough of it to form a real opinion. But I don't feel that automatically gives me better ttaste than lurch. Like I said before, lurch states why he likes punk in such a way that I can understand it without agreeing with him. And going by his explaination I would assume its almost a given for a punk fan to reject all prog. music-it just doesn't speak to what they want to hear. I agree they are missing a lot of great music by doing that, but its their choice.
Dean, I like your left brain-right brain idea. Would you agree that the best music speaks to both halves at the same time though? In the Court of the Crimson King would be an example of an album thatt does that for me. Pink Floyd or Dylan at their best also qualify for me. Both primal and thought provoking..

Would you agree that the best music speaks to both halves at the same time though?
I know I would-- and for me, it's called John Coltrane. I think punk speaks more to the stomach.

Yes, ELP, Pink Floyd and such fall into a category of music I enjoyed 30-35 years ago when I smoked pot all the time and whom I have no interest in at all since I stopped getting jiggy.

I first saw the Ramones at the Aragon Ballroom in 1977. They sounded like a heavy-metal band on 78rpm. Johnny had a huge sound and Tommy was the most relentless drummer I'd seen, I was more impressed by him than any drummer I'd seen since Moby Grape's Don Stevenson (and yeah, I saw Moon, Mitchell, Appici and the other "heavies").

My best friend and I started playing punk the next day and I cut my shoulder length hair down to a buzzcut. I cut my drumset down to the basic four pieces and didn't play a fill for two years afterwards.

The Ramones were a simple rock and roll band. Perhaps people who don't think they were good really don't like rock and roll music.

Now in my dotage I don't listen to the Beatles at all, nor the Stones or any of the late 60s "hippie" bands. I listen to 50's roots rock---Little Richard, Elvis, Perkins, Fats Domino, Jerry Lee, that kind of thing and of course I listen to lots of Doo-Wop.

Elvis was the greatest talent ever in Rock and Roll and Scotty, Bill and DJ were the best band.

I listen to lots of 60s Soul music, you know Stax, Fame and stuff like that.

And Thin Lizzy. Still love Thin Lizzy.

I loved and still love Elvis. The man is an icon for sure. But, to call him the greatest talent ever in Rock and Roll is pushing it too far. He was a fantastic showman and was marketed by the best. He also hit at the perfect time, for him.

I read the part of this thread about Prog Rock as well. This is probably some of the most technically complex music of our lifetime. Take a Dream Theater song and let just about any band in the hall try to play it and they will fail. I am not the biggest DT fan, but the talent is amazing.

It all comes down to marketing to the lowest common denominator.

I love just about every kind of music that there is (except for rap, and to call rap music is debatable) and I have no axe to grind for any band or artist. Just my humble opinion. Joe

I first saw the Ramones at the Aragon Ballroom in 1977. They sounded like a heavy-metal band on 78rpm. Johnny had a huge sound and Tommy was the most relentless drummer I'd seen, I was more impressed by him than any drummer I'd seen since Moby Grape's Don Stevenson (and yeah, I saw Moon, Mitchell, Appici and the other "heavies").



Carl Palmer was far more technical than any of the drummers you mentioned. However, today that crown would have to undeniably go to Akira Jimbo.

skonk, I usually love your posts, but I have to say you're being very patonizing towards lurch in this one. For one thing, you say you like punk as well as prog. and that it never goes the other way around. Then you call the SP clowns,,,I don't remember lurch calling Yes names. You also imply it takes more intelligence to appreaciate Yes, and seemed shocked that those who like punk would disagree. No offense-I tend to agree with your opinion of punk, though I have to admit it never grabbed me enough to want to listen to enough of it to form a real opinion. But I don't feel that automatically gives me better ttaste than lurch. Like I said before, lurch states why he likes punk in such a way that I can understand it without agreeing with him. And going by his explaination I would assume its almost a given for a punk fan to reject all prog. music-it just doesn't speak to what they want to hear. I agree they are missing a lot of great music by doing that, but its their choice.
Dean, I like your left brain-right brain idea. Would you agree that the best music speaks to both halves at the same time though? In the Court of the Crimson King would be an example of an album thatt does that for me. Pink Floyd or Dylan at their best also qualify for me. Both primal and thought provoking..
2 points you have to keep in mind:

1. Sometimes when I don't think people are getting my point I overstate the argument a little, and I admit that sometimes is at the expense of rubbing people the wrong way

2. I am not knocking punk as a genre as much as I am specifically calling out the Sex Pistols as frauds. If you read my other posts you will see that I acknowledge much validity to some punk music, although I do ultimately see punk as somewhat more limiting than a genre of music such as progressive rock. I don't care if people like prog rock or not, but it seems that by definition people who can appreciate both punk and prog are more open minded than people who like punk but abhor and disdain prog.

Yes, ELP, Pink Floyd and such fall into a category of music I enjoyed 30-35 years ago when I smoked pot all the time and whom I have no interest in at all since I stopped getting jiggy.

I first saw the Ramones at the Aragon Ballroom in 1977. They sounded like a heavy-metal band on 78rpm. Johnny had a huge sound and Tommy was the most relentless drummer I'd seen, I was more impressed by him than any drummer I'd seen since Moby Grape's Don Stevenson (and yeah, I saw Moon, Mitchell, Appici and the other "heavies").

My best friend and I started playing punk the next day and I cut my shoulder length hair down to a buzzcut. I cut my drumset down to the basic four pieces and didn't play a fill for two years afterwards.

The Ramones were a simple rock and roll band. Perhaps people who don't think they were good really don't like rock and roll music.

Now in my dotage I don't listen to the Beatles at all, nor the Stones or any of the late 60s "hippie" bands. I listen to 50's roots rock---Little Richard, Elvis, Perkins, Fats Domino, Jerry Lee, that kind of thing and of course I listen to lots of Doo-Wop.

Elvis was the greatest talent ever in Rock and Roll and Scotty, Bill and DJ were the best band.

I listen to lots of 60s Soul music, you know Stax, Fame and stuff like that.

And Thin Lizzy. Still love Thin Lizzy.
I was with you for the most part until you got to the Thin Lizzy part. I saw them in the late 70's open for somebody (Kansas maybe?) and I almost couldn't stop laughing, I'm sorry. It seemed like they were parodying themselves.

Also, I don't think anyone in this thread has ragged on the Ramones. Even some of us prog rockers like the Ramones.

Finally, to pigeonhole a whole genre of music as if the only validity it has is related to drugs is, well, shortsighted and unfortunate. You are simply missing out on a whole lot of great music by doing that. I think the Grateful Dead/jam band crowd wins the pot smoking honors anyway.

That's interesting, because I am a big U2 fan as well as a prog rock fan. Go figure. And many people who hate U2 are quick to throw that word out--pretentious. I don't know what Bono has against prog rock, especially since its all underground now, but I would be interested to hear the punk rockers' take on Bono viewing U2 as a "punk" band still.

Well I'll say it's kind of silly. It's clearly not true, and it is not like it's gonna buy him any "cred." So I have no clue why he would do that, unless his trying to cling to the notion so he somehow feels better with himself. I have no idea. I do like what he does with the money a lot of times. Still makes for a funny quote, though.

I think you missed my point. Has nothing to do with who is a better person or not. I simply find that almost without exception, people who like progressive rock are far more open and appreciative of various forms of music than people who tend to focus on punk rock. That has been my experience.

Yep - when the point you restated here is made in a less haughty way, it makes a lot more sense. Your premise may be correct that people who like progressive rock are far more open... than people who tend to focus on punk. However, that does not mean that people who like punk don't like *anything* else at all. Because that's entirely untrue. You will find some common dislikes running through many (certainly not all) who listen to punk a lot - and progressive rock would *tend* to be one of those. So yes (no pun intended) - people who listen to progressive rock might like just about anything thrown at them. I want to say "are less discriminating" but I don't want that to come off wrong by taking the definition of it too literally because I don't mean it in a snarky way. But I guess that's essentially what I am saying. Then again, I often don't understand why some friends of mine who are into punk like some of the other stuff they do. And some of the stuff, I do understand, whether I like it or not myself. It's really no big deal, though.

I have many punk rock and post punk albums in my collection--how many Yes and Genesis cds do you own? I thought so.

Now why would I own stuff I don't like? That's just dumb. I have no problem with the fact that I have more limited tastes; I'm happy with it - I tried to make that pretty clear awhile ago.

In general, since punk was to a large degree about attitude

Yes and no. But you're forgetting (or don't know) one thing - one of the early ideas of punk was to bring rock back to what its origins were - its basics - simple, dirty, driving music. And that anyone should be able to pick up instruments and play. And this then evolved in a very short time to circumventing the existing business structure that locked out a lot of music and ripped off musicians.

the pro-punk music press set about to create this kind of allie-enemy thing, and by and large prog rock became the enemy, even though the real enemy was schlocky AOR slicked up stuff like Journey, Little River Band, Starship etc who dominated the radio playlists of the mid to late 70's.

No - they all were the enemy (if people want to use that word). Wasn't just progressive rock. Why? Because there was a feeling that the roots of rocknroll were getting eroded away. That showy music and showy bands were what rock had become playing really watered down music (which includes the pop and "hard rock" bands of the time as well). And to many, that wasn't rock. And what was out there was boring and it was time for a change. Of course, these ideas easily led to the political punk stuff that started quickly coming out, too - for essentially the same reasons - particularly the feeling of "time for a change."

With a few notable exceptions like Roundabout by Yes, most prog rock groups were just as absent from regular radio playlists as punk was. But a lot of youngsters, including you apparantly, bought into this "all prog rock is abhorrent and pretentious" mindset that the pro-punk music press foisted upon you.

Wrong again - as I already mentioned, I didn't like any of it *prior to* really discovering punk in about 1979-80 or so. So anything I might have read like this only agreed with what I already felt before even hearing punk for the first time. BTW: I don't actually remember when I first stumbled on it.

AND there's a whole additional aspect to this that has barely been touched on here, and that is the whole personal and social support structure that existed around punk and really grew in the early 80's. When you have big problems at home, when you see big societal problems around you in day to day life, etc, it is great to be around people with like issues - even though they may not have the same views on them as you do. If for no other reason, then you know you're not alone. And when these problems get to the point that you just want to physically burst, are you going to turn to bands like Yes for an outlet like this, or do you want bands that you can jump around to as a release? But I suppose that's a completely different OT topic.

I was with you for the most part until you got to the Thin Lizzy part. I saw them in the late 70's open for somebody (Kansas maybe?) and I almost couldn't stop laughing, I'm sorry. It seemed like they were parodying themselves.

And I had a similar reaction the first and only time I saw Black Flag with Rollins singing, back in the days when he'd do his tough guy crouch. I mean, I knew it would happen, and sure 'nuff it did.

Wrong, as Gecko and others have pointed out (your second sentence--the first sentence I agree with). There were many bands that preceded them that were doing it better and earlier. This is exactly why inducting these clowns in the Hall of Fame is so ludicrous.

Keeping in mind that I already think its pointless and funny (in a stupid way) to induct The Pistols (or really any bands), are you saying that only bands that do something first should be in the HOF? Because that would really excise a whole lot of bands...

--it validates these mistaken perceptions of the Sex Pistols as these great revolutionary pioneers of music when all they were was a marketing gimmick to sell clothes and spout off some anti-establishment rebellion.

And this is what you don't get - that wasn't the whole point from the start (at least the marketing part - sure, Malcolm used it to get more people coming in to his shop, but that was originally more of an added benefit - and he had already been selling these clothes - there was a reason the shop's name was Sex). "Some anti-establisment rebellion?" Do you know what was going on in the UK at the time? This was not manufactured. It was there - in the cities and in the country. And people were PO'd (don't know if I can spell that out here).

They are a sham, a scam, talentless charlatans that had one big song.

Perfect! To this day, they can get this kind of reaction? I had no idea (really). Beautiful! Now don't go kickin' in the TV...

Take a look at their interview on that Tom Snyder DVD. Talk about pompous and pretentious, you can't get any more so than Johnny Rotten, and the biggest joke is that he had no talent to back it up and he later contradicted everything he was supposedly about anyway by reuniting and making money after he vowed he'd never play rock music again.

Yeah - he's sarcastic, pompous and pretentious. More sarcastic than anything, but yeah, there's many reasons for it - part of it is, that it came relatively naturally early on, and sort of became a learned response when the cameras were on. Heck, sometimes it just comes off as stupid, but sometimes it still comes off as funny (see the Judge Judy episode with him). I have it from very good personal sources (recent ones at that) that when the camera is off, things are substantially different with him. But he had the look - the so-called "anti-christ look." If you can put it into perspective for the time and place, just their presence was pretty novel.

Its one thing to be pompous because you are arguably the greatest keyboard player on earth, and you have the chops to back it up (Rick Wakeman). Its yet another to be pompous and pretentious when you are a talentless twit and hack who couldn't write 3 coherent notes of music even if you spotted him the middle C(Johnny Rotten et al).

Heh. I guess there is still hope for punk rock!

Its one thing to be pompous because you are arguably the greatest keyboard player on earth, and you have the chops to back it up (Rick Wakeman).

Oh, I forgot to add - and an admission that there is some pretentiousness tied to Yes. See, it's not just punks... it's also fans.

However, that does not mean that people who like punk don't like *anything* else at all. Because that's entirely untrue.

And of course I didn't say that


You will find some common dislikes running through many (certainly not all) who listen to punk a lot - and progressive rock would *tend* to be one of those. So yes (no pun intended) - people who listen to progressive rock might like just about anything thrown at them. I want to say "are less discriminating" but I don't want that to come off wrong by taking the definition of it too literally because I don't mean it in a snarky way. But I guess that's essentially what I am saying.

I wouldn't say people who like prog rock are less discriminating--most people I know really into prog are very picky and discriminating but they tend to like a wider range of music by and large vs people I know that are really into punk. People who love punk are more willing to negatively judge other genres of music because that is part of the punk ethos, I have found. Thus, they have less tolerance for anything that doesn't fit within the parameters of the punk attitude (back to basic loud fast simple rock).





Now why would I own stuff I don't like? That's just dumb. I have no problem with the fact that I have more limited tastes; I'm happy with it - I tried to make that pretty clear awhile ago.


And that's just my point--I do own Ramones cds, Talking Heads, Clash, Iggy, Patti Smith, even some Black Flag, Husker Du, Sugar, Sonic Youth etc. I have expanded rather than narrowed my range of music exposure.


Yes and no. But you're forgetting (or don't know) one thing - one of the early ideas of punk was to bring rock back to what its origins were - its basics - simple, dirty, driving music. And that anyone should be able to pick up instruments and play. And this then evolved in a very short time to circumventing the existing business structure that locked out a lot of music and ripped off musicians.


I understand and am well aware of this.


And when these problems get to the point that you just want to physically burst, are you going to turn to bands like Yes for an outlet like this, or do you want bands that you can jump around to as a release?


True, you would not pick up a Yes album for that kind of release. For me, the artist who supplied that kind of outlet, that feeling of defiance and freedom was Springsteen. And as I have earlier stated, I think Springsteen does not get the credit he should for being the retrun to rock roots and basic simple rock and roll that he was providing circa 1974-1981, and punk gets too much of that credit. If you look at the numbers, Springsteen and guys like Tom Petty were really providing that release in that era in far greater numbers than a group like the Sex Pistols, esp in the US. And yes you could dance to it. You want to hear about the search for the American dream amidst the bleak urban landscape of economic depression and the search for individual freedom and hope amidst family and societal obstacles, take a good listen to Darkness on the Edge of Town. Now that is poetry and rock and roll.


Whoops I messed this up. My responses are inserted in alternating paragraphs to lurch's previous statement. I am sure those playing along can tell who said what.

[QUOTE]Keeping in mind that I already think its pointless and funny (in a stupid way) to induct The Pistols (or really any bands), are you saying that only bands that do something first should be in the HOF? Because that would really excise a whole lot of bands...


Nope, not saying that. Just pointing out that they are getting credit they don't really deserve.


Do you know what was going on in the UK at the time? This was not manufactured. It was there - in the cities and in the country. And people were PO'd (don't know if I can spell that out here).

I am well aware, but it was still a fashion statement to a large extent.



But he had the look - the so-called "anti-christ look." .


And he certainly wanted people to think that. For those of us who were never fooled, he was just a wierd looking dweeb.

Squonk - we're just going in circles - you think that people who like a wide variety of music are somehow better - and I don't really care, but will say which bands I don't like because they bore me. Yes, from a musical perspective, Springsteen and Tom Petty (heck, Tom Petty even ran with some of the CBGB's crowd, as he really appreciated what they were doing) did try to break that mold some. But they weren't any kind of very loose "force" looking to really bust things up. And fyi, "dancing" does not quite equal what I was talking about, but that's fine.

And so what? Does any of this have anything to do with the fact that whether Yes is or is not in the HOF shouldn't impact your enjoyment of their music, which is really what it should be about? Or that it won't change my opinion of their music either? So it ultimately does not matter except for some kind of vanity "honor"? If they are that great, then they will go down in history as a great band with or without induction to the HOF. Now if your argument was if you are going to pay 17 bucks to get into the HOF you want to see stuff from one of your favorite bands, then ok. But that's not what you are saying. If you're so much about the art, this stuff probably shouldn't matter anyway.

I am well aware, but it was still a fashion statement to a large extent.

It definitely became one whether The Pistols wanted that or not. However, they weren't just spouting manufactured anti-establishment messages for some kind of fashion reason.

For those of us who were never fooled, he was just a wierd looking dweeb.

See - there you go - "never fooled" - yep - that's it - I'm just an easily fooled idjit. Right - put him up against most any of the big band front men on stage at that time and you should be able to see the mockery being made. The best part is, I couldn't care less if you think that about me. It also makes me laugh. But no - I am just simple-minded and easily fooled. Yet you still seem really bugged by them overall despite such a dismissal.

My point all along has been - none of it should really matter in regards to the HOF. It gets far too much attention for no good reason I can see. But you really, really want it to matter, so this mammoth wrong that has been committed against your favorite bands is a big deal. I don't get that, because this kind of thing doesn't matter to me when talking about music.

Squonk - we're just going in circles - you think that people who like a wide variety of music are somehow better - and I don't really care, but will say which bands I don't like because they bore me. Yes, from a musical perspective, Springsteen and Tom Petty (heck, Tom Petty even ran with some of the CBGB's crowd, as he really appreciated what they were doing) did try to break that mold some. But they weren't any kind of very loose "force" looking to really bust things up. And fyi, "dancing" does not quite equal what I was talking about, but that's fine.

And so what? Does any of this have anything to do with the fact that whether Yes is or is not in the HOF shouldn't impact your enjoyment of their music, which is really what it should be about? Or that it won't change my opinion of their music either? So it ultimately does not matter except for some kind of vanity "honor"? If they are that great, then they will go down in history as a great band with or without induction to the HOF. Now if your argument was if you are going to pay 17 bucks to get into the HOF you want to see stuff from one of your favorite bands, then ok. But that's not what you are saying. If you're so much about the art, this stuff probably shouldn't matter anyway.



It definitely became one whether The Pistols wanted that or not. However, they weren't just spouting manufactured anti-establishment messages for some kind of fashion reason.



See - there you go - "never fooled" - yep - that's it - I'm just an easily fooled idjit. Right - put him up against most any of the big band front men on stage at that time and you should be able to see the mockery being made. The best part is, I couldn't care less if you think that about me. It also makes me laugh. But no - I am just simple-minded and easily fooled. Yet you still seem really bugged by them overall despite such a dismissal.

My point all along has been - none of it should really matter in regards to the HOF. It gets far too much attention for no good reason I can see. But you really, really want it to matter, so this mammoth wrong that has been committed against your favorite bands is a big deal. I don't get that, because this kind of thing doesn't matter to me when talking about music.
---yea, dance was the wrong word; move, jump, release...in whatever form. The fact is, Springsteen on a national level in the US did much more to bring rock back to its rock roots than any punk band IMO, and he doesn't get the credit for it he deserves.
---not saying you were fooled as you clearly were on to them early on. But there were people who bought into this and didn't necessarily get the parody as you did. Don't take this stuff so personally man.
----none of this HOF stuff does matter re the validity of the music, but since they have it, I threw it out for discussion. It won't make me stop listening to Yes or Genesis, and it won't make me a fan of the Sex Pistols. It does matter however in terms of historical perception of those younger than us that may be fooled into believing that the Sex Pistols have legitimacy of some kind that they don't deserve. And the disregarding of a whole genre of music (and not just a band here and there) other than Pink Floyd is a legitmate subject to open up for debate if only to see what people think--that's all.

By the way, you seem to like to point out the pompousness or alleged pretentiousness of prog rock. Yet all forms of music have their pompous and pretentious representatives don't they. We've already talked about one Mr Rotten. I can only imagine the vitriol you would shell out if Rick Wakeman toured around the country giving one man speaking shows about how he feels about things, ala Henry Rollins, as if we all care. So there is plenty of pomposity and pretentiousness to go around, even in the sacred halls of punk rock.

Stand back...and walk away slowly...

Just thought I'd quote my favorite rock band. Who are in the HOF-one of them twice. Don't think it adds anything to my enjoyment of their music however.

The first band to take the Underground's sound to new heights was "The Clash". Without the Clash, punk would have died a sudden and more widely ridiculed death than disco. But Stumer, Jones and co. kept what was cool about punk and gave it substance and musicality. IMO they were the Rolling Stones of Punk and were head and shoulders above any punk band before or since.


Again, showing the influence of the Who, I always thought of the Clash as much more the successors to the Who than Velvet Underground. You can hear the Townshend influence in many of the Clash's guitar riffs.

Just give me 3 chords and 20 different volume levels.

I remember buying the Sex Pistols while stationed in the Azores in the Air Force. It was loud
and fast pace music that a lot of the standard fare did not care for. I personnely liked it and was always up to hear it getting ready for work.

A lot of people were getting into disco ( bad for them ) but I was still jamming to Return to Forever, Genesis, Yes and of course the Sex Pistols. People would come by and say "What the hell is that?" You just have to appreciate the total non-conforming music of that day when drivel was being spewed over the radio. Good for the Sex Pistols for getting in to the hall of fame. Now I just need to put on some Tubes, The Clash and Devo to go down memory lane.

As far as prog goes it will not be mainstream until the songs are a little shorter. Tough to fit the "Call the law offices of so and so" between 23 minutes of virtuoso guitar, drums and keyboards. Gotta love the local college stations for esoteric music.

Well, gotta go and get the mohawk trimmed. Late.

The Sex Pistols, The Clash and the Ramones are the most over rated bands in rock history. No arguing here, it's just my opinion :D

The Ramones are ok, mostly because they were an early punk band but I don't listen to their music now. I have played the Clash in my car as recently as a few days ago and I still think they are the best punk band ever and very deserving of being held in such high regard by their peers and rock music critics. I don't think the Sex Pistols are bad but just not in the class of The Clash. The Clash are definitely in my top ten rock acts of all time and a high point of 70's rock for me along with Led Zeppelin.

Chris

.

but I was still jamming to Return to Forever, Genesis, Yes and of course the Sex Pistols. Well, gotta go and get the mohawk trimmed. Late.


Uh, so you were a big Yes, Genesis and Sex Pistols fan huh? And you still have a mohawk, do ya. Yea right.

Hey, where are the Kinks in all this? I realize that they might have been overlooked because they are so quintessentially English, but if stuff like "You Really Got Me" wasn't the beginning of Punk, I don't know what was! Steve Crowley - I always said that Devo is one of the most underrated groups of it's time (at least up to the "Peek-a-Boo" stage). Nobody writes better (and catchier) stuff about corporate monkeys and male hormonal issues better than them! Put on "New Traditionalists" and just turn the bass way up and enjoy! As far as the Sex Pistols, no matter what anyone thinks of them otherwise (and there acceptance into the HOF is definitely questionable, especially since they only put out one real album anyway), "Bullocks" is a classic. At the time it came out, music really needed that shot of energy in the arm and it sure did do that. Personally, I think Johnny Rotten is a big joke, but who in their right mind takes him seriously anyway? Squonk - they had more than one hit - there was "Pretty Vacant", "Anarchy in the U.K." and the B side of "Queen"- "I Did You No Wrong" (which is a GREAT song). Don't worry about Prog, man. It'll get it's due someday. It might be many, many years from now, and maybe in another part of the world, but it'll happen! Most of these bands can't be considered Rock & Roll, and I think that's the main real reason they've been excluded. Also, except for Genesis (and maybe Tull - barely), they haven't had very many hits to speak of. And even of the few that did, they weren't that universally accepted by the general public. I'm just fine with the fact that it's my own little enjoyment. If they were that popular they probably would've pretty much sucked (like Genesis ended up doing - and I'm talking about their music, not their live act - like for instance "Jesus He Loves Me" or "No Son of Mine") Blondie I have a so-so opinion of, considering that they degraded into Disco (although their earlier and harder stuff was great). Actually, if you just got rid of "Heart of Glass", "Rapture" and worst of all - "Call Me", they were pretty darn good ("The Hardest Part" was pretty disco-ish, too). As far as The Clash, I thought they were maybe a bit too slick and commercial when I first heard them, but in more recent years I've grown to really appreciate them. One more thing - not to knock his music or anything, but lets call a spade a spade. When "The Boss" really hit the scene I seem to recall more hype than anything I've ever seen since the earlier '60's - to the point of his management paying off both Time and Newsweek in the same week to put him on their front covers and declare him the new "God" of music (before most people had even actually heard of the guy). I don't think it's fair to just judge The Sex Pistols by all that hype, which as I recall, in the U.S. at least was not until well AFTER their music hit here. In fact, it was quite a long while after. It wasn't till the stories started coming out later. Then the band's image really took on more of a life of it's own, especially after the Vicious - Spungen incident. Maybe in Britain or other parts of the U.S. they were about more than the music, but not here in good ol' down to earth Chicagoland at least.

Uh, so you were a big Yes, Genesis and Sex Pistols fan huh? And you still have a mohawk, do ya. Yea right.

I agree squonk. It's like saying you're both gay and straight. ;)

---yea, dance was the wrong word; move, jump, release...in whatever form. The fact is, Springsteen on a national level in the US did much more to bring rock back to its rock roots than any punk band IMO, and he doesn't get the credit for it he deserves.

OK, I could be wrong here out of ignorance, but I didn't see hundreds (no, make that thousands when counting all of the great small local punk bands that popped up) of bands that were formed from Springsteen's influence for that particular reason.

---not saying you were fooled as you clearly were on to them early on. But there were people who bought into this and didn't necessarily get the parody as you did. Don't take this stuff so personally man.

That's pretty funny, since I am the one laughing at all of this in between trying to set the record straight - since there is plenty of disinformation out there on punk in general, but particularly The Sex Pistols (thank you, Malcolm, for that).

----none of this HOF stuff does matter re the validity of the music, but since they have it, I threw it out for discussion. It won't make me stop listening to Yes or Genesis, and it won't make me a fan of the Sex Pistols. It does matter however in terms of historical perception of those younger than us that may be fooled into believing that the Sex Pistols have legitimacy of some kind that they don't deserve. And the disregarding of a whole genre of music (and not just a band here and there) other than Pink Floyd is a legitmate subject to open up for debate if only to see what people think--that's all.

Well, that's fine for you to think The Pistols had no legitimacy, but they actually do. HOF induction is not the way to record that, though. It's a tourist trap museum, that's all. OK, that might not be fair - never been there - but they do charge an awful lot of money to get in.


By the way, you seem to like to point out the pompousness or alleged pretentiousness of prog rock. Yet all forms of music have their pompous and pretentious representatives don't they. We've already talked about one Mr Rotten. I can only imagine the vitriol you would shell out if Rick Wakeman toured around the country giving one man speaking shows about how he feels about things, ala Henry Rollins, as if we all care. So there is plenty of pomposity and pretentiousness to go around, even in the sacred halls of punk rock.

Re: Rollins' speaking - well, he's funny. He wears a t-shirt and jeans. And speaks about real social issues with depth and humor. And often makes fun of himself. Not very pretentious. Much better than the tough guy crouch which I already made clear I laughed at back in 84 or so. It's me, so I probably made fun of him while they were playing, too, by yelling stupid things, but I don't remember. As far as a speaker, though, somewhat bad example. If Rick Wakeman could lose the cape, find a way to vocalize the issues that he seems to care about a little bit better while getting a sense of humor about them at the same time - and a little sense of humor about himself wouldn't hurt either - well, he'd probably be an OK speaker. If he didn't and was out speaking, I'd probably at worst make fun of him a little. This stuff doesn't tear me up, like it appears it does you. I do like to try to set facts straight though about the stuff I know about to avoid the same type of historical mis-perception that you reference here in this last post - although not from a musical opinion standpoint, but a historical standpoint.

(QUOTES By Rammitinski)

Most of these bands can't be considered Rock & Roll, and I think that's the main real reason they've been excluded. Also, except for Genesis (and maybe Tull - barely), they haven't had very many hits to speak of.

Not considered rock and roll? Why? Simply because they combined classical elements into their music? I disagree. Tell me that The Knife, Dancing With the Moonlit Knight, Return of the Giant Hogweed, Watcher, Musical Box, I Know What I Like (prototypical pop song structure), Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, LilyWhite Lilith, Dance on a Volcano, Squonk, Down and Out, Deep in the Motherlode, Behind the Lines, Abacab, Mama, Home by the Sea don't rock. It's more complex and lyrically interesting rock in many cases, but its still rock, and there was no more powerful band live in concert than Genesis.





If they were that popular they probably would've pretty much sucked (like Genesis ended up doing - and I'm talking about their music, not their live act - like for instance "Jesus He Loves Me" or "No Son of Mine")

I don't think anything Genesis ever did sucked, with the possible exception of their one-off stab at "new wave"--Who Dunnit? Genesis was simply too accomplished and too good of a band to do stuff that sucked. Even the worst of the Collins songs are good quality pop songs. You and I might not like them as much as the earlier more progressive stuff, but I would still say it was better QUALITY music than 95% of what was out there at the time. I think No Son of Mine is a quality pop song. I'd rather hear Musical Box, but there is nothing to be ashamed about re No Son of Mine. Most groups would give their left nut to write a song like that. And it sounded great in concert. Jesus He Knows Me, as a parody of TV evangelists, was actually quite funny.


ADD--Genesis as you know had quite a bit of humor in their music from the very beginning, and had a number of songs that poked fun at the English upper class and English politics. Of course it was absurdist humor and somewhat subtle, a lot of literary references etc. You had to be able to open up and read a few books to maybe get many of the references. This was completely missed by the pro-punk prog hating music press which always tried to foist this "boring serious nonhumorous" label on prog rock. And of course a lot of people bought into this stereoypical view and still hold it to this day--see many of the above posts. And of course it was mostly because they simply didn't recognize or bother to understand the parody and absurdist humor in stuff like Get Em Out By Friday. Heck, long before the word punk was even being used, Gabriel had written songs like Battle of Epping Forest and the whole Rael character in Lamb who was a punk before it was fashionable to be punk. And the whole Lamb album is so full of humor and sexual references that guys like Henry Rollins could only dream of writing.

One of the primary reasons I love and appreciate Genesis to this day is the humor in their music, subtle in many instances, but certainly there.



One more thing - not to knock his music or anything, but lets call a spade a spade. When "The Boss" really hit the scene I seem to recall more hype than anything I've ever seen since the earlier '60's - to the point of his management paying off both Time and Newsweek in the same week to put him on their front covers and declare him the new "God" of music (before most people had even actually heard of the guy).

Management paid off Time and Newsweek? Where did you come up with that?
Its true when Springsteen first hit the national scene in 75 he recieved a lot of glowing press pub, and rightly so. Jon Landau and Dave Marsh were certainly instrumental in that. When I say he doesn't get enough credit, I am talking about now. People seem to forget now how fresh and retro Bruce sounded back in 1975, and a song like Born to Run, which has now been played to death, sounded so fresh and amazing when it hit the airwaves back then. And this was all before anyone had ever heard of the Ramones except for a few leather jacketed CBGBs bar patrons.

Rammitinski - I pretty much agree with you all around. And I also agree with your sentiments on The Clash overall, although the first album is pretty darn good, and London Calling often works for me. In fact, I think it is about time to stick that back on the turntable here when I get back to doing some work in a few moments. Devo was great. It's funny - back in the early 80's, I didn't like them much. I missed out on seeing them at the On Broadway or The Mab - don't remember which (two of SF's punk clubs) at the time because of that - "nah, I'll just hang out here and drink." Dumb move.

And thanks for bringing up the Springsteen facts. I avoided that, since the introduction of him and Petty seemed like this might throw the old thread even further off-topic if I addressed that part. But you are correct there, too.

One thing - don't forget, Yes had "Owner of a Lonely Heart" as a hit, too. Although I think (at least at the time) even Yes fans kind of hated that. At least the ones that shopped at the record store I managed.

[QUOTE]OK, I could be wrong here out of ignorance, but I didn't see hundreds (no, make that thousands when counting all of the great small local punk bands that popped up) of bands that were formed from Springsteen's influence for that particular reason.


You don't think Springsteen influenced thousands of bands to pick up a guitar and start playing rock and roll? I beg to differ. His influence is certainly hard to quantify, but its still active and ongoing, and covers the gamut from rock and roll to roots rock to folk rock. On any given night somewhere in virtually every town in America you can find a bar band with a sax player cover a Springsteen song in an effort to approximate that great E Street Band bar band sound that I would argue is much more prevalent than mohawk jumping punks running out Anarchy in the UK.

Also, except for Genesis (and maybe Tull - barely), they haven't had very many hits to speak of. And even of the few that did, they weren't that universally accepted by the general public.


I forgot to add--the Hall of Fame is not supposed to be just about hit records--otherwise the Sex Pistols certainly wouldn't qualify, and niether would bands like Velvet Underground. Its supposed to be about popular acclaim, record sales, artistic vision and quality, talent and influence. Genesis had all of that and then some. You could induct them purely on what they did in the 80's based on record sales and concert revenue alone. And how many bands have as much individual success and talent as Genesis--Gabriel, Collins, Hackett, Rutherford, Banks--its really remarkable given that everyone except for Banks has had solo and side project success also.

Also, what about groups like the Moody Blues? Supertramp? Kansas? Rush? They all had chart success. Again the problem is the purposeful leaving out of a whole genre of music.

You guys may be surprised to hear that I am also a big Devo fan from way back, although I never got the chance to see them live. Neil Young took a fancy to them even long before Whip It came out and actually co-opted the phrase Rust Never Sleeps from something Mothersbaugh said. Young included them in his movie Human Highway and they played a version of Hey hey My my.

OK, I could be wrong here out of ignorance, but I didn't see hundreds (no, make that thousands when counting all of the great small local punk bands that popped up) of bands that were formed from Springsteen's influence for that particular reason.

---not saying you were fooled as you clearly were on to them early on. But there were people who bought into this and didn't necessarily get the parody as you did. Don't take this stuff so personally man.

That's pretty funny, since I am the one laughing at all of this in between trying to set the record straight - since there is plenty of disinformation out there on punk in general, but particularly The Sex Pistols (thank you, Malcolm, for that).



Well, that's fine for you to think The Pistols had no legitimacy, but they actually do. HOF induction is not the way to record that, though. It's a tourist trap museum, that's all. OK, that might not be fair - never been there - but they do charge an awful lot of money to get in.




Re: Rollins' speaking - well, he's funny. He wears a t-shirt and jeans. And speaks about real social issues with depth and humor. And often makes fun of himself. Not very pretentious. Much better than the tough guy crouch which I already made clear I laughed at back in 84 or so. It's me, so I probably made fun of him while they were playing, too, by yelling stupid things, but I don't remember. As far as a speaker, though, somewhat bad example. If Rick Wakeman could lose the cape, find a way to vocalize the issues that he seems to care about a little bit better while getting a sense of humor about them at the same time - and a little sense of humor about himself wouldn't hurt either - well, he'd probably be an OK speaker. If he didn't and was out speaking, I'd probably at worst make fun of him a little. This stuff doesn't tear me up, like it appears it does you. I do like to try to set facts straight though about the stuff I know about to avoid the same type of historical mis-perception that you reference here in this last post - although not from a musical opinion standpoint, but a historical standpoint.
The point is that Wakeman would never bother going out and do a speaking tour about what's on his mind. And the only thing Yes fans would want or pay to see him do is to do what he's incredibly talented at--play the keyboards. I could care less what Wakeman thinks about the price of tea in China.

You seem to like to pick on Wakeman for some reason--obviously he rubs you the wrong way. In interviews I have seen him do he comes off as a very down to earth guy who is not pretentious at all. He hasn't worn a cape since 1973 or so by the way. He actually was quite funny in a Yes history laserdisc I have talking about why he left Yes several times. Seems like ol Rick is a bit of a boozer and a meat eater, and his swilling of brew and eating cheeseburgers, among other things, didn't always mesh with the vegetarians Howe and Anderson, who appear to be much more uptight. So all your ragging on Wakeman I have been chuckling at because by all accounts he appears to be a regular ol bloke you'd probably want to drink a brew with; so maybe you should switch your attack to Howe and Anderson.

[QUOTE=lurch4711]
You don't think Springsteen influenced thousands of bands to pick up a guitar and start playing rock and roll? I beg to differ.

Hmm - guess I gotta repeat myself - as I said: "OK, I could be wrong here out of ignorance, but I didn't see hundreds (no, make that thousands when counting all of the great small local punk bands that popped up) of bands that were formed from Springsteen's influence for that particular reason."

That particular reason being to rid rock of all of the crap music at the time and bring it back to its basics. That was your reply to my post about this. You seemed to understand when you wrote it.

His influence is certainly hard to quantify, but its still active and ongoing, and covers the gamut from rock and roll to roots rock to folk rock. On any given night somewhere in virtually every town in America you can find a bar band with a sax player cover a Springsteen song in an effort to approximate that great E Street Band bar band sound that I would argue is much more prevalent than mohawk jumping punks running out Anarchy in the UK.

But we weren't talking about overall influences when you brought up Springsteen. Yes, Springsteen influenced a lot of bands. I don't know he influenced a lot of bands to get the heck out there in an attempt destroy the less than gutsy music rock seemed to be becoming. Sure, there's a lot of bands that have wanted to sound like Springsteen. But why. As I believe I have stated twice now, I could be wrong out of ignorance. But I don't *think* I am about this point. Guess ya don't even like when I say I could be wrong. You're the best!

Adding after the post was made: I have just been informed that around these parts, "You're the best" can be taken as an insult. I didn't mean it as an insult.

The point is that Wakeman would never bother going out and do a speaking tour about what's on his mind. And the only thing Yes fans would want or pay to see him do is to do what he's incredibly talented at--play the keyboards. I could care less what Wakeman thinks about the price of tea in China.

Well actually - your point was that it would probably really bug me if he did. I mean, not to explain your posts again or anything, but that's what you were saying. But if you'd like to change it at this point, no problem.

You seem to like to pick on Wakeman for some reason--obviously he rubs you the wrong way.

Well, yeah - I am not a big fan of Yes, although I think that's clear. At the same time, you're not a big fan of The Pistols, and Johnny Rotten bugs you. That's fine. But two things - you are the one that brought him up in regards to I would hate him speaking; and secondly, I like the reaction if he gets criticized in any way. Re-read the first line of my original post - there's a key word there.

In interviews I have seen him do he comes off as a very down to earth guy who is not pretentious at all. He hasn't worn a cape since 1973 or so by the way.

Yeah, that wasn't fair (see that first line of my OP again). Then again, it has always given me much amusement at just how much he loved it back then, so that is often the first visual I get of the guy.

He actually was quite funny in a Yes history laserdisc I have talking about why he left Yes several times. Seems like ol Rick is a bit of a boozer and a meat eater, and his swilling of brew and eating cheeseburgers, among other things, didn't always mesh with the vegetarians Howe and Anderson, who appear to be much more uptight. So all your ragging on Wakeman I have been chuckling at because by all accounts he appears to be a regular ol bloke you'd probably want to drink a brew with; so maybe you should switch your attack to Howe and Anderson.

Oh yeah - I thought everyone knew about the veggie/non-veggie thing being a big problem. I have known about that for decades, and I don't even like the band. Sure Howe and Anderson are more uptight, but they aren't as funny in a showy kind of way (to me anyway). I believe the word you used was pompous in relation to Wakeman (while saying it was OK for him to be because he was a great keyboard player). I don't think I'd particularly want to "drink a brew" with him. Unless he was buying! Then heck, yeah! But I'm cheap that way.

I'm probably just about done here - I tried to bring the thread back OT, but failed apparently.

The point is that Wakeman would never bother going out and do a speaking tour about what's on his mind. And the only thing Yes fans would want or pay to see him do is to do what he's incredibly talented at--play the keyboards. I could care less what Wakeman thinks about the price of tea in China.

Of course I forgot something... and I do care what bands I listen to have to say. I would think most people would have interest in that. I guess I'm wrong, although it sounds like you enjoyed the commentary on the laserdisc, etc, so maybe you do want to hear what he has to say? Whichever, I do tend to like to hear it, whether it's serious or not. I prefer a mix of both, though.

Punk is not about music!

On a side note, I grew up and still live in Chino, California (35 east of Los Angeles) arguably the punk capitol of the U.S. I still listen to and go to punk shows. I've seen 5 or so waves of punk come and go since 1980. In 1981 my punk buddy had a party in his back yard (a yearly occurrence) in which Social D played. They showed up in the rain in a crappy old van with their crappy equipment and played in the rain to 500 raging kids for $200 and all the beer they could drink. I think Mike Ness owns a city in Orange County or something now. These were a bunch of young guys, not professional musicians, out spreading their message about how F'd upped things were.

I still have the Decline of Western Civilization on Laser Disc. I wish Urgh! A Music War would come out on DVD.

muncey

Squonk - you're right about Rick Wakeman in interviews. And he actually is a bit of a card. I heard him in a live interview on KSHE when I was spending some time in St. Louis in 1975. He was guzzling Heinikens' (his preference) during the whole thing and kept belching into the microphone. It was actually pretty memorable. About Genesis - I was kind of saying that they, of all the Prog bands, probably actually DO deserve the recognition of something like the HOF. Oh, and I didn't really mean to leave out Yes' having hits - besides "..Lonely Heart" they had "Roundabout", "Your Move" (sans "All Good People") and "America" which were all edited 45's and were actually Top 40 singles on AM radio (at least in my town). I've actually got them all. I think "Going For The One" was too (and of course "Don't Kill the Whale", but we'll leave that one out!). I wasn't thinking of them when I mentioned Genesis and Tull, but I should have. ELP too, for that matter. Believe it or not, I actually have "Lucky Man"/"Knife Edge" on an originally released 45!

ELP too, for that matter. Believe it or not, I actually have "Lucky Man"/"Knife Edge" on an originally released 45!

I had that 45. Of course it's long since lost. But I still have all of ELP on LP, except for their newest stuff which of course is on CD. I've had several copies of Brain Salid Surgery on LP through the years, and several versions on CD.

I had that 45. Of course it's long since lost. But I still have all of ELP on LP, except for their newest stuff which of course is on CD. I've had several copies of Brain Salid Surgery on LP through the years, and several versions on CD.I hear the DVD-Audio of BSS is really good. When are they ever gonna get around to remastering all their other albums, I wonder? (At least the ones before BSS.)

my own jerky comments. ...


We got it loud and clear....

Punk is not about music!

I wish Urgh! A Music War would come out on DVD.



I agree. A have a VHS copy, but it's definitely showing signs of age....

We got it loud and clear....

Now yer catchin' on!

Punk is not about music!

Also very accurate! Or possibly slightly more accurate, "Punk is not just about music!"

I still have the Decline of Western Civilization on Laser Disc. I wish Urgh! A Music War would come out on DVD.

Two words: music rights. That's the big problem with this great film. Really, really, really, really expensive (in more ways than one) to clear it all vs. what sales might be.

Squonk - you're right about Rick Wakeman in interviews. And he actually is a bit of a card.

Ah, but this has already been stated:

"the only thing Yes fans would want or pay to see him do is to do what he's incredibly talented at--play the keyboards."

Then again, ya might not be a "Yes fan" (bold added for emphasis).

[QUOTE=squonk


ADD--Genesis as you know had quite a bit of humor in their music from the very beginning, and had a number of songs that poked fun at the English upper class and English politics. Of course it was absurdist humor and somewhat subtle, a lot of literary references etc. You had to be able to open up and read a few books to maybe get many of the references. This was completely missed by the pro-punk prog hating music press which always tried to foist this "boring serious nonhumorous" label on prog rock. And of course a lot of people bought into this stereoypical view and still hold it to this day--see many of the above posts. And of course it was mostly because they simply didn't recognize or bother to understand the parody and absurdist humor in stuff like Get Em Out By Friday. Heck, long before the word punk was even being used, Gabriel had written songs like Battle of Epping Forest and the whole Rael character in Lamb who was a punk before it was fashionable to be punk. And the whole Lamb album is so full of humor and sexual references that guys like Henry Rollins could only dream of writing.

One of the primary reasons I love and appreciate Genesis to this day is the humor in their music, subtle in many instances, but certainly there.[/QUOTE]

.

Now yer catchin' on!
wish I could say the same. O well, off to view my copy of Yes' 1973 concert complete with Wakeman in full regal cape. Dynamite stuff. Anyone for some moshing? That keyboard interlude during Close to the Edge does it to me every time. I just want to take someone down!

lurch: If you're still there, let me pick your brain for a moment. Am I right in saying punk was originally a reaction to how rock was perceived by the ones who first punked? A music that no longer spoke to their emotions, so they created their own? If so, there seems to me to be 2 components to the rock punks rejected. One was the whole hype of what was called arena rock-the venues growing bigger and bigger, the shows more and more about the "experience" as much as the actual music. Rock stars on mag. covers, etc. The other component was technical expertise, where an important part of enjoying the music was the belief that you were listening to "the best ever" guitar, drums, keyboard, etc. Was punk a rejection of both ideas? In other words, could someene like Duane Allman for example, be unable to play punk no matter how much he wanted to because he was just too good a musician? Does playing music "anyone can play" necesarily rule out actuallly being extremely skilled at your craft? I'm sincere in the question, I'm not trying to bait you, so I hope you get what I'm driving at...

lonwolf----I was in a punk band in 1977 so I reckon I'm qualified to answer your questions.

Yes, Punk was most certainly a reaction to stupifying bands like Kansas, Foreigner, Boston, ELP, Yes and all that ilk. It was a return to basics, remember that less time passed between the birth of Rock and Roll in the mid 50s and the beginning of Punk in the mid 70s than has passed between the beginning of Punk and now. Many punkers had grown up hearing Elvis, Little Richard, Chuck Berry and such on the radio every day, to them Rock and Roll roots were a reality not an affectation.

I don't think punkers had anything against being a good musician as such, they just didn't like overplaying and virtuosity for it's own sake nor did they like long endless noodling on stage.

Like the guy from Talking Heads said when the Ramones didn't participate in a RRHOF jam session---"The Ramones don't jam."

Yes, Punk was most certainly a reaction to stupifying bands like Kansas, Foreigner, Boston, ELP, Yes and all that ilk.


See. Exhibit A. More stereotypical namecalling and misinformation which I am now forced to correct. Why stupifying? What's that supposed to mean?

Kansas was a bar band out of the plains of Kansas that toiled for years on the road playing hard rock and roll and they rocked just as hard as any punk band. Listen to their first few albums. Foreigner didn't have a hit until the late 70's, long after the first punk bands could have "reacted" to them in the early 70s. Boston's first album came out in 75.

The fact of the matter is that punk was really more of a reaction against the psychedelic noodlings of bands like the Grateful Dead, who would jam for 20-30 minutes on one song. They were also a reaction to the excesses of bands like Led Zeppelin, who championed long guitar solos and became representative of rock star excess far more than a Yes or ELP. The Stooges and MC5 and Velvet Underground were all making albums BEFORE or at the same time as Yes and ELP and before they were very popular in the US for sure. So while some of the later punk bands may have reacted against the idea of virtuosity and musicianship in bands like ELP and Yes, the "reaction" wasn't limited to progressive rock, which was by and large an underground music genre of its own with limited radio exposure save for a few songs of a few bands (Yes--Roundabout, Pink Floyd Money etc).

Your characterization of punk as purely a reaction against progressive rock (which by the way Boston and Foreigner are not) is simply wrong and stereotypical, and perpetuates these mistaken stereotypes which you apparantly bought hook line and sinker from the prog hating pro-punk music press from decades ago.

So in partial answer to lonwolf's question, yes, true punk would be antithetical also to Duane Allman solos and BB King solos and vitually any jazz great who believed musicianship and virtuosity were important. And while there was nothing wrong with the idea of back to basics roots rock which inspired many guys to pick up guitars and start a band (ie, see my Springsteen posts), the side effect of a "we don't need to be good or learn music or go beyond 3 chord" mentality is that you created a whole bunch of bands that absolutely simply sucked and were completely talentless. Ultimately, as I have stated many times, talent wins out. Bands like the Talking Heads were talented and moved beyond the restrictive shackles of punk of course. But there was a whole lot of worthless sludge created in the name of punk simply due to a lack of talent IMO. Exh A was the Sex Pistols.

Wow - ya try to get out, but keep getting sucked in (or is that suckered?). Anyway lonewolf - yeah, first off, Tom predates me by a couple of years, so I would be inclined to defer to him anyway. But yes, I would agree whole-heartedly with what he said.

Squonk - First off, Tom didn't mention prog rock - he mentioned bands. BTW: lots of punks didn't even bother to read any pro-punk press at first that covered music "theory" issues, so I don't know why you are so hung up on that all punks just bought into some punk press thing. Punks liked the atmosphere and music. Heck, most of the pro-punk press (at least earlier on) tended to make fun of themselves in their coverage of stuff. I think you just don't get a lot of it.

Punk was indeed a reaction against what rock-n-roll was becoming. If you think that is wrong, then you just don't know better (no problem with that, but take the opportunity to learn). And if you'd rather ignore that component because it goes against bands you like, then so be it. But don't state that what he is saying is wrong, because it most cetainly ain't.

And be careful about bringing BB King into this. That also shows your lack of knowledge. Don't forget that he played with X fairly early on (not recorded that I know of, but live), and has made fun of his own musical limitations repeatedly. BB King (who I am a fan of) actually liked what was going on with punk.

"you created a whole bunch of bands that absolutely simply sucked and were completely talentless. Ultimately, as I have stated many times, talent wins out."

A lack of talent does NOT equal "sucked." If the music speaks to someone's gut (who referenced that here - heh), then it works. It may not for you, but that doesn't mean they universally sucked.

And Talking Heads started out as sort of a non-punk punk band - they didn't "move there." I think they kind of got lumped in with them because there was nowhere else they could play and nowhere else they fit in genre-wise.

"Kansas was a bar band out of the plains of Kansas that toiled for years on the road playing hard rock and roll and they rocked just as hard as any punk band. "

First off, this is just funny. Secondly, if you're inclined to make a statement that includes "rocked just as hard as any punk band" and mean it seriously would just further prove that you probably just don't get punk. Nothing wrong with that, but a key component of what this discussion has turned into.

wish I could say the same.

Oh, I thought by locating it you were catching on. I stand corrected.

Anyone for some moshing? That keyboard interlude during Close to the Edge does it to me every time. I just want to take someone down!

DeeAnn and I are curious how you mosh to a keyboard solo... or even pogo :)

Wow - ya try to get out, but keep getting sucked in (or is that suckered?). Anyway lonewolf - yeah, first off, Tom predates me by a couple of years, so I would be inclined to defer to him anyway. But yes, I would agree whole-heartedly with what he said.

Squonk - First off, Tom didn't mention prog rock - he mentioned bands. BTW: lots of punks didn't even bother to read any pro-punk press at first that covered music "theory" issues, so I don't know why you are so hung up on that all punks just bought into some punk press thing. Punks liked the atmosphere and music. Heck, most of the pro-punk press (at least earlier on) tended to make fun of themselves in their coverage of stuff. I think you just don't get a lot of it.

Punk was indeed a reaction against what rock-n-roll was becoming. If you think that is wrong, then you just don't know better (no problem with that, but take the opportunity to learn). And if you'd rather ignore that component because it goes against bands you like, then so be it. But don't state that what he is saying is wrong, because it most cetainly ain't.

And be careful about bringing BB King into this. That also shows your lack of knowledge. Don't forget that he played with X fairly early on (not recorded that I know of, but live), and has made fun of his own musical limitations repeatedly. BB King (who I am a fan of) actually liked what was going on with punk.

"you created a whole bunch of bands that absolutely simply sucked and were completely talentless. Ultimately, as I have stated many times, talent wins out."

A lack of talent does NOT equal "sucked." If the music speaks to someone's gut (who referenced that here - heh), then it works. It may not for you, but that doesn't mean they universally sucked.

And Talking Heads started out as sort of a non-punk punk band - they didn't "move there." I think they kind of got lumped in with them because there was nowhere else they could play and nowhere else they fit in genre-wise.

"Kansas was a bar band out of the plains of Kansas that toiled for years on the road playing hard rock and roll and they rocked just as hard as any punk band. "

First off, this is just funny. Secondly, if you're inclined to make a statement that includes "rocked just as hard as any punk band" and mean it seriously would just further prove that you probably just don't get punk. Nothing wrong with that, but a key component of what this discussion has turned into.
So to sum up, you who by your own admission have narrow tastes and no progressive music in your collection, get it, while I who have pretty wide ranging collection of music including a fair amount of punk and post punk music, don't get it and just can't understand punk. I see. I'd normally bother going through all the misstatements and misinterpretation of what I said, but I can see at this point its not worth it. And I am laughing too.

So to sum up, you who by your own admission have narrow tastes and no progressive music in your collection, get it, while I who have pretty wide ranging collection of music including a fair amount of punk and post punk music, don't get it and just can't understand punk. I see.

By your statements and knowledge conveyed in them - yep! Just because someone owns a Black Flag album or Ramones album doesn't mean that they inherently actually know much about what was going on with punk. This is really all proved by you telling Tom he's wrong in exactly those words. When he's absolutely not. Then again, I don't know everything about prog rock - and frankly, I don't know everything about punk, but I do know more than just a fair amount and have been around it for about a quarter of a century or so now - and that's not just buying records to listen to every now and then when I want to feel rebelious or something, but going to shows all of those years, personally knowing bands, not just listening to the "big bands," etc. I also do know something about some (many) of the prog-rock bands (and other bands that I think are boring). The difference is, I'll admit it and I am OK with that. I am often interested in learning more, too. You want to convey that you already know everything about everything when by your own statements, you don't (at least in the case of punk, although you've made it clear where prog-rock fans, or at least Yes fans, stand in their depth of caring about what the bands actually have to say, which is something I have learned from this thread and find quite enlightening and explains more than just a couple of things).

I'd normally bother going through all the misstatements and misinterpretation of what I said, but I can see at this point its not worth it. And I am laughing too.

As you should be - and should have been from the start (if you weren't). Musically, you think some stuff sucks that I like - I think some (or a lot, based only on this thread) stuff sucks that you like. It really doesn't matter in the end. Although I am interested in trying to "set the record straight" when history is being revised - particularly when that revision is originating from people like Malcolm.

Again, institutions like the HOF (and the Grammy's and on and on) probably shouldn't even really exist, though. If a band is considered great by comparable institutions that can't be done away with at this point (ie. the press and "rock historians"), it will be so noted. But it shouldn't matter to a fan one way or another in the end. But then again, maybe that's just a stupid sucky punk attitude or something. I dunno.

[QUOTE=squonk]So to sum up, you who by your own admission have narrow tastes and no progressive music in your collection, get it, while I who have pretty wide ranging collection of music including a fair amount of punk and post punk music, don't get it and just can't understand punk.[QUOTE]

Adding this to be perfectly clear:
Yeah - that's pretty much correct. Just because one has a wide ranging collection doesn't necessarily mean they know much about anything in one particular genre - culturally or musically - and that's a thing with punk - it can be both. And that's OK. No problem with that, as I have already stated. Yeah, I am pretty focused on punk. I have no problem having a narrow focus (this ignoring my fondness for swing, early blues, Motown, 60's girl groups, some 60's garage, early industrial, a lot of New Wave, pretty much all No Wave, and a few other things). That doesn't mean I am some all-knowing historical expert on punk or anything, but I do know an awful lot *from* that narrowing. That sort of just makes sense when you're looking at "specializing" (a pretty lame pompous word in this case, but used for lack of a better that my battered brain can grab at right now...).

As you should be - and should have been from the start (if you weren't).


I started out just chuckling but by the end it turned into a hearty guffaw.

geesh, I asked a simple question...First off, Tom I would like to thank you for your thoughtful comments. My question was asked in all sincerity and I appreaciate that you replied in kind. I don't know where to go from here. I really wanted to discuss this further but if all that results are slams and personal attacks, whats the point?

It has gotten rather ridiculous, hasn't it?. Different people have different reasons for liking different music. I, personally, don't get caught up in fads or genres (to the extent that there is such a thing). I guess that's good, as I don't want to come off as a complete stubborn, single-minded, self-righteous, snobby ass (like, unfortunately, some critics do). There's quality music and lousy music for every type. I just like music that's "good" for it's type. And then again, I probably have what could be considered "guilty pleasures", as I think most people do. Maybe I'm just getting older, but I don't pigeonhole myself musically. If I like something, it's because it sounds good to me, not because I feel I need to belong to some "group". If it still sounds good to me 20 years from now, even if it's not the "in" thing anymore, then great. I just put it on and get into it. I have no need to justify my tastes by imposing them on anyone else, and just ask the same in return. If somebody puts down what I like I don't feel threatened in any way by that. Nothing's going to change my mind about the music in any way. Musical tastes are personal, and I actually like to keep it that way to avoid situations like the above. Nobody's forcing me to listen to their music. (Well, at least right now. My last apartment was another story, but that's one of the reasons why I'm not there anymore. And if I had to work at the local McDonalds, I'd probably go crazy.) There's always headphones and Ipods for at home or on the go. Oh, and by the way, I saw Kansas twice and they actually DO rock pretty hard at times - I don't think a lot of people are aware of that - that "girlie", sappy, highly commercial Dust in the Wind stuff didn't come out till their 5th album. Masque sure rocks pretty good! It just rocks in a different way than punk, that's all. As long as it doesn't talk about (seriously) killing other people, refer to woman in a misogynistically negative, direspectful way, isn't profanity laced and isn't all about bragging about oneself, I don't really have any problems with it, even though it still might just not be my cup of tea. Course, everyone is different. That's what makes the world go 'round.

Well I'm just glad the pedantic ole Squonk is around here to set me straight on what I and the other punkers I played with and hung with were thinking back in the day, evidently we didn't know our own minds.

I wonder what he was doing in 1977.

As for the Sex Pistols musical talent, well they did manage one of the best guitar solos ever in "EMI". They had a pretty good guitarist and a good drummer too. And some good songs. The first time I heard "God Save the Queen" I wanted to punch somebody wealthy in the face. That's entertainment.

By the way, I was a bouncer at the Aragon Ballroom, Chicago's premier hard-rock and metal venue, during the 70s and 80s and I saw damned near everybody, saw them evolve too. And Kansas always overplayed and had too many time changes for my taste. Same with Styx though Tommy Shaw later had a VERY hard-rocking band that I saw open for Rush and IMO blew Rush away. And Rush live was a very formidable band, very formidable indeed.

Well I'm just glad the pedantic ole Squonk is around here to set me straight on what I and the other punkers I played with and hung with were thinking back in the day, evidently we didn't know our own minds.

I wonder what he was doing in 1977.

As for the Sex Pistols musical talent, well they did manage one of the best guitar solos ever in "EMI". They had a pretty good guitarist and a good drummer too. And some good songs. The first time I heard "God Save the Queen" I wanted to punch somebody wealthy in the face. That's entertainment.

By the way, I was a bouncer at the Aragon Ballroom, Chicago's premier hard-rock and metal venue, during the 70s and 80s and I saw damned near everybody, saw them evolve too. And Kansas always overplayed and had too many time changes for my taste. Same with Styx though Tommy Shaw later had a VERY hard-rocking band that I saw open for Rush and IMO blew Rush away. And Rush live was a very formidable band, very formidable indeed.
I didn't tell you what you thought or played. I simply disagreed with your premise and simplification of what punk rock was reacting to. My post was a sincere disagreement about a stereotype you are perpetuating. But if you want to go through life believing all punk music was a direct reaction to Kansas ELP and Yes, go ahead. If that makes you feel better and makes you want to punch out more wealthy people, it sounds like you have the resume to keep up the good work.

And I already told lurch what I was doing back in 1977. I was moshing to long extended virtuoso keyboard solos by guys in capes.

Okay, first a confession. Saw JR on Conan way back in the early 90's (i think). The Allmans were the musical guests, and when asked who the SP were a reaction against JR sneeringly refered to my boys as overblown crap. And I know it was at least part put on and an attempt to be outrageous but...I kept wishing Warren or Greg (big guys) would come out and grab him by his geeky neck. ("You want primal, I'll show you primal.").So I know a little about what squonk is feeling. But the thing is, I personally feel the ABB are more about feeling than the SP were. But I also accept others might disagree. Duane never noodled, no matter how long his solos were, and in his prime Dickey didn't either. But their image grew to overwhelm the music, I agree, and they were one of the originators of arena rock, so some criticism is justified. And I understand wanting to get back to the basics, how r+r started. But the thing is, some of the originals were also good musicians. Tom, you mentioned Elvis and Berry among others as inspiation for punk. Never cared much for Elvis, but I have to admit he had a great voice, and scotty was a whale of a guitair player. And Berry was no Clapton but he had an unique style, definately no slouch. My point being not just anybody could form a band and hope to duplicate the sound of early rock. And thats where my 2 primary questions come from. Was punk more of a rebellion to the mega tours and overhyped stage shows than a music that had its own purpose? And, almost by defination, would a good punk band have to know only a few good chords?
Or, to put it another way: to listen to most prog. rock acts one has to think one is listening to a great musician. There isn't much point to ELP( who I admit to liking) or Yes or even the allmans if you don't fully believe they're playing music most folks couldn't do. Is punk solely trying to be music anyone can play? Or am I missing something? Because I can't help feeling punk is as much about hype as prog. rock is-its just another type.
Whew,,,,, does any of that make any sense?:)

And thats where my 2 primary questions come from. Was punk more of a rebellion to the mega tours and overhyped stage shows than a music that had its own purpose? And, almost by defination, would a good punk band have to know only a few good chords?
Or, to put it another way: to listen to most prog. rock acts one has to think one is listening to a great musician. There isn't much point to ELP( who I admit to liking) or Yes or even the allmans if you don't fully believe they're playing music most folks couldn't do. Is punk solely trying to be music anyone can play? Or am I missing something? Because I can't help feeling punk is as much about hype as prog. rock is-its just another type.
Whew,,,,, does any of that make any sense?:)
This is a very difficult thing to answer, because there are many different answers...

For me, early punk was a rebellion against many different things, for different reasons. The growth of large arena rock concerts (and the associated belief that you had to be "special" to become a rock star or make music) was reason for some. Saccharine ballads ("You Light Up My Life", for example) was another. Disco...

Another reason for punk was the ability for anyone to pick up an instrument and rail against whatever they felt like railing against. Honestly, I'd liken this aspect of punk to the early folk/coffeehouse artists of the 60's, many of whom could barely sing or play their instrument, but would get up there and sing about what was going on around them.

Although certainly not true of the entire genre, for many artists punk was protest music, and was highly political in nature. For others, it was simply fun, fast, and energetic...and a way to create something without being "marketable."

The idea that you had to play poorly to be considered punk is not accurate. Elvis Costello is considered by many to be an early "punk" pioneer, and he's loaded with talent. There are many other examples of artists or bands who were quite talented musically, but were playing punk for part (or most) of their careers. There's actually a pretty wide variety of punk styles and sub-genres...as there are with any genre of music. Just as you can't lump all "country" artists together, it's equally impossibe to lump all "punk" artists together.

Tha's my 2-cents...

Or, to put it another way: to listen to most prog. rock acts one has to think one is listening to a great musician. There isn't much point to ELP( who I admit to liking) or Yes or even the allmans if you don't fully believe they're playing music most folks couldn't do.


I have to disagree with you a bit here if I may. I listen to stuff like Yes and Genesis and the Allman Bros and Talking Heads and Sonic Youth for all the same reasons--because I like the way it sounds. I really don't listen solely because I think, wow, this is stuff not many people can play, although with progressive rock I am sure I am attracted to it partly because I like the more complicated musical structure which can be unique, different and pleasing to the ear. Obviously the better someone is at their craft, the more enjoyment I would get from the music. But there is a lot of stuff like avant garde free form jazz that would be technically hard to play, but not pleasing to my ear, and thus I would pass on it. So I disagree that prog rock is all about listening to something difficult or complex.

But I'd rather hear someone who knows how to play a few chords tackle the guitar break on Firth of Fifth than someone who can't play a lick. So of course, as I have said, talent matters, at least for me. I generally don't listen to music so I can find someone's skull to bash in, so I guess I am different than some other posters in that respect. You are right that the Allman Bros and blues music is about feel and soul and spirit, and again, the better Allman and Dickie Betts are at playing their instruments, the more enjoyment most people will get from the music.

I also think in its own way prog rock too is about soul, feel and spirit in a different way. It may be more structured in some instances than blues or jazz, but I have been to many a live prog rock concert where you can feel something special being communicated from artist to spectator which is just as powerful as a bunch of guys slogging it out in a mosh pit. And of course there are so many different facets of prog rock that is free form or improvisational (the whole rock-in-opposition movement in prog) so pigeonholing prog is just as dangerous as pigeonholing other forms of music.

"If that makes you feel better and makes you want to punch out more wealthy people, it sounds like you have the resume to keep up the good work."

Oh I do indeed, I've dropped many a man with a single blow, at a Thin Lizzy show I knocked a college jock head over heels, like in a cartoon. Of course I'm old and fairly decrepit now.

But the point is that one thing Punk was about was rage and aggression and I felt working-class rage and aggression in spades. Another musical outlet for such feelings is Heavy Metal and "extended mustache" Southern rock and Country.

Now you seem a rather snippy type so maybe you didn't have those feelings or understand them. Maybe you never had anything to be angry about, I dunno. You like to theorize and dance, I liked to act and play. And I still play my drums, bass and piano every day.

"If that makes you feel better and makes you want to punch out more wealthy people, it sounds like you have the resume to keep up the good work."

Oh I do indeed, I've dropped many a man with a single blow, at a Thin Lizzy show I knocked a college jock head over heels, like in a cartoon. Of course I'm old and fairly decrepit now.

But the point is that one thing Punk was about was rage and aggression and I felt working-class rage and aggression in spades. Another musical outlet for such feelings is Heavy Metal and "extended mustache" Southern rock and Country.

Now you seem a rather snippy type so maybe you didn't have those feelings or understand them. Maybe you never had anything to be angry about, I dunno. You like to theorize and dance, I liked to act and play. And I still play my drums, bass and piano every day.
Well actually I'm not much of a dancer at all, and while I like to discuss music history, I don't listen because of any theory, but because I simply want to hear good music. Nothing really more complicated than that.

As far as rage and aggression, I suppose when I was younger I used sports as my outlet for that. There is no better feeling in the world than absolutely nailing some metal head and grinding him into the ground on the football field when I was in high school in the mid 70's. Come to think of it, there weren't that many punks and metalheads on the football team though. I suppose I kind of matured and grew out of that "need to bash some skull" rage mentality as I got older and well, matured. But you sound like a real tough guy so I guess I better watch myself next time I'm in my old stomping grounds of Chi-town huh.

BTW, getting back to the original subject of this thread, we've heard a lot about music you obviously don't like, how bout some you do like. Big Blondie fan are ya?

Squonk---Nowadays I listen to old rock and roll, Soul music and showtunes. My favorite musicals are South Pacific, My Fair Lady and West Side Story.

My favorite song from South Pacific is "Younger than Springtime" followed closely by "Some Enchanted Evening" and "Wonderful Guy".

I also like movie soundtrack music, I often watch pictures jsut to hear the music. Among my favorite writers are Korngold, Rozka and Elmer Bernstein, my favorite soundtracks are Ben-Hur and Captain from Castile. Randy Newman did a great job on The Natural, it runs in the family.

Blondie was OK but hardly HOF material IMO. Debby Harry was quite a dish though.

Elvis Costello is considered by many to be an early "punk" pioneer, and he's loaded with talent.

Yeah, also keep in mind the kind of stuff he used to say early on just to p**s people off. He didn't believe what he said a lot of the time - it was just to annoy. Anyone remember (or know) Lorne Michael's quote when Elvis Costello did his "stop this song" thing on SNL in the 70's and Lorne briefly had what was essentially a heart attack? I'm not going to even try to post it, but if you know what it was, then you know...

Oh, and for the record, if memory serves correctly, Costello was a last minute replacement for The Pistols on that night.

But there is a lot of stuff like avant garde free form jazz that would be technically hard to play, but not pleasing to my ear, and thus I would pass on it.

Ah - from the guy who's so musically diverse. Hmm, I bet James White would drive ya nuts.

I generally don't listen to music so I can find someone's skull to bash in, so I guess I am different than some other posters in that respect.

As far as rage and aggression, I suppose when I was younger I used sports as my outlet for that. There is no better feeling in the world than absolutely nailing some metal head and grinding him into the ground on the football field when I was in high school in the mid 70's.


Aha - so a former high school jock. Getting clearer...

I leave you kids alone for a minute and you crank out a seven page punk/prog flame war?? :p :D

I leave you kids alone for a minute and you crank out a seven page punk/prog flame war?? :p :D

A minute is 59 seconds too long - ya gotta be more watchful of us gawd danged kids :)

Debby Harry was quite a dish though.

I see - ya like them smacked out eyes :)

I leave you kids alone for a minute and you crank out a seven page punk/prog flame war?? :p :D


Fred!!!!! Yay, you're back! :D

Fred!!!!! Yay, you're back! :D
Hey, Deeann! Howcome no one has AV/s anymore.

Anyway, for the record I like Yes, Genesis AND The Pistols. My vote for proggiest punks: Fear. They were hardcore and they played in 7/8 :D :D

This thread is interesting, and I've learned some things about punk music. I still have no respect for the Pistols--bunch of talentless miscreants; worthless pieces of trash, and a disgrace to be honored in any way.

Someone mentioned Joe Jackson earlier, and they were surprised to see him on a "punk" compilation CD set. I think JJ has covered just about the most musical genres of any artist I could imagine. He started in "nouveau punk," did rock, pop, jazz, swing, classical (including a symphony), and some other less-easily classified stuff. He's one of my favorite all-time performers. Is he in the HoF? I don't even follow that.

Oh, and for the record, if memory serves correctly, Costello was a last minute replacement for The Pistols on that night.
Yep-- the drummer even wore a t-shirt that said "Thanks Malcolm." I have the clip somewhere-- I'll put it on my server tonight.

"extended mustache Southern rock and country" LOL. What are we arguing about, it's all great in my house. I'm just enjoying the music no matter who it is.

This thread is interesting, and I've learned some things about punk music. I still have no respect for the Pistols--bunch of talentless miscreants; worthless pieces of trash, and a disgrace to be honored in any way.

Someone mentioned Joe Jackson earlier, and they were surprised to see him on a "punk" compilation CD set. I think JJ has covered just about the most musical genres of any artist I could imagine. He started in "nouveau punk," did rock, pop, jazz, swing, classical (including a symphony), and some other less-easily classified stuff. He's one of my favorite all-time performers. Is he in the HoF? I don't even follow that.
I'm a big Joe Jackson fan and have seen him several times in concert. You're right, he has really covered the gamut in musical styles. His first few albums I guess had somewhat of a punk/new wave feel to them although he was much too accomplished a songwriter and musician to be restricted by those confines for too long. One of my favorite albums of all time is Big World, recorded live to two track.

Ah - from the guy who's so musically diverse. Hmm, I bet James White would drive ya nuts.






Aha - so a former high school jock. Getting clearer...
I think I'm musically diverse but that doesn't mean I like everything--that would be impossible wouldn't it. So yes, free form avant garde jazz would be one area I would pass on. In that realm, I prefer Count Basie, Joe Henderson, McCoy Tyner and more modern big band stuff.

As for the second comment, what, does that help you pigeonhole me in some stereotype you have?

His first few albums I guess had somewhat of a punk/new wave feel to them although he was much too accomplished a songwriter and musician to be restricted by those confines for too long.
Again, that's not an accurate way of looking at it. Punk was not a sound or an ability level. It was an attitude and a rebellion. There are absolutely NO restrictions whatsoever on the songwriting or musicianship with regards to punk. Here's what the "No Thanks!" liner notes say about Joe Jackson and why he's included on the punk box set:

Is She Really Going Out With Him? - Joe Jackson
Like Graham Parker and Elvis Costello, Joe Jackson was a young singer-songwriter with a band who was angry enough to be sympathetic to the burgeoning punk scene. His first three albums (Look Sharp!, I'm the Man, and Beat Crazy) have a stripped-down quality, influenced both by the directness of punk and the dub reggae Jackson was listening to at the time. But it may bave been his debt to Brill Building songcraft that let American radio hear him as one of British new wave's few acceptible figures in 1979. The outrage of "Is She Really Going Out WIth Him?" is limited strictly to its biting lyrics. In an era mostly dominated by sonic cheese, Jackson's trenchant traditionalism was a breath of fresh air.

lurch=Haven't heard much early swing, outside of Benny Goodman-love the guy. You also mentioned early blues=delta stuff? I had a period where blues was all I listened to, from maybe '77 to the late 80's, so maybe thats why I'm so ignorant of punk-wasn't paying attention. My focus was 1st +2nd generation chicago blues=Little Walter and Muddy, the Wolf, through Buddy and Otis and Magic Sam...I remember seeing Willie Dixon near the end of his life, with a bunch of chicago musicians I'd never heard of. Very, very, small venue, with a band that clearly was thrown together. No great musical reputations, and yet they could go places where all the superstar white blues groups could only dream about. They could never match the licks of Derek and the Dominos, say, but what they could do was play the blues..so its not "obvious" that a more skilled musician will play better music. Not if you're more into the emotional release music can provide than the intellectual concept behind it. "You ain't got a thing if you ain't got that swing" sorta thing. Is that a fair accesement of what punk is trying to do?
I'm finding this thread ironic, because though you've stated you aren't trying to justify the SP being in the HOF, you and Tom have made a pretty good case for them belonging there.

For a great look at what Punk was, from the viewpoint *at the time*, seek out a copy of Uncut/NME's Punk issue:

http://www.nme.com/originals/21

This is a great collection of articles, interviews, photos, and letters to the editor from "New Musical Express" magazine as they originally appeared in the mid/late 70's. This isn't some nogstalgic look back at punk some 25+ years later...it's what was being written and said about punk as it was first coming on the scene.

If I have some time later, I'll find a few good quotes from the issue to post. For now, here's a snippet from a June 19, 1976 article titled "The Titanic Sails at Dawn":

Where once the letters that were dumped into the tray marked Gasbag contained smart-ass one liners, demands for album tokens...now the tone has changed.

Stuart Tray of Manchester wouldn't go and see the Stones if he was pulled there by Keith Richard.

Mark Oldham doesn't want to see five middle-aged millionaires poncing around to psuedo soul funk/rock.

Letter after letter repeats the same thing. You all seem to have had it with The Who and Liz Taylor, Rod and the Queen, Jagger and Princess Margaret, paying three quid to be bent, mutiliated, crushed or seated behind a pillar or PA stack, all in the name of modern, '70s style super rock.

The roar from the stage of "I shout, I scream, I kill the king, I rail at his servants" has been muted, mutated and diluted to "I smile, I fawn, I kiss ass and get my photo took."

It was all too easy to accept that change until you out there pulled the whole thing up short.

"We're not going to take it" wasn't coming from the stage with any conviction. Instead it was coming from the audience. Could it be that once more there's music in the cafes at night and revolution in the air? Certainy the massive rock gala of the last month has produced some kind of a backlash. People are tired of having their booze confiscated and being ordered to stop dancing.

Maybe they're also sick of seeing the vibrant, iconoclastic music whose changes did, at least, shake the walls of the city a little, being turned around, sold out, castrated and co-opted...

It's not clear just how deep this resistance goes. There's no way of knowing whether it's a real change of attitude that is on the way, or whether the mail we've been getting is simply another version of "Dear Esther Rantzen, I just found a sewer rat in my Diet Pepsi."

The only thing I know for sure is the effect the whole thing had on me. I woke up guilty and angry. Has rock'n'roll become another mindless consumer product that plays footsie with jet-set and royalty while the kids who make up its roots queue up in the rain to watch it from 200 yards away?...

Randy Newman is one of our national treasures, for sure. Speaking of Punk and anger, I was as angry as anyone and had more than enough reason to feel that way in those days. I just wasn't like that 24/7 and liked the variety of ways different music made me feel. I'm beginning to think people like us are the exception. Or at least we were the "odd" ones when we were younger. When people would come over and start looking through my LP collection, they'd always comment on my wide variety of tastes. I never really thought of this as being as unusual as they did. I grew up with all kinds of music being played around me. Now that I'm older, I think my tastes have even widenened more. I guess that makes me more of a "music" lover in general. I mean, there's just so much good stuff out there, why shut certain genres out? Maybe I just had more of a musician's attitude about it. Probably why lyrics never really mattered so much to me as the "feel" for the music. Although the voices do, which I think is just part of the overall "feel". Hey squonk - you mentioned "metal heads" - you know, in my experience, I've found that they tend to be more closed-minded about other types of music then Punkers. I can't think of any one type moreso. I couldn't even argue with them. Of course, most of them were incapable of an intelligent arguement anyway (wink). That's just my experience, anyway.

Again, that's not an accurate way of looking at it. Punk was not a sound or an ability level. It was an attitude and a rebellion. There are absolutely NO restrictions whatsoever on the songwriting or musicianship with regards to punk.


Well I disagree that punk was not a sound. As many have said, including you I believe in some other posts, the return to a more direct, simple stripped down SOUND was one of the hallmarks of early punk rock. Yes, it was an attitude also, which is why I specifically referenced Jackson's first 3 albums--they had a stripped down SOUND and somewhat of a punky attitude for those times. And I will continue to stand by my comments re restrictions on punk---once you started adding layers of instruments, chord changes and complexities to songs that tended to take the music out of the punk category. Punk was not JUST attitude and rebellion--if that was the case, Springsteen would be called a punk rocker, as many of his songs were all about defiance and rebellion. The reason he was not a "punk rocker" is because he built his songs of anger and defiance on a more complex SOUND that hearkened back to the Spector wall of sound days, so although it was a return to garage/roots rock, it was a slighlty more complex SOUND that went beyond 3 chords. Same for Jackson's later work. Jackson later wrote direct, biting lyrics in songs, but the SOUND was more pop or mainstream rock as he added musical complexity to the compositions. So I would maintain its a mixture of sound and attitude, and thus disagree that my assessment was inaccurate. In fact, Jackson is the perfect illustration for many of the points I have been making.

At this point we're nitpicking somewhat in an attempt to justify our views of punk aren't we?

add-and you even quoted it within your quote---"his first 3 albums have a stripped down quality influenced by the directness of punk"

add--another example of an artist whose whole career to a large extent has been about attitude and rebellion is Neil Young. If punk is just all about attitude and rebellion, then you are going to have to call NY one of the pioneers of punk---and maybe he should be. You talk about writing some direct, biting angry lyrics, take a look at Young's output over the years. Wouldn't Ohio be considered one of the all time punk songs if its all about anger and rebellion and attitude? Have you ever listened to Tonights the Night or Time Fades Away as Young rejects the rock star trappings and rebels against the very process that made him a "star"? How bout Rust Never Sleeps with angry direct songs combined with his raw unfancy sledgehammer guitar style? In many ways in terms of attitude, direct biting lyrics and back to basics no frills rock, Neil Young kicks any punk band's a%# all over the map that you can name. Now I don't consider Young a "punk rocker" but under your parameters I guess he'd qualify. But his versatility, musicianship and his ability to play and write in a wide variety of styles probably take him out of the confines of purely a punk musician, so once again, this demonstrates my previous points.

add-and you even quoted it within your quote---"his first 3 albums have a stripped down quality influenced by the directness of punk"
A stripped down directness can take any form. Would you say that "Is She Really Going Out With Him" has the same SOUND as, say, "Beat on the Brat"? Many of Dylan's songs are stripped down and direct. Is that the same sound? Does "Train in Vain" or "Death or Glory" have the same sound as "Smash it Up"?

Does Kenny G have the same sound as Miles Davis?

Does Johnny Cash have the same sound as Toby Keith?

I don't think that Jackson was Punk at all - or even influenced by it much if at all. If you listen to his early band members, they're all really good musicians who are just smartly "playing down". I don't know how they categorize him now, but when he came on the scene, he was definitely labled as "New Wave". Like was mentioned, he, Costello, Parker and The Clash were considered "Angry Young Men". That's the only similarity with Punk at all - the anger. Their music was never really "stripped down", although, like you say, the sound might have been somewhat (at least compared to Punk). Even then the music, musicianship and production was more developed and intricate. The songwriting and crafting was probably more influenced by someone like The Beatles than punk. Even The Ramones ventured out of the territory of what would be considered pure Punk. But I think a lot of Punk musicians were really better than they let on (including Steve Jones, but that was part of the "put-on"). Well, at least some of the more commercially successful ones.

I can't add any insight into this debate on what truly defines punk (sound/attitude/anger, etc.), but I know this much: Joe Jackson has endured as a talented singer/songwriter/musician/performer; Sid and his Pistols never had talent in the first place. There's no reason to compare them, I suppose, but "honoring" the Pistols in the HoF seems ridiculous.

Yeah, really. The ones anyone should really be arguing with, or at least asking why are the people who nominate and vote for these stupid, meaningless things. But I'd still be interested in seeing the criteria they go by, if there even is such a thing.

[QUOTE]A stripped down directness can take any form. Would you say that "Is She Really Going Out With Him" has the same SOUND as, say, "Beat on the Brat"?


Yes, in the sense that they both have a stripped down, simple direct sound. Beat on the Brat more so, which is why some people might not label Jackson's tune as purely punk, but maybe punk inspired.



Many of Dylan's songs are stripped down and direct. Is that the same sound?

its not JUST sound. Obviously folk is virtually always going to sound stripped down. If it was JUST attitude and rebellion, Dylan was a punk rocker in the early 60s. His songs were by and large too lyrically sphisticated and complex to be called punk.




Does Kenny G have the same sound as Miles Davis?

No, and they don't even remotely play the same kind of music

Does Johnny Cash have the same sound as Toby Keith

No, thank god.

Ok, I give up. :(

Punk is a sound. If you play more than 3 chords, or have any talent, then you're not punk. Punk was never a rebellion or a movement. It was a sound. Those of us that lived through it (and were immersed in it) are just imagining things.

[end sarcasm]

...Dylan was a punk rocker in the early 60s.
Now you're starting to get it! ;)

His songs were by and large too lyrically sphisticated and complex to be called punk.
Ooops. I spoke too soon. :(

So I would maintain its a mixture of sound and attitude


Sometimes it would be nice if people actually read what someone writes, rather than only read what they think someone wrote.

Sometimes it would be nice if people actually read what someone writes, rather than only read what they think someone wrote.
I read what you wrote. And when what you wrote includes lines such as:
His songs were by and large too lyrically sphisticated and complex to be called punk.
...then it's clear to me that you're not getting it.

Hmmmm. If there was a "Punk" section in every music store, I wonder what groups would be chosen to be in it? Is it Punk? Or is it New Wave? Or is it Rock & Roll? For that matter, is it Rap? Or is it Hip Hop? Or who cares?

I read what you wrote. And when what you wrote includes lines such as:

...then it's clear to me that you're not getting it.
Oh Bull crap. Are you telling me that Bob Dylan was a punk rocker? He was a folk protest singer to begin with. Are you calling his folk protest songs punk? You are the first. He may have influenced punks, but I have never seen him labeled a punk rock singer. Come on, how far are you going to take this in some vain effort to try to justify your position?
You maintain that punk is JUST about attitude and rebellion and not sound. I maintain that it is a MIXTURE of both. I have given you a number of examples to demonstrate the fallacy of your position and you continue to ignore what I say and pull out isolated statements and nitpick at them. I lived through the same frickin era you did and have listened to the same bands. So don't tell me I don't get it. Talk about pompous and pretentious. And you are the same guy who maintains that the Breakfast Club is one of the greatest films of all time. Enough said.

Hmmmm. If there was a "Punk" section in every music store, I wonder what groups would be chosen to be in it? Is it Punk? Or is it New Wave? Or is it Rock & Roll? For that matter, is it Rap? Or is it Hip Hop? Or who cares?
If its Gecko's (and a few others who have posted) record store, anything they like (ie anything with an angry rebellious attitude) is in the punk section and all the stuff they don't like (ie stuff they regard as pompous and pretentious and overplayed) is in the progressive rock section. And that's it, there are no other sections. Must be convenient to go through life that simplistically.

When scientists finally discover the center of the universe, a lot of people are going to be disappointed that it's not them.

Okay, I was mystified earlier when The Velvet Underground were labeled "punk" but I let it pass. But Neil Young? This labeling thing is so meaningless that it makes the whole discussion absurd. I suppose we could argue "In The Wee Hours of the Morning" was Sinatra's nihilist album, sorta punk with strings..Do we really have to force an artists work into the confines of genre to appreaciate it? I think Neil would be the first to say his music is a hodgepodge of all kinds of influences. And he pays homage to punk: "this is the story of johnny rotten" ring a bell? If Neil thinks the SP are worthy of a song, maybe he knows something... and maybe I'm trying to understand what that is...I've learned a lot in this thread already and I would like to hear more of the viewpoint of those who loved this kind of music. Instead, we keep going into this "my taste is better than your taste' kind of thing ...

Oh Bull crap. Are you telling me that Bob Dylan was a punk rocker? He was a folk protest singer to begin with. Are you calling his folk protest songs punk?
Punk was the next big protest movement, coming at the end of a drug crazed glam era of arena rock and disco. Punk not only protested the state of popular music, but the state of popular culture and the world at large. I'm sorry you're unable to see the parallels, and are somehow stuck in the notion that it was a certain "sound" that defined punk. That's unfortunate for you. Dylan's music was the equivalent of punk for his time. They were both protest movements, although they happened in different times for different reasons. To try to compare them based on sound is completely missing the point.

If its Gecko's (and a few others who have posted) record store, anything they like (ie anything with an angry rebellious attitude) is in the punk section and all the stuff they don't like (ie stuff they regard as pompous and pretentious and overplayed) is in the progressive rock section. And that's it, there are no other sections. Must be convenient to go through life that simplistically.
Blah, blah, blah...You'd obviously miss the point if it was 2 inches from your face. ;)

My record store wouldn't HAVE sections.

And as for punk, I would consider MANY different artists to be punk or have punk sensibilities...and that cuts across many different SOUNDS that you seem to be so fond of pidgeonholing everything into.

And its gotta be said: Dylan didn't "start out" as a protest singer. To label him as such shows little knowledge of his music.

Do we really have to force an artists work into the confines of genre to appreaciate it? I think Neil would be the first to say his music is a hodgepodge of all kinds of influences...Instead, we keep going into this "my taste is better than your taste' kind of thing ...
No, we don't. Particularly since punk was a movement, not a particular sound. Certain songs were "punk", certain artists were "punk"....Some of Neil's songs very much adhered to punk attitutes, regarless of the style in which they were played.

As for the taste thing...I'm leaving that to the other guys to argue. I haven't bashed anyone elses taste in this thread...and have even stated some of the prog rock that I grew up listening to and enjoying. But I WILL argue with anyone who tries to pidgeonhole "punk" into a certain musical style or sound. That's incorrect, and always will be...

Okay, I was mystified earlier when The Velvet Underground were labeled "punk" but I let it pass. But Neil Young? This labeling thing is so meaningless that it makes the whole discussion absurd. I suppose we could argue "In The Wee Hours of the Morning" was Sinatra's nihilist album, sorta punk with strings..Do we really have to force an artists work into the confines of genre to appreaciate it? I think Neil would be the first to say his music is a hodgepodge of all kinds of influences. And he pays homage to punk: "this is the story of johnny rotten" ring a bell? If Neil thinks the SP are worthy of a song, maybe he knows something... and maybe I'm trying to understand what that is...I've learned a lot in this thread already and I would like to hear more of the viewpoint of those who loved this kind of music. Instead, we keep going into this "my taste is better than your taste' kind of thing ...
well, I'm on a roll and a big Neil Young fan so I'm going to chime in. Hey Hey My My (the song with the Johnny Rotten line, which is actually 'IS this the story of Johnny Rotten?'--it is sometimes quoted incorrectly) was not really a song about the Sex Pistols as much as it was a song about Elvis Presley and the cost of stardom. The song was written shortly after Presley's death, and it asks the question, is it better to burn out quickly, giving it your best shot, or fade away like Elvis, somehat ignobly? Its about Neil trying to fight off the inevitable rust and corrosion of growing old but trying to remain relevant, which Elvis was unable to do. The Sex pistols reference was made because they had been making the headlines as the next sea change in music, and Neil is commenting on how that takes guys like Elvis out in the process. Like many of Neil's songs, they are sometimes ambiguous and have some double meanings, and many times are posing questions rather than supplying answers. And of course Kurt Cobain allegedly quoted and may have misinterpreted NY's lyrics in his suicide note. So I don't think he's simply paying homage to punk, as much as acknowledging the change taking place and the toll it takes on the past rock stars--the King, Elvis. And as I said, NY in many many ways influenced a whole slew of punk rockers and grunge rockers spanning several generations.

Blah, blah, blah...You'd obviously miss the point if it was 2 inches from your face. ;)

My record store wouldn't HAVE sections.

And as for punk, I would consider MANY different artists to be punk or have punk sensibilities...and that cuts across many different SOUNDS that you seem to be so fond of pidgeonholing everything into.
Wrong yet again for the 80th time. I said punk was characterized by BOTH a sound AND an attitude and yet you continue to ignore this and misquote me. And every time you do it you simply look foolish.

And its gotta be said: Dylan didn't "start out" as a protest singer. To label him as such shows little knowledge of his music.
My God, more nitpicking. Dylan's recorded output starts out as a folk singer. That's how he came to prominence. Yes, before that as a young teenager he started out as a 50's rock and roller. Then he discovered Woody Guthrie. We all know the story. I have every one of Dylan's albums, read about 10 books on him and have seen him live about 12 times. I think I know a little about his music.

Wrong yet again for the 80th time. I said punk was characterized by BOTH a sound AND an attitude and yet you continue to ignore this and misquote me. And every time you do it you simply look foolish.
Who's the one looking foolish?

The reason he was not a "punk rocker" is because he built his songs of anger and defiance on a more complex SOUND that hearkened back to the Spector wall of sound days, so although it was a return to garage/roots rock, it was a slighlty more complex SOUND that went beyond 3 chords. Same for Jackson's later work. Jackson later wrote direct, biting lyrics in songs, but the SOUND was more pop or mainstream rock as he added musical complexity to the compositions.
Again, you repeatedly say that if a sound is more complex than 3-chords, then it's not punk. If a sound was more pop or mainstream, then it's not punk...

But his versatility, musicianship and his ability to play and write in a wide variety of styles probably take him out of the confines of purely a punk musician...
Again, you say if an artist is versatile or plays a variety of styles, then he's not punk.

Nobody's arguing with you that punk encompasses many things (attitude, rebellion, and yes, even sound...) But your repeated insistance that anything beyond a simple 3-chord sound takes it "beyond" the punk realm, well, it's just plain wrong.

Nobody is misquoting you...but perhaps you're a bit confused as to what exactly you're trying to say?

Punk was the next big protest movement, coming at the end of a drug crazed glam era of arena rock and disco. Punk not only protested the state of popular music, but the state of popular culture and the world at large. I'm sorry you're unable to see the parallels, and are somehow stuck in the notion that it was a certain "sound" that defined punk. That's unfortunate for you. Dylan's music was the equivalent of punk for his time. They were both protest movements, although they happened in different times for different reasons. To try to compare them based on sound is completely missing the point.
Oh thanks for the education oh great guru. Obviously the world has to be seen only your way or its wrong. So any protest song, any song with attitude, any song of rebellion is now a punk song. I see.

Well, off to listen to that great punk artist, Joan Baez.

And as for punk, I would consider MANY different artists to be punk or have punk sensibilities...


Exactly--once again, anything you like is punk or has punk sensibilities, and anything you dislike apparantly does not. Simple. How can you argue with that?

Oh thanks for the education oh great guru. Obviously the world has to be seen only your way or its wrong. So any protest song, any song with attitude, any song of rebellion is now a punk song. I see.

Well, off to listen to that great punk artist, Joan Baez.
As you said earlier, it must be nice to see things so simplistically. Nobody has said that "any protest song, any song with attitude" is a punk song.

Punk was, among other things, a protest movement for its time. LIKE THE FOLK PROTEST SONGS OF THE 60's, it was a movement of rebellion. There are parallels. That's not saying that Joan Baez was "punk", but she was the equivalent of her time. THEY WERE TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE MOVEMENTS, IN DIFFERENT ERA'S, THAT SHARE SOME COMMONALITIES.

But, it's obvious you'll never get that. With you, it seems, everything is either black or white. On or off. Punk or not punk. There's no room for gray in your neatly ordered world...

Exactly--once again, anything you like is punk or has punk sensibilities, and anything you dislike apparantly does not. Simple. How can you argue with that?
Once again, you're so far off the mark you're just embarrassing yourself. Have I, even once, mentioned what I like or dislike in this latest tit for tat? Nope. Didn't think so. Your ability to misunderstand is extraordinary.

Speaking of record store sections (we were, weren't we?), I thought it was hilarious when "Alternative" became a "genre" in many stores. Soon, the "Alternative" section had outgrown others in many stores, proving to me that "Alternative" was just a sham...kids wanted to think they were cool and cutting-edge, so what they liked had to be "Alternative"--they'd never follow the crowd, you know?

Nobody is misquoting you...but perhaps you're a bit confused as to what exactly you're trying to say?


You are not only misquoting me but taking things out of context and spinning them, so this has become pointless. The only confusion is that which you are engendering, either intentionally to make a semantic point, or simply because you refuse to see the world any way but your own way. It must be easy to win arguments when you keep misunderstanding or misstating the premise of the other person.

Oh thanks for the education oh great guru. Obviously the world has to be seen only your way or its wrong.
One way that historians and documentarians piece together a particular subject or era is to look at documents from that era. Personal letters, newspaper stories, contemporary art (writing, music, etc.) What you seem to think is "my way", just so happens to be how the movement was being viewed and written about AT THE TIME. It also happens to be how later historians and documentarians have come to view the movement. So, forgive the rest of the world for apparently getting it all wrong. The World According to Squonk is apparently the only "truth", and in the coming Great Awakening, prog rock will finally get it's moment in the sun. So it is written, so it is told.

It must be easy to win arguments when you keep misunderstanding or misstating the premise of the other person.
Yes, it must be...which is why you're so convinced you're right.

. Particularly since punk was a movement, not a particular sound.


Wrong. It was BOTH an attitude of rebellion against the prevailing order AND a sound characterized by a return to the basic roots of rock and roll characterized by a simple direct non-virtuoso style of playing which emphasized simplicity over technical proficiency.

Now lets watch and see how many ways Gecko tries to misquote, distort, and spin this.

Punk was the next big protest movement, coming at the end of a drug crazed glam era of arena rock and disco. Punk not only protested the state of popular music, but the state of popular culture and the world at large. I'm sorry you're unable to see the parallels, and are somehow stuck in the notion that it was a certain "sound" that defined punk. That's unfortunate for you. Dylan's music was the equivalent of punk for his time. They were both protest movements, although they happened in different times for different reasons. To try to compare them based on sound is completely missing the point.
Saying something is a parallel or is similar is not the same as saying it is. Yes, we all know Dylan wrote songs of rebellion and protest. Yes, punk was a later form of protest. Yes, you can draw some parallels. Dylan influenced artists who later became punk rockers. No, Dylan was not a punk rocker, as the movement and term was coined in the 70s.

Before this thread is shut down :), as promised, here's Elvis Costello's performance on SNL back in the 70s (http://www.marvindog.net/extra/ec_radioradio_snl.mpeg). The file is 36meg, so it'd be best to right click and save it. Enjoy!

Hmmmm. If there was a "Punk" section in every music store, I wonder what groups would be chosen to be in it? Is it Punk? Or is it New Wave? Or is it Rock & Roll? For that matter, is it Rap? Or is it Hip Hop? Or who cares?

Wait - wait! I can answer this (hand waving in air)! At the indie record store I was manager at around 84 and part of 85, I maintained the punk section - and we did have one - many stores did at the time. Here's a sampling of what was in there: Dickies, Germs, X, Dead Boys, Sex Pistols, Damned, MDC, The Dicks, Crucifix, Crucif**ks, No Trend, Dead Kennedys, Social Distortion, Minor Threat, The Contortions, Flipper, Negative Trend, The Slits, Ill Repute, Frightwig, Red Cross, Blood on the Saddle, Black Flag, Minimal Man, Circle Jerks, The Avengers, Dr. Know, Agent Orange, The Toy Dolls, Social Unrest, DI, DOA, Fear, Bad Brains, JFA, Code of Honor, The Nuns, Big Boys, Youth Brigade, Crass, F(censored) Ups, Fang, GBH, Subhumans, The Ramones, The Dictators, Wayne County and the Electric Chairs, Buzzcocks, a slew of comps... I can keep going if anyone wants...

Before this thread is shut down :), as promised, here's Elvis Costello's performance on SNL back in the 70s. The file is 36meg, so it'd be best to right click and save it. Enjoy!

Hurray for GreySkies! This is great - downloading it now - many, many thanks! I haven't seen this in years.

Hurray for GreySkies! This is great - downloading it now - many, many thanks! I haven't seen this in years.
No problemo-- I just played it for my seven-year-old. He said, "Dad, can I pogo to this?" And then we pogo'd and slammed into each other.

Great list, Lurch,but no Ska? :p The Specials and Madness are personal faves. Also Rezillo's, Hollywood Brats, Undertones, X-Ray Spex/Lora Logic, Lena Lovitch,Ministry, Gang of Four, Boomtown Rats... even The Pretenders first album was considered "Punk" at the time. :D Great sonic walk through memory lane.

I think I'm musically diverse but that doesn't mean I like everything--that would be impossible wouldn't it.

Well, yeah - but I was vaguely poking at the superiority conveyed in your prior comments regarding prog rock fans being so open to all musical styles.

As for the second comment, what, does that help you pigeonhole me in some stereotype you have

I actually don't need any help pigeonholing you. But I was just pointing it out. Knowing your background does help understand some of your mindset and refusal to even consider some of what has been said from those who were actually active in the "scene" because it goes against whatever ideas you have formed about punk. I think most into punk earlier on can recall what the high school jocks were like in their reaction to punk and punks. And can understand. If there is some attempt here to deny that there was generally, um, tension, between punks and jocks would be some pretty blatant revisionism.

Great list, Lurch,but no Ska? :p The Specials and Madness are personal faves. Also Rezillo's, Hollywood Brats, Undertones, X-Ray Spex/Lora Logic, Lena Lovitch,Ministry, Gang of Four, Boomtown Rats... even The Pretenders first album was considered "Punk" at the time. :D Great sonic walk through memory lane.

It's actually Lene Lovich :) Sorry, I like Lene so gotta make sure that's right. And am a huge fan of Nina Hagen (who was also an early celebrity crush of mine), too. To respond to this as if it was completely serious, this was all in our New Wave/Ska section that we had - which I also maintained. Oh, except X-Ray Spex - when we had Germ Fee Adolescents in, that went in punk - but we often didn't have it. We didn't carry any Ministry. It's funny you mentioned Gang of Four - while making the list, I was trying to remember where I'd stick Entertainment. Really.

No problemo-- I just played it for my seven-year-old. He said, "Dad, can I pogo to this?" And then we pogo'd and slammed into each other.

That's cute. I'd do a /sarcasm - but it's not meant to be sarcastic at all. That's great!

I still have no respect for the Pistols--bunch of talentless miscreants; worthless pieces of trash, and a disgrace to be honored in any way.

Ah, gees - but you just honored them with that statement. Far more than any induction to a dusty ol' museum :)

Before this thread is shut down :), as promised, here's Elvis Costello's performance on SNL back in the 70s (http://www.marvindog.net/extra/ec_radioradio_snl.mpeg). The file is 36meg, so it'd be best to right click and save it. Enjoy!
Dude- thanks for posting this! Awesome clip. I'd love to get involved in the whole punk/prog/folk/whatever debate but frankly having had the same basic arguments about 30 years ago I'm a little weary of it :D

Although there is one thing that bugs me- why does the guy from Greenday sing with that stupid English punker accent? Aren't they from California?? :p

And I have to add this- The Pistols get a bad rap but they were at least as tight as the Ramones (before they lost Glenn Matlock) and their songs were much better. I like the Ramones too, but after about four songs they've shot their wad of "Hey, ho" type stuff. The Pistols wrote some really good rock songs. If they had a better work ethic and a real singer they could have easily been Aerosmith. It was only their determination to live up to the whole punk ethos in their performances, the whole persona of Johnny Rotten and the addition of useless junkie Sid Viscous to that end that they flamed out and are forever know as a gang of talentless f*ups. But i still get a kick out of listening to them when I'm in the mood for that sort of thing and I hate to say it but they DO deserve their place in rock history.

Of course, I think Yes and KC do as well though.

My God, more nitpicking. Dylan's recorded output starts out as a folk singer. .

"Folk singer" and 'protest singer" are not the same thing-read what I wrote.

I'm sorry for the tone of my NY post, but I still don't understand why you brought him into this. Its good to know the exact meaning of one of his songs though-maybe you can explain what "Nowadays Clancy Can't Even Sing" means sometime...on 2nd thought please don't.

Again, I was trying to learn something here. If I just admit you know more about music than I do and youre always right can we move on? We almost get a discussion going and then we go right back to negative comments..and I'm doing it myself now...sigh.

Gecko: I failed to thank you earlier when I did lurch and Tom, let me correct that now. I learned a lot from your comments and gained some insight.

lurch=Haven't heard much early swing, outside of Benny Goodman-love the guy. You also mentioned early blues=delta stuff? I had a period where blues was all I listened to, from maybe '77 to the late 80's, so maybe thats why I'm so ignorant of punk-wasn't paying attention. My focus was 1st +2nd generation chicago blues=Little Walter and Muddy, the Wolf, through Buddy and Otis and Magic Sam...I remember seeing Willie Dixon near the end of his life, with a bunch of chicago musicians I'd never heard of. Very, very, small venue, with a band that clearly was thrown together. No great musical reputations, and yet they could go places where all the superstar white blues groups could only dream about. They could never match the licks of Derek and the Dominos, say, but what they could do was play the blues..so its not "obvious" that a more skilled musician will play better music. Not if you're more into the emotional release music can provide than the intellectual concept behind it. "You ain't got a thing if you ain't got that swing" sorta thing. Is that a fair accesement of what punk is trying to do?


Whew - yeah, nice. Call my bluff. First off, as far as blues goes - know the statement, "I don't know about art, but I know what I like?" Yeah, that kind of goes for me as far as blues goes. I love stuff like John Lee Hooker, Memphis Minnie, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Bessie Smith, etc. I do like the gut-bucket blues stuff quite a bit. Gritty. Dirty. Stir-causing stuff (at least at the time). I don't own a whole lot, but really should work on that some day. But if you look at some of that stuff, yeah, you can see a line between my affinity for punk and it.

Swing? First off, when you really, really listen to it, it can be amazing at just how fast a lot of it really is. Swing can be pretty deceptive. Plus, you (or rather, I) have to love just how much it PO'd a whole lot of people at the time in a "they call THAT music? That's not music" kind of way. But most importantly, the people in the bands were great overall. Hard and almost constant touring. Caring more about playing than where they were playing, who they were playing for, or how much they were being paid. And never sleeping. And drinkin' hard. A lot of them would play a show, then be on the road to the next town. Would they take the time to sleep? Nope - it's time to play while traveling. Lots of these people would play horns until their lips would literally split and bleed - and they'd ignore the pain and keep going. Was this in front of an audience? Nope - this was while traveling where nobody was really watching them. Most of the bands at the time didn't get paid much of anything (the bigger bands did - in some cases, eventually) either, but that wasn't the main concern. So many had no aspirations beyond "I gotta play." If that meant a life of poverty - well, it wasn't even a concern. A lot of them had the outlook of, "I'll figure out the next meal when I get hungry." And many of them went pretty hungry at times. I do like a lot of the better known stuff, but if you are curious, work on hunting down some of the lesser-known bands. It's tough, as a lot of them didn't record, but there is some stuff out there (such as Jonah Jones). And some of the drummers were absolutely insane.

Bringing up the "if it ain't got swing" thing is interesting. I never thought about it that way, but is definitely interesting. You have me pretty much in a situation of not knowing what to say. I guess maybe it might actually fit the more I think about it. Then again maybe I am over-thinking the connections right now in such a simple statement :) No matter what, it is definitely an interesting analogy - that since I am crazy that way, will probably be thinking about for quite awhile now. Yeah, thanks :)


I'm finding this thread ironic, because though you've stated you aren't trying to justify the SP being in the HOF, you and Tom have made a pretty good case for them belonging there.

Well, my argument tried to be that I don't see much reason for it or any other similar institution, particularly in the case of music. It is mostly for vanity to the inductees, and as a museum for patrons. I can understand the latter a bit, I suppose, but seems rather antithetical to maybe what music should be - which is music, not wax figures of members of a band or something. I particularly don't understand why it matters to a fan (unless it's from the perspective of wanting to see stuff from their favorite band if they pay the insane 17 bucks or whatever to get in) if "their" band is inducted. It seems to me it is more so a fan can have "bragging rights" and further justify their liking of a particular band, which shouldn't even be needed if you like them. So it seems pointless to me. And I thought this thread *might* shine some light on this.

As far as The Pistols specifically go, yeah, it seems extra pointless. If for no other reason, just the fact that it gets viewed by most as a "cherished institution" which punk bands tend to be against in general, makes it kind of dumb. Punk is often about tearing down those institutions.

As far as The Pistols specifically go, yeah, it seems extra pointless. If for no other reason, just the fact that it gets viewed by most as a "cherished institution" which punk bands tend to be against in general, makes it kind of dumb. Punk is often about tearing down those institutions.

That's a good point- there's a definite irony about punks in an institution like the R&RHoF. BUT- irony is very punk, so from that point of view it's perfect.

"Folk singer" and 'protest singer" are not the same thing-read what I wrote.

I'm sorry for the tone of my NY post, but I still don't understand why you brought him into this. Its good to know the exact meaning of one of his songs though-maybe you can explain what "Nowadays Clancy Can't Even Sing" means sometime...on 2nd thought please don't.

Again, I was trying to learn something here. If I just admit you know more about music than I do and youre always right can we move on? We almost get a discussion going and then we go right back to negative comments..and I'm doing it myself now...sigh.

Gecko: I failed to thank you earlier when I did lurch and Tom, let me correct that now. I learned a lot from your comments and gained some insight.
Where in that Neil Young post do I write anything negative? I was simply explaining what that song was about, IMO.

Why did I bring Neil Young up? To demonstrate a few points (which have since been lost on some and/or ignored). Go back and reread my post about Neil Young and its pretty clear.

And there is no debate going on here about whose taste in music is "better" so I don't even know why you keep characterizing that as an issue.

I am kind of amused that you seem to completely ignore or put down my opinions about punk rock yet thank others for theirs, as if I can't have a viewpoint about it. Interesting.

Wait - wait! I can answer this (hand waving in air)! At the indie record store I was manager at around 84 and part of 85, I maintained the punk section - and we did have one - many stores did at the time. Here's a sampling of what was in there: Dickies, Germs, X, Dead Boys, Sex Pistols, Damned, MDC, The Dicks, Crucifix, Crucif**ks, No Trend, Dead Kennedys, Social Distortion, Minor Threat, The Contortions, Flipper, Negative Trend, The Slits, Ill Repute, Frightwig, Red Cross, Blood on the Saddle, Black Flag, Minimal Man, Circle Jerks, The Avengers, Dr. Know, Agent Orange, The Toy Dolls, Social Unrest, DI, DOA, Fear, Bad Brains, JFA, Code of Honor, The Nuns, Big Boys, Youth Brigade, Crass, F(censored) Ups, Fang, GBH, Subhumans, The Ramones, The Dictators, Wayne County and the Electric Chairs, Buzzcocks, a slew of comps... I can keep going if anyone wants...
What, no Joan Baez? Gecko is going to be disappointed.

You also apparantly violated the punk ethos by even allowing your store to have "sections" of music. Shame on you. At the very least, you could have put all the records that had "attitude and rebellion" together in one section, if only to keep all the big dumb jocks out of it, huh.

Although there is one thing that bugs me- why does the guy from Greenday sing with that stupid English punker accent? Aren't they from California?? :p

Hmm - that's the only thing that bugs ya about Green Day? :) From personal experience, most of 'em have pretty much always had their eye on the dollar sign. Maybe the thought is it will bring in even more money??? Dunno. It is silly. Kind of like the band.

I like the Ramones too, but after about four songs they've shot their wad of "Hey, ho" type stuff.

Yeah, but for those of us who can never get enough of the same thing that they like, it seems to work :) Come on - at least up until Too Tough to Die (and not counting the album the Phil Spector produced "End of the Century" after holding The Ramones at gunpoint - true story, btw), they had two songs. Fast and slow. And I like those two songs. Over and over and over :) Yeah, I am just trying to help perpetuate the stereotype.


The Pistols wrote some really good rock songs. If they had a better work ethic and a real singer they could have easily been Aerosmith.

Given that, thankfully they didn't have a work ethic or a real singer :)

It was only their determination to live up to the whole punk ethos in their performances, the whole persona of Johnny Rotten and the addition of useless junkie Sid Viscous to that end that they flamed out and are forever know as a gang of talentless f*ups.

OK, slight point of order called. Junkie. Sid. There's two people to thank for this - Nancy and Malcolm. Nancy got him started. Nancy helped keep him going. Malcolm made sure he kept going for a lot of the time. Nancy kept him going after Malcolm. I guess a third person can be thanked, too - Sid, for being pretty weak willed.

After all of this - now, I have to listen to Swindle again. I knew it was gonna happen...

Before this thread is shut down :), as promised, here's Elvis Costello's performance on SNL back in the 70s (http://www.marvindog.net/extra/ec_radioradio_snl.mpeg). The file is 36meg, so it'd be best to right click and save it. Enjoy!
I think this whole performance is on the SNL live box set that has all the music performances. Of course since I just don't "get" punk rock, I had to have someone explain this performance to me.

That's a good point- there's a definite irony about punks in an institution like the R&RHoF. BUT- irony is very punk, so from that point of view it's perfect.

Hmmm... that's pretty good!

You also apparantly violated the punk ethos by even allowing your store to have "sections" of music. Shame on you. At the very least, you could have put all the records that had "attitude and rebellion" together in one section, if only to keep all the big dumb jocks out of it, huh.

Jocks only came into this particular store to call me a fag and then would leave. An attitude you must at least be familiar with if all you say is true about being "on the football field" roughly during this time. We were the only store in the small town with a decent selection of punk (beyond The Ramones and The Pistols).

Knowing your background does help understand some of your mindset and refusal to even consider some of what has been said from those who were actually active in the "scene" because it goes against whatever ideas you have formed about punk.


and what exactly have I refused to consider?

and whose to say yours or anyone else's ideas are any more valid than mine? Simply because I have a wide range of music tastes including punk, and you have a more "specialized" (your word) collection of music that focuses more on punk, but leaves out entire genres of other music? Or are you simply more qualified to give opinions on punk because you may have bashed some skulls in as a bouncer? If I told you I had a huge safety pin stuck on my clothes in the mid 70s would that buy me some punk cred?

Lurch has been a bouncer (and show promoter) but he hasn't mentioned it in the thread, so you're getting him and Tom confused.