Originally Posted by squonk
If someone makes the completely mistaken oversimplification statement that all punk was a reaction to Yes, ELP, Kansas and Foreigner and bands of that "ilk" I will state they are wrong every day until the cows come home.
Well, that about says it all then. No interest in historical accuracy. It wasn't JUST about that, but that was a big component of it.
That is simply wrong, an oversimplification and exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the origins of punk which started much earlier in the music of Velvet Underground, Stooges, MC5 etc, and was a reaction to a far broader range of things than just that music. No one yet in this thread has commented on my statement that early punk was a reaction to jam band noodling by bands such as Grateful Dead and the whole psychedelic era, and also to the rock star excesses of bands like Led Zeppelin, where Jimmy Page used to play the guitar during drugged out 20 minute solos with a violin bow.
Yeah - if you were following along, I already agreed with that. My above comment is that these all are of "that ilk."
And if people keep misquoting and trying to spin what I say, I will call them wrong.
There was no misquoting, spin, etc, when you called him wrong. He was just stating some facts.
The fact that some guy might have worked as a bouncer at a bar or concert hall doesn't give them more punk credibility than anyone else who has ears and can read.
No, but that also doesn't mean they weren't around the punk "scene" at the time and knew, as most did, what was going on.
Once again, what does "immersed in the genre" mean? You mean because someone worked as a bouncer or at a record store that automatically means they understand the 'punk music genre' better than me?
No - let me spell it out: they went to shows, they knew bands, they were in bands, they hung around punks, they lived it. They didn't just pick up a record here and there. They didn't just go to a show and wear leather pants to feel good. OK, I'll hate myself for this, because I hate doing stuff like this, but take a listen to (or just read the lyrics to) the DK's song "Halloween." It was common then. Possibly more common now.
I also was a teenager in the 70s. How am I not qualified to give my opinion?
a) it is an opinon, and you claim to care about historical accuracy which would have nothing to do with opinions, which might well come from the people actually involved;
b) being a teenager in the 70s doesn't mean anything. Prior to your saying that you found out about the veggie/non-veggie thing with Wakeman and the rest of Yes, I would have said you could run rings around me in your knowledge about the band. But then again, maybe I actually know more about them? Or knew more about them earlier on then you did? But then again, a true Yes fan wouldn't want to hear what Wakeman (or presumably the others) had to say. So I guess it's a moot point.
I worked my way through college working in a steel factory for years. Does that qualify me to opine re punk music?
Is it because I didn't JUST own punk records, but also prog and pop and Sinatra etc that makes me not "immersed" and thus not qualified to speak about punk music and its place in music history? This may be the dumbest statement uttered yet.
No one said you couldn't speak about it. It's your refusal to accept the fact that there might be things you could learn. Rather than telling people they're wrong just because they know a little bit more from being a part of it. And there's the "big man" jock attitude creeping in.
There you go again. More stereotyping. First of all, no, I did not see bands of "jocks" running around terrorizing punks.
First off, where exactly did I say "terrorizing." Secondly, great for you - but then again, you had no metalheads, yet lots of metalheads, on your football field (can't keep things straight apparently). There were lots of fights, many instigated by jocks. If you want to ignore that fact, then that's just fine. At the same time, you could say, "wow, I never knew that!" But that apparently is beyond your capacity. So I guess I am just wrong. Let it be known now and for always that there was never a problem between punks and jocks (or rednecks for that matter) because Squonk didn't see it - so it never, ever happened. Depsite the documentation from the time and the people's memories from the time.
Like any high school, there were fights between all different types of people. From my experience, I would say most fights were between the metalhead pot smokers amongst themselves. But who cares? Get over it. What relevance does that have with prog and punk music?
Not much. Historically, it is an issue. But mostly, it relates to your refusal to learn anything from folks who were actually involved, because it would appear that would make you some kind of lesser person. Because you think you are right, even if presented evidence from those who were involved. And that was kind of an attitude that went along with jocks.
Why are you still reliving your high school days?
Oh, come on. You don't reminisce sometimes? Or run into people who act like they were still there?
[QUOTENow we are getting to the real crux of the problem. You apparantly have not completely grown up. [/quote]
Nope. Proud of it. Then again, I am fine with learning new stuff from people who know more about things. A problem for you. So who has not grown up more?
You are still clinging to your old stereotypes from bygone high school days and maintaining some kind of "us" against "them" mentality, where the "us" is apparantly tough guy punk rockers who are the only ones qualified to pontificate about the origins of punk rock music and its place in history, due to your preeminent qualifications as a bouncer and narrow music focus, and "them" who are apparantly in your mind are prog loving jocks who are not allowed to speak about punk rock. Wow. I repeat. Wow.
There ya go. Lots of 'em weren't tough at all. I'd explain some of this, but you have no interest in finding out anything about this that actually was going on. And yes, the people who were actually involved in punk might well be the best to bring historical info into a conversation. Then again, what do people who were involved in something know anything about it, right? Yeah, they wouldn't know anything compared to someone who picked up a record here and there to add to their diverse collection. Typically, historians specialize in a field. And typically, people like to learn from them. It's silly ANY of us might be considered "historians" and all... but apparently enough time has passed where that might just be the case.