Originally Posted by FredProgGH
And you other guys, if Sqounk chills then we all play nice again, right??
You bet - just take a look at my other stuff I've posted. Most importantly to me was this:
Originally Posted by Tom Brennan:
Yes, Punk was most certainly a reaction to stupifying bands like Kansas, Foreigner, Boston, ELP, Yes and all that ilk.
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.
He's the one who added in "progressive rock" to Tom's words. Tom was saying that punk was a reaction to bands like those listed (nothing about a genre). And then Squonk states that Tom is wrong. If anyone was twisting and misstating... Sure, it wasn't just those bands - but that is what "all that ilk" was meant to convey, I am sure. Tom probably made the mistake of not listing out hundreds of bands specifically by name. Then again, I always understood "Never Trust A Hippy" without having an itemized list attached to it
But Tom is not wrong in this, and it is a pretty big component in understanding what was going on with punk. Which some people have said they were interested in learning about, so for their sake, it is good to have some accurate info out there. Then again, I orginally entered this thread to help clarify some of The Pistols' history for just the same reason.
But yeah - if he'll play nice - I am enjoying the rest of the conversation that's going on in between his stuff.