Originally Posted by Gecko85
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.