or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Sex Pistols and Blondie in Rock Hall of Fame--Genesis and Yes are not
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sex Pistols and Blondie in Rock Hall of Fame--Genesis and Yes are not - Page 7

post #181 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gecko85 View Post

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.
post #182 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by squonk View Post

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.

Quote:


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.

Quote:


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...
post #183 of 691
I leave you kids alone for a minute and you crank out a seven page punk/prog flame war??
post #184 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredProgGH View Post

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

A minute is 59 seconds too long - ya gotta be more watchful of us gawd danged kids
post #185 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Brennan View Post

Debby Harry was quite a dish though.

I see - ya like them smacked out eyes
post #186 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredProgGH View Post

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


Fred!!!!! Yay, you're back!
post #187 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by deeann View Post

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

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
post #188 of 691
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.
post #189 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch4711 View Post

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.
post #190 of 691
"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.
post #191 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IAM4UK View Post

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.
post #192 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch4711 View Post

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?
post #193 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by squonk View Post

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:

Quote:


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.
post #194 of 691
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.
post #195 of 691
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":

Quote:


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?...
post #196 of 691
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.
post #197 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gecko85 View Post

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.
post #198 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by squonk View Post

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?
post #199 of 691
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.
post #200 of 691
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.
post #201 of 691
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.
post #202 of 691
Thread Starter 
[quote=Gecko85]
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.



Quote:


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.




Quote:


Does Kenny G have the same sound as Miles Davis?

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

Quote:


Does Johnny Cash have the same sound as Toby Keith

No, thank god.
post #203 of 691
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]
post #204 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by squonk View Post

...Dylan was a punk rocker in the early 60s.

Now you're starting to get it!

Quote:


His songs were by and large too lyrically sphisticated and complex to be called punk.

Ooops. I spoke too soon.
post #205 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by squonk View Post

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.
post #206 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by squonk View Post

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:
Quote:


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.
post #207 of 691
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?
post #208 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gecko85 View Post

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.
post #209 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammitinski View Post

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.
post #210 of 691
When scientists finally discover the center of the universe, a lot of people are going to be disappointed that it's not them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Sex Pistols and Blondie in Rock Hall of Fame--Genesis and Yes are not