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

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.

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?

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.

[quote=Gecko85]

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.




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.





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


No, thank god.

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

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.

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.