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 2

post #31 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by squonk View Post

I agree for the most part, although I think even the Ramones preceded Iggy and the Stooges by a few years didn't they?

The Stooges first album came out in 1969. Their third (and final) album came out in 1973.

The Ramones (self-titled first album) came out in 1976.

Iggy Pop's first solo album came out in 1977 (produced by David Bowie.)

And, yes, I agree the New York Dolls were more glam...but it was their disregard for becoming musical "technicians", and their "we don't care what you think of us" attitude that established them as a precursor to Punk.
post #32 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreySkies View Post

Never Mind the Bollocks is often heard in my house. It's one of my favorite albums.

Blondie? I bought Parallel Lines when it came out; I was and am underwhelmed. They were a good singles band, but I don't think they deserve the HoF. Roxy Music was much more influential, and in terms of the New York New Wave Scene, Television, Jonathan Richman (Modern Lovers), Richard Hell, Patti Smith (is she in the HoF?) and Talking Heads were much more influential and more deserving of HoF status.

As far as progressive, Yes, ELP, King Crimson, Rush and Genesis are being shafted. I also think that Jethro Tull is worthy, but their Grammy debacle helps to hurt them as well.

I don't think Patti Smith is in yet but she probably will be soon. I always thought it was interesting that her biggest "hit" was the great Springsteen cover, Because the Night.
Re Springsteen, I think he gets shafted and not as much credit as he should for the return to roots rock thing that happened circa 1975 or so, really before punk really took off in America. At the same time the Ramones were beginning to do their thing around New York, Springsteen was playing garage rock/50's rock and roll Orbison/Eddie Cochran/Bo Diddley/Mitch Ryder in a much more raunchy style than was on the radio, which was becoming more slicked up with the Eagles etc. Springsteen was all about a return to rock and roll basics, yet he is never given credit for it as much as the punk movement was. And there is no doubt as to who did it better, and can still do it, long after the original punk bands are gone.
post #33 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gecko85 View Post

The Stooges first album came out in 1969. Their third (and final) album came out in 1973.

The Ramones (self-titled first album) came out in 1976.

Iggy Pop's first solo album came out in 1977 (produced by David Bowie.)

And, yes, I agree the New York Dolls were more glam...but it was their disregard for becoming musical "technicians", and their "we don't care what you think of us" attitude that established them as a precursor to Punk.

I guess I was thinking of Iggy's solo stuff then--I didn't realize those Stooges albums were that old.
post #34 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by squonk View Post

I don't think any rational person who knows anything about rock music could argue against the fact that the Beatles are the most influential rock group in music history, whether you like to listen to them or not. The Beatles have influenced and are still influencing any kid that picks up a guitar and wants to play rock and roll, or sits down and starts writing a rock or pop song. Their influence is virtually incalculable, and thus they can NEVER be overrated because if anything, they will always be underrated by those that can't, don't or won't understand or appreciate their vast influence.

Interestingly, if you look at current demographics of buyers of Beatles music. There's a dip in sales in the late twenty to thirty something crowd. The sales to the older crowd is obvious. But the large sales to younger people is remarkable. I heard it explained that today's young people are getting back to more sophisticated pop music. And once doing that, they're discovering that all roads lead to The Beatles.
post #35 of 691
This might make me sound like a jerk, but why should it really matter to anyone as to who is inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? You can still buy all the Yes and Genesis albums you want regardless. Do you need validation? I like these bands and if they make it, good for them, but frankly, I don't need someone else telling me how important a band is or is not.
post #36 of 691
The Stooges were way before the Ramones-Funhouse was from the late 60's I think...

Her's the thing about the sex pistols. I fully understand what they were trying to do, which Dean stated as well as I've ever read. But there is a basic contradiction in saying your music is less about being smart and more about the primal feelings R+R causes, when you have to explain that before anyone can appreaciate your music. Did any of the founding fathers of rock the SP supposedly were trying to emulate feel compelled to explain the concept behind their sound before people heard it? They let the music stand on its own, and expected people to "get it." Elvis, or the Killer, or Buddy Holly, Little Richard, etc. didn't feel compelled to explain how their music was more about sensation than thought before people could listen to it. The SP always seemed more an intellectual concept to me than actual music, much more so than the progressive bands they held so much scorn for. As good as their goal sounds in theory, it always seemed to me to be more of a rational to explain why they didn't sound very good.
post #37 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by squonk View Post

Re Springsteen, I think he gets shafted and not as much credit as he should for the return to roots rock thing that happened circa 1975 or so, really before punk really took off in America. At the same time the Ramones were beginning to do their thing around New York, Springsteen was playing garage rock/50's rock and roll Orbison/Eddie Cochran/Bo Diddley/Mitch Ryder in a much more raunchy style than was on the radio, which was becoming more slicked up with the Eagles etc. Springsteen was all about a return to rock and roll basics, yet he is never given credit for it as much as the punk movement was. And there is no doubt as to who did it better, and can still do it, long after the original punk bands are gone.

I think that Springsteen's emergence as "The New Dylan" in the 70s overshadowed his contribution to roots rock.
post #38 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonwolf615 View Post

The SP always seemed more an intellectual concept to me than actual music ...

Sex Pistols --> intellectual concept? I think they were more like an ironic marketing joke on disaffected youth and record companies (at least according to The Great Rock 'n Roll Swindle). They just happened to accidentally make one great, incredibly rocking album in the process.
post #39 of 691
There is an excellent Ramones documentary that came out recently on DVD, called The Band of the Centure (I think that's right.)
post #40 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreySkies View Post

Sex Pistols --> intellectual concept? I think they were more like an ironic marketing joke on disaffected youth and record companies (at least according to The Great Rock 'n Roll Swindle). They just happened to accidentally make one great, incredibly rocking album in the process.

Yep. They were the brainchild of Malcom McClaren (sp?), who set out to create a "look" and a sub-culture more than anything. They basically recorded one album, released at "Never Mind the Bollocks", then repackaged those same songs with some of the b-sides over and over as compilations. Here are just two of such releases:

The Great Rock 'n Roll Swindle
Flogging a Dead Horse

Pretty funny when you think about it. They laughed all the way to the bank.
post #41 of 691
The Sex Pistols and the Romones (two terribly untalented bands) didn't invent the punk sound. That distinction goes to The Velvet Underground in some of their earliest efforts. White Light/White Heat invented the sound that both bands lifted almost as is.

The first band to take the Underground's sound to new heights was "The Clash". Without the Clash, punk would have died a sudden and more widely ridiculed death than disco. But Stumer, Jones and co. kept what was cool about punk and gave it substance and musicality. IMO they were the Rolling Stones of Punk and were head and shoulders above any punk band before or since. Green Day? Offspring? Both decent bands, but too derivative to matter.

BTW, there can be no bias or standard where Blondie could be considered more important or influential than Yes or Genesis (not to mention ELP, Tull, Crimson, etc.). Geesh, I'm feeling pretty sure of myself today.
post #42 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTCrazy View Post

The Sex Pistols and the Romones (two terribly untalented bands) didn't invent the punk sound. That distinction goes to The Velvet Underground in some of their earliest efforts.

The Who's My Generation pre-dates that.
post #43 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob McLaughlin View Post

This might make me sound like a jerk, but why should it really matter to anyone as to who is inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? You can still buy all the Yes and Genesis albums you want regardless. Do you need validation? I like these bands and if they make it, good for them, but frankly, I don't need someone else telling me how important a band is or is not.

Neither do I, but this is a discussion forum. I guess we should ban all discussion of Oscars, Grammys and the like because those things don't dictate what music or movies I purchase, but people discuss them. Better yet, why don't we all hole up in our rooms and just play our albums and not converse with anyone in the outside world, god forbid we should ever discuss anything or possibly share differing points of view. Sheesh, lighten up Francis.
post #44 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTCrazy View Post

The Sex Pistols and the Romones (two terribly untalented bands) didn't invent the punk sound.

Punk wasn't a sound. Never was. You'll find *widely* differing "sounds" in the Punk genre. Punk was an attitude, and a belief that music was for the masses...not just to listen to, but to create. That's why the Ramones were so influential. They inspired those who came after them to pick up instruments and start a band. Without The Ramones there would have been no Clash...
post #45 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreySkies View Post

Sex Pistols --> intellectual concept? I think they were more like an ironic marketing joke on disaffected youth and record companies (at least according to The Great Rock 'n Roll Swindle). They just happened to accidentally make one great, incredibly rocking album in the process.

As Johnny Rotten shouted out to the crowd in one of their last concerts in S.F.--"Do you ever get the feeling you've been taken?"

The Sex Pistols knew they were a bunch of talentless malcontents put together as a fashion and political marketing tool. In that sense, they differ little from another talentless band, Kiss. Interestingly, I have read that Johnny Rotten actually was a Captain Beefheart and Can fan, not a big fan of roots rock and roll. And so the sham continues....
post #46 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreySkies View Post

The Who's My Generation pre-dates that.

I agree. In many ways the first truly "punk" band was The Who. And the difference between the Who and many punk bands was that the Who actually kicked A when they played.
post #47 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by squonk View Post

The Beatles have influenced and are still influencing any kid that picks up a guitar and wants to play rock and roll, or sits down and starts writing a rock or pop song. Their influence is virtually incalculable, and thus they can NEVER be overrated because if anything, they will always be underrated by those that can't, don't or won't understand or appreciate their vast influence.

Like I said, it was just food for thought, but let me add that I'm rather heavily involved in the rockabilly/roots rock scene. The majority of the music being played in this scene pre-dates the Beatles, I routinely see the handful of living artists whos careers pre-date the Beatles and a number of current bands that are influenced by these artists, cover their songs and write their own songs in the same roots/americana style which pre-dates the Beatles. If they were to list their influences they would all pre-date the Beatles. Let's not forget that the Beatles started out doing rather lousy covers of American rock and roll tunes. So while they may very well be the greatest band ever according to most measures, I still stand by my comment because of notions like these that go widely undebated that everyone that picks up an instrument does so because of the Beatles because I know for a fact that that just isn't true. I mean the very same argument made that people can't/won't/don't understand or appreciate their influence could very well be made for all the 50s rock acts that go widely unrecognized or underappreciated to this day without which bands like the Beatles would likely never have existed as we know them. That's all I'm saying, of course they're great.
post #48 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTCrazy View Post

The Sex Pistols and the Romones (two terribly untalented bands) didn't invent the punk sound. That distinction goes to The Velvet Underground in some of their earliest efforts. White Light/White Heat invented the sound that both bands lifted almost as is.


I disagree that the Ramones were untalented. I would say they were talented at what they did, but what they did (perfecting 3 chord rock) was limited and somewhat narrow. But they were very good at what they did do---incorporate girl group vocals of the early 60s, Beach Boys girl songs, and basic 3 chord rock, inject it with some twists and humor, and play straight ahead clean guitar riffs. There is no comparison btw The Sex Pistols and the Ramones IMO. So the Ramones had talent, but it was limited and they were very good at what they did in that narrow window.

I agree that as an influence, when you look not only at punk, but post punk, indie rock, shoegazer etc, Velvet Underground was and still is hugely influential. I have frequently posted about their influence on some of my favorite bands---Stereolab, Cowboy Junkies, Yo La Tengo, Sonic Youth and the list goes on.
post #49 of 691
Quote:


I mean the very same argument made that people can't/won't/don't understand or appreciate their influence could very well be made for all the 50s rock acts that go widely unrecognized or underappreciated to this day without which bands like the Beatles would likely never have existed as we know them. That's all I'm saying, of course they're great.

That's true, but when you are talking about influence, the people on the other side of The Beatles who don't look any further back than that to see where The Beatles came from, by definition, aren't influenced directly by those precursor artists. They are indirectly influenced, but if you include that, then some Greek guy with a lute is probably the all time undisputed greatest influence of all time on western music.
post #50 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by squonk View Post

As Johnny Rotten shouted out to the crowd in one of their last concerts in S.F.--"Do you ever get the feeling you've been taken?"

The Sex Pistols knew they were a bunch of talentless malcontents put together as a fashion and political marketing tool. In that sense, they differ little from another talentless band, Kiss. Interestingly, I have read that Johnny Rotten actually was a Captain Beefheart and Can fan, not a big fan of roots rock and roll. And so the sham continues....

I hate to be pedantic, but he actually said "cheated," not "taken."

Indeed, the "swindle" in The Great Rock 'n Roll Swindle, is the marketing and selling of the Sex Pistols. In it, Malcolm McLaren lists the steps to perpetrate the swindle. They include "make sure they can't play," and "make sure they hate each other." There's a great metaphorical scene where, after the public breakup of the band, Paul Cook (drums) and Steve Jones (guitar) travel to South America where they meet and record with Ronny Biggs (of great train robbery (in)fame)-- this is a meeting of what McLaren claims to be the two greatest successful crimes committed in the U.K.

It's also no surprise that the Sex Pistols' 96 reunion tour was called "The Filthy Lucre Tour."
post #51 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

That's true, but when you are talking about influence, the people on the other side of The Beatles who don't look any further back than that to see where The Beatles came from, by definition, aren't influenced directly by those precursor artists. They are indirectly influenced, but if you include that, then some Greek guy with a lute is probably the all time undisputed greatest influence of all time on western music.

Very true but a lot of current music owes just as much if not more to 50s rock than what is considered the revolutionary period of the Beatles' music. The early punk movement itself was a move back to the simplicity of pre-Beatles rock which is why they were all covering Eddie Cochran, Vince Taylor and similar artists.
post #52 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreyM View Post

Like I said, it was just food for thought, but let me add that I'm rather heavily involved in the rockabilly/roots rock scene. The majority of the music being played in this scene pre-dates the Beatles, I routinely see the handful of living artists whos careers pre-date the Beatles and a number of current bands that are influenced by these artists, cover their songs and write their own songs in the same roots/americana style which pre-dates the Beatles. If they were to list their influences they would all pre-date the Beatles. Let's not forget that the Beatles started out doing rather lousy covers of American rock and roll tunes. So while they may very well be the greatest band ever according to most measures, I still stand by my comment because of notions like these that go widely undebated that everyone that picks up an instrument does so because of the Beatles because I know for a fact that that just isn't true. I mean the very same argument made that people can't/won't/don't understand or appreciate their influence could very well be made for all the 50s rock acts that go widely unrecognized or underappreciated to this day without which bands like the Beatles would likely never have existed as we know them. That's all I'm saying, of course they're great.

You are talking about influences and I am talking about revolutionary and evolutionary advancement of an art form. Obviously the Beatles were influenced by the very music you are talking about--they were big fans of Carl Perkins, Eddie Cochran etc as well as Chuck Berry, Little Richard. Every musician has influences.

Where the Beatles take the next step forward beyond what those great artists did is they were an integral part of a whole societal change in the mid 60s, and they went from singing and playing nice little pop tunes to writing (with Dylan's huge influence) incredible works of poetry that evolved way beyond Be Bop a Lu La. The idea that a teen pop band in 1965 could write a 'serious' ballad like Yesterday was unprecedented at the time. The idea that you could take a pop song and meld it with a chamber orchestra and sing a song about death (Eleanor Rigby) in 1965 was so beyond what had been done up to that point in popular music that it is hard to fathom unless you really know that era or lived it. The idea that you would use songs as a way to comment on society and protest a war, before Dylan and the Beatles was unheard of for the most part. The idea that you would sell an ALBUM of commonly linked thematic songs was virtually unheard of until the mid 60s. The whole process of RECORDING an album with different sounds beyond guitar, bass, drums and vocal was virtually nonexistent before the Beatles in the mid 60s.

So, yes, 50's rock and roll certainly influenced the Beatles, but as great as Carl Perkins was, and even as influential as Elvis was, that type of music did not introduce a fundamental paradigm shift in society and pop culture---that did not occur until Dylan and the Beatles in the mid 60s. That kind of revolution/evolution only occurs in culture once every 50 years or so, if even that IMO. That's why their influence is immeasurable, and I think people under age 40 have difficulty assessing it because they have lived in the world the Beatles helped form their whole life.
post #53 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by squonk View Post

but as great as Carl Perkins was, and even as influential as Elvis was, that type of music did not introduce a fundamental paradigm shift in society and pop culture

Now hold up a minute... Elvis and other white performers that played "colored" music getting on the radio in 54 is a very huge part of the beginning of the breakdown of the color barrier in this country. We're still fighting that fight and for every step forward during that era there was probably a step back but it was early rock and roll that was largely responsible for getting the growing amount of suburbanized white youth exposed to a culture they were segregated from.
post #54 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreyM View Post

Now hold up a minute... Elvis and other white performers that played "colored" music getting on the radio in 54 is a very huge part of the beginning of the breakdown of the color barrier in this country. We're still fighting that fight and for every step forward during that era there was probably a step back but it was early rock and roll that was largely responsible for getting the growing amount of suburbanized white youth exposed to a culture they were segregated from.

I'll give you that but the black population sees it more as Elvis the white boy stealing rhythm and blues and calling it his own and making big money off of it.
post #55 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreySkies View Post

The Who's My Generation pre-dates that.

I never thought of The Who as a punk band, and can't think of any punk sounding songs they've done. But then again I've never heard the "My Generation" album. From what I recall though I'd consider their earliest stuff to be more garage band psychedelia than punk (Magic Bus, I Can See for Miles, My Generation, etc.)
post #56 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTCrazy View Post

I never thought of The Who as a punk band, and can't think of any punk sounding songs they've done. But then again I've never heard the "My Generation" album. From what I recall though I'd consider their earliest stuff to be more garage band psychedelia than punk (Magic Bus, I Can See for Miles, My Generation, etc.)

Again, I think in terms of attitude, the Who predated what the punk movement later tried to recapture. Also, listen to their first few years worth of songs, typified by stuff like I Can't Explain. The inability to communicate your feelings for a girl was a Ramones staple. Stuff like I Can See for Miles and Magic Bus was a little bit later and yes, was more psychedelic influenced, although that's about as far as it went.
post #57 of 691
If you see early films of The Who playing My Generation, they clearly were in the Punk channel in their own way. You can't blame them that they didn't also come up with tattoos and various forms of self mutilation, but they were definitely at that point doing something not unlike punk. Later, as happens with any band that survives and grows, they became much more technically proficient and branched out a lot. But My Generation is pretty dang punk in spirit, and a punk band could have covered it 20 years later and it wouldn't have sounded at all out of place. It would have been faster and sloppier probably.
post #58 of 691
Here is a link to nice article that does a pretty good job at trying to explain why The Beatles were so great:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ar...aid=12102061_1
post #59 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutgar View Post

Here is a link to nice article that does a pretty good job at trying to explain why The Beatles were so great:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ar...aid=12102061_1

Great article, and actually says much better much of what I said in post #52.
post #60 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTCrazy View Post

I never thought of The Who as a punk band, and can't think of any punk sounding songs they've done. But then again I've never heard the "My Generation" album. From what I recall though I'd consider their earliest stuff to be more garage band psychedelia than punk (Magic Bus, I Can See for Miles, My Generation, etc.)

My Generation is considered by many to be the first true punk song-- from the nihilist lyrics to the two chord guitar riff that can be played by anyone with two fingers. Their early live shows (Monterray-era) were as much about the decadent performace art of anarchy as they were about playing songs-- very punk.

Pete Townshend called the album Who Are You, The Who's punk album. He also dedicated his (semi-improvised) solo song Rough Boys to the Sex Pistols.
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