Thoughts on arrival of punk rock and decline of old shool hard rock/metal/prog rock
Raja, The Great
all forms of rock before it.... except protopunk. But I think the
critics are wrong completely on this...
Old school hard rock/metal like Led Zeppelin/Black Sabbath/Deep Purple
were already past peak or had kicked the bucket already or were into
decadence. Prog rock was on a similar decline... much before 1977 ---
the first big year for punk.
Hard rock/heavy metal
-----------------------------
Led Zeppelin - recorded Presence as early as 1975 and it was not up to
the usual standards
Deep Purple - had been crap ever since Gillan/Glover quit in 1973
Black Sabbath - were deep into drugs and alcohol abuse as early as
1973 when they made their last good album - Sabbath Bloody Sabbath
The Who - their last goodone was Whos Next in 1971.... Towshend
started focusing on his solo career as early as 1972 when he released
his first major solo album.
--- second generation hard rock/metal like KISS, Alice Cooper,
Aersomsith, Queen were never in the league of the above 4 in my
opinion. AC/DC is the only one who was very good. But AC/DC was not
considered a major hard rock band in the 70s. Their commercial success
really started only after Bon Scott's death
Prog rock
------------
Yes --- blew it when they went on hiatus in 1975 and 1976. Their last
great album was Relayer
Pink Floyd - last great album was WYWH. After that it was Roger Water
doing his solo stuff as Pink Floyd
ELP -- went on hiatus like Yes in 1975 and 1976.... bad idea
King Crimson -- disbanded in 1974
Genesis --- was never the same after Peter Gabriel quit in 1974
Jethro Tull -- were never the same after Thick As a Brick - 1972
So basically prog/hard rock/metal died a natural death. It wasn't punk
which caused the decline.
Chris Jemmett
Once again, deep as a frying pan.
Patrick Kehoe
PUNK ROCK??? You mean Punk...
P
globular
> Many critics think the arrival of punk rock resulted in the doom of
> all forms of rock before it.... except protopunk. But I think the
> critics are wrong completely on this...
>
> Old school hard rock/metal like Led Zeppelin/Black Sabbath/Deep Purple
> were already past peak or had kicked the bucket already or were into
> decadence. Prog rock was on a similar decline... much before 1977 ---
> the first big year for punk.
>
> Hard rock/heavy metal
> -----------------------------
> Led Zeppelin - recorded Presence as early as 1975 and it was not up to
> the usual standards
> Deep Purple - had been crap ever since Gillan/Glover quit in 1973
> Black Sabbath - were deep into drugs and alcohol abuse as early as
> 1973 when they made their last good album - Sabbath Bloody Sabbath
> The Who - their last goodone was Whos Next in 1971.... Towshend
> started focusing on his solo career as early as 1972 when he released
> his first major solo album.
>
> --- second generation hard rock/metal like KISS, Alice Cooper,
> Aersomsith, Queen were never in the league of the above 4 in my
> opinion. AC/DC is the only one who was very good. But AC/DC was not
> considered a major hard rock band in the 70s. Their commercial success
> really started only after Bon Scott's death
In the US, the best part of their career was in the 70s.
>
> Prog rock
> ------------
> Yes --- blew it when they went on hiatus in 1975 and 1976. Their last
> great album was Relayer
> Pink Floyd - last great album was WYWH. After that it was Roger Water
> doing his solo stuff as Pink Floyd
> ELP -- went on hiatus like Yes in 1975 and 1976.... bad idea
> King Crimson -- disbanded in 1974
> Genesis --- was never the same after Peter Gabriel quit in 1974
> Jethro Tull -- were never the same after Thick As a Brick - 1972
I don't think anybody takes as much notice as you of this music.
I just remember the occasional Jethro Tull single in the early 70s.
All the radio play of Genesis seemed to be after the better part of
their career. I don't recall ever hearing much of King Crimson, but
I've always been keen on hearing more of Robert Fripp. I heard he was
in some kind of 60s group early on. I've always wanted to hear the
first Yes album but never have. Pink Floyd seemed to have an all
pervasive presence on top 40 radio in the 70s where I was, I could only
want to hear their 70s material over 20 years later.
>
> So basically prog/hard rock/metal died a natural death. It wasn't punk
> which caused the decline.
Much always dies a natural death. I once posted after watching a
documentary on heavy metal about how the rhythm/drum beat seemed to
change after the 60s into the 80s. The kinds of drumming used in the
80s just didn't work like the early music.
You must understand there was a vacuum created after where music went
after the 60s and punk etc. filled it like a natural process. All the
music looks better in retrospect.
The rise of alternative FM radio is another factor. Apparently FM grew
in the US in the late 60s and Australia was ten years behind. It
changed forever the grip of top 40 radio. I rarely associate 80s music
with what most people do.
>
Jim Beam
Did you plagiarize this?
Raja- never the same after his first list.
Tony Elka
<bb1d108e-4c7e-4548...@d12g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
"Raja, The Great" <zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Many critics think the arrival of punk rock resulted in the doom of
> all forms of rock before it.... except protopunk.
Can you name a single critic that has actually said that?
Tony
P.S. rec.sport.tennis removed from this cross-posted reply.
Raja, The Great
The silliest thing the punks ever did was to try to disassociate
themselves when the only way to define punk is hardcore and basic rock
with no frills
> P
Raja, The Great
Once again an empty random senseless comment
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Punks, true punks didn't give a SHIT about musical structures or
history or culture... they were anarchists... they were nilhilists...
FUCK everything and everyone... death was the future... that was true
punk...
P
drew
> Punks, true punks didn't give a SHIT about musical structures or
> history or culture... they were anarchists... they were nilhilists...
> FUCK everything and everyone... death was the future... that was true
> punk...
Punk was more about attitude than music, although there was some
good stuff made by mistake along the way.
Slam-dancing. That was cool. You had to know when to stay under the
radar
and when you could hit because if you just went into the pit like a
wild animal
flailing about, some big bastard would lay you out like Chara giving
you a bodycheck.
I remember a local bar where the bands came in from Toronto and it was
the middle
of winter. The guy who owned the bar couldn't afford to heat it and
the bass player
was complaining that his fingers were so fucking cold he couldn't
play. Well, he
couldn't play much anyhow but yeah, they were fun days.
billy
WTF is "punk rock" RETARD!?
Joe Ramirez
drew
> WTF is "punk rock" RETARD!?
It's like a pet rock only it is like an aggregate of asphalt,
concrete, with shards of glass sticking out.
Punks took them to Blondie and The Knack concerts in the late 70s.
When the band would start playing,
the punks in the audience would pelt the 'punk rockers' with punk
rocks in an effort to discourage these
poseurs from performing and turning punk into something soft and
marketable.
Joe Ramirez
Early Blondie *was* a melodic punk band; the group just quickly
evolved beyond it. (The Clash also moved far beyond punk by the time
of their third album; that didn't make them into poseurs either.) But
the "pop punk" strain Blondie helped create always has remained part
of this music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO94MYyc7SE&NR=1
The Knack never pretended to be a punk band, nor were they marketed as
a punk band. Everyone understood exactly what they were: an aggressive
power pop band with new wave packaging and a couple of awesomely
catchy songs, but not much depth. I don't think diehard punks cared
much about them either way.
The Ramones certainly tried as hard as they could to market
themselves. They were one of the first bands to hire their own "art
director," and their whole brothers/jackets/jeans shtick was intended
to be conceptually appealing rather than politically provocative. They
certainly weren't happy about having only limited commercial success.
Tony Elka
<8aa487de-9de7-4022...@gn5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Joe Ramirez <josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
> The Ramones certainly tried as hard as they could to market
> themselves. They were one of the first bands to hire their own "art
> director," and their whole brothers/jackets/jeans shtick was intended
> to be conceptually appealing rather than politically provocative. They
> certainly weren't happy about having only limited commercial success.
Question: What percentage of Ramones albums sounded like other Ramones
albums?
Tony
Mr. Smarmy
JohnB
... and punk died a natural death soon after it was born. The whole
point of punk was destroyed when it became part of the business.
But, as regards your main point, that old school rock is still being
listened to and is still influencing new bands. I haven't got access
to any sales stats but I'd bet that there were more copies of albums
by those old school bands being sold in the last year than any of the
top punk bands.
So much of the above is based on your opinion of what was good and not
good by each band anyway. For instance, my favourite Genesis album is
Trick Of The Tail (no Gabriel); my favourite Tull album id Songs From
The Wood; favourite Yes album? Maybe Going For The One; and I rate
Queen quite highly but can't stand AC/DC. There will be many more
opinions out there that differ from yours. Your premise is flawed.
Oh, and I know you think I'm not a fan of hard rock, but you'd be
wrong there. I'm just discerning.
billy
Thanks raja's pet, but I think you mean "PUNK"
Patrick Kehoe
One would never know it, but that was my youth... had friends in
bands... left a good part of my hearing back in those clubs... I don't
a 'club' with heating could be considered a 'hellhole' (as we called
them) if memory serves... nothing like a stoned, blue haired honey on
the make; those babes knew how to end a nights 'trashing'... :))))
I'm all misty iiiii'd now... :))))))
P
Patrick Kehoe
Or go up and barf on the stage at the foot of the people 'trying to
play their music'... OK, mayyyyy-be I did that once or
twice... :))))))
Funny shit...
P
Raja, The Great
> In article
> <8aa487de-9de7-4022-9d41-c6b2a713a...@gn5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > The Ramones certainly tried as hard as they could to market
> > themselves. They were one of the first bands to hire their own "art
> > director," and their whole brothers/jackets/jeans shtick was intended
> > to be conceptually appealing rather than politically provocative. They
> > certainly weren't happy about having only limited commercial success.
>
> Question: What percentage of Ramones albums sounded like other Ramones
> albums?
>
> Tony
Make that songs instead of albums... All Ramones sounded alike... just
like their names... same riff... some other words... lol
Joe Ramirez
Sorry, "billy," but if you're ignorant about the varieties of 1970s/
1980s musical terminology, you should educate yourself before posting.
Hint: Go read some original material *from that period*. (Or even just
listen to the songs from that time. E.g., what are the first two words
out of Paul Weller's mouth at the beginning of the Jam's "News of the
World"? Also listen to Blondie's "Rapture" carefully.)
moonpie
<zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Many critics think the arrival of punk rock resulted in the doom of
>all forms of rock before it.... except protopunk. But I think the
>critics are wrong completely on this...
Critics are almost always wrong about everything, in my opinion ;-)
>Led Zeppelin - recorded Presence as early as 1975 and it was not up to
>the usual standards
they started recording it in 1974, and you're wrong, it was hugely
received, arguably the biggest rock album of the year, and often
regarded as a masterpiece
>Deep Purple - had been crap ever since Gillan/Glover quit in 1973
Burn was very well received in my neck of the woods, I was in
California when they headlined the Cal Jam and it seemed like the
entire area was in love with Deep Purple, everybody I knew was playing
their albums, including Burn, which was extremely popular
that might have been an isolated event
>
>So basically prog/hard rock/metal died a natural death. It wasn't punk
>which caused the decline.
Punk helped put the nails into the coffin, if nothing else. Disco
helped too.
Falling record sales will go a long way towards record companies and
the dreaded A&R guys making new marketing decisions.
moonpie
all the good ones ;-)
drew
Memories...who ever thought puking would become an art form?
Didn't have a rooster hair cut though...I had a job.
I loved the names of the punk bands...The Viletones, The Battered
Wives...
Strange times too....disco dancing here, the pogo over there....and
fucking,
fucking, fucking everywhere.
Raja, The Great
Really, but your opinion is in minority. Few Yes fans will ever
consider Going For The One as their best album. Songs From The Wood is
pretty good and I consider it their 4th best after Stand Up, Aqualung
and Thick As A Brick, but very few Tull fans are going to rate Songs
From the Wood above Aqualung or Thick As A Brick.
Same thing for Genesis... Trick As a Tail is decent... and is
considered decent by Genesis standards. But not many would rate it
above Selling England by the Pound or Foxtrot
Reg hard rock, wrong based on what? I am talking about the common
opinion... Not many consider Zeppelin/Purple/Sabbath to be at their
best in the second half of the 70s... many consider them to their best
in the first half.
Queen were never really hard rock or prog rock... they never fit in...
more of a pop band which would do some proggy solos and hard rock
riffing... I never took them seriously... they could write some great
singles every now on them... but were largely inconsistent when it
came to albums. If not for their hit singles, no one would care about
them. They really brought nothing new to the table... Bands like King
Crimson, ELP, Yes, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd etc started
a new sound.
Raja, The Great
Punks were usually so ugly, no one would fuck them... thats what I
heard. I was too young to know the reality.
Chris Jemmett
Referring to you or your comments as shallow is far from random or
senseless. You just got aced, is all. Now shuffle over to the other
side of the court. Face the net, dipshit.
Raja, The Great
Quit trolling Jammit.
Raja, The Great
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punk_rock
Punk rock is a rock music genre that developed between 1974 and 1976
in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Rooted in
garage rock and other forms of what is now known as protopunk music,
punk rock bands eschewed the perceived excesses of mainstream 1970s
rock. They created fast, hard-edged music, typically with short songs,
stripped-down instrumentation, and often political, anti-establishment
lyrics. Punk embraces a DIY ethic, with many bands self-producing
their recordings and distributing them through informal channels.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
No... the hottest, wildest babes were into punk and basically 'nights'
never ended... you woke up when it was getting dark again...
:)))))
How did any of us get through those times??? Amazing... and actually
get degrees and have families... astounding... if I were to meed
myself of 18 or 19 I'd be scared!
:))
P
Raja, The Great
Babes will be there wherever there were parties. But I doubt the punk
rockers themselves got more pussy than the earlier rockers from the
late 60s and early 70s. Look at the face of the Ramones members...
looks like someone had vomited on their face. The Sex Pistols and
Clash members were no studs either.
Raja, The Great
>
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/ramones/sheenaisapunkrocker.html
Sheena is a punk rocker
Sheena is a punk rocker
Sheena is a punk rocker now
This is RAMONES SONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JohnB
As regards opinions, we're all in a minority of one. Maybe few Yes
fans would rate GFTO as their best (I'm torn between that and Fragile)
but many non-Yes fans might like GFTO best. Tull fans are divided, in
my experience: some prefer their first three albums, some love the
"folk-rock" period (SFTW and HH), some will tell you Aqualung or
Minstrel or Brick is best. As for those who aren't hardcore Tull fans,
I've heard some say Crest Of A Knave is their favourite. Everyone's a
winner...
>
> Same thing for Genesis... Trick As a Tail is decent... and is
> considered decent by Genesis standards. But not many would rate it
> above Selling England by the Pound or Foxtrot
I love SEBTP too, but Foxtrot? Well, there are those who love the
first three above all others; there are others who came to Genesis
later who will tell you that Invisible Touch is best.
>
> Reg hard rock, wrong based on what? I am talking about the common
> opinion... Not many consider Zeppelin/Purple/Sabbath to be at their
> best in the second half of the 70s... many consider them to their best
> in the first half.
But music lives on after the time it was first made. What is still
selling now? In fact, find any global (i.e. not genre-specific) top
(however many) list of albums or artists and I'd bet you'll find more
classic rock listed than punk. You'll probably find a decent number of
post-punk rock albums mixed in with (and probably outnumbering) the
punk stuff. Apart from London Calling and NMTB, what punk albums are
still well thought of? No doubt you will find lists to prove your
point, if you can be bothered, but for every list you find in favour,
there'll be another against.
>
> Queen were never really hard rock or prog rock... they never fit in...
> more of a pop band which would do some proggy solos and hard rock
> riffing... I never took them seriously... they could write some great
> singles every now on them... but were largely inconsistent when it
> came to albums. If not for their hit singles, no one would care about
> them. They really brought nothing new to the table... Bands like King
> Crimson, ELP, Yes, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd etc started
> a new sound.
Queen were creative most of their carreer. Who had heard the like of
Bohemian Rhapsody before, never mind what came before or after? Have
you ever listened to a Queen album in full? Try Sheer Heart Attack -
you may be surprised.
But the point I was trying to make is that your premise is wrong
because:
1. It's based on your opinions on what is good and what is bad;
2. Music lives beyond its time.
drew
> How did any of us get through those times??? Amazing... and actually
> get degrees and have families... astounding... if I were to meed
> myself of 18 or 19 I'd be scared!
>
> :))
I'm just trying to keep these memories fresh so that I have some
perspective
when my own children get to this age.
And yes, the idea of meeting oneself at that age is an intriguing
one. What advice
would you give yourself? And would you expect to be sneered at,
ignored, or to be
verbally abused?
Chris Jemmett
Every one of your cross posted idiocies is trolling. I'll quit when
you quit.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ramones are SHIT... true club punks puke on the Ramones and their
shiny success! :))))))
P
Tony Elka
<d1881c0b-b300-4503...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
"Raja, The Great" <zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Queen were never really hard rock or prog rock... they never fit in...
> more of a pop band which would do some proggy solos and hard rock
> riffing... I never took them seriously... they could write some great
> singles every now on them... but were largely inconsistent when it
> came to albums. If not for their hit singles, no one would care about
> them. They really brought nothing new to the table...
You'll never bring a truly new thread to the table. Your entire mind is
a re-run.
Tony
P.S. rec.sport.tennis removed from this cross-posted reply because I'm
not insane.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's the point... no jocko, brick head, studs allowed... snorting
time baby! :))))))
Oh! what memories, I cannot really remember!
P
Raja, The Great
Patrick Kehoe
When I was 17, 18 my dad was 68, 69... he was 51 when I was born...
he'd been a sax player for a long time and then when to school in New
York City in the late 1930 and met all the great swing band guys,
played with some... was in medical core in WWII Canadian Army... "Oh!
cocaine was big around 1929, 1930, 1931... All over the band," my
father told me... "Where do you think the B-Boppers learned to take
drugs from?" Funny...
I could talk to my dad because he was sort of a grandfather dad... no
ego, had done it all... was mellow... his brother told me, "Ya! He is
NOW... You didn't know him when he was young." That comment stayed
with me... I always sort of got along with old(er) people and loved to
listen to their stories... that's the cultural historian in me I
guess...
If I met an 18 year old Patrick Kehoe... I'd probably tell my younger
self, "You have to let people be the way they are." That single piece
of advice 'might' have helped me, had I really listened... took me
until 40 to REALLY learn that... would have smoothed out my road a
bit...
:)
P
TT
We're supposed to believe your stories of your wild youth? Somehow I
doubt that... :-D
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
True punks don't/didn't REALLY like anyone... music was just the angry
projection of their desperation and sense of doom cascading about a
confined, blackened, noise filled, smelly, cold space for the
consumption of communial loathing and orgasmic foreplay... :))
People who wanted to be 'part of punk culture' had all these
commercial bands they followed... they were just bored people who
wanted to get back and mommy and daddy and while facing their own
talentless, middleclass/lower class existence, desperately scratched
about trying to get stoned and laid...
P
moonpie
I was a guitar player in a punk band in 1978, in college. I could
afford to be as anti-establishment as I wanted to, of course, because
my parents footed the bill and I had ZERO real responsibilites. It was
a fun time, getting a free ride and sneering at everything.
Back then, I loved the Ramones.
To put it simply, I was a real punk, before any of you punks were
punk.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well... wild-ish... I got through school (eventually) and have my
hearing (more or less) and don't drink any more (ok, 4 or 5 times a
year)... it wasn't anything special, just the times... a lot different
than growing up white and upper-middleclass now... light years...
being 50, it's amazing to remember half the shit we did... things you
would be in jail for now, just sort of went on... had to be there, I
guess...
P
drew
> On Mar 16, 8:43 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 11:05 am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
> When I was 17, 18 my dad was 68, 69... he was 51 when I was born...
> he'd been a sax player for a long time and then when to school in New
> York City in the late 1930 and met all the great swing band guys,
> played with some... was in medical core in WWII Canadian Army... "Oh!
> cocaine was big around 1929, 1930, 1931... All over the band," my
> father told me... "Where do you think the B-Boppers learned to take
> drugs from?" Funny...
That's wild. I knew coke was big back before it was demonized...it
was added to
all sorts of medicines. Before a lot of these substances were made
illegal it was no
big deal but I didn't know that the swing band guys were taking it.
> If I met an 18 year old Patrick Kehoe... I'd probably tell my younger
> self, "You have to let people be the way they are." That single piece
> of advice 'might' have helped me, had I really listened... took me
> until 40 to REALLY learn that... would have smoothed out my road a
> bit...
I know I'd have too much to tell my younger self...I'd be more
interested to
know what my younger self would think of me now.....he'd probably say,
well
at least I'll still have most of my hair...
drew
It's true. When people tell me: "Kids get away with murder these
days", I just smile and tell
them to get their memory checked. Kids today are far more
responsible, polite and safety-conscious
than my generation ever was.
Fact is even as young children we were pretty much free-range and we
got into all sorts of shit.
I feel a little sorry for the way things have developed. If I would
allow my kids the freedom I had
I'd be considered an irresponsible parent.
On my street you would hear the moms calling out the front door for
their kids to come home for supper....you could
hear them all the way down the street. Their kids might not be in
earshot but somebody would hear mom and that kid
would find out and come home. It was a different age alright. No
cellphones, no booster seats or shoulder harnesses
in cars. Drunk driving was REALLY common and we would drive for miles
and miles totally drunk or stoned. Everybody
did it. My buddy was pulled over by the cops back then...he was blind
drunk, the cop recognized him and asked him if
he had any beer. My friend said "No." The cop asked him if he wanted
some....sure....so the cop put a case of beer that
he'd just taken from somebody else and put in into horny Hank's
trunk....then provided him a police escort home. Hank
worked at a local restaurant and all the cops went there for
burgers...
I always remember my Physics teacher in high school getting frustrated
because half the class was high on dope and we
would just be giggling and acting like assholes. "If you want to
smoke dope....get out!" he'd bellow. Of course the pot
in those days wasn't near as potent as your BC bud today. But the LSD
was a lot better...and cheap.
Raja, The Great
So they are basically moronic losers... if you do not like the music
you are listening to, why attend the concert?
>
> People who wanted to be 'part of punk culture' had all these
> commercial bands they followed... they were just bored people who
> wanted to get back and mommy and daddy and while facing their own
> talentless, middleclass/lower class existence, desperately scratched
> about trying to get stoned and laid...
>
You said Ramones weren't cool (and considered shit), so what true punk
rockers considered cool, back then? Just asking because you lived in
that age and I was too young.
> P- Hide quoted text -
Joe Ramirez
> Apart from London Calling and NMTB, what punk albums are
> still well thought of?
Lots, e.g.:
The Clash's first two albums as well.
Any Ramones album up through "End of the Century," plus "Too Tough to
Die." The quality declines somewhat after "Ramones" and "Leave Home,"
but that doesn't mean they're ignored now.
Any of the first four albums by X, but the first three especially.
Richard Hell & the Voidoids, "Blank Generation."
The first two albums by the Dead Kennedys.
"Singles Going Steady" by the Buzzcocks.
At least "Zen Arcade" and "New Day Rising" by Husker Du, and probably
one or two others of theirs.
The ROIR cassette album by the Bad Brains, and maybe "Rock for Light"
too.
Multiple albums by the Jam (IMO the "New Mod" classification of the
day has been subsumed within punk).
"Signals Calls and Marches" and "Vs." by Mission of Burma (some
overlap with postpunk, but still punk in a big way).
These are just my nominations, and I've left out everything that
started as punk but transitioned to new wave (Blondie, Talking Heads,
etc.), as well as all early postpunk (PiL, the Fall, Joy Division,
Gang of Four). Of course, I've also gone no further than the early/
mid-1980s.
P.S. No other lists were harmed in the preparation of this list.
Raja, The Great
A good place to check might be 1001 album to hear before you die. I am
sure it has many punk albums.
Joe Ramirez
No doubt it does, but I wanted to pull stuff out of my own head for
the sake of authenticity, given the terms of the question.
Patrick Kehoe
Oh! For sure... you can't do jack now, by comparison... which probably
a good thing... though I don't remember kids going into high schools
and opening up with automatic rifles... there have always been the
marginalized and mixed up and loner(s)... time doesn't alter that...
and the level of visible media platformed violence was much less,
though beginning to take off by the early 70s... the amount of sexual
saturation now is astounding to anyone over 40-45... I can't imagine
being an adolecent teenager now... I'd be driven mad...
>Kids today are far more responsible, polite and safety-conscious
than my generation ever was.
YES. Most things the kids are better at, generally, than we were... so
much more attention to education, instruction, details of technique,
etc... sports certainly... kids are more polite for sure, generally,
and understand the need to ground themselves in education and skills
to 'make a future' in some form or another... kids just drifted around
before much more openly... only READING and WRITING has suffered...
understandable in a culture where the 'word' has been displaced from
the centrality of the culture, with the electronic image having
replaced the registations of written language for primacy in
developing the imagination... in mathematics and sciences kids are far
advanced...
> Fact is even as young children we were pretty much free-range and we got into all sorts of shit. I feel a little sorry for the way things have developed. If I would
> allow my kids the freedom I had I'd be considered an irresponsible parent.
A friend of mine allowed his son to just get on his bike and 'go out'
all day at like 11 years old... I thought he had guts and was an idiot
all at the same time... then my son took the bus alone to school by
the time he was 12, at least coming BACK from school... that really
matured him quickly in relation to his peers, that and having 3 of his
best friends as girls, something that would never have happened in the
1970s...
> On my street you would hear the moms calling out the front door for their kids to come home for supper....you could hear them all the way down the street. Their kids might not be in earshot but somebody would hear mom and that kid would find out and come home. It was a different age alright.
My god that's such an evocative memory for people our age... the sound
of mothers calling out at dusk... moms didn't need cell phones :))
AND... that's why we were able to go out as 11, 12, 13 year olds by
ourselves... we actually DID go to the guys house we said we were...
or to the park to play hoops or baseball or toss the football or play
road hockey with firends... one of the neighbours would call one of
the moms and say, "the guys are over at the park/school playing now."
THEY knew where we were... OR... "I can see them and they are SMOKING
over at the school!" :))))
>No cellphones, no booster seats or shoulder harnesses in cars. Drunk driving was REALLY common and we would drive for miles and miles totally drunk or stoned. Everybody did it. My buddy was pulled over by the cops back then...he was blind drunk, the cop recognized him and asked him if he had any beer. My friend said "No." The cop asked him if he wanted some....sure....so the cop put a case of beer that he'd just taken from somebody else and put in into horny Hank's
trunk....then provided him a police escort home. Hank worked at a
local restaurant and all the cops went there for burgers...
Ya, that was so true... I remember coming home from friends house or
playing soccer or baseball and seeing guys trying to get into cars,
cigarettes dangling from their mouths, just out of the bars/pubs, at
like 8pm PLASTERED already and fumbling with their keys, starting up
the engine and driving HOME BOMBED... it was a NATURAL SITE back
then... sad to say... or seeing a father cuff/slap a kid (son) in the
head right in front of his buddies for not coming home on time or
'giving me lip'...
> I always remember my Physics teacher in high school getting frustrated because half the class was high on dope and we would just be giggling and acting like assholes. "If you want to smoke dope....get out!" he'd bellow. Of course the pot in those days wasn't near as potent as your BC bud today. But the LSD was a lot better...and cheap.
I tired to be Perry Como during the week days and at school and Sid
Vicious come Friday... :)
P
drew
> You said Ramones weren't cool (and considered shit), so what true punk
> rockers considered cool, back then? Just asking because you lived in
> that age and I was too young.
I'll offer to answer that if Patrick doesn't mind...the true punks
were into
anything punk that was not commercially successful. Being anarchists
and
nihilists they were automatically suspicious of commercial success but
as they embraced a counter-culture it wasn't so much that they didn't
like the music...rather they didn't want to identify with music that
non-punks
might like. So maybe early Bowie, Cyndi Lauper, U2, Iggy Pop, but
anything
that became popular quickly became unpopular with punks.
Certainly anything that had a political message that suggested rising
up
against the machine, also angry feminist politics appealed to the
punks.
Anybody marginalized like lesbians or queers would be more likely to
have
their music accepted by punks....Lou Reed, for example. New York
Dolls.
I think Sex Pistols were kind of a parody of punk by the time they
reached
North America. I don't know that real punks were so much into this.
There were a lot of local punk bands popping up all over the place in
the late 70s.
Success was the death of punk IMO. New wave music adopting the
stripped
down style and some of the mannerisms of the punks and marketing it
with
decent production by musicians who could really play. And of course
anything
as negative as the punk movement had to die...that was the whole
point, I think.
Patrick Kehoe
Punk had no concerts... not true punks... just gigs, you show up and
maybe the band might as well... often time they didn't... :))
If you were cool or trying to be cool, you weren't a punk... punks
HATED cool... punks spat at 'cool-tool-fools' :))
P
Raja, The Great
Fragile and GFTO are the poppiest albums of their classic period
albums. Many consider 1971-77 as their best years, so it is no
surprise the classic rock fans who have appetite for 20 minutes songs
prefer the two albums which have short songs.
> but many non-Yes fans might like GFTO best. Tull fans are divided, in
> my experience: some prefer their first three albums, some love the
> "folk-rock" period (SFTW and HH), some will tell you Aqualung or
> Minstrel or Brick is best. As for those who aren't hardcore Tull fans,
> I've heard some say Crest Of A Knave is their favourite. Everyone's a
> winner...
>
Well if you poll all the Tull fans, many will point to Thick As a
Brick or Aqualung
>
>
> > Same thing for Genesis... Trick As a Tail is decent... and is
> > considered decent by Genesis standards. But not many would rate it
> > above Selling England by the Pound or Foxtrot
>
> I love SEBTP too, but Foxtrot? Well, there are those who love the
> first three above all others;
A big minority
> there are others who came to Genesis
> later who will tell you that Invisible Touch is best.
Many consider their core three albums as Foxtrot, SEBTP and TLLDOB
>
>
>
> > Reg hard rock, wrong based on what? I am talking about the common
> > opinion... Not many consider Zeppelin/Purple/Sabbath to be at their
> > best in the second half of the 70s... many consider them to their best
> > in the first half.
>
> But music lives on after the time it was first made. What is still
> selling now?
Lady Ga Ga and Miley Cryus. We are talking about critical and fan
acclaim.... not sales
>In fact, find any global (i.e. not genre-specific) top
> (however many) list of albums or artists and I'd bet you'll find more
> classic rock listed than punk. You'll probably find a decent number of
> post-punk rock albums mixed in with (and probably outnumbering) the
> punk stuff. Apart from London Calling and NMTB, what punk albums are
> still well thought of? No doubt you will find lists to prove your
> point, if you can be bothered, but for every list you find in favour,
> there'll be another against.
>
>
>
> > Queen were never really hard rock or prog rock... they never fit in...
> > more of a pop band which would do some proggy solos and hard rock
> > riffing... I never took them seriously... they could write some great
> > singles every now on them... but were largely inconsistent when it
> > came to albums. If not for their hit singles, no one would care about
> > them. They really brought nothing new to the table... Bands like King
> > Crimson, ELP, Yes, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd etc started
> > a new sound.
>
> Queen were creative most of their carreer. Who had heard the like of
> Bohemian Rhapsody before, never mind what came before or after? Have
> you ever listened to a Queen album in full? Try Sheer Heart Attack -
> you may be surprised.
I have heard all their albums. The 80s albums are a steaming pile of
shit. They were versatile in the 70s and made several good songs, but
even their best album has absolute bullshit like I am in love with my
car. If I were to recommend one album it would A Night At the Opera. I
found both Queen II and Sheer Heart Attack to be disappointing.
>
> But the point I was trying to make is that your premise is wrong
> because:
> 1. It's based on your opinions on what is good and what is bad;
Everything I tell is based on my opinion. And I believe it is the same
about you. Are you voicing someone else's opinion? if so, what is the
point in doing so?
> 2. Music lives beyond its time.- Hide quoted text -
Not all of it.
Joe Ramirez
I think you and Drew are exaggerating the strength of the
anticommercialism, antisuccess ethos in the punk movement. Much of the
time it was an unrealized, or even unpursued, ideal rather than a
concretely expressed reality. The most nihilistic punks were probably
lifestyle obsessives, not actual punk rockers. Among bands, for every
Sid Vicious who was useless as a musician and doomed as a person,
there was *at least* one Billy Zoom who was both extremely talented
and conventionally ambitious. Punk fans still bought records (no file
sharing back then), paid to see bands, and worked day jobs, just like
young rock fans from most eras. Sure, the "amateur hour" part of the
scene was expanded, but the punk rock people really cared about, then
and now, wasn't made by amateurs.
Patrick Kehoe
Making assumptions by substituting cultural values here... and buying
into historicism rather than what punk was... punks were nihlists... a
real punk... guys who made commercial music were not punks Joe...
> The most nihilistic punks were probably lifestyle obsessives, not actual punk rockers.
Right.
> Among bands, for every Sid Vicious who was useless as a musician and doomed as a person, there was *at least* one Billy Zoom who was both extremely talented
and conventionally ambitious.
Right. And he was just a pseudo punk, a fashion-izer as they were
called... all punk aesthetic and not a punk in reality... there's no
glory or gloss or beauty to punk... it was vile, hateful, mindnumbing
BULLSHIT... and was loved for being so... it was about ANTI-MUSIC and
NOT being musical or expert or accomplished... that was part of what
punk ripped out as...
>Punk fans still bought records (no file sharing back then), paid to see bands, and worked day jobs, just like young rock fans from most eras. Sure, the "amateur hour" part of the scene was expanded, but the punk rock people really cared about, then and now, wasn't made by amateurs.
Professionalism was a joke on those that paid them to make their
'noise'... record companies were 'highwayman'... Punks laughed at paid
gigs, making money and 'being posh'... "I'm a FUCKING MILLIONAIRE!"
was a slogan of the time... the next fix, fuck, jolt of experience,
revelling, beng submerged was what was their theater of reality...
club punks WERE the PUNKS... not the 'name' bands... night into
night... hungover... desperate for money, 'fuel' and a place to
crash...
P
Tony Elka
<8cef6eec-5fc9-4b5c...@j35g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
> Professionalism was a joke on those that paid them to make their
> 'noise'... record companies were 'highwayman'... Punks laughed at paid
> gigs, making money and 'being posh'... "I'm a FUCKING MILLIONAIRE!"
> was a slogan of the time... the next fix, fuck, jolt of experience,
> revelling, beng submerged was what was their theater of reality...
> club punks WERE the PUNKS... not the 'name' bands... night into
> night... hungover... desperate for money, 'fuel' and a place to
> crash...
I remember some stupid 1980's mainstream action movie that decided to
make "punks" one of the threats against the hero. They had them riding
motorcycles.
Your average punk was lucky to have bus fare.
Tony
P.S. The newsgroup rec.sport.tennis was removed from this cross-posted
TT
So where the hell does all this punk talk come from now? - by a person
who describes heavy metal as "anti-music"...
Raja, The Great
>
> - Show quoted text -
I get your point. The real punks are the ones who did free gigs. Thats
why Hawkwind and Pink Fairies were very much respected by punks.
Peter
You weren't there, and obviously know absolutely nothing about it. Go
away
Patrick Kehoe
Life... many moons ago :)
P
JohnB
popular albums - not amongst just Yes fans but amongst all those who
listen to music.
> > but many non-Yes fans might like GFTO best. Tull fans are divided, in
> > my experience: some prefer their first three albums, some love the
> > "folk-rock" period (SFTW and HH), some will tell you Aqualung or
> > Minstrel or Brick is best. As for those who aren't hardcore Tull fans,
> > I've heard some say Crest Of A Knave is their favourite. Everyone's a
> > winner...
>
> Well if you poll all the Tull fans, many will point to Thick As a
> Brick or Aqualung
>
Perhaps, but amongst those who maybe wouldn't call themselves Tull
fans but might still enjoy listening to them?
>
>
> > > Same thing for Genesis... Trick As a Tail is decent... and is
> > > considered decent by Genesis standards. But not many would rate it
> > > above Selling England by the Pound or Foxtrot
>
> > I love SEBTP too, but Foxtrot? Well, there are those who love the
> > first three above all others;
>
> A big minority
Perhaps...
>
> > there are others who came to Genesis
> > later who will tell you that Invisible Touch is best.
>
> Many consider their core three albums as Foxtrot, SEBTP and TLLDOB
>
And others would list a different set, particularly those who are not
hard-core Genesis fans...
>
>
> > > Reg hard rock, wrong based on what? I am talking about the common
> > > opinion... Not many consider Zeppelin/Purple/Sabbath to be at their
> > > best in the second half of the 70s... many consider them to their best
> > > in the first half.
>
> > But music lives on after the time it was first made. What is still
> > selling now?
>
> Lady Ga Ga and Miley Cryus. We are talking about critical and fan
> acclaim.... not sales
>
I can assure you that there is plenty of music being sold that is not
Lady Ga Ga or Miley Cryus (who???). There are, I'm sure, several
million pounds worth of rock albums still being sold every year, many
of these being, for instance, by Led Zepplin, bought by people who
weren't around when the music first came out, bought because the music
still matters.
Fair enough, but there are plenty who think they're better than that.
>
>
> > But the point I was trying to make is that your premise is wrong
> > because:
> > 1. It's based on your opinions on what is good and what is bad;
>
> Everything I tell is based on my opinion. And I believe it is the same
> about you. Are you voicing someone else's opinion? if so, what is the
> point in doing so?
Ah, it's that tricky area again - arguments based on opinion or
arguments based on general consensus. You *say* it's opinion but you
often try to back it up with lists that you didn't make up, hene the
"general consensus" confusion.
>
> > 2. Music lives beyond its time.
>
> Not all of it.
>
You'd be surprised.
JohnB
Intetesting list - because there are loads of bands on there that I've
never heard of. As I read quite a few music publications, I have to
ask, who is it that thinks so much of this music? Could you all travel
together in a taxi?
:-)
Raja, The Great
People who are into prog rock will dvelve further and seek out the
inaccessible stuff. This is not just for Yes, but also about all
progressive or experimental sort of bands. There might be casual
listeners who would seek out only the hits (which are mostly shorter
songs from prog bands) and think that is indeed their best stuff.
>
> > > but many non-Yes fans might like GFTO best. Tull fans are divided, in
> > > my experience: some prefer their first three albums, some love the
> > > "folk-rock" period (SFTW and HH), some will tell you Aqualung or
> > > Minstrel or Brick is best. As for those who aren't hardcore Tull fans,
> > > I've heard some say Crest Of A Knave is their favourite. Everyone's a
> > > winner...
>
> > Well if you poll all the Tull fans, many will point to Thick As a
> > Brick or Aqualung
>
> Perhaps, but amongst those who maybe wouldn't call themselves Tull
> fans but might still enjoy listening to them?
Yes, possible.
>
>
>
> > > > Same thing for Genesis... Trick As a Tail is decent... and is
> > > > considered decent by Genesis standards. But not many would rate it
> > > > above Selling England by the Pound or Foxtrot
>
> > > I love SEBTP too, but Foxtrot? Well, there are those who love the
> > > first three above all others;
>
> > A big minority
>
> Perhaps...
You could check out fan ratings on sites like RYM, progarchives.com
and many others to where anyone can come out and vote. These are not
list sites, more like indefinite-poll sites
http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/genesis
>
> > > there are others who came to Genesis
> > > later who will tell you that Invisible Touch is best.
>
> > Many consider their core three albums as Foxtrot, SEBTP and TLLDOB
>
> And others would list a different set, particularly those who are not
> hard-core Genesis fans...
Well Genesis changed their sound completely in the 80s. So there are
the pop Genesis fans and the prog genesis fans. Depends upon whom you
are talking to. I tend to think that the pop fans are in majority
here. Genesis is in the RnR HOF for their 80s stuff.
>
> > > > Reg hard rock, wrong based on what? I am talking about the common
> > > > opinion... Not many consider Zeppelin/Purple/Sabbath to be at their
> > > > best in the second half of the 70s... many consider them to their best
> > > > in the first half.
>
> > > But music lives on after the time it was first made. What is still
> > > selling now?
>
> > Lady Ga Ga and Miley Cryus. We are talking about critical and fan
> > acclaim.... not sales
>
> I can assure you that there is plenty of music being sold that is not
> Lady Ga Ga or Miley Cryus (who???). There are, I'm sure, several
> million pounds worth of rock albums still being sold every year, many
> of these being, for instance, by Led Zepplin, bought by people who
> weren't around when the music first came out, bought because the music
> still matters.
Yeah the retrospective stuff sells... even for a the smaller bands
from the 60s and 70s. But if they were making new stuff would it sell?
Lets discount majorly popular bands like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd,
Beatles etc.
Checking sales, I can say their greatest hits sold a lot more...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_discography
Their album Greatest hits sold a total of 19 million in US and UK
together. Their best selling studio album is A Night At The Opera
which has sold ONLY 5 million in the US and UK.
Now compare that to a band like Yes who in my opinion made much better
studio albums but were way more inferior to Queen when it came to
making hit singles. Can there be 20 minute hit singles? NO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_discography
Their best selling album is Close to the Edge with 3 million in US and
UK. None of their best of/greatest hits came close. I would say Pink
Floyd/Led Zeppelin would have similar numbers. None of these bands
were SINGLES oriented. Even if they released singles, their songs were
not really meant for the pop market... too experimental or too long.
Queen was a POP band disguised as hard rock/prog rock. They made one
or two anthems per album which have stood the test of time. I do not
consider them that seriously. Though I do LOVE all their hit singles.
>
>
>
> > > But the point I was trying to make is that your premise is wrong
> > > because:
> > > 1. It's based on your opinions on what is good and what is bad;
>
> > Everything I tell is based on my opinion. And I believe it is the same
> > about you. Are you voicing someone else's opinion? if so, what is the
> > point in doing so?
>
> Ah, it's that tricky area again - arguments based on opinion or
> arguments based on general consensus. You *say* it's opinion but you
> often try to back it up with lists that you didn't make up, hene the
> "general consensus" confusion.
>
If I post a list, it is just to back up a claim that there are people
who share my opinion. But I haven't posted any list here, so don't
divert the topic.
Raja, The Great
Okay based on fan votes.... these are ALL THE punk rock albums on RYM
top 1000
The Clash - London Calling (is this even Punk?)
Wire - Pink Flag
Dead Kennedys - Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables
The Clash - The Clash
The Ramones - The Ramones
The Ramones - Rocket To Russia
Minutemen - Double Nickels on the Dime
Wipers - Youth Of America
Ramones - Leave Home
The Gun Club - Fire of Love
The Fall - Hex Enduction Hour
Radio Birdman - Radios Appear
Johnny Thunders & The Heartbreakers - LAMF
The Damned - Machine Gun Etiquette
Wipers - Is This Real
The Saints - Stranded
16 albums.... not bad.
TT
> On Mar 16, 2:22 pm, Joe Ramirez<josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 11:19 am, JohnB<johnbo...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Apart from London Calling and NMTB, what punk albums are
>>> still well thought of?
>> Lots, e.g.:
>>
>> The Clash's first two albums as well.
>>
>> Any Ramones album up through "End of the Century," plus "Too Tough to
>> Die." The quality declines somewhat after "Ramones" and "Leave Home,"
>> but that doesn't mean they're ignored now.
>>
>> Any of the first four albums by X, but the first three especially.
>>
> The Damned - Machine Gun Etiquette
> Wipers - Is This Real
> The Saints - Stranded
>
> 16 albums.... not bad.
>
Bunch of crap.
Maukka Perusjätkä - Säpinää
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUpsc8QicQE
Klamydia - (suck dick) Kemppainen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB7qco-nGQ4
Joe Ramirez
>
> The Clash - London Calling (is this even Punk?)
> Wire - Pink Flag
> Dead Kennedys - Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables
> The Clash - The Clash
> The Ramones - The Ramones
> The Ramones - Rocket To Russia
> Minutemen - Double Nickels on the Dime
> Wipers - Youth Of America
> Ramones - Leave Home
> The Gun Club - Fire of Love
> The Fall - Hex Enduction Hour
> Radio Birdman - Radios Appear
> Johnny Thunders & The Heartbreakers - LAMF
> The Damned - Machine Gun Etiquette
> Wipers - Is This Real
> The Saints - Stranded
>
> 16 albums.... not bad.
I don't consider that a particularly good showing, but we've
previously discussed what I think about the collective taste/bias of
the "Rate Your Music" crew. Nice to see anything by the Fall appear
anywhere, but as already noted, I would not classify them as punk,
certainly not by the time of "Hex Enduction Hour." Wouldn't put the
Gun Club in the straight punk category either, although I suppose a
case can be made if you disregard the blues/swamp/country trappings.
But "Fire of Love" is unquestionably a classic album regardless of its
exact genre.
Joe Ramirez
That is surprising. The bands I've named are not just well-known,
they're iconic -- that is, to people familiar with the 1970s-80s punk,
new wave, postpunk, & indie scene.
Tony Elka
<f59be401-a530-4140...@b8g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
"Raja, The Great" <zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay based on fan votes.... these are ALL THE punk rock albums on RYM
> top 1000
Oh my god, you're still posting lists. After all these years. What a
strange compulsion.
Tony
P.S. The newsgroup rec.sport.tennis has been removed from this
cross-posted response because I'm not insane.
Raja, The Great
And what is that bias? And who are RYM crew?
Raja, The Great
I wouldn't associate the word iconic with any punk band... hehe... And
I like punk rock.
Joe Ramirez
Well, that's a very narrow view of music history.
Jeff Blanks
> True punks don't/didn't REALLY like anyone...
Sounds right.
> music was just the angry
> projection of their desperation and sense of doom...
And now, the key question no one ever seems to have asked: Where did
this sense of doom come from? Why wasn't it there before? They
*must've wanted something* once; what was it?
> People who wanted to be 'part of punk culture' had all these
> commercial bands they followed... they were just bored people who
> wanted to get back and mommy and daddy and while facing their own
> talentless, middleclass/lower class existence, desperately scratched
> about trying to get stoned and laid...
Well, in any event, rather than dying, what it really did was slowly
take over rock (in the most general sense, that is) to the extent that
looks like it, not classic rock, is The Thing Rock'n'Roll Can't Escape.
--
"When someone serves you coffee, don't go looking for beer in it."
--Anton Chekhov
Jeff Blanks
> Punks, true punks didn't give a SHIT about musical structures or
> history or culture... they were anarchists... they were nilhilists...
> FUCK everything and everyone... death was the future... that was true
> punk...
So what were those of us who saw a problem, but couldn't agree with the
"solution", to do? You are, after all, posting on
rec.music.*progressive*. Why couldn't you see that you weren't the only
ones who saw a problem?
Patrick Kehoe
No, I am posting on rec.sport.tennis... :))
I can't read other posts on your newsgroups; I am sure there are more
knowledgeable poster than myself on the punk scene... just offering my
my views as I (barely) remember them... :))
Cheers,
P
Patrick Kehoe
Yes good observations... punk - like all anti-structural, ultra-self-
destructive formulations - mutated and in a sense died out, self
extinguishing like a black hole... meaninglessness voids itself,
becoming an aesthetic anti-agency to the broader culture... so it
finds tangetical forms, strains that can be converted, sounds that
more 'progressive' minds utilize as commercial values/elements...
P
JohnB
Maybe that's because I'm British, not American. To be honest, I'm not
a great fan of punk (though I do enjoy what I regard as the best bits)
but I do recognise the importance of the Sex Pistols, the Ramones and
a few others who I'm not sure quite how 'punk' they are (the Clash,
the Jam, the Stranglers, Buzzcocks), but X, Bad Brains, Mission Of
Burma - never heard of them. (That's maybe not 'loads' but ...) As for
Richard Hell, Husker Du and the Dead Kennedys, I know the names but
that's all. There are, of course, loads more bands I know from that
era but I wouldn't really call them punk (like the Fall, Blondie, Adam
& The Ants, the Motors, Talking Heads) and lots more that I would but
whose importance may be debatable (Souixie & the Banshees, the Damned,
Sham 69, the Undertones, etc.).
jtees4
Didn't happen. I was there.
Raja, The Great
>
> - Show quoted text -
What didn't happen?
jtees4
The decline of hard rock, at least not at the time of (or because of
punk).
Hot Buttered Sole
dans l'article:
>>
>>What didn't happen?
>
>The decline of hard rock, at least not at the time of (or because of
>punk).
Raja The Idiot seems to think that hard rock and punk rock are somehow
linked together, when in fact they were/are independent music genres.
Joe Ramirez
X, Bad Brains, and Mission of Burma are American bands, which probably
has much to do with their complete unfamiliarity to you. A few bands
coming out of the punk/postpunk era of the 70s-80s eventually found
mass success on both sides of the Atlantic (e.g., Blondie, U2); for
those that did not, my impression was always that "obscure" British or
Irish bands tended to be better known in America than "obscure"
American bands were in the British Isles. There were several reasons
for this:
*Touring -- given the relative market sizes, it made more sense for a
small British act to come to America than for a small American act to
go to Britain.
*Habit -- after the British Invasion and glam rock era, Americans were
accustomed to looking to Britain for "cool" new acts.
*Media -- the British music press of the era was, IMO, more
protectionist and nationalistic, and less interested in imported
artists, than the American music press of the same era.
You can read about these three bands to your heart's content on
Wikipedia and many other sources, but I'll say something about each
one. You probably know that the first phase of the U.S. punk movement
occurred in the second half of the 1970s and was centered in New York
City; the subsequent phase occurred in the first half of the 1980s and
involved many different cities. All three of these bands were in their
prime in the period 1980-85.
X was the best punk band in Los Angeles and probably the greatest of
the entire West Coast punk scene. X's albums (my personal favorite is
"Under the Big Black Sun") were beloved by critics, but the group
remained credible with earthier punks as well, thanks to the gritty,
uncompromising worldview they presented. The band's music was
characterized by ethereal male-female vocal harmonies (a bit like
those of Jefferson Airplane); smart, poetic lyrics dwelling on both
the seamy underbelly of L.A. life and the trials of punk domesticity
(vocalist/bassist John Doe and vocalist Exene Cervenka were married to
each other at the time); ferocious energy; and impressive
musicianship, especially for a punk band. The drummer, DJ Bonebrake,
was superb, plus "DJ Bonebrake" was his *real name*. Best real name in
rock history, IMO. The guitarist, Billy Zoom, may have been the
greatest in the history of punk. He certainly possessed an
unparalleled collection of stunning punkabilly riffs.
The Bad Brains were an all-black group who pioneered the extreme form
of punk known as hardcore, or sometimes "thrash." Essentially, they
played punk at double-tempo. Hardcore didn't seem to make much of an
impact in Britain, where postpunk was much more important, but it was
a major part of the American underground music scene in the years
after the first wave of punk died away. The Bad Brains were loud and
furious, and were an enormous influence on every hardcore group that
followed. Even 25 years later, an aggressive punk rocker asked about
the most important legacies in his genre probably would cite the Bad
Brains first. On top of that, the band seasoned its thrash with
occasional reggae tunes, expertly delivered. Other bands had combined
punk and reggae before, of course, but none ever seemed as authentic
at both as the Bad Brains. Some members of the band actually were
Rastamen, I believe.
Mission of Burma was a Boston art punk band that had a very brief
initial career due to its brilliant guitarist's damaged hearing. (He
was the sort of musician who played Bartok on the piano and also the
loudest electric guitar anyone had ever heard.) Fortunately, the group
reformed in the 2000s and made several more excellent albums. In
between, they went from obscure but enormously influential sonic
pioneers to widely praised critics' darlings to absolute indie rock
legends, as the extent to which they had been ahead of their time
became clear. (I had been lucky to be in the right city at the right
time to discover MoB early on, and then I observed their reputation's
slow progress with pleasure). MoB freakishly combined piledriving
punk, weird tape-loop sonics, and plain old brilliant rock songwriting
-- often all in the same track, such as the classic, "That's When I
Reach For My Revolver." Here are two examples from the band's great
"Vs." album. These two songs are tracks 9 and 10 of the original
album:
"The Ballad of Johnny Burma" -- hard-bashing punk with unique MoB
tonal colors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqQLwINA6pE
"Einstein's Day" -- sublime art rock with the structural solidity of a
string quartet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO4iLB6kq6M
Jeff Blanks
billy
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you don't kill yourself at least let someone from here do it!
billy
>
> The Clash - London Calling (is this even Punk?)
> Wire - Pink Flag
> Dead Kennedys - Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables
> The Clash - The Clash
> The Ramones - The Ramones
> The Ramones - Rocket To Russia
> Minutemen - Double Nickels on the Dime
> Wipers - Youth Of America
> Ramones - Leave Home
> The Gun Club - Fire of Love
> The Fall - Hex Enduction Hour
> Radio Birdman - Radios Appear
> Johnny Thunders & The Heartbreakers - LAMF
> The Damned - Machine Gun Etiquette
> Wipers - Is This Real
> The Saints - Stranded
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Fall are not punk you A-hole
Young Nastyman (KIMOTA!)
3 worthwhile "artfully created" punk "concept" LPs IMO:
Hüsker Dü - "Zen Arcade"
The Damned .- "The Black Album"
TSOL - "Beneath The Shadows"
YNM.
P-Dub
> On 22 Mar, 02:35, billy<goodcommerc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 7:28 pm, "Raja, The Great"<zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 16, 2:22 pm, Joe Ramirez<josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mar 16, 11:19 am, JohnB<johnbo...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Apart from London Calling and NMTB, what punk albums are
>>>>> still well thought of?
>>
>>>> Lots, e.g.:
>>
>>>> The Clash's first two albums as well.
>>
>>>> Any Ramones album up through "End of the Century," plus "Too Tough to
>>>> Die." The quality declines somewhat after "Ramones" and "Leave Home,"
>>>> but that doesn't mean they're ignored now.
>>
>>>> Any of the first four albums by X, but the first three especially.
>>
>>> The Damned - Machine Gun Etiquette
>>> Wipers - Is This Real
>>> The Saints - Stranded
>>
>
>
> 3 worthwhile "artfully created" punk "concept" LPs IMO:
>
> Hüsker Dü - "Zen Arcade"
> The Damned .- "The Black Album"
> TSOL - "Beneath The Shadows"
>
> YNM.
I got a copy of a Dead Kennedys album with a song 'Kill the Poor' on it
- back in 1981 - as a gift.
I listened to some of it.
It was complete, utter garbage. I hated it.
In fact, I hated it so much, that I actually burned the album.
P-Dub: Worst. Album. Ever.
Raja, The Great
> > The Damned .- "The Black Album"
> > TSOL - "Beneath The Shadows"
>
> > YNM.
>
> I got a copy of a Dead Kennedys album with a song 'Kill the Poor' on it
> - back in 1981 - as a gift.
>
> I listened to some of it.
>
> It was complete, utter garbage. I hated it.
>
> In fact, I hated it so much, that I actually burned the album.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/dead_kennedys/fresh_fruit_for_rotting_vegetables/
I think you are talking about that album. It is considered their best.
Tony Elka
<ec27c518-ce19-495a...@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
"Raja, The Great" <zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps so. It does have California Ubber Alles on it and a nice cover
of Viva Las Vegas.
People that burn record albums are no smarter than people that burn
books, so fuck you very much P-Dub, you ignorant shit stain.
Tony
P.S. rec.sport.tennis removed from this cross-posted reply because I'm
not insane.
P-Dub
I burned this album in 1981. That's a little while ago.
If an album ever deserved to burn, it was this one. This album is
anti-music. It makes gansta-rap look like art.
Fuck you too, asshole.