sunvalleylaw
June 9th, 2008, 07:25 AM
Brian Krashpad said in Robert's groups thread:
Clash are a punk rock and roll group, period.
What a lot of history since has tended to minimze or blur is that punk, for all it's forward-speaking rheotric and fashion, was musically a revivalist movement. Punk essentially wanted to recapture the energy and simplicity of 50's and early 60's (i.e., including garage) rock. Check it-- a lot of punk groups were big fans of rockabilly, the Who, etc. Many modern fans of punk classify both many modern garage and many modern rockabilly bands as within the overall punk umbrella.
The idea of bringing rock back to its simple and even sometimes violent roots was so unacceptable to some in the 70's that punk was instead removed entirely from the rock lexicon and ghetto-ized. It was not rock, but something new and separate.
Such is a huge falsehood.
and
This is an astute observation, and supported by both musicological and historical factors.
First, let me relate a bit of my personal experiences with the punk rock as an observation. This all goes back to my basic premise that punk is an integral part of rock and roll and NOT some separate or fringe music genre.
I got into punk rock when records (some of which had been out for anywhere from 3 or 4 or more years) began to get enough press coverage (remember, no intranets) for me to become aware of them (since mainstream rock radio essentially banned them in the states) in the early 1980's. I still liked 60's rock (especially the first half, not so much the trippy/hippy/jammy or acid stuff) and some mainstream 70's rock that captured some of that (perfect example: hometown heroes Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers). I thought of "punk rock" and "punk rockers" as something totally separate and foreign.
Until, of course, I heard it, and met some punk rock people.
Keep in mind, I was not a "cool" person. At the time, I was in my first band. I did not have a lot of cool clothes (whether by punk or mainstream standards) or a cool (whether by punk or mainstream standards) haircut. Basically I was a nerdy honors-student type kid who was the antithesis of the rocker, even though I liked rock music. From what I read, if I went to a punk rock show I would be shunned as not hip enough. And lots of people would be spitting on each other.
To use a Britishism, it was all a load of bollocks.
The punk rockers I met, including groundbreaking local punk band Roach Motel, one of the handful of early Florida punbk rock bands, welcomed me with open arms. I never got one ounze of shit about not being hip enough. I got invited to crazy house parties. I heard the Roach Motel cover BTO's "Takin' Care of Business." When my band covered Thin Lizzy's "Jailbreak" at the the Roach Motel's unofficial HQ, the House of Death, no one booed or even ran for cover. When I went to a "punk rock" birthday party, I might hear a side of Aerosmith alongside the Ramones or 999.
A lot of my misunderstanding of punk rock has or had to do with what I call the "Britishism" of punk rock. I thought punk rock was something from the UK, the Ramones notwithstanding. Like so many others, I had it bass-ackwards. The Ramones predated the UK bands-- many of which had been inspired by the Ramones' July 4, 1976 performance in London at the Roundhouse , where members or future members of the Pistols and Clash were in attendance. Another groundbreaking American band was the NY Dolls, whom the Pistols' manager had purported to "manage" as they fell apart; the subsequent arrival in the UK of Dolls splinter band the Heartbreakers (no relation to Tom Petty) was another ealry influence there.
It's been my experience that UK people tend to see punk as an historical/youth trend movement first, and as a musical genre second. Americans, the other way round. The reasons for this are at least two-fold. First, in the UK punk was much more closely tied to fashion, and fashion is inherently short-lived . The Ramones dressed totally in American iconic clothing: straight-legged jeans, biker jackets, T-shirts, and Converses. No safety pins or trash bags.
Second, in the UK punk was wildly successful in the short-term. Number one on the pop charts (although those same charts refused to put the song title on the chart--instead leaving a blank). In the US, it was virtually impossible to even hear punk on the radio in the 70's. In the UK, punk was another flash-in-the pan like mods or Teds, or New Romantics to come. In the US punk was a commercial failure, and punk rock went back underground, establishing it's network of magazines (fanzines), clubs, even safe houses (crash pads).
Just Strum and I were basically agreeing. I have always noticed a similarity between punkish stuff and 50's rock and roll up into early Stones and Beatles, say up to 64 or 65. Kind of "The day the music died" kind of stuff.
I wanted to discuss a little further and thought a new thread was better than keeping it in Robert's, so I copied Krash's quotes over to here. Krash indicates punk went back underground in the U.S. And I suppose it did as far as US groups went, other than the Ramones. The punk I was listening to that had mainstream success, Clash, Ramones, some early U2, early Elvis Costello, early Joe Jackson, morphed. Elvis changed his sound, so did Joe, so did U2, the Clash disbanded and we ended up with more club type tunes from Big Audio Dynamite. (I am staying with commercially successful here). Then in the early 90s, I started listening to Greenday, specifically the Dookie album. It was on the radio where I lived and I would say it was successful. So to me, a kind of son of punk, or power pop punk? lived on. The Offspring, and maybe Cracker also fell into that box for me. REM was on a different track. There were a few others I can't think of right now. And I also started listening to grunge which was different than punk, but was still definitely garage rock and roll, almost completely unproduced.
That is the way it seemed to me. Discuss? Brian, Strum? RofG, you may have thoughts on this, anyone else?
Clash are a punk rock and roll group, period.
What a lot of history since has tended to minimze or blur is that punk, for all it's forward-speaking rheotric and fashion, was musically a revivalist movement. Punk essentially wanted to recapture the energy and simplicity of 50's and early 60's (i.e., including garage) rock. Check it-- a lot of punk groups were big fans of rockabilly, the Who, etc. Many modern fans of punk classify both many modern garage and many modern rockabilly bands as within the overall punk umbrella.
The idea of bringing rock back to its simple and even sometimes violent roots was so unacceptable to some in the 70's that punk was instead removed entirely from the rock lexicon and ghetto-ized. It was not rock, but something new and separate.
Such is a huge falsehood.
and
This is an astute observation, and supported by both musicological and historical factors.
First, let me relate a bit of my personal experiences with the punk rock as an observation. This all goes back to my basic premise that punk is an integral part of rock and roll and NOT some separate or fringe music genre.
I got into punk rock when records (some of which had been out for anywhere from 3 or 4 or more years) began to get enough press coverage (remember, no intranets) for me to become aware of them (since mainstream rock radio essentially banned them in the states) in the early 1980's. I still liked 60's rock (especially the first half, not so much the trippy/hippy/jammy or acid stuff) and some mainstream 70's rock that captured some of that (perfect example: hometown heroes Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers). I thought of "punk rock" and "punk rockers" as something totally separate and foreign.
Until, of course, I heard it, and met some punk rock people.
Keep in mind, I was not a "cool" person. At the time, I was in my first band. I did not have a lot of cool clothes (whether by punk or mainstream standards) or a cool (whether by punk or mainstream standards) haircut. Basically I was a nerdy honors-student type kid who was the antithesis of the rocker, even though I liked rock music. From what I read, if I went to a punk rock show I would be shunned as not hip enough. And lots of people would be spitting on each other.
To use a Britishism, it was all a load of bollocks.
The punk rockers I met, including groundbreaking local punk band Roach Motel, one of the handful of early Florida punbk rock bands, welcomed me with open arms. I never got one ounze of shit about not being hip enough. I got invited to crazy house parties. I heard the Roach Motel cover BTO's "Takin' Care of Business." When my band covered Thin Lizzy's "Jailbreak" at the the Roach Motel's unofficial HQ, the House of Death, no one booed or even ran for cover. When I went to a "punk rock" birthday party, I might hear a side of Aerosmith alongside the Ramones or 999.
A lot of my misunderstanding of punk rock has or had to do with what I call the "Britishism" of punk rock. I thought punk rock was something from the UK, the Ramones notwithstanding. Like so many others, I had it bass-ackwards. The Ramones predated the UK bands-- many of which had been inspired by the Ramones' July 4, 1976 performance in London at the Roundhouse , where members or future members of the Pistols and Clash were in attendance. Another groundbreaking American band was the NY Dolls, whom the Pistols' manager had purported to "manage" as they fell apart; the subsequent arrival in the UK of Dolls splinter band the Heartbreakers (no relation to Tom Petty) was another ealry influence there.
It's been my experience that UK people tend to see punk as an historical/youth trend movement first, and as a musical genre second. Americans, the other way round. The reasons for this are at least two-fold. First, in the UK punk was much more closely tied to fashion, and fashion is inherently short-lived . The Ramones dressed totally in American iconic clothing: straight-legged jeans, biker jackets, T-shirts, and Converses. No safety pins or trash bags.
Second, in the UK punk was wildly successful in the short-term. Number one on the pop charts (although those same charts refused to put the song title on the chart--instead leaving a blank). In the US, it was virtually impossible to even hear punk on the radio in the 70's. In the UK, punk was another flash-in-the pan like mods or Teds, or New Romantics to come. In the US punk was a commercial failure, and punk rock went back underground, establishing it's network of magazines (fanzines), clubs, even safe houses (crash pads).
Just Strum and I were basically agreeing. I have always noticed a similarity between punkish stuff and 50's rock and roll up into early Stones and Beatles, say up to 64 or 65. Kind of "The day the music died" kind of stuff.
I wanted to discuss a little further and thought a new thread was better than keeping it in Robert's, so I copied Krash's quotes over to here. Krash indicates punk went back underground in the U.S. And I suppose it did as far as US groups went, other than the Ramones. The punk I was listening to that had mainstream success, Clash, Ramones, some early U2, early Elvis Costello, early Joe Jackson, morphed. Elvis changed his sound, so did Joe, so did U2, the Clash disbanded and we ended up with more club type tunes from Big Audio Dynamite. (I am staying with commercially successful here). Then in the early 90s, I started listening to Greenday, specifically the Dookie album. It was on the radio where I lived and I would say it was successful. So to me, a kind of son of punk, or power pop punk? lived on. The Offspring, and maybe Cracker also fell into that box for me. REM was on a different track. There were a few others I can't think of right now. And I also started listening to grunge which was different than punk, but was still definitely garage rock and roll, almost completely unproduced.
That is the way it seemed to me. Discuss? Brian, Strum? RofG, you may have thoughts on this, anyone else?