How do people enjoy this??? Am I getting old?

Phil_aka_Pip

So you can't say how punk taught us new musical techniques - of playing or of composition - or how it enhanced our musical awareness or the general level of musicianship in society. You expect me to listen to stuff just because it is "new". I hear "new" stuff on the jukebox in our local, some of it I don't mind but wouldn't buy it to listen to at home, other songs I just don't like. I also hear "old" stuff on the same jukebox - you can always tell when Terry is in because he'll feed it with enough money to play Eagles songs non-stop for half an hour. I can't stand the Eagles, despite them being very good at what they did.

I bet Bart Simpson's granddad gets a good tone out of his old valve radio And at least he looks happy.

Sporky

Phil_aka_Pip said:

So you can't say how punk taught us new musical techniques - of playing or of composition - or how it enhanced our musical awareness or the general level of musicianship in society.

Are those the only criteria for music to be worthwhile?

Lots of people enjoyed (and still enjoy) punk - playing and listening - and it has had a lasting influence.

Phil_aka_Pip

Sporky said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

So you can't say how punk taught us new musical techniques - of playing or of composition - or how it enhanced our musical awareness or the general level of musicianship in society.

Are those the only criteria for music to be worthwhile?

Lots of people enjoyed (and still enjoy) punk - playing and listening - and it has had a lasting influence.

1. No, I don't think so. There's a lot of people in the folk world writing new songs to very old formulae, which isn't wrong. The notion that punk was some kind of new revelation certainly is though.

2. Lots of people enjoy various kinds of music that other sections of society just don't "get". Consider the classical establishment's attitude to rock'n'roll. Didn't mean that rock'n'roll enthusiasts were somehow "wrong", and I don't think that punk enthusiasts are "wrong" either but I don't get why they are so enthusiastic about it. Rock'n'roll was speeded-up straightened-out blues, sometimes mixed with doo-wop (simplistic analysis) and as such represented somewhat of a musical development from what preceded it. But punk really didn't develop anything, rather the ethos was to destroy or at least denigrate previous musical forms. I think that's what I disliked about it most. Frankly, I don't mind hearing Never Mind The Bollocks once in a while, but I always hated Malcolm McLaren's attitude.

I am rather sorry though, that an attitude that I consider so worthless has had, as you say, such a lasting influence.

Sporky

I think that's a pretty negative view.

You could equally describe rock n roll as being a denigration of blues, without the sensibilities, emotion or thought, just all about cars and girls.

Or describe punk as being a speeded-up (sped-up?), stripped down rock/pop hybrid where the message rather than the delivery was the important bit.

Punk was surely as much of a revelation as rock n roll.

Heartfeltdawn

Phil_aka_Pip said:

So you can't say how punk taught us new musical techniques - of playing or of composition - or how it enhanced our musical awareness or the general level of musicianship in society. You expect me to listen to stuff just because it is "new". I hear "new" stuff on the jukebox in our local, some of it I don't mind but wouldn't buy it to listen to at home, other songs I just don't like. I also hear "old" stuff on the same jukebox - you can always tell when Terry is in because he'll feed it with enough money to play Eagles songs non-stop for half an hour. I can't stand the Eagles, despite them being very good at what they did.

1. Regarding punk and composition/playing; and so what? It was a refreshing alternative to concept album wank and Rick Wakeman's cape. Punk was about attitude and delivery and it delivered. 

2. I don't expect you to listen to new stuff. I listed those genres earlier knowing full well there was more chance of me fucking a polar bear tonight than you giving a nod of approval to acid house. 

3. Terry sounds like a barrel of laughs. If it was my local, you'd tell when Terry was in because you'd hear him saying "Who's plugged up the coin slot with Araldite? I can't play any Eagles tracks".   

4. He looks happy because he's senile. 

5. I won't be happy when I'm senile because I shall be dead a long time before that. 

Phil_aka_Pip

I think (rightly or wrongly) that rock'n'roll was held to be about rebellion more by the white middle class middle aged section of society than by the yoof that turned on to it. If yoof rebelled, it was more a by-product than a first cause. Whereas with punk, the whole point was destruction. And I didn't form that attitude to it from being middle class or middle aged (although yes, I am "white") - I was a teenager when punk first started to become popular. Right from the start it seemed destructive. The rebellion was the first cause and the genre was shaped by it. Whatever punk revealed, it was only a measure of the paucity of the music-consuming public's discernment.

Sporky

I do think it's a bit dangerous to assume that people like something you don't solely because their taste is inferior to yours!

Phil_aka_Pip

Sporky said:

I do think it's a bit dangerous to assume that people like something you don't solely because their taste is inferior to yours!

Yes, it is a bit dangerous. I've probably assumed that there exist absolute standards for what is good/not good in music. Its not quite the same as maths - in maths you either get it right or you get it wrong. In literature we accept that some is "high quality" and other work isn't. I'm probably taking a similar line with music.

Snap

Phil, I think your argument against the merits of punk misses a massive part of what it was about: social change.

Punk was never really about the music, it was about sticking two fingers up to conventionalism. It was about people expressing themsleves and realising that conforming to a load of staid standards wasn't compulsory.

Mainstream rock was diabolical in the mid to late 70s, there was some almighty shite released, of which, IMO of course I would put Rainbow quite high up the list.

Yeah, looking back on punk now, a lot of it seems really rubbish, immature, crap - but that's from the eyes of people who have grown up in it's legacy and the social and musical evolution following it. IT was also about saying you didn't need to be some fret wanker to make earthy rock: its the attitiude that counts.

I'd struggle to accept that early punk, like New York Dolls, Stooges even, isn't great great music. Even Sex Pistols, who were basically a manufactured boy band with attitude, did some crackers.

Buzzcocks are ace too.

Punk was an attitude more than a genre of music. I'd argue that it was there in Creedence Clearwater Revival, and bands like MC5, Stooges. And they are all great too.

Heartfeltdawn

Phil_aka_Pip said:

1. No, I don't think so. There's a lot of people in the folk world writing new songs to very old formulae, which isn't wrong. The notion that punk was some kind of new revelation certainly is though.

2. Lots of people enjoy various kinds of music that other sections of society just don't "get". Consider the classical establishment's attitude to rock'n'roll. Didn't mean that rock'n'roll enthusiasts were somehow "wrong", and I don't think that punk enthusiasts are "wrong" either but I don't get why they are so enthusiastic about it. Rock'n'roll was speeded-up straightened-out blues, sometimes mixed with doo-wop (simplistic analysis) and as such represented somewhat of a musical development from what preceded it. But punk really didn't develop anything, rather the ethos was to destroy or at least denigrate previous musical forms. I think that's what I disliked about it most. Frankly, I don't mind hearing Never Mind The Bollocks once in a while, but I always hated Malcolm McLaren's attitude.

I am rather sorry though, that an attitude that I consider so worthless has had, as you say, such a lasting influence.

And I'm glad punk came along and helped stamp out prog rock because if all prog fans are like you, then a world of prog rock where punk had never happened would be a bloody awful place to be. Me, I'm happy to exist in all camps and appreciate all musical forms instead of looking down my nose at them. 

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Whatever punk revealed, it was only a measure of the paucity of the music-consuming public's discernment.

The only thing I can discern is that you have remarkably good typing skills for a man with his head up his arse. 

Oh, but I say sorry for that. That's just mean. You even mention musical snobbery. Fuck it, Pip, you be as snobbish as you want. Better to be a passionate snob than an emotionless puddle. Keep up the good work. 

 

Phil_aka_Pip

@Snap I haven't actually referred to "social change" but I think I got to punk being more about the attitude than the music when I said

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Whereas with punk, the whole point was destruction.... The rebellion was the first cause and the genre was shaped by it.

There were lots of bands who were somewhat basic. Creedence was one, and I quite like them. But they didn't come across as wanting to destroy every musical convention or every social attitude that had preceded them. True, Fortunate Son was about some kind of rebellion but it wasn't the sum total of the thinking behind the rest of the band's output.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate Rainbow. Excellent band driven by a superb guitarist. What's not to like? (Except that the music might not be to your taste)

Phil_aka_Pip

BTW this is a good discussion. Thanks for making me think and try to articulate what I think. We may not agree but I'm glad we're not reduced to calling each other c___s over it.

Winny_Pooh

Old farts you both are, arguing about punk in a dance music thread. :P

Phil_aka_Pip

Winny_Pooh said:

Old farts you both are, arguing about punk in a dance music thread. :P

Sure, I'm an old fart. Been one for a long time

Sporky

We could argue about Daft Punk if that'd help?

Anyways; I'd suggest Tycho as some glorious electronica. All hazy and lovely.



Or BT's This Binary Universe. This track (like most of the album) is long but varied. And excellent.

Moss

Sporky said:

We could argue about Daft Punk if that'd help?

Anyways; I'd suggest Tycho as some glorious electronica. All hazy and lovely.



Or BT's This Binary Universe. This track (like most of the album) is long but varied. And excellent.

I'll add:

Jon Hopkins

Darkside

Chalky

My best mate was into punk before any of the rest of us knew what it was. He said the same as @Snap - "Punk was never really about the music". Social and cultural influence through bands and their lyrics, yes, but influence on music? Marginal at best.

viz

Basement Jaxx!!! Proper music.

Winny_Pooh

Dance music for rock musicians, John Grant

Snap

Phil_aka_Pip said:

BTW this is a good discussion. Thanks for making me think and try to articulate what I think. We may not agree but I'm glad we're not reduced to calling each other c___s over it.

yeah, it is mate, very good.

Rainbow - course they are talented and all that, but I just don't like them. I think its because they aren't gritty enough for me, too pop. Same reasons I don't like Thin Lizzy (mostly) - the songs are just too jaunty, like I say, almost pop music. And all that dual guitar stuff gets on my tits, too flowery. Give me a chuggin Gibson thru a 4x12 stack with no frills anyday.

I can remember in 1980 listening to both Rainbow and AC/DC and knowing exactly which band I preferred.

Someone said above they'd question if punk contributed anything musically: I think  it did, very much. It opened up ideas.

On the destructive side of punk- yeah theres all this anarchic theme, but I think that was simply a product of the day, a way of saying "we don't have to follow your stuffy stereotypes, we have our own voice to find". You got this in the 60s too, but punk just put a bit of an aggressive edge to it, to make the point really.

Punk was iconoclastic and IMO that's a good thing. All societies need a regular kick up the arse, and certainly music and the arts needed it in 1976. I'd argue that without those couple of years music would not have developed into what it is today. PUnk also started a move away from major label control, aa veyr good thing IMO.

I'd rather have Never Mind The Bollocks over any album by Yes, Rainbow, Thin Lizzy - insert most 70s popular rock acts.

And finally - without punk we'd have never had IMO one of the greatest bands in the world - Joy Division. Case closed for me.