Hard Rock vs. Punk

[Count Drugcula]

I've read that in the late '70s, a lot of the young rising Punk bands, and their fans, had a LOT of open disdain, even hatred for and attempted to dethrone the then reigning rock bands and artists, especially the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Elton John and Pink Floyd*.

For those who were around in the Punk era, can you say if this was true or not? Was there any animosity between the two scenes?

Also...anyone want to reignite this topic of discussion--Punk vs. Hard Rock? Personally I have to take the side of Hard Rock.

*=Moreblack was right, I got confused.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Count Drugcula

[moreblack]

The Who wasn't really on the hit list much, hell, the Pistols even covered Substitute:

The other band that was really despised by them was Pink Floyd, Rotten even used to have a shirt that said I Hate Pink Floyd. Correct me if I'm wrong but was that shirt that got him noticed by the band?

[Jumpin' Jack Flash]

The Who was pretty instrumental to Punk, even if they later had some animosity towards the movement themselves (The Who By Numbers). I liked when Zeppelin tried to kinda play around with Punk like on Wearing and Tearing, one of my favourite Zep songs...one of Coda's gems. Floyd and Prog Rock in general really is the antithesis to Punk, even if Lydon actually does like Pink Floyd...the whole Punk movement took a stance against the whole perceived "holier than thou" pretentiousness of progressive rock, along with the larger-than-life egos and personas of Hard Rock/Arena Rock.

I listen to both, no need to choose one over the other

[dalsh327]

I'm sure part of it was driven by journalists.

[LightningBolt]

I very much enjoy both. I was always under the impression that it was mostly art rock and prog rock that was hated by punk bands. Stuff like Emerson, Lake & Palmer, King Crimson, Pink Floyd, and whoever.

[Izzy_Stradlin_XX]

I like punk music.

I can listen to hardcore punk.

I love their attitude.

As far as i'm concerned, hard rock is great two but with a little bit less attitude than punk.

Gn'R mixed Punk with Blues/rock, that's why i love them.

[JAC185]

The other band that was really despised by them was Pink Floyd, Rotten even used to have a shirt that said I Hate Pink Floyd. Correct me if I'm wrong but was that shirt that got him noticed by the band?

Yeah if I recall he had scribbled over the bands faces and just scrawled 'I hate' above it.

Although I remember a year or two back him confessing he was actually a massive fan of them.

What is that famous quote of his? Avant-garde is french for bullshit? Something like that. I think it was more the apparent pretentious aura around a band like Pink Floyd that probably irked him more.

In the Lemmy movie I think it is Henry Rollins who says Motorhead confused him because as a punk he was trained to hate any band with long hair but Motorhead were so good he could not resist. So the ethos was obviously there. I am sure Zint has something more interesting to say about it though.

Edited April 4, 2011 by JAC185

[Guest Len B'stard]

I've read that in the late '70s, a lot of the young rising Punk bands, and their fans, had a LOT of open disdain, even hatred for and attempted to dethrone the then reigning rock bands and artists, especially the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Elton John and Pink Floyd*.

There was no need for an attempt, the reason those bands came about was because all them you just mentioned were already redundant.

Also...anyone want to reignite this topic of discussion--Punk vs. Hard Rock? Personally I have to take the side of Hard Rock.

Punk. Day after day. Hard Rock is vile, its boring, its corny, its false. Punk will never die because punk is about doing what you want with music, there's no guidelines or formula except for that there's no guidelines or formula. The only rule is that there are no rules. Punk will ALWAYS be more than hard rock because it's about more, its something that translates into the way people think and behave, its more than music it's a state of being that can translate into any walk of life.

But just as a musical movement it's so much better than anything you can present to me as hard rock. I mean the Sex Pistols, ugh, just absolutely sublime, perfect band. Just overwhelmingly brilliant, legendary whilst reacting against the concept. Every single song they made was just perfect, Rotten is brilliant, a genius and a madman and a gentleman and a nasty bastard all rolled into one. Magnificent human being, brave, clear minded, intelligent without being intellectual. A fucking powerhouse of a singer, totally totally totally original, not a copycat bone in the mans body, he comes out with shit musically that is just STREETS ahead of anybody else, just brilliant ideas. And incredible lyricist, never patronising his audience, presenting you with confused truth instead of preaching at you. And Steve Jones is like the guitarists equivalent of fucking thunder, and Paul Cook the time keeper, solid, steady, on point, just right there everytime. The silent backbone of The Sex Pistols.

Punk is just so exciting, bands like The Clash, X Ray Spex, The Adverts, The Germs, Black Flag, they're just inciteful, they move me, they used intellect as a means to pose questions to their audience instead of to make themselves look high and mighty and untouchable. They were of the people, they WERE the people, human beings like Joe Strummer are fucking one offs.

But more than anything it was just musically exciting, different, it weren't like...a bunch of people coming up off a preconcieved idea of i wannabe a star or i wannabe mick jagger or..y'know, whoever, it was people finally like...being themselves and...it just made for such brilliant music.

Basically, musically, i find, everybody makes an individualistic noise. Nobody ever sounds like anybody else. Even when they try they just end up sounding like themselves doing their take on whatever given kind of music. So like...why not just be totally yourself to start with? Set your own standards and be your own whatever instead of striving for this xerox copy of this, that and the other.

It was just so diverse, X Ray Spex doing their kinda free jazz rock n roll thing with a little west indian girl wailing her lyrics over it, The Slits doing their weird dub reggae influenced girl band thing, The Clash being...God knows what, a giant mish mash of about 400 different things (although they might concievably fit the ol' 'doing their take of someone elses thing' template) Black Flag this fucking condensed amplied roaring fucking powerhouse of a band with the dirty muddiest most glorious guitar sound i've ever heard, that kind of straight off the bat originality is something SOOOO missing from music.

Hard Rock, it doesn't even compare, its all the worst elements of rock n roll slapped together into some vaguely marketable slip-stream of mediocrity. It's not even bad, thats whats SOOO wrong with it, if it was REALLY bad i could probably like...find something in it, or if it was really good but it's just...nothing.

It begins and ends with punk for me, none of these wanker fucking "hard rock" bands could ever compare.

[moreblack]

I dunno, at least the hard rock stuff tends to be melodic and listenable.

for punk to get thru, you really have to be in that mood, or just be born with a preference for that stuff

[JAC185]

I think if I asked you to choose between The Beatles and Sex Pistols your head would explode.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I dunno, at least the hard rock stuff tends to be melodic and listenable.

for punk to get thru, you really have to be in that mood, or just be born with a preference for that stuff

But thats the point, there is no that mood for punk, there's a punk song for everything. melody is good i like me some melody but fuck me, say something to me, show me something...so much of hard rock is just...boring. A lot of what goes under punk is like that too i guess so i dunno but thats the stuff that doesn't get the point, whereas with hard rock its just like...a lot of people kinda converging on a handful of musical ideas and then duplicating them time and time and time and time and time again. Its a worn format i think.

I think if I asked you to choose between The Beatles and Sex Pistols your head would explode.

They're evens. I think they're the two most important bands in the evolution of popular music too and its evidenced by the fact that, in terms of bands, they are pretty much the two i can look at say OK, the pre and post musical landscape from when they existed to when they broke up was DRASTICALLY and positively altered...aside from just making utterly perfect music that is, historically, their importance in terms of what happened as a result of their existing is unparralleled, with The Pistolses influence being perhaps the more phenomenal.

Just as a brief example, the very notion of these 4 boys playing this rough and ready music in the Lesser Free Trade Hall in Manchester and from this one random jumble of an audience you get Morrissey, Joy Division, The Buzzcocks, Slaughter & The Dogs, Tony Wilson, Mick Hucknall (well gotta drop the ball somewhere i suppose )

And entire scene started by one gig and whats more amazing is, the resultant scene had SOO little in common musically with The Pistols, that sort of thing to me is just amazing, the music that came as a convoluted result of THAT gig continued to be at the forefront of British popular music right up until the mid 90s, thats something quite phenomenal and thats just one gig.

But as a person, if i'm ever asked my favorite band or whatever, its The Beatles and The Pistols, totally evens.

Edited April 4, 2011 by sugaraylen

[moreblack]

Depends on the era, some decades were better than others for either genre...

But any style under the sun has its great moments and moments of just cringe-worthyness.

The thing about saying something on songs, it works well until it starts to get preachy, protesting everything becomes a gimmick too.

[JAC185]

Depends on the era, some decades were better than others for either genre...

But any style under the sun has its great moments and moments of just cringe-worthyness.

Agreed. Not to state the obvious, but first of all to put anything under one umbrella term is to do the variation within it a grave dis-service.

Also, with most names people like to give to genres, my immediate thought process upon hearing them is one of condescension. Fitting it all in a box. The bands I like that I could define one way or another are bigger than the ideas that label alone conjures. Punk or grunge or whatever, the second I hear them I don't think of brilliant bands that one could call such things, I think of bland nothing type bands that you can group together easily and just sort of gloss over. You know, I don't think 'The Clash - a punk band' - they are just The Clash and they stand alone on their own merit.

By the time a media tries to label a band the band is usually trying to escape it. For me to side in the debate would be a bit mental, as I would be siding with an awful lot of shit in either scenario.

Edited April 4, 2011 by JAC185

[Guest Len B'stard]

Punk or grunge or whatever, the second I hear them I don't think of brilliant bands that one could call such things, I think of bland nothing type bands that you can group together easily and just sort of gloss over. You know, I don't think 'The Clash - a punk band' - they are just The Clash and they stand alone on their own merit.

Agreed, i totally know what you mean there

[moreblack]

Yeah, I could see that in a band like Rush, who by the time the 80s came around, were doing everything possible to get away from prog. They went deliberately out of their way to avoid being heavy, or long-winded. They wrote short poppy songs with a bit of other genres thrown in, and threw in as much keyboards as possible. Unrecognizable from the band that made 2112.

[Jumpin' Jack Flash]

Yeah, I could see that in a band like Rush, who by the time the 80s came around, were doing everything possible to get away from prog. They went deliberately out of their way to avoid being heavy, or long-winded. They wrote short poppy songs with a bit of other genres thrown in, and threw in as much keyboards as possible. Unrecognizable from the band that made 2112.

Yeah, it reached its zenith around Counterparts...compare that to Caress of Steel I love all of Rush's schizophrenic approaches to albums though, always makes for some interesting stuff. I actually fucking love Counterparts

[Zint]

For those who were around in the Punk era, can you say if this was true or not? Was there any animosity between the two scenes?

I recall the animosity being on the part of the hard rock contingent.

Longhair reefer dude in his Ted Nugent shirt hanging out at the downtown arcade wanted to fight all-the-time.

All you had to do was just walk by.

And they'd all come down to the punk bars looking for fights...the intention was to pound out some "slam-bangers".

What they never took into consideration was they were taking on a pack of zipped out rottweilers on speed...they got their drunk asses handed to them on a platter..every time.

Look...here's the thing to remember.

We were ALL listening to something before punk happened.

Johnny Rotten auditioned to an Alice Cooper track.In fact...John Lydon considers Cooper's "KILLER" to be the perfect rock album...(he's not far off the mark with that either).

When punk happened it was something new,it was fresh..it was a new approach.

It wasn't flashback memories on Youtube..it was happening "right now".

I think a lot of the punk vs rock thing was media hype.I think the Pistols and a few others mouthed off a bit,but really...everyone who got into was listening to rock before it happened.

The Who,The Kinks,Alice Cooper,American Garage,The Dolls,The Stooges.

There was cool shit going on...it was just that..with a lot of it...the half hour tapping on drums with your knuckles solo thing was just SO played out.

Something came along that some people found to be a breath of fresh air.A new direction..something worth your time.

Rock and roll stripped down to the bare bones.

For many...it made perfect sense.

In 1977..all of a sudden it wasn't about that bitchin solo anymore..and that was a moment that some hailed as the second coming and some hailed as a threat to the standards they held close and dear.

The punks really had no problem with rockers...it's where they came from when it comes down to it.

We weren't born into it.

I recall the punks being opened minded about it and encouraging rockers to check it out,come see the bands.

Some did and instantly got it...fell in love.

That's all we had right??...those in the know...and rocker friends that you could try to open their eyes to it.

Some friends dove in,some said thanks but no thanks but supported us as freinds (because that's what real friends do).

One friend still hasn't spoken a word to us to this day..simply for liking punk (true story).

Personally..I never bought into the whole "I hate rock" thing.

Just go look at the list of concerts I went to in that era..lol.

For me...when I heard the Pistols and saw some of the bands I was just smitten.

What DID happen to me for a while...and to most punks from that era...I just couldn't bear to listen to some of the hard rock stuff I was weened on.Just couldn't listen to the same records again and again when there was so much new and exciting music happening.

But you find your way back in time.

[ITW 2012]

I like some of the punk attitude, but I prefer the musicianship that can be found in hard and progressive rock. Really, I can only listen to a couple songs in a row from either The Clash or The Pistols before I get bored. To me the original punk band is actually The Kinks, and I could listen to that band all day and all of the night.

[Zint]

Darby Crash from the Germs was influenced by Queen, Yes, and David Bowie.

First reference I've heard to YES being influential.

Not saying Darby wasn't influenced by them...but..whew...yeah...YES were one of the bands that just seemed incredibly bloated in contrast to the stark immediate brashness of punk.

Bowie most definitely was an influence and highly reverred.

Nazi Dog of the Viletones was a huge Bowie fan and,in fact,circa 1973 he strutted around Toronto in red Ziggy Stardust hair,platform boots and the whole deal.

A lot of punks were influenced by the glam era.

Roxy Music was a HUGE influence on many early scene punks.

A lot of the garage-y glam era rock like Slade and Sweet factored in to early punk.

For all of the bellyaching and denial these days...fashion (oh..uh..sorry...anti-fashion) was a factor in the early scene.

That can be traced back to the glam influences.

Not every punk I knew was into Bowie...most were.

Never met a punk who didn't like the original Alice Cooper band.

It's been my experience that as far as hard rock goes...the Alice Cooper band were gods to punks.

Alice Cooper,New York Dolls,MC5,Stooges...it was all just waiting to happen,and it did.

Edited April 5, 2011 by zint61

[Zint]

People identified with punk for different reasons.

In our neck of the woods,a lot of it had to do with environment,surroundings.

Keep in mind what the average teenager had to occupy his/her time in the 70's.

Pot,beer,acid,whiskey,bush parties,records and basement bands.

Not even a fuckin vcr..dig?

Rock concerts were a fleeting break from the everyday grind of nothingness.

In our situation,the suburbs were stifling...absolutely nothing going on.

We got b market concert tours and you travelled to Toronto or beyond to see the big shows.

All of a suuden we had THIS going on in our backyard.

In the clubs downtown.

...local

...right here

...tonight

And the best part was it was for us,by us...and we were encouraged to participate.

The lights came on man...we sunk our teeth in and never let go.

We were home...finally!

[Zint]

Listen to the guitar intro to the beginning of No God. It's straight up ripped off from Yes. Even Pat Smear will admit to that.

Yeah for all of 5 seconds before it rips into Germs chaos.

It strikes me as more of a poke at YES than an influential tribute.

Maybe not...

Germs strike me as the complete antithesis to YES.

[Count Drugcula]

I think the problem with Punk was a throwback--a throwback to the 50s rawer version of rock (compared to what bands like Yes, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin had become by '77). But that's the problem--they were just a throwback. They offered little new. Rush, Yes, Pink Floyd, Zep and the like were taking rock into new directions, grounds never touched, stretching rock beyond conventional borders. They offered new things, new ideas, making rock something beyond just teenage anger and lust. Punk was an old idea recycled for a new decade which longed for yesterday (there was tons of nostalgia for the 50s in the 1970s).

And IMO, the Stones and their heirs, the Glam (Mott the Hoople, T-Rex) were the real ''next step'' from the rock of the 50s...Not Punk.

[wasted]

I liked Zepp and the Pistols but not Clash or The Who. maybe it's just what I read in magazines about them. I like The Who more now. the CSI theme tunes.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I think the problem with Punk was a throwback--a throwback to the 50s rawer version of rock (compared to what bands like Yes, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin had become by '77). But that's the problem--they were just a throwback. They offered little new. Rush, Yes, Pink Floyd, Zep and the like were taking rock into new directions, grounds never touched, stretching rock beyond conventional borders. They offered new things, new ideas, making rock something beyond just teenage anger and lust. Punk was an old idea recycled for a new decade which longed for yesterday (there was tons of nostalgia for the 50s in the 1970s).

And IMO, the Stones and their heirs, the Glam (Mott the Hoople, T-Rex) were the real ''next step'' from the rock of the 50s...Not Punk.

Thats absolute bullshit and it just goes to show how many peoples understanding of music is informed by books instead of the actual music. Punk offered more new in a span of 5 or 6 years than rock n roll had until its entire history up until that point. The reason why the media say that punk was over in 18 months was because of the rate at which it advanced at that made it so in 18 months time the music that they were coming out with was so radically different that it was unrecognisable from the three chord rock n roll that preceeded it, i mean this is PiL in 1979/80:

Now how on earth is that carbon copy punk and not offering something different?

compared to this, how they sounded a year beforehand:

That ain't a rate of progression?

or this, The Slits in 1979:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMbGComJ6kw

or this, Magazine in the late 70s:

PiL again, 1983

or sonic youth in 1980

or the clash in 1981

Now i dunno how many of those you're gonna bother listening to Miser but honestly, get a clue what you're talking about. The whole THING that i like about punk, the whole thing about punk that has endured is that it is without boundary and constantly forward thinking. The right punk bands never made the same album twice and there is absolute planets worth of these bands and artists.

Its such a difficult thing to cite examples from but only because there are so many instances, entire offshoot genres of punk that offered and continue to offer so much more than rock n roll was ever capable of and these innovations, more often than not have been at the forefront of the creation of most every post punk genre from techno to hip hop. Punks contribution to our culture is immeasurable.

[moreblack]

That first PiL vid just sounds like some guy trying to figure out how to work a synth... dreadful. The other one could best be described as castrated pistols.