Hard Rock vs. Punk

[Zint]

I don't think its recognisable as what it was in 1977 but i do think its around, it's like a knock on effect. If sounds like or is an attempt to sound like what it was in 77 then yeah, its homage but the people that progressed further and further and further from there, yeah, i think they could lay claim to being the "heirs of punk".

In what ways did they progress?

[Guest Len B'stard]

I don't think its recognisable as what it was in 1977 but i do think its around, it's like a knock on effect. If sounds like or is an attempt to sound like what it was in 77 then yeah, its homage but the people that progressed further and further and further from there, yeah, i think they could lay claim to being the "heirs of punk".

In what ways did they progress?

By making different music and building on the work that all the early punk bands did but not by making or replicating that music by going places with it, thats my understanding of the matter at least. So...y'know, you have something like Sonic Youth in the early 80s, it's not really recognisable to the ear as similar to The Damned or The Clash or what have you but it's kinda going further, same with bands like Magazine or The Fall or Joy Division or....y'know, any number of bands. So yeah, basically by maintaining that single minded honesty of punk, the inventive attitude and just doing your own thing with it, being yourself. Stuff like Daniel Johnston too maybe, The Butthole Surfers, they progressed by being innovative with music that's challenging and makes people sit up and go, what the fuck was that, that sounded cool. Even like a lot of stuff like The Happy Mondays and The Stone Roses which is, again, doesn't sound anything like punk in the way that bands like Rancid or Green Day kinda try and recreate something that was someone elses idea but the spirit is there and the presenting the people with someone new and fresh and exciting, the sort of haphazard melding of their own kind of weird semi-dance music meets rock n roll type rhythms.

Stuff like that i guess, the progression is in the ideas i guess, the doing new things in music, innovative things to which the sum result is something that doesn't sound like anything before it, something new. A lot of dance/rave/techno stuff in its early days was sort of like that, hip hop too, the early stuff.

[Lithium]

And what are they doing that is punk rock?

There are specific things you need to do and certain commandments you need to follow in order to proclaim yourself a punk rocker?

[Zint]

And what are they doing that is punk rock?

There are specific things you need to do and certain commandments you need to follow in order to proclaim yourself a punk rocker?

Well if punk rock is still happening as a movement,surely there must be?

You tell me..

[Zint]

I don't think its recognisable as what it was in 1977 but i do think its around, it's like a knock on effect. If sounds like or is an attempt to sound like what it was in 77 then yeah, its homage but the people that progressed further and further and further from there, yeah, i think they could lay claim to being the "heirs of punk".

In what ways did they progress?

By making different music and building on the work that all the early punk bands did but not by making or replicating that music by going places with it, thats my understanding of the matter at least. So...y'know, you have something like Sonic Youth in the early 80s, it's not really recognisable to the ear as similar to The Damned or The Clash or what have you but it's kinda going further, same with bands like Magazine or The Fall or Joy Division or....y'know, any number of bands. So yeah, basically by maintaining that single minded honesty of punk, the inventive attitude and just doing your own thing with it, being yourself. Stuff like Daniel Johnston too maybe, The Butthole Surfers, they progressed by being innovative with music that's challenging and makes people sit up and go, what the fuck was that, that sounded cool. Even like a lot of stuff like The Happy Mondays and The Stone Roses which is, again, doesn't sound anything like punk in the way that bands like Rancid or Green Day kinda try and recreate something that was someone elses idea but the spirit is there and the presenting the people with someone new and fresh and exciting, the sort of haphazard melding of their own kind of weird semi-dance music meets rock n roll type rhythms.

Stuff like that i guess, the progression is in the ideas i guess, the doing new things in music, innovative things to which the sum result is something that doesn't sound like anything before it, something new. A lot of dance/rave/techno stuff in its early days was sort of like that, hip hop too, the early stuff.

I get what your saying...just not sure I agree with "progressing from punk rock".

Was it meant to be progressed from?

A lot of the bands and musicians that were part of the punk scene changed things up after a while.

As skills improved and horizons expanded,people started to put what they had to offer to the test..creatively and personally.

But to consider the areas they moved in to musically and personally from punk rock..to be still considered punk rock (because they once were??) is kinda...I dunno...doesn't sit well with me.

They moved on..

I'll give you an example...there's a band called Blue Rodeo in Canada..might not have heard of them.But when they first started they were a punk band...they were part of the Queen Street scene in Toronto (not as Blue Rodeo).

Is this progress from punk rock...is this punk because they once were...or did they move on?

Edited April 9, 2011 by zint61

[Guest Len B'stard]

I don't think its recognisable as what it was in 1977 but i do think its around, it's like a knock on effect. If sounds like or is an attempt to sound like what it was in 77 then yeah, its homage but the people that progressed further and further and further from there, yeah, i think they could lay claim to being the "heirs of punk".

In what ways did they progress?

By making different music and building on the work that all the early punk bands did but not by making or replicating that music by going places with it, thats my understanding of the matter at least. So...y'know, you have something like Sonic Youth in the early 80s, it's not really recognisable to the ear as similar to The Damned or The Clash or what have you but it's kinda going further, same with bands like Magazine or The Fall or Joy Division or....y'know, any number of bands. So yeah, basically by maintaining that single minded honesty of punk, the inventive attitude and just doing your own thing with it, being yourself. Stuff like Daniel Johnston too maybe, The Butthole Surfers, they progressed by being innovative with music that's challenging and makes people sit up and go, what the fuck was that, that sounded cool. Even like a lot of stuff like The Happy Mondays and The Stone Roses which is, again, doesn't sound anything like punk in the way that bands like Rancid or Green Day kinda try and recreate something that was someone elses idea but the spirit is there and the presenting the people with someone new and fresh and exciting, the sort of haphazard melding of their own kind of weird semi-dance music meets rock n roll type rhythms.

Stuff like that i guess, the progression is in the ideas i guess, the doing new things in music, innovative things to which the sum result is something that doesn't sound like anything before it, something new. A lot of dance/rave/techno stuff in its early days was sort of like that, hip hop too, the early stuff.

I get what your saying...just not sure I agree with "progressing from punk rock".

Was it meant to be progressed from?

A lot of the bands and musicians that were part of the punk scene changed things up after a while.

As skills improved and horizons expanded,people started to put what they had to offer to the test..creatively and personally.

But to consider the areas they moved in to musically and personally from punk rock..to be still considered punk rock (because they once were??) is kinda...I dunno...doesn't sit well with me.

They moved on..

I'll give you an example...there's a band called Blue Rodeo in Canada..might not have heard of them.But when they first started they were a punk band...they were part of the Queen Street in Toronto.

Is this progress from punk rock...is this punk because they once were...or did they move on?

I suppose you're right, i guess i never really looked at it that way. Cuz if punk rock is to define THAT music of THAT time then...yeah, i guess you can't call it punk rock. But then what DO you call that music, because there really is so much of it, that was a progression from punk rock but didn't really entire into another genres territory oftentimes but can explicitly be considered what punk became if you will. Why do you have to call it anything i guess. But no, you make a lot of sense, if it's changed then it ain't what it was anymore.

In many ways what you've described is perfect because it...it just adheres to all the thingie-ma-whatsits of punk, kind of a one shot throwaway disposable bazooka that does its job and then go forth from there, don't cling to...label and lionize or cannonize or whatever the fuckin word is.

It's kinda perfect in that way huh cuz then it can't grow old or stale or become a self parody or any of that cuz hey, that was it, that's as far as it goes. Y'know the more i think about that explanation the more i like it

What do you mean by was it meant to be progressed from?

And, as a seperate thing, my understanding of punk, whether right or wrong, has never been something specific to bass guitar drums vocals three chord rock n roll, i always felt that...for those a part of punk that wanted to do that they could and progress from there but a lot of the early stuff, in its raw and amateur glory was basically a result of people wanting to get up there and do it but it wasn't by any means the limits of what they wanted to do. Or, at very least it was a case of...doing each thing and looking as far as that thing but at the same time never limiting oneself.

I don't think i would've ever really been into punk rock as insanely as i am if it was all just three chord rock n roll, it was the lunatics taking over the asylum aspect that kinda turn me onto it.

Edited April 9, 2011 by sugaraylen

[Zint]

a one shot throwaway disposable bazooka that does its job and then go forth from there, don't cling to...label and lionize or cannonize

It's kinda perfect in that way huh cuz then it can't grow old or stale or become a self parody or any of that cuz hey, that was it, that's as far as it goes. Y'know the more i think about that explanation the more i like it

I'd hug you right now if I could.

School's out my man...you made it!

[Zint]

[Chewbacca]

I prefer hard rock, but the hybrid styles that were born thanks to punk are some of my favorites (Grunge, Thrash Metal, Groove Metal, Alt. Metal).

[moreblack]

what is alt. metal?

[Chewbacca]

what is alt. metal?

Alternative Metal.

[moreblack]

what is alt. metal?

Alternative Metal.

alternative to what?

what does it sound like?

[Chewbacca]

what is alt. metal?

Alternative Metal.

alternative to what?

what does it sound like?

For me, bands like AiC, Soundgarden (also considered grunge bands), Disturbed, Korn, Sevendust (sometimes referred as Nu Metal) and even Metallica, wich is also a thrash metal band (they always had an urge to experiment with new things) are alternative metal bands. Bands that didn't follow the traditional Heavy Metal aesthetics religiously and aproached other musical styles like alternative rock/grunge, industrial/ electronic music, funk/hip hop, acoustic stuff, country. It's too hard define the genre for it's wide range.

I wouldn't know how to tell the difference between an alt metal band and an experimental metal one (Meshuggah), however. It's all about getting new styles and fusing them with heavy metal I guess...

[AbominableHoman]

Punk is mostly style over substance in my opinion. I don't define myself through music, only listen to it for its innate musical quality. I've always liked the organic and societal tangent that early Punk represented, and I can understand how guys like Zint can get so pumped describing its essence.

But if you take a guy like me, who never had a natural exposure to it, and toss me a plate with Rock and Punk on two platers, I'm going to take Rock every time.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I agree with 100% Miser..to me the majority of punk is just a bunch of noise

Each to his own and that, you're entitled to your opinion but this is my problem with a certain cross section of the hard rock lovers populace, this "it's just a bunch of noise" thing, this sort of musical arrogance about the way music should or shouldn't be played, it gets on my raving titties. They are actually playing much the same music as bands like The Stones and what have you play, in terms of the actual musicality of it for the early bands. Sped up Chuck Berry riffs basically and it's just this stuck up snobby attitude towards the fact that the people who made this music were amateurs basically and its like, well so what, The Stones, to this fuckin day ain't no great shakes.

This sort of attitude came out a lot in the opinion of people like Keith when it's like "they can't play their instruments" and its like fuck youu Keith, you knackered old queen, i've heard the fuckin early live stuff that you were knocking out in the early 60s and i don't think he can lay claim to being any better a guitarist than Steve Jones was.

But thats basically what it is to my mind, just snobbery...and pathetic snobbery at that, crabs in a barrel snobbery, you're what we were 10 years ago so automatically we don't like you. And thats the bit that gets me, the snotty-ness of it, some of these bands worked damn hard and mastered their instrument by playing it day and fucking night, i'd like to see Keith Richards get onstage at anytime in his fucking career and do a Ramones set, as tight as Johnny Ramone was. You'd be hard pressed to find 8 or 10 instances on record of Johnny Ramone playing live and fucking up or missing a note or breaking a string, some of these boys were consummate professionals and performed their fucking guts out and it's just SOOOO telling of where the so called rock royalty are coming from in the criticisms they level on some of the punk movement.

And whatever people like Mick Jagger might say, his insecurities about what was new and what was in as evidenced by his assertion of influence over The Stones and his own music and in print in various biographies and autobiographies shows just how worried he REALLY was when bands like The Pistols kicked things off.

To be quite honest, that style of music never really recovered from the advent of punk.

[moreblack]

Some interesting marriages with other styles, for example the song Jesus Of Suburbia is played in a punk-ish style but the song is over 11 minutes long and quite proggy. Just part after part, with no repeats bang bang bang, intensity.

Edited April 10, 2011 by moreblack

[KBear]

^ Whatever anyone's opinion of them, they put on a good show. First five tunes on that album are great, IMO. It was kind of downhill from there I think, but it's still a nice achievement.

I agree with 100% Miser..to me the majority of punk is just a bunch of noise

Each to his own and that, you're entitled to your opinion but this is my problem with a certain cross section of the hard rock lovers populace, this "it's just a bunch of noise" thing, this sort of musical arrogance about the way music should or shouldn't be played, it gets on my raving titties. They are actually playing much the same music as bands like The Stones and what have you play, in terms of the actual musicality of it for the early bands. Sped up Chuck Berry riffs basically and it's just this stuck up snobby attitude towards the fact that the people who made this music were amateurs basically and its like, well so what, The Stones, to this fuckin day ain't no great shakes.

This sort of attitude came out a lot in the opinion of people like Keith when it's like "they can't play their instruments" and its like fuck youu Keith, you knackered old queen, i've heard the fuckin early live stuff that you were knocking out in the early 60s and i don't think he can lay claim to being any better a guitarist than Steve Jones was.

But thats basically what it is to my mind, just snobbery...and pathetic snobbery at that, crabs in a barrel snobbery, you're what we were 10 years ago so automatically we don't like you. And thats the bit that gets me, the snotty-ness of it, some of these bands worked damn hard and mastered their instrument by playing it day and fucking night, i'd like to see Keith Richards get onstage at anytime in his fucking career and do a Ramones set, as tight as Johnny Ramone was. You'd be hard pressed to find 8 or 10 instances on record of Johnny Ramone playing live and fucking up or missing a note or breaking a string, some of these boys were consummate professionals and performed their fucking guts out and it's just SOOOO telling of where the so called rock royalty are coming from in the criticisms they level on some of the punk movement.

And whatever people like Mick Jagger might say, his insecurities about what was new and what was in as evidenced by his assertion of influence over The Stones and his own music and in print in various biographies and autobiographies shows just how worried he REALLY was when bands like The Pistols kicked things off.

To be quite honest, that style of music never really recovered from the advent of punk.

They may have been able to play, and maybe the Stones were at one point what they criticized those bands of being, but to me punk is missing one essential element. I don't know exactly what it is, but I'm going to call it melody. There's nothing beautiful or moving in those songs, at least the ones I've heard. They just kind of drive along without veering off the path any. What's an early Stones song? Time Is On My Side, Heart of Stone, Play With Fire? These have that. Or maybe you're talking even older? I'd argue that until bands can write more than just a song that drives forward, perhaps they shouldn't gain notoriety. Hollywood Rose was terrible, once they became GN'R they started coming up with music that needed to be heard. But I'm not here to say punk had nothing to offer. One just has to read what zint stated about punk as a part of the London scene to realize that it wasn't solely about the music.

Edited April 10, 2011 by KBear

[Guest Len B'stard]

^ Whatever anyone's opinion of them, they put on a good show. First five tunes on that album are great, IMO. It was kind of downhill from there I think, but it's still a nice achievement.

I agree with 100% Miser..to me the majority of punk is just a bunch of noise

Each to his own and that, you're entitled to your opinion but this is my problem with a certain cross section of the hard rock lovers populace, this "it's just a bunch of noise" thing, this sort of musical arrogance about the way music should or shouldn't be played, it gets on my raving titties. They are actually playing much the same music as bands like The Stones and what have you play, in terms of the actual musicality of it for the early bands. Sped up Chuck Berry riffs basically and it's just this stuck up snobby attitude towards the fact that the people who made this music were amateurs basically and its like, well so what, The Stones, to this fuckin day ain't no great shakes.

This sort of attitude came out a lot in the opinion of people like Keith when it's like "they can't play their instruments" and its like fuck youu Keith, you knackered old queen, i've heard the fuckin early live stuff that you were knocking out in the early 60s and i don't think he can lay claim to being any better a guitarist than Steve Jones was.

But thats basically what it is to my mind, just snobbery...and pathetic snobbery at that, crabs in a barrel snobbery, you're what we were 10 years ago so automatically we don't like you. And thats the bit that gets me, the snotty-ness of it, some of these bands worked damn hard and mastered their instrument by playing it day and fucking night, i'd like to see Keith Richards get onstage at anytime in his fucking career and do a Ramones set, as tight as Johnny Ramone was. You'd be hard pressed to find 8 or 10 instances on record of Johnny Ramone playing live and fucking up or missing a note or breaking a string, some of these boys were consummate professionals and performed their fucking guts out and it's just SOOOO telling of where the so called rock royalty are coming from in the criticisms they level on some of the punk movement.

And whatever people like Mick Jagger might say, his insecurities about what was new and what was in as evidenced by his assertion of influence over The Stones and his own music and in print in various biographies and autobiographies shows just how worried he REALLY was when bands like The Pistols kicked things off.

To be quite honest, that style of music never really recovered from the advent of punk.

They may have been able to play, and maybe the Stones were at one point what they criticized those bands of being, but to me punk is missing one essential element. I don't know exactly what it is, but I'm going to call it melody. There's nothing beautiful or moving in those songs, at least the ones I've heard. They just kind of drive along without veering off the path any. What's an early Stones song? Time Is On My Side, Heart of Stone, Play With Fire? These have that. Or maybe you're talking even older? I'd argue that until bands can write more than just a song that drives forward, perhaps they shouldn't gain notoriety. Hollywood Rose was terrible, once they became GN'R they started coming up with music that needed to be heard. But I'm not here to say punk had nothing to offer. One just has to read what zint stated about punk as a part of the London scene to realize that it wasn't solely about the music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbbltoB2NxM

[Guest Len B'stard]

No snobbery involved Sugar just a personal preference on my part. No more snobbery then you labeling all prog as pretentious I think. I can sit and listen to a band like Yes all day long as I dig the complexity of the music and synergy of the musicians involved while you seem to think it is overdone....on the other hand I get the impression you could sit and listen to punk all day long while I find it very tiring and sounding all the same after a while....there no right or wrong here just different preferences.....

Sorry there, i didn't mean snobbery specifically on your part, it was more to do with that frame of thinking and what appears to be behind it in a lot of quarters when it is usually espoused and yeah, i take your point, i mean, a lot of the stuff that so called punks did after the first intitial wave could just as easily be construed as prog in the strictest sense of the word but again it isn't and this is where the snobbery aspect comes in that, because it's not entrenched in musicality in the classical sense it is written off by the prog folks which to my mind is a little bit of a cop out. I mean, complexity and the synergy of musicians etc is something that can just as easily be percieved in certain pretty fucking dischordant noise experimental type post punk stuff but just because it's not music in the classical sense which is to say, it breaks the rules a bit, it's written off. This is, again, a lot of the punk scenes problem with prog stuff, it's meant to be proggressive but how progressive can you be when you rule out all elements of experimentation that don't fit the prescribed guidelines a bit, surely thats key to experimentation. This is why prog became stagnant so quickly because, well, it weren't really prog, it seemed to dictate terms and boundaries.

But I do like some punk as I was a big fan of Iggy, Husker Du, the Pistols, The Ramones, NY Dolls, Clash, Big Audio Dynamite, etc., and loved Johhny Thunders (RIP) solo stuff as I saw him live..

I see you have good taste sir, well played!

Concerning Keef's comments is concerned you are getitng too wound up over what he says...I love the Stones as I grew up with them but one thing you need to understand about Keef is he rarely has anything positive to say about any music which was not made by the Stones, the old Blues masters, his contemparires from the 60's or if it not Reggae. He rarely has anyhting positive to say about music made after 1969...Take what he says with a grain of salt as it is just Keef being Keef....

Thats the point though, the hypocrisy of it. And then for him to prattle on about dub and stuff like that, dub reggae on the one hand and then slagging off hip hop. Saying punk and the like can't play and then being into reggae with God knows it ain't the most complex music in the world. There's a reason too why reggae readily formed a lasting alliance with punk and not with Clapton/The Stones et al, cuz it could see what the real rebel music was and how a lot of these old rocker farts didn't and couldn't get it except to steal it.

That being said i love The Rolling Stones, i think they're an amazing band, on of my favorites but i'll call a spade a spade.

And as far as "that style of music never really recovered from the advent of punk" it is now actually a subculture just as punk is..there is a very healthy Prog music subculture thriving today. In fact there are many more Prog bands now then there ever was during the 70's heyday so while it may not be mainstream anymore it is alive an well and making some really interesting music for those who are fans of that genre........

By that i comment i meant bands like The Stones The Who Led Zeppelin type bands.

[Zint]

just a bunch of noise

That timeless battle cry.

That mantra since the dawn of rawk..

-gotta love it!