Punk: From Chaos to Couture (The Met)

[Vincent Vega]

I think people make too much of the clothes end, important as it is, it's mostly like...the corporate establishment end that have latched onto that, probably cuz it's the most marketable aspect. All this stuff i think poisons the spirit of punk somewhat.

IT'S NOT PUNK RAWK ENOUGH.

It's too bad someone didn't take a mighty big stone and smash Sid's and Kurt's mama's with em in the belly.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Vincent Vega

[netcat]

I also disagree that it's just about marketing. Sure these fashion designers want to sell clothes, but the irony is lost on me that the original creators of punk were the complete anithesis of the fashion world. They were anti fashion, yet here they are now being revered for being anti fashion. I love it. I think it shows that self expression speaks more loudly than just taking what some 'cool' designer is dictating.

i guess Vivienne and Malcolm were antifashion at one point, but they always thought about marketing

[Guest Manny Manner]

I always thought of punk as more of a fashion statement than anything else anyway. To punk bands- instruments were just another fashion accessory. Real punk bands couldn't play and if they could play then they sure as hell weren't punk. I always enjoyed the sonic experience of music too much to really get into punk.

[magisme]

I think people make too much of the clothes end, important as it is, it's mostly like...the corporate establishment end that have latched onto that, probably cuz it's the most marketable aspect. All this stuff i think poisons the spirit of punk somewhat.

IT'S NOT PUNK RAWK ENOUGH.

It's too bad someone didn't take a mighty big stone and smash Sid's and Kurt's mama's with em in the belly.

You will be alone the rest of your life, and no one will ever love you. Have fun, Miser!

[dalsh327]

I always thought of punk as more of a fashion statement than anything else anyway. To punk bands- instruments were just another fashion accessory. Real punk bands couldn't play and if they could play then they sure as hell weren't punk. I always enjoyed the sonic experience of music too much to really get into punk.

Fashion and art was a part of it, but the beauty of it was anyone could go on a stage and not be great at their instruments, but they better make up for it in heart and delivery.

Rock music had become aloof and seen from a distance in stadiums, and I think one of the things that resonated with punk was breaking barriers down, audience and band being one and the same, but it was also about that shared contempt for authority figures trying to tell you how to live your life and people who demand respect without earning it.

Basically - we're all going to be okay in the end and they're the ones who are fucked up in the head.

Back then it was all meant for a specific young age group, but I don't see why senior citizens can't be punk rock. I can't think of a more disenfranchised group ignored by society.

[Vincent Vega]

I always thought of punk as more of a fashion statement than anything else anyway. To punk bands- instruments were just another fashion accessory. Real punk bands couldn't play and if they could play then they sure as hell weren't punk. I always enjoyed the sonic experience of music too much to really get into punk.

Fashion and art was a part of it, but the beauty of it was anyone could go on a stage and not be great at their instruments, but they better make up for it in heart and delivery.

Rock music had become aloof and seen from a distance in stadiums, and I think one of the things that resonated with punk was breaking barriers down, audience and band being one and the same, but it was also about that shared contempt for authority figures trying to tell you how to live your life and people who demand respect without earning it.

Basically - we're all going to be okay in the end and they're the ones who are fucked up in the head.

Back then it was all meant for a specific young age group, but I don't see why senior citizens can't be punk rock. I can't think of a more disenfranchised group ignored by society.

Um, that sounds like something rock music has stood for since the 50s when it first came around into mainstream popularity, not some concept that just started with Sid Vicious and Johnny Thunders. That's been the appeal of rock since it began. So, again, what did Punk introduce that was really new? Punk to me, is by and large, nothing more than a rehash of '50s raw rock in sound, with 60s protest style lyrics. Not much else.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I always thought of punk as more of a fashion statement than anything else anyway. To punk bands- instruments were just another fashion accessory. Real punk bands couldn't play and if they could play then they sure as hell weren't punk. I always enjoyed the sonic experience of music too much to really get into punk.

Fashion and art was a part of it, but the beauty of it was anyone could go on a stage and not be great at their instruments, but they better make up for it in heart and delivery.

Rock music had become aloof and seen from a distance in stadiums, and I think one of the things that resonated with punk was breaking barriers down, audience and band being one and the same, but it was also about that shared contempt for authority figures trying to tell you how to live your life and people who demand respect without earning it.

Basically - we're all going to be okay in the end and they're the ones who are fucked up in the head.

Back then it was all meant for a specific young age group, but I don't see why senior citizens can't be punk rock. I can't think of a more disenfranchised group ignored by society.

Um, that sounds like something rock music has stood for since the 50s when it first came around into mainstream popularity, not some concept that just started with Sid Vicious and Johnny Thunders. That's been the appeal of rock since it began. So, again, what did Punk introduce that was really new? Punk to me, is by and large, nothing more than a rehash of '50s raw rock in sound, with 60s protest style lyrics. Not much else.

You're not very intelligent are you Miser? He said that Rock music became remote and aloof and so Punk bought it back to where it came from, where in that is there a mention of something new? Whats new was another generation were doing it with a different style and a different attitude and approach because times and circumstance and situation was different.

Thats why it's called Punk......ROCK Believe it or not genius the two are related Punk is/was a chapter in the history of rock n roll. Or rather it's evolution.

But while we're here, punk took their thing further in less time and branched out a great deal further out.

Edited July 19, 2013 by sugaraylen

[Vincent Vega]

I always thought of punk as more of a fashion statement than anything else anyway. To punk bands- instruments were just another fashion accessory. Real punk bands couldn't play and if they could play then they sure as hell weren't punk. I always enjoyed the sonic experience of music too much to really get into punk.

Fashion and art was a part of it, but the beauty of it was anyone could go on a stage and not be great at their instruments, but they better make up for it in heart and delivery.

Rock music had become aloof and seen from a distance in stadiums, and I think one of the things that resonated with punk was breaking barriers down, audience and band being one and the same, but it was also about that shared contempt for authority figures trying to tell you how to live your life and people who demand respect without earning it.

Basically - we're all going to be okay in the end and they're the ones who are fucked up in the head.

Back then it was all meant for a specific young age group, but I don't see why senior citizens can't be punk rock. I can't think of a more disenfranchised group ignored by society.

Um, that sounds like something rock music has stood for since the 50s when it first came around into mainstream popularity, not some concept that just started with Sid Vicious and Johnny Thunders. That's been the appeal of rock since it began. So, again, what did Punk introduce that was really new? Punk to me, is by and large, nothing more than a rehash of '50s raw rock in sound, with 60s protest style lyrics. Not much else.

You're not very intelligent are you Miser? He said that Rock music became remote and aloof and so Punk bought it back to where it came from, where in that is there a mention of something new? Whats new was another generation were doing it with a different style and a different attitude and approach because times and circumstance and situation was different.

Thats why it's called Punk......ROCK Believe it or not genius the two are related Punk is/was a chapter in the history of rock n roll. Or rather it's evolution.

But while we're here, punk took their thing further in less time and branched out a great deal further out.

Yeah, the part I was responding to was more the "one of the things that resonated with punk was breaking barriers down, audience and band being one and the same, but it was also about that shared contempt for authority figures trying to tell you how to live your life and people who demand respect without earning it." part more than anything else.

You and other punk fans act like it was the most innovative thing ever and like it's the best thing since sliced bread hence my comment about it really not bringing all that much new to the table.

Of course they're related. It's basically the bastard son of 60s garage and surf rock with other elements thrown in, some pop in there.

Punk took it "further"...Further than all the shit in the 60s? I disagree. A lot of the protest shit and Dylan and Dylan inspired stuff in the '60s was just as anti-Authoritarian as any punk song. "in less time"? Of course, because they had the benefit of coming around when they did, in the middle-late 70s, when a lot of barriers had already been broken done, making it much easier for countercultural shit to come in and shake things up at a quicker pace. The Stones couldn't come out with "Street Fighting Man" as their first song in 1962 because the time wasn't right for such a thing, and barriers were still all up. Punk had the "benefit" of the lies of Vietnam and Watergate and inner city poverty and whatnot to make for an audience ready to hear yet more anti-authority stuff, with an even more angry edge, because people were angrier and more jaded in 1975 than they were in 1965 or 1967 and had more to be cynical and jaded about. Basically Punk just built on and added to what the guys in the 50s, 60s laid down....To me Punk Rock isn't this innovative end all-be all that is the best thing ever...It's just another branch of rock, same as Prog Rock or Art Rock or any other subgenre.

What I reject is the notion that Punk was some golden god, sort of sacred cow that was the last great thing in rock music or the father of everything modern or whatever.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Vincent Vega

[dalsh327]

I always thought of punk as more of a fashion statement than anything else anyway. To punk bands- instruments were just another fashion accessory. Real punk bands couldn't play and if they could play then they sure as hell weren't punk. I always enjoyed the sonic experience of music too much to really get into punk.

Fashion and art was a part of it, but the beauty of it was anyone could go on a stage and not be great at their instruments, but they better make up for it in heart and delivery.

Rock music had become aloof and seen from a distance in stadiums, and I think one of the things that resonated with punk was breaking barriers down, audience and band being one and the same, but it was also about that shared contempt for authority figures trying to tell you how to live your life and people who demand respect without earning it.

Basically - we're all going to be okay in the end and they're the ones who are fucked up in the head.

Back then it was all meant for a specific young age group, but I don't see why senior citizens can't be punk rock. I can't think of a more disenfranchised group ignored by society.

Um, that sounds like something rock music has stood for since the 50s when it first came around into mainstream popularity, not some concept that just started with Sid Vicious and Johnny Thunders. That's been the appeal of rock since it began. So, again, what did Punk introduce that was really new? Punk to me, is by and large, nothing more than a rehash of '50s raw rock in sound, with 60s protest style lyrics. Not much else.

But when you're talking about the roots of rock, you're talking about a short period in the 50s and it was dismantled after '58.

The big difference between the 50s and the 70s was the cynicism that developed.

[Vincent Vega]

I always thought of punk as more of a fashion statement than anything else anyway. To punk bands- instruments were just another fashion accessory. Real punk bands couldn't play and if they could play then they sure as hell weren't punk. I always enjoyed the sonic experience of music too much to really get into punk.

Fashion and art was a part of it, but the beauty of it was anyone could go on a stage and not be great at their instruments, but they better make up for it in heart and delivery.

Rock music had become aloof and seen from a distance in stadiums, and I think one of the things that resonated with punk was breaking barriers down, audience and band being one and the same, but it was also about that shared contempt for authority figures trying to tell you how to live your life and people who demand respect without earning it.

Basically - we're all going to be okay in the end and they're the ones who are fucked up in the head.

Back then it was all meant for a specific young age group, but I don't see why senior citizens can't be punk rock. I can't think of a more disenfranchised group ignored by society.

Um, that sounds like something rock music has stood for since the 50s when it first came around into mainstream popularity, not some concept that just started with Sid Vicious and Johnny Thunders. That's been the appeal of rock since it began. So, again, what did Punk introduce that was really new? Punk to me, is by and large, nothing more than a rehash of '50s raw rock in sound, with 60s protest style lyrics. Not much else.

But when you're talking about the roots of rock, you're talking about a short period in the 50s and it was dismantled after '58.

The big difference between the 50s and the 70s was the cynicism that developed.

And there was a return to roots rock in the late 60s/early 70s. Not all that long before Punk.

I mean what was, 68, that the Stones had Street Fighting Man, CCR had Fortunate Son etc.

It's not like Rock had become this bloated, self indulgent monster by 1976. Prog rock and some elements of the Glam scene--yes., and by 1976 the Stones had become jet set rockstars and Keith was nodding out half the time, so they stopped being truly relevant as a counter cultural force. But Hard Rock overall? No, I don't believe it became as staid as you or others might say. You still had a lot of shocking shit going on that scared parents. I mean Aerosmith hit their peak of popularity around '76/'77 and they weren't parent friendly or removed, for example. Alice Cooper was still hitting it out of the park and shocking people.

Basically, Punk was doing what all the roots rock records of the late 60s/early 70s did, just amped up with crappy production values. Even the '50s rock had damn good production for it's time. Punk was basically "You can sound like crap and still be great". I don't really agree with that aesthetic or ideal.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Vincent Vega

[Guest Len B'stard]

I always thought of punk as more of a fashion statement than anything else anyway. To punk bands- instruments were just another fashion accessory. Real punk bands couldn't play and if they could play then they sure as hell weren't punk. I always enjoyed the sonic experience of music too much to really get into punk.

Fashion and art was a part of it, but the beauty of it was anyone could go on a stage and not be great at their instruments, but they better make up for it in heart and delivery.

Rock music had become aloof and seen from a distance in stadiums, and I think one of the things that resonated with punk was breaking barriers down, audience and band being one and the same, but it was also about that shared contempt for authority figures trying to tell you how to live your life and people who demand respect without earning it.

Basically - we're all going to be okay in the end and they're the ones who are fucked up in the head.

Back then it was all meant for a specific young age group, but I don't see why senior citizens can't be punk rock. I can't think of a more disenfranchised group ignored by society.

Um, that sounds like something rock music has stood for since the 50s when it first came around into mainstream popularity, not some concept that just started with Sid Vicious and Johnny Thunders. That's been the appeal of rock since it began. So, again, what did Punk introduce that was really new? Punk to me, is by and large, nothing more than a rehash of '50s raw rock in sound, with 60s protest style lyrics. Not much else.

You're not very intelligent are you Miser? He said that Rock music became remote and aloof and so Punk bought it back to where it came from, where in that is there a mention of something new? Whats new was another generation were doing it with a different style and a different attitude and approach because times and circumstance and situation was different.

Thats why it's called Punk......ROCK Believe it or not genius the two are related Punk is/was a chapter in the history of rock n roll. Or rather it's evolution.

But while we're here, punk took their thing further in less time and branched out a great deal further out.

Yeah, the part I was responding to was more the "one of the things that resonated with punk was breaking barriers down, audience and band being one and the same, but it was also about that shared contempt for authority figures trying to tell you how to live your life and people who demand respect without earning it." part more than anything else.

You and other punk fans act like it was the most innovative thing ever and like it's the best thing since sliced bread hence my comment about it really not bringing all that much new to the table.

Of course they're related. It's basically the bastard son of 60s garage and surf rock with other elements thrown in, some pop in there.

Punk took it "further"...Further than all the shit in the 60s? I disagree. A lot of the protest shit and Dylan and Dylan inspired stuff in the '60s was just as anti-Authoritarian as any punk song. "in less time"? Of course, because they had the benefit of coming around when they did, in the middle-late 70s, when a lot of barriers had already been broken done, making it much easier for countercultural shit to come in and shake things up at a quicker pace. The Stones couldn't come out with "Street Fighting Man" as their first song in 1962 because the time wasn't right for such a thing, and barriers were still all up. Punk had the "benefit" of the lies of Vietnam and Watergate and inner city poverty and whatnot to make for an audience ready to hear yet more anti-authority stuff, with an even more angry edge, because people were angrier and more jaded in 1975 than they were in 1965 or 1967 and had more to be cynical and jaded about. Basically Punk just built on and added to what the guys in the 50s, 60s laid down....To me Punk Rock isn't this innovative end all-be all that is the best thing ever...It's just another branch of rock, same as Prog Rock or Art Rock or any other subgenre.

What I reject is the notion that Punk was some golden god, sort of sacred cow that was the last great thing in rock music or the father of everything modern or whatever.

Thing is Miser, it's really difficult to engage in these sorts of discussions with you because you have a tendency, after about 10 pages of discussion and prolonged typing and general time wasted, to turn around and go 'i don't care' rather than to concede that the other person has a point so really, it's just a waste of energy with you, you're not really interested in discussion, with you it's the 'i'm right and you're wrong' game and with that mentality it's sort of pointless being here, i don't see the point in yet another massive back and forth with you that just ends in you going 'i don't care' cuz it's just a waste of my time.

Or sillier still, suddenly going into 4 yr old throwing your toys out of the pram mode and ridiculous name calling of musicians thats neither you or I have ever met.

You strike me as someone who doesn't know enough about this topic to make it worth having a discussion with, we've done this a million times and a million times it's had the same result, you not being able to back up any assertion adequately and then throwing a tantrum when you've nowhere left to go, it's just boring.

If you were actually interested in a discussion, if it was possible for you to budge and inch on what you feel or you even wanted to give something a chance or maybe had something interesting to add then it would be something different but it's not, for you it's some kinda pit your wits against the other guy thing and no offence but you're not really well equipped in that regard, thank you.

Edited July 20, 2013 by sugaraylen

[ohlovelyrita]

sugaraylen, on 20 Jul 2013 - 03:55 AM, said:

Vincent Vega, on 19 Jul 2013 - 2:05 PM, said:

sugaraylen, on 19 Jul 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

Vincent Vega, on 19 Jul 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

dalsh327, on 19 Jul 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

Manny Manner, on 19 Jul 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:

I always thought of punk as more of a fashion statement than anything else anyway. To punk bands- instruments were just another fashion accessory. Real punk bands couldn't play and if they could play then they sure as hell weren't punk. I always enjoyed the sonic experience of music too much to really get into punk.

Fashion and art was a part of it, but the beauty of it was anyone could go on a stage and not be great at their instruments, but they better make up for it in heart and delivery.

Rock music had become aloof and seen from a distance in stadiums, and I think one of the things that resonated with punk was breaking barriers down, audience and band being one and the same, but it was also about that shared contempt for authority figures trying to tell you how to live your life and people who demand respect without earning it.

Basically - we're all going to be okay in the end and they're the ones who are fucked up in the head.

Back then it was all meant for a specific young age group, but I don't see why senior citizens can't be punk rock. I can't think of a more disenfranchised group ignored by society.

Um, that sounds like something rock music has stood for since the 50s when it first came around into mainstream popularity, not some concept that just started with Sid Vicious and Johnny Thunders. That's been the appeal of rock since it began. So, again, what did Punk introduce that was really new? Punk to me, is by and large, nothing more than a rehash of '50s raw rock in sound, with 60s protest style lyrics. Not much else.

You're not very intelligent are you Miser? He said that Rock music became remote and aloof and so Punk bought it back to where it came from, where in that is there a mention of something new? Whats new was another generation were doing it with a different style and a different attitude and approach because times and circumstance and situation was different.

Thats why it's called Punk......ROCK Believe it or not genius the two are related Punk is/was a chapter in the history of rock n roll. Or rather it's evolution.

But while we're here, punk took their thing further in less time and branched out a great deal further out.

Yeah, the part I was responding to was more the "one of the things that resonated with punk was breaking barriers down, audience and band being one and the same, but it was also about that shared contempt for authority figures trying to tell you how to live your life and people who demand respect without earning it." part more than anything else.

You and other punk fans act like it was the most innovative thing ever and like it's the best thing since sliced bread hence my comment about it really not bringing all that much new to the table.

Of course they're related. It's basically the bastard son of 60s garage and surf rock with other elements thrown in, some pop in there.

Punk took it "further"...Further than all the shit in the 60s? I disagree. A lot of the protest shit and Dylan and Dylan inspired stuff in the '60s was just as anti-Authoritarian as any punk song. "in less time"? Of course, because they had the benefit of coming around when they did, in the middle-late 70s, when a lot of barriers had already been broken done, making it much easier for countercultural shit to come in and shake things up at a quicker pace. The Stones couldn't come out with "Street Fighting Man" as their first song in 1962 because the time wasn't right for such a thing, and barriers were still all up. Punk had the "benefit" of the lies of Vietnam and Watergate and inner city poverty and whatnot to make for an audience ready to hear yet more anti-authority stuff, with an even more angry edge, because people were angrier and more jaded in 1975 than they were in 1965 or 1967 and had more to be cynical and jaded about. Basically Punk just built on and added to what the guys in the 50s, 60s laid down....To me Punk Rock isn't this innovative end all-be all that is the best thing ever...It's just another branch of rock, same as Prog Rock or Art Rock or any other subgenre.

What I reject is the notion that Punk was some golden god, sort of sacred cow that was the last great thing in rock music or the father of everything modern or whatever.

Thing is Miser, it's really difficult to engage in these sorts of discussions with you because you have a tendency, after about 10 pages of discussion and prolonged typing and general time wasted, to turn around and go 'i don't care' rather than to concede that the other person has a point so really, it's just a waste of energy with you, you're not really interested in discussion, with you it's the 'i'm right and you're wrong' game and with that mentality it's sort of pointless being here, i don't see the point in yet another massive back and forth with you that just ends in you going 'i don't care' cuz it's just a waste of my time.

Or sillier still, suddenly going into 4 yr old throwing your toys out of the pram mode and ridiculous name calling of musicians thats neither you or I have ever met.

You strike me as someone who doesn't know enough about this topic to make it worth having a discussion with, we've done this a million times and a million times it's had the same result, you not being able to back up any assertion adequately and then throwing a tantrum when you've nowhere left to go, it's just boring.

If you were actually interested in a discussion, if it was possible for you to budge and inch on what you feel or you even wanted to give something a chance or maybe had something interesting to add then it would be something different but it's not, for you it's some kinda pit your wits against the other guy thing and no offence but you're not really well equipped in that regard, thank you.

A lot of these younger people will never be able to understand punk as expression. It's not the same thing as protesting the war. Punk is a FUCK YOU to what is expected. The punk scene in the 80's will never be recreated due to the commercialization of punk/club fashion. Not that fashion is the movement but it was an identifier. Greenday isn't punk in any way I understand punk but I never gave them a chance. That other band around their time with the mohawk guy seemed more punk to be. Saw them open for Iggy. One requirement of punk is the one or near all of the members be certifiably bonkers. Edited July 20, 2013 by ohlovelyrita

[dalsh327]

sugaraylen, on 20 Jul 2013 - 03:55 AM, said:

Vincent Vega, on 19 Jul 2013 - 2:05 PM, said:

sugaraylen, on 19 Jul 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

Vincent Vega, on 19 Jul 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

dalsh327, on 19 Jul 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

Manny Manner, on 19 Jul 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:

I always thought of punk as more of a fashion statement than anything else anyway. To punk bands- instruments were just another fashion accessory. Real punk bands couldn't play and if they could play then they sure as hell weren't punk. I always enjoyed the sonic experience of music too much to really get into punk.

Fashion and art was a part of it, but the beauty of it was anyone could go on a stage and not be great at their instruments, but they better make up for it in heart and delivery.

Rock music had become aloof and seen from a distance in stadiums, and I think one of the things that resonated with punk was breaking barriers down, audience and band being one and the same, but it was also about that shared contempt for authority figures trying to tell you how to live your life and people who demand respect without earning it.

Basically - we're all going to be okay in the end and they're the ones who are fucked up in the head.

Back then it was all meant for a specific young age group, but I don't see why senior citizens can't be punk rock. I can't think of a more disenfranchised group ignored by society.

Um, that sounds like something rock music has stood for since the 50s when it first came around into mainstream popularity, not some concept that just started with Sid Vicious and Johnny Thunders. That's been the appeal of rock since it began. So, again, what did Punk introduce that was really new? Punk to me, is by and large, nothing more than a rehash of '50s raw rock in sound, with 60s protest style lyrics. Not much else.

You're not very intelligent are you Miser? He said that Rock music became remote and aloof and so Punk bought it back to where it came from, where in that is there a mention of something new? Whats new was another generation were doing it with a different style and a different attitude and approach because times and circumstance and situation was different.

Thats why it's called Punk......ROCK Believe it or not genius the two are related Punk is/was a chapter in the history of rock n roll. Or rather it's evolution.

But while we're here, punk took their thing further in less time and branched out a great deal further out.

Yeah, the part I was responding to was more the "one of the things that resonated with punk was breaking barriers down, audience and band being one and the same, but it was also about that shared contempt for authority figures trying to tell you how to live your life and people who demand respect without earning it." part more than anything else.

You and other punk fans act like it was the most innovative thing ever and like it's the best thing since sliced bread hence my comment about it really not bringing all that much new to the table.

Of course they're related. It's basically the bastard son of 60s garage and surf rock with other elements thrown in, some pop in there.

Punk took it "further"...Further than all the shit in the 60s? I disagree. A lot of the protest shit and Dylan and Dylan inspired stuff in the '60s was just as anti-Authoritarian as any punk song. "in less time"? Of course, because they had the benefit of coming around when they did, in the middle-late 70s, when a lot of barriers had already been broken done, making it much easier for countercultural shit to come in and shake things up at a quicker pace. The Stones couldn't come out with "Street Fighting Man" as their first song in 1962 because the time wasn't right for such a thing, and barriers were still all up. Punk had the "benefit" of the lies of Vietnam and Watergate and inner city poverty and whatnot to make for an audience ready to hear yet more anti-authority stuff, with an even more angry edge, because people were angrier and more jaded in 1975 than they were in 1965 or 1967 and had more to be cynical and jaded about. Basically Punk just built on and added to what the guys in the 50s, 60s laid down....To me Punk Rock isn't this innovative end all-be all that is the best thing ever...It's just another branch of rock, same as Prog Rock or Art Rock or any other subgenre.

What I reject is the notion that Punk was some golden god, sort of sacred cow that was the last great thing in rock music or the father of everything modern or whatever.

Thing is Miser, it's really difficult to engage in these sorts of discussions with you because you have a tendency, after about 10 pages of discussion and prolonged typing and general time wasted, to turn around and go 'i don't care' rather than to concede that the other person has a point so really, it's just a waste of energy with you, you're not really interested in discussion, with you it's the 'i'm right and you're wrong' game and with that mentality it's sort of pointless being here, i don't see the point in yet another massive back and forth with you that just ends in you going 'i don't care' cuz it's just a waste of my time.

Or sillier still, suddenly going into 4 yr old throwing your toys out of the pram mode and ridiculous name calling of musicians thats neither you or I have ever met.

You strike me as someone who doesn't know enough about this topic to make it worth having a discussion with, we've done this a million times and a million times it's had the same result, you not being able to back up any assertion adequately and then throwing a tantrum when you've nowhere left to go, it's just boring.

If you were actually interested in a discussion, if it was possible for you to budge and inch on what you feel or you even wanted to give something a chance or maybe had something interesting to add then it would be something different but it's not, for you it's some kinda pit your wits against the other guy thing and no offence but you're not really well equipped in that regard, thank you.

A lot of these younger people will never be able to understand punk as expression. It's not the same thing as protesting the war. Punk is a FUCK YOU to what is expected. The punk scene in the 80's will never be recreated due to the commercialization of punk/club fashion. Not that fashion is the movement but it was an identifier. Greenday isn't punk in any way I understand punk but I never gave them a chance. That other band around their time with the mohawk guy seemed more punk to be. Saw them open for Iggy. One requirement of punk is the one or near all of the members be certifiably bonkers.

Green Day never said they were a punk band, they came from a punk scene and musically had more in common with power pop bands. The Buzzcocks, Generation X & The Jam had tons of songs with hooks.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I dont think having hooks was ever the issue.