Yeah, kick & spit, but when we cook it all the way down it is:
Before and After Pistols.
Ghost-pal; believe ya slightly too young to appreciate the original punk rock..
Once yer heart were there, it doesnt leave pure punk rock.
Sid tearin' My Way apart was just spot on!

We saw Sid on my pal Anders' rock and roll café, got ourselves a HUGE
damejeanne of wine & drank ourselves half unconsious.. And then it rolled on...

Punk rock movement first hand experiences ya can never take away from us.

It was NOT created, it was a torch, a-waitin' to blast & it did.

Ghost, sure I was too young to check in 77/78 what was really going on,
didn´t have any idea of that movement and the meaning,I was a teen !

But nowadays with some background and experience I judge it My Way (what a smash!)
Glad YOU survived it

Werent we all teens back then? The punkiest of'em were like 12-13-14..
Pizzoar - Veckopressen (reunion concert 2003)

Quote
Nikolai

And yes, The Stranglers - mean, dark, brooding muthas. Cracking group. Saw them numerous times with Cornwell. One of the best times was when they supported The Who at Wembley Stadium. Played most of The Raven and actually topped The Who.

Yes, that Wembley gig, supporting the Who, was brilliant!

I thought AC/DC were amazing that day as well.

Hoho,pass the boomerang.........

Quote
GhostMonkeysInTheSkies
Ghost-pal; believe ya slightly too young to appreciate the original punk rock..
Once yer heart were there, it doesnt leave pure punk rock.
Sid tearin' My Way apart was just spot on!

I can understand why punk meant so much to kids of the late 70's - it was a living embodiment of what they wanted to do to "You Light Up My Life", just like Little Richard kicked "How Much Is That Doggy in The Window" right in the ass (pardon me if I'm not spot-on with the songs and the eras).

KIds were sick of crappy pop radio and were disillusioned by the rock "dinosaurs" and prog "rock". They wanted something that was theirs, something that spoke for them, and for a lot of kids, punk was it (for others it was Metal, and believe it or not, for some it was Disco).

When I was a child (like a little little kid - right after Punk) Hip Hop was the most exciting thing in the world, when I was a teenager, all of my friends got into grunge - because it was a reaction to Hair Metal and sounded (and, more importantly, looked) like rock n roll. I never cared for Grunge, but a few years before Grunge, I was excited by the Manchester groups (at least The Stone Roses & The Mondays) as well as groups like The Pixies, The Replacements and Black Crowes - bands that I thought were keepers of the flame.

I think my relationship with Hip hop explains it best though. I grew disillusioned with Hip Hop in the early 90's when it, just like Rock N Roll before it, became commodified. A wonderful thing happened to Hip Hop in 1993/1994 though - a whole new crop of artists who were just as fed up as us kids were about how lousy Hip Hop had become, came out and breathed new life into the game and saved it (at least for a little while). I remember that excitement - hearing the first Wu Tang records, the first Biggie and Nas records - so I can understand the excitement and importance of a genre being reborn (like Rock was reborn with the Punk movement - just when you thought and feared it was dead).

The excitement fades with time though, and all we're left with is the music; and for me, most of the music just don't make it.

I tend to prefer what came after Punk (The Clash after they were a Punk band were a million times better than they were on the first 2 records, PiL is miles beyond The Pistols), and the DIY spirit of Punk - which reminded kids all over the world that this thing, this rock n roll, was theirs - it was their birthright and their responsibility.

..and then they forgot all over again.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-04 00:46 by The Ghost Of Good taste.

Quote
shortfatfanny

So I think Mathijs create some artificial contradiction which never existed.

That could be, I don't know. I did not experience punk until about '85, and that was mostly American bands. So the feeling I have mainly stems from a retrospective point of view.

Mathijs

Dear Ghost,

you wrote

"The Sex Pistols helped lead to the commodification and death of Punk, they had nothing to do with creating it. You Sid/Pistols as-punk-architects champions have heard of NYC, right?

The Pistols weren't (outside of Johnny) even really a Punk band - they were like a crappy NY Dolls cover band with a very original and creative singer."

In the UK it all started, circa. September '76?, with Pistols. They lead the way, held the torch - but Sid had nothing to do with it - he tagged on as the ship was about to sink. Early Clash (who saw the Pistols in 76) still had long hair - not the Pistols.

I think that the first two Clash albums had the MOST 'substance'. Forthright gutsy integrity - rawness.

I like their later albums but like other acts they were starting to develop musically and got a broader appeal. Nothing wrong with that. They kept their integrity. But the sheer intensive blast of their first album - so well produced too ... that's what I meant by substance. They really cared.

They weren't singing about being too drunk to fornicate.

"American Punk had the Patty Smith Group .. nothing more needs to be said"

Nothing more needs to be said?!!

Yeah well, most in the UK, myself included, didn't consider her punk... (of an older generation for a start) but an interesting addition to a vibrant scene. And she WORSHIPPED Keith. Most punks (at least publicly) would have had no time for our Keith, (to put it mildly). I read pretty scathing comments from younger acts (including US ones I think) about old Patti/y. But most here in UK enjoyed Horses. But she, and other American acts didn't really rock our world. There was just too much good native stuff to relate to that did.

The first two sentences of your last post sum up things pretty well though.

ps early Jam were just as arresting as those in the 'not so sharply dressed' brigade.

Essentially, guitar music sounded exciting again.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-04 02:48 by Four Stone Walls.

yeah, cosmo, I think that if we just listen to the music today, we underrate the Pistols' impact, at least in the UK. From what I understand, that's where the DIY thing started. Even if that's somewhat a misunderstanding, as their album is very expensively produced, the fact that they were anti-virtuosic and Johnny would say from the stage, "We're no different from you, you're just lazy," inspired many bands, even--maybe especially--ones that didn't end up sounding much like the Pistols.

Sid's role in all this I'm not too clear on, and not that interested.

I remember punk first-hand as a teenager in the '70s, from Kentucky no less. I can assure you the Sex Pistols meant a great deal here. Whether they meant as much as in the UK I can't say, but they were huge, not in sales or airplay, but everyone knew who they were and what they were about.

I totally appreciate where you all are coming from - and, since some of you were "there", you definitely get the spirit of it more than I.

I do think it was The Ramones who were the prime movers though, not the Pistols; and I agree FSW, Patti Smith isn't/wasn't punk musically, but she embodied that same spirit...and, as far as the Jam - I must say, Ilove their cover of "Move On Up" - now that's excitement.


cc - I don't think The Pistols had much impact musically - as I said, other than Johnny, they were The Dolls sans drag. I do love the "we're no different from you..." quote, and perhaps that DIY message (though it had been tacitly expressed by The Stooges, MC5, Velvets [though VU also had an air of "we're so much better and cooler than you" about them - which is part of their charm]) was their biggest contribution. Like I wrote earlier in the thread, they did help remind kids that Rock N Roll was theirs to do with what thhey pleased - if it died, it was the kids' fault. Patti Smith (and no, I don't work for Patti) said it at the end of the PSG's version of "My Generation" (which, by the way, is a burner): "We created it, let's take it over."

I guess it comes down to the same reason I find the Beatles wanting - I get why they were important socially, culturally, etc to their generation, but for me , the music just doesn't cut it; and the music is all that matters.

I must add, I feel very fortunate to be a part of this board precisely for discussions like this. I wasn't "there"; and it's a blessing to be able to converse with those of you who were - to get more of a flavor for the times, and to get a deeper understanding than I ever would from a book or film. Thanks, guys.

That said, I still find Punk to be a very shallow pool.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-04 02:42 by The Ghost Of Good taste.

Quote
The Ghost Of Good taste
perhaps that DIY message (though it had been tacitly expressed by The Stooges, MC5, Velvets [though VU also had an air of "we're so much better and cooler than you" about them - which is part of their charm]) was their biggest contribution.

right... but who in the UK, besides the members of the Sex Pistols, had actually heard these groups? That's what I mean when I say we can't just look at the pantheon of now-famous bands, but have to try to consider what was happening as it happened. And the Pistols had a much bigger impact, again especially in the UK, where they were like a pop band, than those groups, which were "cult" acts (at best) on both sides, as were the Dolls, and as were the Pistols in the US.

p.s. I didn't really grasp what I wrote in the above paragraph before reading posts by firsthand observers here--so thanks from me too!

Fe true, cc.

EDIT:
Another benefit of being on this board is getting an "outside of America" perspective, which I really appreciate.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-04 03:00 by The Ghost Of Good taste.

Thanks Ghost - we won't fall out over how important the Pistols were. Musically, just as tight and forceful as early Rolling Stones + a danger factor.
(i would have seen them in Bristol but the club burnt down a few days before they were due).


"the Beatles ....... their music just doesn't cut it"!!!

Heck, I better throw my warn-out copies of Abbey Raod and the White Album in the bin then.

I thought he was a poser and loser. His old lady brought him down. He was a replacement player. Sad way to go out. Does anybody miss him??

He was an idiot who happened to get more than his 15 minutes of fame.

I think the American punk movement was more violent 'cause
they read that the British punk movement was supposed to be violent.
Doesn't matter if it was or wasn't, that's the way it was reported.
So with the homegrown bands like Black Flag, etc, the violence just escalated.
Kind of like, to paraphrase Frank Zappa, "Well, here's another
dumb thing we can imitate."
Also, for some strange reason, anything that came out of England
for the next few years was considered punk/New Wave: Elvis Costello,
The Pretenders, etc...

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
Nikolai

And yes, The Stranglers - mean, dark, brooding muthas. Cracking group. Saw them numerous times with Cornwell. One of the best times was when they supported The Who at Wembley Stadium. Played most of The Raven and actually topped The Who.

Yes, that Wembley gig, supporting the Who, was brilliant!

I thought AC/DC were amazing that day as well.

Yeah they were. They did a lot of stuff from Back in Black.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
shortfatfanny

So I think Mathijs create some artificial contradiction which never existed.

That could be, I don't know. I did not experience punk until about '85, and that was mostly American bands. So the feeling I have mainly stems from a retrospective point of view.

Mathijs

Mathijs, sir, for that admission, you owe me a comb!

Let's not forget these guys (from Australia 1977):







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-04 10:51 by terraplane.

Sid died for somebody's sins, but not mine!

Quote
Mathijs

The Stones reached stardom long before they started to become a really good band. They reached stardom because they had long hair and were a threat to our daughters, they were rebelious and nothing else.


ps it must be said that punk always is and has been very European, it's not not American in any way. Went it reached America it became violent and then it was over.

Two distinct claims, a false and a true one.

First: The Stones were a really good band before their stardom. The "nothing else" is the best possible chemistry between the drummer, the bass player, the guitars and the vocals ever to be found. That's their magic and all the rest is just build up on that foundation. I am sure the best possible gigs The Stones EVER did was in their Richmond days. The performances in 1964/65 NME poll winners concerts are among the most exciting ones ever captured. Even today, when the band very rarely 'clicks' that is to find the special vital chemistry they used to have in their very early days (see, for example, the opening number of "Little Queenie" in Double Door '97). That is which makes this band as great as it is: to excite their audience by the noise of their group effort. The good songs Mick and Keith wrote or the classical recordings they achieved in studio, would be nothing without this foundation.

Second: A punk rock is European, and especially a British thing. To a degree it is equal to the birth of 60's rock music. Of course, the influences do come from America but the Europeans made the coctail out of it that opened a whole new book in the story of the rock. In a way, the British bands from The Beatles and the Stones to The Who, Cream, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin created the whole idea of modern rock. It is not a co-incidence that two biggest and most talented names of US 60's rock music literally needed the British kick to make rock history. Dylan turned to electric due the example of bands like The Animals and The Stones, and Jimi Hendrix needed to go to England to find his own voice. I don't know what it was with these post-war, big-eared, art school rebelling British white kids like John Lennon or Keith Richards or Pete Townshead who loved Elvis and Chuck Berry and things like that but for reason or other they created things out of American raw material that I think never could have been achieved by the Americans themselves. Perhaps it was the distance from the actual roots and a different socio-political-cultural-whatever context that caused them to make their own interpration of the "devil's music".

With the punk movement there is a lot or reminscant of the same. The impact of, say, Ramones, to the British punk scene, was surely marvellous but I think what The Pistols and The Clash did was something different - they added something very crucial to the coctail that really gave it the form. Of course, we can retrospectively find 'roots' to punk in MC 5, The Stooges, New York Dolls, etc. but I think something crucial is still left untraced - the actual thing what makes it as distinctive as it really is. It is like trying to find The Rolling Stones in Muddy Waters's Chicago blues band or in the 50's records of Chuck Berry - we will find a lot 'familiar' but not the actual sound. The little difference is the thing that matters.

[I need to add that my take on punk is quite biased - it is the sort of music that turned me on to rock music in my early teenage years, and I still can somehow remember the impact it had on me and what it was so great in it (I can still recognize the punk element, so to say). And that was the British 'version' that took over here in Finland, and inspired hundreds of local bands to play their own angry, political, rebellous fast two-minute, three-chord wonders with ATTITUDE. It was a HUGE movement (including own magazines and record labels, etc.), and changed the name of the game quite dramatically.]

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-04 15:22 by Doxa.

Hey Glam Descendant, dont copy my posts

Quote
terraplane
Let's not forget these guys (from Australia 1977):

THE (MIGHTY) SAINTS!!!!!!

CRACKING GROUP!!!!

To continue a bit speculation about the 'European flavor' of the punk movement - there is one dimension that is not perhaps so flexible to American audiences. Namely, part of it is the localism - to stress one's political and particular context and to use one's native language. The political message - or just to express frustration - was such a crucual thing of the music that the suitable medium - a native language - was needed to get it through. Before that most of 'serious' Finnish bands were singing in English because that was the international language of rock and roll. The punk movement also said 'fvck off' to this idea, and it resulted as the birth of Finnish rock lyricism. I guess there are similar tendencies in other European countries.

To give an idea what I talk about, here is a clip of typical late 70's Finnish punk - you can hear and see the clear Pistols influences, but take care also singer's flag shirt...





- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-04 15:50 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
To a degree it is equal to the birth of 60's rock music. Of course, the influences do come from America but the Europeans made the coctail out of it that opened a whole new book in the story of the rock. In a way, the British bands from The Beatles and the Stones to The Who, Cream, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin created the whole idea of modern rock. It is not a co-incidence that two biggest and most talented names of US 60's rock music literally needed the British kick to make rock history. Dylan turned to electric due the example of bands like The Animals and The Stones, and Jimi Hendrix needed to go to England to find his own voice. I don't know what it was with these post-war, big-eared, art school rebelling British white kids like John Lennon or Keith Richards or Pete Townshead who loved Elvis and Chuck Berry and things like that but for reason or other they created things out of American raw material that I think never could have been achieved by the Americans themselves. - Doxa

I take exception to quite a bit of this conceit.

I will try to limit the scope of my rebuttal to the worth of these artists' output in the 60's (though I'll include The Stooges - since you included Zeppelin).

Bob Dylan recorded electric sides at his earliest recording sessions, and was influenced by Chicago Blues and early rock n roll. Dylan didn't go electric because of The Animals, Dylan went electric because the sound he heard in his head demanded electricity. Now, maybe hearing the electric British groups helped steel him, but he didn't hear "House Of The Rising Sun" (which was cribbed from Dylan's arrangement [which, itself, was cribbed from Dave Van Ronk's arrangement]), and say "electricity is where it's at!" Dylan was a leader, not a follower. Dylan blazed his own trail, and a million lesser lights followed him. It was because of Dylan, that Rock songwriters (yes, even European ones) saw that they could do something more than the "Moon/June/Spoon" thing in popular music.

Bob Dylan "created things out of American raw material", tore the world wide open, and shut down after '66, leaving the English bands (and everybody else) to flail about in a new world he had made. He gave them a map to follow. Without Dylan, the Beatles never get beyond wanting to hold your hand.

I also can't accept that Jimi Hendrix was one of the 2 most talented American musicians of the 60's. I've gotta go with Lou Reed, Smokey Robinson, Marvin Gaye, Otis, Sam Cooke, Aretha Franklin, John Fogerty, Bobby Womack, Waylon, Curtis Mayfield, Sly Stone...

...and let's not forget that James Brown guy - he sort of invented a whole new style of music - though, I suppose we can "thank" some of the British bands for the interminable guitar wanks and inpenetrable virtuosity that led to prog rock. I for one choose to condemn rather than thank.

As far as bands, (just in the "rock" genre), I'd take the Doors, CCR, The Stooges, Sly & The Family Stone, The Velvet Underground, The Coasters, & The Band and put them up against any group of British bands.

As far as songwriters, I would be glad to compare the output of Dylan, Smokey, Sam Cooke, Fogerty, Lieber & Stoller and Lou Reed in the 60's to any Non-American songwriters.

As far as guitar players, give Me Duane Allman, Steve Cropper, Hubert Sumlin, Hendrix. Who you got? Clapton? Clapton would crawl 3 miles, buck naked on broken glass to suck Hubert Sumlin's d@#$...and he'd tell you as much.

As far as musicians, there wasn't a dream band or supergroup you could build like some Anglorock Frankenstein's monster that could hang for a minute with Booker T & The MGs, The Meters, The Motown band, The Muscle Shoals Rhythm section.

Groundbreakers? In the 60's, James Brown invented funk, The Flying Burrito Bros codified country rock, Dylan set the template for the singer-songwriter, Sly Stone brought R&B back to rock n roll and put Soul (and horns) back into Rock music, The Stooges, Velvets & Doors set the stage for Punk...hell, it was the CIA that invented LSD and loosed it on the public; so, in a way, you could say that Americans helped create The Beatles too.

You want legends? Elvis. Muddy. Wolf. JB. Dylan. Aretha. Sly. Otis. The whole Stax & Motown rosters, the endless list of brilliant New Orleans musicians...

I won't even begin to compare American singers to British singers because America's clear-cut superiority needs no discussion. George Jones. Aretha (again). I could go on, but , as I wrote, no real need.

Now, none of this is to say that I don't care for the European artists of the 60's. I love The Stones, The Who, Zeppelin, Gainsbourg, and a bunch more; but to say that the English bands of the 60's were in any way superior to the Americans, or that the Americans could never have "achieved modern rock", is pure folly.

I'll close by paraphrasing the poet, addressing the confused and dismayed European press about his new electric sound: "this is American music, you've probably never heard American music before..."

When the British folkies yelled "Judas!", Bobby D turned to his band and yelled "play f@#$in' loud!"



EDIT:
Phil Spector too, he wasn't too shabby...and, even though I don't particularly care for The Beach Boys, Brian Wilson was undeniably important and innovative.

Plus, edited for spelling.





Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-04 18:53 by The Ghost Of Good taste.

he wasn't even plugged in most of the time (i heard)
he's an icon although he didnt deliver anything....interesting!

The Ghost of Good Taste, with respect, I think you didn't get what I tried to say in my post. Most of all, I use the term "rock" in much narrower sense than you do. For example, I don't consider most of the great artists you mention, such as James Brown, Aretha Franklin or Hubert Sumlin, as "rock artists". I think the birth of 60's rock was partly a happy co-incidence of these British guys trying to copy the great American artists - they never succeed but happened to create something of their own. The Stones were perhaps the best example of these not really hitting the right target but to come up something of their own instead. A guy like Eric Clapton was a blues purist, but in few years he had transformed everything he had learned from Freddy King and co into form of Cream. Also the same argument goes for bands like Led Zeppelin that would create their blend of blues that would be the base of hard rock for decades to come. Then there were hopeless r&b bands like Pink Floyd and Black Sabbath who would transform their musical inabilities to quite different directions. All of these people gathered a group of followers in different genres. Of course, above of any artist there were a group from Liverpool that would effect to any rock music done in the 60's. The greatness of Jimi Hendrix was partly due the fact that beat the British guys with their own weapons: he showed what really can be done in those resources they had created there. His band, actually, was an English band - as Brian Jones welcomed him at Monterey.

The reason I mentioned Dylan and Hendrix tis that I think no-one really debutes their inflentual role in the 60's rock scene - I don't care a shit if someone think Lou Reed or Sly Stone is more talented than either of them. I personally think that Jimi Hendrix is the most talented musician ever coming out of rock scene (but that is just my personal opinion). What goes for Dylan's uniqueness. I wholeheartily think that he is the best song-writer of our time, but like with any with geniouses from Einstein to Mozart no one starts out of blue - you seemed to indicate something like that. I personally find it amusing that Dylan - a human - listened to The Beatles and the rest of British bands with an open ear and I am certain that the idea of leaving the folk scene - positively 4th street an all - was much to do with a to find new audiences, and in fact, to be a rock or pop star. Of course, he was a rocker by heart, done electric stuff stuff already, but the true impulse came from this new world of hot rhythm'n'blues and rock stars who had shown what can be done with the legacy of great Chicago artists - like some critic described his new electrified music at the time: "Immanuel Kant meets The Rolling Stones". Anyway, the result was that Dylan relaesed some of the most important rock albums of the decade. And without these releases Dylan's actual role in the history of rock music has been not as huge as it today; he needed to reach out from the folk circles to REALLY make it big time (without his influence would have reminded quite indirect - he wrote a couple of great folk classics that, of course, were important in their own terms). It was as much the result of oppurtunism, following the trends as it was of creative impulse.

All in all, I didn't discuss the superioty of English music over American - I just reminded that historically speaking - when the spirit of rock and roll moved from The States to Britain - something crucial happened. That was really what happened when the 50's music was brought into 60's. If we only talk about the "legends" or "big names", let's put it this way: two most important rock and roll bands of the world of anytime, anywhere, by any criteria - The Beatles and The Rolling Stones - happened to be 60's British bands. There is no one superior to them. You can not underestimate THAT influence to rock music.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-04 19:23 by Doxa.

I appreciate the thoughtful post, Doxa; and I agree with a good deal of it (and I always appreciate it when people not only recognize, but state, that something is just their opinion - even though I sometimes read as though I feel I am the final authority, I certainly recognize that thess are only my opinions too).


As far as Dylan though, not only did he record electric stuff early on ("Rocks And Gravel" in 1962 sounds a fair bit like his later "Thin Wild Mercury" sound - bear in mind, this was in April '62, when Pete Best was still The Beatles' drummer, and Dylan had certainly never heard of or heard them), but his decision to electrify was quite possibly influenced not by the British bands, but by John Hammond, Jr - a folk/Blues artist who had "gone electric" in '63 (with some of the Hawks* actually). An American. The other possible story of how and why Bob decided to go electric (the one told by Mary Martin - who introduced Bob to The Hawks), is that he heard the cover of "Mr Tambourine Man" by The Byrds. An American Band.

I also didn't mean to imply that Dylan burst fully formed from the head of the Goddess, he certainly stood on the shoulders of others, but those others were Americans. His influence on The Stones & The Beatles was far far greater than theirs on him.

I must disagree about The Beatles & Stones being the two most important rock and roll bands - I don't consider The Beatles rock n roll (as they don't really ever rock, and they most certainly never roll). Again, opinion.

I included Smokey and JB and Aretha and Hubert and Otis as rock n roll because, in my opinion they are far more "rock n roll" than The Beatles - all of them roll, no doubt, and The Godfather, Otis and The Wolf certainly rock on occasion.

I also don't think the spirit of rock n roll ever moved from America to the UK - it may have spread from the US to the UK, but it never ever left America.

Again, I really do love the thoughtful post, and thank you for taking the time. This is great fun.


*The Band in an earlier incarnation





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-04 19:55 by The Ghost Of Good taste.

I would assert that a great many UK bands, in the sixties particularly, where responsible for authenticating whatever american influences they could lay their hands upon, and giving that music a purpose and attitude that it was crying out for. In doing so, they provided a type of music that kids the world over could identify with; hence the popularistion of bands such as the Beatles and the Stones.

Where did that attitude come from?

The streets.

...and still does.