Talk:Punk rock

Issues/Suggestions

I don't envy anyone writing about "punk". I have a few issues/suggestions:

(1) Philosophy/Visual Presentation-This section seems to define the music (punk was a media created label after all) too narrowly. If the purpose of punk bands was initially to get back to basics, then why did so many of punks original practitioners immediately branch out into a broader spectrum of music? The Clash, Blondie, the Talking Heads, John Lydon, even Television from their debut to the recorded version of the band, did not stick to minimalism. The Ramones themselves even went through a period of experimentation ("Baby I Love You", with string instruments). If minimalism was ever the point (maybe more the means than the end itself), every single first wave punk act quickly moved beyond it. In that case maybe it never was the point. I'm not sure some of the sources, such as the editor of Punk magazine, are that reliable on the subject.

The discussion of philosophy and visual presentation also reflects that British side of things over the NY side of it. But there was a substantial distinction in the politicized nature of the music, the overarching musical philosophies involved, and the fashions. For years, for example, the Ramones were not considered a punk band because they did not fit the British version seemingly in attitude and visual presentation; the variation between the scenes needs to be reflected. Punk fashion in the article is really British punk fashion.

The same point could be made about the discussion of female punk artists. I agree with the characterization but in sticking too narrowly to the superficial British version (ie, that a punk performer needs to wear safety pins and bondage outfits, etc.), some of the bigger female punk influences, such as Debbie Harry, who also transgressed traditional female roles in popular music and who probably had a bigger impact in the US and UK than all the other female artists listed combined, arbitrarily gets excluded from the discussion.

(2) New York Scene-The traditional Television centered story doesn't really hold up. The Magic Tramps, Suicide, The Fast and Wayne County all played CBGBs (then called Hilly's on the Bowery) in 1972/73. (See the book "All Hopped Up And Ready To Go"). And can you really draw a line between the Dolls and the punk scene? All of the so-called NY punk bands were connected to the Mercer Arts Center scene that developed around the Dolls. The Ramones even began as a glitter band. Television is at the core of CBGBs becoming a major punk venue-The Stilletoes knew members of Television and started gigging with them; Chris Stein and Debbie Harry knew Tommy Ramone and the Ramones came in; Patti Smith was also drawn in. But there was a whole scene around and predating the CBGBs scene.

I also think the claim the Hey Joe/Piss Factory is the first punk record is suspect. Overlooking recordings by the Dolls, I'm not sure it fits as a punk recording. On this point a label biography is not a strong source.

Finally, and this again speaks to the narrowness of how punk is defined in the article, bands like Blondie and the Talking Heads get very little written about them while the article is heavy on the Ramones, Television, Richard Hell and Patti Smith. This reflects the preoccupations of music writers more than historical accuracy. In their heydey Blondie and the Talking Heads had a huge global impact. Ignoring them (something that writers like Clinton Heylin did not do in his published history of the US punk scene) creates a distorted picture.

(3) Pop Punk-On this same point, how did the Ramones "pave the way" for pop punk when their contemporary, Blondie, which was always being assailed for its pop tendencies, is not even mentioned. It's very hard to listen to the first two Blondie albums and not see the connection to pop punk. And Blondie had a much bigger musical impact; the Buzzcocks even opened for them on the 1978 UK tour. I realize a music writer may have written that, but the claim doesn't withstand much scrutiny, certainly not enough to justify a very strong claim that the Ramones "paved the way" regarding this style of music.

Again a very tough subject, but maybe these are bases for some improvement.Alexhaniha (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

CBGBs chronology

The problem with CBGBs chronology is that there are always priority issues. Overlooking the point I made above about bands like the Magic Tramps (there is a gig flyer that anyone can find on the internet for this gig, which Blondie's Chris Stein, a friend and roommate of Eric Emerson and sometimes guitar player in the Magic Tramps, attended), and using Television as a starting point, the punk chronology goes Television->Stilletoes (which became Blondie-they were called Angel and the Snake only for two gigs)->Ramones. It is indisputable that the Ramones opened for Blondie/Angel and the Snake the same way that the Stilletoes were playing in support of Television. Both Tommy and Dee Dee Ramone are on record as saying that in books like On the Road with the Ramones and (if I recall accurately) Kozak's CBGBs history This Ain't No Disco and/or the the American Band Ramones biography. But Tommy Ramone's exact quote in On The Road is: "A couple of months after I started playing drums, we started playing shows. The first gig was at CBGB, opening for Blondie, who were called Angel and the Snake." But not really making an issue of that (I always wonder if you can be an opening act when there are 10 people in the building), the Stilletoes should be mentioned for an accurate CBGBs punk chronology, which the Heylin and Kozak books document effectively.Alexhaniha (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It was the Roman Kozak book. Dee Dee Ramone is quoted on page 25 as follows: "The first club we played was CBGB. Chris Stein and Deborah Harry were our friends and they got us the job there, opening up for them in 1974."Alexhaniha (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• (1) I'd eyeballed three sources when I copied the August 16, 1974, passage: Tommy does say "opened" in the source you've adduced; Dee Dee says merely "played with" in his memoir Lobotomy with Veronica Kofman; punk historian George Gimarc—who gives the most detailed account of the gig I have found—writes nothing to indicate that the Ramones played as an opening act. You've added a second description of "opening" from Dee Dee and my guess is that's accurate, but it is not "indisputable." I'd like to see one more strong, independent source stating it before we make that determination.

• (2) This is not the article on CBGB and does not profess to give a complete chronology of the club. Nor is it the article on Blondie and does not profess to give a complete history of the band. The Stilletos are simply not central to an understanding of the article's subject, punk rock, and their inclusion in the section, I believe, would do more to muddy it than to improve it. Many overview histories of punk much longer than this one ignore them entirely, as this one can comfortably continue to do.—DCGeist (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Anya Philips in Heylin's From The Velvets to the Voidoids and who was at the club on the August 16, 1974 is also directly quoted as saying the the Ramones opened for Blondie/Angel and the Snake. So we have two band members and someone in the audience. The Gimarc book is not detailed at all, simply ignores who opened for who (someone had to), and there isn't even the slightest indication he was present. (The entry for the same day about a Tiger Lily's performance in London provides the exact same level of "detail"). And the Kozak book was from 1988, closer in time to events than Lobotomy. And no one seems to dispute that the Stilletoes were playing in support of Television, the same way the Magic Tramps had played in support of two jazz acts in October, 1972. Even as a logical matter it makes perfect sense; the Stilletoes/Blondie already had ties to the club while it was the Ramones' first official gig outside of playing as a three piece band at Performance Studio in March, 1974. This article should strive to be as objective as possible (Isn't that the point of an encyclopedia?) and not degenerate into jockeying for position for the respective band's prestige. (Is Patti Smith being in the audience so vital, or did Heylin, a big Patti Smith fan, emphasize it to try to give her the earliest possible tie to a club that is identified as the epicenter of the NYC punk scene?) The story of Television "discovering" CBGBs (overlooking that bands were already playing other venues like Club 82, Kenny's Castaways and Coventry) is relevant only because it shows how CBGBs became a punk venue. In that case, the chronology should be accurate in describing how Television brought in the Stilletoes, the Stilletoes/Blondie brought in the Ramones, etc. This is merely the accurate story of how the scene was built, and the emphasis of certain aspects over others seems arbitrary. Your rationale that the inclusion of such a simple factoid would "muddy the waters" is difficult to understand. How? And since you mention other histories, such as they are, it bears noting that by giving a distorted and overly restrictive interpretation of "punk", these histories opened the door for people like Simon Reynolds to completely bury the genre as backward looking and conservative. The hilarious irony is that the bands that got trashed for breaking with "punk" orthodoxy, such as Blondie and the Clash, and the bands that were pushed to the sidelines, like the Talking Heads, wind up saving the genre from the trash heap of history. That said, this is not a history with all the usual selections but an encyclopedia entry. If the article includes a section about CBGbs becoming a punk venue, there is no harm in making the section accurate. At least I can't see it, but Wikipedia never fails to distinguish itself. It should be noted in any event that the Gimarc book mentioned the Stilletoes, as did the Heylin book, the Kozak book and All Hopped Up. And all the histories mention Blondie, which was (circa 1974) the Stilletoes (Harry, Stein, O'Connor, Smith) minus the two additional female singers. If info is supplemented about Blondie then the Stilletoes are a very brief part of the package in giving the band background. Alexhaniha (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Punk aesthetic" needed as subtopic in this article

This article explains the philosophy (!) of punk rock, but what it really needs, in my opinion, is an explanation of the punk aesthetic. Punk, at least when subgenres of music is the topic, is an art form. Art forms all have an aesthetic, certain qualities that characterize them. What is the punk aesthetic? Rough-edged? I don't really know, but there must be a book that explains it that could be quoted in this article.

Without a discussion of the punk aesthetic, one would have to conclude that "punk" is a catchall term that rock bands and rock critics attach to musical forms without giving it very much thought. What do these subgenres have in common:

pop punk, cyberpunk, hardcore punk, garage punk, proto-punk, Christian punk, celtic punk, post-punk, anarcho-punk, daft punk, ska punk, dance-punk, art punk, glam punk, crust punk, horror punk, punk jazz, punk metal, nazi punk, Punk pathetique (Ha!), noise punk, cowpunk, Guerrilla punk, folk punk...

If you can answer this question, you will have an explanation of the punk aesthetic. 207.158.4.90 (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Drum and bass is heavily influenced BY Punk Rock

It's not about proof that it is... you can hear it in Many a drum and bass song. So I have no idea why you people think I am vandalizing the article.... Me coming from being a punker and then delving deep into Electronic Dance Music, I can safely say that drum and bass is Punk rock incarnate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.40.65 (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You will need a wp:reliable source to support this. DVdm (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What other source do I need besides the music? The drum beats and basslines in alot of Drum and BASS could be considered punk riffs and beats........ sooo I have no idea why you are trying to rain on my parade... I thought wikipedia was supposed to be about this kind of shit. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_hardcore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.40.65 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey. While there is a good chance that this is true, for inclusion on wikipedia we need for a high quality source to confirm this. This seems counterintuitive at first, but its the way we insure that what is printed here is correct. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 20:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Also note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself. See wp:CIRCULAR. DVdm (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

76.115.40.65, your initial comment above is a classic case of Wikipedia:No original research ("It's not about proof ... you can hear it ... I can safely say"). The standard on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; That is, that a claim can be backed up by a reliable, published source, not simply that you believe it to be true. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

well then I'll add an influence part for that part of the article... that's all i want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.40.65 (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're quite getting it: What you need to do is cite reliable secondary sources to verify these claims. If you just add unsourced text to the article in order to justify adding "drum and bass" to the infobox, it's just going to be reverted again. Go look for some reliable sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Punk Metal

Why is the article Punk metal deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkswede (talk • contribs) 14:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I found 2 AfD for "punk metal": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punk Metal (2005) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punk metal (2007). Looking at the page logs, it appears to have been prodded about 6 week ago. Crossover thrash appears to be the relevant extant article. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That punk metal would be the same thing as crossover thrash doesn't really make any sense to me. Crossover thrash is a fusion genre between thrash metal and hardcore punk, punk metal is an umbrella term used to describe crossover thrash, grindcore, crust punk etc. --Punkswede (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} that was the biggest issue with both times the article went through a deletion process. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No Wave

needs to be mentionedMidnightCrisis (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is. Three times. DocKino (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

DocKino FTW. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)