Talk:Punk rock

Ed Sanders March 22nd, 1970

I'd like to bring up the issue of Ed Sanders usage of the term 'punk rock' in the Chicago Tribune, dated March 22nd, 1970. This is already included in the article, but I'd like to hear from Garagepunk66 and others how this usage fits or doesn't fit with other critics usage in the period between 1971-1974 (the period when punk rock was used to describe the garage rock bands of the 60s). Since he was describing his own solo record, his usage seems out of place with the other, later critics. Xsxex (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Heavy Metal & Hard Rock as Influences?

Several Heavy Metal/Hard Rock Songs such as Paranoid by Black Sabbath, I'm Eighteen by Alice Cooper and Communication Breakdownby Led Zeppelin, can be labeled as Proto-Punk. Also, Early Heavy Metal bands like Deep Purple were labeled as part of the Freak scene, a Post-Hippie, Pre-Punk Movement. All of this same information can be found on the linked pages. This all leads to the idea that Heavy Metal was one of the Many influences of Punk Rock that led to the Genre's creation, The genre isn't the direct fore father of Punk ,but one of the many influences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.38.58 (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

on any/all of that. Just a bunch of your own analysis and opinions. Unsuitable for inclusion. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that heavy metal influenced punk first. Quite the reverse. Punk influenced heavy metal first. Punk is an older form of rock. See my post about garage rock down below. In the early 70's Dave Marsh, Lester Banngs, and Lenny Kaye wrote about what we now call the garage rock of the mid 60's as being "punk rock." This was long before The Ramones and The Sex Pistols (by the way, I think that Creem magazine was also the first to use the term "heavy metal"). If my claim that punk influenced heavy metal first sounds ridicuous, then try this: Go to Youtube and look up "1966 Heavy Metal." You might find a few things, but not much, other than maybe a few songs Cream's first album (they were more acid rock or proto-metal; they have never been referred to as heavy metal in the rock critical community). Then look up "1966 Punk." You will come up with hundreds of songs!!! Then go check out these: "Voices Green and Purple," by the Bees (1966), "The World Ain't Round, It's Square," by The Savages, "Destination Lonely," by The Huns (1966), "We're Pretty Quick,' by the Chob (1967), "1523 Blair," by The Outcasts (1966), "I'm Movin' On" and "From a Curbstone," by Evil (1966), "Project Blue," by The Banshees (1966), "Circuit Breaker", by The Pastels (1965), "The Courtsheip of Rapunzel," by The Bruthers (1966), "Rats' Revenge," by The Rats (1963, while Kennedy was still presedent!!!). Holy Cow! Punk rock 1963-1967!!! And the list goes on and on. Randy Holden played in the garage band (i.e. punk band), The Sons of Adam up through the first half of 1966, then he went to play in another garage(i.e. punk) band, The Other Half, later that year. He later went on to play in Blue Cheer (the first true heavy metal band) for a brief time. Many of the first American heavy metal musicians had played in garage (i.e. punk) bands. Punk influenced heavy metal first. Early, formative years: Punk (1963-1967); Heavy Metal (1968-1972)Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Punk started in early to mid-1960's, not the mid-70's

The assertion that punk started in the mid-1970's is factually innacurate and should be modified to "in its most currently recognizable form," (I stated something similar to that in my insertion), because the name was first used in publications by Dave Marsh (Creem Magazine. May, 1971) and Lenny Kaye (later in the Patti Smith Group) (original liner notes to Nuggets compilation, Electra, 1972) to describe what we now call the garage rock of 1963-1967. Lester Bangs also wrote on the matter at Creem in the early 70's. Lenny Kay was in the New York musical community where the term "punk rock" became commonly used circa 1975. People in the New York scene were very well aware that the term had been used previously. Consult Lenny Kay and Dave Marsh for correction on this matter if you don't believe me (Lester Bangs, bless his soul, is no longer with us, but you can research his archives).

The role of mid 60's garage rock is in bad need of, not only greater appreciation, but of a full re-evaluation in the history of punk rock. Since the explosion of New York and British punk in the mid to late 70's garage rock has been seen more as a precursor to punk, rather than true punk itself. However, this was not the view in the early 70's. Let me explain:

I have always been interested in how punk evolved and its earliest roots. Like everyone else, I have spent most of my life with the persective that punk started in the mid-to-late 70's, and that previous influences were mainly prototypical, although I have to admit that I have always found certain songs by Iggy & the Stooges to be very punk way before their time. I also had heard about how garage rock from the 60's had infuenced punk, but I had tended to regard it as proto-punk, not actual punk.

But, a few things have changed my mind on this. The first thing was when I bought the Nuggets compilation. I was surprised to read the original 1972 liner notes written by Lenny Kaye (later with the Patti Smith Group) referring to what we now call garage rock of the mid 60's as "punk rock." And he seems to use the term as if it was common knowledge amongst hip people. Then, I later found out that Dave Marsh had referred to Question Mark and the Mysterions as "punk rock," a whole year before that in Creem Magazine (May 1971). And, I have also read that Lester Bangs wrote about it in Creem during this time, identfying punk as a mid-60's phenomenon.

Needless to say, I really enjoyed the Nuggets collection, so I began trying to find other more obsure collections (Pebbles series, Back From the Grave series, Teenage Shutdown series, Garage Beat '66 series, etc.) and I can now say that I am positively in love with this music!!! At its best, it achieves a wild kind of magic that no other form of rock can compare. It does not necessarily always sound like what we now think punk should, but it doesn't necessarily need to (because Dave Marsh, Lester, Bangs, and Lenny Kaye were talking about the whole garage "punk" music in all of its stylistic dimensions, not just thrashy sounding songs--although there were plenty of those). You hear a lot of blues, R&B, surf, rockabily,British invasion, and psychedlic inluences mixed in with the rougher harder diamond edges. It is 60's music, after all. But, in various degrees, there is a certain kind of punk swagger runs through it all, which gives it an edgier feel than the better known music of the time.

But, what is really surprising is that there are a bunch of crazy, hard-driving songs that sound punk as hell to moder ears. Check out "1523 Blair," by The Outcasts (released Jan. 1967, recorded 1966), "I'm Movin' On" and "From a Curbstone" by Evil (1966), "We're Pretty Quick," by the Chob (1967), "Voices Green and Purple," by the Bees (1966) (check out the artwork on the record cover!!!), "Project Blue" by The Banshees (1966), "And there are many, many other songs in this vein. These are just a few.

Want some pure rock & roll magic, try these: "It's a Cryin' Shame," by the Gentlemen (1966), "It's Gonna Take A While," by The Morticians (1966), "Cry a Little Longer," by The Grodes (1966), "She's Been Travelin' Round the World," by The Seeds of Time (1966--do you hear a little Ramones, PIL, and U2 in there?), "Abba," by The Paragons (1966). The list goes on and on. You can keep searching for songs for the rest of your life and keep coming up with gems from this era.

I acknowledge that the 60's garage rockers had not claimed the word "punk" for themselves. If the word punk had been used in the 60's, it would most likely have been used in a disparraging way by an older person. And, I also acknowlege that it wasn't until the mid to late 70's that bands started calling temselves "punk," and adopting a look, philosophy, and ideology that was completely seperate from other forms of rock.

In the 60's it wasn't really necessary to do that, because the youth had their collective back up against the wall and had to stand united against the older establishment; any divisions in the ranks would have weakend their efforts rather than strengthened them. There would have no use in creating a distinction between "punk" and "hippie" at that time. All of the rock of that era, whether you call it "mod," "British invasion," "folk" "punk," "garage," "psycedelic," "acid," "hippe" whatever was tied up in a nexus. To appreciate just how true this is, watch the Standells performing in a club during the opening credit sequence of the movie, "Riot on Sunset Strip" to understand what I am talking about. They are punky as hell!!! ...and yet somehow there is the hippy thing at the same time. But, the more you excavate through the 60's, the more you find punk. The term was not self-referentially used at that time, but the reality of its existence was already very much there. And all it needed do would be to find people to point it out and codify it (Marsh, Bangs, Kaye, et. al. in 1971-1972). Want to see what typical rock & roll was like in 1966? Check out the Sylvania TV ad from that year on Youtube (with that wild rock & roller guy). What do you find? Punk!!! Keep on searching, researching, listening to records by garage bands. Get deeper into the lesser known ones. You will come to realize that this was the first golden age of punk rock. Don't take my word. Check it out for yourself. You will come to the same conclusion.

So let's talk about "punk" as it relates to the 60's: Is it necessary for musicians and people in a certain cultural milieu to have to self-define thier own genre or label and create a whole seperate look and philosophy to be considered a part of that label or deignation? No. Did the first heavy metal performers (such as Blue Cheer, early Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, etc.) call themselves "heavy metal?" No. In fact many of them denied the label after it later became fashionably applied to them. Their look and aesthetic style was not much differnt from other bands of the late 60's (check out Robert Plant's or Ian Gillin's tie-dye shirts in '69--same thing that Crosby, Stills, and Nash would have been wearing). They were just singing to their generation. Does that mean that they weren't "heavy metal?" Of course not. The term was coined to apply to them. Of course, later on, heavy metal would evolve into having a whole seperate look and identity from other forms of rock, but that was a few years away. By the way, didn't the Ramones deny the label punk for awhile circa '78? Does that make them not punk?

Did the mid 60's garage rockers have to call themselves "punk" and look completely different form everyone else at that time to be punk? I say no. Because, the term "punk rock," as it was first used, applied to them. Did The Creation ever have the slightest clue in 1966 that people would one day be refering to them as "freakbeat?" Certainly not. Does that mean that they weren't freakbeat? Of course not.

I'll be the first person to grant that, when the term "punk rock" was first used to describe these 60's garage rockers, it was used to designate a sub-genre within a larger genre (much as was the case with "freakbeat"). It did not necessarily denote a whole seperate movement. Does that make it not punk? No. There is no way of getting around it: the garage rock of the mid-60's was the original form of punk rock and was the first style to be designated as such within the rock critical community. That is not a matter of opinion, but fact. Do your research.

I am in no way disparaging the later more identifiable punk rock post-1975. It was my love of that music that brought me to want to discover where it came from. And, it is my love for great bands such as The Clash, who proudly showed thier solidarity and proclamed "We're a garage band" on thier first album, that led me to this. And I have heard Joe Strummer say in a documentary that he considered the garage bands of the 1960's to be the original punk. I wish that some of the other great 70's punk icons could have been as generous. Some people said that the Clash moved away from punk on the London Calling album. Wrong 'em boyo, The Clash returned punk to the richness and diversity of expression that it had known in the 60's.

There can be no denying the genius of the bands of the 70's punk movement, particularly the British bands. They created a whole new look and philosophy to go with thier brilliantly updated punk sound at a time when rock really needed it. And, they took something that had started almost accidently years before and brought it out into the light of day for the whole world to see, while developing it in new ways. The punk movement of the 70's should have been the ultimate vindication for the long neglected and forgotten 60's punk rock bands. But, instead the 60's groups have been relegated to proto-purgatory ever since. The very punk people who should be championing this music have reduced it to orphan/stepchild status. And, that is just not right.

DIY: The 60's punk bands didn't say much about it--they went out and did it--like no one ever before or since. They had the gumption to go out and form bands by the hundreds of thousands--playing live and recording (often on numerous independent labels--sounds familiar?). There is no way of counting, but I have read that in 1966 there could have been at least 300,000 garage bands active in the United States alone--a phenominon that touched practically every niegborhood in the country. There is nothing even comparible in any other rock era in terms of size or scope. The amount do-it-youself grassroots rock bands at the time was staggering. In terms of size, 1966 was the greatest explosion for punk rock ever (or any kind or rock, for that matter). When people mention 1977 and 1992 as the years that punk broke, I laugh. If you don't believe me go look at the factory orders for Ludwig drums and Fender guitars and amps. The factories had to go through massive expansions and run quadruple 24-hour shifts night and day. Fender today is the largest guitar company in the world, but the factory they have now is a fraction of the size as the one they had to build then to keep up with the demand.

But, the 60's garage punk craze was a stealth revolution. Nobody know what to call it or make of it at the time. It is almost as if these bands did unconsciously what later gerations would have to do consciously. They were the invisible, forgotten punk revolutionairies (the real Genration X). Due to the overabundance of competion, there was just no way for most of these bands to ever have much monetary succes (many of the later punk bands got filthy rich in comparison and stole a lot of the credit). The guitar and drum manufacturers were the only ones who made much money out of the whole garage rock craze.

All-Female Bands: If the guys in many of those bands' lacked feminist awareness (is it ever as high as it should be?), then here is the perfect antiodote: go to the Girl Garage Mayhem blog on Myspace and read the list of approximately 160 all-female groups operating at the time. Then go listen to them on Youtube. This is over ten years before The Runaways or The Slits. The Pleasure Seekers were really terrific. The girls in these bands had a ton of attitude and make some of rocks first defiantly feminst statements. Yet they have all been overlooked or forgotten. What a tragedy.

Sadly 60's punk gets very little mention in most books and histories about punk rock. Rarely are any pre-1975 artists, other than Iggy and The Stooges or The Velvet Underground mentioned. And, the Velvets were more avant garde than punk. There are hundreds of bands form the mid-60's who deserve serious discussion. Isn't it time they got their due? We need to engage in a greater appreciation and critical re-evaluation of garage rock as the original form of punk rock. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem very knowledgeable and enthusiastic about the subject. Why don't you start a new article? It would be good to note punk's 1960s ancestry in this article, but better still to have a full article about the topic. If you start it, I will help. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

We already have an article: Garage rock. The "Revivals" section of that article contains some content on '60s garage rock's influence on the punk rock movement of the '70s. It could do with some expansion, provided it can be properly sourced. I have also made some replies to Garagepunk66 at User talk:IllaZilla#punk rock started in the 60's regarding the problem of undue weight. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You certainly know a lot about the subject, but your additions are not "encyclopaedic". By this I mean they are not primarily factual and tend towards expressive opinions, such as "responded with wild fury". This is all good stuff if you were writing your own book on the topic, but Wikipedia is not for original research. The challenge you face is getting the sourced information across, without it being excessively dry or straying into fanciful descriptions that add your own view on things. You also wish to change how the article describes the history of Punk rock's roots. To do this you need really good authoritative sources that already do this. You cannot gather together sources you have researched to present a case for it that isn't actually stated in the sources themselves. No matter how persuasive a case you may think it all makes. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A new article on the subject is probably the last thing we need. The Nuggets-era bands are covered at garage rock. This article covers the music that developed in the (early to) mid 70s, which became generally referred to punk rock. Yes, those bands (Sex Pistols, Clash, etc.) were influenced by earlier bands like the Seeds, 13th Floor Elevators and so on - but they established what was and is seen as a new genre, which deserves its own article - this one. This article has a section on Prehistory which covers the 60s bands and those intermediates - Stooges, Patti Smith, Modern Lovers, etc. in the US, and the pub rock bands in the UK - who linked the two. It's always difficult to categorise music in the way that an encyclopedia needs to do it, breaking it into discrete chunks - but, the right way to do it, in my view, is as we do it here now. Though perhaps I'd support changing the opening sentence to read "Punk rock is a rock music genre that emerged and developed....." Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

PS: By the way, the statement that ".. the garage rock of the mid-60's was the original form of punk rock..." is not true - there were plenty of what we would now think of as punk-style rockers in the 1950s - famous ones like Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard, and many not-so-famous ones as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

But those 50's rockers have never been referred to by rock critics as "punk rock." The garage bands of the 60's were. They were referred to as such by well-known rock critics in the early 70's, one of whom (Lenny Kaye) would be involved in the New York punk scene later on in the mid 70's. If you don't believe me, go talk to him (and Dave Marsh). There is no getting around it: 60's garage bands were the first bands to referred to as "punk rock," It is the job of an encyclopedia to deal in facts. Do your research. There is a huge popular misconception about this. It needs to be cleared up.

By the way, I am not talking about the Stooges and the Modern Lovers: I am referring to the bands that came far earlier in the period 1963-1967. They were ones that the early 70's critics were referring to. There were possibly as many as (or more than) 300,000 of these bands in America in the mid-60's. It is sad that punk enthuiasts know or care so little about these wonderful bands. Their music and hisory should be treated as a national treasure--a whole magnificent historical and cultural frontier to be re-discovered. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide any contemporary references from the 1960s to support this? . . .Mean as custard (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be hard to find written references in the 60's, unless they were said in a disparaging way by older people who were not part of the rock community. I think that Frank Zappa says something in a movie he appered in, about "punks," referring to people in certain kinds of ameteur bands. It is very possible that the term "punk" was used colloquially in certain circles in the 60's, but we'll never know. However, we do have the retronyms provided by rock critics and in the early 70's and alusions to the word being used colloquailly in certain circles by that time. We also have more recent commentaries. Lenny Kay wrote a second essay (an afterward) for the 1998 release of the Nuggets CD (Rhino) box set (his origianl 1972 essay is also included). He seems to speak of punk as a continuum across time --as if it can exist whever the attitude exists--with a special love for local scenes. Also included in the box set is a foward by Gary Sterwart of Rhino, and two new essays written by Greg Shaw and Alec Palao, who both assert garage rock as the original (and purest) form of punk rock. Greg Shaw says that he used the term "punk rock" along with Lenny Kaye his early 70's writings on the same topic. He says that after the advent of the Sex Pistols, he like many others, began to use the term "garage," but now feels that the 60's bands should have the term "punk" returned to them. This is coming from one of the people who originated the term, "punk"!!! We should take heed. The box set booklet also contains a brief commentary by Electra records founder (and initiator of the original Nuggets LP project), Jack Holtzman, as well as some remarks by mastering techician Bill Inglot. Mike Stax contributes the well-researchd song by song discussion/band biographies, and yes he uses the terminology of "punk." He refers to certain songs as "punkers" and makes several referenes about Texas punk.

Yes, would you believe that Texas was one of the most fertile places for the development of punk in the 60's? Go listen to the song, "It's a Cryin' Shame, by the Genlemen and so many other great punk songs from the "Lonhorn State." The bass drum stomp in the beginning of that song and the revving power chord progressions sound so much like the Sex Pistols. But, niether the Sex Pistols, or anybody else, ever did a song that could touch this one. The exultant mixture of the deepest sadness and the highest joy has never been equalled, except perhaps in Dylan. The guitar solo lifts us into a whole new dimension. A hard driving punk song about...love! One of the reatest rock & roll songs of all time!!!

By the way, Nuggets is just the tip of the iceberg. There are a host of great CD and LP compilations: "Pebbles" series, "Back From the Grave" series, "Teenage Shutdown Series," "Garagebeat '66" series, etc. There is a lot of music by 60's garage rock (i.e. "punk") bands to be found. The amount of recordings in existence is staggering.Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's perfectly true that Lenny Kaye and Dave Marsh used the term "punk" in the early 70s to refer to 60s bands like the Seeds. That's not disputed. But they were isolated instances, and the term "punk rock" did not come into common parlance until a few years later with bands like the Ramones and the Sex Pistols. It is those 70s bands that this article is primarily about, as they are the bands now generally known as "punk rock". And, by the way, there's no need to try and educate some of us about the music - some of us were there at the time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

PS: By the way, I'm not really sure what this argument is all about. The article doesn't say that punk "started" in the mid 1970s - it says that it "... developed between 1974 and 1976... [r]ooted in garage rock..." Which is basically what you are saying - except that you prefer to use the term "punk" rather than "garage" for the 60s music, which is both confusing to readers, and out of line with most reliable sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to see something actually published during the 1960s. For example, "Glam Rock" is a term for a genre of the early 1970s, but I don't recall the term actually being used at the time. - I'm not sure if that makes it any less valid. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Not all of the remarks were isolated. Dave Marsh's remarks in the May, 1971 Creem were, indeed, isolated. But, Lenny Kaye's original liner notes for Nuggets were not. They were very broad and gereral. He is adressing the whole generational garage "punk" phenominon:

"...In addition, most of these groups (and by and large, this was an era dominated by groups) were young, decidedly unprofessional, seemingly more at home practicing for a teen dance than going out on a national tour. The name that has been unofficially coined for them--"punk rock"--seems particularly fitting in this case." [L. Kaye, "Headed, Decked, and Stroked..." original liner notes for Nuggets. (Electra, 1972)] Just to see just how general and broad his remarks were, read his entire liner notes to get the full context.

He speaks of the term "punk rock" as if it is already being used colloquially within hip circles. What had, up until this writing, been unofficial, he codifes in writing and makes part of our larger (official) cultural lexicon. And this was done on a release by a major Warner-owned record label. The Nuggets LP had wide distribution. By the way, the development of punk began in the early to mid 60's. There is simply no way to factually substantiate any assertion to the contrary. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not it was "already being used colloquially within hip circles" doesn't matter. What matters is general common usage - and that most reliable sources refer to the 60s genre as "garage rock" and the 70s genre as "punk rock", while obviously recognising that one influenced the other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not denying that the current common usage of the term "punk rock" is the post-1974 understanding of the term, and that this should remain the overriding framework of the article. I am certainly not saying that Wiki should radically re-define its definition of punk as it appears in the top heading (or anywhere in the article for that matter). Wiki should should continue to base the article within a post-1974 punk framework. But, there should be refinements. Wiki could insert "in its most currently recognizable form" (or or "in its modern form") into the heading. It will be more factual and historically accurate. Then, later in the article Wiki could give a slightly longer and better-written explanation of garage rock and its influence (in the "Garage and Mod" section). They could briefly mention, in that section, that the term "punk rock" was originally used to describe the garage rock bands of the mid 60's (and show the necessary documentation, based on the writings I have mentioned). I don't think that there is anything radical about that. But, it would be more factual and enlightening. I think it will contribute in a positive way to people's understanding and appreciation of punk's long history and development, without, in any way, diminishing the domminant focus on post-1974 punk. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Now, I also want to mention that I was not only speaking of how the term was used "colloquially in hip circles," but also how it was codified into a larger cultural lexicon by Lenny Kaye in hsi 1972 piece. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As for usage today: there are a lot of people who use the term "60's punk," to describe the genre I am referring to (1963-1967 garage rock). Go to You tube and you can find hundreds, perhaps thousands, of songs that are referred to as "60's punk," punk," "punker," etc. to this genre. For 1966, alone, can find as many (or probaby more) more references to songs described as "punk" as any year ever (includeing 1976, 1977, 1982, 1992,etc.)!!! I am no lone prophet speaking in the wilderness on this issue. It is the belief of almost all people who are fans and collectors of 60's gargage rock, and is taken as almost gospel truth, that punk rock started in the 60's. Almost all garage rock compilations use the word "punk" in various references, not only in in liner notes and song descriptions, but often on the front cover or album tiltle or subtitle. There are people in the people in the rock critical community in the last twenty years (not just in the early 70's) who share this perspecive: Lenny Kaye, Greg Shaw, and Alec Palao (to all of whom I made references above). Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement "punk developed in the 70's" is not necessarily untrue, but incomplete. It should say: "punk developed as it is commonly known today..." "punk developed in its currently recogizable form...," or punk developed in in in its modern form..." ("...in the 1970s). Punk was developing in the period from 1963-1967, which early 70's rock critics identified as "punk." Retroactivly, we can also now attribute that punk was developing between 1968-1972 (Iggy and the Stooges, Death, MC5, etc.) and 1973- 1975 (certain glam rock: New Yourk Dolls, Dictators, Dead Boys, etc.), in light of what would happen in the mid to late 70's. We can see that the 68-72 and 73-75 periods form a bridge between the original mid 60's garage punk and the 1975-1977 (and later) modern punk eras.Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop saying the same thing, at great length, over and over again. We get your point. We don't agree that the article needs changing. It's fine as it is. WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It is false and misleading, and incomplete. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The only change I would agree to - if other experienced editors here agree - is to add, at the start of the second paragraph, words like: "The term was first used by some US music critics in the early 1970s to describe garage bands and their devotees. By late 1976...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kind consideration. Best Wishes.Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me – I would support that. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I am also fine with Ghymrtle's suggested change.--SabreBD (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks - I've made that change. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Gmyrtle Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Heading innacurate

The statement in the heading that bands seen as "vanguard of new movemnet" is is partially, but not not completely true (can be misleading), at least not as it relates to New York scene...actually many rock critics in 1974-1975viewed the punk scene in New York as a "revival" or "resurrection" of punk. Also: statement about garage bands not clear (when?--are we talking about mid 60's or Stooges era?). The garage bands the critics were referring to were from the mid-60's. This needs to be pointed out. It is probalbly best to refer to punk, at the top of heading, "..in its modern form..."

There is a great website devoted to the etymology of punk (and the developent of how the term came to be used in rock) (www.johnsavage.com/punk-etymology). It quotes and cites numerous articles from 1969-the late 70's. From 1971-1975, "Punk Rock," is used time and time again to refer to the garage rock of the mid-60's. The word "garage band," is also used, but not nearly as often as "punk." The critics do allow the extension of the term "punk rock" to apply to contemporary artists of that era (1971-1975), as well. You will see references to various contemporry artists of the time that the critics percived as "punk rock" at the time. Some references may surprise you (Bob Seger, Grand Funk Railroad). Some may not (Iggy and the Stooges, early Alice Kooper). But, one thing is certain: the barometer for whether or not they considered a contemporary group artist "punk" was the degree to which that group or artist was percieved to embody the spirit of the mid-60's garage bands. The critics later speak of the mid-70's punk movement in New York (they were there at the time) as a punk revival (not as a new thing called punk).

"...the punk music revival is in full swing. Punk rock,of course, is for the form of music [desinating the retonym that was applied in the early 70's to garage bands] which originated in the early 70's when rock writers en masse began writing about the albums they threw away in 1967 (only to scour the bargin bins in 1971), and then reached its height in 1972 when the Nuggets collection stormed the nation's charts." [M. Saunders, "The Shakin Punk Survey, Shakin' Street Gazette, 7 November 1974}]

They talk about the influence of the Nuggets compilation LP on their New York contemporaries. Greg Shaw, in his Rolling Stone review of Nuggets says:

"Punk Rock at its best is the closest we came in the 60's to the original rockabilly spirit of Rock 'n Roll, ie Punk Rock The Arrogant Underbelly of Sixties Pop..." (Rolling Stone, Jan. 4, 1973) [G. Shaw. Rolling Stone, Jan. 4, 1973]

Shaw in a later review for a live show by the Sex Pistols at the 100 club (Record, June 1976) describes them as "punk rock," but in the context of how they fit into his previous definition of the term, not as a new definition. It is not until the Sex Pistols got really big and become a cause celebre all over England (post-Grundy show appearance) that the term "punk" shifts away from its previous definition to designating a new phenominon. But, the article that goes into the most detail about the early definition for mid 60's garage as "punk," is "White Punks on Coke," by Mick Houghton (Let it Rock, Dec. 1975) He talks extensively about the "resurrection," of punk currently going on (i.e. what we would assume to be the New York Scene--CBGB's, etc.). At great length, he litanizes the various "punk" bands of the 60's: ? & The Mysterions, The Castaways, The Count Five, The Shadows of The Knight, The Barbarians, The Seeds, The Blues magoos, etc. Read it. To Houghton:

"There is an intrinsic worth in punk rock [referring to 60's punk]. It is certainly the first of the mid-sixties genres to be resurrected." [M. Houghton. Let It Rock. Dec. 1975]

"But that challenge [to the British Invasion] was taken up by a plethora of amorphous garage bands which sprang up in the suburbs of American cities. It is among these groups that punk rock began. (Let It Rock, Dec. 1975) [M. Houghton. Let It Rock. Dec. 1975] Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the default for every article in Wikipedia is for the present day, unless otherwise stated. So naturally the article is about the subject "..in its modern form...". When else would it be? Including this phrase in the lead is leading the reader prematurely into the history of the term. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Another possibility would be a WP:HATNOTE at the top of the page, along the lines of: "This article describes the style of music that first developed during the mid-1970s. For related styles of music sometimes described as "punk", see Garage rock and Protopunk." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It is, indeed, necessary to say "...in its modern form....," beacause there is a popular misconception that punk started in the mid to late 70's. Punk started far earlier. Without the addition of "...in its modern form...," people will assume that the development of punk started at a later time than it actually did. I realize that Wiki has to work within the framework of popular usage, but an encyclopedia must also be accurate and historically informative. It does not detract, in any way, from the popular usage of punk (1975-present) to point out that it did not grow out of a vaccum but in a historical continuum that had started earlier than is generally believed.Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"Etymology" is vague and confusing

The "Etymology" section of the Wiki "Punk Rock" article is vague, omits key information, and does not make it clear enough that garage rock (1963-1967) was the first genre of music to be spoken of as "punk rock." It also omits the fact that Lenny Kaye (future member of Patti Smith Group) referred to it, as a whole genre, as "punk rock" in his original liner notes to the Nuggets compilation LP (Electra, 1972) (L. Kaye, "Headed, Decked, and Stroked..." original liner notes for Nuggets. (Electra, 1972)) The Wiki "Etymology" section speaks as if the word "punk rock," was used arbitrarily by critics in the early 70's. This is false and innacurate. The critics knew exactly what they were referring to: garage rock of the mid-60's.

In the early 70's certain inluential rock critics retroactively used the term "punk rock" to describe the mid-60's garage bands as a sub-genre, whether individually or collecively, making it the first time the word was used as such to refer to a style of rock. (D. Marsh, Review for Question Mark & the Mysterions. Creem Magazine. May, 1971]) (L. Kaye, liner notes to Nuggets LP compilation. Electra Records. 1972)

To quote Lenny Kaye's liner notes to the original 1972 "Nuggets" LP compitaion:

"...In addition, most of these groups (and by and large, this was an era dominated by groups) were young, decidedly unprofessional, seemingly more at home practicing for a teen dance than going out on a national tour. The name that has been unofficially coined for them--"punk rock"--seems particularly fitting in this case." (L. Kaye, "Headed, Decked, and Stroked..." original liner notes for Nuggets. (Electra, 1972)) Lenny Kaye took the colloquial, unofficial term that was floating around and, in the act of writing about it, officially codified it in the larger public mind in his notes on a major record relase by a major record label with widespread distribution (Electra).

No doubt the previous Wiki editors have read the website, "Etymology of Punk (and the Developent of How the Term Came to be Used in Rock) (www.johnsavage.com/punk-etymology). But they have made a bad misreading of its contents. It quotes and cites numerous articles from 1969-the late 70's. From 1971-1975, "Punk Rock," is used time and time again to refer to the garage rock of the mid-60's. The word "garage band," is also used, but not nearly as often as "punk." The critics do allow the extension of the term "punk rock" to apply to contemporary artists of that era (1971-1975), as well. You will see references to various contemporry artists of the time that the critics percived as "punk rock" at the time. Some references may surprise you (Bob Seger, Grand Funk Railroad, Springsteen, etc.). Some may not (Iggy and the Stooges, early Alice Kooper). But, one thing is certain: the barometer for whether or not they considered a contemporary group artist "punk" was the degree to which that group or artist was percieved to embody the spirit of the mid-60's garage bands.

The current "Etymology" secion of the "Punk Rock article in Wiki, badly misreads the intent of rock critics of the early to mid 70's and makes it seem as if the term "punk rock" was used arbitrarily by these critics, but it was not. There may have some been confusion about what constituted "punk" in terms of contemporary artists of the time, but here is absolutely no confusion about how it realted to the garage rock bands of the mid-60's, which were considered the foundation of the definition.

In the article, "The Shakin' Street Punk Survey," by Metal Mike Saunders (that appeared in the "Shakin Street Gazette" Nov.7, 1974) Sauners speaks of the mid-70's punk movement in New York as a punk "revival" (not as a new thing called punk): "...the punk music revival is now in full swing.". (M. Saunders, "Shakin' Street Punk Survey," Shakin Steet Gazette. November, 1974) He also talks about the influence of the Nuggets compilation LP on their New York contemporaries." (M. Saunders, "Shakin' Street Punk Survey," Shakin Steet Gazette. November, 1974)

Over a year and a half earlier, Greg Shaw, in his Rolling Stone review of Nuggets had said:

"Punk Rock at its best is the closest we came in the 60's to the original rockabilly spirit of Rock 'n Roll, ie Punk Rock The Arrogant Underbelly of Sixties Pop..." (Rolling Stone, Jan. 4, 1973) (G. Shaw. Rolling Stone, Jan. 4, 1973)

A few years later, Shaw in review for a live show by the Sex Pistols at the 100 club (Record, June 1976), describes them as "punk rock," but in the context of how they fit into his previous definition of the term, not as a new definition (keep in mind that, at that time, they often did covers of old mid-60's songs, such as "Stepping Stone," by Paul Revere and the Raiders and "Substitute," by The Who). It is not until the Sex Pistols got really big and become a cause celebre all over England (post-Grundy show appearance) that the term "punk" shifted away from its previous definition to designating a new phenominon.

But, the article that goes into the most detail about the early definition for mid 60's garage as "punk," is "White Punks on Coke," by Mick Houghton (Let it Rock, Dec. 1975) He talks extensively about the "resurrection," of punk currently going on (i.e. what we would assume to be the New York Scene--CBGB's, etc.). At great length, he litanizes the various "punk" bands of the 60's: ? & The Mysterions, The Castaways, The Count Five, The Shadows of The Knight, The Barbarians, The Seeds, The Blues magoos, etc. Read it. To Houghton:

"But that challenge [to the British Invasion] was taken up by a plethora of amorphous garage bands which sprang up in the suburbs of American cities. It is among these groups that punk rock began. (Let It Rock, Dec. 1975) (M. Houghton. Let It Rock. Dec. 1975)

Over and over, the rock critics are absolutely clear that they consider the garage rock to be the original (and touchstone) form of punk rock. However, the Wiki "Etymology" section of the "Punk Rock" article does not sufficiently reflect this. It only makes occasional references to these critics and makes their statements appear to be equivical. It does mention that Ed Sanders used the term, "punk rock," to describe the Fugs (in a 1970 article). But, Sanders remarks does not attempt to define a whole genre of music. It is likely that he is using the term "punk rock" in context of how it was probably being used colloquially at the time: to describe garage bands of the mid-60's and how the term could also be used to denote contemporaries who considered themselves to be following in the eccentric spirit of the garage bands. In all likleyhood, Sanders is using the term in exactly the same context as critics, such as Dave Marsh, Lenny Kaye, Greg Shaw, Mike Saunders, and Mick Houghton.

After careful reading of what was said, time and time again, by influential rock critics 1971-1975, there can be absolutely no doubt that garage rock is the first genre of music to be referred to as "punk rock." The "Etymolgy" section of the Wiki "Punk Rock" article must be ammended to reflect this reality. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the Etymology section already seems to do exactly what you are suggesting. What changes to the wording are you proposing? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm simply going to quote Ghmyrtle's comment of 30 October: "Please stop saying the same thing, at great length, over and over again. We get your point. We don't agree that the article needs changing. It's fine as it is. WP:NOTSOAPBOX." I also highly recommend reading WP:TLDR. Multiple treatise-length diatribes on the same topic, repeated ad nauseum, are unlikely to win you any adherents. --IllaZilla (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it was you who had recommended that I contribute to these talk sections. I have backed away from trying to do edits, myself,on this site, as you recommended. Maybe I've been a bit too long-winded--I will try to say less in the future. But, can you blame me? I am trying to use facts and evidence to support my recommendations. I think that the facts are overwhelming in favor of what I am advocating. And, yes, I think that there are factual errors and/or omissions in the article that stand to be corrected. an you blame me for trying to champion the unsung hereoes who were the original pioneers of this musical genre? None of them have ever recieved anything approching the just amount of credit they deserve. I can think of no other musical genre that has shown as much neglect towards its own founding members. There is now an urgency. Most of the people who played in these bands are currently in their sixties and many of them are deceased--each time I read a biography, I learn of another one passing. I would love to see the remaining creators bask in thier well-deserved moment of appreciation before they leave this world. I think that we have a responsibility to champion them while there is still time. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I repeat: What changes to the wording are you proposing? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I leave it up to you to decide on how any changes in the wording take place, but something could be said to the effect of: "Regardless any confusaion about how the term "punk" was applied to contemporary artists of the period, the critics were clear that the term always applied to the garage bands of the mid-60's." References and Quotes to G. Shaw and M. Houghton could be added to further that process of clarification.

Some other possible chages: The Pre-History section could be re-named "Early Formative History," or better yet, "Origins," or "Early Origins," because, factually speaking, garage rock cannot be conisdered a pre-history to punk (in light the facts mentioned above). The mid to late 70's punk section, currently called "Early History" could be re-named "Classic Era"--and I have often heard of this period referred to as "Classic Punk." That would emphasize, even more, the pride of place that 70's punk enjoys in this article (and rightfully should). Then, the later periods (i.e. hardcore, etc. could be labelled "Later Periods"). The Garage and Mod section could be slightly expanded and improved (garage rock is ever in need of more discussion, both here, and in its own C-class Wiki article).

The Garage and Mod section is jumbled and confusing, and makes several factual errors, such as "...by 1966 mod was in decline..." Perhaps the British motor scooter-driving "ticket" type of street mod was in decline, but otherwise, mod, as a general fashion craze, was at its all time high in 1966 (both in England and America)...and the mod fever swept America like a tidal wave in 1966. See the Life Magazine cover story on the mod craze (May 13, 1966). Also, watch Antonioni's Blow Up to see mod at its pinnacle in swinging 1966 London. Furthermore, the section makes it seem as if garage rock was beginning to go out (along with mod) in 1966, whcih is silly. 1966 was the pinnacle year for garage rock and mod.

The heading at the beginning of the "Punk Rock" article could be a little bit more clear that in the early 70's critics used the term "punk rock" to describe the mid-60s garage rock bands and their later devotees (i.e. Iggy, MC5, as well as the other cointemporaries that were designated as such at the time for whatever reason). It could also that punk developed "...in its modern form..." in the mid to late 70s (punk had already through a very full and exhausstive period of evolution in the years 1963-1967, culminating in the well-evoved punk sound of 1966 & 1967).

Ghmyrtle, I want to thank you for your kind inquiry to me. I know that I have probably been a little bit too outspoken recently, and I realize that I have been asking for a lot--probably too much, and I will try to back off a little on the posts. I don't expect Rome to be built in a day, so I can be patient. I greatly appreciate your kindness and do not want you to think that I don't appreciate the positive changes you have made in the articles, and I thank you for backing me up on a couple of occasions. Perhaps, in coming months, I could help (in a quieter way) to create some new articles on some of the lesser known garage rock bands covered on the Garage Rock list--and you could check them for accuracy and grammar and change or modify them if you see fit. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that you seem to be engaged in a serious case of WP:SYNTH and possibly even WP:OR. The view that there was a continous music genre called "punk rock" from the 1960s garage punk to the early 1970s protopunk is largely anachronistic and suffers from a case of complete hindsight. The bands usually dubbed protopunk from the late 1960s and 1970s referred to their own music as "rock'n'roll", as did the 1960's garage bands. From this "punk music" emerged as a deliberate and separate music genre in the 1970s, and it was then that music connisseurs starting to find connections to earlier bands with a similar sound. That is the way it is being presented in authorative reliable secondary sources, like Legs McNeil & Gillan McCain (eds), Please Kill Me, and that is what this article should reflect. We don't engage in revisionistic research on Wikipedia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This --Guerillero | My Talk 12:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You really hit the nail on the head, Saddhiyama. I completely agree. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have never once claimed that the garage bands of the mid-60's (I've been talking primarily about them, not late-60's MC5/Stooges) referred to themselves (at that time) as "punk rock"--I will be the first one to say that they called themselves "rock & roll." AMEN. I have said repeatedly that the way the term "punk rock" was later applied to them was done in retrospect. I have already said that the term was applied to them "retroactively" during the period of 1971-1975 by influential rock critics in magazines such as Creem and Rolling Stone: some of the most famous and influential rock critics of all time (from the founding generation of rock critics)--people such as Dave Marsh, Lester Bangs (not only writer, but also band-mate of Joey Ramone's brother and friend and fellow-traveller with the Clash on '78 tour), Greg Shaw, and finally, Lenny Kaye, who would later become instrumental in the formation of the New York punk scene as a member of The Patti Smith Group. All of these individuals are well known and respected in the field of rock journalism and equally, if not better known, than the ones who wrote the books to which you refer.

You mistakenly claim that any relationship between garage and later punk was based on mere coincidental similarity. You say (without substantiation) that garage rock's connections to later punk were first established in the post-1976 climate, but while there may have, indeed, been people in the late 70's who attempted to draw such connections, they were not the first in light of the earlier sources I referenced, which had written publicly of Nuggets' influence on the New York scene. The Nuggets LP (Electra, 1972) with Kaye's liner notes (talking about mid-60's bands as as "punk rock") sold well and recieved a lot of attention. Kaye's invovement in the Nuggets project was commissioned by Jack Holtzman, president and founder of Electra records. And, you completely miss the point that garage rock had already been cristened with the "punk rock" name several years before (long before The Ramones and Sex Pistols) by the people I have mentioned. I don't see the point of the "WP: SYNTH" claim. And, the WP:OR claim is silly. I've done a lot more than you to substantiate my claims, and I have taken great care to do so. But you've provided me with nothing of substance here. You are doing exacly the thing you accuse me of. It's one thing to say that the majority of reliable sources do not back my point of view at this time (a point of view I can respect), but it is another thing to make the claim that garage rock's connection to punk was not established until the late 70s, after I had already provided relaible facts to the contrary, which you cannot refute.

When the well-known writers I mentioned had earlier used the term "punk rock" to designate garage rock as a genre, they generously extended the use of the term to apply to contemporary artists (of 1971-1975), but only in individual references, not yet as a whole genre or subgenre (or subgernre) the way they had already done for the garage bands of the mid 60's. The garage bands had never before been singled out as a genre. But, when they were finally given the dignity to be singled out as one (in the early 70's) the term that was consistently used for them by influential rock critics was was "punk rock." Garage rock was the first genre of music to be designated as "punk rock." That was a very special desigantion--a badge of honor, and it never should have been taken away by later generations. And, it is because of this special designation given to the garage bands, and because of the fact that the critics were generous enough to extend the use of the term to subsequent artists, and because people, such as Lenny Kaye, helped popularize use of the term (not only in the New York scene, but far beyond), that we have the term today as it is now used, and we should be grateful. When it comes to defining the origins of punk rock, it is a mistake to put later sources (no matter how reliable and well-written) on a higher level of authority than the original texts that first established and defined use of the term. That puts the carriage in front of the horse, and it is the job of good scholarship, to constantly examine and re-examine origins to make sure that proper meanings do not get lost in the shuffle. Now matter how wonderful the books you mention are, they make a cardinal error of overlooking garage rock as the first form of punk rock. I might add that all of those books do a great job convering punk post-1974, but their shortcoming is that they are weak in their understanding of how punk earlier-on came to be. I am not saying that anything is wrong with these books, other than that the earlier history is just not their area of expertise. Most books attempting to trace the early history of punk tend to be either New York-centric or London-centric which stunt their ability to look deeper and wider. What about the Pacific Northwest? Southern California? Texas? Midwest? Why not look towards suburbs and small towns, not just major metropolitan areas? Pre-1968? There is just such a huge hole in our understanding of the roots of punk, and these books are not able to adequately fill it. I am not a revisionist (that already occured post-1976). I am just trying to restore an important part of punk's original meaning that has been lost.

In the first selection form Punk: The Whole Story, edited by Mark Blake (a Mojo Magazine publication), well-known rock journalist and early member of the Sex Pistols and later London S.S. Nick Kent, it says some very interesting things:

"For me, punk didn't start in 1976: it started in 1971 when I first read US rock magazine Creem. The writer Dave Marsh claims he coined the phrase "punk rock" in a review he wrote for the magazine late '71 of a gig by ? & The Mysterions. But it was fellow Creem scribe Lester Bangs who really took the term and and created a whole aesthetic for it. For Bangs and his disciples, punk rock began in 1963 when Seattle quartet The Kingmen hit Number 1 stateside with the deliciously moronic Louie, Louie, grew with the influx of one hit wonders from the US mid-60's that Creem correspondent, Lenny Kaye paid fullsome tribute to with his influential 1972 album Nuggets..." Now you have it: an early member of the Sex Pistols expressing, not only the influence of garage rock on his band (early on they played songs such as "Steppin' Stone"), but also from where they derived the term "punk rock."

Also, read the newer essays (which I have already alluded to and referenced) included in the 1998 Nuggets CD Box set (Rhino) (by Greg Shaw, et. al). They are very clear about defending garage rock's status as "punk rock." They intentionally advocate the re-use of the term "punk rock" to apply to garage rock. Go read them. They are written by some of the same people who were originators of the term, "punk's," early use.

"...'Call this stuff what you like.' The current term of the choice is "garage," but I still feel it should have first dibs on "punk." (G. Shaw. "Sic Transit Gloria...: The Story of Punk Rock in the 60's." Rhino, 1998) Clearly, these statements (by both Kent and Shaw), necessitate a much greater examination into garage rock and its role in the development of punk.

Remember that I had said (please go back and re-read my posts) that most musical genres do not start with an externally applied label, nor a self-referential monicker. There is usually a process of awareness that grows in time. Labels come into popular use, usually later on, to designate the music that has already been in existence. This is almost always the case. Alan Freed came up with the term "rock 'n' roll" several years after the musical form had actually begun. In the 1980's "Freakbeat," was retroactively applied to certain mid-60's London based bands--though the term was not used by those bands at the time, it still applies. I am abundantly aware and have stated numerous times that, after 1974, punk became a deliberate and self-referential movement, replete with its own fashion senibilities, manifestos, etc. (this was the moment that punk entered its modern era). But, I contend (I believe correctly so) that punk's life as a musical form preceeded its life as a sperate subculture by over a decade.

In chapter one of Marcus Gray's biography on The Clash (The Clash: Return of the Last Gang in Town), he discusses garage rock's influence on Mick Jones circa 1973--60s garage bands such as the Standells, etc. as well as later bands such as MC5 and Iggy & The Stooges. He then goes on to discuss Lester Bangs' use of the term "punk rock" in the early 70's. According to Gray:

For many years following 1976, 'punk' would be almost exclusively associated with the movement of of aggressive back-to-basics UK rock bands kick-started by the Sex Pistols. Malcolm McLaren and his charges insisted that they had started something new, and a Year Zero mentality developed which denied that the genre had a lengthy history. Beyond all the posturing and denial at the time , there was some recognition that the term punk had enjoyed a previous life; but what little had been written about the subject was not widely circulated, and the general understanding of the background remained vague. And, that sitation still remains the same today, Wiki editors. The 70's punk explosion was an incredible thing, but sadly one big casualty was the awareness of punk's long prior existence. MC5 and The Stooges have now gotten at least some of their belated recognition, but the garage bands of the mid-60s seem to be forever cursed to wallow in, not only obscurity, but worse, denial of their fundamental contribution the genre.

Perhaps the author of one of the most well-regarded biographies of the Clash suffers from what you would call "a case of complete anchronistic hindsight" and "the view that there was a continous music genre called "punk rock" (1963-1974). I am not asking for radical or major changes in the article's message or focus, nor any major change of overall classifications/labels that Wiki uses (I have no problem with the label, "garage rock," by the way)--I just want to see a better and more accurate reflection of garage rock's historical contributuion to punk rock reflected in the narrative, and to see it recive proper recoginiton as a legitimate form of authentic punk. I only asked for slight and subtle changes in wording in the texts (in heading and etymology) and subtitles as well as an improved "Garage and Mod" section. I'm not here to be on a soapbox of spout out unsubstantiated opinions--my opinions are based on knowlege that I have gleaned--and have a great deal of respect for empirical truth. I am not the only person who espouses the the kinds of beliefs I have been advocating in these posts. They are shared by practically all garage rock enthusiasts--a sizable and knowlegable constituency (we have to become knowlegable, because finding the music we seek is like a form of labor-intensive archaeology). The belief that garge rock is the original form of punk rock is universally accepted in these spheres, and is the position taken on almost all of the CD and LP compilations, as well as on numerous Youtube music posts. You can go on Youtube and find hundreds of references to mid-60's garage rock referred to as "punk." I just happen to be one of the first to bring it to your attention. When choosing the wording in the article, you have to be sensitive about the perspectives of different groups within the punk rock milieu and choose the wording more carefully, because there are different valid perspectives. This article is general and does attempt, after all, to refelct the entire history of punk rock. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Impact and influences

Have sought to strengthen punk's legacy, not least given its relative obscurity at the time by

1. more clearly contrasting the 2 'hardcore' and post punk branches
2. adding the UK term Indie to the more US centred alternative description
3. identified the accompanying and sometimes confused connection with the pub rock acts, by which I mean Elvis Costello, Ian Dury, Nick Lowe, etc
4. similarly included reference to the equally oft-confused new wave and its development into the pre-dominant forms of 80s pop
5. have filled the 90s gap with a mention of grunge
6. finally the evolution of the term punk beyond music and even youth culture to a range of other activities.

Apologies if this has over-extended the introduction, but should allow anyone briefly wanting to understand the relevance and reference to other musical phenomena, without having to delve into the history of this music itself.

Hope that makes some sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSN2849 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, since had another less radical attempt (no mention of offending pub rock now) to include

1. better chronology in 2nd para
2. wider New Wave
3. early splintering
4. UK names for alt rock
5. 90s influence
6. 21st century broadening of term.

Hope better?

JSN2849 (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you're fully aware that:

1. The introduction is supposed to summarise the main article text, so it's often better to see if the article text needs changing first before changing the introduction
2. The article should not contain original research
3. Please add citations to reliable sources for your changes

Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I second Ghmyrtle. What you're adding is fine detail, which doesn't belong in a lead section. It's also full of terms that don't appear anywhere in the article body (retro-futurism, indie pop, etc). Overall the whole thing reads like original research/your own opinion and does not appear to have come from any reliable, published sources. Because this is a featured article, and the only featured article on a music genre, we tend to apply a good deal of scrutiny to significant changes like these. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks, know when clearly out-voted.

Yes, of course I am fully aware of your 3 points, but a helpful intro should also surely include something on the article's relevance and where it fits within its wider field? Something I think the average reader would struggle to find in the current intro. I am also completely with you on the need for scrutiny in an article like this.

Yet your references to 'original research' and 'citations' leave me baffled - what, you mean mentioning schism/splintering? new wave? grunge? Have you seen our own sub-headings in section 5? These words all feature citation-free throughout the rest of the article and refer to music scenes far more popular than punk itself, but they strangely appear nowhere in your introduction. Meanwhile, I ensured they came with cross-references to other sizeable Wikipedia entries - which in turn mention punk clearly in their opening sentences. I am surprised that is still not reliable enough?

Are you really saying the new wave that dominated late 70s and 1980s music right into the 1990s all over the world and its intrinsic link to punk is more "fine detail" than a reference to 'Offspring' or 'Oi!'? If so, I give up, there seems little point discussing things any further.

As to Indie rock/pop, that is merely a pan-English translation thing, like football/soccer elsewhere. It certainly does not need repeating throughout the entry, but 'alternative rock' is a specifically US-only term. I assumed this entry was trying to capture punk beyond just the States. Am I wrong?

Finally, yes I acknowledge your sound points on the more recent extension of 'punk' as description to a whole range of other fields - and specifically the term 'retro-futurism'. It certainly is not my own term, I only came across it as title of the most generic Wikpedia entry that brings together diesel punk, steam punk and cyber punk. All these terms directly derive from the punk rock ethos, rather than any other usage of the word. You may not be aware of it, but I challenge you to deny this is an increasing phenomenon, one that is particularly likely to intrigue readers over the coming few years. I accept it should appear in the main article too though, and am happy to do this, but have little incentive to have a go on what our recent correspondence has achieved so far.

Oh well. Thanks for listening.

JSN2849 (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC) JSN2849

Punk in Ex-Yugoslavia

I was wondering why the section about The Republic of Macedonia and Bosnia that I added was erased when the info is taken from another wiki page? If the info is relevant for that Page, logically it is relevant for this one too.

Here is the WP btw: Yugoslavia punk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.171.229 (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You cannot use Wikipedia as a source for itself. See WP:CIRCULAR. In other words, you cannot say "this is true because it's written in another Wikipedia article". You must cite a reliable secondary source for content such as what you added. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes - but the rest of the content for yugoslavian punk doesn't have any sorces as well. And btw, what's the difference? You can just add the sorces that are attached on thee Yugoslavia punk article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastapunk (talk • contribs) 20:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yugoslavia punk is a C-class article with a lot of problems, one of which is a lack of inline citations. Punk rock is a featured article that has gone through multiple peer reviews, so it is held to a higher standard. You should therefore not add unsourced claims to this article, especially if they are unsourced in another article as well. If you want to add content to this article, you must correctly cite sources for the content you're adding. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"Kill Your Idols" documentary

Didn't watch the whole thing (it's not very good to be honest), but the documentary "Kill Your Idols" features interviews with bands like Teenage Jesus and the Jerks that were using the term "punk" to describe their music as early as 1972. They and a few other bands played amateur, improvised noise music. I think that should be mentioned here. 99.98.240.91 (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Punk exhibit at the MET Museum in NYC

[transferred from my talkpage--SabreBD (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)]
I noticed that you removed my addition to the Punk Rock wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punk_rock) regarding the Punk exhibit at the MET Museum in NYC. I believe that the Exhbition constituted an important addition to the article since it showed that Punk's impact on mainstream fashion didn't end in the 1980s or 1990s, rather, that it continues to this day. Most people don't realize this - and this was the main reason why the Met organized this exhibition.

I'm happy to discuss in more detail.

Thank youContributor2007 (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the section for three reasons. First, it seems to me to give undue weight to something that is not central to the subject of this article. Many exhibitions have been devoted to punk around the world and we could not possibly mentioned them all and certainly not give them this kind of space. The second reason is that this seems to be time limited to me. The exhibition ends this month, so the way this is phrased it will be irrelevant in a few days. The final reason is that this looks mainly like an advert for the exhibition, rather than a contribution to the reader's understanding of the genre.--SabreBD (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)