Talk:Punk rock

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)

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)

You bring up a good point. I am, indeed, aware of his remark and I have mentioned it in threads before. Though he was referring to his solo album, we are ever-aware of his earlier involvement with The Fugs (1963-1968). His and Dave Marsh's uses of the term are two of the earliest known in print, but I highly doubt that either of them, alone, could have single-handedly coined the phrase. I have always had a hunch that the term was first used as a colloquialism (in certain circles) before, and that they had heard it from others. But, I cannot prove that. Whatever the pre-1970 origin of the term was remains a mystery.

The liklihood is that Sanders was using the term in the way he probably heard it: as a colloquialism, meaning something akin to "raw, rough, primitive, ameteurish rock". Whether meant as a putdown or a compliment, this term was probably used by certain people to describe music made by lesser-known artists of the 60s (i.e. garage bands of the mid-60s such as The Standells and the Count Five, New York underground bands such as The Fugs and The Velvets, late 60s Detroit bands such as The Stooges and MC5, etc.), but once again it remains a mystery. I have listened to (and enjoyed) the Fugs' earliest songs made in 1965-1966 and they definitly sound like the description above. Supposedly, Frank Zappa used the term "punk" in a 1968 movie to describe ameteur bands, but we need to check up on that.

In 1971-1973, the rock critics you made reference to (Lester Bangs, Dave Marsh, Lenny Kaye, Greg Shaw, etc.) would write more conscientiously about the term "punk rock" and its meaning. Despite a certain vagueness about how the term should be applied to artists in the contemporary scene, there was unanimous consensus amongst them that it referred to the garage bands of the mid-60s. The label they gave what we now call "garage rock," was "punk rock." However, they did, indeed, extended its use to contemporary artists of the early 70s (but, as I mentioned, were not as clear in this respect). That they also applied it to contempory music, made it possible for New York and London scenes (1975-1977) to co-opt the term a few years later.

New York bands such as The Fugs can definitely be considered a manifestation of garage rock, albeit, a more urbanized "intellectual" type of garage music. I see no contradiction between The Fugs and the garage bands. Lester Bangs was a huge fan of the Fugs, just as he was of bands such as The Count Five and the Troggs. I need to check my sources, but I believe that he referred to The Fugs as "punk," just as he had the The Count Five.

I don't know where all the roads will lead (people may come to different conclusions), but it is a healthy thing to start asking questions about the pre-1975 origins of punk. So, Xsxex has asked a helpful question. My hunch is that there is about to be a major and widespred re-evaluation of how punk came to be. Intellectual honesty will simply no longer allow the post-1974 explanation: the facts are just too overwhelming to the contrary. Listening to songs from earlier periods with an ear towards musicological investigation tends to reinforce that impression. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It is possible that Ed Sanders coined the term. He is still alive. We should interview him. Also maybe it would be possible to get ahold of the reporter, Robb Baker, if he's still alive. That Frank Zappa movie sounds very interesting. Can you find the name of the movie? This would be a very interesting addition to our punk history indeed. Xsxex (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)