Talk:Punk rock

	This article had a peer review that has been archived. It may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article. Peer review was from 2004.
This template adds articles to Category:Old requests for peer review.

---

/Archive1 - May-November 2004

More dubious additions

Because knowledge on this topic is so diffuse, I continue to hesitate to delete without discussion, but here are two more recent additions that I think are probably wrong:

1) In the list of U.S. punk magazines "Search and Destroy" (no link, I've never heard of it, I can't say it doesn't exist). Can someone weigh in and give us a clue on where it is/was from, whether it was actually significant, etc. In any case, I'd be really surprised if it merits listing before Maximum RocknRoll, Profane Existence and Flipside. 2) Post-1970s punk: someone added "Ism" to the list. The link is irrelevant and just goes to our article -ism. I've never heard of them. Can someone vouch for them belonging here?

If no one makes a case for these, I will delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:28, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

"Search and Destroy" is legit. It was the predecessor of the REsearch publications out of San Francisco, and has been reprinted as a prime punk document (you can probably find details about the reprint at online booksellers). Unlike some of the other titles mentioned, it was actually active during the late 70s. Other zine titles that might be worth adding are the LA-based "Slash" and "NO".

"Ism" makes no sense to me. --BTfromLA 20:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the title should read "Search & Destroy," with an ampersand. --BTfromLA 21:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I know REsearch, just didn't know their earlier incarnation. Let's link it to the better-known still-existing publication and make sure the article on that mentions the earlier one. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:41, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Note that the next comment is after a gap of about 13 months

Reponse to Dubious additions-Post-1970's, Punk

"ISM" was a (hardcore)/punk band/ originally formed in the very early 80's from Queens, New York/ Their first full-length LP titled "a Diet for the Worms" (1983) with its clssic cover- an actual photo of a baby being born- it is a must have for collectors of this gendre. It is very rare, as are all of their other releases. Much more to write about this atypical band- as a credible bio is provided at www.punkvinyl.com (see selections from The Punk Vault (Ism)) . In addition, they are mentioned in the book "American Hardcore A Tribal History" by Author Steven Blush. As an added footnote- their lead singer- I believe a classically trained pianist- went under the moniker of "Jism" Six Pack Fla (undated, 10 Jan 2006)

Ah, yes, now that rings a bell. Yes, they deserve an article. Put it at Ism (punk band). I'll make a link to that from the disambig page ISM. I'm not sure if they are well enough known to merit mention in a broad article on punk, though. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Dead Milkmen

what are they classfide nobody else has that sound of punk

not totally unclassifiable. they belong somewhere in there with King Missile, Barnes and Barnes, early "Weird Al" Yankovic, select Mr. T Experience songs (like the hidden song on the "my stupid life" side of the "tapin' up my heart" 7".), Green Jellÿ, and others bands. This might be labeled "funny punk" although i've never heard that before but someone put up the article (it wasnt me!). These groups are also forebearers for the comedy of blink-182 style pop punk. Xsxex 18:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of "funny punk" before. It could be made up (which happens a lot here). I'll search google. The Ungovernable Force 08:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as I thought, it's not a notable genre (less than 17,400 hits on google and most that I saw are unrelated). Before listing for AFD I'm going to ask the creator, since they're a good editor. Maybe they can clarify. The Ungovernable Force 08:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Too drunk...

A recent anon edit turned 'the Dead Kennedys' "Too Drunk to Fuck"' into 'the Dead Kennedys' "Too Drunk to F**k"'. Is there any basis for this being the official title or was this just censorship of Wikipedia? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:52, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Um, not that I learned this on the way to my music Ph.D., but I'm pretty sure the official title is "Too Drunk to Fuck." LOL. Antandrus 02:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this has happened before, as I'm pretty sure I've reverted it previously. In any case, I've reverted it now. We should use the correct title in all cases. Tuf-Kat 05:33, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

1976-1980

Although the 1976 date is important, the 1980 one is completely arbitrary - we might want to say punk began in 1976 (though I think even that is probably papering over the ambiguity), but to say it, or even the 'first wave' ended in 1980 is really not NPOV--XmarkX 06:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Concur. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:21, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the dates are a bit arbitrary, as is almost universally the case when describing an artistic movement, but I think "beginning around 1976" is an invitation for endless additions and a generally less useful article. Unless you are arguing that the historical claim for this movement that the article is staking out is incorrect, I vote for specifying dates;75 or 76-80 seems right. If we want to qualify it with an "approximately," that's fine with me. --BTfromLA 07:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll just put my cards on the table and say that I don't think we can say that punk has had an end point. No-one specifies an end-point for musical movements like jazz or blues, so why punk? Punk has been around continuously at least since 1976, and not just in small enclaves - there have been massive punk scenes going on continuously, involving millions of people around the world. My problem with this article is that it considers the phrase 'punk-rock' to cover a four-year period. I don't doubt that people do think this, but it is not the only view about punk, so not NPOV. An article about punk-rock ought to trace out its entire history, indicate the existence of off-shoots like New Wave, Grunge, Crossover up to the present day, when punk is still huge. The major inaccuracy in this article is an inaccuracy by omission.--XmarkX 01:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for exposing your hand. So is "Punk Rock" an influential episode in the history of "Rock" (or even "Pop") music, as "Bebop" is to "Jazz," or is it a distinct category of music, like "Jazz" itself? Certainly there is a case to be made that, as you say, "punk is still huge." I come down on the side of preserving the article's focus on the original punk scene, with brief descriptions of ongoing manifestations of punk and the many punk-influenced movements, including links to more extensive articles on those. I think a narrower focus makes for a clearer article and better history. Declaring punk to have defined itself in that late-70s period does not invalidate the subsequent "punks" at all (nor does it imply that the Ramones weren't playing Punk Rock in the 90s), it just helps to place them historically. There are still Rockabilly bands, and good ones. But there was a time at which rockabilly defined itself, emerged as a force, then began to become absorbed into a variety of musical forms. Just as I think that period in the 50s should be the focus of the entry on Rockabilly, so I agree with focusing on the late seventies as the primary "Punk Rock" period. --BTfromLA 02:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but if that's your crierion, it still doesn't work: what punk is today is still pretty dynamic and in flux. It is not true that what punk rock is was defined by 1980 - what punk rock is today is not what it is then. Although there are bands who are influenced by the Ramones, there are also plenty of punk bands who are uninfluenced by early punk, except insofar as it has influenced bands, who have influenced bands, who have influenced them.--XmarkX 04:34, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to allow that my claim may be the result of a generational bias, and I won't put up much of a fight if there's a consensus to welcome an open-ended definition of Punk Rock. But please take a look at such entries as Hardcore punk, Grunge, the punk timeline, and some of the other linked articles, and ask yourself whether the encyclopedia will really be improved by the change. --BTfromLA 05:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What need to be done in the article is describe the various opinions on this issue (per: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), many of which are expressed above. Howevever, the best way to describe this is through citations (Wikipedia:Cite sources).

Once this is done it should be much easier to determine which dates are appropriate for related articles such as Timeline of punk rock (which, by the way, indicates the punk did not end in 1980). Hyacinth 18:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a wider view should be taken. This may also depend partly on countries: in the United States, 1979-1983 (or 84) or so is widely seen as the heydey of punk rock. --Delirium 13:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Newschool/Oldschool

Firstly how can you have a punk rcok article without mentioning NOFX? The most influential and successfull of the "new school" punk rock bands. Also there should be greater detail on the new punk rock of the 90's. (anon, unsigned, 30 Jan 2005)

• Well add it then!!!!! quercus robur 18:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have a feeling NoFX hasn't been as successful as some other bands like Bad Religion, Pennywise or Green Day. NoFx has only had ONE platinum cd where Green Day has had 2-4? The Police had a lot also... And then there is Blink 182 if we are counting them

amanda: For one thing, punk is not labelled as successful because of how many albums a band sells. Who even put that? Some people would even say that Blink 182 has become a sell out. I've been to concerts where NOFX has been the main attraction and based on the fans, I'd say they're successful.

Dancepunk addition

Hi, just a passerby and I'm not familiar with the layout of this whole topic. But I saw "dancepunk" as a dead link in the article for the band "!!!". I Googled a little and it seems to be a real subgenre, and I found a description or two and some representative bands, but as a beginner I'm not up to the task of categorizing this properly in the punk universe. FYI. (anon, unsigned, 30 Jan 2005)

Malcolm Maclaren and all that

Recently added material, which I've wikified:

"In New York Malcolm Maclaren was managing the New York Dolls, whose style was a hybrid between garage rock and glam, when he saw the Neon Boys perform. The Neon Boys included Tom Verlaine and [[Richard Hell], who went on to form Television. Hell's torn clothing, studded dog collars and leather jackets appealed to Maclaren as much as his dissolute attitude and indifference toward playing the bass. According to Hell, Maclaren approached Hell and Verlaine about being their manager, but they were not interested. When Maclaren returned to London in 1975 he assembled the Sex Pistols in Hell's image."

This certainly belongs in Wikipedia somewhere — certainly in the article on Maclaren, and possibly in those on other parties involved, but does it really belong in this article? Yes, more than a typical random anecdote; I'm just not sure it quite rises to the importance of something about an entire genre. In particular, it's not like the punk idea originated entirely in NYC and Maclaren was the unique route by which it reached the UK: this is more an anecdote about particular (important) bands than about the genre. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:50, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. It makes sense for the Sex Pistols article, as well as the McLaren one, but it isn't needed here. -- BTfromLA 19:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just quickly: submission was a piss-take song that the Sex Pistols wrote because Malcolm Maclaren kept bugging them to do a song about S&M (Malcolm Maclaren owned a shop that sold S&M gear). It's about a submarine mission. (Just search for submission in the main article to see why this is a little silly.)

Just stopping by for the moment, but I think I disagree pretty strongly with the general trend of some of the remarks here: my impression is that it's *extremely* difficult to get away from the notion that punk started in New York. The New York Dolls. Television. The Ramones. The idea that the Sex Pistols deserves to be credited as a serious contender as "First Punks" is pretty revisionist -- cutting this story about Malcolm McClauren, and replacing it with this business about punk spontaneously emerging around in different corners of the world is a falsification (though I admit to not knowing much about the Saints in the Brisbane scene). Malcolm McClauren managed the New York Dolls before the Sex Pistols, correct? That's a point of historical fact, right? So how do you come up with this:

In the mid-1970s, influential punk bands emerged in three different corners of the world: The Ramones in New York, The Saints in Brisbane, Australia, and the Sex Pistols, The Damned (the first band to market an album as "punk"), and The Clash in London. Early punk bands were operating within small "scenes" that included other bands and solo performers as well as enthusiastic impresarios who operated small nightclubs that provided a showcase and meeting place for the emerging musicians (the 100 Club in London, CBGB's in New York, and The Masque in Hollywood are among the best known early punk clubs).

Doom 04:20, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

It's really tricky. I can't speak of Australia, but New York probably had an identifiably "punk" scene before London did (and the Ramones' July 4, 1976 concert at the Roundhouse in London is often considered the start of the London punk scene) but (1) the Dolls were more proto-punk than punk (a lot of glam trappings), (2) at that July 4 concert one of the warm-up bands was London's Stranglers (already certainly a punk band, in fact more so than they were later) and (3) punk in New York at that time was a very local phenonmenon, whereas London-based punks soon topped the UK charts and, arguably, had more influence even in most parts of the U.S. than did the NYC scene. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:55, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'll argue that punk rock congealed as a movement in the UK in 1976. The Stranglers and Sex Pistols already existed at the time of that Ramones gig, and the Clash, Damned, Siouxsie, etc., appeared very soon after. Press reports of the "punk rock" phenomena, including the fashion, the fighting, and the politics, began in the UK, I think. Best that I can piece it together, the New York scene in 75-76 wasn't a punk scene--it was an art-influenced rock scene, probably better understood as being identified with the Bowery club CBGB than with a "punk" or "new wave" movement. Television, Blondie, Talking Heads, and the Ramones were the leading lights there, and the same audiences also embraced the roots-rock of Mink Deville and the broadway-style Orchestra Luna.

The New York Dolls clearly came and went before the punk movement arrived. One might be able to make a case that the UK punk scene was largely an interpretation of what the Ramones meant, perhaps in part including McClaren's politicized interpretation of the Dolls. But that sort of speculative thesis isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. I, too, can't really speak to the situation of the Saints; while I know they released some of the earliest records that are labeled "punk," as far as I know they had little impact in either the UK or the US. BTfromLA 01:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with that, although I think the Ramones (unlike the other NYC acts of '75-'76) were not particularly an "art-influenced" band. It is possible that we could bring more precision to the article about just who did what and in what order. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:44, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

This is another problem: Best that I can piece it together, the New York scene in 75-76 wasn't a punk scene--it was an art-influenced rock scene, probably better understood as being identified with the Bowery club CBGB than with a "punk" or "new wave" movement. Television, Blondie, Talking Heads, and the Ramones were the leading lights there ... Originally punk was a much broader, more diverse scene than it became in the 1990s: this is part of the revisionism I'm complaining about. All of a sudden "Television" ain't punk enough (because the lyrics weren't stupid enough? Punk has to be low-brow in order to be populist? ). This article presents a "history" of punk, but it's just a record of one particular point of view, and the real history is that the meaning of the term shifted in subtle (and not so subtle) ways over the years. It seems really weird to me that the party line on the True Meaning of Punk excludes a bunch of the bands that I was reading about in Punk surveys in the Village Voice in the late 70s. And you know, when I was listening to the Good City Rock Show on WBAI in the late 70s, the New York Dolls fit right into the mix with the Ramones... Doom 05:04, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Are there no other Australians here? The Saints certainly had a punk sound before having any NY scene influence. Their first exposure (according to the band members) to "punk rock" played by anyone but themselves was hearing the Ramones on the radio (The Ramones having been much more popular here than in America or the UK in their early days). Their reaction was almost the same as that the Ramones had upon first hearing the Sex Pistols - "They sound just like us!". --Switch 07:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Punk Site...

Jmabel you keep deleting the link I added for punkomatik.com. This site is new but its goal is to unite local punk scenes. The point of wiki is that no one decision is made by one person, Why not let the rest of the punk community have a chance to decide. (User:Sschopp, unsigned, March 17, 2005)

I see nothing encyclopedic about this link. Last I looked, the calendar showed no punk shows happening in Seattle, LA, or San Fransicco in March; it looks like little more than the framework for a site. Also, last I checked Sschopp's sole contributions to Wikpedia have consisted of efforts to add this site. This looks like self-interested linkspam.

Still, I have now reverted it several times; I won't be the next to do so, but if others agree with me, they should. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:31, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Jmabel ; please do not restore that link. If at some point in the future it becomes an encylopedic source of info about punk rock activity, we can reconsider it. BTfromLA 18:36, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"www.punknews.org" covers Mallcore and Pop-Punk its not really relevent in an article about actual punk...

A serch for it comes back as...

Punknews.org Tours, News and Reviews about Punk, Emo and Hardcore. www.punknews.org/

And while the site covers groups such as Green Day, Fall Out Boy & Avenged Sevefold it seems to be more of an MTV, kiddie pop-punk website.. just thought this should go here.

Deathrocker 18:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Inspirations and fatuous acts

I'm interested in opinions on contemporary (70s) acts that the first punks were inspired by, and those they were acting against. David Bowie has recently been moved from the former category to the latter. (We can also consider the extent to which the same acts may fall into both categories). Whatever one says about the punk's relation to him, I don't think Bowie can be fairly characterized as a "sixties" act, which is how it reads now. Also, the reference to the influence of "art" or "glam" rock bands has been totally taken over by the "glam,"—Sweet , Bolan and Gary Glitter. There's a mention of a film that I'm not familiar with to support the Bowie-was-fatuous claim... I'd appreciate some more description of how that was shown to be the case.

My recollection, which I think would be bourne out by an examination of the music press at the time, is that the more self-consciously art-oriented pop acts: Roxy Music and Eno in particular, but also Sparks, solo Lou Reed and others, were an important part of the milieu in which punk emerged--while the punk bands may have reacted against those acts in some respects, the early fans and critical admirers of punk (and early new wave acts like Televison and Talking Heads that were part of the same US movement as the Ramones) were largely drawn from the fans of Roxy, etc. At least that seemed true on the US side of the pond. I guess my own tendency would be to weight Roxy's influence, say. much more heavily than that of Gary Glitter. But influence and affinity is a tough thing to parse, and I don't want to inappropriately impose my own anecdotal experience on the whole history. Thoughts? BTfromLA 18:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree on the importance of Roxy (especially the first 2 albums) and Reed, and think that punks mostly tended to have mixed feelings on Bowie. Gary Glitter, though, rides high. I was in London a lot during the 70s, and I think almost every punk band I knew pointed to Gary as part of what made them see again what 3-chord rock could be. In the U.S., he was nothing, the only things of his most Americans know are "Rock'n'Roll, Part 2" (and most don't even know the name of that) and maybe some covers of his stuff by Joan Jett, but in the UK he had about a dozen chart-topping hits. "Do You Want to Touch Me", "My Gang", things like that, were a major part of the musical formation of punk. Ironic that an old, stage-savvy pro in a sequined suit influenced punk, but he really did. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:05, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Especially in light of what he is now better-known as being: Gary Glitter

Very informative response, thanks. Anyone else? (And although I haven't seen the film in question, I concur wih the sense of your assessment of the "Party People" remarks, below). BTfromLA 04:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

24 Hour Party People

"...as displayed in the film on the subject 24 Hour Party People..." Huh? It's a fiction film, very specific to the Manchester scene in the post-punk era. If there was a point here it's unclear, please rewrite. If not, I will delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:38, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Mixed bag of additions

There were several recent mostly anonymous additions, some of them good, some probably not. It's too complicated to sort out by just editing, so I'm bringing it here.

The term "punk rock" &hellip was originally used to describe &hellip U.S. bands of the mid-1960s such as The Seeds and The Standells, who now are more often categorized as "garage rock".

became

The term "punk rock" &hellip was originally used to describe &hellip U.S. bands of the mid-1960s such as The Seeds, The Sonics, Pink Fairies, The Dinosaurs from Saint Louis, Missouri 1960's-1980's, Hawkwind, MC5, Iggy Pop and the Stooges, Witches' Brew, and The Standells, who now are more often categorized as "the founding members of the punk rock genre of music".

• I have no problem adding The Sonics (although I will point out that with The Seeds that means we are listing two Seattle-area bands).
• MC5 are already mentioned below. I seen no need to add them here.
• Pink Fairies and Hawkwind probably deserve mention in the article, but I think not in this context. They are UK, not U.S. bands. They aren't who the term originally referred to (they were called "Peoples’ Bands"). Can we put in a separate sentence about them instead?
• The Dinosaurs from Saint Louis, Missouri 1960's-1980's: What the heck kind of link is that? If they merit an article, write it (under a better name than that), demonstrate their notability, but until I see it I say they don't belong here. Similarly Witches' Brew (who?).
• the founding members of the punk rock genre of music: just silly, especially as a link. Revert to garage rock

Including "The Sex Pistols, Billy Idol and Generation X, The Clash" in the British Invasion is so wrong I've simply reverted it.

'Although in the 1970's Blondie bridged the gap between disco, punk rock and rap with their song "RAPTURE"' is a sentence fragment hanging out in the middle of nowhere (and there is no reason for the song title to be all caps). The statement may well belong in the article somewhere; any thoughts?

Punk also rejected the remnants of the hippie counterculture of the 1960s Bands such as Jefferson Airplane which had survived the 1960s were regarded by most punks as having become fatuous…

became

Punk also rejected the remnants of the hippie counterculture of the 1960s with band such as the Pink Fairies in the 1960's who were ahead of their times with notions of "sticking it to the man" (oppressive governments and authority figures). The Pink Fairies are just now being appreciated for their contributions to music and society. Bands such as Jefferson Airplane which had survived the 1960s were regarded by most punks as having become fatuous…

Speaking of fatuous… I'm going to just delete "The Pink Fairies are just now being appreciated for their contributions to music and society", and I think that can stay deleted. I don't think "with band such as the Pink Fairies in the 1960's (sic) who were ahead of their times with notions of 'sticking it to the man' (oppressive governments and authority figures)" is much better. Like there is supposed to be something unusual about a late 1960s band having been associated with radical politics? And it doesn't work with what else is being said here. I'm going to delete it from here; if someone can say something substantive about how the Pink Fairies influenced punk, though, as I said above, that would belong in the article. Certainly the spirit was similar. But Jefferson Airplane were also (very) political in their day (and I'd say their work from their first 4 or 5 years stands up beautifully: that isn't what the punks thought was fatuous).

The (new) paragraph beginning "The 1980's were full of underground bands all over the world..." is POV fan writing. It may have something worth keeping. I didn't look closely. Will someone else please look at that one? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I cut that paragraph--it really didn't add anything meaningful. I also trimmed the inaccurate "original" punks, restoring the Standells and preserving the Sonics, cutting the others. I don't know if we even need three examples there, but at least those three are correct. (And what's this about the Seeds being from Seattle? They were certainly based in Southern Cal (as were the Standells) during most of their career--did Sky and the boys migrate south?). I'm sorry if wholesale deletions of these contributions seem harsh--I hate to discourage an editor--but those additions really didn't add much of enclopedic value. If the contributors want further clarification (Though JMabel was more than generous in spelling out the reasons these were problematic), please bring it up here, on the talk page. BTfromLA 06:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the "the 1980's were full. . . ." cut. While undoubtedly heartfelt, the writing was really bad. There was a good idea buried in there (i.e. that not all punk rock attitudes were negative) which I tried to incorporate in the revision I've just made to that section. Check it out. Soundguy99 15:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)Soundguy99

• Not sure of the full history on the Seeds, but they were here in Seattle at least part of their career. Sky himself was around the U. District when I moved here (1977) and still here as late as the late '80s; not sure where he is now or even if he is alive. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:52, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sky is still kickin': [1]. I don't know the details of the bands' origin, but they were definitely LA-area based in the 60s. ~~

Does this belong?

Recently added external link:

• Revolution Rock: A Punk History Of The Clash

This almost certainly doesn't belong as the first external link. I doubt it belongs at all. I didn't get any farther into this Flash-based site than to see that the first thing that came up was a request for money. I figured I'd give someone else a chance to speak up before deleting, but I'm inclined to delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:54, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it is marginally appropriate link on the Clash page (it actually does address the history of the band, and I poked around a bit without running into solicitations for money). As it isn't primary material and doesn't deal with punk rock as a whole, though, I vote delete here. BTfromLA 18:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I think we're in agreeement then, as far as this page goes. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:59, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Power Chord?

I find it hard to believe that throughout the entire article there was no reference to the power chord... All the bits about 'three chords' should give guitarists the general idea, but don't you think that a link to the power chord article would be appropriate in this article? Punk rock basically ruined classic rock (not necessarily a bad thing) because they opened up a gate for people who only needed to memorize three hand positions.

• Well, this article has shaped up to be primarily a general origin and history rather than a musical analysis, but if you think that you can create a useful paragraph or two of musical analysis, including a link to power chord, then go for it. Remember, anyone can edit. Soundguy99 18:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P.S. you can sign your name & date to Talk pages postings by typing four tildes, like so: ~~~~

• • Ideally, I think this article should have quite a bit of musical analysis along with history. A more detailed history of punk rock should be spun out when the article gets overlong. Tuf-Kat 21:41, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Additions to 90's punk

I made some additions to the section on punk of the 90s and today. I added information on the Epitaph Records/Gilman Street-fueled skate-punk craze of the mid-90s, the brief ska-punk revival of the later 90s, how Bush and Blair have become to today's political punks what Reagan and Thatcher were to yesterday's (i.e. PunkVoter and Rock Against Bush), a bit on how the Internet and filesharing have affected the DIY aspect of today's punk, and many of the controversial issues surrounding punk now, ex. whether or not you can sign to a major label and be on MTV while still being considered punk.

I also changed the wording of the last little bit lamenting that punk has become more of a fashion statement than a genuine counterculture, since while that is an unignorable debate in current times, I thought it was phrased a little too overdramatically for an encyclopedia article.

Lastly, regarding the current emo trend: I don't listen to emo, so I could be wrong (hence why this is on the Talk Page) but I'm quite certain that emo has been around since the 80s, albeit in a different form, and isn't just a term conjured up by the media to create another fad. While the emo bands of today are often dismissed as being just a fad for angsty teenagers, I don't think the genre itself was begun as a media-hyped trend. Inanechild 14:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous comment

The following anonymous remark was recently placed at the top of the page. I've moved it down here and added a pseudo-sig. I don't claim to know the point of the remark. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:47, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

NNPOV:

Punk quickly became more accessible to the average person, amid complaints from underground punk fans that, by being signed to major labels and appearing on MTV, these bands were buying into the system that punk was created to rebel against, and as a result, could not be considered true punk. This debate continues with the popularity of pop-punk in the early 2000s, and the emo trend of recent times.

? (anon 3 May 2005)

To the anonymous commenter: I wouldn't consider that not NPOV. It would be ridiculous to pretend as though these debates over what's punk and what's not don't happen. Inanechild 22:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

on the origin of the phrase "punk rock"

I was under the impression that the tag "punk rock" originated in a 1969 Rolling Stone review of the MC5's "Kick Out the Jams" written by Lester Bangs. However, I don't have the issue in question, so I really have no way of confirming it. My only source that Lester Bangs and not Dave Marsh coined the term is a short story by Bruce Sterling called "Dori Bangs" which deals with a might-have-been senario involving Lester Bangs and a comic book writer named Dori Senda. This story can be found in the book Globalhead. Since this may not be a 100% reliable source, I'd appreciate any research that could be done by the Wikipedia community.

Remarkably, that Lester Bangs review is online.[2] Bangs doesn't coin the phrase "punk rock." One sentence does include the word "punks": "Never mind that they came on like a bunch of 16 years old punks on a meth power trip - these boys, so the line ran, could play their guitars like John Coltrane and Pharaoh Sanders played sax!" He comes much closer to talking about punk rock later in the review—"Musically the group is intentionally crude and aggressively raw. Which can make for powerful music except when it is used to conceal a paucity of ideas, as it is here. Most of the songs are barely distinguishable from each other in their primitive two-chord structures. You've heard all this before from such notables as the Seeds, Blue Cheer, Question Mark and the Mysterians, and the Kingsmen." While he clearly sees a tendency that later was labelled "punk rock," Bangs didn't coin a phrase to describe it. He just says, somewhat dismissively, "you've heard this all before"-- BTfromLA 15:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC).

Still, Bangs was an early user of the term "punk" in the relevant sense. A year ago, the article used to say:

Probably the first use of the term "punk" music was in Lester Bangs' 1971 essay "Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung": "... punk bands started cropping up who were writing their own songs but taking the Yardbirds' sound ..."

until someone found the earlier Dave Marsh usage. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:45, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

The question isn't when the word punk was first used to describe a band. The question is when was a new genre named punk? The early uses meaning beginner. Just because someone called some musicians punks or called a band a punk band does not mean that they named the new genre. --Gbleem 08:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You are replying to a year-old discussion. But I'll take it back up. There is no clean line where the word started referring to a genre, just like there is no clean barrier around the genre. The Bangs quotation is, indeed dismissive; a few years later in his essay "Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung" it starts to refer to the genre that would later be called "garage rock"; Lenny Kaye picked that up and used it as a genre name (in that sense) in the notes to Nuggets. A few years after that, Kaye was playing with Patti Smith, and they were using the name to talk about their own music. That seems to me to be the lineage; it may not be the only lineage, though. - Jmabel | Talk 00:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Roundhouse '76 nitpicking, etc.

Allow me to fuss over trivia for a moment: the Flamin' Groovies were the top billed act and, I think, the last to perform at that famous show. That they were upstaged is clear. So the Stranglers were third on the bill, if we want to be precise. As long as I'm fussing, I'm pretty sure that the '76 version of the Groovies was totally a Cyril Jordan project, and Roy Loney was no longer with the group.

A more significant question about the article is how to accurately describe the migration of the term punk from the sixties garage bands to the CBGB's scene to the Pistols/UK scene. This probably involves describing the evolving distinction(s) between punk and new wave, which is a bit knotty. BTfromLA 30 June 2005 07:00 (UTC)

I think you are right about the Stranglers coming on last, but I'm pretty sure you are wrong about Loney no longer being with the Groovies. Damn, though, it's scary that I can't remember firmly. Oh, well, like they say about the Sixties, if you can remember, then you weren't really there. There must be a solid account of that show by someone who wrote things down at the time instead of trying to remember in middle age.

I'm pretty certain that circa '77 the term "New Wave" for music wasn't even around. "Pub rock" covered people like Nick Lowe, Elvis Costello, and Alex Harvey. -- Jmabel | Talk July 1, 2005 06:12 (UTC)

A quick search (see [3] and [4]) seems to confirm that Loney left the band in 1971 or '72, right after "Teenage Head." And, to clarify, my recollection of 7/4/76 is: Stranglers took the stage first, then Ramones, finally Groovies. That is certainly the way the were billed. If I searched through my old magazines, I could probably come across a contemporary review of the show.

As it happens, I was sorting through some such zines recently, and came across a self-described "intellectual rock 'n' roll magazine" from 1978 called Terminal Zone. It categorized the Ramones, Sex Pistols, Talking Heads, Wire, Patti Smith, Pere Ubu, XTC, etc. all as "new wave." "Punk" was not an option, though they do talk about "punk-rock" in some detail in a longer discussion of the Sex Pistols later in the issue. Basically, they seem to treat "punk rock" as a sub-genre of "new wave," and I think this was a fairly common perception at the time, at least from the US POV. I'm not at all sure that the idea that "new wave" was purely a marketing invention by Seymour Stein is accurate.

By the way, the magazine's other categories for recent records included "A little Art, sans Linkletter", including Eno, Ferry, Bowie, Kraftwwerk, Cale, Hawkwind..., "Rock 'n' Roll, holdover division," with Rolling stones, Dylan, Beach Boys, Johansen, Groovies, Lou Reed... "Pop, Power, Pure and otherwise," Elton John, Dwight Twilley, Abba, Generation X, Joan Armatrading... "Pure Product for the Manipulated Masses" Debby Boone, Fleetwood Mac, John Denver, Dolly Parton... --BTfromLA 1 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)

It was indeed a Flamin' Groovies gig; Stranglers up first, then The Ramones, then the Groovies. All three groups reconvened the following night just down the road at Dingwalls, Camden Lock. I think this was rather hastily organised; I don't remember any publicity but word of mouth. At the Roundhouse, Joey started The Ramones' set by shouting something along the lines of "We're The Ramones, and you better shut up!", followed by absolute silence. The was no power to anybody's amplifier at all. I don't know exactly what went wrong but I do remember it took an age to get it fixed.BTLizard 10:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Whole Earth Catalog as foundation of punk?

While I'm an admirer of Stewart Brand and I think the Whole Earth Catalog is woefully under-recognized, it seems to me that it's a real stretch to include it in a short encyclopedic article on punk rock. I'm afraid I vote for deleting that new paragraph on WEC/SF/DIY, on grounds that it is too digressive. Other opinions? BTfromLA 2 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)

• I'm with you on this. While the link from the Whole Earth DIY ethic to Gilman Street in particular might be worth mentioning in an article on Bay Area culture, or even on the DIY ethic, its inclusion in an article on punk is dubious. San Francisco was not the crucible of punk, although it has something of a claim as a crucible of DIY. -- Jmabel | Talk July 3, 2005 03:24 (UTC)

Nirvana, Punk eh NO

Nirvana is not punk rock. Kurt has even explicity said that they were not punk. In the booklet inside With the Lights Out there is even a mention saying that Nirvana were labeled punk by critics who didn't know what punk was. Jobe6 05:37, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Nirvana is definately not punk, nirvana is grunge...grunge is the FUSION of punk,hard rock and metal...get it right kiddies... (anon - but of course - 13 Aug 2005)

Nirvana is a grunge band. They are FAR from punk. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Make sure no one changes the info to say Nirvana is a punk band. In fact, Wikipedia even states that Nirvana is a grunge band. Newguineafan 16:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Will do. I would have to keep changing it anyway because it gets vandalized so much. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Nirvana, Punk hell yes!

Well, allmusic.com would differ Job. I mean, what other form of music could have the power and juice to single handedly deal a death blow to the bloated hair metal that was so prevalent at the time? While admittedly they melded metal into their sound as well, there is little doubt that Nirvana is punk. I knew Nirvana was punk the first time I heard it. If not punk, then what? "Grunge"? That's a bogus term. Metal? There is more to the story than that, for sure. "Alternative", - that term is way too ambiguous. Nirvana was prominently featured in the recent documentary "Punk: Attitude". I am actually puzzled that one might think that this music is *not* punk, and believe me, I know my punk. Since you seem to specialize in Soundgarden, (who were more metal than anything), perhaps you are defending the term "grunge" as an actual artistic movement, in the simillar vein as punk? I don't care what Kurt said while he was headed downhill, he was probably a complete wreck at the time, you can't go by that or some booklet in a compliation album. I know punk when I hear it, and I am very confident of this assertion. Listen to "Breed", or "Negative Creep" and tell me this is not punk. Perhaps you did not realize that you actually like punk rock music?

A nirvana fan site has an interview with nirvana in november of 1989.

Kurt: Maybe we're more like the Stooges type of punk rock, before punk rock was a trendy fashion statement. And, where people would expect to try to act as punk rock as possible.

Chad: That's why we're not punk rock. [Kurt chuckles]

The band themselves said they are not punk rock so i guess they are not punk rock. Jobe6 06:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

--- Chad was a member for a short time, before the definitive lineup inlcuding Dave Grohl. Also, take a look at your reference. It seems clear to me it was sarcasm/humor. Why else would Kurt laugh? In that quote he stated that they *are* punk rock, in the vein of the Stooges.

Try a google search for Nirvana + punk -> more than 750,000 hits!

Nirvana is not punk turns up more than 1,000,000 hits. Jobe6 06:50, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but most of the hits are cases where the terms Nirvana, punk, and the word "not" happpen to appear on the same page. For example, one of this first hits is from http://www.mp3.com/nirvana/artists/4318/biography.html

"Prior to Nirvana, alternative music was consigned to specialty sections of record stores and major labels considered it to be, at the very most, a tax write-off. After the band's second album, 1991's Nevermind, nothing was ever quite the same, for better and for worse. Nirvana popularized punk, post-punk, and indie rock, unintentionally bringing it into the American mainstream like no other band before it."

I guess we have to agree that Wikipedia is the definitve source, if not allmusic.com? Take a look at the Nirvana entry, "Nirvana was a popular rock band founded in 1987 in Aberdeen, Washington. Their music was an offshoot of punk and alternative rock and was labeled grunge rock by the mainstream press and media of the time." Seems pedantic to argue the differences between my phrase "Nirvana was essentially a punk rock band", and "Nirvana was an offshoot of punk..." (unsigned 29 July 2005)

"Breed" and "Negative Creep" are certainly punk. "Smells Like Teen Spirit"? Something new entirely. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:42, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Azzerad discusses how Nirvana sprang out of the underground scene that had been created by punk rock in Our Band Could Be Your Life an awful lot. Rather than digress into original research, it would be better to refer to the "experts"; it's a complicated topic, and deserves a complicated discussion. siafu 22:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Crass declaring "Punk is Dead" did not mean they were no longer punk. I think that musically, lyrically and all other -lys I could add that Nirvana were punk. If NOFX can be considered punk, so can Nirvana. In fact, Nirvana is a hell of a lot more punk than most "punk" bands these days. Especially early Nirvana. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.168.14.42 (talk • contribs) 12 Sept 2005.

Of course Nirvana is punk. Punk is an attitude more than a musical style. In the new documentary, Punk: Attitude, Darryl Jenifer of the Bad Brains said in reference to Chuck Berry duck walking across the stage "Now that's some punk shit!" He's right of course. The Pixies were some punk shit too. (Cries will now ensue- "No, no, no!! The Pixies are INDIE ROCK!! Please don't blur the lines or mix the categories!") Punk isn't about three chords and adhering to preordained musical forms, it's about rebellion, overturning the status quo and opening eyes. Yup, Nirvana... that's some punk shit! -- Buster 15:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

They were Punk influenced but not actually Punk, as has already been said about 1,000 times already on this page they were Grunge.

Deathrocker 18:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

i gotta differ on one thing.... there are musical elements that set nirvana apart from punk. specifically, nirvanas music is much more tense and dark, while the music of punk is just way more happy (lots of kind of sing-song major melodies, none of the tense harmonies or melodic nuances that you find in nirvana). as far as the production and sound design go, they are certainly very similar... in fact, cobain always wanted his music to be produced exactly like never mind the bollocks... "everything totally compressed and in your face" (his producers never quite did it like that, but cobain has certainly said that he always wanted that kind of production). and of course bad brains is a huge inspiration to cobain. lots of punk had inspired him, and he always said he regretted that he wasn't "punk" enough.

Grunge is just some term created by the early 90s music press, Nirvana is a punk band. Jacknife737 03:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[...]the music of punk is just way more happy (lots of kind of sing-song major melodies, none of the tense harmonies or melodic nuances that you find in nirvana)

What punk do you listen to? Maybe pop-punk is happy with sing song melodies, but that is rare in most other punk genres. There is less "tense harmonies" and "melodic nuance", but it does happen occasionally. The Ungovernable Force 03:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nirvana were punk! To say that they "weren't punk, they were grunge" is really shortsighted. It's possible for a band to fall into more than one genre. That's like saying "Neil Young wasn't a coutnry musician, he was a rock musician." You listen to "Nevermind," close your eyes, forget the name of the band, and try to tell me that it wasn't punk rock. You can hear definite Stooges influences, definite Ramones influences, I know Kurt was a big fan of The Raincoats and a million other punk bands. If Glenn Branca calls you a punk, then you're a punk. If Steve Albini thinks you're a punk, then you're a punk. I would be willing to argue that if they never sold a million copies, all of the neysayers would be hailing them as a great punk band. --128.205.167.6 06:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nirvana killed hair metal with GRUNGE and Green Day killed grunge with real music. touche.

---

I humbly disagree. To label Nirvana a punk rock band is, to me, inaccurate. There is an esthetic to punk music (think Stiv Bators), almost a sneer. Obviously there were elements of punk in Nirvana. But what they popularized ("grunge" or "alternative") was much more introspective, personal, and borderline depressing (or narcissistic if you didn't care for it.)

To me, what is in play here is what I call piggy-backing. Fans of a certain genre want to "piggy-back" rock's most successful musical acts and claim them as their own. The new documentary on the "History of Metal" tries the same stunt with Nirvana. The band was an amalgam of several styles.

I agree with the theorem: Punk:Rock::BeBop:Jazz. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeromeParr (talk • contribs) 9 August 2006.

Origins of the term

I had an issue with the often-asserted belief restated in the paragraph:

The term was coined by rock critic Dave Marsh, who used it to describe the music of ? and the Mysterians in the May 1971 issue of Creem magazine. The term was adopted by many rock music journalists in the early 1970s. For example, in the liner notes of the 1972 anthology album Nuggets, critic and guitarist Lenny Kaye uses the term "punk-rock" to refer to the Sixties "garage rock" groups, as well as some of the darker and more primitive practitioners of 1960s psychedelia. Shortly after the time of those notes, Lenny Kaye formed a band with avant-garde poet Patti Smith. Smith's group, and her first album, Horses, released in 1975, directly inspired many of the mid-1970s punk rockers, so this suggests a path by which the term migrated to the music we now know as punk.

This is not, in fact, the origin of the term. Rather, as the other portions of the "punk rock" entry suggest, the term was first applied to garage rock in contradistinction to "punk rock" as such. My interactions with Dave Marsh personally have convinced me that his knowledge of punk rock is limited, and I do not believe he intended to apply the term in the manner suggested by the paragraph quoted above.

In addition, there are competing claims to coining the term. Such as the creators of Punk Magazine, who discuss this in the book "Please Kill Me".

In short, I believe the quote paragraph (in using the word "suggest") indicated that the proferred history of the term is at best speculative, and furthermore is the subject of competing claims of origin. I suggest the quoted paragraph should be deleted. I think it's indicative of many changes needed in this entry, which I believe innacurately suggests the origins of the musical genre (e.g., by ignoring bands like The Stooges, Rocket From the Tombs, and many of the influences of punk rock like French poet Arthur Rimbaud, the Beats, etc. etc.).

I think you are misreading the paragraph--nowhere does it imply that Marsh wanted to apply the term to the Sex Pistols, etc. The the application of the term to an ongoing scene by Punk magazine is acknowleged elsewhere in the article, and if you want to beef up the section on historical precidents, I don't see how cutting this paragraph servs that end. I really don't understand what you disagree with here. BTfromLA 16:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Nirvana was just a very good Punk Rock Band. I don't like to over categorize. They transcended Punk but all in the same went back to Punk Roots in their music similar to Green Day. I hate that when a band gets so good they have to be recategorized. Bands like Nirvana and Green Day can go beyond the rock riffs that the Sex Pistols produced. (anon 10 Aug 2005)

The Misfits in the first paragraph?

I think The Misfits are misplaced in the opening paragraph, since (1) they were largely derivative of the other bands listed with them and (2) they were little-known and not influential outside the US, until the late 1980s at least. Grant65 (Talk) 14:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree--it's a stretch to include them in the first generation. BTfromLA 16:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

True. Also the Misfits were instrumental in bridging the gap between Punk and Thrash Metal. When Metal reached in the Punk bin most of the time it was Sex Pistols-Misfits. (anon 10 Aug 2005)

the art attacks: do they belong here?

I don't think the art attacks are (even nearly) notable enough to merit mention in this article. Someone keeps adding them. Yes, they merit an article themselves. No, mentioning them is not useful to explain what punk is. I wouldn't include Big in Japan or the Fastbacks here, either, though I think both are great bands. I won't keep reverting unilaterally, but I'd appreciate it if others who have been significantly involved in the article would weigh in. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

The Art Attacks clearly don't belong in a short intro to punk. I think that whole section could use trimming: the list of UK bands is overlong, and the LA bands list could also stand to shed a name or two. BTfromLA 04:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, they were not influential.Grant65 (Talk) 15:12, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

We still get shit

It is incorrect to state that punks faced hostility and violence from others "in its heyday". I, and many other street punks, are very often harrassed and subject to harsh violence from passersby who feel provoked by our appearance and actions(and that's before we get to the nazis and policemen who seem to attack us reflexively). I suggest it is edited to reflect this more contemporary fact. Tias 12:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

the reason everyone acts that way is you look suspect to begin with and don't look all that friendly either and can scare a lot of people too

Oh, and that's justification for beating the shit out of me? You seem to be an apologist for discrimination and violence, that's scares me! Tias 07:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If by "street punk" you mean that you loiter about and make a public nusiance of yourself, that probably has more to do with why you get harassed than your clothes or haircut. Or perhaps you live in a small town where stereotypical punk rock attire is still somehow regarded as "shocking" after all these long years? In any case, I can assure as a former punk who is now within sniffing distance of age 40, whatever static you're getting today, it's nothing compared to what most punks had to deal with 25 years ago. Not trying to deride your way of life, just stating a fact. Druff 00:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Street punk means that I have had to live day to day, sometimes without a home. I don't make anymore a nuisance of myself than I am constitutionally entitled to, unless you consider my appearance and attire worthy of harassment(which you do not). I live in the capital of Denmark, and punk has been here since '78, so it can hardly be considered unusual at all - maaany punks here, there's just as many fuckjobs who can't handle it. Not that I mind being yelled at, it goes with the "job", but I still don't get the reason some people attack me reflexively. The reason for my posting here is that harassment and violence against punks, even those who do not ACT provocatively, is something that happens today, it is not some mythical phenomenon from punk rock's heyday. - Tias

It's as I thought, then. Little garners more resentment from the local citizenry than a young, able-bodied bum sitting in their streets and doing nothing to contribute. Whatever reasons you have for being homeless, what they see is a lazy, shiftless kid who refuses to work for a living. That's why you get harassed. The fact that you put all of your energy into dying and spiking your hair and painting and studding your leather jacket instead of making an living is why they give you crap. When you grow up, you'll understand. Until then- Anarchy, Peace, and Equality, kiddo. ;) Druff 18:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I put my energy into writing here, going to school, making music and helping out my community(Not that I don't have time over to do my hair, though ;) ); but they still harass and violate because OF WHAT THEY SEE. We can agree that is wrong, yesno? I'm legally an adult, if you cannot explain it to me without saying I have to be grown up, you don't have anything worthwhile to impart, as I see it. We should continue this in user talk, I think. It's waay off-topic. Tias 08:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm amazed at Druff's attitude- surely anybody has the right to live free from the threat of violence and intimidation, no matter how they look or dress or spend their time??? That is fundemental human rights, and the ignorance of those elements of the 'citizenry' who attack those who are 'different' or that they are making assumptions about should be condemned rather than excused. BTW I used to dres like a 'punk' myself 20 odd years ago (pink mohican, ripped trousers, Crass teeshirts, etc- thats me lying down on the train seat in the photo on the Punk rock page BTW...), but never got any shit for it that I can remember, nor did I deserve any either. I Did used to get the odd tourist in London wanting to take my picture, I always told them I'd prefer they didn't, I was a person, not a postcard novelty.... Anarchy and peas quercus robur 09:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm really not getting into the "right" or "wrong" aspect of the issue. I don't think it's "right" that people make assumptions about others based on their their appearance. But no matter if you or I think it's right or wrong, it's simply what many people do. And they always will, unless we as a species somehow achieve Total Englightenment a few thousand years from now. Until then, it's basic human nature. I don't condone it. However, I have come to accept it as an inevitability of human society. Sure, people have the right to dress however they want. But everything has its consequences. If you're going to dress up as an outcast, then be prepared to live the part. Druff 22:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The Stooges

I think the Stooges really solidified everything it means to be a Punk band (coming from gritty (Detroit/Chicago not wimpy Seattle) and they were the first ones to do this extremley. I can see The Sonics as a starting point. Interesting how Punk came back around to Seattle with Nirvana but then these bands were the best I think. Shouldn't American Idiot be up there and its cover? Pretty good right or no? It's funny how America invented Punk Rock and Britain invented Heavy metal music. I am more of a Heavy Metal man myself. More the standard fare but we all love Sex Pistols and Misfits which contributed greatly to Thrash metal music. Now the Metal scene needs to produce a Rock opera. Judas Priest 'Angel of Retribution' is close. Also interesting how Green Day is from very Liberal San Francisco. So that's why they put out such a political album now. (anon 10 Aug 2005)

The Stooges were certainly very important in the early scene, as major influences on folks like the Ramones, who directly or indirectly inspired nearly every punk act since. But, of course, if you look closely the antecedents go much further back than that, I would argue all the way to Link Wray and the Wraymen, who really deserve a passing mention and a link in this article FAR more than most of the bands that are mentioned. Arker 23:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd favor a mention of Link Wray. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Flipperdick

I see that Flipper (presumably that should be Flipper (band)) and the Dicks have found their way into the article in talking about early hardcore. Flipper are certainly a good band. Were they notable enough to belong mentioned here? The Dicks I only know by reputation. Again, were they notable enough to belong mentioned here? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Flipper certainly belongs, I believe. Whereas most HC was stripped-down punk rock played at a faster pace, Flipper was stripped down and played slower. Many critics are still perplexed about how to pigeonhole them, but as originators of a distinctive style, they primarily found their fans among punk rockers, shared stages mostly with other punk and hardcore bands, and thus gave inspiration to myriad punk and hardcore bands including Fang, Blight (Tesco Vee's pre-Meatmen band), No Trend, Broken Talent ("My God Can Beat Up Your God"), Drunks With Guns, Stickmen With Rayguns, and the Melvins; all of these bands were mentioned in "American Hardcore" by Steven Blush. --RickEle

The Skate-Rock Line

I believe this line should be revised or deleted:
Epitaph Records, an independent record label started by Brett Gurewitz of Bad Religion, would become the home of the "skate punk" sound, characterized by bands like Pennywise, NOFX, The Offspring, and blink-182.
The four bands mentioned in this line don't fit well with the "skate punk" label. The bands mentioned in the skate punk article should be used as refrence instead (JFA, Circle Jerks, Black Flag, Dr. Know, Faction, etc.)Also, I've always believed Epitaph to be a pop-punk label, better skate-punk examples would be Mystic Records or Spontaenous Combustion.
ThisOrder 02:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

A bit outside of my musical expertise, but yes, I would identify your list more with skate punk than the list in the article. I suggest you edit accordingly. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This may be a generational issue: skate punk in the 1990s was identified closely with bands like NOFX and Pennywise, and by that time bands like Black Flag were seen as "old-school hardcore". --Delirium 13:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Could well be; I'm certainly one of "the old guys" (or old-school guys) on this page. So can we reword to be inclusive of both? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

A few amendments 5 Oct 05

Couldn't let a couple of things go unchecked. The reference to Gary Glitter as a glam/art rock influence has been changed to David Bowie (the Bromley set were obsessed with him, Glen Matlock says the riff for "God Save The Queen" was ripped off The Spiders From Mars in his autobiography). The band Suicide have been included as CBGB's significants, the band Magazine as a major UK post-punk act. Included a reference to what is recognised as the first punk single of the '76 London scene. A few spelling corrections and a slant on the Grundy interview. Oh, and the excellent England's Dreaming in the references. Needs a page, I'll try to bash one out this weekend. I'd like to do more so let me know if approval has been earned. / JC

Mixed bag of edits

I think these edits by User:81.103.219.167 are a mixed bag. Some seem arbitrary, just substitutions of one minor band or piece of near-trivia for another, and I will leave it to others to decide what to do with them. One is a correction: somehow, in one place Sex Pistols had been changed to Sex . The addition of Jon Savage's England's Dreaming to the references is welcome. One thing I am reverting: in the mention of glam rock influences on punk, Gary Glitter was far more of an influence than David Bowie. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see the previous comment before writing mine; I'll put Bowie back in there, but Gary should also stay: his stripped down sound (despite his excessive packaging) was cited constantly as an influence by London punks in the late '70s. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'm gonna have to try harder to convince you then! Ok, I replaced Manster (who?) with Suicide who went on to influence Sparks, Wire (listen to Heartbeat from Chairs Missing), Human League (Seconds from Dare for example), OMD, Soft Cell and Tourists/Eurythmics. Bruce Springsteen covered them and the Cars had a big crush too. I replaced This Heat (virtually unheard of) with Magazine, Howard Devoto's next outing after seminal work with Buzzcocks. They are a clear link between Roxy Music and Pil, Gof4 etc and have been cited by Radiohead among others. I replaced "Sex" with "Sex Pistols" which seemed to be a typo. The Grundy interview is hardly trivia seeing as it accelerated the Pistols notoriety into overdrive. New Rose was a significant release because it pipped Anarchy as the first piece of vinyl from the '76 uk scene, third being Buzzcocks Spiral Scratch ep. As for Mr Glitter, I have genuinely never read or heard anyone cite him as an influence but I guess I'm just wrong there. / JC

• God knows I won't miss Manster or This Heat being mentioned. I'll assume you know what you are talking about on Suicide, to be honest I don't know them well. The Buzzcocks certainly (already mentioned), but Magazine? Maybe. I really don't care either way. Are they really more the link here than Joy Division? I agree that the Grundy interview is not trivia. "New Rose": no opinion. Glitter: hope this at least shows I'm not crazy, I wish I had better citations handy, and I'm sure I could find them if you really doubt me (but frankly I'd rather spend my research time on other things if you will take my word). He was nothing in the U.S. until "Rock'n'roll Part 2" became a ballpark standard, but he had something like 7 number 1 hits in the UK, and despite his stage excess, he kept 3-chord rock alive in the UK in the age of ELO and similar bloated crap. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Respect to you sir, good article. May I recommend the first Suicide album and also the piece written by Lester Bangs called "The Sound of NYC" inside their "Half Alive" ROIR cassette. / JC

EMO

Emo bands are such stupid american bands. High pitched whining vioces crying about how crap their life is. blah blah blah. i have no girlfriend. blah blah blah. i just got 2 billion us from my record company. blah blah blah. the sex pistols rule them all. and, i agree with the other guy. nirvana is not a punk band. they suck penis. full stop.

How did we get on the discussion of Emo bands on a punk discussion. Whoa...that was random! TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

wait.... actually i think punk rock is 100% responsible for emo and all the irritation that it brings us. all the main emo bands grew out of underground punk and ska scenes, specifically in new jersey (midtown, saves the day, etc)...

That's pretty POV of you. whether you liek it or not, punk has influenced emo. and yes, as much as i agree that emo really blows, some of emo's influences were'nt that bad (see Husker Du, Rites of Spring, even Fugazi). --128.205.167.6 06:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Image at the top of the page

If you're going to have a visual for punk at the top of the page it shouldn't be like the one that's there. The studded jacket/mohawk trend tends to mislead people unfamiliar with punk into thinking that people have always followed that image since the mid 70s. There really is no one image for punk but it would be better to have an image of punk in its "first wave", since that has the most relevence to the top paragraph.

And HOLY FUCK where are the Dead Kennedys???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.176.4 (talk • contribs) 11 Oct 2005.

Mentioned in passing in the section on Punk attitudes and fashion, but I think they deserve more prominent mention. Probably the most influential U.S. politically oriented punk bands, especially if one looks at influence beyond the punk/hardcore scene itself. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to have a visual for punk at the top of the page it shouldn't be like the one that's there. The studded jacket/mohawk trend tends to mislead people unfamiliar with punk into thinking that people have always followed that image since the mid 70s.

Eh, that's allright by me. Postcards can be as punk as any of them - I don't consider it misleading, if people want more indepth information on how to 'look like a real punk'(what are you guys smoking?), they can check the punk rock fashion wikis. Tias 07:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Apart from that its also a possible copyvio image, in fact it looks just like one of those postcards thats just been scanned in. I've got lots of photos of 'real' punks, when I get time maybe I'll scan one of these and replace this image. quercus robur 09:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, allright. Appreciated if you did! Tias 08:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah they do look like 'postcard punks' or fashion victims rather than 'real' punks quercus robur 07:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe the picture of Ebba Grön should be changed to a Black Flag album. Also, as the Ramones are grouped with the Pistols et al in the first paragraph maybe the first sentence should read "around the mid 70s" or similar. And the Wire sound snippet replaced with one of "Anarchy". / JC

The Ebba Grön picture, yeah. Ebba Grön evolved away from punk at about the same speed as The Clash, and that 1981 image seems a bit post-punk. The Image of Punk, to me, is someone like the Sex Pistols drummer; a british teenager, badly dressed, bad haircut, with pimples and bad teeth, and a stupid grin on his face because it's so fun to play. Jgrahn 22:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The Plugz

Do the Plugz really merit mention in the article? I'm all for recognizing Chicano music, which I'm guessing was the reason for inclusion, but is it at all useful to mention this not terribly well known band in a list, without giving any context as to why they might be worthy of mention? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Punk metal

"Punk Metal (also known as "Crossover")": is there any basis for this? Any crossing of audiences can be called "crossover" (and usually a mix of genres is called a "fusion" not a "crossover"). Is there any basis to suggest that "Crossover" is a name used for punk metal, rather than punk metal just being an example of a crossover or fusion of genres? If so, this should be cited. If not, the parenthetical remark should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I can confirm that back in the mid to late 1980s, some people did refer to metal/punk as "Crossover". I think it was mainly used by folks on the metal side of the fence, not so much by punks; Iron Maiden fans who discovered the joys of Discharge and COC. I'm sure it's been a very long time since anyone used the term in this way (along with "metalcore") but it's legitimate. Druff 00:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

External links

There are now an awful lot of external links on this article. I don't think any are really bad, but perhaps someone could organize some subsections and group them intelligibly? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing.. i think the following are in need of removal

• Forum about punk! It was inserted for self-promotion. It's a useless website
• BlankTV.com (Same as above)
• The Punk House: The Progression and Current Standing of College Town Punk Oases Article about counterculture at Kansas University.. unneccesary
• Hopeless Records - Independent record label If it's really an important label, it can be included in the article. Not the links.
• Genre: Punk Bands That Matter Punkrockdirectory is better in every way than this.
• punkrock.org This website doesn't doesn't exist anymore.
• History of punk in Derry, Northern Ireland
• Ska, Punk & Other Junk – Online Punk Radio Station that features Punk and Punk-influenced styles Is an internet radio station worthy of being a link? I'm honestly unsure.

There also seem to be alot of punk news websites.. some of which aren't needed

• ThePunkSite.com
• Genre: Punk at Bandnews.org

Sub-categories doesn't sound like a bad idea, such as..

1. News
2. Directories
3. Articles
4. History

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThisOrder (talk • contribs) 3 Nov 2005.

I'm certainly with you on the first 7 removals (down to and including Derry). Does anyone else want to chime in? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. They don't really contribute to the punk movement. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the seven we seem agreed on. - Jmabel | Talk 22:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

That's cool with me. Those seven didn't really work for me anyway. As I said above...punk movement. Much Love, Helena Rayne TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"Unity is has now been bandage."

At the end of the Los Angeles/Orange County remarks: "A rivalry between the Los Angeles punk scene and O.C. scene took place in the 1980s. Unity is has now been bandage." The last sentence is simply incomprehensible to me, can someone please clarify? And the one before that strikes me as a dubious generalization, at the very least requiring citation. If no one fixes this in the next 48 hours or so, I'll probably remove it. -- 03:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

A CULTURE

I THINK THAT THE PUNK, MORE THAN BE A FASHION IS A CULTURE OR LIFE STYLE........PUNK NOT DEAD .... THE PUNK LIVES FOR EVER.... FROM:GaBo_PuNk_284

I have a badge- given to me by Dick Lucas of Citizen Fish/Pubhumans (and yer don't get alot older than that... unless yer Charlie Harper)- it reads "Old punks never die- they just stand at the back"... quercus robur 00:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

hahahaha. punk's not dead it just deserves to be. and btw, try telling malcolm mclaren taht punk isn't about fashion. --128.205.167.6 06:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

punk and jazz

i was wondering if anyone could give me some information on the connections between punk rock and free jazz. i have heard that some original punk bands (the clash, the sex pistols, the dead kennedys, etc.) can trace their roots back to the original jazz movements. Does anyone have more information on that?

Free jazz and punk have similar sensibilities in my opinion, Albert Ayler, Archie Shepp, etc were making noise with a really punk edge right back in the sixties! There must have been many at the more creative and imaginative edge of the early punk movement who were aware of these sort of antecedents... Heres some examples;

• Crass definately had free jazz influences, these are explicit now with the post-Crass project Last Amendment, but were always there if you knew how to listen to them.
• John Lydon had very wide ranging musical tastes, he cited Captain Beefheart and Can (not quite free jazz, but cetainly musically left-field) as influences right back in the early days of punk, much to the annoyance of Malcolm McLaren, who wanted the public to think of him as an uncultured yob.
• The Slits also had free jazz connections, working with free improvisers like Steve Beresford. I also remember seeing memebers of the Slits in the audience at a London Derek Bailey concert in the late 70s.
• The Damned did a gig or 2 with free jazzer Lol Coxhill, he also apears on their second album.
• The Pop Group worked with cello improviser Tristan Honsinger, as well as The Last Poets and others- theres some 'free jazz' moments on both of their first 2 albums.
• In more recent years John Zorn has utilised many elements of punk into his work.

quercus robur 20:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The free jazz influences seemed to be more apparent in teh New York scene as I saw it (however, I'd love it if someone were to prove me otherwise ;) ). Velvet Underground were obviously hugely influenced by free jazz, see white light/white heat. The New York no wave scene was probably the most influenced of all, see the contortions, lounge lizards, 8 eyed spy, et. al. other than taht, I think the attitude of free jazz is what was more important. people keep forgetting that punk isn't "3 chords really fast" because the talking heads, television, and suicide would be right out the window on that one. punk is about attitude, fashion (FUCK YOU IT IS ABOUT FASHION YOU PRETENSIOUS DICKS), culture, and music. teh attitude aspect of it was really nothing new. it was about eliminating the old orchestrated dinosaur rock and bringing in something new, rebellious, minimalist, and snotty. coltrane did it for jazz. schoenberg did it for classical. fuck, wordsworth did it for poetry. dada did it for art.

• Before punk became a recognized genre, it was being pioneered by "weird people doing weird stuff." New York City's East Village was the scene of many early free jazz performances, and the neighborhood's earliest adopters to embrace the form were these "weird people," including beatniks, street artists, and DIY music self-starters who were diversely influenced. Bands such as The Fugs and The Godz were inspired to turn their folk-rock "free" with the inspiration of free jazz, and it's little surprise then that these bands would become labelmates on ESP-Disk with so many free jazz pioneers. But before New Yorkers get a little too proud about inventing or being the first to adopt every meaningful or interesting new development in American culture, it should be mentioned that "free music" was happening in other pockets, such as in Los Angeles where Ornette Coleman made an impression on Captain Beefheart, whose disciples in the Los Angeles Free Music Society (LAFMS) may have been the first to adopt the phrase "free music." --RickEle 01:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This morning BBC radio had a story about the history of punk. It might have been called "History of Punk" but I can't find it on the web site. It said Iggy Pop and others studied blues but felt there was something wrong with ripping off blues singers so instead he should copy the essence of the music but do there own thing. He then gave some examples of how punk did not used the traditional blues riffs. --Gbleem 08:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Style and Structure

I'd like to start off by saying to everyone you've written a great history of Punk Rock but there's little in the article said about the actual style and structure of punk, you could read the whole article and still not recognise a punk song if it hit you in the face.

So I'm adding a part of my own, and I want everyone to feel free to edit, add to, change, slash and/or burn what I've written if you have a legitimate reason to contradict me, write something I've omitted etc.

Thanks.

(Justinboden86 22:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

Ramones

Recently added, I am reverting: "(although it must be noted that the Ramones were more conservative, and that Johnny Ramone, the true founder of the band, was a hardcore conservative and avidly supported the US Republican Party.)" This replaced my reference to the "nihilistic humor" of their early lyrics.

1. Yes, Johnny Ramone was a conservative, probably most precisely a right libertarian domestically and a pro-military unilateralist internationall. Joey Ramone, on the other hand, was your basic New York Jewish social liberal. They were not, by any account, the best of friends, but they stayed in a band together and, remarkably, each played even on the other's political songs. Most remarkably, Johnny seems to have willingly performed "The KKK Took My Baby Away" even though it was almost certainly about him!
2. In the context of talking about the style and structure of early punk, Johnny's (or Joey's) politics are not relevant. Early Ramones songs were not political. They were nihilistic. "Beat on the Brat (with a baseball bat)", "Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue", "Teenage Lobotomy": how much more nihilistic can humor get? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget New York's other favorite right wing punks, MURPHY'S LAW....

bombastic rock

Wasn't it John Lydon who called what the stadium-bands were doing "bombastic rock"? --24.221.8.253 06:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

random comment removed

Removed newly inserted sentence; Many UK street punk bands like The Exploited, G.B.H., Blitz, Abrasive Wheels, UK Subs, to name a few, influenced many bands and punx today.

as it seems to have been plonked at random in the middle of a paragraph discussing a totally different genre (ie, 'metal crossover punk', eg, Amebix, etc, rather than 'street punk', eg, GBH, Blitz, etc.) maybe it can be worked in somewhere else, but not in this particular paragraph quercus robur 23:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Suicide

Do Suicide really merit mention in talking about the early New York punk scene? I was around that scene and have no memory of having ever heard of them until later; I'd be interested in hearing from others on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Like you, I don't remember Suicide as having an especially high profile in that scene, though I wasn't (except as a tourist) in New York at the time. I did monitor the press and the record stores pretty closely, though. For that abrasive arty side of the scene, I'd say Teenage Jesus and the Jerks or James Chance and the Contortions probably figured more prominently, but I'm not lobbying to add them to the sentence. I suggest limiting that list to the handful of acts most associated with the CBGB's scene: Televison, Ramones, Blondie and Talking Heads. Maybe Richard Hell and the Voidoids and Johnny Thunders and the Heartbreakers, since both are key to what we now think of as "punk." I'd cut the others: Wayne County was certainly part of the scene (espcially at Max's K. C.) but doesn't seem essential to this brief list. Ditto Mink Deville. Cherry Vanilla--I don't remember her being very prominent: was she?

I've been away from the article for awhile and it seems to me that it has developed some other problems: I don't think that the "Style and structure" section belongs at the top (and some of it just repeats stuff that was already in the article), and I'm pretty confident that Jimi LaLumia & the Psychotic Frogs don't belong in here at all. Agreed? BTfromLA 08:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Teenage Jesus and the Jerks certainly more prominent than Suicide; James Chance and the Contortions, probably also; none of them promininent enough to merit mention, in my view. I agree strongly with our recent anonymous contributor's addition of Max's (as important as CBGB in that era, how soon we forget), and some of these other additions are harmless. I'm (clearly) with you on leaning toward dropping Suicide. Richard Hell, Johnny Thunders: sure, why not, but not Jimi LaLumia & the Psychotic Frogs, probably the most obscure band Johnny Thunders ever played in. I have a certain affection for Wayne/Jayne and he/she was certainly part of the scene; I can go either way, so to speak. Mink Deville? Again, I like Willy Deville, but no big deal to me either way. Cherry Vanilla, I agree not prominent.

Re: "Style and structure". Someone else started it, a lot of it was just plain wrong, I went in there and tried to write something useful about style and structure. As far as I'm concerned, feel free to move within article, refactor, whatever. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: "Style and Structure" I don't think what i wrote really was plain wrong.... I was trying to tie in the modern side of punk rock into this article. There is a far too large emphasis on punk rock of the 70s in London....not nearly enough on modern punk rock that has become something unique and very distinct. Bands like NOFX and their albums "Punk in Drublic" and "Heavy Petting Zoo", the Offspring and their albums "Ignition" and "Smash", Rancid with "...And Out Come The Wolves" and Pennywise with "Full Circle." These are all great albums even if they didn't come out when the majority of the writers here were 16. Lots of stuff needs to be cut, the origins section is way too long. There was a background to punk in the local New York scene, best illustrated by but not limited to bands like the Stooges and MC5. But overall it was a very spontaneous thing, and you can over analyse it talking about the Rolling Stones and Skiffle... why not start talking about early tribal music if we're gonna go back that far?

Also there needs to be less said about UK punk bands. The UK punk scene is dead today while the American one is still live and kicking, and ultimately the pistols released one album and the Clash moved on from punk to quickly become a great rock band but not a punk band. In London it was more about "looking punk" then it was about the music, it was just about pointless teenage rebellion "Im 16 and my mum wont give me my pocket money so im gonna stick a safety pin through my ear and piss on the carpet. I think the London punk rock scene should be given equal emphasis to the US punk scene, but it has almost completely taken over. I would like to see a less 70s London orientated article and a more international, and more general time frame structured article.

I made a bunch of edits consistent (I hope) with the above comments. Please take a look. BTfromLA 18:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagreee totally with this exclusion of Suicide and description of them as "minor". Like the Velvet Underground before them, what they lacked in record and ticket sales at the time is more than made up for in their stylistic innovations and ongoing influence. The primary thing is that they were the only band playing punk - or any kind of rock - using only two synthesisers and no guitars. They expanded the possibilities of what punk was and could be. Their live shows were also documented to be infamously confrontational, demonstrating fully the punk idea of breaking barriers between performer and audience even if that meant a fist fight or mini-riot, like the one recorded on 23 minutes over Brussels. Strange that part of the objection to their inclusion was that "Teenage Jesus and the Jerks or James Chance and the Contortions probably figured more prominently" when a read of Rip It Up and Start Again by Simon Reynolds (p55) reveals that "Suicide were the godfathers of No Wave", mentoring both Lydia Lunch and James Chance before either got their bands going. Suicide should be in there. Harveyspeed 00:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

WHAT!?!?! Suicide were one of THE most important punk bands ever. They are point proven taht punk doesn't have a specific sound. And as much as I love teenage jesus and the jerks, they are actually far less important to punk and more important to no wave. Lydia Lunch actually "hated" punk; I believe she was the one that coined the phrase "sped up chuck berry riffs", she also recieved a lot of criticism for calling patti smith a "sandle-wearing hippie" in the Voice. But back to Suicide. Suicide are far more known in punk communities both now and then. They are one of the most artistic punk bands ever, if not the most artistic. If Suicide didn't exist, punk as we know it today wouldn't be the same.--128.205.167.6 06:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Harveyspeed on this one. To reiterate: I replaced Manster (who?) with Suicide who went on to influence Sparks, Wire (listen to Heartbeat from Chairs Missing), Human League (Seconds from Dare for example), OMD, Soft Cell and Tourists/Eurythmics. Bruce Springsteen covered them and the Cars had a big crush too. May I recommend the first Suicide album and also the piece written by Lester Bangs called "The Sound of NYC" inside their "Half Alive" ROIR cassette. But like, hey, whatever. / JC

OK, looks like a good case has been made on Suicide being an important band, but saying they influenced Sparks, the Eurythmics, and Bruce Springsteen doesn't exactly scream out that their importance is within the realm of "punk". Again, I really don't know them (which I promise I will remedy some time), so I won't argue with (or revert) people who obviously know the band, and seem pretty convinced it belongs here. Just finding the claims a little confusing relative to the topic at hand. - Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems the time is now right to add Suicide back in. I've been re-reading the relevant chapters in Clinton Heylin's From the Velvets to the Voivods to make sure I get this right. Turns out that Suicide were very early in starting back in 1970 and played more with the New York Dolls at the Mercer Arts Centre from '71 to '73 until the building collapsed and had big trouble getting other bookings, venue owners taking exception to Alan Vega swinging a bicyle chain knocking holes in the wall and driving the audience out into the street with atonal noise, so they pretty much went off the scene until Max's booked them in Easter '76.

Although they are very much on the art experiment side of punk, and existed outside the core groups that were playing CBGBs whilst Hilly Kristal refused to book them, their punk credentials, as i see them, lie in their confrontational attitude, the minimalist simplicity, extreme repetition and intensity in their sound, alienated, violent or sometimes nihilist lyrical themes (c.f. 'Rocket USA', 'Frankie Teardrop') although with radically different instrumentation to the Ramones. Plus the first group of musicians that openly cited their influence and mentoring being the No Wave scene. Also a big influence on a lot of post-punk, as well as lots of bands outside of punk. During the time they weren't playing gigs they were part of the audience scene at CB's and Max's almost every night, if that counts for anything. All this referenced in Heylin's book, which is a top recommended read to anyone into NY & Cleveland punk and is like me not old enough and too British to have been there at the time.

Anyways given the above it wouldn't be right to slot them into the list of CBGB's bands, they deserve a reference slightly earlier reflecting their proto-punk origins alongside the Dolls and taking their influence from the Velvets, even though they only really got known when they toured Europe with The Clash and Elvis Costello in '78 causing the odd riot along the way. Sorry about the length of the above, i'll probably use some of it to update Suicide's page soon.Harveyspeed 23:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits against consensus

The persistent re-insertion of Jimi LaLumia & the Psychotic Frogs, removal of CBGB, etc., by anonymous editors from a variety of anonymous IP addresses—I have to presume that this is actually a single individual editing from a variety of addresses—is clearly against consensus, and, given the failure even to give any explanations here on the talk page, is absolutely inappropriate. It is beginning to border on vandalism. I believe that BT and I are probably prepared to revert this until hell freezes over, if necessary, but would appreciate if others also help, since each of us usually only checks this page once or twice a day. Or, if someone actually thinks this edit is correct, please make a case for it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Will try to keep an eye on this as well quercus robur 10:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This guy is making a lot of edits on the entry for Disco Demolition Night. I admit I don't know much about obscure punk bands. How important where the Psychotic Frogs? Ace-o-aces 13:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Remembered only because Johnny Thunders played with them. But none of what Thunders is remembered for was with this band. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I see Jimi LaLumia has his own page now. Maybe this will keep our friend busy for a while. Ace-o-aces 13:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Skiffle?

I simply do not understand how skiffle can be seen as an influence on punk rock, other than the tenuous DIY aesthetic. In all the books I've read on punk, I can recall virtually no mention of skiffle. What's left out here is pub rock--bands like Eddie & the Hot Rods and Strummer's 101ers were contemporaneous with punk and had some of the same spirit; i.e., energy, passion, stripped-down rhythms, a desire to escape the pretensions of popular music, etc. The skiffle paragraph should really be replaced by a quick mention of pub rock. Right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willerror (talk • contribs) 13 Jan 2006.

No comment either way on skiffle (other than that it seems like a stretch), but certainly in terms of the London punk scene pub rock should be mentioned. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Pub rock is already included on the list of influences. But do we delete the sentences about skiffle? I think the analogy that the article proposes between skiffle and punk: lean times, diy, a "precident" more than an immediate influence, is reasonable. But I agree that the connection isn't nearly as strong or obvious as the others listed, and if there's a consensus to cut the skiffle references, I'd have no objection. Just don't throw out the line about the social disaffection of British punk that is currently part of the skiffle paragraph. BTfromLA 05:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Punk

Who would like to help in upgrading this article by including at least one reference to Canadian Punk (e.g. D.O.A., the Pointed Sticks, Nash the Slash, Dayglo Abortions, and many, many more). I can't believe no Canadian (or Canada-savvy) Wikipedian failed to add any information on this aspect of Punk! Pinkville 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[[Category:Old requests for peer review|Template:Namespace prefix of associated pagePunk rock]]

AFI and Nirvana? Come on..

Why is AFI mentioned in this article? AFI has not contributed nearly as much to punk as most of these other bands have. I believe the most AFI has done was have their lead singer mentioned in a song by Anti-Flag called "Davey Destroyed The Punk Scene". The mention of AFI seems like a shameless plug for the band. AFI formed in 1991 and the sentence in the article is discussing bands in the early to mid-90s at 924 Gilman Street and then goes on to state "and later bands including AFI". AFI was around in 1991 and if they played at 924 Gilman later in their career that's fine, but why aren't all of the other bands who did the same thing mentioned as well? In an article where the history and origins of punk are discussed it seems almost sacreligious to mention AFI and not discuss a single Canadian band like D.O.A., Dayglo Abortions, NomeansNo, or SNFU.

Furthermore, why is Nirvana mentioned? This is an article about PUNK and ITS origins. Not about Nirvana and their roots. The paragraph about Nirvana should be with Nirvana's article with a link to Punk. I'm disappointed to read about Nirvana in a punk article, it almost seems like a slap in the face. Nirvana and punk are two entirely seperate musical styles and cultures. I fully support the deletion of the Nirvana paragraph.

I also feel there sbould be more attention paid to the 90s skate punk movement. Punk of the 90s was a large part of the whole generation X culture. Many extreme sports changed the youth with commercials, video games, clothing, soft drinks, to the X Games, etc. And what did many of these athletes listen to? Punk.

There is also no mention of the Whiskey A Go-Go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_A_Go-Go) where many of the early punk bands played while travelling to the west coast, how is this possible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Commondork (talk • contribs) 5 Feb 2006.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

AFI is so much more inportant then anti-flag, anti-flag are the new Good Charolette.

One person's opinions:

• I have no idea why AFI are mentioned. I would not have mentioned them. I agree with you that it is probably "a shameless plug". I would happily agree on removing them. Heck, I would probably not bother to vote to keep if someone proposed deleting the article about the band, though I confess that I've voted to keep articles on bands that are more obscure but that I care about. But no reason to mention here.
• I'd be for mentions of D.O.A. and NomeansNo. No opinion on Dayglo Abortions or SNFU, I simply don't know enough about them to have an opinion.
• I think the mention of Nirvana is merited, because they were the first band out of a punk background to achieve top-level success in the U.S. No, they weren't a punk band by the time they were really big, but their roots were certainly in Seattle's punk scene.
• I'd really rather see someone turn the skate punk article into something decent than have much here about skate punk. I'd love to get it to the point where we can have a paragraph or two here summarizing a "main" article elsewhere.
• The Whiskey certainly should be mentioned. If you can work it in appropriately, do it.

Jmabel | Talk 06:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, AFI and Anti-flag are both the new good charlotte. They should however both be mentioned in section on post-1970's punk. The Ungovernable Force 10:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, according to the anti-flag FAQ, Davey Destroyed the Punk scene is NOT about Davey Hovok, but who knows if we can believe that. They also say on their that they're not anarchists even though one of their old songs was calling for "anarchy". Oh well, sell-outs I guess. The Ungovernable Force 10:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

To say that Nirvana were not a punk band shows how little you know about Nirvana and punk music for that matter. Kurt Cobain was heavily influenced by both punk and post-punk. There sound was extremely punk.--128.205.167.6 06:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I fail to see how you can even include Nirvana in a discussion about PUNK music which by most accounts died in the early to mid 80's. If you want to discuss Nirvana's punk roots in the Nirvana discussion that's warranted but to take a discussion about punk and steer it off course with Nirvana is completely unneeded and in my opinion insulting to punk and it's subculture. To state a comment such as "shows how little you know about Nirvana and punk music for that matter" has no relevance to improving this discussion. I know as much about Nirvana as the general public because I don't concern myself with their style of music. My concern is about punk, not Nirvana, therefore I could care less how much I know about Nirvana (who by most are considered GRUNGE or ALTERNATIVE). It would be interesting to see discussion about Australian and New Zealand bands. The punk scene hit those countries as well and I have many friends in the 'outback' who are still very much in tune with the days of yore. I also second the Cleveland post. Many good bands did come from Cleveland and many did shape the face of NY punk which according to everyone else seems to have shaped punk music for the world.

Punk reorganization

The two styles of punk and punk rock are distinct. There should be a new article called Punk_music or something similar which focuses on the original punk sound of '75-8ish (e.g. The Clash's first album or 'Never Mind the Bollocks'). The article Punk_rock should focus more on the style which sounds different from the first wave of punk--more like rock--or incorporates other styles (e.g. 'London Calling'). Punk rock is a fusion between the pure punk sound and other rock styles such as ska or prog rock.

Punk is both a style of music and a subculture. Punk music should be described in the larger context of punk as a subculture. Punk has a lot of elements besides its music. There should be an article with a general overview of all of the elements, and separate articles for what will not fit in the main article. Punk_rock is not a suitable article title, because it refers to the music, and only a specific form of the music at that. Punk_culture would serve that purpose, but it should be renamed Punk_subculture, because Punk_culture implies that punk is its own culture rather than just a smaller part of the larger culture with its own distinctions. Punk_subculture could look something like this...

Introduction

1. Elements of punk

1.1. Ideology--(link to Punk_ideology article)

1.2. Music--trends in sound (link to a new Punk_music article, which could describe punk in terms of music alone)

1.3. Fashion--boots, jackets, safety pins, mohawk, piercings, tattoos, BDSM (link to Punk_fashion article)

1.4. Visual arts

1.5. Literature--punk zines

2. History

2.1. Precursors and origins

Previous youth subcultures (e.g. mods, rockers, greasers, beatniks, hippies)

Fashion: previous youth subcultures, BDSM fashion

Precursor bands (e.g. Velvet Underground, Los Mutanos) and substyles (e.g. garage rock, pub rock)

Visual arts (e.g. pop art, International Situationalists)

Literature (e.g. Dickens, the Beats, fanzines)

Precursor politics (e.g. anarchism, nihilism, DIY movement)

Society during the early and mid ‘70s (e.g. Reageconomics, Thatcherism)

2.2. Early punk--How the precursors and origins combined, chronology

New York scene, London scene, Los Angeles scene

Music: the sound, the performance, the first punk bands, important bands, important songs (link to new article “Punk_(music style)” with more details)

Fashion: SEX+Taxi Driver

Visual arts album covers, posters

Literature punk zines with link

Ideology--Anarchy

2.3. Later punk

Punk rock, Positive punk, Post-punk

2.4. Evolution--The period when all the new punk substyles came about after post-punk

2.5. Revival--The renewed mainstream interest in punk in the last 15 years or so

3. Subcultures within punk--These each have separate articles which detail history, music, visual art, and politics.

Anarcho-punk, Nazi-punk, Gutter punk, Hardcore punk, Hardline punk, Straight edge, Christian punk, Ska punk, Punk revival, Ska punk revival, Cowpunk/psychobilly, Oi! punk, Riot grrrl, Queercore

4. Subcultures that developed out of punk

Goth, Grunge, Emo

5. Relationships with other subcultures

Hip hop, Heavy metal

This is all a bit sketchy, but I think implementing my suggestions would be a move in the right direction. The subcultures within punk section needs a lot of work, because some of them are just musical styles and others are fairly distinct from punk. Anyway, I would like to get some input and concensus before making any move. Ecto 07:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me.

One thing I felt is missing both in the present article and your suggestion is punk's influence on pop music in general. Subcultures that developed out of punk covers sub cultures, but I think it's safe to claim that the late 1970s wave of punk affected most guitar-based popular music: through new wave, indie, ...

I also wonder if one can claim that there was a marked increase in the number of new bands formed due to punk, and if they had increased chances to play live, record and survive, due to punk. Jgrahn 22:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A section could be added after the "Relationships to other subcultures" section, with a title like "Relationship to pop culture". It would a good point to end the article on. Ecto 09:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

sounds much better than now in terms of coverage, but it runs the risk of getting way to long. Also, where would hardcore go, just making sure you aren't forgetting. I think it's ridiculous that they have a section for post 1970s punk, considering how much has happened in 30 years. That section definitely needs to be broken up and expanded upon. The Ungovernable Force 10:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it would be too long, if the descriptions of the related subcultures are kept short enough. Hardcore would be the first topic in the "Evolution" section, with a short description of how it grew out of the American punk scene, mostly in terms of chronology. A brief outline of hardcore would be in the "Subcultures within punk" section, with a link to its own article where it would be given the detail it deserves. Ecto 09:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Might you want to consider more of an article series? - Jmabel | Talk 05:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by an article series? Ecto 09:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I started in on a punk article at Punk (which wasn't being used for anything except a disambiguation page with links to articles related to punk).

The content of Punk rock that isn't about the specific style of punk music known as punk rock (a.k.a. the second wave of punk as described above) should be moved to the appropriate articles. The 'History' section of the new Punk article should serve as a general history of punk, so things in Punk rock about the general history of punk should be moved to the 'History' section of the new Punk article. Obviously, things in Punk rock about the specific history of the punk rock musical style should stay in Punk rock. Besides the general history, there are a lot of things in Punk rock that should be moved to Punk ideology, Punk fashion and the various other articles about the other styles of punk music.

At any rate, the 'Fashion and attitudes' section of Punk rock needs to be deleted from Punk rock and its contents moved to Punk fashion, Punk zines and the new Punk article (for overview purposes).

Also, the content of Punk culture should be divided between Punk, Punk fashion and Punk ideology, then [Punk subculture|Punk culture]] should be deleted.

Ideally, I'd like to see a new article called Punk (musical style) about the first wave of punk music, Punk rock about the more rock-oriented second wave, Punk music about punk music as a whole, a dozen or so articles for the various minor subcultures with punk and their musical styles, Punk fashion about the fashion, Punk ideology about the ideology, and maybe articles on punk visual arts, punk dance, punk film, and punk literature when there is enough content for those.

So, how does all this sound to everyone? I'd need a lot of help to get it done. Ecto 11:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That's splitting hairs unnecessarily. Certainly Punk Fashion should be its own article, but the splitting of punk music into various (somewhat arbitrary) articles really doesn't work. The "second wave" is more rock-oriented? That's subjective, and in general the music has always been referred to as "punk" or "punk rock". Some of the subculture subjects can simply be groups under the Punk culture article already in place. WesleyDodds 03:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that my distinction between punk and punk rock is somewhat arbitrary (aren't most distinctions when it comes to music?), and that yeah, it is somewhat subjective, as "punk rock" does generally refer to all punk music. So, how about keeping the Punk rock article as a description and history of all punk music, and ditching my idea for separate Punk music and Punk (musical style) articles? My distinction could still be included in Punk rock, just without the hassle of having different articles. Would that work?

I think my suggestion for making these three punk music articles is what you referred to as 'hairsplitting', but just in case you referred to my plan in general, well, I'm not suggesting that we split hairs: I want to see all the topics related to punk pulled into one article, which is kind of the opposite.

I think the article about punk in general should be called Punk. The Punk culture article, as it is now, is just a history of punk music which duplicates Punk rock. Plus, the title "punk culture" is either redundant or misleading, depending how you read it, whereas "punk" is short and sweet, and it's what most people would search for looking for information about punk, and the punk disambiguation page that was at Punk before just linked to articles about punk anyway.

The other articles about punk music styles, such as Hardcore punk, Nazi punk, Anarcho-punk etc. etc. etc. are already in place with a lot of good content that is a bit too specific for the Punk rock article (we don't want it to be too long). Likewise, Punk zines and Punk ideology are already in place, and these don't really fit in with an article about music (different forms, you know?), so the content about them in Punk rock should be moved to these articles.

How does all this sound?

P. S. One thing that has to be changed about Punk rock if we keep it refering to all punk music is the use of the past tense. It makes it sound like punk rock no longer exists.Ecto 06:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your last statement, the article makes it sound as if punk is dead (oh wait according to Crass it is). But yeah, punk didn't end in the 70s, in fact that's when it started. The Ungovernable Force 07:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Only the last statement?Ecto 22:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

By creating a separate page titled "punk music" to group all the subgenres under creates the same problem we had with Heavy metal music and Metal music pages before it was resolved just a few weeks ago. When it comes down to it, punk rock (like hevay metal, rock, alternative, etc.) is the overarching style, and these subgenres are merely smaller components of it. The term "punk rock" can refer to all genres of punk, or it can refer to a particularl style (namely first wave 70's punk) hat gave birth to all the other styles. The thing is, unless you can find a source that makes such a distinction between genre, there would be no reason to make separate pages like this. It should be enough just to maintain a separate list of punk genres (which I believe we already have) and use the Punk Rock article to refer to the genre as a whole, giving an overview of all the styles and directing readers to other pages when appropriate for more information. WesleyDodds 07:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

So we agree, then? Punk rock should be about punk music as a whole, with links to articles about its musical substyles, with no need to create the articles Punk_music and Punk_(musical style). I'm with you there. So how about the article Punk being about all of punk (not just the music, which would be Punk rock's exclusive job)? Or do you want Punk rock to serve as the nexus for everything to do with punk (not just the music) and not having a Punk article at all?Ecto 22:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Anything about the music itself should remain on Punk rock. Punk should be about the subculture in general, or simply act as a disambiguation page as it did before. I could go either way on that. My main point is that we don't need to split Punk rock into separate music articles. WesleyDodds 22:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We are in agreement on that point, then. I do have a tendency to split hairs when it comes to music, but I wanted to check if there was a consensus in line my view just in case. Thanks for your responses! They cleared that up. I don't understand your ambivalence over Punk being about the subculture or being a disambiguation page, though. If Punk rock is changed (which we agree that it should be) from being about various aspects of the subculture (as it is now) to being exclusively about the music, then Punk would be useless as just a disambiguation page. There would be no article about the punk subculture as a whole--just a scattering of articles on separate aspects of it. A reader would have to wade through and piece together information from half a dozen articles before getting a general idea of what punk is, and even then they might not end up with whole picture. There definitely needs to be an article about punk as a whole, and I think Punk would be the best place for it. Ecto 00:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved the content from the 'Attitudes and fashion' section to the Punk fashion and Punk zine articles. I will delete the section if there are no objections. Ecto 02:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I object. This is a featured article and the information you moved should stay on this page. —RJN 04:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you please elaborate as to why you think that information shouldn't have been moved? Is it just that this is a featured article, or are there other reasons as well?Ecto 06:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Ecto. Please elaborate. Just because it's a featured article doesn't mean it can't be changed. I've always thought the article wasn't that great anyways, and I think, although he/she is walking a tight line, Ecto seems to be going more in the direction I would hope for (especially with the expansion of the page punk to be a broad overview of all things punk). Only time will tell if these edits are worthwhile, but if a few weeks from now we look at the page and see it has been ruined, we can always just revert it. I say we give Ecto (and anyone else) a chance to experiment and see what we like most. Also, in regard to this particular edit, the page is about punk rock, not punk fashion and culture (at least not to any significant degree). That is why I like the new punk page, because it has room for all of this stuff. The Ungovernable Force 06:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hardcore

There is way too much emphasis on Hardcore, that subgenre has its own article on here, which is even linked in the info box, this one needs pruning down to just punk rock. - Deathrocker 17:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland Scene 1974-78

How come there is no mention at all of the Cleveland and Akron scene that was contemporary with the New York scene in the mid - late 70's? I found this astonishing, as it gave us Rocket from the Tombs/Pere Ubu and Devo. The influence of these bands along with the Electric Eels and to a lesser extent Dead Boys is recorded in Clinton Heylin's From the Velvets to the Voidoids and Jon Savage's England's Dreaming, so i've added a paragraph in and added a reference to Heylin's book, which is effectively an encyclopedia of the origins of US punk. If nothing else, Pere Ubu are a major band in influence if not in record sales, and their precendence into both punk and Post-Punk is also recorded in Simon Reynolds' Rip It Up and Start Again.Harveyspeed 00:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a PDF of a draft of a talk by David Thomas of Pere Ubu that may have some relevance to this. The Cleveland/Akron thing was very different; it has elements in common with what is usually called punk, but it's also very different. I'm not sure how we should handle it. - Jmabel | Talk 06:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Politics...

All politics should be removed from this article. The Ramones, the band that many people believe founded punk, were not nihilists and not anti-establishment. (I know that has been previously stated, but I believe that further de-politicalization of this article is needed.) The previous passage had described "Beat On the Brat" and "Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue" as nihilistic songs. "Beat On the Brat" is about the common upper class citizens of Queens. "Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue" was inspired by the adolescence of Forest Hills who sought any type of cheap thrill to dull the boredom of the suburbs in which they lived. Neither of those song have any trace of nihilism in them. Johnny Ramone was a staunch conservative, too. (I know this has already been stated, as well.) This article is overly generalized. If there is no significant arguement against it, I will do the following things: a.) Reduce the political generalization, such as the one in the opening sentence, claiming that punk rock is "an anti-establishment" musical movement. b.) I will let alone any political descriptions of individual bands.

Maybe the political information could be moved to the Punk ideology article. Ecto 12:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved the content from this section to the Conservative Punk article. Ecto 06:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

                        Wikikrieg

It should be moved to punk ideology. Wikikrieg 18:08, 3/29/2006

Johnny Ramone was, indeed a staunch conservative (with some admixture of libertarianism). Joey Ramone, on the other hand was anything but. - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Bad Religion

Is there any reason that Bad Religion's Automatic Man is the only song mentioned as an example of punk songs against conformity? Surely we can find a 70s first-wave punk song instead. The article should focus on early punk, especially in such a context. --Switch 07:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Punk and punk rock

BTW, Punk of the late 70s and punk rock are not the same musics... 81.246.210.149 17:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC) S.Koenig Nowadays, there is new-punk.

More on the origins of the term 'punk'

From the Sleeve notes to Suicide's eponymous debut (the 1996 re-issue):

Vega: "We did a gig, I think it was like early '71 at the OK Harris Gallery, and we called it, "A Punk Music Mass." It was on the flyers we sent out. Everyone likes to say the English discovered punk, or the Ramones were punk, or the Dolls were punk. But let me tell you something, before there were those bands, there were Suicide".

Assuming that 'early '71' predates the May '71 article, I think we have ourselves an earlier citation. Damiancorrigan 11:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Pop Punk

Yeah i think there needs to be more about the Pop Punk era of the middle to late 90's because quite frankly Green Day and Blink 182 were not really Punk... as in they sound nothing like the music of The Clash, Ramones etc. But their influence was amazing w/ Blink 182 and their Enema of the State album and Green Day with Dookie they sort of began the whole Pop Punk era which i think led to the even Poppier bands like Simple plan and Good Charlotte. Blink and Green Day were the middle ground between punk and pop punk which has basically dissapeared and turned into "emo". As i remember it though emo first got big because of Dashboard Confessional. But yeah definitely sum 1 needs to put some more in about the Pop Punk era.

Agreed. As much as I don't like a lot of pop punk, it is important. I don't know if emo "got big" because of Dashboard, there were a lot of other bands boosting it around the same time (Thursday, Taking Back Sunday, Saves the Day et. al.) And you could say that emo was "big" among alternative music circles for years before that with At the Drive-In and Jawbreaker, and even Rites of Spring and Husker Du before that.

--128.205.145.174 02:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If we're gonna talk about pop-punk we need to mention two of the most important early pop-punk bands--Offspring and Bad Religion. I personally hate pop-punk, but that seems to be close to the start of it. And it is important and should be mentioned, along with most punks' dissaproval of it. Oh, and what about Avril? I know she is 1 part punk to 100 parts pop, but she has been labeled by the media as a "punk rock princess" and has self-identified herself as the new punk rock and I think it should be mentioned, if only to show how ridiculous the mainstream's idea of punk is. The Ungovernable Force 04:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The struggle will be to add a reference to Avril that'll not leave this article open to snide comments being edited in. Because otherwise I think it's something worth adding. WesleyDodds 10:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the Offspring started out as a punk rock band...no doubt about that, just listen to their first two albums. In every respect they were a punk rock band. Short, fast loud intense music. With thier third album 'Smash' they hit the mainstream with the single 'Come out and Play (you gotta keep 'em seperated)'. This album is still the biggest selling indie release of all time, and propelled NOFX, Rancid, Pennywise and Bad Religion to fame. After this the Offspring went into a more mainstream rock sound, slowly loosing the punk sound to their music (but not all at once). Green Day were slightly earlier, but they had a lot "poppier" sound to them than the offspring. As can be seen today they became a very successful rock band that still show alot of their punk influences, but I would not call them a punk band in the same way the Clash were a great punk rock band that became a great rock band with the release of London Calling. It was the popularity of these two bands that propelled Blink 182 to popularity. But again even in their early material they did not have a "pure" punk rock sound like the offspring, it was always pop punk. I would not put Avril as part of pop punk because in recent interviews she has claimed she never tried to be punk but was labelled as that by the people that marketted her. I think we should be concentrating on what actually is punk and not what is considered by the mainstream as punk, otherwise we'll have an article filled with everyone who used a swear word or their middle finger.

Pop punk really started with the Ramones, Blondie (band), Buzzcocks, Billy Idol and Generation X (band), The Damned, etc. Probably the first band identifiable as explicitly pop-punk is the Descendents (band). It was this kind of bubblegum pop-influenced punk rock that set off pop punk as a subgenre, before it entered the mainstream with Green Day, The Offspring, blink-182 and Bad Religion. There was not so much of an antagonistic relationship between early pop punk and "punk rock", as there is now that it has become mainstream - Bad Religion were widely popular with punks, even after becoming a pop-punk band, until around the mid-nineties. I personally have an army surplus jacket covered with patches; it features not only Crass and Minor Threat, but also Billy Idol (*loses all punk credibility*). --Switch 23:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty much with Switch here. And, I'll add, crossing in the opposite direction, Wreckless Eric, playing more to a pop crowd, but with one foot in the punk camp. - Jmabel | Talk 03:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? How Ramones which was one of the first punk bands can be pop punk? Ok, pop punk can follow Ramones example, but Ramones was a 100% punk band. When you compare their simple songs with psychodelic, hard, or glam rock songs you will see the difference, and reason why Ramones are called punk rock band... That simplicity today is not very strange, but in 70s glam rock time it was shock. When you look at this in this way you must see some revolution. Moreover when I query sb, who listen pop, or even pop punk, if he heard about Ramones, or if he heard any Ramones song, I had never received affirmative reply, because none of their song was pop-hit... But when I query sb if he heard "Should I Stay or Should I go" by Clash I almost ever receive affirmative reply, so why The Clash isn't pop punk band?--83.175.144.14 00:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Because "pop punk" means a fusion between pop music and punk rock, not "popular punk rock". In any case, even if it did, the Ramones would definitely be pop punk (See this). Also, because "Should I Stay or Should I Go" was not a punk rock song, like most of the Clash's output, especially after 1978. Also, the Ramones themselves said they were ionfluenced primarily by bubblegum pop (Joey described them as bubblegum rather than as punk). Pop punk is just a subgenre of punk rock - People might describe Black Sabbath as "Doom Metal" or somesuch now, but at the time they were merely Heavy Metal. --Switch 07:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the distinction is quite clear between the melody driven pop punk of the clash, ramones, buzzcocks etc and the more hard edged riff based earlier bands like mc5, stooges etc.

3 chords

"The early UK punk fanzine Sniffin' Glue in 1977 famously included drawings of three chord shapes captioned, "This is a chord, this is another, this is a third. Now form a band"."

Can anybody confirm this? I remember the page in question but I don't think it was from SG. Ripped & Torn, maybe? BTLizard 12:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure it's sniffin glue. The Ungovernable Force 01:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Definately Sniffing Glue. quercus robur 11:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

According to Jon Savage's England's Dreaming, and several other sources on the web, it was actually from Sideburns - Savage actually reproduces the original advert in his book. Most of the references on Google to it being in SG seem to refer back to this page :) I've edited accordingly. Tpth 04:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, when I first heard about it was in 2002 and it said it was Sniffing Glue. As of June 22, 2002 there was no mention of that diagram or the magazine on this page, and I know that I saw that source before june 22 (because it was for a school project, and I was out of school by that time). The Ungovernable Force 04:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm - it may well have subsequently turned up in SG - as far as I know, Sideburns was pretty short-lived, and the diagram is well-known, so SG might have picked up the idea and run with it. I think England's Dreaming is a pretty reliable source, though.

For what it's worth, a quick Google search on "Sideburns fanzine" turns up several mentions of the advert first appearing there. Tpth 04:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You may be right. The Guardian says it was in Sideburns. Who knows? It's probably one of those things that has become such a legend that the real orgins are a mystery. Whatever. The Ungovernable Force 05:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite :) Tpth 05:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

have added an edit that also credits Sniffing Glue as even if 'sideburns' (which I've never heard of before..) used the 3 chords drawings first, most people will rememebr it from SG... I've got a funny feeling I also used the '3 chords' cliche in my own fanzine 'new Crimes' quercus robur 23:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ps whilst doing my little bit of goggle research I turned up this Grauniard article which made oi larf http://arts.guardian.co.uk/ontheedge/story/0,,1117231,00.html

Billy talent?

Anybody hear of the band Billy talent?Leader_trinity 20:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No quercus robur 00:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Electro Hippies?

If we are going to go down that line what of the UK Peaceville label? I've no idea if they still exist (and am too lazy to search) but in the late 80s they were part of the Britcore scene (Electro Hippies; Doom; ENT etc) that was picked up by NME for one week - and then mercifully returned to obscurity. Perhaps that is why the label has slipped under the radar of what is now a global expose of what I considered a very private passion ;-)

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 08:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Peaceville became a fairly mainstream heavy metal label, some punk band like Doom even did an album or a single called Fuck Peaceville or somesuch... But yeah, Electro Hippies were a great band, wonder whatever became of them??? quercus robur 00:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Deathrock

The Punk Rock bar mentions Deathrock as being a fusion genre. I belive it would be better described as a sub genre of punk. I know I may step on some people's toes here, but please let me make my case:

Item #1: If Deathrock is a fusion genre, a fusion of punk and what?

A)Gothic rock. Many people would claim that Deathrock is a punk-goth fusion. While deathrock may be popular amongst goths, and may bear a visual resemblence, I can personally hear no sonic similarity. If you want proof, carry out the following three way genre comparison. To represent Punk listen to Anarchy in the UK by the sex pistols and Last Caress by the Misfits. To represent goth listen to Bela Lugois's Dead by Bauhaus and A hundred years by the Cure. Now to represent deathrock listen to Spirtual Cramp by Christian Death and Partytime by 45 Grave. Based on this test, Which genre does deathrock belong to, punk or goth?

B) Post-punk. This theory holds more water. I must admit that many modern deathrock bands sound post-punk. However, this influence isn't prevelant through out the genre. Original deathrock (Chistian death, 45 grave, Voodoo church, Superhroines, Samhain)has no post-punk influence. Indead, not all modern deathrock has a post-punk influence (Antiworld, Deathrock EP/Songs for the dead era Bella Morte, Cancerslug, Bloody Dead and Sexy). And even if some later day deathrock has a post-punk, some later day Hardcore has a metal influence, but nobody would call it a fusion genre.

Item #2: Musical structure

Guitar: Deathrock uses the same simple three chord guitar sound a punk. The horror-movie style creepy guitar effects that occasionaly break up this structure aren't really any different from being punk guitar solos in slo-mo.

Bass: Punk bass is more prominante than, say, hard rock bass and deathrock sounds exactly the same.

Drums: Punk drums = Deathrock drums.

Keyboard: This is a differentiating point from most punk, but not all deathrock bands use one and celtic punk bands use all kinds of instruments.

Item #3: Comparison with other styles of punk

A) Alot of deathrock bands have played other styles of punk at some point in their careers. Here's a list: The Damned, T.S.O.L., Cancerslug, Rudimentary Peni, Samhain.

B) Some times Horror punk and deathrock are almost indistguishable. A good example would be Cancerslug (who also have a hardcore influence) or 45 grave. Think of Deathrock as old school punk to Horror Punks hardcore.

It genuinely cheers up my day to learn that there is a band on this earth called Cancerslug! Wonder if they sound like Boyzone or Westlife by any chance??? quercus robur 00:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Have to admit, "Cancerslug" is a great name. Definitely better than "Anal Cunt", besides shock power. --Switch 07:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Links

We need some links to Actual punk sites that are about proper punk music, the only ones provided were for subgenres; Hardcore, Ska, Skate, Emo, etc... they do not belong here, they belong on their own articles. - Deathrocker 13:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD on Gabba, punk tribute band

The article about Gabba (band) (doing punk covers of ABBA in the style of the Ramones, and award-winner at a counterculture film festival) has been marked for deletion. You may want to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabba (band) -- 62.147.37.227 14:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD closed, the result was Keep -- 62.147.112.7 10:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

notability of Chaos UK and guitarist Gabba?

A user has been edit-warring for deleting this entry:

• Gabba (musician), a guitarist in the 1980s streetpunk band Chaos UK, now in the 2006 band ASBO Youth

(whose code also embedded a reference links to http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:iif1zfaheh6k~T1 for source and notability) from the disambiguation page Gabba, arguing that it's not notable enough to ever have a Wikipedia article, and thus to be listed as a redlink on a dab page. You can provide opinion and information (positive or negative) about it at the discussion page Talk:Gabba so as to help sort it out.

Thanks,

-- 62.147.112.36 14:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha! For what its worth, it was a running joke in the Southend on Sea punk scene during the 80s that a woman who had previously lived in Bristol and was mates with Chaos UK always used to say, "You know Gabba from Chaos UK", and we'd say, "no", and she'd say, "Come on, you MUST know Gabba, everyone knows Gabba!!"... Maybe its her posting to wikipedia??? quercus robur 23:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

New Wave

Something odd I just noticed: there's no mention of New Wave in the article. This is rather strange, since it was the most popular form of punk prior to the 1990s and it symbolized to some the commercialization of punk rock. WesleyDodds 03:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That really is strange. The article really is incomlpete without a mention of New Wave. I don't really know much about it outside of Elvis Costello and Blondie, unfortunately, but something has to be added. --Switch 07:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to add something pretty soon. Although, i wonder if there was something about it in an earlier version but was taken out. WesleyDodds 10:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny punk up for deletion

I wanted to notify people that funny punk is currently up for deletion. To comment, go here. The Ungovernable Force 08:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Who rewrote history to say Punk began in the USA?

I'm worried about the direction of the whole item on Punk Rock. It delves so deeply into rock music in the years leading up to the emergence of punk that it misses the point entirely that punk music in the UK was a sweeping away of all that existed at that point in time. Punk was year zero.

I’m worried that a Californian student (user WesleyDodds) who probably wasn’t even born in 1976 (no offence intended) rejected my Wiki edits where I changed the article to say Punk was predominantly a UK-based movement. I was there and trust me - the USA's involvement was negligible. I was in a punk band called Straitjacket in 1978 and some of my friends were in a punk band called Irrelevant (who went on to become Goodbye Mr Mackenzie). Punk was a UK phenomenon born out of the dreary, pointless, futureless, grey concrete bomb-site that was mid-1970’s Britain. Its musical influence was simply to be the OPPOSITE of any music that was already there - the passionless progressive rock, the silly glam-rock and the throwaway pop. It certainly WAS NOT some nice logical culmination of some obscure New York music scene. Reading this on Wikipedia was the first I’d heard of it and I was there at the time! It just has to make you laugh how history is being rewritten before your very eyes!

I'm also worried that some American revisionists are starting to say the Ramones were an important punk band. I’m not even sure you could even categorise them as punk; they were more comedy retro rock n’ roll than anything else and they dressed like refugees from Grease. They did have a single called ‘Sheena is a Punk Rocker’ but they also had a song called ‘Suzy is a Headbanger’ – I guess that makes them the founders of heavy metal too? It’s so wrong it’s almost laughable.

I’m worried that Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopaedia but it also seems to be a tool for Amercians to rewrite history to suit themselves.

I’m worried that rewriting history to portray America, in a Hollywood kind of way, as first at everything, inventors of everything and best at everything is becoming a national American pastime.

I’m worried that soon the American rewriting of punk history will be complete – a weird upside-down world where the Sex Pistols were imitating the Ramones, Gaye Advert modelled herself on Debbie Harry, the Stranglers were just trying to be Lou Reed and the Clash wanted to be the New York Dolls.

I’m worried that it’s 2006 and I still care.

I’m worried that it’s 2006 and I’m still around.

I’m worried that when I’m not, Wikipedia still will be. --Jcleary 12:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, most "reliable" and "neutral" sources (as defined by wikipedia policy) I've seen label the Ramones as punk rock, and musically they were very important. I've seen interviews with the Sex Pistols talking about how they learned to play their instruments by playing along to Ramones albums. Personally, I think that minus X and the Dead Kennedys, the early American punk scene was really crappy and not at all what I would think of as good punk (actually, X maybe shouldn't be in there either), but then again, the Sex Pistols were pretty crappy in my opinion as well. I think that the musical style was largely based on American bands (but British bands did have some influence), while the discontentment and general rebellious attitude came largely from the British, who as you say, were in a pretty bad social situation at the time in which there really appeared to be "no future". The way I always generalize the often debated topic of "who created punk" is, we started it, the British perfected it, we gave birth, you guys raised it into what it became. In terms of the article, I think it's relatively neutral and factually correct. If you can provide sources that back up your position, then please do so. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 23:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, there are arguments for both sides. The article as it reads at the moment doesn't to me quite make this clear. It's also lacking in citations for all of its origins claims, USA and UK-related. Some of the UK information (skiffle=>punk for example) is just plain wrong, and I would like to know where that citation comes from.

BTW, "Sex Pistols" did not learn their instruments using Ramones records - it is widely documented they played such songs as Small Faces and Who covers in their formative days (circa 1973-75). Useless musician Sid Vicious did apparently learn one Ramones bass riff, and based his entire musical career on it, but he was a late arrival in any case, and should not be used to deny the band itself all credibility. It should also be recognised that The Damned's first USA tour opened the eyes of a lot of USA "punk" bands, since they reportedly played much faster and wilder than many similar American acts at that time. Examples like this that can balance the article one way then the other are many, and there's sources for all of it, but I would need time to stick it all in there.

So I think the "USA/UK first?" debate is a myth that WP should not be perpetuating in an ideal world. Both countries had their seminal outfits, and there's arguments both ways for which were most influential. There's no point in getting bogged down in claiming origins along nationalistic lines, there was in reality a lot of crossover, with record sales as well as protaganists visiting each other's country. That's why the article badly needs some reliable sources, from people who have already sifted all this evidence, and have already come up with some verifiable conclusions. --DaveG12345 09:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the part about not perpetuating this ridiculous argument in the article, since it really is pointless, and like I said, both sides definitely had major influence. It really isn't clear-cut. The only thing I'll disagree with is the part about the Sex Pistols not learning to play to the Ramones. Like I said, it was a documentary and they themselves were talking about playing along to Ramone's albums and it wasn't Sid. Unless I'm just confusing things, I'm pretty sure that's true. They mentioned other bands as well, which could include the bands you mentioned. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 02:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confusing things - perhaps someone related to the group was discussing how Sid learned to play? I too have sources on that. If you have a citable source for your version of events, let's see it. Otherwise, do explain how the original line-up was playing along to Ramones albums in 1975... :-) --DaveG12345 21:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course punk was more popular in the UK, but it's simplistic to say it was predominantly a British form of music. Ignoring the Ramones and Legs McNeil having a fanzine called Punk, among other things, even as early as the early 1980s you had punk rock scenes popping up all over the world. Hell, it go to a point where places like Iceland and Brazil had post-punk scenes. WesleyDodds 15:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"As early as the 1980s" is quite a telling statement - Europe (especially Scandinavia, France and Germany, for a few examples) were clued-up on UK punk and had their own nascent scenes well before the "early 1980s" - three or four years before. And of course, as late as the "early 1980s" it was all over in the UK bar the shouting (almost literally).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not being mean to user WesleyDodds or anyone else, but this discussion just seems to show the kind of cross-purposes that are IMO being pointlessly faffed around with if we insist on talking about a "year zero" and "ground zero" for all "punk" the whole world over (and I assume Mr Dodds concurs that this is a pointless endeavour - that's my interpretation of his post, so apologies if I have misinterpreted it).

The UK/USA/other-countries landmarks do not tally in any meaningful or helpful way with each other, and any attempt to make them neatly blend into a seamless worldwide "history of punk", where B followed A in strict Newtonian fashion, is pointlessly futile (as mentions of skiffle and Nuggets in the article seem to demonstrate). Far greater minds than ours with far greater time have tried this shoehorning job and have either admitted it's impossible, or utterly failed upon closer analysis.

So, since we all know this, why don't we all try and redraft the article as required to fit the verifiable facts, with some useful sections on "Origins of UK Punk" and "Origins of USA Punk" if we need them (I feel perhaps we do), and get rid once-and-for-all of this out-dated notion of a tidy but completely contrary to the facts idea of a consensual chronology of punk that spans all nations, colours and creeds, and which all started with - um - the Ramones (or insert whatever band/fanzine/nightclub you feel like here, basically)?

Punk simply didn't happen that way. It is undeniable, through sheer weight of documented testimony, that punk was a big big deal in the UK in 1976-77, at the same time as it was a very very small deal indeed in the USA, and the article should reflect that fact. But just because the Dictators (for example) existed and played to a few clued-up folks States-side, does not mean that the Pistols learned to play from them, that Rotten stole all his lyrical ideas from them, or that the UK-nationwide scandal of the Bill Grundy affair was not about a very significant UK TV moment, and was in fact all about spurious activities in some obscure NYC club/fanzine. Likewise, if Nirvana or Green Day or whoever from the USA subsequently became a big big deal (undeniably), it was not because of some pure lineage that linked them right back to primeval CBGBs or Jello Biafra, as if they'd never heard a Damned album in their lives (I rather think Green Day have the full set!).

Trying to make such a case (I'm not saying anyone is, but there are slight tendencies) is just plain silly. I hope you all get my drift and dinnae take offence. :-) --DaveG12345 21:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha! I was waiting for this to happen. Ecto 02:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was bouncing back and forth between NYC and London circa '76 (and traveling a bit in the US beyond that). I would say that the NYC scene got started earlier, but was pretty much ignored in the US outside of the city's orbit, the London scene a little later but quickly became the most important popular musical thing happening in England. - Jmabel | Talk 18:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, an interesting difference: the early US punk rockers were mostly in their mid-20s or beyond; the early UK punks were almost all under 25. - Jmabel | Talk 02:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is probably most useful to not look as the Ramones being an influence on the Pistols or vice versa, but to look at the mutual influences of both bands and their repective scenes. It was largely the New York Dolls that influnced both scenes (and, to a lesser extent, the Velvets, Stooges and MC5), and it is important to remember that Malcolm's store was all about New York music and style, and it was here that the Pistols met and formed. This was also the case in Brisbane, Australia, with the band the Saints, who formed before the Ramones and Pistols, but sounded remarkably like those bands because they listened to New York music, and it wasn't until 77 that they started to be called a punk band because of their sound even though they had never even considered themselves a punk rock band previous to that. If the New York scene hadn't hapened, something big would have happened in London anyway, but it wouldn't have sounded exactly the same and it wouldn't have been called punk. Perhaps the reggae influence would have been stronger and it would have sounded more like that. But if they London scene hadn't hapened the Ramones and all still would have been punk bands, but punk wouldn't have the same sound now and it wouldn't have become one of the major influences on music that it is today. (Don't forget the common debt New Wave, ALternative and Emo owe to punk rock, and all the bands that have been influenced by that music since.) Justinboden86 05:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds an intelligent analysis to me, but I think we should all try to use verifiable and reliable sources to put this together in the article itself, so as not to run the risk of doing original research on the matter. This is particularly important when it comes to crucial issues like influences and early chronology, or it runs the risk of subtle/moderate/extreme distortion - for example, I believe McLaren got into his New York thing after the Pistols had already formed (he and the shop were into Teddy Boy culture prior to that), and almost certainly after both Steve Jones and Glen Matlock had seen New York Dolls supporting the Faces in London. The Dolls were definitely an influence on the Pistols (as were the Faces, and both much more so than the Ramones), but whether McLaren brought knowledge of the NYC scene to the band independent of the musicians' own research is much less certain. London gigs featuring US artists, plus their coverage on UK radio and TV during the mid-70s, formed a backdrop that makes a perfect chronology of influences studded with clear pivotal events very difficult to discern IMO. Hence we should ideally leave this conjecture to the credible third-party sources in the article itself... Good discussion though. :) --DaveG12345 11:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Punk was almost a spontaneous worldwide movement in terms of the speed with which it spread, but most sources cite its main instigators as being The Velvet Underground, New York Dolls, MC5 and The Stooges. Early bands were popping up all over the place; The Saints formed independently of the American and British scenes in 1972, the Sex Pistols formed only months later as "The Strand", and the Ramones formed in late 1973. The independent scenes would become hugely influential as years went by - the Pistols credited the Ramones as the reason they became a serious band. Three years later, Crass, Gang of Four and Black Flag were already starting out. --Switch 11:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just remembered, it's important to note that a famous quote often attributed to a member of the Pistols was actually by The Clash's Mick Jones: "This is the Sex Pistols, and we're the Clash, and you're [the Ramones] the reason we became a band". The 25th Anniversary edition of London Calling feaures a DVD in which Jones himself takes credit for the quote. --Switch 11:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Punk Rock = subgenre of punk?

I think that punk rock is stuff like the Ramones and stuff, sure father of punk or not but it does not capsulate everything. I couldn't say that bands like Dystopia couldn't be called punk rock, I feel that punk is a more general term for everything. Its honestly a misconception in labeling rather than genre confusion in my opinion.

That's not how it's viewed in musical discourse. "Punk" in reference to a musical style is basically just a synonym for the full "punk rock" if you're too lazy to say the whole thing. WesleyDodds 15:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends on who is taking part in the discourse, it seems. So far on this talk page three different editors have brought up a distinction along these lines, and I was one of them. Wesley, please keep in mind that you do not have the final say on how this issue is viewed in "musical discourse". Musical taxonomy is not a science and some of its categories are far from being settled or universal, so we cannot pretend that that is the case. Personally, I draw a line between punk and punk rock, and this article does not, but I am fine with leaving it that way because other editors with opinions different from my own had their say first. My point is, there is no authority on this subject, so please do not try appealing to one. Ecto 18:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, musical taxonomy is not an exact science, but neither is the English language. Variations terms are often used to mean the same thing; for example "motion picture" and "movie", or "soda" and "soda pop". Like Spylab said, the distinction between "punk" and "punk rock" when talking about music is mainly preference and shorthand. WesleyDodds 06:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Other than right here, I have never heard someone say that punk music is something different from punk rock. As has been written above, "punk" (in terms of music) is just short for "punk rock." I can't even imagine why someone would think they are different genres. Go ahead and try to explain it if you can.Spylab 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

I can understand why, and I may have heard one or two people mention it (although, it could have been here). Regardless, I think most musical taxonimists would say they are the same, and like mentioned above, one is just easier and quicker to write. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 06:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No I think Ecto is correct in saying that Punk Rock (US) and Punk (UK) were such very different types of music maybe there should be some kind of distinction. If you're going use the term 'Punk Rock' to describe the Ramones, the Talking Heads and Blondie (for heaven's sake!) then it's obviously something very different from 'Punk' - the Sex Pistols, the Stranglers, the Clash, the Adverts, X-Ray Spex, the UK Subs...

In support of this, I remember an interview with Debbie Harry in 1978 or '79 where she was asked why she thought two similar (but not identical) music scenes had appeared on both sides of the Atlantic. She said they were two independent strands that had reached a similar conclusion, or words to that effect. At that time Blondie did not regard themselves as punk (nor did the Ramones I suspect) - this is something that has been made up since then to try to tie the two music scenes together in some scientific WesleyDodds kind of way.

As for the actual terminology, on the streets in the UK we always called it 'Punk'. 'Punk Rock' was a term your Dad might use, maybe in the same breath that he would ask 'What's top of the Hit Parade son?'

In addition there was certainly no cultural similarity between the two scenes at all. I went to see Blondie in the Boston Orpheum Theatre while in the US in 1979 (supported by a comedy band call the Fools). After having been to so many riotous punk gigs in the UK it was weird to see an audience of young people who still dressed like early seventies hippies and who stayed seated right the way through - I felt like I needed to shake them until they woke up. It was really weird sitting down during a gig. Quite comfy though. Jcleary 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough, but that still doesn't mean one style is "punk" and the other is "punk rock." Wikipedia isn't the place to invent new types of terminology. It's for documenting established facts.Spylab 12:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Blondie and the Ramones were not regarded as, labelled as, or considered themselves as Punk or Punk Rock at the time. The inclusion of them in that genre is some recent phenomenon (partly due I suspect to a fairly successful attempt by some Americans to rewrite history and lay claim to the punk heritage). My point is that if you're going to start rewriting history and labelling pop bands such as Blondie and the Ramones as Punk Rock, you should make a clear distinction between that and the Punk scene in the UK, which was pretty far removed from that. The two scenes weren't related then and history should not be rewritten now to pretend they were. Jcleary 12:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt anyone here is actively trying to rewrite history. Also, I'll search around for reference that the Ramones weren't called punk at the time. Fair's fair, after all. But I think you're simplifiying things. Punk was very important in the musical lineage of the UK, but I think it's a bit much to say that two separate things were going on in two different countries. For starters, the LA punk scene started to come together around 77-78, and they definitely called it punk. And people could get import records, after all. You really can't narrow down the genre to one focal point like "the Ramones were the first punk band" or "The Damned released the first punk single" because it isn't as simple as that; history rarely is. A lot of people and scenes contributed to the birth of punk. WesleyDodds 07:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the article that seems to include every type of music known to man except classical! What is the point of listing every music style from the previous 20 years in an article that is supposed to be about punk? Skiffle for heavens sake! The Origins and Early Emergence sections are convoluted, misinformed and overly biased towards the US. The part about punk being brought to the UK on the 4th July (!!) 1976 by the Ramones is just pure American fantasy. The article somehow forgets to mention the fact that Ramones were supporting the Stranglers at that gig and the Sex Pistols first gig was in 1975. jcleary 08:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And as for the use of the word 'punk' to mean different things on each side of the Atlantic, it's not without precedence: what we call crisps, you call chips; and what we call chips, you call fries! jcleary 09:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Australia is something of a happy medium between the two (for example, we call both crisps and fries "chips"), and here punk has always just been short for "punk rock". I'm pretty sure they were never two distinct forms of music. --Switch 11:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Really? How confusing. Are you really saying you've listened to Blondie and the Sex Pistols and you think they're the same kind of music? No wonder you don't know your crisps from your chips.

Thinking about what I said about Debbie Harry saying the two scenes were independent - I remember when I heard that - it was when she was talking about the reason for calling the album 'Parallel Lines'. And by the way - parallel lines don't come from the same point and also never meet. jcleary 12:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

They're no more diferent than Metallica and Pantera (thrash metal), or Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix (heavy metal), or Pink Floyd and Phish (prog), or Faith No More and Nine Inch Nails (alternative metal), or Sevendust and Limp Bizkit (nu metal), or several more bands from the same genres with wildly different music. In fact, their music itself is probably more similar, with the difference being derived from production and instrumentation more than musical style. "Punk" was just a broad term, no different than other genres with wide disparity. And, for the record, parallel lines meet at infinity (otherwise we never would have made it to the moon - but that's getting deeper into mathematics than I care to outside of uni). --Switch 11:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Does saying smart-arse break any Wiki rules? In case it does, I won't say it. That's a fair point about diversity within a genre, but I don't see the production and instrumental similarities you're talking about. Where's the near out of time slap-dash drums, the cheap echoey production, the overpowering driving rhythmn guitar, the irreverent lyrics about youth and anger and politics and disenfranchisement?

'In the Flesh', 'Presence Dear' ('could this be kismet' - oh very punk!), 'Sunday Girl', 'Baby I Love You'... They weren't punk then, they aren't now and they never will be. Most Blondie fans were under 12. They weren't punks!

I hope a bunch of kids come along when you're my age and start telling you that Rage Against The Machine and Justin Timberlake were part of the same musical genre, or that Nirvana only went into music because they heard a Kylie Minogue CD. It's pretty annoying. jcleary 12:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unintentionally ambiguous, but I actually meant the opposite of what you inferred - In terms of written music, the Pistols and Blondie were similar. In terms of instrumentation and production, Blondie were more a pop band and the Pistols a garage rock band (though NMTB was a lot cleaner than their contemporaries). If the Pistols had had pop-music-level production, used synthesisers and keyboards and actually had a singer, they would have been just like Blondie.

I'm not saying Blondie are punk by modern standards - but they're sure as hell New Wave, and new wave was originally an alternate term for punk.

Just think about this, though: If the Ramones and the Pistols are in different genres, which do the Buzzcocks belong to? --Switch 06:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

<----moving out to margin

A few, slightly scattered remarks; I'll try not to ramble on too much.:

• Someone above mentioned Boston. Except for—earlier—the young Jonathan Richman, punk in Boston was at most a pose.
• It's funny how your ears change over the years. When I first heard the Pistols, what was striking about them was the extreme rawness, one of the rawest sounds on record at that time. Now I listen to them and I mostly hear well-structured, mildly clever pop songs.
• Clearly Blondie and the Sex Pistols were doing two very different things. But let's stay very close to the Pistols: Siouxsie And The Banshees are arguably closer musically to Blondie than they are to the Pistols (or at least they were after an album or three). Listening almost 30 years later, without the benefit of knowledge from the time, who'd know that Wreckless Eric was part of an entirely different (North London pub rock) scene, little connection to the punks at all, while Siouxsie was right in there at the 100 Club and Marquee? To a large extent, a term like "punk" (at least if we are talking pre-1982) designates a scene more than a sound. And the mutual availability of records, images, etc. (not to mention travel) led to a lot of influences in a lot of different directions. The boundaries are almost impossible to draw. Were Big In Japan punk? Early Scritti Politti?

- Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Punk rock names/real names section?

While interesting in a useless trivia kind of way, I'm not sure that this section is relevent enough to include in this already-long article. Perhaps it should be its own article (or merged into the punk rock musicians lists), and the Punk Rock article can link to it.Spylab 18:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Yup. Entertaining, but belongs elsewhere. - Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

How about mentioning the practice in the 'Lifestyle' section of the punk subculture article, with one or two examples? Ecto 23:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its really needed, alot fo people who play some form of rock music, or other entertainment use stage names. And of course if the people are notable enough to have an article on here in the first place it will be mentioned there. - Deathrocker 12:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

X

Recent edit calls the band X hardcore. Really? I wouldn't say so at all. - Jmabel | Talk 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and Blink-182 is crust. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Guitar solos "taboo" in early days of punk rock?

In the article it says "Guitar solos were considered taboo in the early days of punk rock." Johnny Thunders & the Heartbreakers, Richard Hell & the Voidoids, The Dead Boys, Rocket from the Tombs, The Clash, The Damned, and the Sex Pistols all had guitar solos in their earlier albums. I suggest we change it to say "are usually less common in the genre," or just remove the sentence entirely. Dasilva 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit of a myth that's grown up around punk. If anything, they were considered taboo by the press - promoting an image of year-zero DIY fundamentalism - than the musicians themselves. Even 'Anarchy in the UK' has a solo, for Chrissakes. Tpth 02:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You're both right. Guitar solos being taboo was a common idea at the time but guitar breaks still cropped up in many songs. It was a contradiction at the time. I think what people really meant was 'virtuoso' guitar solos were taboo. By the mid-seventies guitar solos could be minutes long, and in songs like Hotel California could be more important than the song itself. Punk was reacting against that.

If you like I can change the quote to be 'Virtuoso guitar solos were considered taboo..'? jcleary 08:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed it. Thanks anyway. Dasilva 19:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ages ago I watched a documentary on TV about the origins of UK punk. There was this musical performance show, like Top of the Pops or something, and all the teens watched it out of boredom. One night there was a hard/prog rock band that played a song with a masturbatory 9 minute drum solo (for crying out loud), and the band that played the next night was punk or protopunk, so all the kids went ape. I think that sums up punk music. Ecto 23:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinionated addition

Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know if I should have just deleted this or not. If somebody could let me know the proper process for this, that would be great.

I notice that this paragraph was just added to the article:

Punk music is never played for personal enjoyment; it is an inherently unappealing form of music. It is only ever played to stick it to The Man, and to piss off nuns.

Obviously, this is somebody's personal opinion, and not objective fact. Do I have the authority to just delete it?

Hell yeah! Wikipedia is all about DIY. I'll probably get to it though first, but for things that are clearly biased or one editors personal commentary, feel free to delete it (just say why in the edit summary). And since you're new, if you make any mistakes, you'll just be informed of why they're not great and everyone will understand. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 18:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a lot! And I see you've already deleted it. Cfrydj 19:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Screamers

Probaly the best band in the L.A scene 1977-1980 along.\ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.26.106.89 (talk • contribs) 18 September 2006.

AfD on Minor Threat songs

A group of articles on songs by Minor Threat are up for deletion. You may be interested in adding to the discussion. --Switch 14:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Green Day

Do you think Green Day is a punk band?

See the Green Day talk page for extensive, extensive debate on this topic. But when it comes down to it, Green Day is widely recognized by a number sources to have lead a punk revival in the 1990s. WesleyDodds 21:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

punk rock was of a certain time born of certain condictions that no longer exist, therefore, it cant be exist any more. Green day made power-pop or guitar based pop more popular in the mainstream, allowing bands like weezer and fountains of wayne etc to gain recognition, they really have nothing to do with punk rock at all.

Punk rock never fully die out. Read the article. WesleyDodds 22:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Punk Music

shouldn't the article's name be "Punk Music" sense it's not only limited to Rock?

No, because it's commonly called "punk rock" and punk is a subgenre of rock music. WesleyDodds 22:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ramones first Punk Band

It's not really point of view, they are widely considered to be the first, and I've got plenty of sources that consider them that. What else do you want? Also I find the article misleading the way it says it originated in england, before it says United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 29 October 2006.

Seems to me that trying to pin down a first punk band is a pointless exercise. It's not like things went suddenly from non-punk to punk. The Ramones weren't "punk" from the moment they started; early Jonathan Richman has a lot in common with punk; etc. - Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes but this page should give a history of the genre, and things like Richman are considered proto punk, where as the Ramones are commonly considered as the original punk rock band. It seems like a history of the genre would be inadequite without pointing out their place in history.-HP69

Precursors to punk were all over the place. The Velvet Underground and The Stooges are normally cited as examples of proto-punk, but there were pub rock bands, glam bands and all sorts of musicians who had a lot in common with punk even in the late sixties. Even a 7-minute-solo psychedelic band, The Doors, recorded a song that sounds a lot like a precursor to punk (Break on Through (To the Other Side)), and John Lydon was influenced by Captain Beefheart and Can. Where did punk start? Nowhere really; it just evolved out of the music that was floating around at the time. --Switch 09:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's more like the Ramones were the first band that cemented many of the traits that define punk as a genre in one place. As everyone else has said, a lot of things added to the creation of the genre. WesleyDodds 13:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If I was going to single out one proto-punk band, the immediate ancestor of it all, it would be the New York Dolls. Firstly because of their influence in America and UK (Pistols cited them as a major influence), becuase their members went on to be involved in other punk bands such as the Heartbreakers and the Voidoids, and their style and sound says alot of things early punk said, eg...they dressed up like teenage girls because they didn't care about fitting in and wanted to make a statement that would outrage conservatives, and their sound was very reminiscent of pre-progressive rock and roll. The Stooges are an awesome band, but their psychadelic, drawn out songs do not represent what punk represented. The pop/avant garde sound of the velvets is not what punk is either. By this arguement, the Ramones are a very good contender for the first punk band, becuase they took the new york dolls and then went forward one more step towards punk rock. They ditched the glam, and made short, simple, powerful and fast songs. By comparison, break on through sounds lifeless and wet. Ramones songs kept their energy from start to finish. Yes they had slow songs like 'I Wanna be your Boyfriend' on their first album, but remember on that album they had so many songs that define punk rock...such as Blitzkreig Bop, Judy is a Punk, Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue, Loudmouth, 53rd and 3rd. To contradict Jambel, Ramones WERE punk from when they first started. Even if the term was not used in that sense at the time. I do understand that there are earlier bands that can be considered punk, but they either didn't release anything or whatever they did release it's been gone and buried for decades (eg Dictators). They did not make punk everything that it is, but they were the inspiration for many that did. (Justinboden86 02:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

To clarify: The Ramones were punk by the time they recorded, but by their own accounts, it took them some time to find their sound. - Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys...

"Some, such as The Misfits (from New Jersey), Black Flag (from Los Angeles), Stiff Little Fingers (from Northern Ireland), and Crass (from Essex)."

That sentence makes no sense. If you want to change the paragraph, edit the list of bands, but leave the sentence structure as it is (see below), or edit it in a way that it will still actually make sense.

"Some, such as The Misfits (from New Jersey), Black Flag (from Los Angeles), Stiff Little Fingers (from Northern Ireland), and Crass (from Essex) would lead the move away from the original sound of punk rock and towards the hardcore subgenre."

Personally, I think all those bands influenced hardcore somewhat, and sound more like hardcore than the Pistols, but please don't make rash edits guys. Switch 03:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-romantic?

The article has it that: Others were violent or anti-romantic in depictions of sex and love, such as The Voidoids' "Love Comes in Spurts". Now, Love comes in Spurts is for me the most poignant song ever written about the unbearable search for love. If you ask me for a romantic song, I'll give you Love Comes in Spurts. To call it anti-romantic is to misunderstand it to the highest degree.