Jump to content

Talk:Punk rock/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Impact and influences

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope better?

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

I'm not sure that you're fully aware that:
  1. The introduction is supposed to summarise the main article text, so it's often better to see if the article text needs changing first before changing the introduction
  2. The article should not contain original research
  3. Please add citations to reliable sources for your changes
Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I second Ghmyrtle. What you're adding is fine detail, which doesn't belong in a lead section. It's also full of terms that don't appear anywhere in the article body (retro-futurism, indie pop, etc). Overall the whole thing reads like original research/your own opinion and does not appear to have come from any reliable, published sources. Because this is a featured article, and the only featured article on a music genre, we tend to apply a good deal of scrutiny to significant changes like these. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks, know when clearly out-voted.
Yes, of course I am fully aware of your 3 points, but a helpful intro should also surely include something on the article's relevance and where it fits within its wider field? Something I think the average reader would struggle to find in the current intro. I am also completely with you on the need for scrutiny in an article like this.
Yet your references to 'original research' and 'citations' leave me baffled - what, you mean mentioning schism/splintering? new wave? grunge? Have you seen our own sub-headings in section 5? These words all feature citation-free throughout the rest of the article and refer to music scenes far more popular than punk itself, but they strangely appear nowhere in your introduction. Meanwhile, I ensured they came with cross-references to other sizeable Wikipedia entries - which in turn mention punk clearly in their opening sentences. I am surprised that is still not reliable enough?
Are you really saying the new wave that dominated late 70s and 1980s music right into the 1990s all over the world and its intrinsic link to punk is more "fine detail" than a reference to 'Offspring' or 'Oi!'? If so, I give up, there seems little point discussing things any further.
As to Indie rock/pop, that is merely a pan-English translation thing, like football/soccer elsewhere. It certainly does not need repeating throughout the entry, but 'alternative rock' is a specifically US-only term. I assumed this entry was trying to capture punk beyond just the States. Am I wrong?
Finally, yes I acknowledge your sound points on the more recent extension of 'punk' as description to a whole range of other fields - and specifically the term 'retro-futurism'. It certainly is not my own term, I only came across it as title of the most generic Wikpedia entry that brings together diesel punk, steam punk and cyber punk. All these terms directly derive from the punk rock ethos, rather than any other usage of the word. You may not be aware of it, but I challenge you to deny this is an increasing phenomenon, one that is particularly likely to intrigue readers over the coming few years. I accept it should appear in the main article too though, and am happy to do this, but have little incentive to have a go on what our recent correspondence has achieved so far.
Oh well. Thanks for listening.
JSN2849 (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC) JSN2849

Punk in Ex-Yugoslavia

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

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

You cannot use Wikipedia as a source for itself. See WP:CIRCULAR. In other words, you cannot say "this is true because it's written in another Wikipedia article". You must cite a reliable secondary source for content such as what you added. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes - but the rest of the content for yugoslavian punk doesn't have any sorces as well. And btw, what's the difference? You can just add the sorces that are attached on thee Yugoslavia punk article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastapunk (talk • contribs) 20:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Yugoslavia punk is a C-class article with a lot of problems, one of which is a lack of inline citations. Punk rock is a featured article that has gone through multiple peer reviews, so it is held to a higher standard. You should therefore not add unsourced claims to this article, especially if they are unsourced in another article as well. If you want to add content to this article, you must correctly cite sources for the content you're adding. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"Kill Your Idols" documentary

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

Punk exhibit at the MET Museum in NYC

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

I'm happy to discuss in more detail.

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

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

Seminal Brazilian Punk

Please inform the seminal Brazilian punk scene, even in global terms, and the impotance that punk had on the current aesthetic of Brazilian music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.66.1.232 (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ska

How exactly did ska influence punk rock? I know John Lydon and many other early punk musicians such as the Clash were fans of ska music such as Prince Buster growing up, and it didn't take long for bands like the Specials to combine the two sounds, but did ska really help form the original punk rock sound? I see no citations for this and it's also not explained in the article. I think ska's influence should be clarified or removed from punk's stylistic origins. It's not enough that the founders of the genre were fans, Lydon was also a fan of early heavy metal such as Black Sabbath and Alice Cooper and yet no one throws around that genre as helping to form the punk sound because it didn't really. 96.46.207.169 (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. Ska and reggae were particularly influential in the British wing of 70s punk (less so in the New York scene). One possible explanation is that certain bands, such as the Clash came from West London, which had a large Jamaican population. Before he joined London SS (Mick Jones' band), Paul Simenon had been involved in the skinhead gangs (that is before they became racist and right wing--when they were into ska and reggae and idolized Jamaican "rude boys"). For references, we could turn to some of the better books about the Clash (i.e. Last Gang In Town).
Don Letts was another key player in the London scene of the time (and good friends with the Clash and other bands). I believe that he DJ'd at some of the punk clubs of that period, and played a lot of reggae and ska. In 1976, most of the bands in the scene had not yet recorded their own records, so the clubs would play a lot of reggae and ska, along with 60s garage, glam, Stooges/MC5 era, etc. Most books and documentaries of the London scene cover his role.
Another earlier possible influence could have Eddie Grant's 60s freakbeat band, The Equals, who were popular in London. The black members in the band were of Jamaican descent. So while their music was fast, upbeat rock & roll (downright punky), they also had a definite ska feel in a lot of the music. The Clash paid tribute to them on Sandinista, with their version of "Police on My Back." Jamaican/Cuban/Caribbean influences go way back into the early days of rock & roll (long before even ska and reggae--styles such as mento and calypso). Some of Chuck Berry's songs have definite Caribbean influences. From what I understand, the song "Louie Louie," made famous by the Kingsmen (mentioned in this article), had originally been a Jamaican folk song. So the influence of ska and other Caribbean forms runs deep in the history of punk (and rock). Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Punk genres

Category:Punk genres has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. 068129201223129O9598127 (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Distinctive styles of clothing and adornment

The lede refers to punk's distinctive styles of clothing and adornment. This alone does not give the reader a sense of what punks looked like. This generic phrase could be used for any subculture (mods, skinheads, etc). I believe that using this phrase with a wiki link is relying too much on the link. If a reader prints the page or exports it as a PDF file, they won't be able to click the link. For this reason I think that it would be useful to have a few examples to give the reader a general idea of what these distinctive adornments included. Of course there are challenges, since punk styles varied between the US and the UK and over time, but it should be possible to craft a phrase that would capture the general idea. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I am making a second try to add a few examples of what distinctive styles of clothing and adornment consisted of. I think that this helps the reader to get a sense of punk fashion without having to click on the blue link.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Ed Sanders March 22nd, 1970

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

You bring up a good point. I am, indeed, aware of his remark and I have mentioned it in threads before. Though he was referring to his solo album, we are ever-aware of his earlier involvement with The Fugs (1963-1968). His and Dave Marsh's uses of the term are two of the earliest known in print, but I highly doubt that either of them, alone, could have single-handedly coined the phrase. I have always had a hunch that the term was first used as a colloquialism (in certain circles) before, and that they had heard it from others. But, I cannot prove that. Whatever the pre-1970 origin of the term was remains a mystery.
The liklihood is that Sanders was using the term in the way he probably heard it: as a colloquialism, meaning something akin to "raw, rough, primitive, ameteurish rock". Whether meant as a putdown or a compliment, this term was probably used by certain people to describe music made by lesser-known artists of the 60s (i.e. garage bands of the mid-60s such as The Standells and the Count Five, New York underground bands such as The Fugs and The Velvets, late 60s Detroit bands such as The Stooges and MC5, etc.), but once again it remains a mystery. I have listened to (and enjoyed) the Fugs' earliest songs made in 1965-1966 and they definitly sound like the description above. Supposedly, Frank Zappa used the term "punk" in a 1968 movie to describe ameteur bands, but we need to check up on that.
In 1971-1973, the rock critics you made reference to (Lester Bangs, Dave Marsh, Lenny Kaye, Greg Shaw, etc.) would write more conscientiously about the term "punk rock" and its meaning. Despite a certain vagueness about how the term should be applied to artists in the contemporary scene, there was unanimous consensus amongst them that it referred to the garage bands of the mid-60s. The label they gave what we now call "garage rock," was "punk rock." However, they did, indeed, extended its use to contemporary artists of the early 70s (but, as I mentioned, were not as clear in this respect). That they also applied it to contempory music, made it possible for New York and London scenes (1975-1977) to co-opt the term a few years later.
New York bands such as The Fugs can definitely be considered a manifestation of garage rock, albeit, a more urbanized "intellectual" type of garage music. I see no contradiction between The Fugs and the garage bands. Lester Bangs was a huge fan of the Fugs, just as he was of bands such as The Count Five and the Troggs. I need to check my sources, but I believe that he referred to The Fugs as "punk," just as he had the The Count Five.
I don't know where all the roads will lead (people may come to different conclusions), but it is a healthy thing to start asking questions about the pre-1975 origins of punk. So, Xsxex has asked a helpful question. My hunch is that there is about to be a major and widespred re-evaluation of how punk came to be. Intellectual honesty will simply no longer allow the post-1974 explanation: the facts are just too overwhelming to the contrary. Listening to songs from earlier periods with an ear towards musicological investigation tends to reinforce that impression. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
It is possible that Ed Sanders coined the term. He is still alive. We should interview him. Also maybe it would be possible to get ahold of the reporter, Robb Baker, if he's still alive. That Frank Zappa movie sounds very interesting. Can you find the name of the movie? This would be a very interesting addition to our punk history indeed. Xsxex (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it would be great to interview Sanders. It is interesting the way that he embdies attributes of beat, hippie,and punk all into one (so much for exclusivism and seperatism!!!). I think that Zappa appeared in a 1968 movie called You Are What You Eat, but I do not know if it is the correct film (or if it is available on DVD). Something to check into. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Earlier this week I had the pleasure of speaking to one of the original members of the 60s garage band, The Gaunga Dyns, who recorded several songs, their most famous being "Rebecca Rodifyer" (they have recently reunited with at least four of their original members and are currently gigging). I recently saw them play, along with The Standells, The Sloths, Chris Montaz, and Ty Wagner at the Ponderosa Stomp festival. He agrees with my perspective of garage rock as being the original form of punk (not as a separate thing, of course, but as part of the whole 60s experience--and as a harbinger of things to come). I asked him if the word "punk" was ever used for bands in the 60s, and he said, "Yes, They called us 'punks'" (i.e. by establishment types meaning it as a putdown to the kind of long-haired kids who played in small local bands). He then went on to tell me about hostile treatment by the principal of his high school.
My hypothesis (although I don't claim to be infallible on this) is that the word started as a putdown to the people who played in amateur and semi-pro bands (or at least to those who had long hair for the times) and then later became used to describe the bands and their style of music--probably first as a pejorative (i.e. Frank Zappa's use of term in 1968 movie), and then later positively (Sanders, Marsh, Bangs, Kaye, Shaw, etc.). To discover the deep-rooted meaning of the term "punk rock" and more importantly, to identify the earliest origins of the musical lineage (doing adequate justice), would do a great service to our understanding of the history of punk rock.Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
...but it would be entirely contrary to WP policy on no original research. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is true. Such research would have to occur independently of Wiki. Anything mentioned here should be based on reliable external sources. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Size of article

Wikipedia guidelines at WP:Length state that articles should have about 50kb of material, with a possibility of extending this to 60 kb. Currently, the punk rock article is about 160 kb. This suggests that dividing the article into subarticles may be desirable.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The word count suggests it is not as dramatically oversize as the bitesize suggests, but it probably is a bit long. Significantly reducing a featured article needs to be done with some care. We could take some sections out to form their own article and leave summaries here. Less drastically, I think I could probably prune 10-20% out with a copy edit and by removing some of unsourced statements that have crept in.--SabreBD (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure it's a good idea, but it's a big task. I wish you luck! Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
My only concern is that the article, if cut down too much, might become less informative (and truncated). This is, as SabreBD suggested, a feature article, and perhaps there should be a different length requirement for feature articles. I am usually in favor of being as "Brittanic" as possible (breadth, depth, and good quality writing).
However, there are certain things that, not only can be removed, but should be. For instance, Lester Bangs' pan review of MC5. It is inappropriate considering their almost universally recognized influence in punk. Regardless of what one thinks about the merits or fairness of the review quote, we must ask ourselves whether or not it really merits the space provided. I say that it is a waste of space and should be removed. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair points. I don't see how this article could be reduced to a third of its size (the implication of the size guidelines) and still cover the complex topic adequately. I take the point over the quotation, although we may wait and see if there are other views before removing it. In general use of quotation is a factor in the size used here. In an essay this would be interesting, and even good style, but in an encyclopedic article there may be too much. I can't really cut too much excess out of some sections because they largely consist of quotations. The points made could be paraphrased in far less words, but I am not sure that sources quoted actually include those points.--SabreBD (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
This suggestion may be too radical, but although we have articles like French punk, we don't have articles on American punk or British punk (currently just a redirect to a list of bands). I'm thinking of the periods from (say) 1974-80, where although clearly an overview needs to be retained in this article, covering all the essentials and the transatlantic cross-fertilisation, we could have more details on the national scenes in separate articles. We could even have, for instance, New York punk. Just a thought. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually I think it is a good idea. I guess titles would have to be British punk rock. Not quite sure what would be best for the US, which is a bit more complex as American might imply the continent. Punk rock music in the US would have to include the later genres I suppose so might cover too much of the same ground. Is there any millage in a Origins of punk rock article, like the Origins of rock and roll article?--SabreBD (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that's a really good idea. For instance, there are already articles on people like Esther Wong, who had a lot to do with punk's spread in the Los Angeles area. The page itself already lists Regional scenes, as Chmyrtle said, so it would make sense to include regions within the United States. As far as SabreBD says, I think it might still be important to at least list the cultural origins of the genre on the main page. Otherwise, it could just turn into a list of the regional punk scenes. So maybe in shortening, the article could become a general overview of how the genre started and then include a list of links to the regional scenes to show how the form has spread since those origins. PuMuINTL (talk) 21:34 4 March 2014 (EST)

I agree that this article has gotten too long. One way to start cutting its length would be to cut down the garage rock and protopunk sections to just links to those respective articles. Of course, more trimming would be needed, but this is a start! Twyfan714 (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be a terrible mistake, Twyfan714. Those were the first two eras to have the name "punk rock" attached to them by influential people in the rock critical community (particularly 60s garage, when those critics first recognized it as a genre in the early 70s and called it "punk rock"). So much of the entire foundation of punk as a musical form rests on those two periods, that there could be nothing that came later on without them. This article tries present punk as a trans-generational phenomenon (and that is a good thing), so why go eliminating whole sections?
Rather than removing vital information and content that can help a reader learn about the history punk, why don't we eliminate unnecessary block quotes and silly innuendo (such as that totally unnecessary quote from a review on MC5). And then, as SabreBD recommended, we can try to find a more clear way of wording things, for instance when needed content relies too much on quotes we could replace a lot it with paraphrases (meaning the same thing and pointing to the same sources).
I don't really see the need for making this article shorter (so maybe this whole discussion is a waste of time). If anything, the article should be allowed to grow (when necessary). Our aim should be to create the best possible article. The only things that should ever be removed are those that are unnecessary, incorrect, unsourced, irrelevant, or redundant. There are many Wiki articles longer than this, which have received very high ratings. For instance, the Beatles' article, which is one of the best ever written. I don't think anyone would recommend shortening that piece. Nor should we for this. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Best article is not biggest article and as pointed out above, there are guidelines for size that this article goes beyond. There are no suggestions to lose material here, just to place it in mother places and to use summary style here.--SabreBD (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
True, I just hope that we don't accidently end up truncating the article in a way that hinders the reader's basic education on the topic, particularly how punk came into existence. If we were to cut the size down, then I would suggest that we definitely not take out the earliest periods the way Twyfan714 suggested, but rather do cutting in the later periods (the way PuMuINTL advocated), say after the mid-90s, because, by then, the most vital, formative, and defining moments of punk had already transpired (of course there have been other developments since, but punk has now broken up into so many subgenres). I would say that the most critical periods to be covered in this article are: garage, protopunk, New York, London, Australia, Los Angeles, hardcore, then maybe others pre-1995. By the way, is it OK if I delete that unnecessary block quote form a review about MC5? That would be a great place to start the trimming. Might as well take out the fat before we get to the meat. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I removed the negative part of the quote about MC5. Is it really necessary to risk being contradictory by then going on to disparage a band that the article is attempting to portray as "central" or seminal? The reduction also removes a few bytes. Since there have been no objections expressed (it's now been almost a year), I would assume that no one would have a problem with this revision. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Another idea to consider: perhaps we could move the Etymology to the addendum at the end of the article, and then, rather than using the narrative currently provided here, we could create a link to a new etymology article (w/ identical contents). That would allow us to keep the narrative focus, here, on the music and its creators (and retain as much coverage the music, here, as humanly possible). What do you think? Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I Think this article is wrong.

calling punk a rebellion isn`t right. also, punk has nothing to do with the stile or clothes you use. --201.191.43.250 (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)MiguelinCrafteri

I agree with you that there is an unfortunate tendency to view punk as more of a social/fashion phenomenon than as music, and that has become a huge stumbling block. But, I don't think the article is the problem. The article seems to be trying to reflect the totality of punk, yet with an emphasis on the music (as it should be). Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Need a rockabilly section in prehistory

The prehistory has no section describing the substantial influence of rockabilly, and for that matter early rock n' roll in general, on punk. I'm going to try to write it, though it's a little difficult, because a number of bands have very explicit rockabilly influences (The Cramps, Social Distortion, Misfits, etc), but it needs to reflect the influence on punk as a whole. If anyone wants to help me contribute, I'd appreciate it. Does anyone have any good sources to start with? Gtbob12 (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You make a great point. The 50s-early 60s period is where we can find the earliest roots of punk: early rock & roll, rockabilly, Link Wray, surf, etc. I believe it is Greg Shaw (one of the writers who originally used the term "punk rock" in the early 70s), who referred to these years as "protopunk" in the liner notes of the Nuggets box set (1998 release). Remember that these writers (who first defined the term punk) had a different conception of punk's beginnings than what has been commonly held by most since 1976. To him, the 50s and early 60s is the precursor (proto-) to 60s garage, which he (and those other early writers) considered the fist actual "punk." Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
No. Mainstream sources normally start telling the story of punk with early-70s proto-punk, so we should as well--Guerillero | My Talk 02:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I was only speaking of those particular writers (pre-1976). Yes, after 1976, most writers did come speak of punk as post-1975 phenomenon. But, before 1976, there was a whole different view of things. There are ample and reliable sources form the time period I was discussing. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Garage and mod section a mess...also may need name change

The "Garage and mod" section of this article badly needs to be revised. It is a convoluted, confusing, mess that is hard to read and, therefore, fails to adequately inform the reader. It should be divided into two paragraphs: one discussing garage rock in America and the other, British rock of the same period, so that we don't get the two conflated. In the perfect scenario, the basic message and content would remain the same and the wording would be only slightly modified to be more clear (Amen). It would look something like this:

==Garage rock and British beat==
In the early to mid-1960s, garage rock bands that came to be recognized as punk rock's progenitors began springing up around North America. The Kingsmen, from Portland, Oregon, had a hit with their 1963 cover of "Louie, Louie," cited as "punk rock's defining ur-text."[1] After the Beatles’ first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show, and then with the subsequent string of other successful British acts, the garage band craze would gather even more momentum. The minimalist sound of many garage rock bands was influenced by the harder-edged wing of the British Invasion, exemplified by groups such as The Rolling Stones and The Yardbirds. After 1967, U.S. garage rock began to fall out of favor, but the raw sound and outsider attitude of "garage psych" bands like The Seeds presaged the style of bands that would later become known as the archetypal figures of protopunk.[2]
From England, The Kinks' hit singles of 1964, "You Really Got Me" and "All Day and All of the Night," themselves influenced by “Louie, Louie,”[3] have been described as "predecessors of the whole three-chord genre—the Ramones' 1978 'I Don't Want You,' for instance, was pure Kinks-by-proxy".[4] In 1965, The Who progressed from their debut single, "I Can't Explain," a virtual Kinks clone, to "My Generation". Though it had little impact on the American charts, The Who's mod anthem presaged a more cerebral mix of musical ferocity and rebellious posture that characterized much early British punk rock: John Reed describes The Clash's emergence as a "tight ball of energy with both an image and rhetoric reminiscent of a young Pete Townshend—speed obsession, pop-art clothing, art school ambition".[5] The Who and fellow mods The Small Faces were among the few rock elders acknowledged by the Sex Pistols.[6] The tougher sounding, mod-influenced British bands of the 60s are sometimes referred to as Freakbeat.

Note that I have eliminated the foolishness about the "decline" of mod in 1966 (please see talk section of Mod subculture article for reasons why). I also feel that this section needs a name change from "Garage and Mod" to "Garage rock and British beat." Let's keep the focus on music where it should be. The section mentions mod in the text and we can put a link to it there. What do you think?Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No objection from me, except to note that (in the UK) "freakbeat" bands (like The Creation) contained elements from the developing US and UK psychedelic scenes, as well as being "mod-influenced" (not sure what that means). Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It could be said that the garage rock bands also began to bring in psych, coming into 1967. It was where everyone was headed, more or less. Rather than "mod influenced," we could just say just "mod." Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I just made the revisions. I removed the phrase "mod-influenced" altogether. If you see anything else that needs tidying up, go right ahead. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sabin 1999, p. 157.
  2. ^ Sabin 1999, p. 159.
  3. ^ Kitts, Thomas M. Ray Davies: Not Like Everybody Else. Routledge. 2007. Pg. 41
  4. ^ Harrington (2002), p. 165.
  5. ^ Reed (2005), p. 49.
  6. ^ Fletcher (2000), p. 497.

Soviet Union and Russia

I've reinstated the section that was removed in this edit. I agree that the referencing may not meet current FA standards, but the answer is surely to improve the quality of the referencing and text, rather than removing it completely. The FA status of the article has not been reviewed for over eight years, and a review is clearly long overdue. The USSR/Russia section is just one section out of the many changes that have been made to this article that need to be reconsidered and re-edited, but the content of the section is, so far as I can tell, neutral and informative (while being capable of substantial improvement). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The biggest issue, behind the sourcing, is that is focuses on post-1980 in a late-70s section. It deserves 3 sentences at most per WP:DUE not three paragraphs --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I accept the point about the chronology. However, I would expect that the development of punk rock in the USSR, Russia and Eastern Europe (mostly post-1980, I would expect) would deserve an article of its own. We already have an overlapping section at Russian rock#Russian punk. So, one solution may be to move and shorten the existing section (though it's not clear where - the current article seems to lack a section on the international development of the genre post-1980), and create a new article on the genre in the former Eastern bloc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. Punk rock in Russia reached a mainstream status in the 90's and in the 00's many bands appeared which achieved a lot of recognition and success. The section needs more examples and more development, not deletion. 82.11.101.1 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Who the hell deleted the section about the Soviet Union? A agree it can be improved, but deleting a whole large important section?? Punk rock in Russia started as an underground movement under a dictatorship where you could have went to prison just for dressing as one! Later in Russia with Korol I Shut and many other bands it became mainstream. It is a huge scene!

I think the section should be developed more and more bands like Tarakani and Nogu Svelo should be mentioned.

Also, in the early stages Svin was one of the founders and a great rival of Grazhdanskaya Oborona.

The section should be developed, expanded, improved... NOT deleted. Keeping an FA standard be deleting information is not the Wikipedia way, it is cheating. Developing every new addition up to an FA standard is the right way.

So instead of deleting lets make ourselves useful and improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.101.1 (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest someone writes a list of requirements for this section to fit the article standards, and then we will have clear instructions to work with. Just deleting it does not make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.6.192 (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe rather than deleting it, we can move it and modify it. While it is commendable that sections on Soviet punk be added, there are problems: 1) the Soviet punk of the 80s (and beyond) should not be placed in proximity with the sections dealing with the 1970s. Or maybe it could be put in a linked article as Ghmyrtle suggested. 2) Words such as "godfather" do not sound objective or encyclopedic. Those who want the inclusion of a Soviet section would get more support from other editors if they would put this section into its proper chronological place (i.e. in one of the later, post-70s sections), and use more encyclopedic language. Obviously, any new material should be well-sourced. Editors who are signed-in and registered always have more credibility in the eyes of the rest of the community. Hint. Hint. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit of 01:29, 10 November 2014

An anonymous user changed the opening sentence, without explanation, to read "..a rock music genre that developed between 1969 and 1976..." - rather than the established consensus wording of "..between 1974 and 1976...". I've now reverted the change, after Garagepunk66 alerted me. Discussion so far on my talk page is set out below - further discussion should take place here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It appears that an unsigned writer made a change in the time frame of the heading (at Punk rock) from "1974-" to "1969-." It looks that he made this change without discussion or consultation with other editors. If you and other editors don't have a problem with his change, I certainly don't (as you would expect me to say). Still, I understand that there is such a thing as protocol, so I thought I'd mention it to you. I do think that if we revert back to the "1974-" wording, then we could finally replace the word "developed" with "emerged." Here the term would be fitting, in light of the reality that some can point to discussion of pre-1974 (not to mention post-1978) musical development in certain sources. All editors would, nonetheless, agree that it was definitely in the 70s that the whole thing, whenever it began (sooner or not), finally "emerged." Or we could just keep the whole statement it as it currently is. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The edit was made here, by an anonymous editor without any explanation. The problem is that, regardless of whether you or anyone else believes it to be true, it doesn't reflect most sources and doesn't reflect the content of the article, which focuses on the post-mid-70s genre. I'll revert the change - and, if you want further discussion, please continue on the article talk page, not here. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for making the change. For, the other issue (about changing to use of term "emerged" in first sentence of heading), I would like to create a separate thread for that. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Galloping Coroners to the Other Fusions and Directions section

Dear HappyWaldo, Western music critics compare Galloping Coroners's importance to American experimental rock band Sonic Youth or Big Black.2 Please, check Galloping Coroners referencies on wikipedia and internet to get input about it. The other way to discuss this question if you would help me with the qualitative and quantitative measures what an artist should fulfill to enter this section, and then we can check it objectively. Thanks! --Harom65 (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Sonic Youth: "About 1,750,000 results" (on Google). Galloping Coroners: "About 4,250 results". Google isn't the be-all-end-all, but it's a pretty good indicator of notability. - HappyWaldo (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear HappyWaldo,

1. If we just would take Google results: You mention Sonic Youth 1,750,000 results vs. Galloping Coroners 4,250. - Galloping Coroners objective Google results is about 30-40,000. - My browser gives 12 100 results for "Galloping Coroners". But these are the English pages only, because Galloping Coroners native name is different (Vágtázó Halottkémek), your result did not include native Hungarian peoples results. "Vágtázó Halottkémek" (excluding "Galloping Coroners" keyword English pages to avoid duplification) has 26 500 results. - There are several artists on Wikipedia with lower google results. Just a quick sample: In Punk rock subgenres Krymplings - 9,550, Motherhead Bug 13,800, Zydepunks - 19,000. So if we look only the numbers without considering any professional evaluation aspects, Galloping Coroners has also the place on wikipedia in the Punk Rock article.

2. Professional Evaluation from Cultural Point

You are right, Google results do not always express objectively the professional cultural value of an artist or creation. That is the case! Wikipedia tries to represent universal cultural values of the world, not repressing small countries and small cultures. Hungary as a small country with 10 million people, with an "exotic", own language won't compete global English Google-world. Over this, rock bands in East-European soviet-block were stictrly limited to reach worldwide international success, presence and awareness. But despite all these limiting factors the officially banished, underground Galloping Coroners could reach the recognition of Western punk-rock scene, and got a highest respect among wordwide western punk stars as Einstürzende Neubauten, Henry Rollins, Jello Biafra and Iggy Pop. They met and performed with GC. All the artist or journalist and music experts who get contact with them realized the importance of GC in global punk scene as a cultural phenomenon. It seems, GC has much stonger and notable referencies and recognition than several other bands (like Krymlings or others, its wikipedia article do not cite any). GC's professional reputation is similar to that of the Yugoslavian industrial rock bands, but they had more freedom to reach commercial success. Actually GC represents a so unique style (shamanistic-psychedelic hardcore?) that is hard to rank under other categories. This uniquness in itself should make them "notable" among punk rock groups. So objective importance of GC in global punk rock culture much higher than you can express with Google results. Reverting GC from their closest music genre article in international Wikipedia keeps the door closed to reach the awareness they deserve. --Harom65 (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Your argument re other non-notable bands falls under WP:OSE. If the flood gates are opened and less-significant bands are allowed on the punk rock article then its featured article status would be compromised. We all want to "spread the good news" about our favourite obscure punk bands but we need to honestly evaluate whether or not they belong here. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about weird/experimental post-punk and never heard of Galloping Coroners. I don't think praise from Biafra et al. is enough. Some of my favourite bands are constantly name-dropped by much more popular musicians as a significant influence, but the fact remains that they are something of a footnote in the punk rock story. Based on the Google results and Wiki page view statistics, I'm inclined to think that Galloping Coroners fall in that category. Would love to get input from other editors. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
As much as I love the idea of a shamanic-punk infused genre, and I will definitely go and look into VHK/Galloping Coroners to hear their sound, I agree with HW here. They could never be on the same musical influence as Sonic Youth (and I don't like Sonic Youth, as much as I've tried to). The described genre of ethno punk or shaman punk is not notable enough yet to have it's own wiki article - Compare to Punk blues, Folk Punk, Celtic Punk or even Gypsy Punk. I'm more in favour of using the Other fusions and directions to list notable genres, such as those that I have mentioned, with one or 2 of the most popular or world-reknowned bands (eg the Cramps) as examples of each. This page isn't a page to plug our favourite bands. This comes back to what happened with the whole Russian scene debacle [1]. This was sad, as a summary sentence or 2, of the punk scene in Russia/Hungary or anywhere else enhances the article tremendously. But to try use this page as a dump of everything that happened in every punk scene or band worldwide, will destroy the FA article status and make the entire article less readable and useful. As much as I love the concept of VHK, where they are from & what they do etc. the VHK article looks very promotional and is written by very few contributors, Harom65 being by far the highest contributor [2] which, unfortunately also says something about it's notability or lack thereof. Mycelium101 (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me recommend you to listen to from Galloping Coroners: Rare Live Archive Galloping Coroners this studio record Unsignable History, the same in acoustic from Galloping Wonder Stag and this studio VHK. Thanks for the comments, I think it over. Okay, highlighted Punk Rock article may not work now. The problem is, that currently there is a lonely Galloping Coroners article, and no any article on musical themes, that mention GC. Nobody find them on the earth. What do you recommend? --Harom65 (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No, they have not received the type of coverage to be covered in a summary article. We don't exist to shine a light on your favorite little known band --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
My recommendation is to let their music speak for itself. Their article is highly promotional and with almost no reliable sources (WP:RS), original content (WP:ORIG) and not written in a neutral tone (WP:NEUTRAL) your article is very vulnerable for deletion, especially due to it's lack of verifiable notability. Rewrite it and remove all the promotional nonsense. Learn how to use footnotes, and provide detail without trying to promote the band. That's not what Wikipedia is for. If they are/were signed to Alternative Tentacles, and the likes of Hank, Jello and the lads from Einstürzende are talking about them, then let them promote their music. You are doing them a disservice by overly promoting them on Wikipedia, which will simply cause theirs and related pages to be nominated for deletion, with a high likelihood of them being speedily deleted for the reasons mentioned above. Mycelium101 (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Mycelium101: Thanks for your empathetic and useful advices, I will improve GC article this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harom65 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Punk rock

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Punk rock's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "FH2":

  • From Thrashcore: Felix von Havoc. Maximum Rock'n'Roll #198. Retrieved June 20, 2008.
  • From Crossover thrash: Felix von Havoc. "Maximum Rock'n'Roll #198". Retrieved June 20, 2008.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Much of etymology section is copied word-for-word

While I was adding some sourced additions to the etymology section, I came upon a Google Image from the pages of a book, The Simple Plan Handbook: Everything You Need to Know About Simple Plan, by Emily Smith and noticed that much of the etymology section of this article is copied word-for-word from that book.[[3]] We need to find a way to paraphrase and re-word things, keeping the content the same, but avoiding "copycatting" that author's exact words--we don't want to commit plagiarism here. Or, is it OK--author may be copying from a prior text, too. The sourced additions I just made (i.e. the additions about Lester Bangs and the changes to the statement about Nuggets, which have made it more accurate and precise) are in my own words, except when I presented a referenced quote (in quotation marks, of course). Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm 100% sure that what you have found is a document that is simply a compilation of the Wikipedia articles - it has copied the articles that were already here, not vice versa. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
All of the "Everything you need to Know about X" books on google books are mirrors of Wikipedia. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to know this. If that author of that book was merely copying Wiki, then we can keep what we have (and, of course, make it better). I just wanted to be on the safe side. Looks like everyone's copying Wiki these days! We never exactly set out to be "trend setters," but, hey, look at us now! Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I am also dissappointed by the lack of any reference to one of the most obvious and contemporary origins/uses of the word "punk" in relation to substances used to light fire. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/punk https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/punk That sense of the word is confirmed to have been in use since the at least the 1800s and imo is even more likely also part of how its cultural usage was applied to the musical genre but of course I wouldn't expect it to appear as such in the article if there is no confirmed evidence that usage had any influence on the history of the sub culture/genre. But since it's an etymology section it probably should also have been included as part of the origins of the word definition. This also suggests a relationship to the word with the UK Australian colloquialism "fag" for cigarette. I'm sure a serious investigation of the etymology for punk in the cultural musical/sense would turn up a relationship with all of these various definitions especially as it crosses the pond into the USA. Where all the definitions for punk and fag have somehow became quite interchangeable concerning the association with homosexuality and fire are well known eg "a flaming gay personality." I'm not suggesting to update the article to outline the associative cross translation of these words without any serious reference and source material investigation but I do think the well known associations makes it likely enough that the fire related definition should be considered for inclusion in the etymology section. I assume it probably was left out because on at least the European front where "punk" culture seems to have been more obviously influential the Shakespearean /Latin definition of the word maybe has more weight, making it more likely in some peoples minds to be the source of the culture /musical genre reference, but its a bit uncanny how similar the various usages and meanings of the words "punk" and "fag" converge anyway. eg in the USA a male prostitute or even just an effeminate/submissive male,or adversary preferred to be seen as weak, might be referred to as a "punk" or "fag" and the fire ie "flaming" gay sense is not necessarily excluded from that meaning even when not meant to be an insult, yet it contemporaneously might just as well reference a fiery tempered miscreant youth or hoodlum just starting out in a low life of petty crime and with prison social structures also influencing street terminology, I just don't think its easily written off as a coincidence. Whereas the thug/ruffian sense of the word is more likely to have been the original definitive reference to the cultural/musical genre/ movement, especially in Europe,and probably is the more widely accepted etymological connection, I'm not so convinced that the distinction is so certain as to justify omitting the fire(volatility) related definition from that section, and it likely warrants further investigation of its usages throughout the eras and various regions of the subculture. I'm curious to see what others think on this matter of "punk's" etymologySoNetMedia's Alfred O. Mega (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Slight change of wording in heading

I think we need a slight change of wording in the opening sentence from "...developed between 1974 and 1976..." to "...emerged between 1974 and 1976..." Historically this is more accurate. Those aware of 60s garage rock, early 70s protopunk, and glam, can easily point out numerous examples of prior musical development pre-1974. Furthermore, adherents who follow later styles of punk such as hardcore and emo, would insist that punk continued to develop after 1976. So, from whatever standpoint one looks at it, whether before of after, the word "...emerged..." works better here. In no way would this change the focus or direction of the article, but just make it more accurate within the current framework. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No, the horse that you have been beating for years is very, very dead. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
You are being quite unfair to make it out that way--please just deal with issue at hand (you are always welcome to disagree on substance). I've only asked to find wording that is more accurate. A while back, another editor recommended that I bring up this topic here--I've actually been reluctant to do so (and I've been busy with a bunch of other projects in case you haven't noticed). So, this shouldn't rub anyone the wrong way. At Britannica, in their intro, it reads something to the effect of "..coalesced into an international movement..." (regarding the mid-70s), which is more similar to what I've asked for here. Nothing that dramatic. I think if you look at the sourced facts in the garage and proto-punk sections of this article (not to mention their as their own freestanding articles elsewhere--also hardcore, etc.), it would be clear that my request is nothing that radical or outlandish. But, if you are not willing to give my request an unbiased hearing, then I'd like to hear from other editors if they can lodge their agreements or disagreements in a fair way. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer "developed". I don't see a problem with that word, and to me "emerged" carries with it an implication that the background to its growth is somewhat hazy, which is untrue, and that there was a gradual process of "emergence", which again seems the wrong language to use about a style that (at least in the UK) had a very strong immediate impact, certainly culturally. Of course, the music "developed" further after 1976, but I don't think the current wording suggests otherwise. There are many bigger fish to fry here, and I think the current wording is better left as it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
You make a good point. I can happily accept it in its current form. Thanks, Garagepunk66(talk)07:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well done chronicle of Punk's Manifestation, but has some major holes in the article.

I have to take issue that so far this article mentions both Hard Core and Alternative derivation from punk but does so without mentioning the band Jane's Addiction(the ones who pretty much founded Lolapalooza) whose exploits culturally,historically, and I'd say also perhaps musically would stand at a 4 way crossroads juncture between all of: punk, new wave, alternative and eventually hard core. Meanwhile somehow we manage to identify a Revival punk era in the 90s without mentioning Henry Rollins Band and Henry Rollins of Black Flag who is also a fairly prolific author of reality-fiction on the subject of music and touring, and I'm sure is an excellent source of perspective on the evolution of certain punk music scenes. Lastly I feel the emo punk section is badly underfleshed. The only so called emo band worthy of note in this section is Jimmy Eat World? What about Jeff Buckly, Dashboard Confessional, and Sunny Day Real Estate(Though I don't believe the really fit into the emo category in the strict sense and kind've predate it as a movement/shift, they sure are mistaken as such enough to be mentioned in that category though). Either there or in the Revival section. Not notable enough, maybe? But seriously this section is deserted! Lastly AT The Drive In, who are now again recently reformed and touring with sold out(?) shows world wide this year, are more than noteworthy enough to be mentioned probably best fitted in the Post Punk/Revival, maaaybe alternative sections. In my own opinion, ATDI is probably actually a post-alternative revival of Punk whenever it becomes possible to classify their music, don't know if they have made new songs or albums to round out the tour. Except their song lyrics do not at all seem as very straight forward as punk acts from previous eras. While I'm at it Bands like, Weezer,Pavement(TWO STATES),Deftones,Toadies and Whirlpool(probably not noteworthy enough for wikipedia) but I have to admit I'm really not sure what genre these acts are squarely dropped in (alternative/post alternative?) but these also to me seem to conceptually or musically skirt the edge of punk cultural style. I realize this article is not meant to be an all inclusive roster of punk and near punk acts but these are some really groundbreaking acts related to the genre that were iconic and symbolic of major shifts in the musical landscape in their heydays, and I'm fairly certain it would not at all be difficult to find source material saying as much. Why don't I do it myself? because I'm lazy,not a music historian/researcher and democratic thats why, I'd rather talk it out first before just editing an article.SoNetMedia's Alfred O. Mega (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You make a good point about Henry Rollins. I would regard the article's failure to mention him as an accidental oversight that needs to be addressed. I can only speak for myself, but I don't personally see any problem with adding Rollins statements--just be sure to include good sources and make sure that each citation is thorough and includes all of the information. Jeff Buckley? Hmmm...I think he resides a bit too far outside of the parameters of this article. Emo may be something to explore, but maybe you could get some feedback from other editors on that. Ghmyrtle and Sabrebd are our most experienced editors who frequent this site--they have been active on here for years, so I would regard them as definite "go-to "people" on that question. Welcome to Wikipedia! Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

yeh I mentioned those bands some of which seem pretty far removed from the classic punk sound, but might be firmly regarded in the emo category which I felt was not as fleshed out with examples as some of the other related musical categories in the article. Maybe I'm nitpicking and its not considered necessary to give more than one example for those musical genres if they aren't widely considered straight punk but merely related or contemporary in rock music. Truthfully I'll need to do some original research to even discuss the subject of the emo-punk genre in talk, but It seems like it would wind up being verifiable.lol yeh my initial OR has already led me to the emo wiki page and it definitely relates emo to punk so I feel a little disoriented for second guessing the term now. I don't have the mucial expertise to really categorize Jeff Buckley's music but I have heard it enough to definitely associate its content with emo and yet many of those same emo evocative songs did contain elements of what I'd call hardcore but I notice in my OR on wikipedia Alternative,fol rock soul and blues are the genre categories his work is associated with so classifying it as emo would be POV on my part. So I'm not going to be the one to try and fit any mention of his work as an example into that category of the article.. but with Rolling Stones declaration of him as The greatest singer of all time" and considering his early punk influences and subsequent work with punk musicians..I guess maybe I was thinking it might be a bit of a miss to not reference him for whatever is the same reason any of the other musical categories are mentioned at all. I just thought maybe from my own POV he maybe lived in the emo vein. Thank you for the welcome! I used to contribute with my just my ip though before I finally broke down and made an account. So I've kind've actually been around here and there for a bit. Still..going registered does seem to be sort've like a new beginning anyway, it really opens up alot more of wikipedia than the anonymous user can experience.SoNetMedia's Alfred O. Mega (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Los Saicos, Beat section, etc.

I noticed that an unsigned editor added a couple of statements about Los Saicos (in Protopunk)--good. But, the Protopunk section should be mainly for 1969-1974 acts, unless they were avant garde like the Velvet Underground. I took Los Saicos and moved them to the section that used to be Garage and British Beat. I renamed the section Garage and Beat music, to accommodate mention of acts from other countries during that period. I made mention of garage/beat in Australia, as well as beat movements outside of the Anglophonic world. For Los Saicos, I found a different quote, because the speaker that quote spoke of them too exclusively--probably not being aware that there was a lot of other protopunk in 1965. The new quote frames their "punk" characteristics in strictly unconscious terms (not literal), unlike the old quote that was a bit overstated. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Bgcolor change

Shouldn't the bgcolor be crimson instead of black, according to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.52.10 (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Relation to Hard Rock and Metal

While metal fans have been increasingly accepting of the fact that the lines between punk rock and heavy metal are at times very fuzzy, punk fans seem to me very intellectually defensive about it. Never mind that there are paradigmatic examples of punk bands that often sound a lot like certain metal bands and vice versa, point it out and punk fans still start screaming at you that they're completely distinct. To my ears it's all just aggressive rock music, but in any case this is an attitude that is also reflected in the article. The entry about heavy metal features a lot of mentions of punk and how the two genres relate. In this article the term 'heavy metal' is used only once in the context of a sentence about one particular band. Even if it's true that punk influenced metal more than the reverse, this seems very strange to me. Do you agree? 109.124.144.216 (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree. I'm no musical historian, a lot of this seems rather contemporary to me anyway(or maybe I'm just getting old), so I imagine the article should be considered a work in progress for some time. I think when it all gets said and done a lot of the musical and cultural distinctions are going to prove to have been very blurry indeed. I mean were talking: artist creative control, cultural scenes,nihilism, social/cultural genesis and suffusion,collectivist isolationism, ethical anti-socialism,self realized indignation,Un-demagoguery, and sociopolitical antithesis intellectualism all in one bag. I would expect any empirical analysis of punk culture to be a near infinite crucible of discord. It would be a disservice to posterity to allow the instinctual purism of punk aficionados to manage the array of information regarding the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoNetMedia's Alfred O. Mega (talk • contribs) 00:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
the fact of the matter is that by its very stripped down,self styled,and informally musical "anyone can-do-it" nature "punk" culture like so many other art/idealist driven cultural expressions will remain difficult to define as a distinct art form independent from other precedent and contemporary movements that pretty much arose from some of the same crucibles and even may have competed for relevance. I think thats why also the music/culture so often also has to be analyzed within social,cultural,circumstantial and sentimental benchmarks to determine any particular movement,scene or act's relation to the phenomenon of punk rock. Art and scene based music tends to be a very subjective and retrospective study..wel worth the effort I'd add. Trying to decode hip hop is going to be a nightmare.SoNetMedia's Alfred O. Mega (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Why would you have something similar to what you are trying to get away from. The whole point of Punk was distancing itself from what Rock had become, Metal was just a continuation of the self indulgent music of the early to mid 70`s rock, with people like Led Zeppelin, Prog and over blown Arena Rock . I`m sure New York Dolls are listed as a influence, as well as Glam. As a consolation prize Post Punk went back to the early 70`s with its need for more experimentation and incorporating Psychedelic, and Art Rock which had many similarities with Prog. The only reason Metal people say that now is that, Metal became cartoonist, a hollow shell and actually died by the beginning of Grunge, even though it was so popular at one time. Actually Grunge incorporated Metal by way of Thrash Metal, because of its influence in the United States on Punk during the later 80`s.Starbwoy (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Punk rock historians trace a different historical trajectory than what you argue, IP 109.124.etc. than the "punk fans" that your argument is based upon. Netherzone (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Punk rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Article too long

This was last discussed several years ago. Current "readable prose size", as estimated by prosesize.js, is 85 kB. WP:TOOBIG suggests "probably" splitting articles at 60 kB, and "almost certainly" at 100 kB. I find the article to be mostly well-written, but just too much of a slog. Thoughts? -- Man from Planet X (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

There are no logical splits. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Guerillero is correct. This is an FA article. It is broad and comprehensive the way its topic warrants. Kb guidelines were set a while back when smartphones were less advanced than now. Anyway, Wikipedia articles on smartphones today now automatically collapse into fold-down sections, so there is no waste of Kbs. No need for split. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This article was marked as an FA a decade ago. I bet it's a lot longer now than it was in 2007. Frankly, and this is coming from a punk rock historian, the entire Characteristics section could be trimmed down considerably, particularly the visual elements section, which links to a fuller page at Punk fashion. This article is way beyond cumbersome. How many other music pages feature a philosophy section? I'm guessing Psychedelic Rock doesn't (checked, most definitely not). Being a punk rocker, I'm not going to deny there is a philosophy behind punk, but there is certainly a case to be made to break apart punk rock as a genre of music and punk rock as an ethos. I'm not a super frequent editor to Wikipedia in general, but as a consumer of the site and a professional writer by trade, I support the case for one or more splits, scaling back of non-music related subsections, and similar measures to rein it in. --Brakoholic (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
There's actually Etymology of punk rock and/or Origins of punk rock if you want to talk about potential splits. Another way to trim article length would be to incorporate {{sfn}} footnotes.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
That has no effect on readable prose size, which excludes references and suchlike. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify why I suggest the "Precursors" section be split rather than merged to Proto-punk
  1. Many sources fail to use the term "proto-punk" (which saves us from potential WP:SYNTH)
  2. The word isn't broadly defined by sources as "rock that led to punk" or "early punk rock", just "1960s–70s rock with punk aesthetic", so it would be disingenuous to list a bunch of bands who simply influenced punk cited as "proto-punk". We have a similar situation with Proto-prog, Progressive rock#Origins and Progressive pop#Origins ("proto-prog" can either refer to the first prog musicians or prog's antecedents).
  3. It would be awkward to move the "Etymology" section to Proto-punk - you would think that the section would discuss the origin of "proto-punk", not "punk rock".
--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Proposed summary
Further information: Origins of punk rock

In the early- to mid-1960s, garage rock bands, often recognized as punk rock's progenitors, began springing up around North America. The Kingsmen, from Portland, Oregon, had a hit with their 1963 cover of "Louie, Louie", considered by some as punk rock's defining "ur-text". After the Beatles' first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show, and then with the subsequent string of other successful British acts, the garage band phenomenon gathered increased momentum. From England in 1964, largely under the grip of the mod youth movement and beat group explosion, came the Kinks' hit singles, "You Really Got Me" and "All Day and All of the Night," both influenced by "Louie, Louie". They have been described as "predecessors of the whole three-chord genre." In 1965, the Who progressed from their first single, "I Can't Explain," a virtual Kinks clone, to "My Generation". Though it had little impact on the American charts, the Who's mod anthem pre-figured the kind of "cerebral mix of musical ferocity and rebellious posture". that would characterize much of the later British punk rock of the 1970s. After 1967, U.S. garage rock began to fall out of favor, but the raw sound and outsider attitude of groups, such as the Sonics, the Seeds, the Remains, the Standells, and the Shadows of Knight predicted the style of later bands such as MC5 and the Stooges.

In the early 1970s, certain rock critics began to speak of the mid-1960s garage bands (as well bands that they considered continuing in their line, such as MC5 and the Stooges) as a genre that they called "punk rock". Dave Marsh was the first music critic to employ the term. In the May 1971 issue of Creem, he described ? and the Mysterians, one of the most popular 1960s garage rock acts, as giving a "landmark exposition of punk rock". By December 1972, the term was in circulation to the extent that The New Yorker's Ellen Willis, contrasting her own tastes with those of Flash and fellow critic Nick Tosches, wrote, "Punk-rock has become the favored term of endearment." In May 1974, Los Angeles Times critic Robert Hilburn reviewed the second New York Dolls album, Too Much Too Soon. "I told ya the New York Dolls were the real thing," he wrote, describing the album as "perhaps the best example of raw, thumb-your-nose-at-the-world, punk rock since the Rolling Stones' Exile on Main Street." Bassist Jeff Jensen of Boston's Real Kids reports of a show that year, "A reviewer for one of the free entertainment magazines of the time caught the act and gave us a great review, calling us a 'punk band.' ... [W]e all sort of looked at each other and said, 'What's punk?'"

By 1975, punk was being used to describe acts as diverse as the Patti Smith Group, the Bay City Rollers, and Bruce Springsteen. As the scene at New York's CBGB club attracted notice, a name was sought for the developing sound. Club owner Hilly Kristal called the movement "street rock"; John Holmstrom credits Aquarian magazine with using punk "to describe what was going on at CBGBs". Holmstrom, McNeil, and Ged Dunn's magazine Punk, which debuted at the end of 1975, was crucial in codifying the term. "It was pretty obvious that the word was getting very popular", Holmstrom later remarked. "We figured we'd take the name before anyone else claimed it. We wanted to get rid of the bullshit, strip it down to rock 'n' roll. We wanted the fun and liveliness back." Since the advent of New York and London scenes of 1975-1978 and the subculture that grew out of them, the term has become most commonly applied to music emerging after 1974. Sixties garage bands are now typically described as garage rock, or, especially in the case of their immediate successors, proto-punk.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if there would be consensus for a split, but I could go in and help trim some things out. The Progenitors sections have been around for ever. A lot of the statements have been in there for a long time as well. That thing about the Latin influence to "Louie Louie" was added by another editor about a year ago--I tried to tidy it up, but was never sure if it belonged there. I'm glad you transferred it to side-notes (Amen). I took out a couple of unnecessary sentences just now, and I could try to trim some things out. I'll get some sources for the things you mentioned.
  • I hope you don't mind that I restored the sub-section headings--that will help the reader decipher things a bit. The 60s garage/beat needs a separate treatment from the early 70s prototypical genres.
  • One problem with the current proposed summary above is that it tends to blur US Garage and British beat a bit too much. Though I (just as you) tend to see the British and American stuff as intrinsically connected, there is still a slight demarcation, so it would be best to have different a different paragraph for the Brit. The statements about the early 70s critics identifying and labeling "punk" (garage) should be in the same part with the American stuff.
  • Garage/beat outside the US and UK should not be ignored.
But, I'd be glad to help out with needed trims. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Ilovetopaint, I went in and fixed some things. While I'm not saying there should be splits, necessarily, there do need to be trims. Here are some of my present thoughts:
  • Garage and beat: This sub-section is finally looking good. I just did trims/corrections you recommended--it is just about right. The section is now concise and covers the basic topics of 60s influence on 70s punk without trying to name every possible act. It touches the general bases.
  • Protopunk: I think you'd agree that this subsection is too long. It tries to name every act from the early 70s. It looks like needs to be reduced in size, and some of its content needs to be transferred to the proto-punk article.
  • Punk article in general: I'm beginning to agree that the article needs some trims. If the whole punk rock article is to be trimmed, then we'll need to apply reductions and splits uniformly. I'd imagine that you'd agree that right now, there is way too much in the article devoted to movements after 1985. While those post-1985 movements may have been influenced by punk, many of them were not actual punk, such as alternative rock. The same could be said for Post-punk section (late 70s and early 1980s)--it's post-punk, not punk. Those two sections are way to long--we could transfer a lot of that info to the main articles on those genres. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
You're losing me here. For one, I would be trimming back less music history and more culture/philosophy, as I noted above. Second, some of the suggested edits related to the music history stuff, I would not support.
  • The post-punk movement was arguably the real next chapter of punk. It was the punk that teetered on the brink of mainstream throughout the late 80s. Had more traditional punk not experienced a second wave in '94, post-punk's trajectory would be all we have to show what became of punk's growth.
  • The acts featured in the alternative rock subsection are not only direct descendants of the punk rock movement, many of them were on the same labels as bands in the actual punk sections. These bands are more accurately grunge bands, and most of them were formed in the mid 80s. Soundgarden was formed in 1984, STP in '86, Nirvana and Mother Love Bone in '87. These bands had a lot in common with the post-punk movement, sharing band members in some cases, definitely sharing labels, etc. This section most definitely belongs on this page. If anything, it should be renamed Grunge and moved to the section above Legacy, then have a statement about how grunge led to the alternative rock movement of the 90s, and link off to that page that way. --Brakoholic (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Brakoholic if you think that we should keep all of the things currently in proto-punk, that would be fine. Another editor had placed a split tag on the Musical Predecessors section, so I was trying to address that concern. But, yes, culture and philosophy might be what should be trimmed instead. As for post-1985 movements, we could keep them--I only meant perhaps trimming them along with other things. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Alternative punk?

Can I make a page for alternative punk? Last.fm gives a lot of information on it --- The Edit King 👑 01:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipageedittor099 (talk • contribs)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Punk rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Punk rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Punk_rock/Archive_9&oldid=1137104888"