Talk:Punk rock/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

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)

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.

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)

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)

A new source has turned up - a 'Punk Art catalogue from 1978 which includes a 1970 flyer using the phrase "Punk Music" to describe a Suicide (Alan Vega solo) exhibit/performance. So some redating might be in order. Better source than Vega's vague memory! Could that flyer be fair use? Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)