Punk, sacred cow?

nyarlothothep

Whenever I read articles in the media about music I never see any writer ridiculing punk as they can sometimes do to other musical genres. I also find that punk bands come in for the least criticism, say a band like The Clash will be spoken of in reverent tones while a band like Queen will be written off as self indulgent nonsense. What I dont get is why is punk treated so reverently? Tbh I think its time for a shake up

John

Depends what magazines/books you read. For me punk was great on paper but most of the music never lives up the legend.

yevveh

I criticised a certain band who played here a while back for making plenty of mistakes and just sounding ****e compared to on the albums. I said this to someone in the queue for cloakroom afterwards and he said "they're punk, they don't need to play well". Perhaps not, but when is not being able to play a good thing

John

It's cool when it's a no wave band but not when it's crappy punk

yevveh

The guys I'm referring to are under the list of banned MCD bands, and they're not explicitly punk. Influenced by punk, yes. One of their albums is one of my favourite albums but just disappointing live.

If an band is bad on record *and* live then God help them. Some of the bands I listen to I wouldn't necessarily call technical but they can damn well play, I wouldn't listen to them otherwise. They'd sound like another band of teenagers that needs more practise. In Jello Biafra's words "the music's okay if there's more ideas than solos" but if you can't play then you better have a hell of a lot of good ideas.

nyarlothothep

yeah tend to agree with all of those points, some punk stuff is good like The Jam and The Sex Pistols and even some Clash songs are pretty cool but overall I dont see how punk is meant to represent this salvation of rock music and that it cant be criticized. It was good for its time but now its old and it limits creativity if journalists/random people say music has to be "this way" or else its dinosaur rock/self indulgent.

magpie

There's a list of banned MCD bands? What's an MCD band?

yevveh

magpie wrote:

There's a list of banned MCD bands? What's an MCD band?

Check this thread - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054977422

DerekD Goldfish

nyarlothothep wrote:

Whenever I read articles in the media about music I never see any writer ridiculing punk as they can sometimes do to other musical genres. I also find that punk bands come in for the least criticism, say a band like The Clash will be spoken of in reverent tones while a band like Queen will be written off as self indulgent nonsense. What I dont get is why is punk treated so reverently? Tbh I think its time for a shake up

Queen were rubbish and deserve to be writtin off
I dont think Punk is a sdacred cow by any means in fact most modern punk is looked down upon by critics(and deserves to be).
Punk wasnt particularlty great musicly but it did change music for the better but there are a dozen at most decent punk bands the rest are pathetic.

nyarlothothep

DerekD Goldfish wrote:

Queen were rubbish and deserve to be writtin off
I dont think Punk is a sdacred cow by any means in fact most modern punk is looked down upon by critics(and deserves to be).
Punk wasnt particularlty great musicly but it did change music for the better but there are a dozen at most decent punk bands the rest are pathetic.

see thats what Im getting at, it changed music for the better, I dont think it did, you do, but in the end its all subjective, yet you have journalists saying stuff like this, as if its fact when its pure opinion. Punk, its legacy I guess, has resulted in a lot of dumbing down in music imo, not overall, there are exceptions, but in general. Whenever I read The Ticket, Q, NME etc theres only praise reserved for the punk era. Maybe there are mags out there which dont uniequivocally celebrate punk (lates 70s 80s stuff, not the american crap out now) but I have yet to read them. And Queen are amazing, way better than any punk band Ive listened to (just had to get back at that haha, but you see how pointless it is venting pure opinion?)

melekalikimaka

wow...hang on, we cant even discuss the bands?

SligoBrewer

melekalikimaka wrote:

wow...hang on, we cant even discuss the bands?

was there not a discussion on arcade fire a while ago?

Ro: maaan!

The bands can be discussed. Just not their gigs. And seeing as what yevveh said was about a gig he can't really mention the name of the band.

yevveh

Alas.

Mr. Goldfish, Queen were never rubbish.

Bring back Frank Zappa, it'd be interesting to see how audiences would respond to songs like "The Jazz Discharge Party Hats"

OLP

No point in slagging it really, I can't think of anyone sad enough to give a fùck.

DerekD Goldfish

*is extremly angry very long post got destoryed when site loged me out*
anyway

but you see how pointless it is venting pure opinion,

Venting is never pointless

t changed music for the better, I dont think it did, you do, but in the end its all subjective

Exactly for Instance many would say "grunge" changed music for the better I wouldnt.

Maybe there are mags out there which dont uniequivocally celebrate punk (lates 70s 80s stuff, not the american crap out now) but I have yet to read them

Most music rags are desperate(Bar Foggy Notions and Wire) best thing you can do is ignore them and get your music info online

unk, its legacy I guess, has resulted in a lot of dumbing down in music imo, not overall, there are exceptions, but in general.

Most Punk wasnt great but the DIY ethos it inspired resulted in some of the greatest and most chalenging and origonal bands of all time. 1978-1983 in my opinion is the greatest period in musical history.

nyarlothothep

DerekD Goldfish wrote:

*is extremly angry very long post got destoryed when site loged me out*
anyway



Venting is never pointless




Exactly for Instance many would say "grunge" changed music for the better I wouldnt.




Most music rags are desperate(Bar Foggy Notions and Wire) best thing you can do is ignore them and get your music info online



Most Punk wasnt great but the DIY ethos it inspired resulted in some of the greatest and most chalenging and origonal bands of all time. 1978-1983 in my opinion is the greatest period in musical history.

I agree to some extent that 1978-1983 had some moments, Joy Division among them, because electronic music technology came into its own around that time so it opened up new creative avenues and also there was a certain naievety in approaching music away from the kind of music established from the 60s and 70s which led in more interesting directions. That said I prefer the 70s and cant think of any one musical period which is the greatest, every one since the 60s imo had their strengths and weaknesses, 1998 onwards though has been an almost perpetual dissapointment.

Frankiestylee

I think you might find a lot of journos were around for at least some of the punk era and were all cool and down with it, or at least hoped they were... hence the golden calf type reaction. I can imagine it being similar in a few years with some of the current "in" bands.

ANarcho-Munk

nyarlothothep wrote:

yeah tend to agree with all of those points, some punk stuff is good like The Jam and The Sex Pistols and even some Clash songs are pretty cool but overall I dont see how punk is meant to represent this salvation of rock music and that it cant be criticized. It was good for its time but now its old and it limits creativity if journalists/random people say music has to be "this way" or else its dinosaur rock/self indulgent.

Punk wasn't supposed to be a salvation to rock music. It was meant to be the anti-rock so to speak. It revolutionized an era when people were discontent with the times. You could say that Punk is a form of social commentary and blows rock music out of the water in this regard.

Anyway, if you want to see Punk criticized throw away your Rolling Stone and Mojo magazines and pick up a zine where journalists know what they're talking about.
A lot of those journalists in those rock magazines have their heads shoved up their arse when it comes to the "golden age" of punk tbh.

speedboatchase

Punk was ****, just mindless noise that made any retard who didnt know a chord think they could spike their hair and be part of some anti-establishment dreck. Terrible music genre taken WAYYYY too seriously by its fan (they're not REAL punk bla bla bla we've all heard it before), punk is only interesting to sociology students and thats it

Karlusss

It's impossible to make sweeping judgements because people (unfortunately) have their own tastes, but if someone can't see that a journalist is unquestionably right when he says Queen are ****.e and The Clash are good (to use the most mainstream possible examples), they should be reading a different, shi.tter magazine.

yevveh

Dead Kennedys were fantastic. As far as punk goes those guys really did it for me.

0ubliette

The clash are bloody woeful. One of the lamest bands ive ever had the misfortune to listen to. I heard thier 'best of'. I found the 'best of' tag to be pretty ironic, as it all sounded like sh!te to me. Lost in a supermarket?? How punk!!!
Having said that, queen are sh!te too.

Ro: maaan!

There is such a thing as technically good, well constructed music (so my music student friend tells me.) I would say that the vast majority of known bands would fit into this category. After that it's just taste. Some people like Queen. Some people like The Clash. Some people like both. And some people like neither. I never really understood why people would read what journalists have to say about bands (unless they generally liked similar music to you and were handy for hearing about new bands you might like.) It's pretty much just their opinion on what they like. And just because someone likes punk, and that person happens to be writing in a magazine about it, doesn't make punk any better than it was beforehand. Your opinion that Queen are better is just as important as his opinion that The Clash are better.

nyarlothothep

Ro: maaan! wrote:

There is such a thing as technically good, well constructed music (so my music student friend tells me.) I would say that the vast majority of known bands would fit into this category. After that it's just taste. Some people like Queen. Some people like The Clash. Some people like both. And some people like neither. I never really understood why people would read what journalists have to say about bands (unless they generally liked similar music to you and were handy for hearing about new bands you might like.) It's pretty much just their opinion on what they like. And just because someone likes punk, and that person happens to be writing in a magazine about it, doesn't make punk any better than it was beforehand. Your opinion that Queen are better is just as important as his opinion that The Clash are better.

meh, tbh Ive lost interest in this thread, I just got the impression from the media in general that punk was some sort of sacred cow impervious to criticism. Also read an article in sight and sound about rock docs, and one line goes like this "the hegemonic stranglehold that punk has over rock history...", made me think about the status of punk in general, whether its become the new establishment in rock. The Sunday Times ran a whole article on punk. Meh, dont care about it much now really, it was just a query. I read music mags just to learn some interesting facts or keep up to date with whats going on, not interested in the opinions of journalists.

damonjewel

I think to understand why Punk was a sacred cow, then you must transport yourself back in time to when Punk exploded. At that time there was a lot of dross in the charts, and despite what music historians say I don't think that Progressive rock was the enemy but rather the MOR easy listening FM rock that was abundant. I think that Punk in England blew away MOR rock for something more substantial and passionate. I dont think the punk sound itself was anything new, check out funhouse by the stooges, MC5, velvet undergrounds' white light white heat, but it did get a lot of people buying guitars and thrashing about. Most of these bands were **** but some were dazzling. The new sound and new style basically consigned everything else before it as uncool.

I think a lot of journalists that write today come from that time and hence why they hold Punk with such reverence i.e. punk=cool everything before it=uncool

My opinion is that all genres have there high and low bands. Interestingly, John Lydon himself was apparently a fan of Van der Graaf Generator and Can (yet both bands are considered prog) who'd have thunk it

DerekD Goldfish

John Lydon himself was apparently a fan of Van der Graaf Generator and Can (yet both bands are considered prog) who'd have thunk it

HE wasnt secerate about it even played some Can when he got a guest show on the radio back in the day. But Can unlike a lot of early 70' stuff were great.

nyarlothothep

DerekD Goldfish wrote:

HE wasnt secerate about it even played some Can when he got a guest show on the radio back in the day. But Can unlike a lot of early 70' stuff were great.

sex pistols played kashmir by led zep at one of their gigs too, was a good performance actually from the minute or two I heard of it

damonjewel

Thats a weird cover to do for the Pistols. I think I heard they did Silver machine by Hawkwind too

klaus flouride

Punk was good because it pissed many people off and gave a voice to people who otherwise wouldn't have been listened to because they weren't considered 'accomplished musicians. But it had a bad side- suddenly writing 3 minute songs with catchy choruses was considered 'anti-establishment' which it certainly wasn't.