For me, the New York Dolls are a band whose importance and influence I recognize without ever having made any kind of personal connection to them. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the Dolls another band conspicuously absent from Pitchfork's recent survey of the 70s?
Now Playing: Whatever's on WOXY right now, they don't have their "Now Playing" window functioning again yet, but who cares. They're back to streaming. WOO HOO!!!
Posts: 1584 | Location: Bloomington, IN | Registered: 23 May 2004
I have to agree with Kraftdeluxe, I would love to find a new punk band now, Its not even about what punk music actually is to me its the feeling and emotion of it, you can play anything and give it punk. America is churning out so many clone bands because its the "Thing". I can't find any characters today, they all seem so fake because they know what they're doing, they're trying too hard . Before a ton of people say how wrong I am I'd like to end this by saying it's only my opinion if you think something is good then you think its good nobody can argue with that it's only when you start saying something is better, real rubbish stuff can often be the best if it's truely meant. I'm sure to many there are lots of great "punk" bands out there Im sure you'll tell me their names, but just remember who you are comparing them to. In one way I think punk is dead but in another the world needs a new punk, but I guess it wouldn't be punk then.ps it's always possible there are bands I've not listened to, I am open minded although if Im really honest Its hard for now to ever beat then whatever type of music, it's when you look back on something it becomes something greater and more meaningful than it ever really was. pps having writen this I question everything I wrote I think Im ranting,
Most good punk is old punk, like people said. Deep Eynde is punk, right? And they're present-day. I dunno if anyone's heard of them, but their CD Shadowland is considered punk, but i think they used to be goth.
my sig sucks whatever, so does yours
Posts: 3 | Location: Somewhere | Registered: 22 September 2005
The thing about Green Day is that not too amny people know who they are. They just hear the CD American Idiot, probably not knowing that Green Day has other CDs. Green Day used to be punk. NOWADAYS, green day is wannabe punk, and Good Charlotte/Simple Plan/etc. are sort of wannabe green day.
my sig sucks whatever, so does yours
Posts: 3 | Location: Somewhere | Registered: 22 September 2005
Originally posted by Anti_Religion: The thing about Green Day is that not too amny people know who they are. They just hear the CD American Idiot, probably not knowing that Green Day has other CDs. Green Day used to be punk. NOWADAYS, green day is wannabe punk, and Good Charlotte/Simple Plan/etc. are sort of wannabe green day.
Man, I feel old.
_________________________________________________________ http://www.musicbeet.com - come check out the fresh veggies
"If it were beneficial, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect." -Jesus, from the Gospel Of Thomas
I've been listening to a lot of old-school punk and hardcore lately. Loving Peter & the Test Tube Babies, Blanks 77, GBH, The Lurkers and a whole ton more! I'd love to see some of these bands get remastered and re-released. They did a much better job than I expected cleaning up the old DK's catalogue, and I'd like to see the same done for some of the other pioneers of the genre.
"If it were beneficial, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect." -Jesus, from the Gospel Of Thomas
Don't go running your mouth about what is or isn't punk or suggesting I might need a re-education! Neither band is punk, they both preceded the movement. The Stooges should be considered the inspiration for the punk scene to come, and the Velvet Underground can join Sonic Youth in the most overrated bands category. I get paid to have an opinion on punk, and it sickens me to hear people claim bullshit like this. It is not factual.
"If it were beneficial, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect." -Jesus, from the Gospel Of Thomas
I never took to the term "proto-punk" but I guess that's the category some folks lump bands such as the Stooges and the VU, as well as MC5 and the New York Dolls, among others. I suppose the Monks could be part of that genre, I'm not sure if they preceded or followed the VU. Whatever they call it, I enjoy it.
Posts: 8633 | Location: State of Insanity | Registered: 22 September 2005
Originally posted by Smenkharon: Don't go running your mouth about what is or isn't punk or suggesting I might need a re-education! Neither band is punk, they both preceded the movement. The Stooges should be considered the inspiration for the punk scene to come, and the Velvet Underground can join Sonic Youth in the most overrated bands category. I get paid to have an opinion on punk, and it sickens me to hear people claim bullshit like this. It is not factual.
What is and what is not "Punk" has nothing to do with facts, whether you get paid to discuss it or not. The whole notion that you can factually define what punk music is ludicrous, in my most humble (unpaid for) opinion. If you can give a clear definition of what is and is not punk, then I'm all ears. Do you think I'm the only person who feels VU and the Stooges are punk? How about practically every "punk" band from the 70's who claim their main influence was the Stooges and VU? Do their opinions matter? And oh by the way, the re-education thing was a joke.
I'm with Smenk on the status of the VU as punk...they might be influential to punkers everywhere, but I'm not sure I'd call them punk. The Stooges seem pretty damn punk to me, even if they were a few years too early. If you wanna call anything pre-75 "proto-punk", I guess I'm fine with that, but those Stooges records are pretty damn close to straight up, spirit of '77, punk rawk.
But I've got to agree with musicfanatic: it's a total BS move to claim some sort of authority on punk merely because someone pays you to opine on it. If you think that whatever your definition of punk is will be the absolute categorical, I'll bet you I can find at least three other 'experts' who will challenge at least a part of it. A lot of people who don't know jack about squat can get paid to talk about it...I'm not saying that's the case with Smenk, but to claim some sort of absolute authority because of a paycheck isn't even an argument, it's just fallacious logic.
Posts: 3875 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: 25 May 2004
Influence is influence. In the spirit of is in the spirit of. Punk is punk. It's pretty simple.
"If it were beneficial, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect." -Jesus, from the Gospel Of Thomas
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Smenkharon: the Velvet Underground can join Sonic Youth in the most overrated bands category. .
Um no. Besides being one of the most influential bands in modern music history, they were also mindbendingly brilliant. Could hmm let's see ANY indie band or punk band have existed without VU? I highly doubt it. Could all of these brilliant bands that came out of the influence of VU existed if VU themselves weren't incredible? It's possible but I would say very unlikely. But that's just in my opinion but overrated definately not.
