Punk Rock

[Guest CoreyLazarus416]

Since everybody's listing off the punk bands they listen to...I might as well drop a few names...

 

The Misfits, American Nightmare, AFI, The Ramones, DropKick Murphys, The Sex Pistols, Penis Flytrap, Toxic Narcotic, John Wayne's Severed Head, early Offspring, Subzero, My Own Victim

[Guest BottleRocket]

I actually really like "Sing Loud, Sing Proud" mainly because it was the first ACTUAL punk CD I had ever bought (before that, it was Blink 182 *ducks* and Green Day), but I keep hearing NOTHING but good things about "Do or Die" so I guess I'll pick that up next time I go to Wherehouse.

 

And Spicy McHaggis is KING!! WHOO!!

 

Ok, I can't back that up....although the "Spicy McHaggis Jig" is good for a humor song, IMO.

I liked parts of "Sing Loud, Sing Proud!," but I much prefer their older material, to be honest.

 

"Do Or Die" is a truly excellent album. Personally, I think it has a better balance between punk and celtic than their most recent effort. In many ways I think they went a little overboard on "Sing Loud, Sing Proud!" and started drifting too far off into Shane MacGowan-land.

 

Finally, I think that with all their mechandise and a piper named Spicy McHaggis, the Dropkick Murphys are almost turning their Irish pride into a gimmick and, for whatever reason, that doesn't sit well with me.

 

But I'm of Welsh descent, so what do I know...

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Penis Flytrap

Just curious Drezzy, since their music is featured prominently in The Dead Hate the Living! and their music video is on the DVD, and you recommended I check out the movie, did you learn about the movie from the band, or about the band from the movie? I'd heard of them before the movie, but hadn't heard any of their songs or known anything about them.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Everyone always gives me that, but no, I don't think so.  They're more punk than the pop punk bands of today because of their lyrical content, but the majority of their songs still had that poppy three-chord bounce to them and the perfect hooks that made them the first (and still one of the best) pop punk band.

 

Notice I never said they weren't good just because they're pop punk instead of punk.  That's why I don't like genre classification, because it seems everyone is biased towards or against certain genres instead of the bands themselves.

But when the term "punk" was first coined it referred less to the musical style itself and more to the attitude behind the music. The Talking Heads, the Patti Smith Group, and Blondie were all early "punk" bands that wouldn't be considered as such by today's standards.

 

You can retro-label the Ramones as "pop-punk" since they don't fit exactly into the current definition of the term, but I think that would do a disservice to the spirit of movement.

 

The Ramones are punk-- no sub-genre or explanation should be needed.

But seeing as how "the spirit of the movement" was dead by the time The Ramones got really really popular, I think the only way to label them is to retro-label them. I admit to being guilty of that crime, but how does the retro-label of "punk" compare to the actual label at the time? I'd venture that because of the Ramones' commercial success that not very many "true punkers" would label them as punk at the time either.

[Guest CoreyLazarus416]

From evenflowDDT

Just curious Drezzy, since their music is featured prominently in The Dead Hate the Living! and their music video is on the DVD, and you recommended I check out the movie, did you learn about the movie from the band, or about the band from the movie? I'd heard of them before the movie, but hadn't heard any of their songs or known anything about them.

 

I heard about them at the same time, actually. I remembered seeing a preview on In Demand for The Dead Hate The Living!, so I talked to my friend Kurt about it, who's even more into horror movies and Troma than I am. He said it's a great movie, and that the band that played the theme song, Penis Flytrap, was also a really good band.

[Guest BottleRocket]

But seeing as how "the spirit of the movement" was dead by the time The Ramones got really really popular, I think the only way to label them is to retro-label them. I admit to being guilty of that crime, but how does the retro-label of "punk" compare to the actual label at the time? I'd venture that because of the Ramones' commercial success that not very many "true punkers" would label them as punk at the time either.

Hmmm...I'm not sure where to even start.

 

I guess I'd first like to take to task your statement that the spirit of the movement died before the Ramones became really popular. Just to clarify, which movement are we talking about specifically?

 

I was referring to the New York/CBGB's punk scene that included Richard Hell, Television, Patti Smith, and the Talking Heads. The Ramones were gigging regularly at the club by the end of `74.

 

I think it is safe to say that the spirit was still alive in 1974.

 

And while the Ramones were perhaps less overtly intellectual and self-consciously artistic than their New York peers, they still embodied the same theoretical territory. They just did so by turning 60's-style rock music on its ear, speeding it up, and stripping it down to the basics.

 

Punk was AND is just as much theoretical as it is musical in my opinion.

 

It is almost ironic that from the varied styles that thrived in the original NYC punk scene, the one that the Ramones pioneered is the only style that still carries the label today-- AND yet we're still having a conversation about whether the Ramones were "punk" or not.

 

Secondly, you need to define what you consider "really popular." I mean despite an appearance in "Rock N' Roll High School," the Ramones were never really the pop superstars they might have longed to be. The band would even be the first to tell you that they never really had all that much commercial success.

 

So at what point do you think the band became "really popular?" Was it when they developed a cult following at CBGB's? When they signed with Sire in `75? When they released their debut in `76? When "Ramones Leave Home" hit number 48 in the UK? When?

 

Going by any of those dates, they all occurred before or during the year 1977-- the year most commonly associated with "punk rock" as we think of it today.

 

If the spirit of `77 is your peak for the punk movement then the Ramones were already "popular" by that time.

 

As for your bizarre statement that not many "true punkers" would have labeled them as punk at the time, I find that notion utterly ridiculous. Who are these "true punkers"?

 

The NYC scenesters? They certainly embraced the band.

 

British and American kids in bondage gear with funny haircuts? They revered the Ramones.

 

Who I ask you?

 

The Ramones damn near single-handedly jump-started the UK punk scene when they played Britain on July 4, 1976. That's a fact.

 

Now if you're trying to apply today's commercial-success-equals-loss-of-punk-rock-status sellout mentality to the late 70's, it just simply doesn't work that way.

 

The Ramones are punk as fuck going by anyone's definition. The kids in the 70's understood it and kids today understand it.

 

The Ramones were truly the first punk rock band in the "1977" sense of the word. Not pop-punk. Not melodic punk. Just punk.

 

The Ramones provided the blueprint for both the American and British punk bands that came after them.

 

Just because some of the bands that immediately followed the Ramones made the music harsher, more topical, or more violent doesn't mean the Ramones are to be downgraded to an inferior or less pure sub-genre in 2002 just because some of their supposed kin have landed on the pop charts.

 

The Ramones were revolutionary. Plain and simple. All those bands followed the Ramones' lead.

 

And before somebody makes the argument that the Velvet Underground, The Stooges, The MC5, The New York Dolls, etc. were the true originators, take a step back and look at the big picture. Yes, those bands certainly provided some of the aesthetic for today's punk, but without the Ramones as the catalyst, 1977 doesn't happen.

[Guest Doomsault]

A.F.I., the Ramones, Black Flag, Tiger Army, you can't lose.

[Guest Coffin Surfer]

My opinion on the Ramones thing:

 

For starters, poppunk is just as much a subgenre of punk as hardcore punk, protopunk, streetpunk, or postpunk. I really don't believe in a one true sound of punk, just like I don't believe there is a one true sound of metal, or rock or anything. If there was, than every band would sound exactly the same. You just have to take the ones with the most similarities and throw them together.

 

You could call the Ramones a poppunk band, or you could them a protopunk band, or you could call them just plain punk rock. They can easily fit into all three categories. However, Poppunk really wouldn't become a movement or subgenre until bands like the Buzzcocks and the Dickies. But The Ramones did help blueprint the style.

[Guest LooseCannon]

I like a lot of punk, but don’t feel like rattling them all off, and not everyone would agree with some of the bands I classify as punk, because a lot of people take a very narrow-minded view of punk.

 

But calling the Ramones pop-punk is pretty crazy. Maybe some of their later albums, but there’s a difference between being melodic and being pop-punk so to speak. Pop-punk actually grew out of the early hardcore scene, with bands like Bad Religion and the Descendants using more harmony, melody and a less aggressive vocal style that progressively lead to a splintering off into a distinct sub-genre, and slower tempos were eventually permitted and in some instances embraced.

 

The Ramones played pretty much straight up 50’s garage style rock and roll sped up a bit and noted for the distinct clash between the contents of their lyrics substantively and what the lyrical conventions for that type of music at the time were stylistically. For example, 50’s and 60’s rock and roll just did not have lines like "Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue" or "Beat on the Brat with a baseball bat." But it was this postmodern return to 50’s rock and roll as well as the stylistic clash between their lyrics and this up-tempo retro sound that defined them musically, at least early on.

 

If you remember that the 4 chord approach has pretty much become a convention in the "pure" punk world, then it’s pretty clear that the Ramones don’t really fit into pop-punk, because that’s pretty much where the comparison ends.

 

And there’s no doubt that their contemporaries, post ’76 at least, considered them the definitive punk band of the time. I’ve never heard anyone say otherwise. It’s proved by the fact that (rather than the Talking Heads, or Patti Smith or any of the other arty NY bands), The Ramones, as well as the Sex Pistols and the Clash defined what punk is in the mainstream consciousness. Saying that contemporary punks probably didn’t consider them "punk" is just insane.

[Guest redbaron51]

and i'm still the only one who mentions Fugazi

[Guest LooseCannon]

Hell, I love Fugazi. I just didn't mention anybody.

[Guest BottleRocket]

and i'm still the only one who mentions Fugazi

Okay...then...

 

Fugazi.

 

Now you have a friend

 

I'm really bummed that I herniated two discs in my back and missed their show at Ft. Reno this summer.

[Guest Mikey2Dope]

Punk rocks! I like all kind of music from Eminem to Our Lady Peace to The Bloodhound Gang but punk is awesome.

My faves:

Blink 182(my fave band right now *as he ducks under table*)

Reel Big Fish

Goldfinger

Pennywise

Green Day

Millincolin

Mad Caddies

MXPX

NOFX

Lagwagon

Less Than Jake

Screeching Weasel

The Clash

Ramones

Fenix TX

Gob(older stuff)

Hanson Brothers

Sum 41

AFI

Guttermouth

[Guest SuperTonyJaymz]

I like Blink 182. Alot. Fav band.

I like alot of stuff, most if which you all will hate cause its "pop punk" or whatever.

[Guest IPCRivalSchools]

Have to say that punk really does rock - in particular IMO, the following bands:

 

Black Flag (Rollins is King)

Fugazi (Especially 13 songs and Repeater)

Minor Threat

Embrace

Dag Nasty

The Descendants (Pop-punk perfection)

Rancid/Op Ivy - Basically anything 2do w/ Tim and Lars

At The Drive In

Burning Airlines

Husker Du

Hot Water Music

Hundred Reasons

The Ramones

Desaparecidos

Thursday

Dillinger Four

Strung Out

Bracket

Boucing Souls

Taking Back Sunday

Suicide Machines

The Stooges

The Clash

Mighty Mighty Bosstones (Best voice since the heyday of the Psychadelic Furs)

Pennywise

Rise Against

Sleater Kinney

Discount

Sick of It All

and lastl, but not least, the sleasiest punk band ever, the dwarves

 

+

 

Loads of other Emo Stuff - Including Finch, GUK, etc

and loads of harder punkier stuff- dkm's, H20, Girls in Toyland, Propagandhi and The Distillers

 

Ian

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Hmmm...I'm not sure where to even start.

 

I guess I'd first like to take to task your statement that the spirit of the movement died before the Ramones became really popular. Just to clarify, which movement are we talking about specifically?

 

I was referring to the New York/CBGB's punk scene that included Richard Hell, Television, Patti Smith, and the Talking Heads. The Ramones were gigging regularly at the club by the end of `74.

 

I think it is safe to say that the spirit was still alive in 1974.

 

And while the Ramones were perhaps less overtly intellectual and self-consciously artistic than their New York peers, they still embodied the same theoretical territory. They just did so by turning 60's-style rock music on its ear, speeding it up, and stripping it down to the basics.

 

Punk was AND is just as much theoretical as it is musical in my opinion.

 

It is almost ironic that from the varied styles that thrived in the original NYC punk scene, the one that the Ramones pioneered is the only style that still carries the label today-- AND yet we're still having a conversation about whether the Ramones were "punk" or not.

 

Secondly, you need to define what you consider "really popular." I mean despite an appearance in "Rock N' Roll High School," the Ramones were never really the pop superstars they might have longed to be. The band would even be the first to tell you that they never really had all that much commercial success.

 

So at what point do you think the band became "really popular?" Was it when they developed a cult following at CBGB's? When they signed with Sire in `75? When they released their debut in `76? When "Ramones Leave Home" hit number 48 in the UK? When?

 

Going by any of those dates, they all occurred before or during the year 1977-- the year most commonly associated with "punk rock" as we think of it today.

 

If the spirit of `77 is your peak for the punk movement then the Ramones were already "popular" by that time.

 

As for your bizarre statement that not many "true punkers" would have labeled them as punk at the time, I find that notion utterly ridiculous. Who are these "true punkers"?

 

The NYC scenesters? They certainly embraced the band.

 

British and American kids in bondage gear with funny haircuts? They revered the Ramones.

 

Who I ask you?

 

The Ramones damn near single-handedly jump-started the UK punk scene when they played Britain on July 4, 1976. That's a fact.

 

Now if you're trying to apply today's commercial-success-equals-loss-of-punk-rock-status sellout mentality to the late 70's, it just simply doesn't work that way.

 

The Ramones are punk as fuck going by anyone's definition. The kids in the 70's understood it and kids today understand it.

 

The Ramones were truly the first punk rock band in the "1977" sense of the word. Not pop-punk. Not melodic punk. Just punk.

 

The Ramones provided the blueprint for both the American and British punk bands that came after them.

 

Just because some of the bands that immediately followed the Ramones made the music harsher, more topical, or more violent doesn't mean the Ramones are to be downgraded to an inferior or less pure sub-genre in 2002 just because some of their supposed kin have landed on the pop charts.

 

The Ramones were revolutionary. Plain and simple. All those bands followed the Ramones' lead.

 

And before somebody makes the argument that the Velvet Underground, The Stooges, The MC5, The New York Dolls, etc. were the true originators, take a step back and look at the big picture. Yes, those bands certainly provided some of the aesthetic for today's punk, but without the Ramones as the catalyst, 1977 doesn't happen.

Bah, you showed me, I admit it. I'll still say I disagree you, but I'll also admit I don't have any compelling evidence. By "true punkers" I was in fact referring to the NYC scenesters, because I was under the mistaken understanding that as the band took off, like when many bands take off, they lost the majority of their "underground, original fans". Anyway... yea... I won't admit you're right because I believe in punk purely as an ideological, anti-political, message, which is why I say The Ramones are pop-punk. "I Wanna Sniff Some Glue" may draw some fire from somebody, but in the end it's a joke, not a serious challenge to anyone or anything. I'll admit I don't know every Ramones song, but none that I have heard contain any political message or serious challenge, which is why I retro-label them pop-punk. Of course, this is also why they're still revered today, as all the anti-Reagan songs of the '80s (which I'd consider punk's last "real" stand as openly challenging, although there are still strongly anti-political songs and bands today, the majority are just poppy and out for a good time, which I beg of you once again not to mistake for criticism - I never said pop punk wasn't good, just that it "wasn't punk"). I also don't deny that the Ramones were revolutionary, just that they were revolutionary in pop music more than anything else. Of course that's a retro statement, because those that they inspired are making pop music today, and their name value to this very day shows that they were pop musicians. The casual fan doesn't know who The New York Dolls are because they didn't have any pop singles, no "hits" to speak of. The Ramones did, as they made the charts over here and overseas, and had that music never gotten out, nobody would've heard it or been inspired by it here or anywhere to utilize that style. That's pop.

 

Anyway, what do you say we call it a truce? It doesn't look like this will be resolved any time soon. I'll admit the majority of my arguments are just opinion, because that's all that matters in music anyway. And it doesn't matter how much good evidence you have (which has a lot), people aren't willing to change their opinions, especially me. That's the only thing I have left that I'm willing to fight over... that's a "punk" statement by my definition.

 

By the way, what's wrong with a "pop punk" definition? It doesn't dilute the band or make light of what they have done... my definition of "pop" is simply "popular", which The Ramones are, by anyone's definition. It doesn't matter what "other genre" you are, if you're popular, you're a "pop musician". Period.