| 
Posted Jan 20, 2003 by Lifeseeker
The Punk Movement was supposed to be liberating, but it wasn't really. It just lowered musical standards. Suddenly everyone thought they could be a musician, but that was only true in the sense that everyone was playing 2-chord rubbish. I use the controversial word "rubbish" from a purely musical point of view. Obviously, the point of Punk was NOT to make great music. It was anger and rebellion: that's all.
It was a mass delusion achieved, by persuading people that Good was Bad and Bad was Good. And getting people to buy into that notion.
So in the end, liberation brought captivity; music itself was taken prisoner. Anyone trying to produce something slightly complicated or slightly optimistic, was forbidden from doing so by the New Wave establishment. Hence the loss of liberation. Before punk, you just made the best music you could and hoped it was good enough.
Check out the music that punk supposedly rebelled against, and of course you'll find real music. It is true that bands like Yes and Pink Floyd were rebelled against, as you mentioned. The question is why? The answer is that they were creating good, interesting music. The so-called "establishment" was just a term used to give something to fight against. Subsequently, any band trying to make good music was labelled boring, and so the culture was changed by the Press.
This was of course propagated by the new "establishment" when it was found that young people were willing to spend their pocket money on it.
It was all very sad, from the Musical point of view. Interesting socially, sad musically.
|
 
|  | |
| |
Posted Feb 6, 2003 by Izzybelle
If I remember things right, there where other kind of music around. You didnīt have to try to play/be punk if you didnīt want to.
The diy perspective was important in those days, and the music away to express opinions and feelings. Being a skilled musician or was not the point
|
| | |
| |
Posted Feb 10, 2003 by Lifeseeker
You're right that no-one was forcing anyone to do anything. But you must agree that the whole music press changed their tune pretty well overnight, sneering at anything that was "old-wave". The content of the charts changed accordingly. A lot was lost.
Don't get me wrong - I liked some of what Punk produced. But I just feel that kids afterwards were kind of denied opportunities to hear what went before. It was "written out" of the record.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jul 11, 2003 by MartheFrosk
Erhmm... lowering music quality?
Who said that? Do not agree...
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jun 29, 2004 by Mullet
The rebellion isn't just about musical ability. At least it shouldn't be. It's about the pretention that goes with it. I'm perfectly open to complex music, but I recognise the beauty of simplicity as well, and find myself angry with the people who claim that to be good it has to be complex.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jun 29, 2004 by Izzybelle
Plenty of the, now classic punk-repertoar, is part of "the sound-track of my life" and since punk and new wave happened in my late teens I cannot be objective. But isnīt what you consider good or bad very subjective any way?
The punk era didnīt just apply to music, it rapidly spread to all kinds of aspects in young people life then. It certainly gave me a different perspective on life, universe and everything
Izzybelle
|
| | |
| |
Posted Aug 20, 2004 by Nuerkchen
This discussion on the 'worth' of a particular music has been going on for ages! People debated on whether folk-music (i.e. music written and played by non-professionals), n-word music like jazz, blues, r&b, rock'n'roll or rock were 'good', or if they were actually detrimental to the listener. Music in itself appeals to subjective emotions and this is why one person will love it and the other will completely and utterly hate it.
As for punk, of course it's simple but listening to the Ramones or the Clash (who actually had an amazing range of musical influences) is simply fun. You don't have to sit back and concentrate to appreciate it, as is the case with Pink Floyd or the Greateful Dead. Punk is gut music, not brain music (brilliant when paired with witty lyrics).
AND I think it's a myth that all punk-musicians are bad musicians.
Nick
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 10, 2004 by taxiformrnelson
 Why so miserable? I think you missed one of the points about punk, that A LOT of people had a great time listening to music, going to gigs (three/four times a week)and most importantly feeling that they were actually participating in/with the music rather than waiting for the chin-stroking musos to tell them when they could enjoy something or not. It lead to thousands of kids picking up a guitar and playing, making fanzines, becoming more politically aware and going out and meeting people they wouldn't ordinarily do.
As for the claim that punk was one-dimensional, I think you are ignoring the massive boost that it gave to music making in Britain. OK, so there were many Sex Pistols and Clash copy bands, but that's true of any music movement (The Sweet for Bowie, Countless crap prog. rock bands copying Pink Floyd!!) But within one or two years of the Pistols appearing , you had more varied music scene than in, say, 1974 or 75. I can think of Cabaret Voltaire, Talking Heads, The Fall, Wire, Blondie, Pere Ubu, P.I.L, The Clash as examples of bands that DIDN't follow any prescribed formula. You forget that punk allowed people the freedom to get out there and do something, not waiting for major labels to give you the thumbs up. Where would the indie label scene of the late 70s and early 80s have been without punk? Also there was the platform it gave reggae, not to mention the political side of punk.
Oh well, I could always go back to my pre-77 Floyd and Yes and listen to some REAL music (since when does length of guitar solo equate to musicianship anyway?)
Have fun!
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 16, 2004 by Izzybelle
  
Izzybelle
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 27, 2004 by Horatio_Caine: {Princess Garnet Til Alexandros XVII}
....Punk has died in my opinion
The 'punk' thats around now is comercialised.
in my area, there is a strick no walking on the left hand side...
Two 'punks' were walking up that no walking side, and someone told them to get off...
And they fell over themsleves to obey....
Thats not punk
Is it?
|
| | |
| |
Posted Apr 16, 2005 by littlepurpleprincess
Doesn't make them any less punk. Punk is rebeling against something you disagree with. There may have been a perfectly justified reason for not being allowed to walk on that side therefore, if they were asked not to it would have been a bit immature to say no just to prove they were punk.
|
| | |
| |
Posted May 29, 2006 by the fabulous eener
the clash did NOT play rubbish, or lower musical standards. They had a ton of musical influences, and perhaps joe strummer could not really play, but who cares? he was brilliant, no denying it, because of his attitude and presence. while their earlier albums may not be very technically advanced or complex, the overall effect was (still is) great. and besides, just listen to london calling. i bet u cant even type that album's name and "rubbish" and "lower musical standard" in the same sentence. dont generalize punk, thats kind of thw whole point.
|
| | |
| |
| |
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
|
Home
Reply
