T1B

Dinsdale wrote:I'm inclined to blame Suicidal Tendencies, at least in part --

Yeah, but Institutionalized was fucking AWESOME.

I never thought of the Ramones as punk. Too radio friendly. Not enough pre Y2k death and destruction. I never felt like Joey was going to bounce off the stage and smack me with his guitar like I did with Jello. They played with Blondie and Ted Nugent for god sake. It was all too tame and easy to be punk. Love them to death and they might have been punks, but their band wasn't a punk rock band to me.

Moving Sale wrote:I never thought of the Ramones as punk. Too radio friendly. Not enough pre Y2k death and destruction. I never felt like Joey was going to bounce off the stage and smack me with his guitar like I did with Jello. They played with Blondie and Ted Nugent for god sake. It was all too tame and easy to be punk. Love them to death and they might have been punks, but their band wasn't a punk rock band to me.

Go read my explanation to Wags. Ain't fucking rocket science.

I couldn't find where you explained to wags why you think they are punk rockers other than to say they were pioneers. If you would like to point it out...

Sure.

Dinsdale wrote:

War Wagon wrote:But wait, what you posted earlier as "punk" circa 1984 bears no resemblance to The Ramones.

One, or both of us, are confused.

Bill Haley and the Comets were rock and roll, right? They don't sound much like Jimi Hendrix, eh? Elvis bears no resemblance to Pink Floyd, eh?

For that matter, Weather Report doesn't sound much like Louis Armstrong.



Catching on yet?

I thought you might be talking about that post. My stance is that, to me, they don't even fall in the punk rock category, for the reasons I stated. I know you and most other people don't agree, but that's my take and the reasons for it. I saw them at the palladium with Black Flag and it was pretty clear to me that those two bands were in two different categories.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:I'm inclined to blame Suicidal Tendencies, at least in part --

Yeah, but Institutionalized was fucking AWESOME.

Suicidal did nothing but bring cholo gang mentality and violence to the party. Fuck them.

Moving Sale wrote:My stance is that, to me, they don't even fall in the punk rock category, for the reasons I stated. I know you and most other people don't agree, but that's my take and the reasons for it.

And you'd be wrong.

Before Black Flag and DK, there was the Ramones and New York Dolls and Stooges, et al. When they pioneered their raw sound (which started a common theme -- a completely different rhythm structure from mainstream rock), their broad-based genre was called "punk rock."

The subject isn't up for debate, and your opinion is moot. That IS punk.

Where you get lost, is the great prevailing theme of punk (besides a very basic rhythm that almost all punk bands share, emphasizing all 4 downbeats rather than just 2 and 4) was to try and not sound like anyone else. This is indeed the reason for the incredibly fast progression in punk styles. Wasn't long before the Talking Heads (who later popped-it-up) and the Clash brought a much edgier sound. Then DKs and Black Flag upped the tempo. Then there was the melding with the metal sounds.

I guess that's the beauty of punk -- it's whatever the artist wants it to be, to a point, and it can morph faster than any other rock sub-genre, which it's dome at lightspeed. Was it originally just a ripoff of The Who (who gave that up quickly after their early releases) and the Kinks? Was it a ripoff of Chuck Berry? No one can really say -- it's just punk, and some whacky forms are still around today.

My opinion may be moot to you but I put much more stock in the points I made earlier and to me they lacked the edge and danger (as it were) of "real" punk bands. They played the Rotterdam pop festival for Pete's sake. They were a great rock band but I don't put them in the subcategory of punk. Who did they play with when you saw them?

Talking Heads? Big fan.

War Wagon wrote:Talking Heads?

Not punk.

OK, since I'm dealing with some retards here, I'll try to type really slowly, in all caps, replete with explatives:

THE TERM "PUNK ROCK" WAS FUCKING COINED TO DESCRIBE THE FUCKING RAMONES AND THEIR CONTEMPORARIES.


Does this help explain why some of you are really acting the fool?

What's next? "In my opinion, water isn't wet"?

You got: H.R. from Bad Brains
You are very open-minded and try to bring different people together rather than keep them apart. You can be aggressive and angry, but you’re mostly a relaxed and centered person. You probably smoke a lot of weed.

Alrighty then.

Moving Sale wrote:they lacked the edge and danger (as it were) of "real" punk bands.

Oh. Why don't you name a band that was edgier and more dangerous than the Ramones in 1974.

Moving Sale wrote:

War Wagon wrote:Talking Heads?

Not punk.

That's what they tried to be -- didn't have it in them. Quickly embraced the mellowed punk offshoot of new wave.

It was coined in 1971 in an article about Question Mark and the Mysterians in the May issue of Creem magazine three years before they formed and five years before their first LP. Use caps all you want you stupid asshat but the fact remains that those of us who grew up watching punk bands and listening to punk rock did not view them as punk because they were too tame. We lived it here while you were in the UL reading about or at best watching tons of SoCal bands performing it.

Who did the Ramones play with when you saw them?

Dinsdale wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:they lacked the edge and danger (as it were) of "real" punk bands.

Oh. Why don't you name a band that was edgier and more dangerous than the Ramones in 1974.

Again with the bold? Anyways,they may have formed in 74 but they didn't play outside the NY area or release a LP till 76 and by then the pistols had formed and were months from releasing Bullocks. Does that answer your question?

The Pistols?

For real?

The band that was commercially contrived to make a buck (the antithesis of punk) by bigtime record producers?

That's your counter?

No matter their origin the pistols could not be controlled by their master so yea they were a lot more dangerous than The Ramones. There were others. The Cramps and the DKs were both around by 76.

How many times did you see the Ramones? Did it feel dangerous?

MC5 maybe but the Who? Please. Stop that tired old yarn. Yea they would hit you in the face with a guitar but after that, too much smolts. How about the Sonics?
But as dims pointed out chuck berry (and the killer and...) were smashing shit and stripping down the cords in the 50s.
If I had to go back as far as a could I don't think I could get past Robert Johnson. Love that dude.

I'm surprised Moving Sale hasn't brought up the Misfits yet.

Glen Danzig seems like someone he could really look up to.

Moving Sale wrote:MC5 maybe but the Who? Please. Stop that tired old yarn.

OK.

Why don't you name an earlier example of a rock band eschewing the 2 and 4 beat in favor of 1-2-3-4 and atonal guitar riffs than My Generation?

Take your time.

Atonal? Do I now need to school you on the relation of tones and their inability to be atonal? What's next? Elvis Costello played punk rock music?

Dinsdale wrote:I'm surprised Moving Sale hasn't brought up the Misfits yet.

Glen Danzig seems like someone he could really look up to.

Try Henry Rollins tard. And you point is? That's what I thought. Carry on being an idiot.

Moving Sale wrote:And you point is?

I'll help you out -- Danzig is about 5'2, and thinks he's a major badass.

Dinsdale wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:And you point is?

I'll help you out -- Danzig is about 5'2, and thinks he's a major badass.

Way to not respond to the post about your asinine atonal blast. What a fucking pussy.

You're giving everyone a headache, you tiny bastard.

Try reading what you mash out before you hit Submit.

Launch an allegation with some specificity or get off the pourch you frozen dicked moose fucker.

Moving Sale wrote:Launch an allegation with some specificity

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:You're giving everyone a headache

What a bland boring glob of shallow pool DNA you are. Go fuck an icicle.

Dinsdale wrote:
The ignorant, idiotic answer would be "Billy Idol."
.

That's wags in a nutshell, btw

Punk has been around since the first rock and roll bands inspired teens to jam with their buddies in a garage somewhere while learning and honing their musical skills. If you are into that stuff there is a great series that used to be on vinyl called Back from the Grave. Anyway the Pistols were only created cause Malcom Mclaren was "inspired" by what he saw in America by bands like the New York Dolls, Television, and others. On most accounts though the English punk bands kinda sucked when compared to what us 'mericans were cranking out. they were too busy with fashion and peacock inspired hair styles than any thing else.

You got: Jello Biafra from Dead Kennedys

You have very strong political beliefs, and you don’t back down from an argument. You’re very funny and charismatic, and the world often seems like a sick, absurd joke to you.

Not a very good quiz, though. Example:

Q. What is the least punk thing you can think of?

Uhhh, a senior citizen linking a "which punk icon are you" quiz on the interwebs.

That wasn't one of the available choices, though, so I got stuck with brunch instead.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:You’re very funny.

Not a very good quiz, though.

Ya think?