posted
During the 70's a new form of music appeared, that music would be Punk Rock. In my opinion I think Punk Rock is the best kinda music ever. To think it all started with The Ramones and The Sex Pistols. Also I love The Sex Pistols. WellI guess that's all I wanted to say...
posted
Punk is not good music. It is merely loud, rebellious, different and full of attitude. There may be artistry of some kind in it, but it still does not qualify as good music.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmmm, to school you, let's start with a newer punk record and work backwards. go download, or better yet invest the $10 for REFUSED - THE SHAPE OF PUNK TO COME on Epitaph records. listen to it all the way through at least once, then come back here and try to say that it is not good music.
*the above mentioned record is swedish for the record. and from the late 90s*
[ May 19, 2004, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Ben ]
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Touched a nerve, did I? If you think that's good music, you must not know what the word "music" means. And I don't have the patience to educate you.
I can't believe you cited the Ramones and the Sex Pistols as examples of how good punk is. You know what I've always wondered? If any of those guys could actually sing or play instruments, why did they go to such great lengths to hide the fact from us?
posted
There is good and bad music in pretty much any genre. Even Country and Rap much to my surprise. There is much in punk that is good music and much that is terrible but I can't think of a genre where that is not true.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
music - The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
how does punk not qualify?
tell me your definition of punk.
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say punk wasn't music. I said it wasn't good music. It may be good something else (e.g. statement of belief, nonbelief, image, emotion, or political view). It may even be good art, depending on your definition of art. But it isn't good music.
And my only definition of punk is "that music which other people call punk, as exemplified by the Ramones and the Sex Pistols, which is often associated with a particular punk 'look' and punk behavior." Really. That's my operating definition.
By the way, we are not talking about particular songs. The way you set up the premise to being with, we are talking about the punk genre. I do not doubt that there may be individual punk songs that are good music. In fact, I would be surprised if there aren't. But I would say that they are good in spite of being punk, rather than because of it.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i think the "punk" element in many songs and bands contributes to the quality, it doesnt diminish it.
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, of course I didn't question your definition of music. Look again. I said 1) punk is music, but 2) it is not good music, so 3) if you think it is good, the only way you are right is if it is good something-other-than-music, which may be the case.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
The only thing I really argued with is the assertion that Punk is "good music." I admitted that individual punk songs might be good music, though.
I would also argue that Country, Hip-Hop, Jazz and Rock and Roll are not "good music," while individual songs might be.
I prefer Classical music, personally, but that's kind of unique because for the most part we only listen to the pieces that have stood the test of time. At the time those works were originally written and performed, I would say that most of the contemprary music was not "good music" either. That's why most of it has been forgotten and is never played.
The point is that you can't just point at a whole classification of music and say it is "good music." Music doesn't work that way. Most of it is crap.
Granted, I did make some cracks about the Ramones and the Sex Pistols, but that's just because I can't stand their sound. I find it unmelodious and ugly, but that's really just a matter of taste.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tree, you might like a band called BANG sugar BANG. They're old school-style punk band from LA. I saw them when they played in New York.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's crazy to dismiss the entire genre of punk. Say instead that you DON'T GET IT! <laughs> Okay? That's all. You just don't get it.
There are two parts to music, chops and "it". Music is really about the it, and chops are just a means to get there, but what tends to happen at certain intervals, is that people forget that and start to go after more and more elaborate chops. The endpoint of that can be overproduced, technically competant crap.
The late 70s is a time I'm thinking of that was like this. It got very elaborate and also there are huge barriers to entry. Well, guess what? Music is really about "it", and there are no barriers. Pick up your guitar and play.
Punk and other movements that happen from time to time in art and all artistic fields, (like maybe abstract expressionism is a good example), are about getting back to what matters. To the "it" part. The spirit and the joy, perhaps you might call it, though that limits it unnecessarily. Really it's just "it", the undefineable thing that makes music good. Punk and similar movements bring this point home viscerally.
(Another example: the very early Beatles were technically extremely bad. They could barely play, and they had to double-track all the vocals to make them sound decent. Yet they had "it" oozing out all over.)
People who only care about chops (technical proficiency) are missing the whole point. Anyone can get chops if they practice. The it is the reason you WANT to play. The magic is all in the it.
[ May 20, 2004, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? Whoever wrote that book must be pretty smart.
This is my own theory but it's so obviously true that I wouldn't be surprised if someone else realised it. Odd that they put it exactly the same way, though. They called it "it"? Really?
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to point out here, that aka rocks, and I am completely unsurprised that she is the exception that proves the rule .
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
UoULG For a moment I thought you must have encountered a theory textbook written by a real musician.
Xav: Exception to what? I'm not a representative of any category as far as I can tell. My dad was a musician/computer systems analyst/engineer/artisan who built telescopes, boats, etc. and read philosophy and mathematics. My mom is a leftist housewife capitalist investment wizard who believes in "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and revolutionary theology. I'm a little bit of all those things and more as well. Did you mean because I'm a hatracker? Or because I'm LDS? Or maybe because I'm old? Punk itself is pretty long in the tooth by now, and it's not nearly the first such movement.
In fact, Joey Ramone was a great investor before he died. He was fascinated with Wall Street and all that, like my mom. I thought that was cool.
edit: Ah, I see your thesis now about Mormon belief being incompatible with appreciation of punk music. <laughs>
[ May 20, 2004, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
ak:"In fact, Joey Ramone was a great investor before he died. He was fascinated with Wall Street and all that, like my mom."
I heard that on public radio after his death. They played a song he recorded toward the end, all about Maria Bartirromo (who, I understand, is a cable TV journalist who covers Wall Street).
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is merely loud, rebellious, different and full of attitude. There may be artistry of some kind in it, but it still does not qualify as good music.
So, what is your definition of good music? Is it just anything that has withstood the test of time or do you have some other qualifier?
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a WIDE collection of punk songs. If you say you don't like punk, I'm sure I could find SOME punk you like. Punk. >_>
Posts: 677 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
If we're talking about punk songs that tout an unsophisticated just-destroy-all-without-thought attitude or glorifies mindless sex and drug use, then, yah, that's rather incompatible with Mormon values.
But a lot of punk isn't about that.
If we're talking about punk that rails against commercialism, phonyism, militarism, coporatism, fascism and Thatcherism, then I see nothing there that necessarily would offend a Mormons religious beliefs -- political beliefs, yes. But that's a different area.
I like the Sex Pistol raw energy and attitude -- "Anarchy in the UK" "God Save the Queen" etc. -- but even members of the punk scene thought they were self-destructive posers. At bottom they were more all attitude and little substance, imo. I much prefer The Clash, The Ramones, and the post-punk of Social Distortion and Bad Religion. Or of Joy Division.
Which reminds me, I don't know the '80s So-Cal scene as well as I should. Time to scour the used cd stores for Black Flag, Agent Orange, or X albums. Anybody have suggestions on what I should get first?
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Punk is all about rage. Thus "gansta rap" is punk for the black folk. It's all about the rage...
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Punk is less about rage and more about do-it-yourself publishing/performing.
But nothing is *more* punk than discussions about what is *truly* punk .
EDIT to add: Thus, despite the rage, Gangsta rap is too over-produced and marketed to be punk. NWA and Public Enemy is more in the punk spirit than Dre, Snoop Dogg, or Tupac.
quote:1967: The hippie counter-culture saw that the world sucked and promised to change it with love. 1977: Punk culture saw that the world still sucked and raised a middle finger in defiance.
1981: Goths understood all along the importance of a good smoke.
quote:There are two parts to music, chops and "it". Music is really about the it, and chops are just a means to get there, but what tends to happen at certain intervals, is that people forget that and start to go after more and more elaborate chops. The endpoint of that can be overproduced, technically competant crap.
... Punk and other movements that happen from time to time in art and all artistic fields, (like maybe abstract expressionism is a good example), are about getting back to what matters. To the "it" part.
Spot on, ak. That explained a lot to me.
*impressed and taking notes
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
i'm amused how this thread seemed to become NOTHING to do with UK Punk and simply became a defense for punk itself.
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Touched a nerve, did I? If you think that's good music, you must not know what the word "music" means. And I don't have the patience to educate you.
This might be one of the most ridiculously arrogant things ever said on Hatrack.
When you say, "I don't have the patience to edcuate you," I'm seeing, "My opinions are better than yours and I don't have a reason that can justify my obvious bigotry."
[ May 27, 2004, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
For a moment I thought you must have encountered a theory textbook written by a real musician. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
