My opinion is that it depends on the group. I never really considered the White Stripes that punk, but the Jesus and Mary Chain's Psycho Candy still sounds ragin' to me all these years later. Any other opinions out there?

I remember when the Flaming Lips did Strychnine.  They were weird but my kind of weird.  Personally, I think they DID sell out.  People think they got better but I think they got boring.  I thought Soundgarden got boring as well, but I didn't hate them like I hated Flaming Lips. I never did like Smashing Pumpkins.  Pesonally, I was surprised by the whole Nirvana thing.  I didn't ever get my hands on the Butch Vig demos (which really weren't demos as they were supposed to be a 2nd Sub Pop album, they just sound like demos in comparison as they were done on the cheap)that they were doing like my friends had, so I never heard the songs until after the album actually came out.  The live songs I did hear in early 91 were the songs you heard on the second half of NEVERMIND (side 2?).  So yeah, I was surprised.

....On a local level , I can readily imagine that . I did'nt think of Nirvana or Soundgarden as having a particularly commercial sound , but , I never cared for any of that stuff. It was plain to see Nirvana was going to be big , before "Nevermind" even came out....But , it did'nt seem to me like they planned it that way. Cobain still complained to no end after they did make it. But , that was later. Maybe the idea of success on your own terms was , in his estimation , slipping out of his hands.....But he was'nt being a full out whining little BABY the minute success came , like Billy Corgan did. In Chicago , NO ONE dared criticize Smashing Pumpkins , tho' they sucked from the word "Go".  It was just like a few years earlier , when I lived in Dallas. The Flaming Lips were the band you did'nt dare say you disliked , and they were from Oklahoma.....They were just doing this Classic Rock sludge - Zeppelin meets The Doors meets later Who , played  very badly , but NO ONE (eXCEPT ME.)  used to put them down.

Oh, there were people calling Soundgarden and Nirvana sell outs (even Nirvana were calling themselves sell outs as a joke) here in Seattle, but it was those "underground" types who didn't want to see them get popular and keep them on a local level.  I was rather proud when they were getting ahead and popular.  They didn't pander to industry standards and also they got vinyl written into their contracts and proved you could still sell that format.
 
John Battles said:

....When The Ramones broke up , they were only playing mega - stadiums in Argentina.  They were still playing many of the same venues in the states , and , perhaps in Britain and West Europe , that they'd played 15 years earlier , or to crowd of about the same size. They were'nt hurting , but they were not a multi - million dollar franchise , like they are today , when  , barring their three drummers (Clem Burke did two gigs. He's an honorary Ramone.) , second bass player, and , if you wish , Richie Ramone I from the VERY first , undocumented , lineup (WHO MOVED TO SF and  co - founded The Nuns.) , THEY'RE ALL DEAD.

They went out on a high note , you could say , playing the Lollapalooza tour , but, they were third - billed to Metallica and Soundgarden. I realize The Ramones were not selling millions of records like the other two (Maybe Soundgarden had'nt hit the million mark....YET.), BUT , I SAW NO REASON THE THREE COULD'NT RECIEVE EQUAL BILLING.

No one calls Metallica sell -outs , OK , SOME PEOPLE DO . NO ONE CALLED SOUNDGARDEN OR NIRVANA SELL - OUTS WHEN THEY WERE STILL AROUND (Soundgarden , of course , reformed recently , and , to their credit , they just played a place , here ,  that maybe holds 3 - 5000 people.). But , if a legendary Punk , or proto punk , band  , strikes while the iron's still relatively hot - Be it The Stooges , The Dolls , The MC3 , The Pistols .....someone's going to call 'em sellouts. Rock'n'Roll does'nt have a sweetass retirement package , especially if it never made you rich in the first place.

....When The Ramones broke up , they were only playing mega - stadiums in Argentina.  They were still playing many of the same venues in the states , and , perhaps in Britain and West Europe , that they'd played 15 years earlier , or to crowd of about the same size. They were'nt hurting , but they were not a multi - million dollar franchise , like they are today , when  , barring their three drummers (Clem Burke did two gigs. He's an honorary Ramone.) , second bass player, and , if you wish , Richie Ramone I from the VERY first , undocumented , lineup (WHO MOVED TO SF and  co - founded The Nuns.) , THEY'RE ALL DEAD.

They went out on a high note , you could say , playing the Lollapalooza tour , but, they were third - billed to Metallica and Soundgarden. I realize The Ramones were not selling millions of records like the other two (Maybe Soundgarden had'nt hit the million mark....YET.), BUT , I SAW NO REASON THE THREE COULD'NT RECIEVE EQUAL BILLING.

No one calls Metallica sell -outs , OK , SOME PEOPLE DO . NO ONE CALLED SOUNDGARDEN OR NIRVANA SELL - OUTS WHEN THEY WERE STILL AROUND (Soundgarden , of course , reformed recently , and , to their credit , they just played a place , here ,  that maybe holds 3 - 5000 people.). But , if a legendary Punk , or proto punk , band  , strikes while the iron's still relatively hot - Be it The Stooges , The Dolls , The MC3 , The Pistols .....someone's going to call 'em sellouts. Rock'n'Roll does'nt have a sweetass retirement package , especially if it never made you rich in the first place.

Lydon is selling British butter by the pound over here thanks to some fabulous advertisement campaign. He also Went on a turgid programme, 'I'm a celebrity, Get me out of here' thats very popular apparently. Loads of celebrity(?) making complete tits of themselves in real life telly, in the vain hope that someone still loves'em and resurrect their careers. Lydon was brilliant. It paid for the last PIL album and all the amazing solo stuff he keeps releasing. Surely a great advert for a real icon selling out for the greater good. Vive le Pistols

Yeah, Sheryl, both the Ramones and the Cramps did it their own way. They may not have made a lot of $, but they were able to keep the lifestyles that they wanted, and never had to dilute their visions.

Sheryl said:

I agree, Sean. In my book the Cramps could do no wrong. It was a sad sad day for the world of music when Lux passed. I always thought they held up their punkness no matter what.

Staying punk is the easy part. Making money as a punk band is the hard part. You have to have some commercial appeal. Sucks, but it is a fact. The most successful bands have had radio & TV play. In the 80s the only punk bands I saw on MTV was The Ramones, Green Day and The Offspring. I don't even consider GD and Offspring punk. Pop, commercial, mainstream punk maybe? Most of the punk bands from the 70s and earlier eras are making more money now than back then thanks to the internet.

"I am in it for the love of music, not for the money." I agree with that commonly made statement, but money pays the bills, not love.

If you are a whiz at getting online traffic to your music and gig until you drop you will find some success. Make some money, sex drugs and rock n roll. But on average not enough to be set for life. I only wish I were a musician. I have been learning to play guitar for 30 years and still can't play worth a damn. Fortunately I was chosen to give my services to the music industry in other areas. I worked in radio in the 80s, and now I market bands here in Austin. I never post anything about them here because I don't want to come across as a spammer, plus none of them are punk. Alt rock, metal, Americana, ....

I love punk. I was there from the beginning like many others my age. Fortunately I grew up close enough to Houston I could bend my antenna the right way and pick up some punk music. I also picked up some killer hard rock stations and swore I would never stop being a headbanger. Little did I know decades later I would find something good in most genres of music.

Sure there are a lot of other bands in the punk genre that have done well. The internet has certainly helped musicians, and on the other hand maybe hurt them. A few years ago I was banking heavily as an Itune affiliate selling Willie Nelson, SRV, Hendrix and many others music. I recently checked my Itunes affiliate acct. and made a miniscule amount of money for having almost 500,000 unique hits to the pages.

With software you can strip music from any video for free in a matter of minutes.

Damn, I suddenly got tired of typing. I don't even know where I am going with this. I might even be way off topic. Take it for what it's worth. It is from my own personal experience and data. The stats don't lie.

I love punk music but some sells better than others. Once again a lot of the successful punks bands today are pop punk. I don't even think pop punk should be a genre. There is only one punk in my own opinion.

Straighten me out if I got out of line : )

I'll probably look at this later when my mega skunk buzz mellows out and regret writing it.

I do that a lot. (sorry it is so long) Drew, Austin Tx

Speakin' o' no lyrics, I'm listening to some Mingus from '64 now! Cool, man...

John Battles said:

Dave , Well , you know , I'm not ruling out everything. As I say , I was'nt able to check all of that stuff out. There ARE'NT a whole lot of gifted lyricists out there , not that I'm hearing , at least..... 
 
dave said:

Good point, John, and thanks for listening. Music is one of the most personal forms of art we have, and I have no problem with anyone not taking my views.

As far as lyrics go, I'll agree w/ ya, hardly anybody has decent lyrics. The Kent 3 were the last band I heard who were wordsmiths. Turbonegro's 2 classic lp's were hilarious, but I don't know if I'd say that the lyrics were super.

But lately I find myself getting into more atmospheric cuts by bands w/ 4-to-15 minute songs, esp. when I'm online. Maybe being online is what the original hippies felt when they got stoned and listened to acid rock, haha.

I joke. But it's probably more like Jerry Dammers liking voodoo songs. 'I can really get into 'em, but when I finally zone out, the song's over'.

Anyhoo, thanks for giving 'em the old college try. Guess I'm turnin' into one o' then World Music types! Pass the spliff...

Cheers, Dave

I agree, Sean. In my book the Cramps could do no wrong. It was a sad sad day for the world of music when Lux passed. I always thought they held up their punkness no matter what.

Sean said:

The Cramps managed to pull it off. They sold out, admitted it, but still stayed the same kick ass band. Same with The Ramones. I think The Ramones are the best example of a Punk group becoming one of the most popular and well known Punk groups of all time, but were still a "Punk" group and never changed their ways or style. Their songs did manage to get a bit Poppy over the years, but it wasn't complete shit like how most bands end up. 

Dave , Well , you know , I'm not ruling out everything. As I say , I was'nt able to check all of that stuff out. There ARE'NT a whole lot of gifted lyricists out there , not that I'm hearing , at least..... 
 
dave said:

Good point, John, and thanks for listening. Music is one of the most personal forms of art we have, and I have no problem with anyone not taking my views.

As far as lyrics go, I'll agree w/ ya, hardly anybody has decent lyrics. The Kent 3 were the last band I heard who were wordsmiths. Turbonegro's 2 classic lp's were hilarious, but I don't know if I'd say that the lyrics were super.

But lately I find myself getting into more atmospheric cuts by bands w/ 4-to-15 minute songs, esp. when I'm online. Maybe being online is what the original hippies felt when they got stoned and listened to acid rock, haha.

I joke. But it's probably more like Jerry Dammers liking voodoo songs. 'I can really get into 'em, but when I finally zone out, the song's over'.

Anyhoo, thanks for giving 'em the old college try. Guess I'm turnin' into one o' then World Music types! Pass the spliff...

Cheers, Dave

Good point, John, and thanks for listening. Music is one of the most personal forms of art we have, and I have no problem with anyone not taking my views.

As far as lyrics go, I'll agree w/ ya, hardly anybody has decent lyrics. The Kent 3 were the last band I heard who were wordsmiths. Turbonegro's 2 classic lp's were hilarious, but I don't know if I'd say that the lyrics were super.

But lately I find myself getting into more atmospheric cuts by bands w/ 4-to-15 minute songs, esp. when I'm online. Maybe being online is what the original hippies felt when they got stoned and listened to acid rock, haha.

I joke. But it's probably more like Jerry Dammers liking voodoo songs. 'I can really get into 'em, but when I finally zone out, the song's over'.

Anyhoo, thanks for giving 'em the old college try. Guess I'm turnin' into one o' then World Music types! Pass the spliff...

Cheers, Dave

DAVE , HAVING TROUBLE ACCESSING SOME OF THAT STUFF. IT'S NOTHING YOU DID , OF COURSE......I WANTED TO LOVE THE STONER METAL AND LATTER DAY HEAVY PSYCH BANDS WHEN THEY STARTED TURNING UP , BUT THE ONES I'VE HEARD REALLY LACK SUBSTANCE.      THAT ACID KING (FROM CHICAGO? I DON'T THINK SO , BUT THERE WAS A BAND CALLED ACID KING OR KING ACID , HERE , CA. EARLY 90'S , THEY WERE'NT VERY GOOD.)IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE. IF I SMOKED WEED , I GUESS I'D DIG IT , BUT , IT'S GOT A COOL 'POUR BATTERY ACID ON THE AMPS AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS SOUND' AT FIRST , UNTIL YOU REALIZE THERE'S NOT MUCH MORE TO IT THAN THAT......JUST LIKE JAPANESE NOISE /PSYCH ROCK. I TRIED TO GET INTO IT , BUT , THERE'S NO SONGS.

I'M NOT HEARING MUCH IN THE WAY OF NEW BANDS , LIKE THAT , THAT IS DOING IT FOR ME. YOU COULD SAY I'M TOO CRITICAL......IT'S LIKE WHEN ALL THESE BANDS WERE TRYING TO SOUND LIKE THE BUTTHOLE SURFERS , AND , NOW , YOU'VE GOT THESE NEWER GROUPS DOING THE SAME , TO A DEGREE. IT WAS MORE FUN WHEN ONLY THE BUTTHOLE SURFERS SOUNDED LIKE THEY DID , AND FORMER HARDCORE BANDS WERE SCRAMBLING TO GROW THEIR BEARDS OUT AND BUY DASHIKIS , BUT , IF THEY WERE LUCKY , FOUND SOMETHING OF THEIR OWN..... LITHIUM XMAS HAD THE SCORCH AND THE FEEDBACK , BUT THEY HAD SONGS .    I DUNNO. WHEN BLUE CHEER FINALLY MOVED BACK TO THE STATES , I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO PUT 'EM ON THE ROAD WITH SOME HIP , HAPPENING STONER ROCK BANDS , THE ONES WHO ALWAYS CITED THEM AS AN INFLUENCE , TO TURN THE YOUNGER CROWDS - WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN FANS , BY THEN , ANYWAY - ON TO THE MOTHERFUCKING MASTERS. DID'NT REALLY HAPPEN , BUT , THE LAST TIME THEY PLAYED HERE , IT WAS ON A BILL WITH 3 OR 4 STONER BANDS , PROBABLY ALL BIGGER THAN THE CHEER IN THEIR OWN RIGHT , BUT , WELL AWARE OF THE DEBT THEY OWED THEM . NEEDLESS TO SAY , THE CHEER BLEW ALL THESE YOUNGER BANDS OFF THE STAGE , BUT IT WAS A LITTLE TOO LATE. HAD DICKIE LIVED , HE'D HAVE PROBABLY GONE BACK TO PLAYING TO 50 TO 150 PEOPLE A NIGHT, AT LEAST IN CHICAGO......Sorry , that has little to do with new bands doing this stuff. But , just creating a racket still is'nt enough. Songs are still a good idea.

Oh, yeah, shoulda said, most of that metal leans toward psychedelic stuff, not really the attitude-stuff like Motorhead, etc. D'oh!

Also, to me a lot of that Aussie Birdman-style stuff is attitude-heavy punk/hard-rock/cock-rock/what-have-ya, and I LOVE that stuff.

Hope yer doin' well,

Dave

John Battles said:

wILL DO , IT MIGHT TAKE ME A WHILE....mY DEFINITION OF mETAL , OF hEAVY rOCK , Might differ from some.....I could have dug some of the Sunset Strip 80'S Metal bands if they'd sounded RAW.  kILLER kANE , rON aSHETON'S nEW oRDER , NOW ,THAT'S WHAT SOME OF 'EM could HAVE SOUNDED LIKE.

Link Wray is Punk Rock Ground zero. PeoplE bitched because his no - hearing ass used Marshall amps later in life (when they were so lucky to see him , it's not funny !!!!!). SO WHAT ? He was still heavier than a line of Marshall Stacks WITH THOSE LITTLE AMPS WITH HOLES POKED IN 'EM.
 
dave said:

Great reply, John! I think Charles Lamey said that Link Wray may have been one of the first punks (or at least a proto-punk: Ur-punk?). Attitude plays a LARGE part. Have seen few bands since the 90s garage-punk thang with that, but on the topic of Metal, Have a listen to some of these, if you're of a mind. Curious as to your reaction.

Best, Dave

John Battles said:

no , all the credit for being rebellious should'nt go to Punk alone , nor even Punk and it's myriad offshoots...But what gets called "Rebellious" over the years, hoo boy. I guess you could say Heavy Metal or Hard Rock had a rebellious "Who gives a fuck" attitude in the 70's , with The Sabs , The Purps , Thin Lizzy , Alice Cooper and the like , even tho' a good deal of those acts made millions. But , by the 80's , the public was being told that bands Like Quiet Riot , Motley Crue , (Later) Scorpions , (Later ) Priest and solo Ozzy were rebellious and even HEAVY !    The Underground Metal scenes were just taking off around that time , but , what passed for Metal at all....YEESH.  REAL Metal or early Hard Rock , sure , e.g.  Dust , Sir Lord Baltimore , Blue Cheer , MC5 , was rebellious as Hell , but , most of the bands that did make some real money ended up with nothing to show for it.

Just an example....Blues , not the shit that passes for it today , is Rebel Music. So is Country , Rockabilly ....But , just not what usually passes for it , today.

But , I guess I'm preaching to the converted when I say that.

Did people really think Screamin' Jay Hawkins was the demon daddy to "Psychobilly"?

I mean , I'm sure some of those bands were influenced by him  in the 80's , but , apart from "Frenzy" , "Stone Crazy" and maybe one or two other songs , Jay did'nt havemuch of a Rockabilly base. I'd wager Sceaming Lord Sutch was a far bigger influence on that stuff , even though he , too , only dabbled In Rockabilly stylings. You can , of course , hear things in earlier , groundbreaking sounds that are reflected in the music of later acts who took more of the credit for breaking down musical barriers. I think Hawkins is more a forerunner of Punk in his general disregard for the status quo , that he presented himself as anti-social , with a bad attitude , in a musical context , though he was a great instrumentalist and arranger , and could have sang Opera if he's had a mind to.  He was , however , a very likeable man. God help anyone who pissed him off , but , he was affable and frequently hilarious.

wILL DO , IT MIGHT TAKE ME A WHILE....mY DEFINITION OF mETAL , OF hEAVY rOCK , Might differ from some.....I could have dug some of the Sunset Strip 80'S Metal bands if they'd sounded RAW.  kILLER kANE , rON aSHETON'S nEW oRDER , NOW ,THAT'S WHAT SOME OF 'EM could HAVE SOUNDED LIKE.

Link Wray is Punk Rock Ground zero. PeoplE bitched because his no - hearing ass used Marshall amps later in life (when they were so lucky to see him , it's not funny !!!!!). SO WHAT ? He was still heavier than a line of Marshall Stacks WITH THOSE LITTLE AMPS WITH HOLES POKED IN 'EM.
 
dave said:

Great reply, John! I think Charles Lamey said that Link Wray may have been one of the first punks (or at least a proto-punk: Ur-punk?). Attitude plays a LARGE part. Have seen few bands since the 90s garage-punk thang with that, but on the topic of Metal, Have a listen to some of these, if you're of a mind. Curious as to your reaction.

Best, Dave

John Battles said:

no , all the credit for being rebellious should'nt go to Punk alone , nor even Punk and it's myriad offshoots...But what gets called "Rebellious" over the years, hoo boy. I guess you could say Heavy Metal or Hard Rock had a rebellious "Who gives a fuck" attitude in the 70's , with The Sabs , The Purps , Thin Lizzy , Alice Cooper and the like , even tho' a good deal of those acts made millions. But , by the 80's , the public was being told that bands Like Quiet Riot , Motley Crue , (Later) Scorpions , (Later ) Priest and solo Ozzy were rebellious and even HEAVY !    The Underground Metal scenes were just taking off around that time , but , what passed for Metal at all....YEESH.  REAL Metal or early Hard Rock , sure , e.g.  Dust , Sir Lord Baltimore , Blue Cheer , MC5 , was rebellious as Hell , but , most of the bands that did make some real money ended up with nothing to show for it.

Just an example....Blues , not the shit that passes for it today , is Rebel Music. So is Country , Rockabilly ....But , just not what usually passes for it , today.

But , I guess I'm preaching to the converted when I say that.

Did people really think Screamin' Jay Hawkins was the demon daddy to "Psychobilly"?

I mean , I'm sure some of those bands were influenced by him  in the 80's , but , apart from "Frenzy" , "Stone Crazy" and maybe one or two other songs , Jay did'nt havemuch of a Rockabilly base. I'd wager Sceaming Lord Sutch was a far bigger influence on that stuff , even though he , too , only dabbled In Rockabilly stylings. You can , of course , hear things in earlier , groundbreaking sounds that are reflected in the music of later acts who took more of the credit for breaking down musical barriers. I think Hawkins is more a forerunner of Punk in his general disregard for the status quo , that he presented himself as anti-social , with a bad attitude , in a musical context , though he was a great instrumentalist and arranger , and could have sang Opera if he's had a mind to.  He was , however , a very likeable man. God help anyone who pissed him off , but , he was affable and frequently hilarious.

Great reply, John! I think Charles Lamey said that Link Wray may have been one of the first punks (or at least a proto-punk: Ur-punk?). Attitude plays a LARGE part. Have seen few bands since the 90s garage-punk thang with that, but on the topic of Metal, Have a listen to some of these, if you're of a mind. Curious as to your reaction.

Best, Dave

John Battles said:

no , all the credit for being rebellious should'nt go to Punk alone , nor even Punk and it's myriad offshoots...But what gets called "Rebellious" over the years, hoo boy. I guess you could say Heavy Metal or Hard Rock had a rebellious "Who gives a fuck" attitude in the 70's , with The Sabs , The Purps , Thin Lizzy , Alice Cooper and the like , even tho' a good deal of those acts made millions. But , by the 80's , the public was being told that bands Like Quiet Riot , Motley Crue , (Later) Scorpions , (Later ) Priest and solo Ozzy were rebellious and even HEAVY !    The Underground Metal scenes were just taking off around that time , but , what passed for Metal at all....YEESH.  REAL Metal or early Hard Rock , sure , e.g.  Dust , Sir Lord Baltimore , Blue Cheer , MC5 , was rebellious as Hell , but , most of the bands that did make some real money ended up with nothing to show for it.

Just an example....Blues , not the shit that passes for it today , is Rebel Music. So is Country , Rockabilly ....But , just not what usually passes for it , today.

But , I guess I'm preaching to the converted when I say that.

Did people really think Screamin' Jay Hawkins was the demon daddy to "Psychobilly"?

I mean , I'm sure some of those bands were influenced by him  in the 80's , but , apart from "Frenzy" , "Stone Crazy" and maybe one or two other songs , Jay did'nt havemuch of a Rockabilly base. I'd wager Sceaming Lord Sutch was a far bigger influence on that stuff , even though he , too , only dabbled In Rockabilly stylings. You can , of course , hear things in earlier , groundbreaking sounds that are reflected in the music of later acts who took more of the credit for breaking down musical barriers. I think Hawkins is more a forerunner of Punk in his general disregard for the status quo , that he presented himself as anti-social , with a bad attitude , in a musical context , though he was a great instrumentalist and arranger , and could have sang Opera if he's had a mind to.  He was , however , a very likeable man. God help anyone who pissed him off , but , he was affable and frequently hilarious.

no , all the credit for being rebellious should'nt go to Punk alone , nor even Punk and it's myriad offshoots...But what gets called "Rebellious" over the years, hoo boy. I guess you could say Heavy Metal or Hard Rock had a rebellious "Who gives a fuck" attitude in the 70's , with The Sabs , The Purps , Thin Lizzy , Alice Cooper and the like , even tho' a good deal of those acts made millions. But , by the 80's , the public was being told that bands Like Quiet Riot , Motley Crue , (Later) Scorpions , (Later ) Priest and solo Ozzy were rebellious and even HEAVY !    The Underground Metal scenes were just taking off around that time , but , what passed for Metal at all....YEESH.  REAL Metal or early Hard Rock , sure , e.g.  Dust , Sir Lord Baltimore , Blue Cheer , MC5 , was rebellious as Hell , but , most of the bands that did make some real money ended up with nothing to show for it.

Just an example....Blues , not the shit that passes for it today , is Rebel Music. So is Country , Rockabilly ....But , just not what usually passes for it , today.

But , I guess I'm preaching to the converted when I say that.

Did people really think Screamin' Jay Hawkins was the demon daddy to "Psychobilly"?

I mean , I'm sure some of those bands were influenced by him  in the 80's , but , apart from "Frenzy" , "Stone Crazy" and maybe one or two other songs , Jay did'nt havemuch of a Rockabilly base. I'd wager Sceaming Lord Sutch was a far bigger influence on that stuff , even though he , too , only dabbled In Rockabilly stylings. You can , of course , hear things in earlier , groundbreaking sounds that are reflected in the music of later acts who took more of the credit for breaking down musical barriers. I think Hawkins is more a forerunner of Punk in his general disregard for the status quo , that he presented himself as anti-social , with a bad attitude , in a musical context , though he was a great instrumentalist and arranger , and could have sang Opera if he's had a mind to.  He was , however , a very likeable man. God help anyone who pissed him off , but , he was affable and frequently hilarious.

The way I view this argument now is the same way I view any other genre.  E.G. You can't write classical music, even if you write in the same style.  Classical music (like Baroque, like punk) was a type of music in a certain time period, you can write neo-classical, contemporary, etc.  So one can play punk-revival, or neo-punk, or third wave/fourth wave/fifth wave punk etc.  But the genre, just like, say, modernism or vorticism, or victorian, is tied to it's time period.  It's sound + attitude + time period = genre in my eyes.

As far as "But Punk is an attitude/lifestyle" it always struck me as odd that punk gets to claim all that rebellion for itself, claiming that old acts from the 50's/40's were "punk before there was punk"...truth is that certain attitudes have always existed and it's ego-centric of the genre to claim the attributes for itself when they existed prior (e.g. same thing with Screamin Hay Hawkins being "psychobilly before there was psychobilly", or other such claims with other genres).  Punk is just another footnote in a long lineage/tradition of that attitude.

I am on point with Sam that many of those early seventies punk bands and "proto-punk" bands wanted to achieve success (just listen to the Ramones bitch in interviews about how they formed a cultural niche but never had the cash to go with it), and that whole anti-mainstream thing started with 80's hardcore DIY aesthetic...which is great to have an outlet when there isn't one in the mainstream, but I don't think NOT having people hear your music is the point.  It's kinda like a kid who sits alone at lunch and isn't well liked saying "well, good, I didn't want them to like me anyway".

So, yea, there's a dollar's worth....just give me 98 cents back...

P.S. Despite the Elastica / Wire controversy , when I first heard "Connection" by Elastica , on the radio , I thought it was "Message To Charlie " by Lithium Xmas.
 
John Battles said:

 I LIKE(D) "London Calling" for reasons that are radically different than "The Clash" . I still give it a spin once in a while , but the first (US and UK) HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY FAVORITE .

They carried that energy over into the second album , to an extent , but lose the plot somewher. Still some good songs , there. Later , "Sandinista " is where , to me , their self - indulgence emerges in full force. Does'nt mean there are'nt some good songs , though.....I dunno.

A friend told me The Clash were The Beatles of Punk. That they started with this ruff'n'raw thing , and , eventually came up with "London Calling" , which he called their "Sgt. Pepper", moving into "Sandinista!" , which he called their White Album. Interesting theory. I guess "Combat Rock " would be more of a "Let it Be" , if anything ,than an "Abbey Road". I guess , too , it makes no difference.

Bottom Line : Were they uneven? Yes. Did they still make some great music ? Of course.

But , bands that were considered "Punk" , But , made it? Hmmmmmmmm. I admit , I like Elastica , just the first album , still play it once in a great while. I liked The Jesus and Mary when they just had those now - unattainable singles in The UK. I DID'NT THINK THEY HAD A HOPE IN HELL OF MAKING IT IN THE USA. But , I also did'nt think Dwight Yoakum would make it , because he was TOO Country. But , you could say bands like that were merely Punk reaction. I don't think Punk "Came back " until the 90's , when CBGB's started doing a booming business , and The Dictators , Real Kids , DMZ, Jayne County and the like were back at it.....iN THE UK , HUGE FESTIVALS LIKE "Holidays in The Sun " gathered up nearly every English Punk band still living and eager to play......There was even a BIG festival , recently , to commemorate the Diamond Jubilee - co - billed as "The Last Jubilee".

I knock a lot of the 80's stuff,  sure , but there was always good music , if you were willing to go find it , and we did , without the internet , without MP3s.

If people still ENJOY Punk Rock , then , you could argue it's not dead. The more I heard Pop Punk , the more I wanted to retreat into the vastly underrated Dickies , and The Rezillos/Revillos , Vibrators , Buzzcocks , Boys, Lurkers , even The Cichlids ,  bands with pop hooks that did'nt sound like 10 year olds wetting their pants , ok?

 I LIKE(D) "London Calling" for reasons that are radically different than "The Clash" . I still give it a spin once in a while , but the first (US and UK) HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY FAVORITE .

They carried that energy over into the second album , to an extent , but lose the plot somewher. Still some good songs , there. Later , "Sandinista " is where , to me , their self - indulgence emerges in full force. Does'nt mean there are'nt some good songs , though.....I dunno.

A friend told me The Clash were The Beatles of Punk. That they started with this ruff'n'raw thing , and , eventually came up with "London Calling" , which he called their "Sgt. Pepper", moving into "Sandinista!" , which he called their White Album. Interesting theory. I guess "Combat Rock " would be more of a "Let it Be" , if anything ,than an "Abbey Road". I guess , too , it makes no difference.

Bottom Line : Were they uneven? Yes. Did they still make some great music ? Of course.

But , bands that were considered "Punk" , But , made it? Hmmmmmmmm. I admit , I like Elastica , just the first album , still play it once in a great while. I liked The Jesus and Mary when they just had those now - unattainable singles in The UK. I DID'NT THINK THEY HAD A HOPE IN HELL OF MAKING IT IN THE USA. But , I also did'nt think Dwight Yoakum would make it , because he was TOO Country. But , you could say bands like that were merely Punk reaction. I don't think Punk "Came back " until the 90's , when CBGB's started doing a booming business , and The Dictators , Real Kids , DMZ, Jayne County and the like were back at it.....iN THE UK , HUGE FESTIVALS LIKE "Holidays in The Sun " gathered up nearly every English Punk band still living and eager to play......There was even a BIG festival , recently , to commemorate the Diamond Jubilee - co - billed as "The Last Jubilee".

I knock a lot of the 80's stuff,  sure , but there was always good music , if you were willing to go find it , and we did , without the internet , without MP3s.

If people still ENJOY Punk Rock , then , you could argue it's not dead. The more I heard Pop Punk , the more I wanted to retreat into the vastly underrated Dickies , and The Rezillos/Revillos , Vibrators , Buzzcocks , Boys, Lurkers , even The Cichlids ,  bands with pop hooks that did'nt sound like 10 year olds wetting their pants , ok?

Both, actually. This is just an example, I'm not out to crucify anyone. To me, all these years later their experimenting w/ different styles just seems cheesy, like something Paul Simon would do. 

Anyway, I'm middle-aged now, so I can be cranky now ;P  I still like experimental punk (Chrome, Desperate Bicycles, Urinals, etc.) but it's got to have energy if not aggresiveness, and hopefully both.

Incidentally, this is what I'm listening to now, this first 45 deserves hall-o-fame status:

The Dogs - Charlie Was a Good Boy "Total bad-assery from France, circa '78." For fans of the Dolls/Thunders/Devil Dogs-style of punk.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Are you refering to the production of LONDON CALLING or their actual performance?  Because I think that record showed growth while not getting boring.

With that current Ramones thread going somewhere else, I think the best thing to say here is that they could have easily become stale if their 10th album sounded exactly like the first in terms of style.  Maybe a better term would be stagnant to clarify my definition of stale.
 
dave said:

Ya think so, Rod? I recently listened to London Calling again after 20 years, and I've gotta say it sounds stale and affected, while their 1st LP still sounds diamond-sharp. 

The Ramones could still tinker around with slight differences, but it was still essentially "Da Ramones Sound"...

Maybe it depends on the band, but I find that at 48 I still like the "young, snotty, and pissed-off" records. 

Popularity rubs the edges off a band's sound. The Strokes first album sounded great for about one listen, but after that it just seemed  too slick.

Are you refering to the production of LONDON CALLING or their actual performance?  Because I think that record showed growth while not getting boring.

With that current Ramones thread going somewhere else, I think the best thing to say here is that they could have easily become stale if their 10th album sounded exactly like the first in terms of style.  Maybe a better term would be stagnant to clarify my definition of stale.
 
dave said:

Ya think so, Rod? I recently listened to London Calling again after 20 years, and I've gotta say it sounds stale and affected, while their 1st LP still sounds diamond-sharp. 

The Ramones could still tinker around with slight differences, but it was still essentially "Da Ramones Sound"...

Maybe it depends on the band, but I find that at 48 I still like the "young, snotty, and pissed-off" records. 

Popularity rubs the edges off a band's sound. The Strokes first album sounded great for about one listen, but after that it just seemed  too slick.

Ya think so, Rod? I recently listened to London Calling again after 20 years, and I've gotta say it sounds stale and affected, while their 1st LP still sounds diamond-sharp. 

The Ramones could still tinker around with slight differences, but it was still essentially "Da Ramones Sound"...

Maybe it depends on the band, but I find that at 48 I still like the "young, snotty, and pissed-off" records. 

Popularity rubs the edges off a band's sound. The Strokes first album sounded great for about one listen, but after that it just seemed  too slick.