![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I wanted to notify people that funny punk is currently up for deletion. To comment, go here. The Ungovernable Force 08:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm worried about the direction of the whole item on Punk Rock. It delves so deeply into rock music in the years leading up to the emergence of punk that it misses the point entirely that punk music in the UK was a sweeping away of all that existed at that point in time. Punk was year zero.
I’m worried that a Californian student (user WesleyDodds) who probably wasn’t even born in 1976 (no offence intended) rejected my Wiki edits where I changed the article to say Punk was predominantly a UK-based movement. I was there and trust me - the USA's involvement was negligible. I was in a punk band called Straitjacket in 1978 and some of my friends were in a punk band called Irrelevant (who went on to become Goodbye Mr Mackenzie). Punk was a UK phenomenon born out of the dreary, pointless, futureless, grey concrete bomb-site that was mid-1970’s Britain. Its musical influence was simply to be the OPPOSITE of any music that was already there - the passionless progressive rock, the silly glam-rock and the throwaway pop. It certainly WAS NOT some nice logical culmination of some obscure New York music scene. Reading this on Wikipedia was the first I’d heard of it and I was there at the time! It just has to make you laugh how history is being rewritten before your very eyes!
I'm also worried that some American revisionists are starting to say the Ramones were an important punk band. I’m not even sure you could even categorise them as punk; they were more comedy retro rock n’ roll than anything else and they dressed like refugees from Grease. They did have a single called ‘Sheena is a Punk Rocker’ but they also had a song called ‘Suzy is a Headbanger’ – I guess that makes them the founders of heavy metal too? It’s so wrong it’s almost laughable.
I’m worried that Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopaedia but it also seems to be a tool for Amercians to rewrite history to suit themselves.
I’m worried that rewriting history to portray America, in a Hollywood kind of way, as first at everything, inventors of everything and best at everything is becoming a national American pastime.
I’m worried that soon the American rewriting of punk history will be complete – a weird upside-down world where the Sex Pistols were imitating the Ramones, Gaye Advert modelled herself on Debbie Harry, the Stranglers were just trying to be Lou Reed and the Clash wanted to be the New York Dolls.
I’m worried that it’s 2006 and I still care.
I’m worried that it’s 2006 and I’m still around.
I’m worried that when I’m not, Wikipedia still will be. -- Jcleary 12:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha! I was waiting for this to happen. Ecto 02:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that punk rock is stuff like the Ramones and stuff, sure father of punk or not but it does not capsulate everything. I couldn't say that bands like Dystopia couldn't be called punk rock, I feel that punk is a more general term for everything. Its honestly a misconception in labeling rather than genre confusion in my opinion.
No I think Ecto is correct in saying that Punk Rock (US) and Punk (UK) were such very different types of music maybe there should be some kind of distinction. If you're going use the term 'Punk Rock' to describe the Ramones, the Talking Heads and Blondie (for heaven's sake!) then it's obviously something very different from 'Punk' - the Sex Pistols, the Stranglers, the Clash, the Adverts, X-Ray Spex, the UK Subs...
In support of this, I remember an interview with Debbie Harry in 1978 or '79 where she was asked why she thought two similar (but not identical) music scenes had appeared on both sides of the Atlantic. She said they were two independent strands that had reached a similar conclusion, or words to that effect. At that time Blondie did not regard themselves as punk (nor did the Ramones I suspect) - this is something that has been made up since then to try to tie the two music scenes together in some scientific WesleyDodds kind of way.
As for the actual terminology, on the streets in the UK we always called it 'Punk'. 'Punk Rock' was a term your Dad might use, maybe in the same breath that he would ask 'What's top of the Hit Parade son?'
In addition there was certainly no cultural similarity between the two scenes at all. I went to see Blondie in the Boston Orpheum Theatre while in the US in 1979 (supported by a comedy band call the Fools). After having been to so many riotous punk gigs in the UK it was weird to see an audience of young people who still dressed like early seventies hippies and who stayed seated right the way through - I felt like I needed to shake them until they woke up. It was really weird sitting down during a gig. Quite comfy though. Jcleary 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
<----moving out to margin
A few, slightly scattered remarks; I'll try not to ramble on too much.:
- Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
While interesting in a useless trivia kind of way, I'm not sure that this section is relevent enough to include in this already-long article. Perhaps it should be its own article (or merged into the punk rock musicians lists), and the Punk Rock article can link to it. Spylab 18:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab
I don't think its really needed, alot fo people who play some form of rock music, or other entertainment use stage names. And of course if the people are notable enough to have an article on here in the first place it will be mentioned there. - Deathrocker 12:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Recent edit calls the band X hardcore. Really? I wouldn't say so at all. - Jmabel | Talk 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
In the article it says "Guitar solos were considered taboo in the early days of punk rock." Johnny Thunders & the Heartbreakers, Richard Hell & the Voidoids, The Dead Boys, Rocket from the Tombs, The Clash, The Damned, and the Sex Pistols all had guitar solos in their earlier albums. I suggest we change it to say "are usually less common in the genre," or just remove the sentence entirely. Dasilva 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know if I should have just deleted this or not. If somebody could let me know the proper process for this, that would be great.
I notice that this paragraph was just added to the article:
Punk music is never played for personal enjoyment; it is an inherently unappealing form of music. It is only ever played to stick it to The Man, and to piss off nuns.
Obviously, this is somebody's personal opinion, and not objective fact. Do I have the authority to just delete it?
Probaly the best band in the L.A scene 1977-1980 along.\ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.26.106.89 ( talk • contribs) 18 September 2006.
A group of articles on songs by Minor Threat are up for deletion. You may be interested in adding to the discussion. -- Switch 14:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you think Green Day is a punk band?
punk rock was of a certain time born of certain condictions that no longer exist, therefore, it cant be exist any more. Green day made power-pop or guitar based pop more popular in the mainstream, allowing bands like weezer and fountains of wayne etc to gain recognition, they really have nothing to do with punk rock at all.
shouldn't the article's name be "Punk Music" sense it's not only limited to Rock?
It's not really point of view, they are widely considered to be the first, and I've got plenty of sources that consider them that. What else do you want? Also I find the article misleading the way it says it originated in england, before it says United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoponpop69 ( talk • contribs) 29 October 2006.
Yes but this page should give a history of the genre, and things like Richman are considered proto punk, where as the Ramones are commonly considered as the original punk rock band. It seems like a history of the genre would be inadequite without pointing out their place in history.-HP69
If I was going to single out one proto-punk band, the immediate ancestor of it all, it would be the New York Dolls. Firstly because of their influence in America and UK (Pistols cited them as a major influence), becuase their members went on to be involved in other punk bands such as the Heartbreakers and the Voidoids, and their style and sound says alot of things early punk said, eg...they dressed up like teenage girls because they didn't care about fitting in and wanted to make a statement that would outrage conservatives, and their sound was very reminiscent of pre-progressive rock and roll. The Stooges are an awesome band, but their psychadelic, drawn out songs do not represent what punk represented. The pop/avant garde sound of the velvets is not what punk is either. By this arguement, the Ramones are a very good contender for the first punk band, becuase they took the new york dolls and then went forward one more step towards punk rock. They ditched the glam, and made short, simple, powerful and fast songs. By comparison, break on through sounds lifeless and wet. Ramones songs kept their energy from start to finish. Yes they had slow songs like 'I Wanna be your Boyfriend' on their first album, but remember on that album they had so many songs that define punk rock...such as Blitzkreig Bop, Judy is a Punk, Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue, Loudmouth, 53rd and 3rd. To contradict Jambel, Ramones WERE punk from when they first started. Even if the term was not used in that sense at the time. I do understand that there are earlier bands that can be considered punk, but they either didn't release anything or whatever they did release it's been gone and buried for decades (eg Dictators). They did not make punk everything that it is, but they were the inspiration for many that did. ( Justinboden86 02:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC))
You Americans are wasting your time. The Sex Pistols were the first Punk band and everyone knows it. So shut it, accept it and move on.. jcleary 01:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The Ramones predated the Pistols very easily, early Ramones gigs are dated to 1974, but the point is that neither were the first punk bands. The Ramones were influenced by the Dolls, the Pistols were influenced by The Vibrators, and even those two had earlier influences. I agree with the arlier post, arguing who the first punk band was is completely impossible and pointless. -- 209.222.250.147 20:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"Some, such as The Misfits (from New Jersey), Black Flag (from Los Angeles), Stiff Little Fingers (from Northern Ireland), and Crass (from Essex)."
That sentence makes no sense. If you want to change the paragraph, edit the list of bands, but leave the sentence structure as it is (see below), or edit it in a way that it will still actually make sense.
"Some, such as The Misfits (from New Jersey), Black Flag (from Los Angeles), Stiff Little Fingers (from Northern Ireland), and Crass (from Essex) would lead the move away from the original sound of punk rock and towards the hardcore subgenre."
Personally, I think all those bands influenced hardcore somewhat, and sound more like hardcore than the Pistols, but please don't make rash edits guys. Switch 03:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The article has it that: Others were violent or anti-romantic in depictions of sex and love, such as The Voidoids' "Love Comes in Spurts". Now, Love comes in Spurts is for me the most poignant song ever written about the unbearable search for love. If you ask me for a romantic song, I'll give you Love Comes in Spurts. To call it anti-romantic is to misunderstand it to the highest degree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.108.237 ( talk • contribs) 7 November 2006.
"While it is thought that the style of punk from the 1970s had a decline in the 1980s…" - Jmabel | Talk 00:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the intention of the sentence, but the phrasing could be cleaned up. There was a popular belief for a while that "Punk [Was] Dead". That can probably be cited easily. WesleyDodds 05:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph beginning "Many of the popular indie rock bands of the 2000s…" is a very limp ending. Punk rock should not end with a fadeout. - Jmabel | Talk 00:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I strongly believe that So-Cal is it's own type of rock and sort of like a mixture between Punk Rock and Pop Punk (think One Buck Short, Green Day, Weezer and Simple Plan) and I think that there should be a page titled 'So-Cal Rock' about this subgenre. Give me sum feedback, what do you thinks people!! Citikiwi 03:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's about time for an archive, as the discussion pasge is getting long and there don't seem to be any contreversial arguements hapening at the moment. I'm not sure how to do it myself so if someone wants to step in for me that would be appreciated. Any objections? ( 58.105.49.186 03:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC))
It's the way of the world, unfortunately, and inevitable of articles as broad as this, but this page has built suffocating cruft. Looking though the history I see an number of respected editors, and I'd request a copy edit from them. Sooner or later this article is going to come up for WP:FAR, and in its current state, it's going to fail IMO. A few of points that need attention:
There have been alot of arguements and contreversy over how punk rock originated, and this is because the article is structured poorly. The chronological organisation of the article does not represent the differences between the New York and London scenes, and by its structure forces one scene to be acknowledged more than the other. Jmbael gave me an idea when he said in the discussion that early punk was more of a scene than a sound. I think he is spot on and I propose that we retitle the history section from the origins and early emergence to 'The New York Scene' and 'The London Scene'. A history of early punk that focuses on location rather than a chronological structure makes more sense because:
I think we should keep the latter part of the article unchanged (although it does need to be expanded), in its chronological order. This is because after 77 punk become more of a sound than a scene. Blondie were reclassified as New Wave, and not long after hardcore emerged. Punk became an international phenonemon, and was no longer limited to one or two cities. Today a punk band forming now would get as much influenced by their NOFX cds than by their local scene. You no longer have to go to CBGBs to see a punk band.
I will let some people discuss this before I go ahead and edit the main page, but I believe it is necessary in order to simplify and clarify the article from what is currently a confusing, jumbled and chaotic piece. ( Justinboden86 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC))
I think what we should do is separate the "Origins" and "Early emergence" sections into three smaller subsections; "United States" (going over the MC5 and Stooges, their influences on what became the NY scene, and the NY scene itself), "United Kingdom" (going over Bowie, Stranglers, The Strand beoming Sex Pistols, etc.) and "Other scenes" (Sydney & Brisbane in Australia, and possibly other scenes like France & Germany, who were influential but I know little about). Anyone like it? -
Switch
t 14:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's fine the way it is, although it could stand to have a little bit more about protopunk and how these various bands set the stage for punk. WesleyDodds 08:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
And an off-topic remark I can't resist, because of earlier discussion on precursors. As I'm writing, I'm listening to a punk show, Sonic Reducer on KEXP, which this week is focused on women in punk. The DJ threw in Suzi Quattro's "48 Crash" and, y'know, if they'd stopped before the bridge it would be one fine 2-minute punk song. Chinn and Chapman. Go figure. - Jmabel | Talk 06:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Bowie has never been a "country" artist. He had some elements of folk rock in his music early on however. - 11:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
shouldnt there be more info about the Velvet Underground, not to mention Misfits or Alec Empire Alex Ov Shaolin 03:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The Ramones were mummy's boys in their first leather jacket. Grease? What year was this? Someone said they might be classed as punk. Don't make me laugh!! Gloves off. Punk was UK. From London to Inverness punk rocked the UK, changed it, no-one denies that. You Americans had no interest in it, didn't buy the records, didn't adopt the culture, the fashion... Not until 30 years later are you interested.... Sad, sad, sad... You American wikipedians want to lay claim to the coolest thing but you will never understand it. Tough luck. jcleary 02:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)\
I never said the Pistols were influenced by the Ramones. I said English punk was influenced by the Ramones. Sid was an English punk. The Mick Jones quote clinches it. QED. Grant65 | Talk 17:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record: in a 1995 article in Guitar World about the history of punk rock, Steve Jones describes the July 1976 shows by the Ramones with the words "The Ramones were rocking. It was great!" WesleyDodds 10:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I would say the main problem with the article is how it starts off in New York and says "The origins of New York's punk scene can be traced back to such sources as... yadda yadda yadda" which is fine but when it moves onto British Punk it pretty much claims that Malcolm McLaren invented it after seeing bands in New York,, as if no one had any ideas until he arrived. Influential bands such as the New York Dolls take precedent over equally influential bands such as Roxy Music or even Marc Bolan and David Bowie. The article claims that most bands in england formed in the wake of the ramones playing when it can just as credibly be claimed that most bands formed after seeing the sex pistols play and initially had little to do with the ramones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/134.225.179.204 |134.225.179.204 ]] ([[User talk:134.225.179.204 |talk]]) 16:11, 5 February 2007
Self-evidence is not part of an encyclopedia. Please add a citation as requested, instead of reverting a legitimate request for a citation. Your original research ( WP:NOR is not part of Wikipedia, and culturally relevant subjects need just as much research and support as other topics, whether it is your pet or not. There are some cases where I think self-evident won't cut it, punk rock is not one of them, it's been around a long time and is well researched. KP Botany 14:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This section is blank. It either needs an paragraph introducing the subsections, or needs to be deleted. Ecto 15:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if a list of punk record labels could be set up. I know this will make me sound lazy, but I honestly don't have enough time nor ability to set one up.
That's a lot of labels. If there isn't already a page on wikipedia for punk record labels, there should probably be one. But it would be a mess to make it part of this page. WesleyDodds 16:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
There are a few statments raised during FAR I can't find sources for:
Unless anyone can help, suggest these are cut, rather than loose FA status. + Ceoil 02:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
In regards to the last one; punk rock had a decline in the 80s as many of the original acts moved away from punk rock, to new projects and genres in the 80s such as, postpunk, new wave, gothic rock, new romantic, etc. (See: Public Image Limited, Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Damned, Adam and the Ants, Joy Division, etc, etc) Others like The Heartbreakers and The Dead Boys, both broke up by the time the 1980s hit. The Clash's material from the early 80s is far less critically aclaimed than their 70s material, they also broke up in 1986.
Hardcore is an entirely different form, that has nothing to do with people who were actually in punk rock bands' (with the sole exception of the Misfits, who later bandwaggoned onto Hardcore) that genre has its own article, this one is about punk rock. - Deathrocker 05:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Why should genuine punk rock be demeaned and have to share its article with a movement that they were not a part of, like the American hardcore bands who were unable to sell any albums?... they don't fit the encyclopediac definition of punk rock as mentioned, they don't play the same form of music or have the same influences, etc. Musically, image wise, they are very different. Their only connection is, the hardcore bands claimed to be fans of punk amongst other things... they belong in the article about as much as
New Wave of British Heavy Metal.
Punk rock is a specific form of music. All of the band's you just mentioned are part of mere subgenres like hardcore, anarcho, etc not "punk rock", the style described in this articles infobox or definative of it. They have their own articles for their genres already on here for a reason. It is simply revisionist, unfounded and untrue to claim the likes of Minor Threat, ever played punk rock, they played hardcore, simple as.
Perhaps there should also be an article for all the subgenres of punk rock, giving each subgenre a section and describing what it is, and how it is (distantly) related.
And which two of their albums are generally more critically acclaimed?... two from the 1970s. - Deathrocker 09:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
"They do have the same influences as a lot of UK punk bands - in fact, most were influenced solely by punk at first"
That's the thing though... the punk rock band's took their influence from garage rock, glam rock, rock 'n' roll, pub rock, rockabilly, etc... hardcore band's didn't, they were just influenced by punk itself. So they have very different influences. They're a product.. or a relative of punk, rather than them playing punk rock itself.
Whether x band tries to associate itself with x scene that came and went before it, has nothing to do with whether they are actually a part of it musically. NWOBHM took influence from punk but played a form very different from it, as did hardcore, those two are in the same boat in regards to their relation to punk music. - Deathrocker 17:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
A hugely uneducated guess there on your part there. Firstly, Crass are anarcho.
Sex Pistols are not primarily influenced by the Ramones, they were influenced by bands like the Small Faces, Alice Cooper, New York Dolls, etc. See; the Filth and the Fury DVD for mentions of Glenn's songwriting been influenced by the Small Faces, Jones copying new York Dolls (as well as Vicious saying he was a fan of them) and Lydon citing Cooper and T. Rex.
The Damned are not primarily influenced by the Sex Pistols either, they were influenced by T. Rex, MC5, The Stooges, Screaming Lord Sutch.... basically garage rock, glam and rock n' roll. They state this in interviews on their official DVD, they have never claimed the Pistols as an influence.
Siouxsie and the Banshees attended early Sex Pistols shows, yes. But if you read their Authorized Biography, you would find the thing which the band members shared in common and took influence from musically was David Bowie, T. Rex, Captain Beefheart and The Velvet Underground. (Severin's name even comes from a VU song "Venus In Furs")
Ramones were influenced by garage rock & glam (Dolls, Stooges, MC5) alongside, Bubblegum pop ( Joey Levine) and rock ala The Rolling Stones and The Beatles.
Generation X were influenced by the following, taken straight from the original add ran for band members "Wanted: Lead guitarist and drummer to join bass player and singer/guitarist influenced by Stones/ New York Dolls/ Mott etc." [2]... again rock 'n' roll and glam rock.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. - Deathrocker 18:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Why do we now cite Mick Houghton to tell us what Lenny Kaye's Nuggets liner notes say? Surely the liner notes are, themselves, citable. At this rate, we're going to have an infinite regress: next, we'll be finding someone to cite for Mick Houghton saying Lenny Kaye said this. - Jmabel | Talk 02:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Have sandboxed an alternative structure here, more or less alons the lines suggested by Justinboden86 above. Idea is to give the early scenes and subgenres their own sections, for clarity and to allow easier expansion later. I'm not married to it though; suggestions welcome. + Ceoil 21:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The article is looking a lot better now, but it still is very anglophone-centric. I'd like to see at least brief mentions of how it spread worldwide in the late 70s and early 80s (This is already mentioned in the intro, but nowhere in the main article). I think that the "Emergence of other scenes" and "The second wave" sections would be very appropriate, and are already configured in a way so as to make mention of other countries and bands fairly easy. To get into specifics, I know that Germany has always had a fairly active scene, and France and Japan produced some notable bands in the late 70s like Métal Urbain and The Stalin. Does anyone know enough about this to add some information? - Switch t 11:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The word legacy has two meanings, one of which is;
As alot of the bands in that section's place within the punk rock is highly contested by fans and bands who were part of the original movement (I'm talking about blink-182, Simple Plan, Good Charlotte, Green Day and Sum 41)... just "Recent developments" should be used, for the sake of WP:NPOV and so there can be NO confusion or misinterpretations.
Also "recent developments" by itself, does not attempt to glorify or flower these bands role and give them "credibility". Its just neutral. - Deathrocker 06:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You have managed to turn a page about a musical phenomena that occured mostly in the UK into a USA this, USA that article. The UK even takes third place in order of importance because of one Australian band! I'm afraid trash like this isn't worth reading but despite the best efforts to update the article by people who know what they are talking about, the hordes of patriotic middle class yanks who haven't a clue about anything keep dragging the article down.
Take pictures for example:
USA: Stooges, Ramones, CBGB, Devo, Black Flag, Sonic Youth, Green Day
UK: Pistols, Clash, Cock Sparrer
Suggest replacing USA pictures with: Bowie, Damned, Roxy Club, Joy Division, Crass, Smiths, Active Slaughter
Yanks, please start a seperate article about your own dull plodding rock'n'roll scene. Stutley 12:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
A quick rant: UK punk sucks anyway, they havent produced a worthwhile or noteable band in years. I cant believe you want to put up pics of Bowie, Joy Division, and The Smiths.
It may be a U.K. phenomenon but it is an American legay, and that's why the page is more u.s.-centric. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoponpop69 ( talk • contribs) 05:22, 14 January 2007. That's your POV. Mitsos 09:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I find it funny tht you say it's an attitude as much as anything, because it seems that all the U.K. cared about was dressing in retarded bondage clothings and ridicolous haircuts. It was an image thing, and once punk became passe no new bands followed. You seem to admit this yourself as you say its as much an attitude, and when it passe no new bands emerged. Because the american punks understood its not how you dress and potray yourself, but that its the actual music, we contined to get worthwhile bands. By the time of the Gilman scene in America there was no scene to talk about in the U.K. Hoponpop69 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It's great to see a better compromise between UK and US punk in the article, the article seems a lot more balanced. Just a minor point i wanted to bring up. Does anybody think it's worth mentioning the english political climate when talking about the UK scene? From my understanding, the right wing policies of Margerat Thatcher where getting England out of an economic rut but at drastic social cost for common workers and labourers. That there were a lot of strikes and fights between the government and the unions that was having devastating effects on family (this is mostly from me watching the 'Filth and the Fury' DVD and the film 'Billy Elliot'). I understood that punk was a reaction to this, a mass act of rebellion against authoirty that was becoming a little totalitarian (not in a Stalin sense, of course). Is there anyone who knows much about this that might be able too add something to the article that will help explain why punk had such a huge explosion and then was dropped by the time the 80s started? Or anyone who disagrees with me. thanks ( Justinboden86 04:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC))
We need someone willing to write a graf or so on emo--I would think as its own subsection in the bottom "Legacy and recent developments" subsection.— DCGeist 06:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
People, please keep in mind our priority is breadth on the subject of punk rock. There's only so much depth that we need before we end up directing people to other articles anyways. WesleyDodds 11:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
please can one of you guys help me i am writting a history essay on punk rocks influence on politics of the 70's if someone could help me it would be great because i need to use sources, and i would like to hear from some real liberal free thinkers. please post before the 28th as that is when my assingment is due thanks alot?????
Please rearrange the ideas in the first paragraph of section "Characteristics" into a better order. The paragraph needs a decent flow to be readable.
The introduction is ok.
What the hell does 'while also making a rhetorical fetish of the Sex Pistols slogan "No Future"' mean, anyway? Rintrah 09:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The split between the Emergence of new scenes (supposedly dating from 1977, through Crime began in 1976) and The second wave sections is a conceptual train wreck. Anyone have a problem with merging the two (under The second wave header), while maintaining the distinction between those bands that further established the "classic punk" sound and those that deliberately expanded the sonic palette on the way to post-punk?— DCGeist 11:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
We've got Australia in the first graf of our lede. If it's going to stay there (and my sense is that it should), we need more coverage of the scene, particularly its early days. Right now we've got a poignant quote from The Saints in the Protopunk section and that's it. Radio Birdman, Cheap Nasties/ The Scientists, The Victims—I know I don't have a feel for this. If you do, dial in.— DCGeist 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me like most punks have a libertarian bent, which would make far right wing not left wing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Puddytang ( talk • contribs) 04:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
I'm not sure if the left wing is trying to take credit for Punk or if someone is trying to denigrate punk by associating it with the left-wing. The phrase links to an article on Punk Ideologies. From the way its written, it seems like it links to an article on left wing ideologies. It seems to me like the common denominator in punk ideologies is anti-establishmentarianism. Sorry if my post confused you, what I intended to do was question whether it is really accurate or neccessary to say that most punks are left-wingers. I don't have authoritative sources either way, but my personal experience leads me to believe that this is not true. The article on Punk ideologies seems to back up my opinion, punk idiologies run the gamut from communism to anarchism to straight-edge conservatism. "usually left-wing ideologies" seems at the very least like an oversimplified way to describe a complex subject. But you may be right about libertarians being left-wingers ;) It's just a gut reaction on my part that Punk is its own thing, not just some manifestation of the left-wing. Weren't punks rebelling against the excesses of left-wing acid rock? and isn't a DIY attitude usually associated with the right wing? I don't want you to say that most punks are right wingers, but this cuts both ways: what cites do you have that can back us the statement that most punk ideologies are left-wing? This may have been true in the 80s and early 90s, but I don't think it describes the attitudes of todays young skater punks. --Thanks Puddytang 05:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If Punk is considered anti-establishment, wouldn't it appear to follow a 'true' anarchist ideology (not the commercialised 'anarchy' idea of the Sex Pistols) involving an avoidance of centralised power? 82.18.227.37 12:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
In the last paragraph, "many straight-edgers despise corporate punk". Look at the article on straight edge for a good explanation. I think it would be good to link to this article somewhere, but the way it's put in there makes it seem like "straight-edgers" is a term for punk fans. Many punks despise corporate punk, I don't think this is just limited to straight-edgers. Puddytang 05:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
"The first wave of punk aimed to be aggressively modern. Distancing itself from the bombast and sentimentality of early 1970s rock, it went even further." futher in what direction? I'm not sure this is a complete sentence. Puddytang 06:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Somebody should check that the "the"s that are part of band names are capitalized, and that the ones that are not aren't. Otherwise all the grammer and punctuation looks really good. Great article! Puddytang 06:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This section needs to be split and cut down. I removed the last paragraph because it's extra detail that can be moved to the post-punk article itself if necessary. As part of a summary in a broader article it's unnecessary. And while I prefer post-punk myself, New Wave was definitely the more notable and popular style of the two and needs more written about it, maybe like noting synthpop's roots in the punk aesthetic (ie. that while anyone can pick up a guitar, it's much easier to be DIY with a keyboard). WesleyDodds 07:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Opinions: Do we need individual sentences where appropriate on each of the following, which appear in our very fine infobox, but nowhere in the article: Christian punk, Nazi punk, anti-folk, deathcountry, and (I'm truly in pain) jazz punk? If they have no place in this, the punk rock article, then do they belong in the punk rock infobox? (If I pick up the violin and start playing, after not having touched it for 15 years, I'm instantly jazz punk, right? Or classical punk? Punkical?) Ah...and then (on a happier, if no less discordant note) there's No Wave. Which surely belongs both in the article (as it currently does) and in the infobox (somewhere). Let's remember, vis-a-vis U.S. post-punk's notability, that Sonic Youth came out of the No Wave scene. (Not to mention--my violin stylings would have made me a No Wave star).— DCGeist 11:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
From where exactly you people got the information that Bad Religion is a Pop Punk Band???
I agree, especially since in the early 80's, the context that it is reffering too, they were a Hardcore band. Hoponpop69 00:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This section makes no mention of the older meanings of the word, which are relevant. In the nineteenth and earlier twentieth century, punky meant rotten - and punk was rotten wood. The Oxford English Dictionary has a first quote from 1795. I'm guessing John Lydon knew of the older meaning when he chose Johnny Rotten as his stage name. The John Lydon article says it refers to his rotten teeth, and I don't have a reference for my claim. Anyone? -- Joesydney 11:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[In November 1975], the group's identity had to be finalized. As part of this process of transformation and group bonding, individual names were changed first. Although they'd known Lydon for three months, he was so secretive and mistrustful that he hadn't told the group his surname. John was always spitting, blowing his nose and inspecting his rotting teeth. Steve Jones found this repulsive and used to say to John, "Your teeth are rotten, you look Rotten." The name was annoying enough to stick. (Jon Savage, England's Dreaming, p. 129)
— DCGeist 12:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
These lines from The Cure's "Play for Today" are as good a definition of the Punk ethos as I have seen:
-- Joesydney 11:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Discharge and UK hardcore are not mentioned. Discharge started at the same time as US hardcore and created a much harder, rawer sound, US hardcore sounds tame by comparison. In terms of influence, go to the Wasted festival which attracts as many foreign as UK punks, I defy you to spot a leather jacket without Discharge written on it somewhere. You won't see too many Black Flag or Minor Threat logos. Stutley 23:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This is 62 kb too long. Sections in this that already have their own article should be shortened, particularly the post punk section. Hoponpop69 22:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree its getting too long. Its because a bunch of garbage has been added about subgenres (instead of keeping each one brief).
Information about actual punk rock (such as the most high profile tour, the Anarchy Tour in the 70s; featuring the Pistols, the Clash, the Damned and the Heartbreakers) has been sacrificed for nonsense about non notable hardcore subgenres such as queercore. - Deathrocker 08:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to condense some wording, particularly in the New Wave/post-punk and hardcore sections. I think we can get the same points across in less space, and if necessary I'll move some material to the main articles. WesleyDodds 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, if we are allowing sections for distant and barely notable nonesense like queercore, etc. then where is the section in this article for gothic rock?... that form of music is FAR more linked with the encyclopediec defintion of the genre directly through bands such as Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Damned, UK Decay, Alien Sex Fiend (Nik Fiend was in a '77 punk act), etc. - Deathrocker 21:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
We should set a limit to how long the sections on subgenres can be. I agree that that is causing most of this clutter. Sections like pop punk and anarcho punk seem to be at an appropriate level. Hoponpop69 22:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Despite one editor's campaign of historical revisionism, hardcore punk is still a form of punk music, hence the word punk in the name. The first hardcore punk bands were considered part of the overall punk scene, and were were around before the musical term hardcore even came into existence. It was not until later (maybe the 1990s, I'm not sure) when there was a clear split between the punk rock scene and the baggy pant/wifebeater vest/baseball cap metal-influenced hardcore scene. Punk music has always been pretty diverse; just look at some of the first punk bands: The Ramones, Sex Pistols, The Clash and The Damned. They were not the same at all, and they were different from many punk bands to follow. Spylab 21:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not denying that it is a subgenre; because it is. Its just not one and the same as punk rock, as I have shown above. The so called "spikey haired" leather jacket kids (which is also debatable) you are talking about allegedly across America, were not in the original punk bands or even part of the NY scene of the 70s (who moved into art punk and standard rock eras), there is no evidence to show it... Richard Hell & co didn't shave their heads and start playing hardcore all of a sudden.
As I said, the only real connection between the original US punk movement in NY and the Hardcore one of the 80s is the Misfits, and they stood out as a sore thumb in both (hense why they are now refered to as "horror punk"). - 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Not misinformed at all. Did you actually read what I said or are you been lazy?
How is that denying that hardcore bands then went on to play CBGBs after the original movement in NY died?.. that is exactly what it says. Incase you were blissfully unaware, the punk scene in New York is from way before that ( Punk_rock#New_York).. with different people, different scenesters, and differemt bands playing music with different characteristics to hardcore. Understand?
My argument was; just because a band played CBGBs after the original NY movement died out to keep the club open, doesn't mean what they were playing is the encylopedic definition of punk. (and I used Korn as an example, who have also played CBGBs post-70s)
And as for this comment, I'm sorry but YOU seem misinformed:
How is that denying that hardcore bands then went on to play CBGBs after the original movement in NY died?.. that is exactly what it says. Incase you were blissfully unaware, the punk scene in New York is from way before that ( Punk_rock#New_York).. with different people, different scenesters, and differemt bands playing music with different characteristics to hardcore. Understand?
My argument was; just because a band played CBGBs after the original NY movement died out to keep the club open, doesn't mean what they were playing is the encylopedic definition of punk. (and I used Korn as an example, who have also played CBGBs post-70s)
And as for this comment, I'm sorry but YOU seem misinformed:
How can it be history revised as "definative" of punk rock all of a sudden in the 80s, when its already happen there with entirely different people in the 1970s? Read; Punk_rock#New_York, what you are describing is definative of hardcore, and I'm guessing your POV is coming from that of a hardcore scenester, if like you say you have worked with hardcore acts. - Deathrocker 22:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Wrong;
punk rock aggressive form of rock music that coalesced into an international (though predominantly Anglo-American) movement in 1975–80. Often politicized and full of vital energy beneath a sarcastic, hostile facade, punk spread as an ideology and an aesthetic approach, becoming an archetype of teen rebellion and alienation. [3]
* The Ramones, Ramones (1976) * The Saints, I'm Stranded (Aust. 1976; U.S. 1977) * The Sex Pistols, Never Mind the Bollocks (1977) * The Clash, The Clash (U.K. 1977; U.S. 1979) * The Damned, Damned Damned Damned (1977) * Wire, Pink Flag (1977) * Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Scream (1978) * Pere Ubu, The Modern Dance (1978) * X-Ray Spex, Germ Free Adolescents (1978) * The Buzzcocks, Singles Going Steady (1979) [4]
Doesn't say a word about hardcore. - Deathrocker 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all.. I suggest you actually read what I've wrote on this talkpage before addressing me with your misinformed banter, along with repeating some correct parts I have already stated above (for the second time) as I said;
However, you have no evidence for the hardcore related stuff you're spouting, such as claiming they were very closely entwined.. when it is clear that the only band that bridges the two is the Misfits.. who moved away and changed their musical characteristics. As I said, the likes of Richard Hell and co didn't suddenly shave their hair and start playing hardcore.
Those bands played CBGBs to keep the club from going out of business; even though they were musically alien to the band's who played their in the 70s... That is what all club's do. - Deathrocker 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I have plenty of books thanks, try picking up "Punk." by Colegrave and Sullivan; learn a thing or two about what you are talking about. Includes content that has been authorised by numeous punk sources (such as the Filth and the Fury) and most of it is around 100 first hand account interviews of bands and people who were there in the punk rock movement.
400 pages, not a single mention of hardcore... nor Black Flag, Bad Brains, Minor Threat, etc. They're not listed in "Prinipal people and bands" either, sorry. Looks like you're wrong.
Also try the likes of "Vacant: A Diary of the Punk Years 1976-1979" by Nils Stevenson, "Please Kill Me" (more first hand account of the actual moment in NY) there are numerous books. - Deathrocker 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he is. I've cited three very well known books there and there are PLENTY more if needed (even the likes of Joy Division and post-punk are mentioned in it.)
A couple of people who weren't there, claiming hardcore was the same thing on Wikipedia Vs. 100 first hand accounts from bands, actual musicians who were involved in the orginal movement, etc laying out the history of what punk is, in numerous books on the subject... and without a mention of people involved in hardcore.
Hmmm tough one to decide who is more likely correct.
I'm not denying that its a subgenre, I'm pointing out the simple fact that it is not the same thing as punk rock nor does it have the same musical characteristics; hense the reason why it or the people involved with hardcore are not mentioned in those books... if it was part of it then it would have been included. - Deathrocker 23:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned three books. And you arguments are weak... why do you think it mentions that time frame genius? Do you think they just said "oh... any time frame will do, lets miss certain bands out for fun". No; they set that timeframe because that is when punk rock historically happened.
Why do you think there are books specialising on the topic of Hardcore music?... if as you claim, its just the same movement as punk rock, why would people go to the effort of writing the likes of American Hardcore, about hardcore bands and the people involved in that scene?
Also, Anarcho-punk is an other SUBGENRE, get it? Its not actual punk rock itself.. its a different form of music (known as a subgenre) Crass aren't difinative of punk rock; however, it could be strongly argued they're definative of anarcho. - Deathrocker 00:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I can understand why somebody might say 1977 as its final year; either way 77 or 79, its still the 70s.. so you basically proved my point, thanks. Also I'd thoroughly enjoy to see the look on Siouxsie Sioux's face if you played something by a hardcore band to her and said "artistically, you were the same as this". - Deathrocker 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Deathrocker, like WesleyDodds before, has noted the close relationship between punk and goth. Is someone knowledgeable willing to write a little bit on the topic? There's nothing sacrosanct about the present organization of the Subgenres and derivative forms section; it can be altered as appropriate. And UK82 (aka UK non/post-Oi!/anarcho hardcore) still could use a well-versed editor's contribution.— DCGeist 00:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I think some of the rubbish in the article can be pruned to make room for something that is genuinely connected to the original form of punk in a large way. Gothic rock is clearly closely tied and was originally dubbed "positive punk".
- Deathrocker 22:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel that that information should be moved from here to ther hardcore page? Hoponpop69 05:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Emo is a subgenre of punk rock. Its roots are found in the mid-eighties D.C. scene, but many other contemporary American punk bands echoed its characteristic frantic, wailing big-guitar sound. (Tristan Laughter, quoted in Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo, by Andy Greenwald [p. 3])
- In the late 1990s and early 2000s, more and more sXers were influenced by emo music. There have always been connections between emo and hardcore.... Bands such as Rites of Spring and Embrace added feelings and emotions besides anger and aggression to hardcore. While emo packs an emotional punch similar to hardcore, its melodic music and sensitive lyrics attract a more mellow fan base and encourage introspection rather than militancy around any issue. (Straight Edge: Hardcore Punk, Clean-Living Youth, and Social Change, by Ross Haenfler [p. 116)
- [Travis] Morrison rants, screams and even sings prettily over a mish-mash of sounds that draws from D.C. punk's long history: Minor Threat's jittery hardcore, Rites of Spring's fractured emo.... (entry on the Dismemberment Plan, in The New Rolling Stone Album Guide: Completely Revised and Updated 4th Edition, ed. by Nathan Brackett [p. 244])
It should go onto post-hardcore and I exported it there [6] before Geist added it back to this article... maybe hardcore punk but even thats a bit of a stretch. its non notable, non direct decendant of punk rock.. and wouldn't ever be there unless the above user added it.
This is how distant that part is;
It doesn't belong here at all, only the major events of significance; post-punk, oi!, hardcore, pop-punk do... this junk isn't needed and there are even 80s hard rock acts that have more in common with the article subject (such as Guns N' Roses one of the biggest sellers of all time, who cited these punk acts as prime influences) - Deathrocker 12:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You don't know what I do or don't like Mr. Epitaph (I've never stated my favourite or least favourite bands), that isn't what editing an encyclopedia is about to me. It is about factually correct information. So I suggest you keep your advice about people having "tastes" for this or that to yourself.
I don't really have time to squable about "conformity" on Wikipedia because its all I can do not to burst out laughing. But anyways, you are factually incorrect in your estimations; "most punk bands of today" aren't emo or emo influenced at all, there are some bands placing themselves under the post-hardcore tag but again; that information belongs on the hardcore article, as that is what it is a subform of; you don't see rock 'n' roll's article cluttered up with rubbish about brutal death metal (and they are like this case, very distantly related).
The section in question is second-wave of emo, anyways... that isn't the same as what is (incorrectly) refered to emo today. The most "dominant" and commerically successful subsidary that claims to be associated with punk rock, is still pop punk, with the likes of Green Day. - Deathrocker 13:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Emo is derivative of hardcore punk, but it's notably is so prominent that it has a place in an article about punk rock as a whole. WesleyDodds 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You're talking nonsense again Geist. As I've pointed out, numerous reputable punk historians don't mention hardcore in their books.. let alone a distant second wave American subsection of post-hardcore. (that's place in the article is in dispute here)
You have provided no sources to prove that emo is a direct decendant of punk rock at all; it is linked to the hardcore movement specifically, you can even find this out in the sources article of Emo (music)
Joy Division are an example of a band who "came out of punk" playing a different style. Embrace are an example of a band who "came out of hardcore" playing a different style. Understand? If you're so interested in hardcore then why not edit that article? Is what I'm wondering. - Deathrocker 22:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You keep missing factual basis. Unlike emo, alternative rock is derived from punk rock itself, read Alternative rock#Alternative rock in the United Kingdom. Morrisey of the Smiths was in Slaughter and the Dogs, Robert Smith of the Cure was in Siouxsie & the Banshees, etc for example, do the connections to post-punk and gothic rock really need going over again?.... that is how alternative rock is directly derived from punk rock (the specific form, which has its characteristics described in the infobox) Hense why it is included and is a subgenre.
Emocore has no such ties, and is not directly derived from the form of music described here... it is however, tied in with the American post-hardcore and hardcore movements. Those forms that emo are derived from have articles, lists, catagories, infoboxes, etc of their own, you are portraying extreme bias against them by marginalising the hardcore article.... all articles are to be regarded on the same level. This article is about punk rock, not hardcore.
Not some inane garbage of "oh everything is punk rock"... regardless of the fact that it is NOT derived from the form described here... you are attempting to make things contradict itself. - Deathrocker 13:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't ignore it; the less prominent, American form of alternative rock may be derived from hardcore, perhaps. But as I have shown above, the most famous bands in (British; post-punk, gothic rock, Smiths, Cure, etc) alternative rock are directly derived from punk rock specifically. The latter part isn't suddenly erased because of what Americans were doing. Hense why it is a subgenre.
Emo doesn't have that. There is no evidence to show that it had it origins and/or was dervied from anywhere else but, specifically the post-hardcore and hardcore movements. Its own article states that. As I said... you are attempting to marginalise the hardcore article. - Deathrocker 12:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You are attempting to marginalise the hardcore article, that genre has existed for what? Over 25 years, yet you are acting as if genres that are diectly derived from that form of music can't just stand in that article alone. That is the form emo is derivative of (read its article), that is where it belongs as well as mention of America's form of alternative.
The Alternative movement in the UK was heavily derived from punk specifically, with parts of it (gothic rock and post-punk) intertwining. Bauhaus for example, don't take influence from "post-punk" because they were head to head and intertwined with it, like much of the early alternative movement which happened just after punk. A large part of their sound is derived from punk rock; and many of the people in these bands were actually in the original punk groups as well [7]. - Deathrocker 13:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Ummm no. Hardcore isn't punk rock; its a subgenre of it called hardcore, that was and still is my factual point. Just as punk rock isn't simply "rock and roll", its a subform, with different characteristics and a different name.
By who?... a couple of Americans in the 80s who didn't know any better? If a couple of Americans suddenly decide Cola isn't any different to straight ahead Water should we suddenly re-write the H20 article with that in mind? Of course not. That certainly isn't the encyclopedic definiton, as has been pointed out before. Anyway... no point in covering that ground again....
My point with the "marginalising" comment is this; Emo is regarded as a subform of hardcore, and came out of movements pertaining to that. Correct? Well guess what, hardcore has its own article where information about one of its own subgenres can go. In a sense, it seems like you're saying "oh, the hardcore article isn't good enough... lets bring crap about emocore into the punk rock article instead. Even though factually it isn't directly derived from this specific form at all". Why on earth should that happen?
We're talking something that is three times removed from this actual form, there are subgenres of heavy metal that are more directly derived from punk rock. - Deathrocker 20:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This is directed to the anonymous editor who keeps adding factually incorrect information to the Oi! section (in case he doesn't check the talk page on his anonymous IP account). Here are some direct quotes from Garry Bushell, who was right in the middle of the Oi! scene and would know better than anyone:
1) Oi never suffered from Nazi violence the way Sham 69 and 2-Tone had; the ag that blemished those early Oi! gigs was strictly football related. 2) Oi's legacy is a world-wide street-punk movement which is vocally pro-working class and against racism, unemployment, state bureaucracy and repression. ...
... Oi found itself on the sharp end of the sort of tabloid crucifixion usually reserved for the more macabre mass murderers. Corrupting its meaning, the same media immediately tried to bury it. Inevitably their version of events was as watertight as a kitchen colander in a tropical monsoon. They said Oi was for skinheads (but it was always more than that), that all skins were Nazis (and only a minority ever were) and that therefore Oi was the Strasser brothers in steel-capped boots (but the bands were either socialists or cynics…).
This comes from http://www.garry-bushell.co.uk/oi/index.asp Spylab 17:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Why are there pictures of Sonic Youth and Green Day in the punk article? Kylie is more "punk" than either of those and she's a talentless whore (in the media sense of course). Stutley 23:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It is astute of you to realise Kylie (who recorded with The Bad Seeds in their prime) has more incommon with the articles subject than Green Day do. Unfortunetly however, there are no laws against Californians pretending the music they play is related to punk, hense its inclusion in the article.
Rumour has it DCGeist is planning to levy for "Weird Al" Yankovic and the Village People's inclusion and image in the article, because obviously they're totally related to punk... no Americana history revisionism here. - Deathrocker 10:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Was that a Personal Attack? Inhumer 11:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This page should also credit raggae as a major influence on punk music as it was highly evident in some of the early punk bands like The Clash and the Dead Kennedys and also in some newer punk like Rancid but is found, however small, in nearly every punk band Thesnoo 20:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we should cut down on the "subgenres and derivative forms" and "legacy and recent developments" subsections. Some of the sections are even looking better than the main articles on their subjects. All we really need to do is give a vague overview and explain the development and differences from punk rock proper. All this excess is in danger of giving undue weight to recent history. Anyone think most of the information on subgenres, derivative forms, legacy and recent development should be moved to main articles ( punk revival would need an article), and these sections should be shortened? ~ Switch t 07:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I think some sections could be slightly shorter (Post-punk, Oi!) in order to act as more effetive summaries, but beyond that the emphasis on subgenres and derivative forms seems alright by me. WesleyDodds 22:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Napalm Death, who were one of the originators of the grindcore style, started out as a peace punk band, sounding like many of their peers in the mid 80's. Similarly, other early grind bands such as Repulsion and especially Sore Throat had a strong punk background, so I'm curious as to wether any mention should be made of them, either in the hardcore section or the fusion section.
What is goth punk? Is there anything partiularly goth about AFI? I don't hear it if there is. Celtic punk yes, it makes perfect sense to inlude it there (Flogging Molly's success and all). But I don't know if goth punk exists, or means anything if it does, let alone being a major recent trend. Thoughts? ~ Switch t c g 14:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Its a non notable neologism, not an actual genre. The term is redundant and was likely created by Warped Tour kids to describe any pop punk/Warpedcore band who wears black.
Gothic rock and Deathrock itself, came out of and was derived from punk... it also has a large chunk of those characteristics remaining anyway; so saying "goth punk" like something new is being added that wasn't there before, is stupid and uneducated. Especially when these kids apply it to bands like AFI who's most commerically successful album has more in common with straight ahead 80s new wave. - Deathrocker 12:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You added false information back into the article, "goth punk" blatantly doesn't exist as a genre. Yet you added the pargraph back with this summary;
(*sigh* goth punk term is used to distinguish the AFI sound from the rest of the punk rock section...perhaps can be reworded but AFI are very influential and big. Celtic punk valid too.) [8]
Now what you've added, makes it look like its saying AFI are influenced by MCR.
And why are Dropkick Murphys mentioned after a sentence about AFI mixing elements of alternative rock with hardcore (which they didn't do until 1998 with the A Fire Inside EP) and even mention of MCR who didnt form until into the 2000s?
It makes the whole pop-hardcore section look worthless with its sloppyness. - Deathrocker 20:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
They seem way to long compared to the other subections on genres. Hoponpop69 07:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I started an article on Better Badges, who originated and then made most punk badges in 76-83, as well as printing many fanzines. It was promptly deleted. I've managed to get it restored, but it's still on dodgy ground. If anyone, especially admins, who remembers it would care to comment on the the AfD page or otherwise contribute, it would be appreciated. Wwwhatsup 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do people "Green Day's not punk?" When there a lot of other bands that say that they're punk when they're not. Starting with Simple Plan they're no where near punk rock, but they still say "we're a punk band." So think about the other bands that call themselves punk that aren't before say that about Green Day.-- 69.113.131.124 22:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hope I'm not stirring up a bunch of crap by doing so, but I took the liberty of replacing one of the music samples, something I also did in the hardcore punk article. I removed the link to Dead Kennedy's "Holiday in Cambodia" and replaced it with Bad Brains "Pay to Cum", which I think is a much clearer example of hardcore punk music. In fact, I really don't think the pre-In God We Trust DKs are hardcore punk at all, but rather, are a good example of pre-hardcore West Coast punk. (With IGWT, of course, their sound changed noticeably.)
I was looking for somewhere to move the DKs sample to, but I noticed that there really isn't a section on early non-New York American punk, which is unfortunate, as a lot of these bands were historically important (and still have a lot of listeners). Specifically, I'm talking about bands like The Dils, The Avengers, pre-IGWT Dead Kennedys, X, The Germs, The Bags, The Screamers, etc. This scene was distinct from hardcore (and pretty distinct from what was going on in New York at the time as well) and lasted from roughly 1976-1980, after which it was largely eclipsed by hardcore. In the context of the Los Angeles scene, it was what was referred to as the "Hollywood" scene as opposed to the hardcore "beach" or "suburban" punk scene. At some point, I'll have to dig into some books and add a section on this, but if anybody else is so inclined, have at it. Peter G Werner 02:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, just wanted to say i added an addition to the article called "Deterioration in Punk Rock". This is just some theories I've been hearing lately and I thought it would be a cool idea to add it to the article as an extention of information. let me know what you think.
who keeps deleting my new section in the article? I keep adding it in and someone keeps taking it out... if you think its inappropriate to have this addition to the article, and feel its not necessary or something, please explain why in this discussion page so that we can find out what will work best.. don't just delete it for no reason..-unsigned
The phrase "NDW brought together a diverse audience" is very right. The following "with members of the Krautrock and alternative scenes on one hand, and Nazi skinheads on the other" isn't right at all (and there is no citation, correspondingly). Nazi skinheads didn't play any role in the NDW. NDW started as punk rock with lyrics sung in german ( Abwärts, Fehlfarben) and then became mainstream with acts like Ideal, Extrabreit and Nena. The remarkable fact is that german youth listened to german songs for the first time after World War II. That brought Krautrock acts back to life and opened a market for protest song acts, too. Nazi skinheads don't have anything to do with NDW, except for the fact that they belonged to its consumers. But that is true for almost every popular musical style; thus it doesn't belong into the article.
Please excuse my unpolished writing style. My English has become a bit rusty over the years in Berlin. -- Jochim Schiller 15:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
From the article:
Meanwhile, Patti Smith, Siouxsie Sioux, Ari Up, Pauline Murray, Nina Hagen, Gaye Advert, Poly Styrene, and other punk vocalists, songwriters, and instrumentalists introduced a new brand of femininity to rock music: "They adopted a tough, unladylike pose that borrowed more from the macho swagger of sixties garage bands than from the calculated bad-girl image of bands like The Runaways. They went beyond the leather outfits to the bondage gear of Sioux and the straight-from-the-gutter androgyny of Smith. They articulated a female rage that surpassed the anger of the women's movement of the sixties".
This is cited as Strohm (2004), p. 188. Is this list of performer's Strohm's or ours? The wording here suggests that Strohm's "they" refers to all of these. I suspect not. (The one that had me thinking about this is Nina Hagen, certainly not conventionally feminine, but also not very punk.) - Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I recently added a section at the bottom of the Recuperation (sociology) page, concerning punk rock. Perhaps something along these lines might be relevant on this site?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.208.19 ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 March 2007
Why is there an article about Emo? Emo is, did not come from, and well never be Punk Rock. Black Flag, Green Day(pre American Idiot, which one can argue is Emo, even with its politcal connentations), The Offspring, The Clash, The Ramones, These are the REAL Punk Rock bands. Think about it this way, Punk rock is anti-establishment, as in giving everything a big fuck you. Perhaps it Emo is from Grunge(lyrics about emotions and how you feel about your girlfriend and complaining about stupid things) and If you argue this, need I mind you that Emo bands like Hawthorne Heights even mention cutting wrists in one of their songs? How would you think bands like the Misfits would feel if they heard Emo came from Punk Rock? Some "Punk" bands are actually Emo bands, like Good Charlotte, Good Charlotte is an Emo band, I am so glad I didn't see anything in this article about them, but if I look for a list of Punk Bands and I see Good Charlotte...I'm deleting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.129.74.38 ( talk • contribs) 20 March 2007.
Hey, little girl
I wanna be your boyfriend
Sweet little girl
I wanna be your boyfriend
Do you love me babe?
What do you say?
Next time I'll listen to my heart
Next time, well I'll be smart
That girl could still be mine
But I'm tired of the hurt
Tired of tryin'
I'm tired of the pain
Tired of tryin'
I'm tired of cryin'
Hanging out on Second Avenue
Eating chicken vindaloo
I just want to be with you
I just want to have something to do
You guys aren't very bright. 'Emo' refers to 'emotive hardcore', with hardcore (punk) obviously being a genre of punk rock. Green Day is not a hardcore band or an emocore band and neither is Good Charlotte; I wouldn't refer to Green Day as truly punk in truth, rather pop punk throughout and the same with Good Charlotte. Try listening to some Rites of Spring or Embrace (U.S. band), seminal emotive hardcore bands (although Ian Mackaye resented the term). and compare it to Hawthorne Heights before you breathe again, please. I came here originally to enquire why emo is listed as a derivative of punk rock, whereas hardcore is listed as a subgenre. Ciaranpower 17:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this article goes with a very broad definition of punk rock precisely to avoid nitpicky battles like this one. Note that under "subgenres", the very first thing listed is "New Wave", something many people would consider as having an even more tenuous connection with punk than does emo. The only thing that I consider problematic in the organization of this article is that some subgenres/offshoots are listed under "Subgenres and derivative forms", while others are listed under "Legacy and recent developments". Those two sections should either be merged or at least differentiated in a more meaningful way. Peter G Werner 00:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
hmmm....guess I'm alone on this one...looks like we leave as is ( Justinboden86 17:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
Emo is certainly derived from punk, but now with Hawthorne Heights, Fall Out Boy, and the rest, it's become as far from punk as it can be.
What's going on with the in-again out-again revision history on The Kinks and The Who? The Sex Pistols and the Ramones pretty clearly acknowledged their influence. Is this article going to indicate that protopunk just magically sprang up without any roots in older rock and roll? Pkeets 04:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Please quote the relevant section from the source claiming "My Generation" to be inspired by the Kinks. Are you sure Townshend is not talking about the album rather than the song itself? Obviously, a lot of early Who was derivative of the Kinks (which Townshend would be the first to admit), but not much so "My Generation." The Wikipedia article for the song doesn't mention any influence by the Kinks at all, but rather traces its roots and influence to Mose Allison, talking blues, and call-and-response R&B.
Couls someone take care of the headlines, and stuff? SOmeone clever deleted the whole article, and I just can´t get it the way it was before. Thanks
Thanks.
Currently there is an image of an Exploited album to represent the Oi section, this is only there because a certain editor is a fan of that band. The Exploited are not even mentioned in the Oi! article, and are far less representative of the subgenre than others who are more worthy canditates to have their cover in its place. It should be either...
- The Daddy 12:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
So we can agree on "The Good, The Bad & The 4-Skins" as the cover art representative for the Oi! section? - The Daddy 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
hmm...I just wrote my justifications for Ramones not having girl group influences but it didn't post. Nevermind DC changed it to bubblegum pop and i accept that. My only point is that they extensively covered a lot of surf and pop/rock from the sixties, and in some songs such as 'i don't care' you can hear Joey trying to sound like he has an english accent. But they never come close to being like a girl group, lyrically or musically. And Phil Spector did produce them but he also produced the Beatles and John Lennon, who are not like girl groups.
( Justinboden86 06:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC))
Apologies for nominating this article for a neutrality check. It seems someone else noticed the issue at the beginning of the article at the same time and fixed it while I was in the process of nominating it. It looks much better now, my thanks to Dan for that. 66.56.208.21 04:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Lauren
Can someone tell me (user 65.207.126.33) how on the page for the song "anarchy in the u.k." the two statements "-The lyrics can be interpreted as satirical, mocking not only the government but also directionless or purely fashionable rebellion.-" and "-The lyrics are however often viewed as somewhat satirical and light hearted-" are verified? I tried to remove them 2 or 3 times before because that was clear a view of the person that wrote them and not from fact but it kept coming back.You see, i tried to add a characteristic of punk rock that i found to be true of punk rock and punk rockers from living it over the years and researching it, And i find myself charged with vandalism. Its clear that until i see otherwise that topics on wikipedia is controlled by a handful of people that are only concerned with getting their own point of view across on a topic and don't really look at the true facts of the topic all, most of the time. And they only see if the added statements fit-in with what they personally think the truth is behind the topic. Here the example why i this seems to be true. Recurrently, i posted, under the characteristics section of the punk rock page, the following summery... -"Punk rock is a movement that originated as very aggressive rock music and turned into a full blown sociology and ideology that is Characterized by a group or individual that had a nature and mindset that composes of raw chaos and destruction aimed to cause random harm, unease and fear throughout sociality."- (And the reason i did that was just to sum up the characteristics of the punk rock lifestyle, not to vandalize this site in anyway. And the reason i didn't use quotes in with this summery is because, what quote out all the quotes of punk rock would sum up punk rock? Because there is such a varying range of actions and words can come out of the fundamental characteristics of the punk rock mindset and the nature of it.) And then i went on the page of the punk rock song "anarchy in the u.k." and saw the following statements "-The lyrics can be interpreted as satirical, mocking not only the government but also directionless or purely fashionable rebellion.-" and "-The lyrics are however often viewed as somewhat satirical and light hearted-" and thought i would erase them because they were clearly opinionated and bias and did not backed up by quotes from the band that recorded it. Yet, later on, the quotes that were written on the song's had be put back on and what i had wrote had be taken down and i was accused of vandalizing the site. How did i vandalize the site? I didn't use profanity and i didn't erase someones facts, I just added a paragraph trying to shine some truth on punk rock along with everyone else. And, yet somehow, im accused of vandalism and the reason that i think the person ( User: DCGeist ) gave me the warnings is because he at 1st brought up something i wrote on a massage board sometime ago to somehow prove that i was vandalizing this site....,what does something i wrote about punk rock on another website have to with what i write here?, The admins monitor this website. So i guess he is saying im vandalizing this site ether because hes mad at what i said on another site about punk rock or he just wants his point of view across. So if thats the case just ban me because i thought this place was a free place to post and look up facts not to see the view of a handful of people. Because i don't want people to to that don't know what punk rock is truly about to come here and only see mine or someone options and views of it and take it as unbiased truth and facts. (And im sure this will just be erased also but i don't care. and i would like to say that that i didnt bring this up as something personal. This is what seems to be going on and it needs to be brought up.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.126.33 ( talk) 03:09, Jun 24, 2007 (UTC)
Raise your hand if you're sick of reverting vandalism from anonymous IPs every few hours. -- Gimme danger 05:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The good name? What kind of a punk are you? It is a high traffic page. Keep an eye out and revert. SECisek 10:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I wanted to notify people that funny punk is currently up for deletion. To comment, go here. The Ungovernable Force 08:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm worried about the direction of the whole item on Punk Rock. It delves so deeply into rock music in the years leading up to the emergence of punk that it misses the point entirely that punk music in the UK was a sweeping away of all that existed at that point in time. Punk was year zero.
I’m worried that a Californian student (user WesleyDodds) who probably wasn’t even born in 1976 (no offence intended) rejected my Wiki edits where I changed the article to say Punk was predominantly a UK-based movement. I was there and trust me - the USA's involvement was negligible. I was in a punk band called Straitjacket in 1978 and some of my friends were in a punk band called Irrelevant (who went on to become Goodbye Mr Mackenzie). Punk was a UK phenomenon born out of the dreary, pointless, futureless, grey concrete bomb-site that was mid-1970’s Britain. Its musical influence was simply to be the OPPOSITE of any music that was already there - the passionless progressive rock, the silly glam-rock and the throwaway pop. It certainly WAS NOT some nice logical culmination of some obscure New York music scene. Reading this on Wikipedia was the first I’d heard of it and I was there at the time! It just has to make you laugh how history is being rewritten before your very eyes!
I'm also worried that some American revisionists are starting to say the Ramones were an important punk band. I’m not even sure you could even categorise them as punk; they were more comedy retro rock n’ roll than anything else and they dressed like refugees from Grease. They did have a single called ‘Sheena is a Punk Rocker’ but they also had a song called ‘Suzy is a Headbanger’ – I guess that makes them the founders of heavy metal too? It’s so wrong it’s almost laughable.
I’m worried that Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopaedia but it also seems to be a tool for Amercians to rewrite history to suit themselves.
I’m worried that rewriting history to portray America, in a Hollywood kind of way, as first at everything, inventors of everything and best at everything is becoming a national American pastime.
I’m worried that soon the American rewriting of punk history will be complete – a weird upside-down world where the Sex Pistols were imitating the Ramones, Gaye Advert modelled herself on Debbie Harry, the Stranglers were just trying to be Lou Reed and the Clash wanted to be the New York Dolls.
I’m worried that it’s 2006 and I still care.
I’m worried that it’s 2006 and I’m still around.
I’m worried that when I’m not, Wikipedia still will be. -- Jcleary 12:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha! I was waiting for this to happen. Ecto 02:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that punk rock is stuff like the Ramones and stuff, sure father of punk or not but it does not capsulate everything. I couldn't say that bands like Dystopia couldn't be called punk rock, I feel that punk is a more general term for everything. Its honestly a misconception in labeling rather than genre confusion in my opinion.
No I think Ecto is correct in saying that Punk Rock (US) and Punk (UK) were such very different types of music maybe there should be some kind of distinction. If you're going use the term 'Punk Rock' to describe the Ramones, the Talking Heads and Blondie (for heaven's sake!) then it's obviously something very different from 'Punk' - the Sex Pistols, the Stranglers, the Clash, the Adverts, X-Ray Spex, the UK Subs...
In support of this, I remember an interview with Debbie Harry in 1978 or '79 where she was asked why she thought two similar (but not identical) music scenes had appeared on both sides of the Atlantic. She said they were two independent strands that had reached a similar conclusion, or words to that effect. At that time Blondie did not regard themselves as punk (nor did the Ramones I suspect) - this is something that has been made up since then to try to tie the two music scenes together in some scientific WesleyDodds kind of way.
As for the actual terminology, on the streets in the UK we always called it 'Punk'. 'Punk Rock' was a term your Dad might use, maybe in the same breath that he would ask 'What's top of the Hit Parade son?'
In addition there was certainly no cultural similarity between the two scenes at all. I went to see Blondie in the Boston Orpheum Theatre while in the US in 1979 (supported by a comedy band call the Fools). After having been to so many riotous punk gigs in the UK it was weird to see an audience of young people who still dressed like early seventies hippies and who stayed seated right the way through - I felt like I needed to shake them until they woke up. It was really weird sitting down during a gig. Quite comfy though. Jcleary 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
<----moving out to margin
A few, slightly scattered remarks; I'll try not to ramble on too much.:
- Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
While interesting in a useless trivia kind of way, I'm not sure that this section is relevent enough to include in this already-long article. Perhaps it should be its own article (or merged into the punk rock musicians lists), and the Punk Rock article can link to it. Spylab 18:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab
I don't think its really needed, alot fo people who play some form of rock music, or other entertainment use stage names. And of course if the people are notable enough to have an article on here in the first place it will be mentioned there. - Deathrocker 12:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Recent edit calls the band X hardcore. Really? I wouldn't say so at all. - Jmabel | Talk 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
In the article it says "Guitar solos were considered taboo in the early days of punk rock." Johnny Thunders & the Heartbreakers, Richard Hell & the Voidoids, The Dead Boys, Rocket from the Tombs, The Clash, The Damned, and the Sex Pistols all had guitar solos in their earlier albums. I suggest we change it to say "are usually less common in the genre," or just remove the sentence entirely. Dasilva 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know if I should have just deleted this or not. If somebody could let me know the proper process for this, that would be great.
I notice that this paragraph was just added to the article:
Punk music is never played for personal enjoyment; it is an inherently unappealing form of music. It is only ever played to stick it to The Man, and to piss off nuns.
Obviously, this is somebody's personal opinion, and not objective fact. Do I have the authority to just delete it?
Probaly the best band in the L.A scene 1977-1980 along.\ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.26.106.89 ( talk • contribs) 18 September 2006.
A group of articles on songs by Minor Threat are up for deletion. You may be interested in adding to the discussion. -- Switch 14:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you think Green Day is a punk band?
punk rock was of a certain time born of certain condictions that no longer exist, therefore, it cant be exist any more. Green day made power-pop or guitar based pop more popular in the mainstream, allowing bands like weezer and fountains of wayne etc to gain recognition, they really have nothing to do with punk rock at all.
shouldn't the article's name be "Punk Music" sense it's not only limited to Rock?
It's not really point of view, they are widely considered to be the first, and I've got plenty of sources that consider them that. What else do you want? Also I find the article misleading the way it says it originated in england, before it says United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoponpop69 ( talk • contribs) 29 October 2006.
Yes but this page should give a history of the genre, and things like Richman are considered proto punk, where as the Ramones are commonly considered as the original punk rock band. It seems like a history of the genre would be inadequite without pointing out their place in history.-HP69
If I was going to single out one proto-punk band, the immediate ancestor of it all, it would be the New York Dolls. Firstly because of their influence in America and UK (Pistols cited them as a major influence), becuase their members went on to be involved in other punk bands such as the Heartbreakers and the Voidoids, and their style and sound says alot of things early punk said, eg...they dressed up like teenage girls because they didn't care about fitting in and wanted to make a statement that would outrage conservatives, and their sound was very reminiscent of pre-progressive rock and roll. The Stooges are an awesome band, but their psychadelic, drawn out songs do not represent what punk represented. The pop/avant garde sound of the velvets is not what punk is either. By this arguement, the Ramones are a very good contender for the first punk band, becuase they took the new york dolls and then went forward one more step towards punk rock. They ditched the glam, and made short, simple, powerful and fast songs. By comparison, break on through sounds lifeless and wet. Ramones songs kept their energy from start to finish. Yes they had slow songs like 'I Wanna be your Boyfriend' on their first album, but remember on that album they had so many songs that define punk rock...such as Blitzkreig Bop, Judy is a Punk, Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue, Loudmouth, 53rd and 3rd. To contradict Jambel, Ramones WERE punk from when they first started. Even if the term was not used in that sense at the time. I do understand that there are earlier bands that can be considered punk, but they either didn't release anything or whatever they did release it's been gone and buried for decades (eg Dictators). They did not make punk everything that it is, but they were the inspiration for many that did. ( Justinboden86 02:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC))
You Americans are wasting your time. The Sex Pistols were the first Punk band and everyone knows it. So shut it, accept it and move on.. jcleary 01:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The Ramones predated the Pistols very easily, early Ramones gigs are dated to 1974, but the point is that neither were the first punk bands. The Ramones were influenced by the Dolls, the Pistols were influenced by The Vibrators, and even those two had earlier influences. I agree with the arlier post, arguing who the first punk band was is completely impossible and pointless. -- 209.222.250.147 20:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"Some, such as The Misfits (from New Jersey), Black Flag (from Los Angeles), Stiff Little Fingers (from Northern Ireland), and Crass (from Essex)."
That sentence makes no sense. If you want to change the paragraph, edit the list of bands, but leave the sentence structure as it is (see below), or edit it in a way that it will still actually make sense.
"Some, such as The Misfits (from New Jersey), Black Flag (from Los Angeles), Stiff Little Fingers (from Northern Ireland), and Crass (from Essex) would lead the move away from the original sound of punk rock and towards the hardcore subgenre."
Personally, I think all those bands influenced hardcore somewhat, and sound more like hardcore than the Pistols, but please don't make rash edits guys. Switch 03:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The article has it that: Others were violent or anti-romantic in depictions of sex and love, such as The Voidoids' "Love Comes in Spurts". Now, Love comes in Spurts is for me the most poignant song ever written about the unbearable search for love. If you ask me for a romantic song, I'll give you Love Comes in Spurts. To call it anti-romantic is to misunderstand it to the highest degree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.108.237 ( talk • contribs) 7 November 2006.
"While it is thought that the style of punk from the 1970s had a decline in the 1980s…" - Jmabel | Talk 00:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the intention of the sentence, but the phrasing could be cleaned up. There was a popular belief for a while that "Punk [Was] Dead". That can probably be cited easily. WesleyDodds 05:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph beginning "Many of the popular indie rock bands of the 2000s…" is a very limp ending. Punk rock should not end with a fadeout. - Jmabel | Talk 00:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I strongly believe that So-Cal is it's own type of rock and sort of like a mixture between Punk Rock and Pop Punk (think One Buck Short, Green Day, Weezer and Simple Plan) and I think that there should be a page titled 'So-Cal Rock' about this subgenre. Give me sum feedback, what do you thinks people!! Citikiwi 03:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's about time for an archive, as the discussion pasge is getting long and there don't seem to be any contreversial arguements hapening at the moment. I'm not sure how to do it myself so if someone wants to step in for me that would be appreciated. Any objections? ( 58.105.49.186 03:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC))
It's the way of the world, unfortunately, and inevitable of articles as broad as this, but this page has built suffocating cruft. Looking though the history I see an number of respected editors, and I'd request a copy edit from them. Sooner or later this article is going to come up for WP:FAR, and in its current state, it's going to fail IMO. A few of points that need attention:
There have been alot of arguements and contreversy over how punk rock originated, and this is because the article is structured poorly. The chronological organisation of the article does not represent the differences between the New York and London scenes, and by its structure forces one scene to be acknowledged more than the other. Jmbael gave me an idea when he said in the discussion that early punk was more of a scene than a sound. I think he is spot on and I propose that we retitle the history section from the origins and early emergence to 'The New York Scene' and 'The London Scene'. A history of early punk that focuses on location rather than a chronological structure makes more sense because:
I think we should keep the latter part of the article unchanged (although it does need to be expanded), in its chronological order. This is because after 77 punk become more of a sound than a scene. Blondie were reclassified as New Wave, and not long after hardcore emerged. Punk became an international phenonemon, and was no longer limited to one or two cities. Today a punk band forming now would get as much influenced by their NOFX cds than by their local scene. You no longer have to go to CBGBs to see a punk band.
I will let some people discuss this before I go ahead and edit the main page, but I believe it is necessary in order to simplify and clarify the article from what is currently a confusing, jumbled and chaotic piece. ( Justinboden86 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC))
I think what we should do is separate the "Origins" and "Early emergence" sections into three smaller subsections; "United States" (going over the MC5 and Stooges, their influences on what became the NY scene, and the NY scene itself), "United Kingdom" (going over Bowie, Stranglers, The Strand beoming Sex Pistols, etc.) and "Other scenes" (Sydney & Brisbane in Australia, and possibly other scenes like France & Germany, who were influential but I know little about). Anyone like it? -
Switch
t 14:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's fine the way it is, although it could stand to have a little bit more about protopunk and how these various bands set the stage for punk. WesleyDodds 08:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
And an off-topic remark I can't resist, because of earlier discussion on precursors. As I'm writing, I'm listening to a punk show, Sonic Reducer on KEXP, which this week is focused on women in punk. The DJ threw in Suzi Quattro's "48 Crash" and, y'know, if they'd stopped before the bridge it would be one fine 2-minute punk song. Chinn and Chapman. Go figure. - Jmabel | Talk 06:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Bowie has never been a "country" artist. He had some elements of folk rock in his music early on however. - 11:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
shouldnt there be more info about the Velvet Underground, not to mention Misfits or Alec Empire Alex Ov Shaolin 03:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The Ramones were mummy's boys in their first leather jacket. Grease? What year was this? Someone said they might be classed as punk. Don't make me laugh!! Gloves off. Punk was UK. From London to Inverness punk rocked the UK, changed it, no-one denies that. You Americans had no interest in it, didn't buy the records, didn't adopt the culture, the fashion... Not until 30 years later are you interested.... Sad, sad, sad... You American wikipedians want to lay claim to the coolest thing but you will never understand it. Tough luck. jcleary 02:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)\
I never said the Pistols were influenced by the Ramones. I said English punk was influenced by the Ramones. Sid was an English punk. The Mick Jones quote clinches it. QED. Grant65 | Talk 17:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record: in a 1995 article in Guitar World about the history of punk rock, Steve Jones describes the July 1976 shows by the Ramones with the words "The Ramones were rocking. It was great!" WesleyDodds 10:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I would say the main problem with the article is how it starts off in New York and says "The origins of New York's punk scene can be traced back to such sources as... yadda yadda yadda" which is fine but when it moves onto British Punk it pretty much claims that Malcolm McLaren invented it after seeing bands in New York,, as if no one had any ideas until he arrived. Influential bands such as the New York Dolls take precedent over equally influential bands such as Roxy Music or even Marc Bolan and David Bowie. The article claims that most bands in england formed in the wake of the ramones playing when it can just as credibly be claimed that most bands formed after seeing the sex pistols play and initially had little to do with the ramones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/134.225.179.204 |134.225.179.204 ]] ([[User talk:134.225.179.204 |talk]]) 16:11, 5 February 2007
Self-evidence is not part of an encyclopedia. Please add a citation as requested, instead of reverting a legitimate request for a citation. Your original research ( WP:NOR is not part of Wikipedia, and culturally relevant subjects need just as much research and support as other topics, whether it is your pet or not. There are some cases where I think self-evident won't cut it, punk rock is not one of them, it's been around a long time and is well researched. KP Botany 14:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This section is blank. It either needs an paragraph introducing the subsections, or needs to be deleted. Ecto 15:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if a list of punk record labels could be set up. I know this will make me sound lazy, but I honestly don't have enough time nor ability to set one up.
That's a lot of labels. If there isn't already a page on wikipedia for punk record labels, there should probably be one. But it would be a mess to make it part of this page. WesleyDodds 16:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
There are a few statments raised during FAR I can't find sources for:
Unless anyone can help, suggest these are cut, rather than loose FA status. + Ceoil 02:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
In regards to the last one; punk rock had a decline in the 80s as many of the original acts moved away from punk rock, to new projects and genres in the 80s such as, postpunk, new wave, gothic rock, new romantic, etc. (See: Public Image Limited, Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Damned, Adam and the Ants, Joy Division, etc, etc) Others like The Heartbreakers and The Dead Boys, both broke up by the time the 1980s hit. The Clash's material from the early 80s is far less critically aclaimed than their 70s material, they also broke up in 1986.
Hardcore is an entirely different form, that has nothing to do with people who were actually in punk rock bands' (with the sole exception of the Misfits, who later bandwaggoned onto Hardcore) that genre has its own article, this one is about punk rock. - Deathrocker 05:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Why should genuine punk rock be demeaned and have to share its article with a movement that they were not a part of, like the American hardcore bands who were unable to sell any albums?... they don't fit the encyclopediac definition of punk rock as mentioned, they don't play the same form of music or have the same influences, etc. Musically, image wise, they are very different. Their only connection is, the hardcore bands claimed to be fans of punk amongst other things... they belong in the article about as much as
New Wave of British Heavy Metal.
Punk rock is a specific form of music. All of the band's you just mentioned are part of mere subgenres like hardcore, anarcho, etc not "punk rock", the style described in this articles infobox or definative of it. They have their own articles for their genres already on here for a reason. It is simply revisionist, unfounded and untrue to claim the likes of Minor Threat, ever played punk rock, they played hardcore, simple as.
Perhaps there should also be an article for all the subgenres of punk rock, giving each subgenre a section and describing what it is, and how it is (distantly) related.
And which two of their albums are generally more critically acclaimed?... two from the 1970s. - Deathrocker 09:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
"They do have the same influences as a lot of UK punk bands - in fact, most were influenced solely by punk at first"
That's the thing though... the punk rock band's took their influence from garage rock, glam rock, rock 'n' roll, pub rock, rockabilly, etc... hardcore band's didn't, they were just influenced by punk itself. So they have very different influences. They're a product.. or a relative of punk, rather than them playing punk rock itself.
Whether x band tries to associate itself with x scene that came and went before it, has nothing to do with whether they are actually a part of it musically. NWOBHM took influence from punk but played a form very different from it, as did hardcore, those two are in the same boat in regards to their relation to punk music. - Deathrocker 17:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
A hugely uneducated guess there on your part there. Firstly, Crass are anarcho.
Sex Pistols are not primarily influenced by the Ramones, they were influenced by bands like the Small Faces, Alice Cooper, New York Dolls, etc. See; the Filth and the Fury DVD for mentions of Glenn's songwriting been influenced by the Small Faces, Jones copying new York Dolls (as well as Vicious saying he was a fan of them) and Lydon citing Cooper and T. Rex.
The Damned are not primarily influenced by the Sex Pistols either, they were influenced by T. Rex, MC5, The Stooges, Screaming Lord Sutch.... basically garage rock, glam and rock n' roll. They state this in interviews on their official DVD, they have never claimed the Pistols as an influence.
Siouxsie and the Banshees attended early Sex Pistols shows, yes. But if you read their Authorized Biography, you would find the thing which the band members shared in common and took influence from musically was David Bowie, T. Rex, Captain Beefheart and The Velvet Underground. (Severin's name even comes from a VU song "Venus In Furs")
Ramones were influenced by garage rock & glam (Dolls, Stooges, MC5) alongside, Bubblegum pop ( Joey Levine) and rock ala The Rolling Stones and The Beatles.
Generation X were influenced by the following, taken straight from the original add ran for band members "Wanted: Lead guitarist and drummer to join bass player and singer/guitarist influenced by Stones/ New York Dolls/ Mott etc." [2]... again rock 'n' roll and glam rock.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. - Deathrocker 18:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Why do we now cite Mick Houghton to tell us what Lenny Kaye's Nuggets liner notes say? Surely the liner notes are, themselves, citable. At this rate, we're going to have an infinite regress: next, we'll be finding someone to cite for Mick Houghton saying Lenny Kaye said this. - Jmabel | Talk 02:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Have sandboxed an alternative structure here, more or less alons the lines suggested by Justinboden86 above. Idea is to give the early scenes and subgenres their own sections, for clarity and to allow easier expansion later. I'm not married to it though; suggestions welcome. + Ceoil 21:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The article is looking a lot better now, but it still is very anglophone-centric. I'd like to see at least brief mentions of how it spread worldwide in the late 70s and early 80s (This is already mentioned in the intro, but nowhere in the main article). I think that the "Emergence of other scenes" and "The second wave" sections would be very appropriate, and are already configured in a way so as to make mention of other countries and bands fairly easy. To get into specifics, I know that Germany has always had a fairly active scene, and France and Japan produced some notable bands in the late 70s like Métal Urbain and The Stalin. Does anyone know enough about this to add some information? - Switch t 11:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The word legacy has two meanings, one of which is;
As alot of the bands in that section's place within the punk rock is highly contested by fans and bands who were part of the original movement (I'm talking about blink-182, Simple Plan, Good Charlotte, Green Day and Sum 41)... just "Recent developments" should be used, for the sake of WP:NPOV and so there can be NO confusion or misinterpretations.
Also "recent developments" by itself, does not attempt to glorify or flower these bands role and give them "credibility". Its just neutral. - Deathrocker 06:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You have managed to turn a page about a musical phenomena that occured mostly in the UK into a USA this, USA that article. The UK even takes third place in order of importance because of one Australian band! I'm afraid trash like this isn't worth reading but despite the best efforts to update the article by people who know what they are talking about, the hordes of patriotic middle class yanks who haven't a clue about anything keep dragging the article down.
Take pictures for example:
USA: Stooges, Ramones, CBGB, Devo, Black Flag, Sonic Youth, Green Day
UK: Pistols, Clash, Cock Sparrer
Suggest replacing USA pictures with: Bowie, Damned, Roxy Club, Joy Division, Crass, Smiths, Active Slaughter
Yanks, please start a seperate article about your own dull plodding rock'n'roll scene. Stutley 12:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
A quick rant: UK punk sucks anyway, they havent produced a worthwhile or noteable band in years. I cant believe you want to put up pics of Bowie, Joy Division, and The Smiths.
It may be a U.K. phenomenon but it is an American legay, and that's why the page is more u.s.-centric. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoponpop69 ( talk • contribs) 05:22, 14 January 2007. That's your POV. Mitsos 09:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I find it funny tht you say it's an attitude as much as anything, because it seems that all the U.K. cared about was dressing in retarded bondage clothings and ridicolous haircuts. It was an image thing, and once punk became passe no new bands followed. You seem to admit this yourself as you say its as much an attitude, and when it passe no new bands emerged. Because the american punks understood its not how you dress and potray yourself, but that its the actual music, we contined to get worthwhile bands. By the time of the Gilman scene in America there was no scene to talk about in the U.K. Hoponpop69 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It's great to see a better compromise between UK and US punk in the article, the article seems a lot more balanced. Just a minor point i wanted to bring up. Does anybody think it's worth mentioning the english political climate when talking about the UK scene? From my understanding, the right wing policies of Margerat Thatcher where getting England out of an economic rut but at drastic social cost for common workers and labourers. That there were a lot of strikes and fights between the government and the unions that was having devastating effects on family (this is mostly from me watching the 'Filth and the Fury' DVD and the film 'Billy Elliot'). I understood that punk was a reaction to this, a mass act of rebellion against authoirty that was becoming a little totalitarian (not in a Stalin sense, of course). Is there anyone who knows much about this that might be able too add something to the article that will help explain why punk had such a huge explosion and then was dropped by the time the 80s started? Or anyone who disagrees with me. thanks ( Justinboden86 04:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC))
We need someone willing to write a graf or so on emo--I would think as its own subsection in the bottom "Legacy and recent developments" subsection.— DCGeist 06:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
People, please keep in mind our priority is breadth on the subject of punk rock. There's only so much depth that we need before we end up directing people to other articles anyways. WesleyDodds 11:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
please can one of you guys help me i am writting a history essay on punk rocks influence on politics of the 70's if someone could help me it would be great because i need to use sources, and i would like to hear from some real liberal free thinkers. please post before the 28th as that is when my assingment is due thanks alot?????
Please rearrange the ideas in the first paragraph of section "Characteristics" into a better order. The paragraph needs a decent flow to be readable.
The introduction is ok.
What the hell does 'while also making a rhetorical fetish of the Sex Pistols slogan "No Future"' mean, anyway? Rintrah 09:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The split between the Emergence of new scenes (supposedly dating from 1977, through Crime began in 1976) and The second wave sections is a conceptual train wreck. Anyone have a problem with merging the two (under The second wave header), while maintaining the distinction between those bands that further established the "classic punk" sound and those that deliberately expanded the sonic palette on the way to post-punk?— DCGeist 11:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
We've got Australia in the first graf of our lede. If it's going to stay there (and my sense is that it should), we need more coverage of the scene, particularly its early days. Right now we've got a poignant quote from The Saints in the Protopunk section and that's it. Radio Birdman, Cheap Nasties/ The Scientists, The Victims—I know I don't have a feel for this. If you do, dial in.— DCGeist 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me like most punks have a libertarian bent, which would make far right wing not left wing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Puddytang ( talk • contribs) 04:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
I'm not sure if the left wing is trying to take credit for Punk or if someone is trying to denigrate punk by associating it with the left-wing. The phrase links to an article on Punk Ideologies. From the way its written, it seems like it links to an article on left wing ideologies. It seems to me like the common denominator in punk ideologies is anti-establishmentarianism. Sorry if my post confused you, what I intended to do was question whether it is really accurate or neccessary to say that most punks are left-wingers. I don't have authoritative sources either way, but my personal experience leads me to believe that this is not true. The article on Punk ideologies seems to back up my opinion, punk idiologies run the gamut from communism to anarchism to straight-edge conservatism. "usually left-wing ideologies" seems at the very least like an oversimplified way to describe a complex subject. But you may be right about libertarians being left-wingers ;) It's just a gut reaction on my part that Punk is its own thing, not just some manifestation of the left-wing. Weren't punks rebelling against the excesses of left-wing acid rock? and isn't a DIY attitude usually associated with the right wing? I don't want you to say that most punks are right wingers, but this cuts both ways: what cites do you have that can back us the statement that most punk ideologies are left-wing? This may have been true in the 80s and early 90s, but I don't think it describes the attitudes of todays young skater punks. --Thanks Puddytang 05:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If Punk is considered anti-establishment, wouldn't it appear to follow a 'true' anarchist ideology (not the commercialised 'anarchy' idea of the Sex Pistols) involving an avoidance of centralised power? 82.18.227.37 12:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
In the last paragraph, "many straight-edgers despise corporate punk". Look at the article on straight edge for a good explanation. I think it would be good to link to this article somewhere, but the way it's put in there makes it seem like "straight-edgers" is a term for punk fans. Many punks despise corporate punk, I don't think this is just limited to straight-edgers. Puddytang 05:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
"The first wave of punk aimed to be aggressively modern. Distancing itself from the bombast and sentimentality of early 1970s rock, it went even further." futher in what direction? I'm not sure this is a complete sentence. Puddytang 06:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Somebody should check that the "the"s that are part of band names are capitalized, and that the ones that are not aren't. Otherwise all the grammer and punctuation looks really good. Great article! Puddytang 06:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This section needs to be split and cut down. I removed the last paragraph because it's extra detail that can be moved to the post-punk article itself if necessary. As part of a summary in a broader article it's unnecessary. And while I prefer post-punk myself, New Wave was definitely the more notable and popular style of the two and needs more written about it, maybe like noting synthpop's roots in the punk aesthetic (ie. that while anyone can pick up a guitar, it's much easier to be DIY with a keyboard). WesleyDodds 07:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Opinions: Do we need individual sentences where appropriate on each of the following, which appear in our very fine infobox, but nowhere in the article: Christian punk, Nazi punk, anti-folk, deathcountry, and (I'm truly in pain) jazz punk? If they have no place in this, the punk rock article, then do they belong in the punk rock infobox? (If I pick up the violin and start playing, after not having touched it for 15 years, I'm instantly jazz punk, right? Or classical punk? Punkical?) Ah...and then (on a happier, if no less discordant note) there's No Wave. Which surely belongs both in the article (as it currently does) and in the infobox (somewhere). Let's remember, vis-a-vis U.S. post-punk's notability, that Sonic Youth came out of the No Wave scene. (Not to mention--my violin stylings would have made me a No Wave star).— DCGeist 11:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
From where exactly you people got the information that Bad Religion is a Pop Punk Band???
I agree, especially since in the early 80's, the context that it is reffering too, they were a Hardcore band. Hoponpop69 00:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This section makes no mention of the older meanings of the word, which are relevant. In the nineteenth and earlier twentieth century, punky meant rotten - and punk was rotten wood. The Oxford English Dictionary has a first quote from 1795. I'm guessing John Lydon knew of the older meaning when he chose Johnny Rotten as his stage name. The John Lydon article says it refers to his rotten teeth, and I don't have a reference for my claim. Anyone? -- Joesydney 11:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[In November 1975], the group's identity had to be finalized. As part of this process of transformation and group bonding, individual names were changed first. Although they'd known Lydon for three months, he was so secretive and mistrustful that he hadn't told the group his surname. John was always spitting, blowing his nose and inspecting his rotting teeth. Steve Jones found this repulsive and used to say to John, "Your teeth are rotten, you look Rotten." The name was annoying enough to stick. (Jon Savage, England's Dreaming, p. 129)
— DCGeist 12:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
These lines from The Cure's "Play for Today" are as good a definition of the Punk ethos as I have seen:
-- Joesydney 11:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Discharge and UK hardcore are not mentioned. Discharge started at the same time as US hardcore and created a much harder, rawer sound, US hardcore sounds tame by comparison. In terms of influence, go to the Wasted festival which attracts as many foreign as UK punks, I defy you to spot a leather jacket without Discharge written on it somewhere. You won't see too many Black Flag or Minor Threat logos. Stutley 23:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This is 62 kb too long. Sections in this that already have their own article should be shortened, particularly the post punk section. Hoponpop69 22:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree its getting too long. Its because a bunch of garbage has been added about subgenres (instead of keeping each one brief).
Information about actual punk rock (such as the most high profile tour, the Anarchy Tour in the 70s; featuring the Pistols, the Clash, the Damned and the Heartbreakers) has been sacrificed for nonsense about non notable hardcore subgenres such as queercore. - Deathrocker 08:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to condense some wording, particularly in the New Wave/post-punk and hardcore sections. I think we can get the same points across in less space, and if necessary I'll move some material to the main articles. WesleyDodds 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, if we are allowing sections for distant and barely notable nonesense like queercore, etc. then where is the section in this article for gothic rock?... that form of music is FAR more linked with the encyclopediec defintion of the genre directly through bands such as Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Damned, UK Decay, Alien Sex Fiend (Nik Fiend was in a '77 punk act), etc. - Deathrocker 21:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
We should set a limit to how long the sections on subgenres can be. I agree that that is causing most of this clutter. Sections like pop punk and anarcho punk seem to be at an appropriate level. Hoponpop69 22:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Despite one editor's campaign of historical revisionism, hardcore punk is still a form of punk music, hence the word punk in the name. The first hardcore punk bands were considered part of the overall punk scene, and were were around before the musical term hardcore even came into existence. It was not until later (maybe the 1990s, I'm not sure) when there was a clear split between the punk rock scene and the baggy pant/wifebeater vest/baseball cap metal-influenced hardcore scene. Punk music has always been pretty diverse; just look at some of the first punk bands: The Ramones, Sex Pistols, The Clash and The Damned. They were not the same at all, and they were different from many punk bands to follow. Spylab 21:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not denying that it is a subgenre; because it is. Its just not one and the same as punk rock, as I have shown above. The so called "spikey haired" leather jacket kids (which is also debatable) you are talking about allegedly across America, were not in the original punk bands or even part of the NY scene of the 70s (who moved into art punk and standard rock eras), there is no evidence to show it... Richard Hell & co didn't shave their heads and start playing hardcore all of a sudden.
As I said, the only real connection between the original US punk movement in NY and the Hardcore one of the 80s is the Misfits, and they stood out as a sore thumb in both (hense why they are now refered to as "horror punk"). - 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Not misinformed at all. Did you actually read what I said or are you been lazy?
How is that denying that hardcore bands then went on to play CBGBs after the original movement in NY died?.. that is exactly what it says. Incase you were blissfully unaware, the punk scene in New York is from way before that ( Punk_rock#New_York).. with different people, different scenesters, and differemt bands playing music with different characteristics to hardcore. Understand?
My argument was; just because a band played CBGBs after the original NY movement died out to keep the club open, doesn't mean what they were playing is the encylopedic definition of punk. (and I used Korn as an example, who have also played CBGBs post-70s)
And as for this comment, I'm sorry but YOU seem misinformed:
How is that denying that hardcore bands then went on to play CBGBs after the original movement in NY died?.. that is exactly what it says. Incase you were blissfully unaware, the punk scene in New York is from way before that ( Punk_rock#New_York).. with different people, different scenesters, and differemt bands playing music with different characteristics to hardcore. Understand?
My argument was; just because a band played CBGBs after the original NY movement died out to keep the club open, doesn't mean what they were playing is the encylopedic definition of punk. (and I used Korn as an example, who have also played CBGBs post-70s)
And as for this comment, I'm sorry but YOU seem misinformed:
How can it be history revised as "definative" of punk rock all of a sudden in the 80s, when its already happen there with entirely different people in the 1970s? Read; Punk_rock#New_York, what you are describing is definative of hardcore, and I'm guessing your POV is coming from that of a hardcore scenester, if like you say you have worked with hardcore acts. - Deathrocker 22:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Wrong;
punk rock aggressive form of rock music that coalesced into an international (though predominantly Anglo-American) movement in 1975–80. Often politicized and full of vital energy beneath a sarcastic, hostile facade, punk spread as an ideology and an aesthetic approach, becoming an archetype of teen rebellion and alienation. [3]
* The Ramones, Ramones (1976) * The Saints, I'm Stranded (Aust. 1976; U.S. 1977) * The Sex Pistols, Never Mind the Bollocks (1977) * The Clash, The Clash (U.K. 1977; U.S. 1979) * The Damned, Damned Damned Damned (1977) * Wire, Pink Flag (1977) * Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Scream (1978) * Pere Ubu, The Modern Dance (1978) * X-Ray Spex, Germ Free Adolescents (1978) * The Buzzcocks, Singles Going Steady (1979) [4]
Doesn't say a word about hardcore. - Deathrocker 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all.. I suggest you actually read what I've wrote on this talkpage before addressing me with your misinformed banter, along with repeating some correct parts I have already stated above (for the second time) as I said;
However, you have no evidence for the hardcore related stuff you're spouting, such as claiming they were very closely entwined.. when it is clear that the only band that bridges the two is the Misfits.. who moved away and changed their musical characteristics. As I said, the likes of Richard Hell and co didn't suddenly shave their hair and start playing hardcore.
Those bands played CBGBs to keep the club from going out of business; even though they were musically alien to the band's who played their in the 70s... That is what all club's do. - Deathrocker 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I have plenty of books thanks, try picking up "Punk." by Colegrave and Sullivan; learn a thing or two about what you are talking about. Includes content that has been authorised by numeous punk sources (such as the Filth and the Fury) and most of it is around 100 first hand account interviews of bands and people who were there in the punk rock movement.
400 pages, not a single mention of hardcore... nor Black Flag, Bad Brains, Minor Threat, etc. They're not listed in "Prinipal people and bands" either, sorry. Looks like you're wrong.
Also try the likes of "Vacant: A Diary of the Punk Years 1976-1979" by Nils Stevenson, "Please Kill Me" (more first hand account of the actual moment in NY) there are numerous books. - Deathrocker 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he is. I've cited three very well known books there and there are PLENTY more if needed (even the likes of Joy Division and post-punk are mentioned in it.)
A couple of people who weren't there, claiming hardcore was the same thing on Wikipedia Vs. 100 first hand accounts from bands, actual musicians who were involved in the orginal movement, etc laying out the history of what punk is, in numerous books on the subject... and without a mention of people involved in hardcore.
Hmmm tough one to decide who is more likely correct.
I'm not denying that its a subgenre, I'm pointing out the simple fact that it is not the same thing as punk rock nor does it have the same musical characteristics; hense the reason why it or the people involved with hardcore are not mentioned in those books... if it was part of it then it would have been included. - Deathrocker 23:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned three books. And you arguments are weak... why do you think it mentions that time frame genius? Do you think they just said "oh... any time frame will do, lets miss certain bands out for fun". No; they set that timeframe because that is when punk rock historically happened.
Why do you think there are books specialising on the topic of Hardcore music?... if as you claim, its just the same movement as punk rock, why would people go to the effort of writing the likes of American Hardcore, about hardcore bands and the people involved in that scene?
Also, Anarcho-punk is an other SUBGENRE, get it? Its not actual punk rock itself.. its a different form of music (known as a subgenre) Crass aren't difinative of punk rock; however, it could be strongly argued they're definative of anarcho. - Deathrocker 00:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I can understand why somebody might say 1977 as its final year; either way 77 or 79, its still the 70s.. so you basically proved my point, thanks. Also I'd thoroughly enjoy to see the look on Siouxsie Sioux's face if you played something by a hardcore band to her and said "artistically, you were the same as this". - Deathrocker 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Deathrocker, like WesleyDodds before, has noted the close relationship between punk and goth. Is someone knowledgeable willing to write a little bit on the topic? There's nothing sacrosanct about the present organization of the Subgenres and derivative forms section; it can be altered as appropriate. And UK82 (aka UK non/post-Oi!/anarcho hardcore) still could use a well-versed editor's contribution.— DCGeist 00:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I think some of the rubbish in the article can be pruned to make room for something that is genuinely connected to the original form of punk in a large way. Gothic rock is clearly closely tied and was originally dubbed "positive punk".
- Deathrocker 22:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel that that information should be moved from here to ther hardcore page? Hoponpop69 05:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Emo is a subgenre of punk rock. Its roots are found in the mid-eighties D.C. scene, but many other contemporary American punk bands echoed its characteristic frantic, wailing big-guitar sound. (Tristan Laughter, quoted in Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo, by Andy Greenwald [p. 3])
- In the late 1990s and early 2000s, more and more sXers were influenced by emo music. There have always been connections between emo and hardcore.... Bands such as Rites of Spring and Embrace added feelings and emotions besides anger and aggression to hardcore. While emo packs an emotional punch similar to hardcore, its melodic music and sensitive lyrics attract a more mellow fan base and encourage introspection rather than militancy around any issue. (Straight Edge: Hardcore Punk, Clean-Living Youth, and Social Change, by Ross Haenfler [p. 116)
- [Travis] Morrison rants, screams and even sings prettily over a mish-mash of sounds that draws from D.C. punk's long history: Minor Threat's jittery hardcore, Rites of Spring's fractured emo.... (entry on the Dismemberment Plan, in The New Rolling Stone Album Guide: Completely Revised and Updated 4th Edition, ed. by Nathan Brackett [p. 244])
It should go onto post-hardcore and I exported it there [6] before Geist added it back to this article... maybe hardcore punk but even thats a bit of a stretch. its non notable, non direct decendant of punk rock.. and wouldn't ever be there unless the above user added it.
This is how distant that part is;
It doesn't belong here at all, only the major events of significance; post-punk, oi!, hardcore, pop-punk do... this junk isn't needed and there are even 80s hard rock acts that have more in common with the article subject (such as Guns N' Roses one of the biggest sellers of all time, who cited these punk acts as prime influences) - Deathrocker 12:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You don't know what I do or don't like Mr. Epitaph (I've never stated my favourite or least favourite bands), that isn't what editing an encyclopedia is about to me. It is about factually correct information. So I suggest you keep your advice about people having "tastes" for this or that to yourself.
I don't really have time to squable about "conformity" on Wikipedia because its all I can do not to burst out laughing. But anyways, you are factually incorrect in your estimations; "most punk bands of today" aren't emo or emo influenced at all, there are some bands placing themselves under the post-hardcore tag but again; that information belongs on the hardcore article, as that is what it is a subform of; you don't see rock 'n' roll's article cluttered up with rubbish about brutal death metal (and they are like this case, very distantly related).
The section in question is second-wave of emo, anyways... that isn't the same as what is (incorrectly) refered to emo today. The most "dominant" and commerically successful subsidary that claims to be associated with punk rock, is still pop punk, with the likes of Green Day. - Deathrocker 13:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Emo is derivative of hardcore punk, but it's notably is so prominent that it has a place in an article about punk rock as a whole. WesleyDodds 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You're talking nonsense again Geist. As I've pointed out, numerous reputable punk historians don't mention hardcore in their books.. let alone a distant second wave American subsection of post-hardcore. (that's place in the article is in dispute here)
You have provided no sources to prove that emo is a direct decendant of punk rock at all; it is linked to the hardcore movement specifically, you can even find this out in the sources article of Emo (music)
Joy Division are an example of a band who "came out of punk" playing a different style. Embrace are an example of a band who "came out of hardcore" playing a different style. Understand? If you're so interested in hardcore then why not edit that article? Is what I'm wondering. - Deathrocker 22:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You keep missing factual basis. Unlike emo, alternative rock is derived from punk rock itself, read Alternative rock#Alternative rock in the United Kingdom. Morrisey of the Smiths was in Slaughter and the Dogs, Robert Smith of the Cure was in Siouxsie & the Banshees, etc for example, do the connections to post-punk and gothic rock really need going over again?.... that is how alternative rock is directly derived from punk rock (the specific form, which has its characteristics described in the infobox) Hense why it is included and is a subgenre.
Emocore has no such ties, and is not directly derived from the form of music described here... it is however, tied in with the American post-hardcore and hardcore movements. Those forms that emo are derived from have articles, lists, catagories, infoboxes, etc of their own, you are portraying extreme bias against them by marginalising the hardcore article.... all articles are to be regarded on the same level. This article is about punk rock, not hardcore.
Not some inane garbage of "oh everything is punk rock"... regardless of the fact that it is NOT derived from the form described here... you are attempting to make things contradict itself. - Deathrocker 13:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't ignore it; the less prominent, American form of alternative rock may be derived from hardcore, perhaps. But as I have shown above, the most famous bands in (British; post-punk, gothic rock, Smiths, Cure, etc) alternative rock are directly derived from punk rock specifically. The latter part isn't suddenly erased because of what Americans were doing. Hense why it is a subgenre.
Emo doesn't have that. There is no evidence to show that it had it origins and/or was dervied from anywhere else but, specifically the post-hardcore and hardcore movements. Its own article states that. As I said... you are attempting to marginalise the hardcore article. - Deathrocker 12:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You are attempting to marginalise the hardcore article, that genre has existed for what? Over 25 years, yet you are acting as if genres that are diectly derived from that form of music can't just stand in that article alone. That is the form emo is derivative of (read its article), that is where it belongs as well as mention of America's form of alternative.
The Alternative movement in the UK was heavily derived from punk specifically, with parts of it (gothic rock and post-punk) intertwining. Bauhaus for example, don't take influence from "post-punk" because they were head to head and intertwined with it, like much of the early alternative movement which happened just after punk. A large part of their sound is derived from punk rock; and many of the people in these bands were actually in the original punk groups as well [7]. - Deathrocker 13:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Ummm no. Hardcore isn't punk rock; its a subgenre of it called hardcore, that was and still is my factual point. Just as punk rock isn't simply "rock and roll", its a subform, with different characteristics and a different name.
By who?... a couple of Americans in the 80s who didn't know any better? If a couple of Americans suddenly decide Cola isn't any different to straight ahead Water should we suddenly re-write the H20 article with that in mind? Of course not. That certainly isn't the encyclopedic definiton, as has been pointed out before. Anyway... no point in covering that ground again....
My point with the "marginalising" comment is this; Emo is regarded as a subform of hardcore, and came out of movements pertaining to that. Correct? Well guess what, hardcore has its own article where information about one of its own subgenres can go. In a sense, it seems like you're saying "oh, the hardcore article isn't good enough... lets bring crap about emocore into the punk rock article instead. Even though factually it isn't directly derived from this specific form at all". Why on earth should that happen?
We're talking something that is three times removed from this actual form, there are subgenres of heavy metal that are more directly derived from punk rock. - Deathrocker 20:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This is directed to the anonymous editor who keeps adding factually incorrect information to the Oi! section (in case he doesn't check the talk page on his anonymous IP account). Here are some direct quotes from Garry Bushell, who was right in the middle of the Oi! scene and would know better than anyone:
1) Oi never suffered from Nazi violence the way Sham 69 and 2-Tone had; the ag that blemished those early Oi! gigs was strictly football related. 2) Oi's legacy is a world-wide street-punk movement which is vocally pro-working class and against racism, unemployment, state bureaucracy and repression. ...
... Oi found itself on the sharp end of the sort of tabloid crucifixion usually reserved for the more macabre mass murderers. Corrupting its meaning, the same media immediately tried to bury it. Inevitably their version of events was as watertight as a kitchen colander in a tropical monsoon. They said Oi was for skinheads (but it was always more than that), that all skins were Nazis (and only a minority ever were) and that therefore Oi was the Strasser brothers in steel-capped boots (but the bands were either socialists or cynics…).
This comes from http://www.garry-bushell.co.uk/oi/index.asp Spylab 17:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Why are there pictures of Sonic Youth and Green Day in the punk article? Kylie is more "punk" than either of those and she's a talentless whore (in the media sense of course). Stutley 23:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It is astute of you to realise Kylie (who recorded with The Bad Seeds in their prime) has more incommon with the articles subject than Green Day do. Unfortunetly however, there are no laws against Californians pretending the music they play is related to punk, hense its inclusion in the article.
Rumour has it DCGeist is planning to levy for "Weird Al" Yankovic and the Village People's inclusion and image in the article, because obviously they're totally related to punk... no Americana history revisionism here. - Deathrocker 10:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Was that a Personal Attack? Inhumer 11:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This page should also credit raggae as a major influence on punk music as it was highly evident in some of the early punk bands like The Clash and the Dead Kennedys and also in some newer punk like Rancid but is found, however small, in nearly every punk band Thesnoo 20:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we should cut down on the "subgenres and derivative forms" and "legacy and recent developments" subsections. Some of the sections are even looking better than the main articles on their subjects. All we really need to do is give a vague overview and explain the development and differences from punk rock proper. All this excess is in danger of giving undue weight to recent history. Anyone think most of the information on subgenres, derivative forms, legacy and recent development should be moved to main articles ( punk revival would need an article), and these sections should be shortened? ~ Switch t 07:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I think some sections could be slightly shorter (Post-punk, Oi!) in order to act as more effetive summaries, but beyond that the emphasis on subgenres and derivative forms seems alright by me. WesleyDodds 22:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Napalm Death, who were one of the originators of the grindcore style, started out as a peace punk band, sounding like many of their peers in the mid 80's. Similarly, other early grind bands such as Repulsion and especially Sore Throat had a strong punk background, so I'm curious as to wether any mention should be made of them, either in the hardcore section or the fusion section.
What is goth punk? Is there anything partiularly goth about AFI? I don't hear it if there is. Celtic punk yes, it makes perfect sense to inlude it there (Flogging Molly's success and all). But I don't know if goth punk exists, or means anything if it does, let alone being a major recent trend. Thoughts? ~ Switch t c g 14:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Its a non notable neologism, not an actual genre. The term is redundant and was likely created by Warped Tour kids to describe any pop punk/Warpedcore band who wears black.
Gothic rock and Deathrock itself, came out of and was derived from punk... it also has a large chunk of those characteristics remaining anyway; so saying "goth punk" like something new is being added that wasn't there before, is stupid and uneducated. Especially when these kids apply it to bands like AFI who's most commerically successful album has more in common with straight ahead 80s new wave. - Deathrocker 12:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You added false information back into the article, "goth punk" blatantly doesn't exist as a genre. Yet you added the pargraph back with this summary;
(*sigh* goth punk term is used to distinguish the AFI sound from the rest of the punk rock section...perhaps can be reworded but AFI are very influential and big. Celtic punk valid too.) [8]
Now what you've added, makes it look like its saying AFI are influenced by MCR.
And why are Dropkick Murphys mentioned after a sentence about AFI mixing elements of alternative rock with hardcore (which they didn't do until 1998 with the A Fire Inside EP) and even mention of MCR who didnt form until into the 2000s?
It makes the whole pop-hardcore section look worthless with its sloppyness. - Deathrocker 20:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
They seem way to long compared to the other subections on genres. Hoponpop69 07:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I started an article on Better Badges, who originated and then made most punk badges in 76-83, as well as printing many fanzines. It was promptly deleted. I've managed to get it restored, but it's still on dodgy ground. If anyone, especially admins, who remembers it would care to comment on the the AfD page or otherwise contribute, it would be appreciated. Wwwhatsup 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do people "Green Day's not punk?" When there a lot of other bands that say that they're punk when they're not. Starting with Simple Plan they're no where near punk rock, but they still say "we're a punk band." So think about the other bands that call themselves punk that aren't before say that about Green Day.-- 69.113.131.124 22:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hope I'm not stirring up a bunch of crap by doing so, but I took the liberty of replacing one of the music samples, something I also did in the hardcore punk article. I removed the link to Dead Kennedy's "Holiday in Cambodia" and replaced it with Bad Brains "Pay to Cum", which I think is a much clearer example of hardcore punk music. In fact, I really don't think the pre-In God We Trust DKs are hardcore punk at all, but rather, are a good example of pre-hardcore West Coast punk. (With IGWT, of course, their sound changed noticeably.)
I was looking for somewhere to move the DKs sample to, but I noticed that there really isn't a section on early non-New York American punk, which is unfortunate, as a lot of these bands were historically important (and still have a lot of listeners). Specifically, I'm talking about bands like The Dils, The Avengers, pre-IGWT Dead Kennedys, X, The Germs, The Bags, The Screamers, etc. This scene was distinct from hardcore (and pretty distinct from what was going on in New York at the time as well) and lasted from roughly 1976-1980, after which it was largely eclipsed by hardcore. In the context of the Los Angeles scene, it was what was referred to as the "Hollywood" scene as opposed to the hardcore "beach" or "suburban" punk scene. At some point, I'll have to dig into some books and add a section on this, but if anybody else is so inclined, have at it. Peter G Werner 02:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, just wanted to say i added an addition to the article called "Deterioration in Punk Rock". This is just some theories I've been hearing lately and I thought it would be a cool idea to add it to the article as an extention of information. let me know what you think.
who keeps deleting my new section in the article? I keep adding it in and someone keeps taking it out... if you think its inappropriate to have this addition to the article, and feel its not necessary or something, please explain why in this discussion page so that we can find out what will work best.. don't just delete it for no reason..-unsigned
The phrase "NDW brought together a diverse audience" is very right. The following "with members of the Krautrock and alternative scenes on one hand, and Nazi skinheads on the other" isn't right at all (and there is no citation, correspondingly). Nazi skinheads didn't play any role in the NDW. NDW started as punk rock with lyrics sung in german ( Abwärts, Fehlfarben) and then became mainstream with acts like Ideal, Extrabreit and Nena. The remarkable fact is that german youth listened to german songs for the first time after World War II. That brought Krautrock acts back to life and opened a market for protest song acts, too. Nazi skinheads don't have anything to do with NDW, except for the fact that they belonged to its consumers. But that is true for almost every popular musical style; thus it doesn't belong into the article.
Please excuse my unpolished writing style. My English has become a bit rusty over the years in Berlin. -- Jochim Schiller 15:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
From the article:
Meanwhile, Patti Smith, Siouxsie Sioux, Ari Up, Pauline Murray, Nina Hagen, Gaye Advert, Poly Styrene, and other punk vocalists, songwriters, and instrumentalists introduced a new brand of femininity to rock music: "They adopted a tough, unladylike pose that borrowed more from the macho swagger of sixties garage bands than from the calculated bad-girl image of bands like The Runaways. They went beyond the leather outfits to the bondage gear of Sioux and the straight-from-the-gutter androgyny of Smith. They articulated a female rage that surpassed the anger of the women's movement of the sixties".
This is cited as Strohm (2004), p. 188. Is this list of performer's Strohm's or ours? The wording here suggests that Strohm's "they" refers to all of these. I suspect not. (The one that had me thinking about this is Nina Hagen, certainly not conventionally feminine, but also not very punk.) - Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I recently added a section at the bottom of the Recuperation (sociology) page, concerning punk rock. Perhaps something along these lines might be relevant on this site?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.208.19 ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 March 2007
Why is there an article about Emo? Emo is, did not come from, and well never be Punk Rock. Black Flag, Green Day(pre American Idiot, which one can argue is Emo, even with its politcal connentations), The Offspring, The Clash, The Ramones, These are the REAL Punk Rock bands. Think about it this way, Punk rock is anti-establishment, as in giving everything a big fuck you. Perhaps it Emo is from Grunge(lyrics about emotions and how you feel about your girlfriend and complaining about stupid things) and If you argue this, need I mind you that Emo bands like Hawthorne Heights even mention cutting wrists in one of their songs? How would you think bands like the Misfits would feel if they heard Emo came from Punk Rock? Some "Punk" bands are actually Emo bands, like Good Charlotte, Good Charlotte is an Emo band, I am so glad I didn't see anything in this article about them, but if I look for a list of Punk Bands and I see Good Charlotte...I'm deleting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.129.74.38 ( talk • contribs) 20 March 2007.
Hey, little girl
I wanna be your boyfriend
Sweet little girl
I wanna be your boyfriend
Do you love me babe?
What do you say?
Next time I'll listen to my heart
Next time, well I'll be smart
That girl could still be mine
But I'm tired of the hurt
Tired of tryin'
I'm tired of the pain
Tired of tryin'
I'm tired of cryin'
Hanging out on Second Avenue
Eating chicken vindaloo
I just want to be with you
I just want to have something to do
You guys aren't very bright. 'Emo' refers to 'emotive hardcore', with hardcore (punk) obviously being a genre of punk rock. Green Day is not a hardcore band or an emocore band and neither is Good Charlotte; I wouldn't refer to Green Day as truly punk in truth, rather pop punk throughout and the same with Good Charlotte. Try listening to some Rites of Spring or Embrace (U.S. band), seminal emotive hardcore bands (although Ian Mackaye resented the term). and compare it to Hawthorne Heights before you breathe again, please. I came here originally to enquire why emo is listed as a derivative of punk rock, whereas hardcore is listed as a subgenre. Ciaranpower 17:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this article goes with a very broad definition of punk rock precisely to avoid nitpicky battles like this one. Note that under "subgenres", the very first thing listed is "New Wave", something many people would consider as having an even more tenuous connection with punk than does emo. The only thing that I consider problematic in the organization of this article is that some subgenres/offshoots are listed under "Subgenres and derivative forms", while others are listed under "Legacy and recent developments". Those two sections should either be merged or at least differentiated in a more meaningful way. Peter G Werner 00:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
hmmm....guess I'm alone on this one...looks like we leave as is ( Justinboden86 17:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
Emo is certainly derived from punk, but now with Hawthorne Heights, Fall Out Boy, and the rest, it's become as far from punk as it can be.
What's going on with the in-again out-again revision history on The Kinks and The Who? The Sex Pistols and the Ramones pretty clearly acknowledged their influence. Is this article going to indicate that protopunk just magically sprang up without any roots in older rock and roll? Pkeets 04:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Please quote the relevant section from the source claiming "My Generation" to be inspired by the Kinks. Are you sure Townshend is not talking about the album rather than the song itself? Obviously, a lot of early Who was derivative of the Kinks (which Townshend would be the first to admit), but not much so "My Generation." The Wikipedia article for the song doesn't mention any influence by the Kinks at all, but rather traces its roots and influence to Mose Allison, talking blues, and call-and-response R&B.
Couls someone take care of the headlines, and stuff? SOmeone clever deleted the whole article, and I just can´t get it the way it was before. Thanks
Thanks.
Currently there is an image of an Exploited album to represent the Oi section, this is only there because a certain editor is a fan of that band. The Exploited are not even mentioned in the Oi! article, and are far less representative of the subgenre than others who are more worthy canditates to have their cover in its place. It should be either...
- The Daddy 12:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
So we can agree on "The Good, The Bad & The 4-Skins" as the cover art representative for the Oi! section? - The Daddy 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
hmm...I just wrote my justifications for Ramones not having girl group influences but it didn't post. Nevermind DC changed it to bubblegum pop and i accept that. My only point is that they extensively covered a lot of surf and pop/rock from the sixties, and in some songs such as 'i don't care' you can hear Joey trying to sound like he has an english accent. But they never come close to being like a girl group, lyrically or musically. And Phil Spector did produce them but he also produced the Beatles and John Lennon, who are not like girl groups.
( Justinboden86 06:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC))
Apologies for nominating this article for a neutrality check. It seems someone else noticed the issue at the beginning of the article at the same time and fixed it while I was in the process of nominating it. It looks much better now, my thanks to Dan for that. 66.56.208.21 04:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Lauren
Can someone tell me (user 65.207.126.33) how on the page for the song "anarchy in the u.k." the two statements "-The lyrics can be interpreted as satirical, mocking not only the government but also directionless or purely fashionable rebellion.-" and "-The lyrics are however often viewed as somewhat satirical and light hearted-" are verified? I tried to remove them 2 or 3 times before because that was clear a view of the person that wrote them and not from fact but it kept coming back.You see, i tried to add a characteristic of punk rock that i found to be true of punk rock and punk rockers from living it over the years and researching it, And i find myself charged with vandalism. Its clear that until i see otherwise that topics on wikipedia is controlled by a handful of people that are only concerned with getting their own point of view across on a topic and don't really look at the true facts of the topic all, most of the time. And they only see if the added statements fit-in with what they personally think the truth is behind the topic. Here the example why i this seems to be true. Recurrently, i posted, under the characteristics section of the punk rock page, the following summery... -"Punk rock is a movement that originated as very aggressive rock music and turned into a full blown sociology and ideology that is Characterized by a group or individual that had a nature and mindset that composes of raw chaos and destruction aimed to cause random harm, unease and fear throughout sociality."- (And the reason i did that was just to sum up the characteristics of the punk rock lifestyle, not to vandalize this site in anyway. And the reason i didn't use quotes in with this summery is because, what quote out all the quotes of punk rock would sum up punk rock? Because there is such a varying range of actions and words can come out of the fundamental characteristics of the punk rock mindset and the nature of it.) And then i went on the page of the punk rock song "anarchy in the u.k." and saw the following statements "-The lyrics can be interpreted as satirical, mocking not only the government but also directionless or purely fashionable rebellion.-" and "-The lyrics are however often viewed as somewhat satirical and light hearted-" and thought i would erase them because they were clearly opinionated and bias and did not backed up by quotes from the band that recorded it. Yet, later on, the quotes that were written on the song's had be put back on and what i had wrote had be taken down and i was accused of vandalizing the site. How did i vandalize the site? I didn't use profanity and i didn't erase someones facts, I just added a paragraph trying to shine some truth on punk rock along with everyone else. And, yet somehow, im accused of vandalism and the reason that i think the person ( User: DCGeist ) gave me the warnings is because he at 1st brought up something i wrote on a massage board sometime ago to somehow prove that i was vandalizing this site....,what does something i wrote about punk rock on another website have to with what i write here?, The admins monitor this website. So i guess he is saying im vandalizing this site ether because hes mad at what i said on another site about punk rock or he just wants his point of view across. So if thats the case just ban me because i thought this place was a free place to post and look up facts not to see the view of a handful of people. Because i don't want people to to that don't know what punk rock is truly about to come here and only see mine or someone options and views of it and take it as unbiased truth and facts. (And im sure this will just be erased also but i don't care. and i would like to say that that i didnt bring this up as something personal. This is what seems to be going on and it needs to be brought up.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.126.33 ( talk) 03:09, Jun 24, 2007 (UTC)
Raise your hand if you're sick of reverting vandalism from anonymous IPs every few hours. -- Gimme danger 05:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The good name? What kind of a punk are you? It is a high traffic page. Keep an eye out and revert. SECisek 10:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)