The Stranglers???

Well, I've checked, and I haven't found any credible site that tells me New Wave is a stage of Punk. Oh yes, one could take a quote or two out of context (let me do so to save anyone else the trouble: "For a while in 1976 and 1977 the terms punk and new wave were largely interchangeable. By 1978, things were beginning to change, although the dividing line between punk and new wave was never very clear,"  Joynson, Vernon (2001). Up Yours! A Guide to UK Punk, New Wave & Early Post Punk. Wolverhampton: Borderline Publications, p.12, sourced from Wikipedia). But that's not the same as saying one was a stage of the other. Was prog a stage of psychedelica?

"It soon blended with other sounds to create New Age". That makes a little more sense if you meant "New Wave", though I'd argue that New Wave certainly only took on aspects of Punk's sound and none of its ethos.. But again that's not the same as saying one was a stage of the other.

Having been a fan amongst fans of New Wave, I can tell you our view was that while we could see that Punk was one of its antecedents, New Wave had a vast number of other influences. Electronica, disco, glam rock and ska were all at least as important as Punk, and of course pop music was the single biggest influence. There's even prog influences in there at times - listen to U2's 'Unforgettable Fire'.

The easiest identifiable (but not most important) difference between punk and New Wave was the unsophisticated garage-band sound of punk and the more polished 80s production of New Wave. These are the antithesis of each other. In this respect New Wave was a reaction against Punk!

Those who believe OMD only wrote throwaway pop songs (note: I've added the 'only' here, I know no-one here said exactly that) might have their views challenged by a careful listen to the contract-breaking album 'Dazzle Ships', an album containing a substantial amount of musique concrete material. Go on, go and listen to it. Perhaps I could encourage you by quoting part of Allmusic's review:

"OMD's glistening run of top-flight singles and chart domination came to a temporary but dramatic halt with Dazzle Ships, the point where the band's pushing of boundaries reached their furthest limit ... a couple of moments aside, Dazzle Ships is pop of the most fragmented kind, a concept album released in an era that had nothing to do with such conceits. On its own merits, though, it is dazzling indeed, a Kid A of its time that never received a comparative level of contemporary attention and appreciation. Indeed, Radiohead's own plunge into abstract electronics and meditations on biological and technological advances seems to be echoing the themes and construction of Dazzle Ships" (AllMusic.com).

After the hostile reception this album suffered OMD went ultra-commercial with variable results.

Yes, punk antecedents can be heard. But there's far more Kraftwerk and disco and pop than punk. New Wave a stage of Punk? I'm having trouble with that one!


Edited by russellk - October 14 2008 at 14:47

BaldJean wrote: I disagree about New Wave being the second or third stage of Punk; the two genres have very little to do with each other, if anything at all. there are so many differences between the two genres that it is hardly necessary to list them all, but I will nevertheless name some of the main differences: 1) Punk was a guitar driven music, New Wave is more keyboard dominated. the keyboards, however, are mostly synthesizers. distorted guitars are something which you will very rarely find in New Wave; New Wave definitely prefers a "clean" sound. 2) contrary to Punk, New Wave often uses drum machines instead of real drums. you will also find electronic percussion in New Wave, but not in Punk. 3) the use of sequencers is also something that you will find in New Wave, but not in Punk. 4) the lyrics are often delivered with rather emotionless voice. as I said, it is not surprising at all that many New Wave bands cite Kraftwerk as their main influence; the features above all seem to describe Kraftwerk to a T. but how do the Stranglers fit into that? not at all; even the punk sticker sits better on them I don't really see how the Stranglers it into NEw Wave

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 14 2008 at 14:15

BaldJean wrote: alas, there are a lot of bands in here which in my opinion should never have been suggested, and yet they were included. I could, for example, never understand the inclusion of "Steely Dan" (they don't even belong into prog-related, in my honest opinion), but they were voted in, and I have to live with it. the Stranglers I could live with easily though (and I have explained why).   I agree with you there, as a fact I didn't kept silent when added, but now they are in, I won't say anything more. it is quite interesting that Ivan shifts them from Punk to New Wave (Not truth as you will see at the end of this post), a sticker which in my opinion fits on them even less. New Wave was a genre that tried to ban emotion from music; it is not for nothing that Kraftwerk was cited as main influence by many New Wave bands. but whatever you can say about the Stranglers, you can hardly accuse them of trying to be emotionless   First Jean, New Wave is part of Punk, a sub-genre if you want, so I can't see where is the lack of emotion.   I don't believe bands as OMD with the dramatic "Enola Gay", Mecano with "Barco a Venus" or even B-52 with "Private Idaho" are emotionless and never said that Stranglers lack of emotion, I don't care what peope say about New Wave, I guide myself by my ears.   People may believe whatever they want, but read Cert's post, in the only issue we agree is that Stranglers have a New Wave sound (he believes more elaborate, I don't)   Iván   BTW: Jean, please don't accuse me of moving from Punk to New Wave, since my first post on Oct. 12 at 14:39 I mentioned New Wave:   BTW: The Stranglers is not  a pure Punk band, also a New Wave band and New Wave is the second or third stage of Punk, the genre merged with mainstream and even though they had more than 3 chords, they kept being post Punk bands.   You can verify it on page 4 of this same thread, I always stay faithful to what I believe.

Just a couple of precistions, because I don't want to continue a discussion about a band I can care less about (this is honest) and which IMO should had never been suggested:

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 14 2008 at 12:45

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: in the past two weeks I have added or recommended for addition two Eclectic (One of them "Andrés Ruiz", very close to Avant), one Folk and one Avant Jazz band (Antihéroes).   Yesterday I recommended Friedre a band called  Factor Burzaco which I believe you liked also, and that's as far as can be from Symphonic.

Certif1ed wrote:     There is clear confusion here - sorry Ivan, but it's true - between Polyphony (multiple independent voices) and simple part harmony - or indeed, its most corrupt form, parallel chord movement.   The latter is corrupt, in the worst cases, because performers simply follow identical lines at a fixed pitch below or above the main harmony line. This involves next to no compositional skill.   Polyphony requires real compositional skill, because not only do you have to satisfy the need for clear, separate parts with melodic beauty/logic  in themselves, but also the vertical harmonic aspects. Skilled polyphonists will put off harmonic resolution until later, creating odd, sometimes jarring moments. Since the payback is later in time, this can be difficult for the casual ear to detect, so is unsuitable for most pop music.   This practice also implies a clear overview of form - one of the most overlooked (because it's difficult) aspects of rock music writing. If you're involved in true polyphonic writing, chances are that you're not focussing on verse, chorus, bridge, etc., but are instead having to concentrate like mad on what I would consider a "higher" form (if only because it requires thought, skill, artistry and logic to bring it about).   The other things polyphonic writers have to be careful and skilful with are rhythm (astonishing cross-rhythms and polyrhythms can emerge, if you get it right, but misjudge, and the whole thing sounds a mess.), and timbre (ie, if the voices don't work well together, and the dynamic is poor, then you might just as well not bother.     REAL Polyphony is difficult, IMO - for what that's worth to anyone - and I do admire the Stranglers' frequent experimentations in that area - although I think that most of it comes from a musical arrogance more befitting a Prog band of the untrained variety (and there are many!) - even though the music is more polished and precise than many of the educated bands.   The Stranglers merely "made it" during the UK Punk revolution of the mid 1970s - they formed in respectable Guildford in 1973, but had their first hit with "Peaches"/"Go Buddy Go" in 1977. This single, like "God Save the Queen" by the Sex Pistols (released around the same time), was banned from airplay ("Go Buddy Go" was played instead), and, like GSTQ, was first released in a highly controversial sleeve, featuring lettering cut from newspapers - so are only really Punk by association - ie, the music is aggressive, and not heavy metal, ergo punk (to a straw man...). The replacement sleeve for "Peaches" is remarkably similar to the cover of Gentle Giant's "Acquiring the Taste", if you think about it...

Is it just me, or does one of the many keyboard hook lines in "Don't Bring Harry" (especially the intro bit) sound a LOT like the hook in "Kayleigh" by Marillion?

Edited by Certif1ed - October 13 2008 at 04:55

the most advanced form of polyphony in prog, by the way, can be heard in Peter Hammill's opera "The Fall of the House of Usher". no wonder it took him over 20 years to write it; Hammill is not a classically trained composer, and it is really remarkable what he came up with there. "The Fall of the House of Usher" makes "Knots" by Gentle Giant (another example of polyphony) appear simple in comparison. it is a full-fledged opera indeed (at least in the 1999 version)

OK, three successive listens to 'Black and White' is all I can spare given a looming deadline. Here's some thoughts, in no sensible order. (Caveats: I'm no music expert etc.)

A lot of the baroque ornamentation common in symphonic prog is missing here, deliberately of course. The supposedly 'punk' vocals, for example, are sung deadpan, with no vibrato, with little of the theatrics of early punk vocals. So they sound nothing like a 'classic prog' band - if you mean by that a British symphonic prog band. But they sure as hell don't sound like a punk band either.

I'm a big fan of CARDIACS, and while THE STRANGLERS don't come from exactly the same tin, they're off the same shelf. I thoroughly approve of the music. Love the bass (in 'Threatened' for example). Come on, this isn't your typical musically challenged garage band or punk outfit. Not within a hundred miles. Not so sure of the lyrics: doubt you'd get away with some of them nowadays.

Can't say I heard a hint of polyphony, unless you're meaning independent keyboard and vocal lines (eg 'Enough Time'): that sort of stuff is quite common, isn't it? I wouldn't compare it to GG or VDGG.

'Toiler on the Sea' is a masterpiece. Puts me in mind of early SPLIT ENZ, who predate punk. Actually, I don't think one needs to refer to punk to understand them: from the one album I've heard I discern a lot of THE WHO. 'Sweden', 'Threatened' and 'Do You Wanna/Death and Night and Blood' are also classics.

But do they come from the prog shelf? Certainly not the prog shelf as we anglophiles knew it in the 1970s. But our understanding of prog has broadened since then. This isn't primarily prog, but it's helluva proggy. I'd have absolutely no problem with the band being added to the archives based on this album. Perhaps in the same category as CARDIACS.

I'll get me some more some time in the future.

thank you, Cert ; I tried to point out that confusion by explaining about pseudo-polyphony and quint parallels, but I may have been too academic