And forget complaining about Going for the One, Animals, Songs From the Woods or (heaven help us) Ocean not being here. I just don't like them and as you can see I'm on a completely different mission. I hate practically all things punk (except post-punk and new wave if that counts) and I'm certain history will someday prove me right that these are the truly essential albums of year zero. 

No space left for other. But let me know what you prefer if you can't pick a fav among the ones in the poll.

 

None of the above.

 

Try Going for the One, Animals, Songs From the Wood or Ocean instead!

 

"I'm certain history will someday prove me right that these are the truly essential albums of year zero". 

 

Sorry, but I'm equally sure it won't.

The albums you listed are indeed great albums, but to say something like that... well that's a little wrong don't ya think. 

 

I'll second your assessment, Herc. It's not only odd the albums you mentioned are not listed in the poll, it makes the list a choice between several also-rans and ignores superlative albums altogether.

Anyway, Robert Fripp's first experiment in the punk realm, "Exposure," would have been my first choice.  

No richardh, its the albums I enjoy from the year of punk, 1977. Never heard of Phos. Thanks for the tip. I'll see if I locate some streams or vids.

I said in the opening post I was on a mission where (albums that do nothing for me such as) Animals and Going for the One don't fit in. How much of a problem can that really be?

 

but i would prefer Lodger, a more interesting experiment, the istrrumentals on Low is good, but even better on Heroes.

 

More favorites from this period

Peter Gabriel II, .

Pere UBU Modern Dance

The Cure Tree Imaginary Boys

Japan Quiet Life

JT Stormwatch

 

 

 

It's your attitude is the problem I think.

I think some songs on Never Mind The Bollocks will have a similar reputation as something like popular, primitive folktunes (the sort I don't like), and that Trans Europe Express and Mirage will be considered art. While Raindances (its not that I don't personally like it. I do) probably won't be considered at all. 

An irish drinkingsong compared to Beethoven's late quartet's or something.

 

All but Archaia, Dionne Bregent, Lard Free, Artcane and Conventum, but mostly only once except Bowie, Univers Zero, Klaus Schulze, Popol Vuh and VDGG. Heard those plenty but they're just not to my taste.

 

 

Yep. I'm too sorry I took it for granted you hadn't heard these albums. I really don't know how its possible to expose oneself to so much music in so many genres as you do, and enjoy so little of it. 

That Francis lai album is included by mistake, really. My brain made it out to be Lucio Battisti's 1974 album Anima Latina. Don't know quite how I've managed to not notice until now. My intention was to keep the poll 100% PA-related material, and this is just a good soundtrack but nothing special. I'll replace it with that Bixio/Frizzi/Tempera album, although it wasn't released until 2006. A little late but the poll will look better that way. I'll give it my vote.

(Btw: have a look at a PM sent the 19th of july)

both are awesome

voted for Kraftwerk

 

I used to have a partner who was also a prog fanatic (he reviewed on this site) and who had tastes that overlapped with mine, but he also collected some obscure bands that I'd never heard of (or had heard but didn't like) and had a huge number (possibly over 2000) albums I didn't have as well as many I did. Sadly, he passed away fairly suddenly in Dec 2006 and I inherited his massive vinyl/CD collection. I listened to them all (which took almost 2 years) before selecting those I wished to keep (about 20%) and those I wished to dispose of. Many of those on this list were in there; usually one play told me what I needed to make a decision, but a few I kept for further listens. I do quite like some other albums by bands on this list (Bowie, Univers Zero, Kraftwerk) but I'm not really a big fan of any of them.

 

That's why I have heard a grotesquely large number of albums that I didn't buy myself and so actually didn't like when i came to hear them.

 

I don't! Clearly, I'm one of those "normal people" who likes utter crap because I have the first five Eagles albums (though I like the first three best) as well as loads by CSNY, Poco and the like.

 

 

 

Sorry - long gone. (Though some are still available in the 2nd hand record shops in Leeds and York and some are in charity shops because noone wanted to buy them).

We have a winner!

 

 

 

Further proof

Its normal to like Eagles, but you still don't come across as normal. Besides genuinely normal people have no taste at all.

 

 

btw Punk was 1976-77. The time-period from 78-79 is Post-Punk.

^I should probably have understood that my opening post was gonna cause a lot of reactions, but I didn't really think it over. I just wrote something that clearly expressed where I stand. When I say i hate punk it doesn't really mean that i hate Sex Pistols. Much like Bob Dylan what I hate is how dominant that simple approach to rock has become. The (hopefully dying) rock consensus made by uniformed fans and journalists is what bothers me. 

Still, when history gives us enough distance, commercial success becomes less and less important. Very few of the artists considered the most important throughout history were also the most successful during their time. Look beyond the rock era and practically none of the biggest sellers are considered the most important any longer. Influence and what another age defines as quality will always prevail.

"The Year of Punk" is an expression used for 1977. As "The Year Punk Broke" would have meant 1991 (because of the documentary).  

I disagree. Punk acts were still going and starting in this period.

I really couldn't care. There are still punk bands going and starting today, 2012 is not the year of punk.

 

Punk as a music genre started in NY in the early 70s but became a world-wide scene complete a recognisable image in 1976. The first British Punk album was released in 1977 and that to me marks the end of the anarchic, nihilistic, anti-establishment Punk and the beginning of sanitised corporate New Wave Punk.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scream_%28album%29" rel="nofollow - The first post-punk album was 1978 . Everything changed after that.

 

In 1978 Johnny Rotten became John Lydon and formed Public Image Limited.

By 1979 Punk was more deaderer than Prog ever was.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/77:_The_Year_of_Punk_and_New_Wave" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/77:_The_Year_of_Punk_and_New_Wave

 

 

Of course. That's why I wrote practically and not all. I don't know how you failed to notice. Nowhere am I suggesting that the greatest artists couldn't also be popular. 

And you're correct: Beyond rock is wrong and clumsy english (It happens all the time as its not my first language). 

Btw: Bach was drowned in the archives for nearly 200 years until Mendelssohn rediscovered him. 

I thought it was New Wave. 

Actually I had never heard of the term Post Punk until quite recently. As a genre it actually doesn't mean much  after punk? I presume it's for bands influenced by Punk or wre part of the movement only? Otherwise everything after is post punk.

But Siouxsie were regarded as a Punk band. Not that I thought so.....

It was all New Wave because New Wave wasn't/isn't a musicological subgenre, it's an umberalla term. When you can have The Banshees, Joy Division, Wire, Buzzcocks and Magazine grouped together with Blondie, Talking Heads and Mink Deville and then group them together with The Vapors, The Knack and The Motors you cannot say that is one genre of music.

 

I realise it is a catch all word. I just didn't put The Banshees in a further category. I don't remember any one calling them Post Punk at the time. If I ever read the word "Post Punk" I would not have assumed it a genre. Like Post War is a phrase to establish after the war.

And if  New Wave is not a genre then neither is NWOBHM

I absolutely agree with you  that 1978 wasn't the year of Punk though.

The phrase was first used in Sounds in 1977 to describe The Banshees but I will admit that I never used it at the time and it didn't become a musicological term until much later. A similar naming "controversy" exists over Prog Rock and Gothic Rock.

Never Mind the Bollocks may not be High Art and may have had more of an effect culturally than musically but that doesn't stop it being a rock album of the Dogs Bollocks variety.   And it continues to sound good even oh I can't think how many year later sorry

Which I believe will mean that the music will continue getting less and less relevant and more depending on the "you had to be there" aspect to understand why it once felt so important.

rogerthat wrote: Saperlipopette! wrote: rogerthat wrote: I just said it is ironic that considering you have scant regard for pop music, you would like these albums to command their rightful place historically because what that entails in the present day scenario is popularity votes.  I am not going to comment on what you have written later on in this comment about punk. Pop music? Thought I was only ranting about punk's place in rocks canon. I think re-evaluatation is a better and more precise term for the present day scenario than popularity. Its easier to look at phenomenas from a distance and see them for what they really were. You had also said something about the taste of normal people, which is what I had responded to, if you go back to where the discussion started.   That's what I am trying to say, you want these albums to climb high in what is essentially a barometer of normal people's taste.  Why should it matter if you think normal people don't have taste in music?  I agree with the other part about re-evaluation but I have yet to see that w.r.t punk.  As far as ubiquity, everything is ubiquitous these days.  Jazz is no better off than punk in that sense, given that Kenny G, whether we like it or not, defines jazz in the minds of many people.  Classical music is but a time filler on TV or the chime of a clock or some such machine.   Only the really dissonant stuff stays obscure...and even that makes it to Hollywood BGMs.  I have read that Art Zoyd's albums were used in video games, though I don't know that first hand.

Although some may think Kenny G defines jazz none of them have a say or impact. Jazz is still defined as "better" no matter what some clueless people think  

Saperlipopette!because wrote: "we" decided the musical quality is higher and that a lot of jazz is art, while a lot of popular music isn't.

 

Definitions in art comes from generalisations based on experience and knowledge and not absolute, waterproof facts, as its not science. The average poptune has less classical (as in timeless) potential than the average slice of jazz of classical. This is possible to state although its easy to come up with exceptions. (I sometime switch from pop to punk because you do, guessing you write about punk as popular music?)

In the long run "normal people" don't have a say about music or anything else. They just surround themselves with  what 's for sale in stores, on TV or on the radio for the time being just like everyone else. No one cares what they think as long as the consume what's offered right now.

terrible, due to the fact, they are best selling.

Same goes then for best selling movies, book ect. ect. 

 

You dont like Eagels, great, but that does not make it terrible. Mass culture (with a free marked attitude) tends to promote art, that is very easy to get into, to max profits.

More complex art, will always have a hard time, thats is sad, but its not the same as saying Mass culture cant provide good art. Or that normal people dont like good art.

I haven't got your argument backwards, I just use it backwards, because if most people have bad taste (you said that)

Then It's a fact that mid - late 70s Floyd was terrible, every single Beatles album, quite a few Jethro Tull, ect ect.

And Eagels are not terrible, they are good at what they do, you just don't like what they do.

There is bad music, made by fabricated bands, only with a commercial and no artistic value, but Eagels are not one of them. they just like a style of music, that you don't like.

I don't like Rolling Stones much, neither do I like ELP much, they sold a lot of records, but I cannot conclude everyone that likes them are peasants with no taste in music, they just doesn't ring my bell, that's all.

They wouldn't make my top 200 or anything like that, but they definitely doesn't make me puke either.

Saperlipopette! wrote: In the long run "normal people" don't have a say about music or anything else. They just surround themselves with  what 's for sale in stores, on TV or on the radio for the time being just like everyone else. No one cares what they think as long as the consume what's offered right now.

In the long run, "normal people" vote with their feet.   Left field music has only been pushed ever more into a corner.   There is no royal patronage for elite music anymore and therefore, the market rules.   Whether market forces help produce good music is debatable but they determine the extent of recognition accruing to artists much more than you'd like to concede.   Ah...and another inconvenient matter when it comes to elite prog rock is the jazz and classical people are not interested in analyzing it, on articulating what might be its musical significance.   It is only progheads going round in circles and feeling smug about their favourite music, at best. 

I  would say that most times they are pretty well close to the truth.

I'd say history gets magically rewritten all the time. Of course influence has plenty to do with it as we both agree on. You can call them elitists, but these elitists have always written our history. 

Now who was the most popular artist ca. 1900 of Gaughin, Monet, Munch or Cezanne? I don't know probably Monet, but none of them were anywhere near as popular as William Bouguereau... or Jean-Léon Gérôme... or Lord Leighton...

I know I went a little overboard with my normal people generalisations (but I generally believe them to be true).Try and replace it with some of the nicer terms that you could use: average joe, plain jane or maybe man of the street.... History takes no notice that in 1824 they loved John Hill Hewitt's The Minstrel's Return'd FromThe War while none of them had heard  Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. And even if they had heard it they would most definetely prefer the former.

What defined the strength of art in a historical perspective, will be what comes after. Now that we know painting would move towards the more abstract, and towards an expressionist approach to the theme, it's easy to understand that the impressionist was an important step in that direction.

When rock music started, everyone in music establishment hated it, And only young working class kids loved it.

When Heavy.........

Prog like Jazz was the "under education" wannabe intellectual kids music, but relatively fast, it influenced a much border 

70 scene, and became FM music. But prog was and is still rock music, and not the music of the highly educated, they still prefer the classic music scene. The intellectual elite have never supported rock music, prog or not prog.

Sorry for generalization in the above post, I'm aware that its not that simple, but to go into more detail, would make the post way to long