Punk: A Logical Extension of Prog?

I opt for the latter. Punk was a rebellion against rock music that had become too complex for some to handle.

Atavachron wrote: Forget about whether it "killed prog", which it didn't, it did digress or at least regress rock to a point of astounding if roughly-cut clarity.   There are a few rare instances of prog/art rockers dabbling in and eventually turning to punk, such as the Goldring twins (Gnidrolog) going on to become the Pork Dukes, and styles of progressive rock that clearly draw from punk, like mathrock.   But was Punk rock a continuation of the development of rock as a from of music that apparently has few boundaries other than that it retain some semblance of a rock format?   Or was it just a crude rebellion that struck a chord in a lot of people?

Punk in general was the last big movement of youth. As a sub-genre of rock music, it was anti-prog more than anything else.

Svetonio wrote: Punk in general was the last big movement of youth. As a sub-genre of rock music, it was anti-prog more than anything else.

Edited by Dean - March 06 2015 at 07:43

Dean wrote: Punk - no. Post-punk - certainly.

This. And Wire in particular.

I believe the so-called hippy movement circa 1967 was at the source a genuine manifestation of a firm disavowal of the types of obsolete values bequeathed to a post WW2 generation. History teaches us that even an unimpeachable past will be rejected as false, hollow and reactionary to any subsequent generation. (This might be deemed churlish, but is healthy and testimony to a questioning, irreverent and intelligent demographic who refuse to recycle the mistakes of history - albeit this rebellion is self evidently cyclic in nature) Such a cultural groundswell is rare in our republicanised and commodified world and seems to take a planet ravaging global conflict to bring about alas.... We should of course cherish such a response as befitting a faint vestige of consumer sovereignty whenever such rears it's plebeian head. I actually agree with Dean here i.e. Post Punk could be considered a logical extension consequence of Prog i.e. most adventurous and forward thinking musicians circa 1980 would have been intrigued/inspired by the musical freedom afforded by Prog but appalled at it's eventual descent into a bloated, complacent and self indulgent apology for 'unswerving integrity' that robbed the masses of a credible voice to articulate their dissatisfaction with a cultural status quo that would have deemed Status Quo as 'prole art threat edgy'
However, even by the routinely Olympian level standards of crass revisionist drivel that Dean normally churns out, the notion that the cart (punk journalists i.e. Sounds) were driving the horse (musicians circa 1976 onwards) smacks of someone crow-barring the world's most inane yet tempting pun into an argument (Punk - tuated Equilibrium geddit?)


Edited by ExittheLemming - March 06 2015 at 08:52

Dean wrote:

Both of us can articulate our ideas without recourse to graphics that would indicate otherwise erm....

I've just agreed with you re the Post Punk comment but the toys are out the cot otherwise?

SteveG wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: I believe the so-called hippy movement circa 1967 was at the source a genuine manifestation of a firm disavowal of the types of obsolete values bequeathed to a post WW2 generation. History teaches us that even an unimpeachable past will be rejected as false, hollow and reactionary to any subsequent generation. (This might be deemed churlish, but is healthy and testimony to a questioning, irreverent and intelligent demographic who refuse to recycle the mistakes of history - albeit this rebellion is self evidently cyclic in nature) Such a cultural groundswell is rare in our republicanised and commodified world and seems to take a planet ravaging global conflict to bring about alas.... We should of course cherish such a response as befitting a faint vestige of consumer sovereignty whenever such rears it's plebeian head. I actually agree with Dean here i.e. Post Punk could be considered a logical extension consequence of Prog i.e. most adventurous and forward thinking musicians circa 1980 would have been intrigued/inspired by the musical freedom afforded by Prog but appalled at it's eventual descent into a bloated, complacent and self indulgent apology for 'unswerving integrity' that robbed the masses of a credible voice to articulate their dissatisfaction with a cultural status quo that would have deemed Status Quo as 'prole art threat edgy' However, even by the routinely Olympian level standards of crass revisionist drivel that Dean normally churns out, the notion that the cart (punk journalists i.e. Sounds) were driving the horse (musicians circa 1976 onwards) smacks of someone crow-barring the world's most inane yet tempting pun into an argument (Punk - tuated Equilibrium geddit?) I going to go with the old theory that youth needs to rebel, and that great support from a significant part of the mass population fuels such rebellion. So, the WW2 'baby boomer' rebellion of the  sixties seems to fall in line with this theory. The Punk explosion seemed to form for different reasons on either side oft the Atlantic. In NYC, the punk craze seemed to be a NYC reaction to the past Greenwich Village folk scene and the ensuing disco craze.   I think that the punk scene in the U. K. was fueled more by economic and social issues that existed in U. K. at that time, and was more of a socio-cultural reactionary statement than just a change in music trends, as in the U.S.   Do you feel my view has any merit?

Any articulated view has merit c/f a lazy hippy c.u.n.t.'s complacent pejorative graphic. Yes, the UK Punk phenomenon (notwithstanding its McLaren engineered caesarian birth was a political phenomenon c/f the bohemian/aesthetic ethos of the US version as evidenced by Patti Smith, Richard Hell, Television et al)

^This is another tricky part of the puzzle, the way the music media jumped on the punk band wagon without thinking for a single second. But it's secondary for the reason for punk's origins, is it not?

Edited by SteveG - March 06 2015 at 09:38

^ I wish I could say I had the same experience! I actually had friends that jumped from Prog straight onto the punk bandwagon, without blinking an eye. The first inkling that I  had of how superficial some people can be in regard to trends in art.

Dean wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: Dean wrote:   Both of us can articulate our ideas without recourse to graphics that would indicate otherwise erm.... I've just agreed with you re the Post Punk comment but the toys are out the cot otherwise? I'm just a little puzzled by the mildly vitriolic flavour of the words you chose "...the routinely Olympian level standards of crass revisionist drivel that Dean normally churns out..." would perhaps raise an eyebrow from me in response if spoken to me in a pub after a few brews, but on an impersonal internet forum an "erm" will suffice. As to putting the cart before the horse I would ask you where you gained your knowledge of the music scene at the time if it were not solely from the music press? As a regular reader of both the NME and Sounds from the early 70s through to the late 80s (less so the Melody Maker and Rolling Stone), I was suckered in by the opinions that the journalists would seem fit to write in those publications, until I realised how quick they were to turn on any band or artist who had the temerity to be "popular"... the time-honoured backlash that they heaped upon the Prog artists of the 70s was soon levelled at the 80s new-wave artists who failed to pander to them. If it it is revisionist to hold up these music journalists for scrutiny, and to take them to account for the less-than-impartial attitude they had to various bands and genres of music then so be it.

Why do you defend the natural inclination of any subsequent demographic to reject the values of the previous regime as evidenced by music journalism? Not all of us are 'suckered in' by someone who is paid to pronounce that popularity = death of credibility. If you were a regular reader of both NME and Sounds circa early 70's to late 80's (that's 20 years stubborn refusal to bow to peer group pressure, way to go boyo) is this somewhow indicative that cherry picking to conclude that music you profess to loathe is popular therefore it sucks?. How exactly do bands pander to journalists to become more popular? Are immoral acts inveigled in this scenario?