Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > General Music Discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Punk: A Logical Extension of Prog?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedPunk: A Logical Extension of Prog?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 891011>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
tamijo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 12:04
To answer the OP, there was a lot of diffrent music, not just Prog and Punk, and the turn into a simple and raw rock, was not unexpreted, and not new either. The new thing was that the press was pissing its pans over it this time. 
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
Back to Top
Svetonio View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 11:54
Originally posted by tamijo tamijo wrote:

This is the kind of debate that is very hard, because there is no objective defination to what is punk, proto punk, post punk ect. And there can be many different answers that could be subjectively correct. Based on where you live, what sources you had access to, and how you define your criteria.
The Punk "movement" was not big is my homeland, but it was not only "punks" that did listen to the music.
Few liked the Pistols, but there was a lot of people that liked The Clash, basicly because the music was better, and where I come is was quite normal that you like both Peter Gabriel, The Clash, Floyd Kate B, ect.   
    
In my country it was a big youth movement, and I saw the same thing in such a big centres as Paris and New York as well - even more than in London (maybe because the Punk origins were imported from USA to UK actually).


Edited by Svetonio - March 06 2015 at 11:56
Back to Top
tamijo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 11:41
This is the kind of debate that is very hard, because there is no objective defination to what is punk, proto punk, post punk ect. And there can be many different answers that could be subjectively correct. Based on where you live, what sources you had access to, and how you define your criteria.
The Punk "movement" was not big is my homeland, but it was not only "punks" that did listen to the music.
Few liked the Pistols, but there was a lot of people that liked The Clash, basicly because the music was better, and where I come is was quite normal that you like both Peter Gabriel, The Clash, Floyd Kate B, ect. 
 
No one was interested in defining genre, we just liked music, lots of diffrent music.
I loved the early Pere Ubu albums back them, but i couldent care less if it was punk or prog.    
    

Edited by tamijo - March 06 2015 at 11:43
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 11:28
Originally posted by The Truth The Truth wrote:

I find it interesting to consider that the first British album to call itself "punk" (Peter Hammill's Nadir's Big Chance) was also very much a progressive rock album. I also think a lot of proto-punk, a-la The Velvet Underground/Lou Reed ventures into avant territory which while not necessarily progressive rock, there was some overlap.
Hmm. I suspect that Hammill was using the 'juvenile delinquent' meaning of the term, regarding Rikki Nadir as a street punk making music. Rael in Lamb Lies Down On Broadway was a street punk, as were the rival gangs in West Side Story.
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 11:19
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

^Post punk, eh? Ok, that makes sense. But who were the real Punks then? And what became of them?
Well, it certainly wasn't The Sex Pistols, The Clash, The Dammed, The Ramones or Television.
 
I'm not sure if "real punk" ever fully existed, the DIY Punk ethos by its very anti-consumerism was destined to appeal to a very limited audience. Even later hardcore punk bands like Crass (formed in 1977, so I reserve the right to call them "later") were at the Performance-Art end of the DIY Punk spectrum.
What?
Back to Top
The Truth View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 19 2009
Location: Kansas
Status: Offline
Points: 21795
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 10:52
I find it interesting to consider that the first British album to call itself "punk" (Peter Hammill's Nadir's Big Chance) was also very much a progressive rock album. I also think a lot of proto-punk, a-la The Velvet Underground/Lou Reed ventures into avant territory which while not necessarily progressive rock, there was some overlap.
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 10:43
^Post punk, eh? Ok, that makes sense. But who were the real Punks then? And what became of them?
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 10:39
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

^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?
Yes, but I have not spoken of Punk's origins, that to me is immaterial. This topic is related to what came after since Punk per se was not a logical extension of Prog in they way that post-punk new-wave was. Even what little Punk remained became detached from its disaffected and rebellious blue-collar beginnings.
You did not speak directly about punk's origins, but anyone who read 70s-80's trade publications would be aware of it's origins. In your case, by proxy, as you yourself stated that you discovered the twisted reporting of punk's growth in these music magazines.
 
Is this not relevant to the OP's question?
Growth yes, origins no.
Now I'm not sure of what you're saying. If the punk movement had an origin, which is what I've been hinting at, then punk not could not be a logical extention  of prog. Agreed?
Agreed. I have said it wasn't. 

I think the confusion comes from the notion that Punk has a wider connotation than simply the music that emerged in 1976 and all but disappeared in the space of a few short months. By the time most of those early Punk bands came to record their début albums they too had moved on. What the general public saw as Punk Rock was in reality post-punk new wave.
What?
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 10:22
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

^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?
Yes, but I have not spoken of Punk's origins, that to me is immaterial. This topic is related to what came after since Punk per se was not a logical extension of Prog in they way that post-punk new-wave was. Even what little Punk remained became detached from its disaffected and rebellious blue-collar beginnings.
You did not speak directly about punk's origins, but anyone who read 70s-80's trade publications would be aware of it's origins. In your case, by proxy, as you yourself stated that you discovered the twisted reporting of punk's growth in these music magazines.
 
Is this not relevant to the OP's question?
Growth yes, origins no.
Now I'm not sure of what you're saying. If the punk movement had an origin, instead of being a musical outgrowth of some kind, which is what I've been hinting at, then punk not could not be a logical extention  of prog. Agreed?

Edited by SteveG - March 06 2015 at 10:35
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 10:18
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:


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?
Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. In another thread I suggested that the apparent trend of music to skip a generation was a generalisation. We are not all born into discrete demographics or generations that can be nicely compartmentalised and pigeon-holed, just as the music scene didn't instantly change from 70s music to 80s music at the stroke of midnight on 31st December 1979. 

I do not profess anything, nor do I accuse the music journalists of cherry-picking, backlashes were common at the time, it was practically a national sport and had been for as long as I can remember, the phrase "sell out" had been levelled at artists since the 60s. While I never said that bands pander to journalists to become more popular, snubbing a journalist was never a good career move unless your continued success and popularity was assured, and even then it could be unwise. 
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 10:11
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

^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?
Yes, but I have not spoken of Punk's origins, that to me is immaterial. This topic is related to what came after since Punk per se was not a logical extension of Prog in they way that post-punk new-wave was. Even what little Punk remained became detached from its disaffected and rebellious blue-collar beginnings.
You did not speak directly about punk's origins, but anyone who read 70s-80's trade publications would be aware of it's origins. In your case, by proxy, as you yourself stated that you discovered the twisted reporting of punk's growth in these music magazines.
 
Is this not relevant to the OP's question?
Growth yes, origins no.
What?
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 09:59
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

^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?
Yes, but I have not spoken of Punk's origins, that to me is immaterial. This topic is related to what came after since Punk per se was not a logical extension of Prog in they way that post-punk new-wave was. Even what little Punk remained became detached from its disaffected and rebellious blue-collar beginnings.
You did not speak directly about punk's origins, but anyone who read 70s-80's trade publications would be aware of it's origins. In your case, by proxy, as you yourself stated that you discovered the twisted reporting of punk's growth in these music magazines.
 
Is this not relevant to the OP's question?


Edited by SteveG - March 06 2015 at 10:00
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 09:56
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Ermm 


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?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 09:52
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

^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?
Yes, but I have not spoken of Punk's origins, that to me is immaterial. This topic is related to what came after since Punk per se was not a logical extension of Prog in they way that post-punk new-wave was. Even what little Punk remained became detached from its disaffected and rebellious blue-collar beginnings.


Edited by Dean - March 06 2015 at 09:53
What?
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 09:46
^ 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.
 
Btw, these phonies are no longer my friends. LOL
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
Toaster Mantis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 09:41
The entire "punk vs. prog" rivalry is something that I in real life have never ever heard anyone under the age of 40 remark on or even show any familiarity with. The few people I discuss music with on a regular basis with in real life actually come from the crust/grind/hardcore punk milieu here in Denmark, and because of stuff like Botch or Dillinger Escape Plan most of those types are also into more technically involved and ambitious music. That's even before you consider that in Denmark and Sweden the people involved in the death metal and grindcore (a particularly extreme punk subgenre) undergrounds are at the grassroots level mostly the same individuals, so they're neither turned off by fantastic subject matter.

For an example, check out this band I'm friends with in real life, the hilariously named Piss Vortex who are very strongly inspired by technical prog metal in the Gorguts and Voivod vein only with their innovations adapted to a grind/hardcore context instead.


Edited by Toaster Mantis - March 06 2015 at 09:55
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 09:34
^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
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 09:29
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Ermm 


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.





Edited by Dean - March 06 2015 at 09:29
What?
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 09:25
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming 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)
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 06 2015 at 09:18
Originally posted by ExittheLemming 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 was the case in the U.S.
 
Do you feel my view has any merit?


Edited by SteveG - March 06 2015 at 09:19
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 891011>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.180 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.