Old punk

[Sienna]

Hey all, lately I've been getting really into playing older punk on cam. Current faves are X (Los Angeles and Wild Gift) and Iggy Pop (Lust for Life).
I really need more suggestions on awesome albums though! I was thinking Lou Reed or Velvet Underground but it's a little too slow.
Any help is appreciated!

 

[PunkInDrublic]

 

[IsabellaSnow]

I'm not sure I'd class Iggy pop or velvet underground as punk. Awesome yes, but punk? Mmmm not so much. I know they were bands considered influential to punk bands but not actually Punk bands themselves.
I'm english though and my best friend through school was a major punk, as well as many of my friends so maybe I have a different definition. Old punk is more like the Sex Pistols, the Ramones, the Clash and Dropkick Murphys.
Funnily I actually have both velvet underground and Iggy pop on my camming playlist at the moment.

 

[mynameisbob84]

I'm not sure I'd class Iggy pop or velvet underground as punk

The Stooges (Iggy's first band) were proto-punk and along with the MC5, pretty much the first of their kind. I'd definitely class them as a punk band, yo. The only reason they weren't labelled as such when they were first starting out was because punk wasn't a thing yet. From the Stooges and MC5, you got the Ramones and the New York Dolls and from there you got the Sex Pistols and Malcom McLaren using punk as an identifier and a marketing slogan. But really, the Sex Pistols weren't doing a whole lot that those bands before them hadn't already done, they just had a much more singular identity that people could easily recognise and adopt.

Also, punk is kind of like indie, in that it's an all encompassing term. An indie band like Oasis sound nothing like an indie band such as Broken Social Scene for example. Punk as a genre has many, many sub-genres (proto-punk, old school punk and ska, punk rock, post-punk, pop punk, hardcore, post-hardcore, etc.) but really, it's more of an ethos. Any band or artist that does things outside of the box, that rejects musical paradigms, that builds an underground following outside of the mainstream, could lay claim to being "punk". The Velvet Underground, especially on their early albums, did all of those things.

Sorry, I be a music nerd :-D

Also, some decent old (and not so old) punk...

 

[Red7227]

Oh dear... Not all of these bands are Punk, but most punk bands were pretty shitful anyway.

The Cramps - punkish and a lot of fun, though actually quite crap.

The Saints - the first punks and the best.

The clash - obviously

The Police - not really punk but sounds the part and they have a lot of good songs.

Billy Idol - brilliant writing and a really nice man, some will sound the part.

Adam Ant - yes well, not all punk is dark and morbid, but sometime flashy and retarded.

The stranglers - technically a very nice band and some good songs.

Madness - not really, but lots of good shit

The Dandy Wahols - "Bohemian like you" not really, full frontal naked boys and girls in a video clip in the 80s

The chemical brothers - Hard techno but it sounds the part

The prodigy - fuck knows, but some of their stuff sounds the part.

The white stripes - much good shit that sounds the part.

 

[MemberEd]

Here are a few

Television
The Jam (early stuff)
The Ramones (of course)
Richard Hell and the Voidoids.
The Dictators
The Dead Boys.
Patti Smith Group (horses album).

 

[BrokenFace]

I'm not sure I'd class Iggy pop or velvet underground as punk

The Stooges (Iggy's first band) were proto-punk and along with the MC5, pretty much the first of their kind. I'd definitely class them as a punk band, yo. The only reason they weren't labelled as such when they were first starting out was because punk wasn't a thing yet. From the Stooges and MC5, you got the Ramones and the New York Dolls and from there you got the Sex Pistols and Malcom McLaren using punk as an identifier and a marketing slogan. But really, the Sex Pistols weren't doing a whole lot that those bands before them hadn't already done, they just had a much more singular identity that people could easily recognise and adopt.

Also, punk is kind of like indie, in that it's an all encompassing term. An indie band like Oasis sound nothing like an indie band such as Broken Social Scene for example. Punk as a genre has many, many sub-genres (proto-punk, old school punk and ska, punk rock, post-punk, pop punk, hardcore, post-hardcore, etc.) but really, it's more of an ethos. Any band or artist that does things outside of the box, that rejects musical paradigms, that builds an underground following outside of the mainstream, could lay claim to being "punk". The Velvet Underground, especially on their early albums, did all of those things.

Sorry, I be a music nerd :-D

Clearly there is a timeline of musical influences for any genre and it's impossible to define an exact point of time when a musical style begins.
However, I'd agree more with Isabella that in the UK most people would view the term 'early punk' as the period 1976 - 1979.

To quote from wikipedia:
"This is a timeline of punk rock, from its beginnings in the early 1960s to the present time. Bands or albums listed before 1974 are of diverse genres and are retrospectively called "protopunk". Over the years 1974 and 1975, the scene emerged that developed into punk, and it had acquired this name by the start of 1976."

It doesn't really matter apart from not being sure what the OP was asking for.


On that basis, fast pop punk with Track 1 being the MFC theme tune:



One of the great female rock icons. Poly Styrene RIP

 

[Sienna]

Wow I wasn't expecting such awesome responses. THANK YOU!

Downloaded the Clash as soon as I posted this, cause DUH.

Oh man I haven't listened to Dead Kennedys, Fugazi, or Bad Religion in FOREVER. Yessss. Oh god, camming to Too Drunk To Fuck would be fantastic.

I used to work with a stripper who danced to The Cramps. She was super tattooed and damn, she looked good dancing to them.

 

[Sienna]

Hey now, Iggy Pop is The Godfather of Punk after all.

 

[Sevrin]

There was a fair bit of music in the late 60's and early 70's that were making music that people would have had no problem recognizing as punk if you told them a band like The Sex Pistols had done it. Bands didn't try to define themselves as "punk", they were just making music.

Some of the stuff off Alice Cooper's first couple of albums was a little in that direction, but he was already heading toward the theatrical. You can find Pretties for You and Easy Action on YouTube. Not *exactly* punk, but fun to listen to. But as Bob already mentioned, the New York Dolls were definitely in that category. Their brand of androgyny was more unsettling and raw than what you got from David Bowie at the time. They were one of my favourite bands of the time. Oh, yeah, and Horses period Patty Smith, for sure.



If you don't mind non-English music, you can also check out Nina Hagen, although she was sort of a German version of The Tubes.

 

[Brad]

Fucking love Wendy O and still miss her.

 

[IsabellaSnow]

Iggy pop and velvet underground are proto-punk, but that just means they're influential to pink bands that came in later. It means that the band themselves aren't punk but they influenced punk. There are lots of different kinds of Punk, just like the Clash is very different from the Casualties, but both those bands are still Punk, they have similarities and fit the category, something Iggy pop and velvet underground don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protopunk

 

[Sevrin]

Iggy pop and velvet underground are proto-punk, but that just means they're influential to pink bands that came in later. It means that the band themselves aren't punk but they influenced punk. There are lots of different kinds of Punk, just like the Clash is very different from the Casualties, but both those bands are still Punk, they have similarities and fit the category, something Iggy pop and velvet underground don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protopunk

That's just nit-picking about what musicians fall into which category. It's pure hipster wankery and serves no purpose. Is there some supreme being who says what kind of music is what? What difference does it make what's "punk" and "protopunk", or God forbid "post punk".

 

[JoleneBrody]

Iggy pop and velvet underground are proto-punk, but that just means they're influential to pink bands that came in later. It means that the band themselves aren't punk but they influenced punk. There are lots of different kinds of Punk, just like the Clash is very different from the Casualties, but both those bands are still Punk, they have similarities and fit the category, something Iggy pop and velvet underground don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protopunk

That's just nit-picking about what musicians fall into which category. It's pure hipster wankery and serves no purpose. Is there some supreme being who says what kind of music is what? What difference does it make what's "punk" and "protopunk", or God forbid "post punk".

I'm backing Sevrin on this one. LOTS of bands who were bopping around before the official classification was coined would even identify THEMSELVES as punk, they just didn't know what to call it then because it didn't have a name.

 

[Eden01]

Iggy pop and velvet underground are proto-punk, but that just means they're influential to pink bands that came in later. It means that the band themselves aren't punk but they influenced punk. There are lots of different kinds of Punk, just like the Clash is very different from the Casualties, but both those bands are still Punk, they have similarities and fit the category, something Iggy pop and velvet underground don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protopunk

That's just nit-picking about what musicians fall into which category. It's pure hipster wankery and serves no purpose. Is there some supreme being who says what kind of music is what? What difference does it make what's "punk" and "protopunk", or God forbid "post punk".

Well, no Isabella is most definitely correct, and I've seen many documentaries and read many interviews with true Punks who hate it themselves with other groups and styles are lumped in with Punk. I don't myself think it matters to much, but that was a bit of an over reaction on your part!

Anyway, and amazing 3 part documentary to check out if you do enjoy Punk and would like a bit of history on the movement, it's origins and death is the BBC's 3 part 'Punk Britannia' series. I highly recommend it just for the rare live footage, not just of Punks and bands, but the whole scene and culture at the time. It's fascinating and will give you lots of new bands - famous and obscure you will want to check out!

 

[KayleePond]

I think that it is a little out of the spirit of punk in general to be so picky though. I don't think it matters what the name was or what year it started as long as the intention and feeling fits the genre. I'm sure that the bands that fall into the category of "First Punk Bands" would not scoff at including some of the legends that are technically in the "Proto Punk" category.

Punk has changed a lot and is incredibly varied, when we're talking about someone looking for music suggestions I think that it's more important to note which bands they've enjoyed and then spread out from there as far as the music itself and feeling. It's part of why the music genome project is great (often flawed, but still great) because it doesn't give a shit about names or titles but does care about the characteristics of the music you enjoy, what sort of tempo you like or if you though the subtle vocal harmonies were awesome or whatever. So it starts spreading out these branches and leading you to more things you like!

Some "Old School" punk is waaaaay different than later punk. Seriously The Ramones often evoke more Beach Boys than what a lot of people would think of as punk, which totally makes sense and is awesome in my opinion. Times and music change, but I think sometimes that worrying too much about labels is more hurtful than helpful. The lines can be pretty blurry between genres, but I think it's just important to listen to what you like.

This video seems a bit silly but I actually agree with many of the choices, so it might be helpful to you Sienna! (Of course many bands have been mentioned already.)

 

[JoleneBrody]

I think that it is a little out of the spirit of punk in general to be so picky though. I don't think it matters what the name was or what year it started as long as the intention and feeling fits the genre. I'm sure that the bands that fall into the category of "First Punk Bands" would not scoff at including some of the legends that are technically in the "Proto Punk" category.

Punk has changed a lot and is incredibly varied, when we're talking about someone looking for music suggestions I think that it's more important to note which bands they've enjoyed and then spread out from there as far as the music itself and feeling. It's part of why the music genome project is great (often flawed, but still great) because it doesn't give a shit about names or titles but does care about the characteristics of the music you enjoy, what sort of tempo you like or if you though the subtle vocal harmonies were awesome or whatever. So it starts spreading out these branches and leading you to more things you like!

Some "Old School" punk is waaaaay different than later punk. Seriously The Ramones often evoke more Beach Boys than what a lot of people would think of as punk, which totally makes sense and is awesome in my opinion. Times and music change, but I think sometimes that worrying too much about labels is more hurtful than helpful. The lines can be pretty blurry between genres, but I think it's just important to listen to what you like.

This video seems a bit silly but I actually agree with many of the choices, so it might be helpful to you Sienna! (Of course many bands have been mentioned already.)

THAT! ALL OF THAT!

And that video is a wonderful collection! Plug in some of those bands into say, a spotify radio and you should get great stuff coming up!

I wanted to add a few. I'm a big fan of the Orange County Punk!
Adolescents, D.I., Agent Orange great bands to also kick off from.

 

[BrokenFace]

I think that it is a little out of the spirit of punk in general to be so picky though. I don't think it matters what the name was or what year it started as long as the intention and feeling fits the genre. I'm sure that the bands that fall into the category of "First Punk Bands" would not scoff at including some of the legends that are technically in the "Proto Punk" category.
....

You're right it doesn't matter except that it helps to clarify what Sienna was actually asking for.
And, of course, we need to make it clear that we invented punk in 1976 not you Yanks years before!

On the subject of the "spirit of punk", I didn't think that 25 band video was very representative.
Nearly every band was 4 men, where had the women gone?

Siouxsie, The Slits, Penetration, X Ray Spex, the Riot Grrrl bands, Hole, Babes in Toyland etc etc

So many great female punk singers/bands.

 

[Red7227]

I think that it is a little out of the spirit of punk in general to be so picky though. I don't think it matters what the name was or what year it started as long as the intention and feeling fits the genre. I'm sure that the bands that fall into the category of "First Punk Bands" would not scoff at including some of the legends that are technically in the "Proto Punk" category.

Punk has changed a lot and is incredibly varied, when we're talking about someone looking for music suggestions I think that it's more important to note which bands they've enjoyed and then spread out from there as far as the music itself and feeling. It's part of why the music genome project is great (often flawed, but still great) because it doesn't give a shit about names or titles but does care about the characteristics of the music you enjoy, what sort of tempo you like or if you though the subtle vocal harmonies were awesome or whatever. So it starts spreading out these branches and leading you to more things you like!

Some "Old School" punk is waaaaay different than later punk. Seriously The Ramones often evoke more Beach Boys than what a lot of people would think of as punk, which totally makes sense and is awesome in my opinion. Times and music change, but I think sometimes that worrying too much about labels is more hurtful than helpful. The lines can be pretty blurry between genres, but I think it's just important to listen to what you like.

Exactly. Split Enz were famous for doing heavy metal and punk versions of their songs at gigs. Trying to stick labels on things is stupid, bands influence each other and evolve over time and being precious about a particular genre is fucking retarded. In the early 80s I was listening to Stravinsky, The Dead Kennedys, Kate Bush, The Saints, The Clash, Cocteau Twins, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Simple Minds, Nina Hagen, Depeche Mode and U2 - and fuck knows what else. Edit, and The Slits though that was mostly because they were naked on their album covers.

Here are a couple Aussie bands who formed in 1974. If you like punk you will like these, not least because they don't suck

 

[IsabellaSnow]

But genre's do exist. I love music from all sorts of genre's, but they're set in certain genre's for a reason. If you decide you might as well call a carrot a courgette because they're both good vegetables then that's fine, but calling it that won't change what it is. We use labels for a reason. If this were a thread titled "really awesome music!" then obviously it wouldn't matter, but using the word "old punk" implies it's going to be about Punk music, if labelling things is stupid then the word "punk" is stupid and useless and shouldn't be used, ever. The reason it is is so that if someone wants to listen to a certain type of music they can look up bands and find them easily. Labels have uses.

I also know plenty of people who are very into Punk, both the music and the culture who do roll their eyes and get irritated by people using the word to describe bands that aren't that sort of music, so it's not really out of the spirit of punk. Punk itself is still conforming to a certain style, a certain taste in music and a certain lifestyle. Part of it is about not conforming to one lifestyle and music taste, but by doing so they're conforming to a different area. Punks by nature aren't all chilled out and accepting, that's not what it's about, they're angry and rebellious, so yes almost all of the punks I've met do get annoyed about people calling non punk bands punk, and I can understand why.

The point I was making about the word proto-punk is that although it has the word "punk" in it, the word itself means it is not punk. You can call me nitpicky, but it makes sense to me to use the correct words for things and to understand their meanings when you say them otherwise no one will have any idea what anyone else is talking about.

Sorry edit to add: I'm really not trying to cause an argument or be disruptive, it probably sounds different when you read it to how I mean it to sound.

 

[mynameisbob84]

But genre's do exist. I love music from all sorts of genre's, but they're set in certain genre's for a reason. If you decide you might as well call a carrot a courgette because they're both good vegetables then that's fine, but calling it that won't change what it is. We use labels for a reason. If this were a thread titled "really awesome music!" then obviously it wouldn't matter, but using the word "old punk" implies it's going to be about Punk music, if labelling things is stupid then the word "punk" is stupid and useless and shouldn't be used, ever. The reason it is is so that if someone wants to listen to a certain type of music they can look up bands and find them easily. Labels have uses.

I also know plenty of people who are very into Punk, both the music and the culture who do roll their eyes and get irritated by people using the word to describe bands that aren't that sort of music, so it's not really out of the spirit of punk. Punk itself is still conforming to a certain style, a certain taste in music and a certain lifestyle. Part of it is about not conforming to one lifestyle and music taste, but by doing so they're conforming to a different area. Punks by nature aren't all chilled out and accepting, that's not what it's about, they're angry and rebellious, so yes almost all of the punks I've met do get annoyed about people calling non punk bands punk, and I can understand why.

The point I was making about the word proto-punk is that although it has the word "punk" in it, the word itself means it is not punk. You can call me nitpicky, but it makes sense to me to use the correct words for things and to understand their meanings when you say them otherwise no one will have any idea what anyone else is talking about.

Sorry edit to add: I'm really not trying to cause an argument or be disruptive, it probably sounds different when you read it to how I mean it to sound.

I get where you're coming from but the thing about music and trying to categorise something like music, is that it's incredibly subjective. What one person might classify as punk, someone else might classify as rock, or even pop. Take, I dunno, Green Day. They started out as a punk band, then they started writing pop songs and then they started attempting to write rock operas. Despite that, most people would likely still class Green Day as punk, right?

But that doesn't mean that should someone start a thread asking for modern rock recommendations, Green Day should be disqualified from contention for such a thread because for convenience's sake, it's been established that Green Day are a punk band. By the same token, proto-punk bands shouldn't be disqualified from contention in a thread like this, even though the OP specified "old punk" and the likes of Iggy Pop and the MC5 were knocking around before punk was a term :twocents-02cents:

 

[IsabellaSnow]

Despite that, most people would likely still class Green Day as punk, right?

I wouldn't, and I don't know any friends into punk who would. Maybe some people do, but just like Blink 182 isn't punk, though some people say it is. It's a rock band. Travis Barker has drummed in punk bands and is an epic drummer, but that doesn't mean that every band he'll play in will be punk music. It's rock music. I don't really see that that's a bad label to have. The word punk doesn't mean "cool", and it's fine to mention other bands you like in a similar genre, or other genre's but as I have never met anyone in the music industry or who was part of the punk movement call Iggy pop or Velvet underground punk bands, and actually if you look them both up it specifically says neither of them are classed as punk bands, I thought I'd add it as educational insight.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with knowing the correct terms for music and using them. Like I said, there's a reason for these terms, and though they may be subjective to some people, the people who actually make up these terms and label music are professionals in the industry in those particular areas, so yes some people may disagree, but what are you really disagreeing with? It's just a label to specify a certain type of music, if you start going out of those terms I might as well post a song I really like by Rihanna that has a bit of guitar and say that because I think it sounds punk that it is punk, and then have a big argument in a music shop with the manager because the cd isn't where I think it'll be.

Both the bands mentioned are amazing bands, one's I listen to and are definitely worth being recognised, but I thought the OP might be interested to know that they're not actually punk bands themselves.

 

[mynameisbob84]

Despite that, most people would likely still class Green Day as punk, right?

I wouldn't, and I don't know any friends into punk who would. Maybe some people do, but just like Blink 182 isn't punk, though some people say it is. It's a rock band. Travis Barker has drummed in punk bands and is an epic drummer, but that doesn't mean that every band he'll play in will be punk music. It's rock music.

This is a perfect example of that subjectivity that makes strictly confining bands to rigidly structured genres so problematic. I would class both Green Day and Blink 182 as pop-punk bands, just as I think the majority of their fans and the music press would. You class them as rock and that's fine. Genres are fluid and which bands fit into which genres is ultimately subjective. Which is why I think it's perfectly acceptable to label Iggy Pop et al as punk.

 

[Sevrin]

You are toying with forces you don't understand!

Are you folks prepared to deal with the consequences when someone wastes three minutes of their life listening to music by a not-quite-punk band, or conversely, is deprived of the opportunity to enjoy the music of a not-really-thought-of-as-but-sort-of-is-punk band?

 

[JoleneBrody]

A sub-genre is still part of a genre. arguing that a "proto-punk" band is not a "punk" band is as ludicrous as arguing that an 'anthem punk' band is not a "punk band" or "street punk" or "pop-punk" (which BTW green-day and Blink-182 most definitely fall under) or 'crust punk' or 'folk punk' or 'Horror punk' every other god damned different type of 'punk'.

I could seriously list sub genres of 'Punk' until my face turned blue but that doesn't make them any less a sub-genre of the 'Punk' genre.

I've grown up with Punk rock my whole life, I'm very passionate about it. As a grown up Punk rocker who has actually lived in this scene, and was basically raised by the culture I gotta say, your argument is making my Eye twitch Isabelle. You are def entitled to your opinion on the matter but your opinion is not necessarily the end all RIGHT opinion. Like... by far.

I used to work in booking shows and have worked with and spent time with a hand full of those old "not punk" bands that still get there wrinkly asses up on stage from time to time and yeah... they're Punk Rockers and any "hardcore punks" who get pissy about a band being called punk that they don't approve of is a fucking cry-baby bed wetter.

 

[JoleneBrody]

Anywho, to the OP.

"X" is one of my absolute favorite bands ever ever EVER! It always makes me so happy to see other people who love them too! Have you checked out any of the solo stuff that Xcene Cevenka (sp?) or John Doe Did? It's quite different but super awesome!

You might also check out The Dickies, they are another favorite of mine they're super fun!
Descendants are also a really fun one for cam!

 

[Eden01]

A sub-genre is still part of a genre. arguing that a "proto-punk" band is not a "punk" band is as ludicrous as arguing that an 'anthem punk' band is not a "punk band" or "street punk" or "pop-punk" (which BTW green-day and Blink-182 most definitely fall under) or 'crust punk' or 'folk punk' or 'Horror punk' every other god damned different type of 'punk'.

See here's the thing, if you want to take the pissy wiki definition of what is punk - you are totally correct. But as soon as you say 'pop-punk' and vouch for Green Day and Blink 182 being punk in the true sense of the word or movement you just lost any credibility you had on the subject.

I could seriously list sub genres of 'Punk' until my face turned blue but that doesn't make them any less a sub-genre of the 'Punk' genre.

For sub-genre see watered down.

I've grown up with Punk rock my whole life, I'm very passionate about it. As a grown up Punk rocker who has actually lived in this scene, and was basically raised by the culture I gotta say, your argument is making my Eye twitch Isabelle. You are def entitled to your opinion on the matter but your opinion is not necessarily the end all RIGHT opinion. Like... by far.

But you see, there are some people who say things like that, but unless you grew up in the UK in the 70's, you missed the boat. The depressing culture and the youth rebellion to basically having no future it Punk. Not the hip post punk, punk culture that became so cool after. I guess it's probably an English view of punk and the time and culture that created it vs. the world view of the movement and what it became by the early 80's.

I used to work in booking shows and have worked with and spent time with a hand full of those old "not punk" bands that still get there wrinkly asses up on stage from time to time and yeah... they're Punk Rockers and any "hardcore punks" who get pissy about a band being called punk that they don't approve of is a fucking cry-baby bed wetter.

I don't actually mind what you are saying about the older acts that preceded and inspired Punk being described as 'Punk Rockers'. That may actually be what some of the contention is here, what is 'Punk', and what is 'Punk Rock'. But I've see it over and over again from myself being involved in the industry that it's the wanna be punk bands - the most certainly aren't punk bands - that get pissy when it's pointed out by 'hardcore punks' that don't approve that are the ones that get uptight about being excluded.

I love how you say its fair that everyone can have an opinion, then end yours by saying that anyone who doesn't agree is a 'fucking cry-baby bed wetter' Great argument - but then that may be the closest thing to having a punk attitude that you have posted!

 

[JoleneBrody]

A sub-genre is still part of a genre. arguing that a "proto-punk" band is not a "punk" band is as ludicrous as arguing that an 'anthem punk' band is not a "punk band" or "street punk" or "pop-punk" (which BTW green-day and Blink-182 most definitely fall under) or 'crust punk' or 'folk punk' or 'Horror punk' every other god damned different type of 'punk'.

See here's the thing, if you want to take the pissy wiki definition of what is punk - you are totally correct. But as soon as you say 'pop-punk' and vouch for Green Day and Blink 182 being punk in the true sense of the word or movement you just lost any credibility you had on the subject.

I could seriously list sub genres of 'Punk' until my face turned blue but that doesn't make them any less a sub-genre of the 'Punk' genre.

For sub-genre see watered down.

I've grown up with Punk rock my whole life, I'm very passionate about it. As a grown up Punk rocker who has actually lived in this scene, and was basically raised by the culture I gotta say, your argument is making my Eye twitch Isabelle. You are def entitled to your opinion on the matter but your opinion is not necessarily the end all RIGHT opinion. Like... by far.

But you see, there are some people who say things like that, but unless you grew up in the UK in the 70's, you missed the boat. The depressing culture and the youth rebellion to basically having no future it Punk. Not the hip post punk, punk culture that became so cool after. I guess it's probably an English view of punk and the time and culture that created it vs. the world view of the movement and what it became by the early 80's.

I used to work in booking shows and have worked with and spent time with a hand full of those old "not punk" bands that still get there wrinkly asses up on stage from time to time and yeah... they're Punk Rockers and any "hardcore punks" who get pissy about a band being called punk that they don't approve of is a fucking cry-baby bed wetter.

I don't actually mind what you are saying about the older acts that preceded and inspired Punk being described as 'Punk Rockers'. That may actually be what some of the contention is here, what is 'Punk', and what is 'Punk Rock'. But I've see it over and over again from myself being involved in the industry that it's the wanna be punk bands - the most certainly aren't punk bands - that get pissy when it's pointed out by 'hardcore punks' that don't approve that are the ones that get uptight about being excluded.

I love how you say its fair that everyone can have an opinion, then end yours by saying that anyone who doesn't agree is a 'fucking cry-baby bed wetter' Great argument - but then that may be the closest thing to having a punk attitude that you have posted!

Oh jebus, get off it! Most of the recognizable late 70's UK punk was so fucking pop, it was on the charts. "Ever fallin' in love" by The Buzzcocks was #12 on the UK top singles chart in 1978. Now I'm personally not a big fan of modern pop-punk such as Blink-182 but to deny that they are pop-punk, which is a sub-genre of "punk" just because you don't personally like them is fucking nit picky and ridiculous.

You are lacking a tiny bit of reading comprehension so I'll clarify. I called the "hardcore punks" who whine publicly about who's allowed in their club, cry baby bed-wetters. Not for having an opinion, but for being a cry-baby bed wetter about it.

If their is anything worse than a punk rock elitist stuck in the past, it's a UK punk rock elitist stuck in the past.

You're post is a shining example of the annoying bed-wetting I'm talking about. Like fucking comic book guy for music.

Worst. punk. ever.

 

[Shutterbuck]

I really hate to derail this thread...
But...
I've really been enjoying strawberry ice cream lately. Can anyone recommend some really great brands of strawberry ice cream for me to try?

And then maybe everyone can argue about what is or what isn't ice cream? Or strawberry? Or who it was that first added strawberry to ice cream? And maybe then we can hash out the differences between "strawberry flavored" ice cream vs "vanilla" ice cream with strawberries in it.

 

[Sevrin]

And maybe then we can hash out the differences between "strawberry flavored" ice cream vs "vanilla" ice cream with strawberries in it.

Vanilla ice cream with strawberries stuck in it is better classified as proto-strawberry flavoured ice cream. Post-strawberry-flavoured ice cream is often mistaken for chocolate-flavoured ice cream, but it's actually a completely different genre.