Talk:Punk rock/Archive 4

Funny punk up for deletion

I wanted to notify people that funny punk is currently up for deletion. To comment, go here. The Ungovernable Force 08:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Who rewrote history to say Punk began in the USA?

I'm worried about the direction of the whole item on Punk Rock. It delves so deeply into rock music in the years leading up to the emergence of punk that it misses the point entirely that punk music in the UK was a sweeping away of all that existed at that point in time. Punk was year zero.

I’m worried that a Californian student (user WesleyDodds) who probably wasn’t even born in 1976 (no offence intended) rejected my Wiki edits where I changed the article to say Punk was predominantly a UK-based movement. I was there and trust me - the USA's involvement was negligible. I was in a punk band called Straitjacket in 1978 and some of my friends were in a punk band called Irrelevant (who went on to become Goodbye Mr Mackenzie). Punk was a UK phenomenon born out of the dreary, pointless, futureless, grey concrete bomb-site that was mid-1970’s Britain. Its musical influence was simply to be the OPPOSITE of any music that was already there - the passionless progressive rock, the silly glam-rock and the throwaway pop. It certainly WAS NOT some nice logical culmination of some obscure New York music scene. Reading this on Wikipedia was the first I’d heard of it and I was there at the time! It just has to make you laugh how history is being rewritten before your very eyes!

I'm also worried that some American revisionists are starting to say the Ramones were an important punk band. I’m not even sure you could even categorise them as punk; they were more comedy retro rock n’ roll than anything else and they dressed like refugees from Grease. They did have a single called ‘Sheena is a Punk Rocker’ but they also had a song called ‘Suzy is a Headbanger’ – I guess that makes them the founders of heavy metal too? It’s so wrong it’s almost laughable.

I’m worried that Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopaedia but it also seems to be a tool for Amercians to rewrite history to suit themselves.

I’m worried that rewriting history to portray America, in a Hollywood kind of way, as first at everything, inventors of everything and best at everything is becoming a national American pastime.

I’m worried that soon the American rewriting of punk history will be complete – a weird upside-down world where the Sex Pistols were imitating the Ramones, Gaye Advert modelled herself on Debbie Harry, the Stranglers were just trying to be Lou Reed and the Clash wanted to be the New York Dolls.

I’m worried that it’s 2006 and I still care.

I’m worried that it’s 2006 and I’m still around.

I’m worried that when I’m not, Wikipedia still will be. --Jcleary 12:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, most "reliable" and "neutral" sources (as defined by wikipedia policy) I've seen label the Ramones as punk rock, and musically they were very important. I've seen interviews with the Sex Pistols talking about how they learned to play their instruments by playing along to Ramones albums. Personally, I think that minus X and the Dead Kennedys, the early American punk scene was really crappy and not at all what I would think of as good punk (actually, X maybe shouldn't be in there either), but then again, the Sex Pistols were pretty crappy in my opinion as well. I think that the musical style was largely based on American bands (but British bands did have some influence), while the discontentment and general rebellious attitude came largely from the British, who as you say, were in a pretty bad social situation at the time in which there really appeared to be "no future". The way I always generalize the often debated topic of "who created punk" is, we started it, the British perfected it, we gave birth, you guys raised it into what it became. In terms of the article, I think it's relatively neutral and factually correct. If you can provide sources that back up your position, then please do so. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 23:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, there are arguments for both sides. The article as it reads at the moment doesn't to me quite make this clear. It's also lacking in citations for all of its origins claims, USA and UK-related. Some of the UK information (skiffle=>punk for example) is just plain wrong, and I would like to know where that citation comes from.

BTW, "Sex Pistols" did not learn their instruments using Ramones records - it is widely documented they played such songs as Small Faces and Who covers in their formative days (circa 1973-75). Useless musician Sid Vicious did apparently learn one Ramones bass riff, and based his entire musical career on it, but he was a late arrival in any case, and should not be used to deny the band itself all credibility. It should also be recognised that The Damned's first USA tour opened the eyes of a lot of USA "punk" bands, since they reportedly played much faster and wilder than many similar American acts at that time. Examples like this that can balance the article one way then the other are many, and there's sources for all of it, but I would need time to stick it all in there.

So I think the "USA/UK first?" debate is a myth that WP should not be perpetuating in an ideal world. Both countries had their seminal outfits, and there's arguments both ways for which were most influential. There's no point in getting bogged down in claiming origins along nationalistic lines, there was in reality a lot of crossover, with record sales as well as protaganists visiting each other's country. That's why the article badly needs some reliable sources, from people who have already sifted all this evidence, and have already come up with some verifiable conclusions. --DaveG12345 09:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the part about not perpetuating this ridiculous argument in the article, since it really is pointless, and like I said, both sides definitely had major influence. It really isn't clear-cut. The only thing I'll disagree with is the part about the Sex Pistols not learning to play to the Ramones. Like I said, it was a documentary and they themselves were talking about playing along to Ramone's albums and it wasn't Sid. Unless I'm just confusing things, I'm pretty sure that's true. They mentioned other bands as well, which could include the bands you mentioned. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 02:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confusing things - perhaps someone related to the group was discussing how Sid learned to play? I too have sources on that. If you have a citable source for your version of events, let's see it. Otherwise, do explain how the original line-up was playing along to Ramones albums in 1975... :-) --DaveG12345 21:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course punk was more popular in the UK, but it's simplistic to say it was predominantly a British form of music. Ignoring the Ramones and Legs McNeil having a fanzine called Punk, among other things, even as early as the early 1980s you had punk rock scenes popping up all over the world. Hell, it go to a point where places like Iceland and Brazil had post-punk scenes. WesleyDodds 15:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"As early as the 1980s" is quite a telling statement - Europe (especially Scandinavia, France and Germany, for a few examples) were clued-up on UK punk and had their own nascent scenes well before the "early 1980s" - three or four years before. And of course, as late as the "early 1980s" it was all over in the UK bar the shouting (almost literally).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not being mean to user WesleyDodds or anyone else, but this discussion just seems to show the kind of cross-purposes that are IMO being pointlessly faffed around with if we insist on talking about a "year zero" and "ground zero" for all "punk" the whole world over (and I assume Mr Dodds concurs that this is a pointless endeavour - that's my interpretation of his post, so apologies if I have misinterpreted it).

The UK/USA/other-countries landmarks do not tally in any meaningful or helpful way with each other, and any attempt to make them neatly blend into a seamless worldwide "history of punk", where B followed A in strict Newtonian fashion, is pointlessly futile (as mentions of skiffle and Nuggets in the article seem to demonstrate). Far greater minds than ours with far greater time have tried this shoehorning job and have either admitted it's impossible, or utterly failed upon closer analysis.

So, since we all know this, why don't we all try and redraft the article as required to fit the verifiable facts, with some useful sections on "Origins of UK Punk" and "Origins of USA Punk" if we need them (I feel perhaps we do), and get rid once-and-for-all of this out-dated notion of a tidy but completely contrary to the facts idea of a consensual chronology of punk that spans all nations, colours and creeds, and which all started with - um - the Ramones (or insert whatever band/fanzine/nightclub you feel like here, basically)?

Punk simply didn't happen that way. It is undeniable, through sheer weight of documented testimony, that punk was a big big deal in the UK in 1976-77, at the same time as it was a very very small deal indeed in the USA, and the article should reflect that fact. But just because the Dictators (for example) existed and played to a few clued-up folks States-side, does not mean that the Pistols learned to play from them, that Rotten stole all his lyrical ideas from them, or that the UK-nationwide scandal of the Bill Grundy affair was not about a very significant UK TV moment, and was in fact all about spurious activities in some obscure NYC club/fanzine. Likewise, if Nirvana or Green Day or whoever from the USA subsequently became a big big deal (undeniably), it was not because of some pure lineage that linked them right back to primeval CBGBs or Jello Biafra, as if they'd never heard a Damned album in their lives (I rather think Green Day have the full set!).

Trying to make such a case (I'm not saying anyone is, but there are slight tendencies) is just plain silly. I hope you all get my drift and dinnae take offence. :-) --DaveG12345 21:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha! I was waiting for this to happen. Ecto 02:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was bouncing back and forth between NYC and London circa '76 (and traveling a bit in the US beyond that). I would say that the NYC scene got started earlier, but was pretty much ignored in the US outside of the city's orbit, the London scene a little later but quickly became the most important popular musical thing happening in England. - Jmabel | Talk 18:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, an interesting difference: the early US punk rockers were mostly in their mid-20s or beyond; the early UK punks were almost all under 25. - Jmabel | Talk 02:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is probably most useful to not look as the Ramones being an influence on the Pistols or vice versa, but to look at the mutual influences of both bands and their repective scenes. It was largely the New York Dolls that influnced both scenes (and, to a lesser extent, the Velvets, Stooges and MC5), and it is important to remember that Malcolm's store was all about New York music and style, and it was here that the Pistols met and formed. This was also the case in Brisbane, Australia, with the band the Saints, who formed before the Ramones and Pistols, but sounded remarkably like those bands because they listened to New York music, and it wasn't until 77 that they started to be called a punk band because of their sound even though they had never even considered themselves a punk rock band previous to that. If the New York scene hadn't hapened, something big would have happened in London anyway, but it wouldn't have sounded exactly the same and it wouldn't have been called punk. Perhaps the reggae influence would have been stronger and it would have sounded more like that. But if they London scene hadn't hapened the Ramones and all still would have been punk bands, but punk wouldn't have the same sound now and it wouldn't have become one of the major influences on music that it is today. (Don't forget the common debt New Wave, ALternative and Emo owe to punk rock, and all the bands that have been influenced by that music since.) Justinboden86 05:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds an intelligent analysis to me, but I think we should all try to use verifiable and reliable sources to put this together in the article itself, so as not to run the risk of doing original research on the matter. This is particularly important when it comes to crucial issues like influences and early chronology, or it runs the risk of subtle/moderate/extreme distortion - for example, I believe McLaren got into his New York thing after the Pistols had already formed (he and the shop were into Teddy Boy culture prior to that), and almost certainly after both Steve Jones and Glen Matlock had seen New York Dolls supporting the Faces in London. The Dolls were definitely an influence on the Pistols (as were the Faces, and both much more so than the Ramones), but whether McLaren brought knowledge of the NYC scene to the band independent of the musicians' own research is much less certain. London gigs featuring US artists, plus their coverage on UK radio and TV during the mid-70s, formed a backdrop that makes a perfect chronology of influences studded with clear pivotal events very difficult to discern IMO. Hence we should ideally leave this conjecture to the credible third-party sources in the article itself... Good discussion though. :) --DaveG12345 11:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Punk was almost a spontaneous worldwide movement in terms of the speed with which it spread, but most sources cite its main instigators as being The Velvet Underground, New York Dolls, MC5 and The Stooges. Early bands were popping up all over the place; The Saints formed independently of the American and British scenes in 1972, the Sex Pistols formed only months later as "The Strand", and the Ramones formed in late 1973. The independent scenes would become hugely influential as years went by - the Pistols credited the Ramones as the reason they became a serious band. Three years later, Crass, Gang of Four and Black Flag were already starting out. --Switch 11:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just remembered, it's important to note that a famous quote often attributed to a member of the Pistols was actually by The Clash's Mick Jones: "This is the Sex Pistols, and we're the Clash, and you're [the Ramones] the reason we became a band". The 25th Anniversary edition of London Calling feaures a DVD in which Jones himself takes credit for the quote. --Switch 11:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Punk Rock = subgenre of punk?

I think that punk rock is stuff like the Ramones and stuff, sure father of punk or not but it does not capsulate everything. I couldn't say that bands like Dystopia couldn't be called punk rock, I feel that punk is a more general term for everything. Its honestly a misconception in labeling rather than genre confusion in my opinion.

That's not how it's viewed in musical discourse. "Punk" in reference to a musical style is basically just a synonym for the full "punk rock" if you're too lazy to say the whole thing. WesleyDodds 15:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends on who is taking part in the discourse, it seems. So far on this talk page three different editors have brought up a distinction along these lines, and I was one of them. Wesley, please keep in mind that you do not have the final say on how this issue is viewed in "musical discourse". Musical taxonomy is not a science and some of its categories are far from being settled or universal, so we cannot pretend that that is the case. Personally, I draw a line between punk and punk rock, and this article does not, but I am fine with leaving it that way because other editors with opinions different from my own had their say first. My point is, there is no authority on this subject, so please do not try appealing to one. Ecto 18:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, musical taxonomy is not an exact science, but neither is the English language. Variations terms are often used to mean the same thing; for example "motion picture" and "movie", or "soda" and "soda pop". Like Spylab said, the distinction between "punk" and "punk rock" when talking about music is mainly preference and shorthand. WesleyDodds 06:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Other than right here, I have never heard someone say that punk music is something different from punk rock. As has been written above, "punk" (in terms of music) is just short for "punk rock." I can't even imagine why someone would think they are different genres. Go ahead and try to explain it if you can.Spylab 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

I can understand why, and I may have heard one or two people mention it (although, it could have been here). Regardless, I think most musical taxonimists would say they are the same, and like mentioned above, one is just easier and quicker to write. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 06:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No I think Ecto is correct in saying that Punk Rock (US) and Punk (UK) were such very different types of music maybe there should be some kind of distinction. If you're going use the term 'Punk Rock' to describe the Ramones, the Talking Heads and Blondie (for heaven's sake!) then it's obviously something very different from 'Punk' - the Sex Pistols, the Stranglers, the Clash, the Adverts, X-Ray Spex, the UK Subs...

In support of this, I remember an interview with Debbie Harry in 1978 or '79 where she was asked why she thought two similar (but not identical) music scenes had appeared on both sides of the Atlantic. She said they were two independent strands that had reached a similar conclusion, or words to that effect. At that time Blondie did not regard themselves as punk (nor did the Ramones I suspect) - this is something that has been made up since then to try to tie the two music scenes together in some scientific WesleyDodds kind of way.

As for the actual terminology, on the streets in the UK we always called it 'Punk'. 'Punk Rock' was a term your Dad might use, maybe in the same breath that he would ask 'What's top of the Hit Parade son?'

In addition there was certainly no cultural similarity between the two scenes at all. I went to see Blondie in the Boston Orpheum Theatre while in the US in 1979 (supported by a comedy band call the Fools). After having been to so many riotous punk gigs in the UK it was weird to see an audience of young people who still dressed like early seventies hippies and who stayed seated right the way through - I felt like I needed to shake them until they woke up. It was really weird sitting down during a gig. Quite comfy though. Jcleary 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough, but that still doesn't mean one style is "punk" and the other is "punk rock." Wikipedia isn't the place to invent new types of terminology. It's for documenting established facts.Spylab 12:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Blondie and the Ramones were not regarded as, labelled as, or considered themselves as Punk or Punk Rock at the time. The inclusion of them in that genre is some recent phenomenon (partly due I suspect to a fairly successful attempt by some Americans to rewrite history and lay claim to the punk heritage). My point is that if you're going to start rewriting history and labelling pop bands such as Blondie and the Ramones as Punk Rock, you should make a clear distinction between that and the Punk scene in the UK, which was pretty far removed from that. The two scenes weren't related then and history should not be rewritten now to pretend they were. Jcleary 12:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt anyone here is actively trying to rewrite history. Also, I'll search around for reference that the Ramones weren't called punk at the time. Fair's fair, after all. But I think you're simplifiying things. Punk was very important in the musical lineage of the UK, but I think it's a bit much to say that two separate things were going on in two different countries. For starters, the LA punk scene started to come together around 77-78, and they definitely called it punk. And people could get import records, after all. You really can't narrow down the genre to one focal point like "the Ramones were the first punk band" or "The Damned released the first punk single" because it isn't as simple as that; history rarely is. A lot of people and scenes contributed to the birth of punk. WesleyDodds 07:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the article that seems to include every type of music known to man except classical! What is the point of listing every music style from the previous 20 years in an article that is supposed to be about punk? Skiffle for heavens sake! The Origins and Early Emergence sections are convoluted, misinformed and overly biased towards the US. The part about punk being brought to the UK on the 4th July (!!) 1976 by the Ramones is just pure American fantasy. The article somehow forgets to mention the fact that Ramones were supporting the Stranglers at that gig and the Sex Pistols first gig was in 1975. jcleary 08:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And as for the use of the word 'punk' to mean different things on each side of the Atlantic, it's not without precedence: what we call crisps, you call chips; and what we call chips, you call fries! jcleary 09:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Australia is something of a happy medium between the two (for example, we call both crisps and fries "chips"), and here punk has always just been short for "punk rock". I'm pretty sure they were never two distinct forms of music. --Switch 11:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Really? How confusing. Are you really saying you've listened to Blondie and the Sex Pistols and you think they're the same kind of music? No wonder you don't know your crisps from your chips.

Thinking about what I said about Debbie Harry saying the two scenes were independent - I remember when I heard that - it was when she was talking about the reason for calling the album 'Parallel Lines'. And by the way - parallel lines don't come from the same point and also never meet. jcleary 12:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

They're no more diferent than Metallica and Pantera (thrash metal), or Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix (heavy metal), or Pink Floyd and Phish (prog), or Faith No More and Nine Inch Nails (alternative metal), or Sevendust and Limp Bizkit (nu metal), or several more bands from the same genres with wildly different music. In fact, their music itself is probably more similar, with the difference being derived from production and instrumentation more than musical style. "Punk" was just a broad term, no different than other genres with wide disparity. And, for the record, parallel lines meet at infinity (otherwise we never would have made it to the moon - but that's getting deeper into mathematics than I care to outside of uni). --Switch 11:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Does saying smart-arse break any Wiki rules? In case it does, I won't say it. That's a fair point about diversity within a genre, but I don't see the production and instrumental similarities you're talking about. Where's the near out of time slap-dash drums, the cheap echoey production, the overpowering driving rhythmn guitar, the irreverent lyrics about youth and anger and politics and disenfranchisement?

'In the Flesh', 'Presence Dear' ('could this be kismet' - oh very punk!), 'Sunday Girl', 'Baby I Love You'... They weren't punk then, they aren't now and they never will be. Most Blondie fans were under 12. They weren't punks!

I hope a bunch of kids come along when you're my age and start telling you that Rage Against The Machine and Justin Timberlake were part of the same musical genre, or that Nirvana only went into music because they heard a Kylie Minogue CD. It's pretty annoying. jcleary 12:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unintentionally ambiguous, but I actually meant the opposite of what you inferred - In terms of written music, the Pistols and Blondie were similar. In terms of instrumentation and production, Blondie were more a pop band and the Pistols a garage rock band (though NMTB was a lot cleaner than their contemporaries). If the Pistols had had pop-music-level production, used synthesisers and keyboards and actually had a singer, they would have been just like Blondie.

I'm not saying Blondie are punk by modern standards - but they're sure as hell New Wave, and new wave was originally an alternate term for punk.

Just think about this, though: If the Ramones and the Pistols are in different genres, which do the Buzzcocks belong to? --Switch 06:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

<----moving out to margin

A few, slightly scattered remarks; I'll try not to ramble on too much.:

• Someone above mentioned Boston. Except for—earlier—the young Jonathan Richman, punk in Boston was at most a pose.
• It's funny how your ears change over the years. When I first heard the Pistols, what was striking about them was the extreme rawness, one of the rawest sounds on record at that time. Now I listen to them and I mostly hear well-structured, mildly clever pop songs.
• Clearly Blondie and the Sex Pistols were doing two very different things. But let's stay very close to the Pistols: Siouxsie And The Banshees are arguably closer musically to Blondie than they are to the Pistols (or at least they were after an album or three). Listening almost 30 years later, without the benefit of knowledge from the time, who'd know that Wreckless Eric was part of an entirely different (North London pub rock) scene, little connection to the punks at all, while Siouxsie was right in there at the 100 Club and Marquee? To a large extent, a term like "punk" (at least if we are talking pre-1982) designates a scene more than a sound. And the mutual availability of records, images, etc. (not to mention travel) led to a lot of influences in a lot of different directions. The boundaries are almost impossible to draw. Were Big In Japan punk? Early Scritti Politti?

- Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Punk rock names/real names section?

While interesting in a useless trivia kind of way, I'm not sure that this section is relevent enough to include in this already-long article. Perhaps it should be its own article (or merged into the punk rock musicians lists), and the Punk Rock article can link to it.Spylab 18:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Yup. Entertaining, but belongs elsewhere. - Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

How about mentioning the practice in the 'Lifestyle' section of the punk subculture article, with one or two examples? Ecto 23:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its really needed, alot fo people who play some form of rock music, or other entertainment use stage names. And of course if the people are notable enough to have an article on here in the first place it will be mentioned there. - Deathrocker 12:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

X

Recent edit calls the band X hardcore. Really? I wouldn't say so at all. - Jmabel | Talk 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and Blink-182 is crust. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Guitar solos "taboo" in early days of punk rock?

In the article it says "Guitar solos were considered taboo in the early days of punk rock." Johnny Thunders & the Heartbreakers, Richard Hell & the Voidoids, The Dead Boys, Rocket from the Tombs, The Clash, The Damned, and the Sex Pistols all had guitar solos in their earlier albums. I suggest we change it to say "are usually less common in the genre," or just remove the sentence entirely. Dasilva 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit of a myth that's grown up around punk. If anything, they were considered taboo by the press - promoting an image of year-zero DIY fundamentalism - than the musicians themselves. Even 'Anarchy in the UK' has a solo, for Chrissakes. Tpth 02:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You're both right. Guitar solos being taboo was a common idea at the time but guitar breaks still cropped up in many songs. It was a contradiction at the time. I think what people really meant was 'virtuoso' guitar solos were taboo. By the mid-seventies guitar solos could be minutes long, and in songs like Hotel California could be more important than the song itself. Punk was reacting against that.

If you like I can change the quote to be 'Virtuoso guitar solos were considered taboo..'? jcleary 08:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed it. Thanks anyway. Dasilva 19:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ages ago I watched a documentary on TV about the origins of UK punk. There was this musical performance show, like Top of the Pops or something, and all the teens watched it out of boredom. One night there was a hard/prog rock band that played a song with a masturbatory 9 minute drum solo (for crying out loud), and the band that played the next night was punk or protopunk, so all the kids went ape. I think that sums up punk music. Ecto 23:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinionated addition

Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know if I should have just deleted this or not. If somebody could let me know the proper process for this, that would be great.

I notice that this paragraph was just added to the article:

Punk music is never played for personal enjoyment; it is an inherently unappealing form of music. It is only ever played to stick it to The Man, and to piss off nuns.

Obviously, this is somebody's personal opinion, and not objective fact. Do I have the authority to just delete it?

Hell yeah! Wikipedia is all about DIY. I'll probably get to it though first, but for things that are clearly biased or one editors personal commentary, feel free to delete it (just say why in the edit summary). And since you're new, if you make any mistakes, you'll just be informed of why they're not great and everyone will understand. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 18:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a lot! And I see you've already deleted it. Cfrydj 19:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Screamers

Probaly the best band in the L.A scene 1977-1980 along.\ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.26.106.89 (talk • contribs) 18 September 2006.

AfD on Minor Threat songs

A group of articles on songs by Minor Threat are up for deletion. You may be interested in adding to the discussion. --Switch 14:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Green Day

Do you think Green Day is a punk band?

See the Green Day talk page for extensive, extensive debate on this topic. But when it comes down to it, Green Day is widely recognized by a number sources to have lead a punk revival in the 1990s. WesleyDodds 21:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

punk rock was of a certain time born of certain condictions that no longer exist, therefore, it cant be exist any more. Green day made power-pop or guitar based pop more popular in the mainstream, allowing bands like weezer and fountains of wayne etc to gain recognition, they really have nothing to do with punk rock at all.

Punk rock never fully die out. Read the article. WesleyDodds 22:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Punk Music

shouldn't the article's name be "Punk Music" sense it's not only limited to Rock?

No, because it's commonly called "punk rock" and punk is a subgenre of rock music. WesleyDodds 22:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ramones first Punk Band

It's not really point of view, they are widely considered to be the first, and I've got plenty of sources that consider them that. What else do you want? Also I find the article misleading the way it says it originated in england, before it says United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 29 October 2006.

Seems to me that trying to pin down a first punk band is a pointless exercise. It's not like things went suddenly from non-punk to punk. The Ramones weren't "punk" from the moment they started; early Jonathan Richman has a lot in common with punk; etc. - Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes but this page should give a history of the genre, and things like Richman are considered proto punk, where as the Ramones are commonly considered as the original punk rock band. It seems like a history of the genre would be inadequite without pointing out their place in history.-HP69

Precursors to punk were all over the place. The Velvet Underground and The Stooges are normally cited as examples of proto-punk, but there were pub rock bands, glam bands and all sorts of musicians who had a lot in common with punk even in the late sixties. Even a 7-minute-solo psychedelic band, The Doors, recorded a song that sounds a lot like a precursor to punk (Break on Through (To the Other Side)), and John Lydon was influenced by Captain Beefheart and Can. Where did punk start? Nowhere really; it just evolved out of the music that was floating around at the time. --Switch 09:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's more like the Ramones were the first band that cemented many of the traits that define punk as a genre in one place. As everyone else has said, a lot of things added to the creation of the genre. WesleyDodds 13:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If I was going to single out one proto-punk band, the immediate ancestor of it all, it would be the New York Dolls. Firstly because of their influence in America and UK (Pistols cited them as a major influence), becuase their members went on to be involved in other punk bands such as the Heartbreakers and the Voidoids, and their style and sound says alot of things early punk said, eg...they dressed up like teenage girls because they didn't care about fitting in and wanted to make a statement that would outrage conservatives, and their sound was very reminiscent of pre-progressive rock and roll. The Stooges are an awesome band, but their psychadelic, drawn out songs do not represent what punk represented. The pop/avant garde sound of the velvets is not what punk is either. By this arguement, the Ramones are a very good contender for the first punk band, becuase they took the new york dolls and then went forward one more step towards punk rock. They ditched the glam, and made short, simple, powerful and fast songs. By comparison, break on through sounds lifeless and wet. Ramones songs kept their energy from start to finish. Yes they had slow songs like 'I Wanna be your Boyfriend' on their first album, but remember on that album they had so many songs that define punk rock...such as Blitzkreig Bop, Judy is a Punk, Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue, Loudmouth, 53rd and 3rd. To contradict Jambel, Ramones WERE punk from when they first started. Even if the term was not used in that sense at the time. I do understand that there are earlier bands that can be considered punk, but they either didn't release anything or whatever they did release it's been gone and buried for decades (eg Dictators). They did not make punk everything that it is, but they were the inspiration for many that did. (Justinboden86 02:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

To clarify: The Ramones were punk by the time they recorded, but by their own accounts, it took them some time to find their sound. - Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the Ramones punk, they were a rock band, like a faster version of Status Quo. Stutley 15:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You Americans are wasting your time. The Sex Pistols were the first Punk band and everyone knows it. So shut it, accept it and move on..jcleary 01:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, we all know how the Ramones would never have developed their sound if they hadn't overheard from the stage the fantastic sounds made by the Sex Pistols in the audience at the Roundhouse in July 1976. - Jmabel | Talk 10:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It must have been some kind of weird time warp because the Pistols played their first gig more than six months earlier on November 6th 1975.

And it's funny how you know better than John Lydon himself. Quote from Johnny - "The Ramones to me were more like Status Quo. They were hilarious but you can only go so far with 'dur-dur-dur-duh.' I've heard it. Next. Move on." (Source - "Punk Rock An Oral History - John Robb)

That doesn't sound like the Pistols were influenced by them! Personally I always thought the Pistols sounded more like The Faces mixed with Steve Harley's vocals but certainly not the Ramones. The Pistols sound nothing like the Ramones. The only thing they had in common was distortion. jcleary 13:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And even more strangely jmabel, on the 4th July 1976 when you say the Sex Pistols were in the audience being 'influenced' by the Ramones, they were actually 200 miles away in Sheffield playing a gig. The Pistols were supported by the Clash at that gig so the Clash weren’t being ‘influenced’ by the Ramones that night either! (Sources Punk Rock An Oral History - John Robb AND Wikipedia itself – The Clash)

Even your attempts to rewrite history can't contravene the laws of physics, surely! jcleary 11:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ramones predated the Pistols very easily, early Ramones gigs are dated to 1974, but the point is that neither were the first punk bands. The Ramones were influenced by the Dolls, the Pistols were influenced by The Vibrators, and even those two had earlier influences. I agree with the arlier post, arguing who the first punk band was is completely impossible and pointless. --209.222.250.147 20:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys...

"Some, such as The Misfits (from New Jersey), Black Flag (from Los Angeles), Stiff Little Fingers (from Northern Ireland), and Crass (from Essex)."

That sentence makes no sense. If you want to change the paragraph, edit the list of bands, but leave the sentence structure as it is (see below), or edit it in a way that it will still actually make sense.

"Some, such as The Misfits (from New Jersey), Black Flag (from Los Angeles), Stiff Little Fingers (from Northern Ireland), and Crass (from Essex) would lead the move away from the original sound of punk rock and towards the hardcore subgenre."

Personally, I think all those bands influenced hardcore somewhat, and sound more like hardcore than the Pistols, but please don't make rash edits guys. Switch 03:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-romantic?

The article has it that: Others were violent or anti-romantic in depictions of sex and love, such as The Voidoids' "Love Comes in Spurts". Now, Love comes in Spurts is for me the most poignant song ever written about the unbearable search for love. If you ask me for a romantic song, I'll give you Love Comes in Spurts. To call it anti-romantic is to misunderstand it to the highest degree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.108.237 (talk • contribs) 7 November 2006.

Weasely POV

"While it is thought that the style of punk from the 1970s had a decline in the 1980s…" - Jmabel | Talk 00:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's true, isn't it? Most of the punk bands went in a more experimental or pop direction in the 80s, and the bands that "stayed" punk were mostly hardcore, weren't they? --Switch 02:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the intention of the sentence, but the phrasing could be cleaned up. There was a popular belief for a while that "Punk [Was] Dead". That can probably be cited easily. WesleyDodds 05:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Limp ending

The paragraph beginning "Many of the popular indie rock bands of the 2000s…" is a very limp ending. Punk rock should not end with a fadeout. - Jmabel | Talk 00:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That was added a few weeks back and I don't feel it belongs; it's rather tacked-on. WesleyDodds 05:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So-Cal

I strongly believe that So-Cal is it's own type of rock and sort of like a mixture between Punk Rock and Pop Punk (think One Buck Short, Green Day, Weezer and Simple Plan) and I think that there should be a page titled 'So-Cal Rock' about this subgenre. Give me sum feedback, what do you thinks people!! Citikiwi 03:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Nothing has ever been written about such a genre, Weezer isn't punk or pop-punk, and Green Day and Simple Plan aren't even from Southern California. WesleyDodds 05:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So-Cal does have a specific sound which is more poppy but I don't think it's an established genre. I think Offspring is a better example though than the ones you gave. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

SoCal is just really pop punk, a lot like grunge was more or less synonymous with Seattle. One Buck Short, Green Day and Simple Plan aren't from Southern California (OBS and SP aren't even from the United States), and Weezer are borderline pop punk at best. Simple Plan sound more like recent "teenybopper" pop punk bands, Green Day sound similar to SoCal pop punk (and more recently like mainstream rock), Weezer are geek rock/power pop, and One Buck Short sound like a modern Ramones counterpart. They don't have much in common, and certainly not enough to be their own genre apart from other pop punk. -Switch 05:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive Time

I think it's about time for an archive, as the discussion pasge is getting long and there don't seem to be any contreversial arguements hapening at the moment. I'm not sure how to do it myself so if someone wants to step in for me that would be appreciated. Any objections? (58.105.49.186 03:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC))

I went and archived through the end of October. I don't want to kill anything so recent that many people may not have had a chance to see it. - Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

the way of the world

It's the way of the world, unfortunately, and inevitable of articles as broad as this, but this page has built suffocating cruft. Looking though the history I see an number of respected editors, and I'd request a copy edit from them. Sooner or later this article is going to come up for WP:FAR, and in its current state, it's going to fail IMO. A few of points that need attention:

• Confused Tense - article mixes is/was/have/had/are/were throughout.
• Regionalism - UK? USA? Australia? Kazakhstan? Maybe attribute genesis to a number of concurrent sources and move on (I know this has been well debated, but County Cork is still under represented in this article, ye bastards)
• Some trite has slipped in:
  • "Most punk songs have a verse-chorus form and a 4/4 time signature"
  • "Typical instruments: Vocals - Guitar - Bass - Drums"
  • "with a snare drum, one mounted or standing tom, one floor tom, one bass drum, hi-hats, one or two crash cymbals and a ride cymbal."
  • 2Punk songs are normally about two and a half minutes long"
• Listy - to quote sentance fragments:
  • "with origins in the..."
  • "The cities of..."
  • "Songs such as..."
  • "United States bands of the mid-1960s such as..."
  • "overt sexuality and political confrontation of artists such as..."
  • "art rock acts of the early 1970s, including ..."
  • against 1970s popular music such as..."
  • "role models for the new groups, such as ..."
  • "had appeared in Ohio, including..."
  • "formed independently in other locations, such as..."
  • "had formed their own bands, including..."
  • "by those mentioned above. These included..."
  • "This reggae influence is evident in much of the music of..."
  • "and less minimalist, with bands such as..."
  • "polished production, notably bands such as..."
  • "dangerous" style in the early 1980s, typified by artists such as..."
  • "Early hardcore bands include..."
  • "and the movement developed via ..."
  • "diverse post-punk bands emerged, such as..."
  • "the emerging indie scene and independent record labels such as..."
  • "This movement featured bands such as...v
  • "Along with the Ramones, such bands as the..."
  • "As alternative bands like..."
  • "indie labels like..."
  • "bands labelled as pop punk include..."
  • "which continued into the 2000s with bands like..."
  • "and early punk rock. Examples include ..." - Coil00 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand why it is "trite" to explain concepts like typical punk song structures and instrumentation, and why it is "trite" to list a few examples of things like bands and record labels that typify a certain term or subgenre. I'm not sure why it's bad to give examples in order to elaborate on a topic and to give context. Please explain. Spylab 16:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I was thinking that stating punk instrumentation comprises vocals, guitar, bass & drums, and is formed around a verse-chorus structure doesn't properly differentiate it from other genres. But maybe 'trite' is overstating the point, and i've stuck the comment.
  • I wasn't implying that the lists are trite, nor that list shouldn't be used. There's just too many in this article, IMO, and they over weigh the content. Reading back over the article, perhalps expanding the text in certain sections would help redress this. - Coil00 00:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Refocus and Restructure

There have been alot of arguements and contreversy over how punk rock originated, and this is because the article is structured poorly. The chronological organisation of the article does not represent the differences between the New York and London scenes, and by its structure forces one scene to be acknowledged more than the other. Jmbael gave me an idea when he said in the discussion that early punk was more of a scene than a sound. I think he is spot on and I propose that we retitle the history section from the origins and early emergence to 'The New York Scene' and 'The London Scene'. A history of early punk that focuses on location rather than a chronological structure makes more sense because:

-With the New York Scene, it can be better explained that although artists like Blondie and Patti Smith do not have the punk 'sound,' they were integral to the punk scene. David Bowie could also be discussed.

• David Bowie was English. You do know this, yes? He was as much an influence on the Stranglers and the Pistols as the New York Dolls or the Ramones. -Switch ^t 09:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

-Although English punk bands took important influences from the US (eg, Clash have cited the Ramones, Pistols have cited Alice Cooper and New York Dolls), they also took influences from their own country. eg reggae.

-The scenes were so different, and discussing them together makes so much confusion. The New York scene was older and more influential, but the London one was so much more explosive.

-With the scenes seperated, fans of London punk can feel free to talk about without it getting reverted by a fan of New York punk, who seem to dominate this article *no offense meant, I myself prefer New York punk to London punk*. They can concentrate on how London defined the characteristics of punk.

-Similarly, the New York scene can be used to emphasis how new york shaped the punk sound.

-It would also make more sense to the average wikipedia user who doesn't know what punk is. Most people assume punk started in London, and although this isn't true London did define alot of what punk is. They would immediately notice something that needs to be understood first to understand punk, that it emerged from two different places that often had conflicting goals, ideas and attitudes. Modern punk is the synthesis of these two scenes.

-As for the Australian scene, which would become very neglected here, it still does not merit its own title when you consider the two most prominant Australian punk bands: Radio Birdman and the Saints. The band's name Radio Birdman comes from a Stooges song, and the band covered the Stooges song 'TV Eye'. The Saints were also heavily influenced by the Stooges and you can hear a New York accent on their song 'I'm Stranded' (especially the part where he sings 'alright'). Although both these bands formed in 74, they were still influenced by the New York scene, rather than developing the punk sound independently.

• The Saints' year of formation is a point of contention I've been meaning to bring up; it has been reported that they formed as early as 72 and as late as 77. Both bands were influenced by the '60s-to-early-'70s garage rock of bands like the MC5 and The Stooges (both from Michigan), not by the NY punk scene. See the citation in the article from the Saints, talking about their first exposure to the Ramones. -Switch ^t 09:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep the latter part of the article unchanged (although it does need to be expanded), in its chronological order. This is because after 77 punk become more of a sound than a scene. Blondie were reclassified as New Wave, and not long after hardcore emerged. Punk became an international phenonemon, and was no longer limited to one or two cities. Today a punk band forming now would get as much influenced by their NOFX cds than by their local scene. You no longer have to go to CBGBs to see a punk band.

I will let some people discuss this before I go ahead and edit the main page, but I believe it is necessary in order to simplify and clarify the article from what is currently a confusing, jumbled and chaotic piece. (Justinboden86 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

I like the idea, although it is a little confused. The Australian scene, for example, was very small and more or less merged with the English scene with the release of "(I'm) Stranded". The New York scene was a development of the garage rock that came before it, that was largely inspired by early rock 'n' roll and psychedelic bands like The Doors, while the London scene was comprised of vastly different influences (pub rock, ska, reggae, NY punk, glam rock, etc.). -Switch ^t 09:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think what we should do is separate the "Origins" and "Early emergence" sections into three smaller subsections; "United States" (going over the MC5 and Stooges, their influences on what became the NY scene, and the NY scene itself), "United Kingdom" (going over Bowie, Stranglers, The Strand beoming Sex Pistols, etc.) and "Other scenes" (Sydney & Brisbane in Australia, and possibly other scenes like France & Germany, who were influential but I know little about). Anyone like it? -Switch ^t 14:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, Switch. First of all, I didn't explain myself but there are reasons I mentioned David Bowie as involved with the New York scene. I know he is British, of course, but before he went to New York he was mostly had the image of a hippy/country singer. He had a long unsuccessful career before he met the New York Dolls and started to mould the Ziggy Stardust personality. Not that he wasn't a weirdo before he went to New York, but his image benefitted from meeting lots of other people who were also weirdos. As for the Saints, first of all I know the stooges and the five where from Michigan, but when I talk about New York I tend to include places like Michigan and Conneticut and Boston. This is becuase I'm from australia. But I wouldn't wanna talk about the whole of the US, because the West Coast influence was minimal until the hardcore scene, which I would want to discuss seperately from the formation of punk. I mean I think they existed at a time when english punk and US punk had started to merge and they were listening to the pistols as much as they were listening to the ramones. The doors had a big influence and the ramones loved california beach pop but punk was mostly an eastern phenonemon for the first few years. So getting back to the Saints, no they weren't influenced by New York but they were heavily influenced by music from the east US. And the whole scene in Australia was a little...sparse. It still is today, unfortunately. And yeah I did read that stuff about them and the ramones, which is why I never calimed they were influenced by the Ramones but did claim they were influenced by the stooges.

But thanks for looking over it, I was keen to see what you and a few others would say, I hope you see sense in making it very clear to other Wikipedians that punk rock developed out of two scenes and to an extent, picked and chose its characteristics and sounds from those scenes. And to also make it clear that punk rock has two legitimate parents, London and New York(& Co.), whereas the current article implies New York(etc) is the only parent, and London just tacked some stuff onto it later. (Justinboden86 23:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC))

I think it's fine the way it is, although it could stand to have a little bit more about protopunk and how these various bands set the stage for punk. WesleyDodds 08:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in looking at the alternative of splitting the scenes, down to about '77. Could we maybe sandbox this and then make a decision?

2 other on-topic remarks:

1. Michigan & Northern Ohio were a very distinct scene, almost as culturally removed from NY as Ireland from London. New Yorkers would laugh to hear them included in "the East", though a Californian might consider them that.
2. I don't see any element of country in pre-Ziggy Bowie. He was seen as sort of a hippie Anthony Newley with intellectual pretensions.

And an off-topic remark I can't resist, because of earlier discussion on precursors. As I'm writing, I'm listening to a punk show, Sonic Reducer on KEXP, which this week is focused on women in punk. The DJ threw in Suzi Quattro's "48 Crash" and, y'know, if they'd stopped before the bridge it would be one fine 2-minute punk song. Chinn and Chapman. Go figure. - Jmabel | Talk 06:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to take your point about Michigan and New York, but I always thought that Iggy Pop, MC5 etc where heavily involved with the New York punk scene. Their record label was from New York, at the very least (Elektra, although to be fair the Doors where Californian and also signed to Elektra). Personally I would consider them close enough and similar enough to be the opposite poles of the same scene, rather than two distinct and individual scenes. But perhaps it would make more sense to refer to it all under 'The American Scene.' I spose that way you could even include Bad Brains from Washington D.C.

As for calling Bowie country, I say that only because of something I read; I have never listened to pre-Ziggy Bowie becuase his music is not really my cup of tea. But I do have this quote from Legs McNeil's oral history "Please Kill Me" (of course not the most accurate source) where Jayne/Wayne County saw Bowie performing at a country club in London: 'We'd heard this David Bowie was supposed to be adrogynous and everything, but then he came out with long hair, folky clothes, and sat on a stool and played folk songs." (p95 the penguin, 1997 edition). And aparently he used to be in a folk band called 'Feathers' with Hermione Farthingale and John Hutchinson. So when I said country I meant to say folk, sorry for the misunderstanding. (Justinboden86 05:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC))

Bowie has never been a "country" artist. He had some elements of folk rock in his music early on however. - 11:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this last. There were elements of folk in early Bowie, some (especially vocally) from the British folk revival, some (more in his song composition) via Dylan et.al. Still, at the time, he sounded more comfortable singing Jacques Brel.

Iggy Pop, MC5: I hesitate to go out on a limb. Certainly everyone in the NYC punk scene knew their music. But southern Michigan/Northern Ohio (and even extending east as far as Pittsburgh) is a very culturally different place, and not just in punk music (although, of course, as time goes on, the urban U.S. steadily becomes more homogeneous). We are talking about a place almost as different from New York as New York is from London.

Anyway, are you interested in sandboxing the alternative structure? - Jmabel | Talk 01:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I'll get onto it soon. (Justinboden86 09:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC))

groups not mentioned

shouldnt there be more info about the Velvet Underground, not to mention Misfits or Alec Empire AlexOvShaolin 03:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Misfits contributed little to punk apart from introducing the horror punk subgenre, and don't really warrant more than one mention. The Velvet Underground are not punk, but they are mentioned twice as an important influence. Alec Empire probably wasn't even walking or talking when punk took off. -Switch ^t 08:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Velvet Underground were an important precursor to punk none-the-less and groups Melt-Banana and Alec Empire represent the continuation of punk rock. --AlexOvShaolin 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No one's disputing the former but as mentioned they're already talked about. As for the latter there are much, much more notable groups mentioned that play a part in the continued development of punk rock. WesleyDodds 14:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Who rewrote history to say Punk started in the USA?

The Ramones were mummy's boys in their first leather jacket. Grease? What year was this? Someone said they might be classed as punk. Don't make me laugh!! Gloves off. Punk was UK. From London to Inverness punk rocked the UK, changed it, no-one denies that. You Americans had no interest in it, didn't buy the records, didn't adopt the culture, the fashion... Not until 30 years later are you interested.... Sad, sad, sad... You American wikipedians want to lay claim to the coolest thing but you will never understand it. Tough luck. jcleary 02:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)\

hmmmm, deja vu. This has already been discussed in the archives but I guess it can be adressed again, obviously you weren't convinced the first time round, Jcleary. Look, punk is a subjective term so it's not easy to define something as being punk or not being punk. Some people may consider the pixies to be punk, but not the velvet underground. or think NOFX aren't punk but argue that Blondie was. However, I've got the two ramones album and their earlier demos, and it has a lot in common with nevermind the bollucks. Like the pistols, they stirred people up by doing stuff like singing about Nazis (Today your love, tomorrow the world), about Charles Manson (Glad to See you Go....A song Dee Dee wrote about his girlfriend after she died). They were nihilistic (Loudmouth, Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue). They played short, powerful and aggressive songs like, of course, Blitzkrieg Bop and Judy is a Punk. They are a punk rock band. And, yes, punk had a massive influence on England, it spread like wildfire across the country, not unlike the way the hippie culture spread across the US in the sixties. It made people talk, it made people look at where the country was and where it was heading and at what cost. It didn't explode in america, but there were still so many punks from there who put all their energy into the genre even if they did not get much out of it. Argueable all american punk bands who have been successful have had to abandon their punk roots to achieve that success (eg Blondie, Offspring). You also have to acknoledge that these american punk bands had an influence on the english punk bands. The Damned wore ramones tshirts for their 'Smash it up' single. Clash aren't afraid to admit the influence ramones had on their band. Pistols paid homage to the new york dolls (see the filth and the fury DVD, where the actual band members get to express their opinion rather than just dickhead maclaren). American bands were calling themselves punk, with a similar sound the the english punk bands, but with a different look and a different impact. And they were doing it first. Where's the problem? (Justinboden86 04:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC))

"similar sound" - are you sure? The septic bands were rock dinosaurs that just didn't happen to sell any records, part of the old school which needed to be, and thankfully was, destroyed. Now, 30 years on, your prancing boy bands such as dropkick murphys are trying to jump on the bandwagon. Their watered down slurry would be more appropriately termed "kiddie rock". Stutley 15:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote history?! The Ramones started independently of the English punk bands (before most of them) and were an influence on them. In the words of Steve Jones (or maybe Paul Cook): "Sid just wanted to sound like the Ramones".[1] Grant65 | Talk 18:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Talking of rewriting history - Jones in the quote above rightly points out Vicious "just wanted to sound like the Ramones" - he is completely dismissive of such narrow-minded musical ambitions. In the cited interview (made in 1980, BTW), he says this just after Paul Cook says "And Sid didn't know what was going on. Sid couldn't play." QED. Anyone thinking Vicious represented the Pistols musically is simply misinformed. Likewise, anyone thinking the Ramones influenced the Pistols is misinformed.

The original Sex Pistols weren't influenced by the Ramones, and didn't sound like them. The Bollocks album (recorded without Vicious primarily because he, um, couldn't play) sounds nothing like the Ramones. Sid himself may have tried to sound like the Ramones - what else could an incompetent bass player aspire to? But Sid's positive influence on the Pistols' music verged from negligible to an occasionally audible hindrance (when they bothered to plug him in onstage).

As I've said before, this article has historically had big problems trying to ignore blatant facts in an attempt to tell a simple, untrue but neatly USA-centric "story". Anyone citing Sid as proof of anything regarding the Pistols' music and their influences clearly - a bit like Sid - doesn't know what was going on.--DaveG12345 12:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine then. Will Mick Jones do?

"We're The Clash. And you're the reason we became a band." -Switch ^t 12:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... he'd "do" if we were talking about the fookin' Clash mate - but we ain't. We're talking about the Pistols. You were the editor I pulled up in the previous discussion for misquoting the Pistols, and you were the one who finally admitted the Pistols hadn't made the pronouncement you claimed, and you finally realised instead it was Mick Jones of the Clash. Well done.

But the editor quoted above clearly isn't talking about the Clash or Mick Jones. He didn't mention the Clash or Mick Jones. He's quoting Steve Jones and talking about the Pistols. Despite the surnames, these are different British people.

So, instead of the sidetrack action (people in the know are oblivious to such tactics), please instead acknowledge that the Smash Hits quote above indicates that the Pistols (excluding the clueless Sid) had no musical affinity with the Ramones whatsoever. Thanks.--DaveG12345 23:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sidetrack action? You're the only one trying to pull that off. Try reading the discussion:

The Ramones started independently of the English punk bands (before most of them) and were an influence on them. — Grant65 | Talk 18:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Pistols weren't even mentioned, except later, as an example of a larger statement. We're not talking about any specific band, we're talking about the scene in general. Bad argument on your behalf there.

I also don't remember attributing that quote to the Pistols (or being called for it), though I might have by mistake, so if you could point me to where I said that, I'll retract that statement.

As for your faulty (and impressively so, I might add) logic that because Vicious had no musical ambition and just wanted to sound like the Ramones, the Pistols weren't influenced by them, it is simply a fallacy. The quote is disparaging of Vicious - stating that he had no musical ambition - not of the Ramones. You can, oddly enough, be influenced by a band and still hope for more than to sound just like them. Having other, wildly different influences - such as Can - may well lead a band to sound like neither of their influences. Motörhead were influenced by the Ramones, and they sound as much like them as the Pistols do. The argument that they sound "nothing like" them is empty, when they sound even less like a band they certainly were influenced by. -Switch ^t 10:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes - and I have tried to suggest that the "later example" was too sweeping and general to be considered valid, that's all. I guess that's now clear to everyone here. Vicious was indeed influenced by the Ramones - I recall someone, somewhere, pointing out that the only bass riff Vicious ever mastered was a Ramones riff. But Vicious being influenced is one thing. The Pistols being influenced is quite another. (It's a bit like [but not exactly like] someone saying "Pete Best was influenced by XYZ", and someone else concluding "the Beatles' music and the Sixties scene in general were influenced by XYZ".)

So, I'd need to see a citation that explicitly made the link and that wasn't just talking about their 2nd bass player. So far, I've seen no such citation here (or, to be truthful, anywhere else).

I trust you see nothing wrong with my suggestion below, that indicates some Ramones influence on the UK scene, but by no means a simple and universal influence? This is meant to be an encyclopedia, so statements should be rigorously factual. Neat 'n' easy generalizations may be tempting, but they don't cut it in my view.

Your point on "musical influences" not necessarily resulting in bands that sound like those influences is fair enough - I didn't intend to suggest otherwise, and don't even believe I did accidentally. I intended to suggest that a beginner bass player was far more likely to sound exactly like his primary influence than a set of experienced band members who, by 1977, had been together as a musical unit for 4-5 years.

The other problem with the Ramones' influence is the timescale - the Pistols could have been influenced by Can, and Bowie, and the New York Dolls, and all those other guys, simply because those artists existed in time before and during the Pistols' formation - 1972-75. The Ramones ain't in that category, simply because they didn't exist as a UK musical presence at all during that period. Recordings attest that, by the time the Ramones could be heard in the UK, the Pistols already had their musical style worked out, and it underwent very little change, other than some increased professional polish (presumably not caused by the Ramones! ;-)...

Don't get me wrong, I like the Ramones. I just see no evidence they were the touchstone this discussion makes them out to be.

(BTW, you'll find that quote mis-attribution in the discussion archive.)--DaveG12345 15:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I see I did make the misattribution in the most recent archive. You must have forgotten (or not bothered) to call me on it though, because the discussion ended immediately thereafter. It seems a little odd to me that a debate could end with a fundamentally flawed argument. Such is the nature of debate.

I am somewhat split on whether the Pistols were influenced by the Ramones. They formed independently, and definitely had long enough to define their sound before the Ramones ever came about. And, as The Saints (and other groups) showed, the sound was already floating around just waiting to be picked up.

Regardless, I have a hard time accepting that the Ramones were not an influence on the UK punk scene. Perhaps "were influential" would be better terminology? A major influence on The Clash, who were themselves highly influential (if not on the level of the Pistols) seems proof enough to assert that they "were influential". If the problem with "influenced" is that it seems too universal, then the problem is effectively resolved with that minor change. -Switch ^t 17:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That Mick Jones quote "you're the reason we formed a band" aimed at the Ramones... Would you care to provide a source for that? And a context. I suspect he was just being polite. Let's not forget that Clash members had been in proto-punk bands before the Ramones formed. I suspect that Switchar, being an Australian, has an agenda to downplay everything in the UK for the same reason that Americans do. Stutley 16:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I never said the Pistols were influenced by the Ramones. I said English punk was influenced by the Ramones. Sid was an English punk. The Mick Jones quote clinches it. QED. Grant65 | Talk 17:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you think that clinches it, good for you. So (just to clarify), you are saying the Pistols weren't influenced by the Ramones I take it? Clueless Sid aside, of course. If so, good stuff, but I think you should modify the tone of your original "black-and-white" statement, to say something like "some English punks were influenced by the Ramones". That statement at least has the ring of truth about it, especially since it implies the equally true corollary - that some English punks were not influenced by the Ramones one bit.

We'll talk about how the Damned's first USA tour changed the attitude and musical style of several existing early US punk bands some other time... :-) --DaveG12345 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you find a citation that says the Pistols weren't influenced by the Ramones? I mean, I'm sure they would have wanted to avoid being lumped in the same group with them, as they have been, if they weren't influenced by them. We have such a citation for The Saints. Can you provide its counterpart from the Pistols?

And your argument above is - once again - faulty. A group does not have to influence every single participant to be an influence on the scene. I'm sure not all punks were influenced by Bowie either. I'm sure there's not one person or group out there who influenced every single punk. But the Ramones were an influence on the scene, as shown. Thanks for playing. -Switch ^t 10:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My, how patronising! Luckily, I see it for the rhetorical stylism that it is, so I won't take any offence. :-)

TBH, there's grounds for suggesting Vicious didn't even influence the musical direction of his own band! Vicious's musical influence on the Pistols consisted of a co-writing credit for the song "Bodies" (it even featured Sid's Ramones bass riff, though his playing isn't featured on the Bollocks version), and credit for the touching lyrics to "Belsen". In terms of the Pistols' overall impact down the years, I'd suggest these influences are pretty negligible. But that's just a flippant POV. ;-)

To return to the "Ramones influenced the Pistols" idea, and your suggestion that the statement should stand, unqualified, until I can come up with a citation that explicitly refutes it... Well, I don't believe anyone is justified in making any old inaccurate statement they feel like, on the grounds that others must find a citation that proves it isn't true. That's simply ridiculous. Citation must actively assert the original premise, or the original premise should be cut. Citation shouldn't be required to assert the inaccuracy of a premise that should otherwise be allowed to miraculously remain unquestioned.

Regarding "the punk scene in general", there are also countless strong primary-source citations that indicate the Pistols did not even regard themselves as a punk band. They have all insisted - on multiple occasions - that they viewed themselves as a rock 'n' roll band only. Media labeling made them a punk band, nothing else. And such media labeling, being taken at face value by Wikipedia editors, and then being applied retrospectively without any further thought or care, leads to anachronistic, simplistic, factually inaccurate conclusions IMO.

The Pistols were also - of course - themselves a far greater influence on the "UK punk scene in general", or whatever you want to call it, than the Ramones ever were. This isn't a controversial statement. It is so obvious that I believe it's trivial to suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, this discussion seems to indicate that some people are only too happy to suggest otherwise, no matter how obliquely. To me, that's worrying. --DaveG12345 15:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No offence intended, of course. It's just my tongue-in-cheek streak running its course. I also love bad puns, so you'd better watch out for those.

As for Sid's influence on the Pistols' musical direction, "negligible" seems... well, generous. He couldn't play his instrument (Lydon's defenses of him aside), he couldn't write music, and he wasn't even respected by his bandmates. I think, as a member of the Pistols, he can be safely ignored; but still, as an English punk, he warrants a high profile.

My suggestion regarding falsification was just for laughs. I don't even see the statement in the article as it is - no accusations of the Pistols being influenced by the Ramones anywhere to be found. The closest thing is a mention of the July 4 Ramones gig at the Roundhouse, "almost immediately" after which, "the UK punk scene found its feet", followed by a citation. There's no problem if that's your issue.

As for Pistols claims that they aren't punk, I wouldn't put much stock in them. Can you trust a band to identify their own genre? The Ramones aren't punk either, apparently. Motörhead, like the Pistols, are just "rock 'n' roll". The Cure most certainly aren't gothic rock, or anything like it, and Nine Inch Nails aren't industrial rock. I believe, though I'm unsure, that Pink Floyd denied being a progressive rock band. The Pistols could call themselves modern classical or prog for all I care, and it wouldn't make the slightest dent in their identification as a punk band. I know none of the protopunk bands ever called themselves that, and I doubt anyone decided to start the Golden Age of American animation either. Anachronistic labelling is not always inappropriate; although discretion is advised, I think in this situation there shouldn't be a problem.

Anyone suggesting the Ramones are or were more influential in the UK than the Sex Pistols is wrong, and probably American too. ;) -Switch ^t 17:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your last sentence promotes the only truth I am myself attempting to promote here - so in that spirit, I hope we can rest in complete agreement. :-) --DaveG12345 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not the ramones but what about richard Hell? Malcolm Mclauren was inspired by Richard Hell and Television while he was managing the New York Dolls. Besides, they evolved simulataneously. They each influenced each other.

Just for the record: in a 1995 article in Guitar World about the history of punk rock, Steve Jones describes the July 1976 shows by the Ramones with the words "The Ramones were rocking. It was great!" WesleyDodds 10:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say the main problem with the article is how it starts off in New York and says "The origins of New York's punk scene can be traced back to such sources as... yadda yadda yadda" which is fine but when it moves onto British Punk it pretty much claims that Malcolm McLaren invented it after seeing bands in New York,, as if no one had any ideas until he arrived. Influential bands such as the New York Dolls take precedent over equally influential bands such as Roxy Music or even Marc Bolan and David Bowie. The article claims that most bands in england formed in the wake of the ramones playing when it can just as credibly be claimed that most bands formed after seeing the sex pistols play and initially had little to do with the ramones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/134.225.179.204 |134.225.179.204 ]] ([[User talk:134.225.179.204 |talk]]) 16:11, 5 February 2007

yeh true Roxy should be mentioned and I'm told pub rock was a big influence on UK punk scene. Just edit those influences into the UK section of the article. As long as the Dolls/McLaren influence is acknowledged then there is no problem whatsoever with describing the influences that were unique to the UK scene and independent of the NY scene. (Justinboden86 13:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

Self-evident?

Self-evidence is not part of an encyclopedia. Please add a citation as requested, instead of reverting a legitimate request for a citation. Your original research (WP:NOR is not part of Wikipedia, and culturally relevant subjects need just as much research and support as other topics, whether it is your pet or not. There are some cases where I think self-evident won't cut it, punk rock is not one of them, it's been around a long time and is well researched. KP Botany 14:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

History

This section is blank. It either needs an paragraph introducing the subsections, or needs to be deleted. Ecto 15:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Record labels

I was wondering if a list of punk record labels could be set up. I know this will make me sound lazy, but I honestly don't have enough time nor ability to set one up.

That's a lot of labels. If there isn't already a page on wikipedia for punk record labels, there should probably be one. But it would be a mess to make it part of this page. WesleyDodds 16:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

FAR

There are a few statments raised during FAR I can't find sources for:

• The phrase punk rock was originally applied to the untutored guitar-and-vocals-based rock of United States bands of the mid-1960s
• Punk rock was influenced by the attitude, aggressive instrumentation, overt sexuality and political confrontation...
• While it is thought that the style of punk from the 1970s had a decline in the 1980s..'

Unless anyone can help, suggest these are cut, rather than loose FA status. + Ceoil 02:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The first one I believe is a reference to the Nuggets use of "punk-rock", which as we've established only originated around 1972. I doubt it was used to describe garage rock in the 1960s; it's an after-the-fact usage. The last one (as you've mentioned to me) is an obvious reference to the whole belief that punk died out after the initial wave. While this has since been disproven with the latter-day study of movements like hardcore, it was a pervasive belief at the time since punk prety much lost all mainstream presence by the early 1980s. Maybe there's an old Rolling Stone article we can cite or something. WesleyDodds 12:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Right that it wasn't used in the 1960s, but it was used (by Lenny Kaye, in the liner notes to Nuggets) to describe the garage rock of the 1960s. Terms don't have to come from the time they apply to. I mean, no one ever said "I bet we're having the nadir of American race relations" or "let's go out and start the Golden Age of Radio." - Jmabel | Talk 10:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Or "Jesus, World War I is taking longer than I expected." + Ceoil 03:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the last one; punk rock had a decline in the 80s as many of the original acts moved away from punk rock, to new projects and genres in the 80s such as, postpunk, new wave, gothic rock, new romantic, etc. (See: Public Image Limited, Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Damned, Adam and the Ants, Joy Division, etc, etc) Others like The Heartbreakers and The Dead Boys, both broke up by the time the 1980s hit. The Clash's material from the early 80s is far less critically aclaimed than their 70s material, they also broke up in 1986.

Hardcore is an entirely different form, that has nothing to do with people who were actually in punk rock bands' (with the sole exception of the Misfits, who later bandwaggoned onto Hardcore) that genre has its own article, this one is about punk rock. - Deathrocker 05:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Joy Division ended in the first half of 1980 (Curtis' suicide was in May), so they aren't really an example. They were post-punk from around '78. As for The Clash, Combat Rock is generally one of their three most critically acclaimed albums, and it hit in the 80s. London Calling was released in the 80s in the US as well, and obviously not long before the turn of the decade in the UK.

Hardcore bands who started as "punk" include Black Flag (band), Minor Threat, Discharge (band), Dead Kennedys (even called "New Wave") and The Exploited as well as The Misfits, some considered to be pioneers of hardcore, and some other bands obviously influenced hardcore, like Crass. Regardless of anything else, hardcore is at least a direct descendent of punk, and possibly its most dominant subgenre, and deserves to be covered. Punk wasn't limited to commercial UK bands. -Switch ^t 07:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I personally would say the 80s were a huge time for punk. Crass, Discharge, DKs, Conflict, Flux of Pink Indians, Subhumans, Reagan Youth, MDC, The Varukers, Amebix. That's just the stuff off the top of my head. If anything, the early 80s were the best time for punk. This article is not and should not be just about the original punk movement. It is about punk rock as a broad genre including multiple styles of music, like hardcore, crust, oi!, skate punk and, dare I say it, pop punk. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should genuine punk rock be demeaned and have to share its article with a movement that they were not a part of, like the American hardcore bands who were unable to sell any albums?... they don't fit the encyclopediac definition of punk rock as mentioned, they don't play the same form of music or have the same influences, etc. Musically, image wise, they are very different. Their only connection is, the hardcore bands claimed to be fans of punk amongst other things... they belong in the article about as much as New Wave of British Heavy Metal.

Punk rock is a specific form of music. All of the band's you just mentioned are part of mere subgenres like hardcore, anarcho, etc not "punk rock", the style described in this articles infobox or definative of it. They have their own articles for their genres already on here for a reason. It is simply revisionist, unfounded and untrue to claim the likes of Minor Threat, ever played punk rock, they played hardcore, simple as.

Perhaps there should also be an article for all the subgenres of punk rock, giving each subgenre a section and describing what it is, and how it is (distantly) related.

"As for The Clash, Combat Rock is generally one of their three most critically acclaimed albums"

And which two of their albums are generally more critically acclaimed?... two from the 1970s. - Deathrocker 09:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hardcore, especially early hardcore, is almost universally considered to be a subgenre of punk rock. It certainly does meet the characteristics as defined in the article. They do have the same influences as a lot of UK punk bands - in fact, most were influenced solely by punk at first (some exceptions - Big Boys were influenced by funk, and [[Bad Brains by reggae, but those were present in UK 77 punk too) and the metal influences only came later. Discharge sounded pretty much just like the Sex Pistols on their first demo tape. Black Flag were a "typical" punk band, somewhere between the Ramones and The Clash, on their first demo, same with Minor Threat who were merely slightly faster. Higher tempo doesn't change a genre. Dead Kennedys were, as I've said, described as New Wave - they weren't hardcore when they started. The bands I mentioned all started as more-or-less "pure" punk rock. Anarcho-punk is not a subgenre of hardcore - Citizen Fish and Subhumans are pretty much just punk rock. The thing is, hardcore bands place themselves in the same category as earlier punk rock bands. NWOBHM bands do not.

Combat Rock is sometimes more generously reviewed than The Clash, depending on the reviewer. That's basically the point I was trying to make - some of their 80s work was as well received as their 70s work. London Calling is borderline; it was even declared the "Best Album of the '80s"! -Switch ^t 11:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"They do have the same influences as a lot of UK punk bands - in fact, most were influenced solely by punk at first"

That's the thing though... the punk rock band's took their influence from garage rock, glam rock, rock 'n' roll, pub rock, rockabilly, etc... hardcore band's didn't, they were just influenced by punk itself. So they have very different influences. They're a product.. or a relative of punk, rather than them playing punk rock itself.

Whether x band tries to associate itself with x scene that came and went before it, has nothing to do with whether they are actually a part of it musically. NWOBHM took influence from punk but played a form very different from it, as did hardcore, those two are in the same boat in regards to their relation to punk music. - Deathrocker 17:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Did they? The Clash and Sex Pistols both were influenced by the Ramones. Crass were influenced by The Clash in turn, in both negative and positive ways. The Damned, Generation X (band), Buzzcocks and Siouxsie and the Banshees were all influenced primarily by the Pistols. Punk bands forming after '75 were mostly influenced by other punk bands.

NWOBHM took influence from punk, but is rooted in heavy metal, aligns itself with metal, the bands considered themselves metal bands. Hardcore is rooted in punk, aligns itself with punk, started in punk's heyday (Black Flag started in 77, so did Discharge), and the bands considered themselves punk. There is no comparison between hardore and NWOBHM unless you want to contrast them; hardcore being punk with metal influences and NWOBHM being metal with punk influences. -Switch ^t 17:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A hugely uneducated guess there on your part there. Firstly, Crass are anarcho.

Sex Pistols are not primarily influenced by the Ramones, they were influenced by bands like the Small Faces, Alice Cooper, New York Dolls, etc. See; the Filth and the Fury DVD for mentions of Glenn's songwriting been influenced by the Small Faces, Jones copying new York Dolls (as well as Vicious saying he was a fan of them) and Lydon citing Cooper and T. Rex.

The Damned are not primarily influenced by the Sex Pistols either, they were influenced by T. Rex, MC5, The Stooges, Screaming Lord Sutch.... basically garage rock, glam and rock n' roll. They state this in interviews on their official DVD, they have never claimed the Pistols as an influence.

Siouxsie and the Banshees attended early Sex Pistols shows, yes. But if you read their Authorized Biography, you would find the thing which the band members shared in common and took influence from musically was David Bowie, T. Rex, Captain Beefheart and The Velvet Underground. (Severin's name even comes from a VU song "Venus In Furs")

Ramones were influenced by garage rock & glam (Dolls, Stooges, MC5) alongside, Bubblegum pop (Joey Levine) and rock ala The Rolling Stones and The Beatles.

Generation X were influenced by the following, taken straight from the original add ran for band members "Wanted: Lead guitarist and drummer to join bass player and singer/guitarist influenced by Stones/New York Dolls/Mott etc."[2]... again rock 'n' roll and glam rock.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. - Deathrocker 18:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If you could provide sources for any of the above, that would be great. + Ceoil 22:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Crass are anarcho-punk. That doesn't mean they weren't influenced by The Clash. I know this, because both are among my favourite bands. Crass also formed in '77, so they are clearly in no way part of a "subgenre" of hardcore. Anyway, Steve Ignorant was an "avid Clash fan", and they made continual references to The Clash in their lyrics and music ("White Punks on Hope" is about The Clash and RAR). They were influenced by the Clash, as I said, in both positive and negative ways - being anarchist, they were anti-Marxist, and were fundamentally opposed to The Clash's use of "the system", but they also adopted the use of punk rock to espouse revolutionary views, and were, musically, influened by them.

As for The Clash, Mick Jones himself said the Ramones were "the reason we're a band". Enough said.

Sid Vicious (not that he was hugely important to the Pistols), as said above, "just wanted to sound like the Ramones". The band were huge fans of the Ramones, and they did adopt elements of their music.

In the early days of punk, just like in any musical movement, it was important to shape your own sound from external influences - The Damned claiming not to be influenced by the Sex Pistols is rather absurd. Similarly, prominent Generation X and Siouxsie and the Banshees members were part of the Bromley Contingent - Siouxsie did not sound like Bowie or Captain Beefheart, and sounded more like the Pistols than T. Rex or The Velvets, though that changed by the time of their debut album. Generation X are similar; their rock 'n' roll influences notwithstanding, they were obviously influenced by the Pistols and bubblegum. These outside sources are necessary so as to refrain from apeing the bands currently leading the movement, and as such bands derived their act from other sources, but those sources are explicitly the same ones the Pistols derived theirs from. David Bowie, T. Rex, Captain Beefheart and The Velvet Underground, MC5, The Stooges, Screaming Lord Sutch, New York Dolls and Rolling Stones were all influences on the Pistols. But the bands being discussed were consciously imitating the Pistols as well.

Anyway, this is all irrelevant. Hardcore bands also had outside influences - Black Flag, just for example, shared free jazz influences with the likes of The Damned. -Switch ^t 08:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, what are we even arguing about? It's not like the article at current gives undue weight to hardcore by anyone's definition. I think this can end now, we're not helping. - Switch ^t 08:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

His argument is rather biased. I quote, "Why should genuine punk rock be demeaned and have to share its article with a movement that they were not a part of, like the American hardcore bands who were unable to sell any albums?" What makes them more genuine than other punk rock bands? Why is it relevant that the hardcore bands didn't sell any albums? This is a non-argument for me, like the guy insisting punk rock was invented in England. WesleyDodds 21:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Nuggets

Why do we now cite Mick Houghton to tell us what Lenny Kaye's Nuggets liner notes say? Surely the liner notes are, themselves, citable. At this rate, we're going to have an infinite regress: next, we'll be finding someone to cite for Mick Houghton saying Lenny Kaye said this. - Jmabel | Talk 02:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was Savage's book that noted that Mick Houghton noted that Lenny Kaye's Nuggets bla bla. It is roundabout, but I never did get that album myself, and have not been able to track down an online reproduction. Your welcome to add a direct cite, if you have a copy lying around somewhere, and can verify. + Ceoil 03:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Restructure

Have sandboxed an alternative structure here, more or less alons the lines suggested by Justinboden86 above. Idea is to give the early scenes and subgenres their own sections, for clarity and to allow easier expansion later. I'm not married to it though; suggestions welcome. + Ceoil 21:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Anglophone-centric

The article is looking a lot better now, but it still is very anglophone-centric. I'd like to see at least brief mentions of how it spread worldwide in the late 70s and early 80s (This is already mentioned in the intro, but nowhere in the main article). I think that the "Emergence of other scenes" and "The second wave" sections would be very appropriate, and are already configured in a way so as to make mention of other countries and bands fairly easy. To get into specifics, I know that Germany has always had a fairly active scene, and France and Japan produced some notable bands in the late 70s like Métal Urbain and The Stalin. Does anyone know enough about this to add some information? -Switch ^t 11:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Very true, especially given most every country in the world has a local punk scene. A former DJ at my radio station used to do a show about punk rock from a different country every week. The main problem is English-language sources tend not to focus on them, usually due to something as mundane as the language gap. If someone could direct us to books, articles, or sites about non-English punk rock that would be very helpful. WesleyDodds 12:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Legacy" is POV

The word legacy has two meanings, one of which is;

"A person who is entitled to acceptance in an exclusive club or organization, due to the person having a family member who was already a member"

As alot of the bands in that section's place within the punk rock is highly contested by fans and bands who were part of the original movement (I'm talking about blink-182, Simple Plan, Good Charlotte, Green Day and Sum 41)... just "Recent developments" should be used, for the sake of WP:NPOV and so there can be NO confusion or misinterpretations.

Also "recent developments" by itself, does not attempt to glorify or flower these bands role and give them "credibility". Its just neutral. - Deathrocker 06:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see the problem with the word "legacy". WesleyDodds 07:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

legacy isn't just about Green Day etc - it's also about how punk rock influenced music in general, leading to New wave, post-punk, indie, and a few other things. it also helped bring reggae into the mainstream. That's what I think the punk's legacy is. Recent Developments would be more about the state of Punk Rock nowadays. Totnesmartin 13:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just a bit absurd to claim that the success of Nirvana et al is a "recent subgenre development", Deathrocker. It was over ten years ago, so it's not really going to be "recent" for much longer, and they were all grunge, alternative rock or alternative metal bands, so they're not part of a punk subgenre. There's no effective way to describe the effect and influence punk rock has had on popular music in general apart from "legacy". The legacy of punk rock - its lasting influence - is exactly what the section is about. ~Switch ^t 07:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

USA USA USA

You have managed to turn a page about a musical phenomena that occured mostly in the UK into a USA this, USA that article. The UK even takes third place in order of importance because of one Australian band! I'm afraid trash like this isn't worth reading but despite the best efforts to update the article by people who know what they are talking about, the hordes of patriotic middle class yanks who haven't a clue about anything keep dragging the article down.

Take pictures for example:

USA: Stooges, Ramones, CBGB, Devo, Black Flag, Sonic Youth, Green Day

UK: Pistols, Clash, Cock Sparrer

Suggest replacing USA pictures with: Bowie, Damned, Roxy Club, Joy Division, Crass, Smiths, Active Slaughter

Yanks, please start a seperate article about your own dull plodding rock'n'roll scene.Stutley 12:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've switched the Devo pic for Joy Division. Also notice "Legacy and recent developments" does not contain reference to a single UK band! + Ceoil 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought about mentioning how post-punk gave birth to gothic rock, but that seems more appropriate for the post-punk article. Otherwise I'm trying to figure how to mention any major British alternative bands from the 80s (Smiths, the Cure, the Mary Chain, Stone Roses, etc.) who, unlike the American bands listed, did not often evolve direclty from punk rock but rather were simply inspired by it. WesleyDodds 01:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This touches on a dispute beteen me and Ceoil. London (along with New York) was the key geographical location and (IMO) the Pistols were the classic punk band, and the most important one. That doesn't mean that the story starts and ends in the UK. Nearly all of the key protopunk acts were American, and punk (in terms of number of bands and records coming out) declined quickly in the UK. I was around and buying a lot of records in the late 70s/early 80s, and apart from Oi and "cartoon punk" like The Exploited, by (say) late 1979, punk had gone out of fashion in the UK and there really weren't many UK punk records being released, compared to the Los Angeles/SST Records scene. Grant65 | Talk 02:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, once post-punk came around the British underground largely spat on punk. British alternative/indie bands of the 80s were quick to call themselves "indie" and rarely if ever called themselves punk. The US alternative bands of the 80s were more reverent to the ideals of punk, often calling what they were doing "punk" even if it no longer had anything sonically to do with the genre. A way to sum it up is that while neither R.E.M. or the Smiths would have existed without punk rock (members of both bands listened to it and were inspired by it), Michael Stipe's hero was Patti Smith, while Morrissey's was Sandie Shaw. WesleyDodds 05:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The UK legacy early on gave rise to many well known and/or influential bands such as The Cure, Sisters of Mercy, Simple Minds, Big Country, Spandau Ballet, Meteors, Adam and the Ants plus Ireland gave us U2. Oh, and The Specials! Stutley 09:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

All of those bands (aside from the Meteors) already fit under the New Wave and post-punk headings. WesleyDodds 09:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To get around the current bias (which has been worked on since Stutley left his comment, to be fair), New Wave (US) and Post Punk (UK) need to be split; and given even weight. The legacy section should be to be trimmed, to make way for a note on the direct link between 80sindie/90sBritpop, and 70s punk (at least in terms of infrastructure). The link was only severed because an extreamly left-wing early 80's NME ran scared of the seemingly righ-wing OI! movement, and disowned it. It became fashionable again with Noel Gallagher, and these days every second article is about punk (note: two jan 07 UK monthlys are currently cited). As a seperate point, are Skrewdriver really an OI! band? + Ceoil 23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Skrewdriver was never part of the official Oi! scene, meaning they never played concerts with any of the main Oi! bands, were not on any Oi! compilation albums, and never attended the Oi! conferences (which attempted to outline goals for the movement). Skrewdriver frontman Ian Stuart Donaldson has even been quoted as saying they weren't an Oi! band. However, early Skrewdriver (which wasn't a racist band with that lineup) did have a musical influence on some Oi! bands. Spylab 13:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In my mind its the compilation albums releases that tie those bands together. I'd rank 4Skins, angelic upstarts; even peter & test tube babies, above early Skrewdriver. I always tought Garry Bushell was a an egit; why is he mentioned. + Ceoil 02:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever you think of Bushell, he played a key leadership role in the Oi! scene — by giving it its name, by promoting the bands in Sounds magazine (when most of the music press slagged them off or ignored them), by compiling songs for the early Oi! compilations, by managing some of the Oi! bands, by getting record deals for some of the Oi! bands, and by organizing the Oi! conferences. That is why he is mentioned. Spylab 12:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  Fair enough, but its sometimes hard to reconcille that energy with the tabloid persona he adopted in the mid 90s. + Ceoil 12:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Am pleased with the changes that have been made, a couple of bands that I think warrant a mention are The Ruts and Slaughter and the Dogs. Maybe more regional sections are needed under the UK e.g. Manchester, Northern/Republic Ireland, the North Hertfordshire Scene. I'm not a very confident wiki editor but I'm good at moaning on at people ;-) Stutley 13:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with moaning. Manchester definitely needs to be mentioned. Belfast and Dublin too. The North Hertfordshire scene I'm not aware of, which bands? + Ceoil 00:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The North Hertfordshire Scene was a joke on my part, because I happen to come from there. North Herts gave us Chron Gen and Rudimentary Peni but the real biggies were goth monsters The Fields of the Nephilim. Stutley 15:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Skrewdriver was never part of the official Oi! scene, meaning they never played concerts with any of the main Oi! bands, were not on any Oi! compilation albums, and never attended the Oi! conferences (which attempted to outline goals for the movement). Skrewdriver frontman Ian Stuart Donaldson has even been quoted as saying they weren't an Oi! band. However, early Skrewdriver (which wasn't a racist band with that lineup) did have a musical influence on some Oi! bands."

Your attempts to rid Oi! of it's nationalist image aren't working. What you mean Skrewdriver wasn't part of the Oi! scene??? Just because Garry Bullshit didn't put them in a complication album that doesn't means they weren't Oi!. Their sound was Oi!, and the most important is that they were SKINHEADS, their lyrics were about skinheads, and they had a skinhead audience. In my understanding Oi! is the music of skinheads, although non-skinheads were sometimes involved in the Oi! scene. There were many Oi! bands (racist and non-racist) who, like Skrewdriver, never attended concerts, complication albums, and conferences organised by Garry Bushell, but that doesn't mean they weren't Oi!. "However, early Skrewdriver (which wasn't a racist band with that lineup) did have a musical influence on some Oi! bands." False. Noone except from you ever claimed that. Mitsos 15:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Your understanding about Oi! is incorrect. It was never only by, or for skinheads. There were always punks and herberts in the bands and the audiences. Take a look at pictures of most of the main Oi! bands (and bands that were around before Oi! but got labelled as Oi!) : Menace, Sham 69, Cock Sparrer, Cockney Rejects, The Business, Infa Riot (their later period when they were all punks), Blitz, Angelic Upstarts, The Partisans, Peter and the Test Tube Babies, Red Alert, Toy Dolls, Splodgenessabounds and The Blood — almost not a skinhead to be found. Also, you fail to understand that the racist Rock Against Communism scene was a totally different scene, and that there was very little crossover in terms of musicians, although there was a significant crossover in their fan base. You're doing the same thing the tabloid press did; assume that because people working class and patriotic, that they must be racist yobs. Spylab 16:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick rant: UK punk sucks anyway, they havent produced a worthwhile or noteable band in years. I cant believe you want to put up pics of Bowie, Joy Division, and The Smiths.

It may be a U.K. phenomenon but it is an American legay, and that's why the page is more u.s.-centric. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 14 January 2007. That's your POV. Mitsos 09:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

UK punk sucks does it? That's why the yanks have been blandly imitating it ever since. It's an attitude as much as anything else and you boys just can't understand that. You'll never be punk, just college kids trying to be, like, really cool or whatever. Stutley 15:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny tht you say it's an attitude as much as anything, because it seems that all the U.K. cared about was dressing in retarded bondage clothings and ridicolous haircuts. It was an image thing, and once punk became passe no new bands followed. You seem to admit this yourself as you say its as much an attitude, and when it passe no new bands emerged. Because the american punks understood its not how you dress and potray yourself, but that its the actual music, we contined to get worthwhile bands. By the time of the Gilman scene in America there was no scene to talk about in the U.K.Hoponpop69 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate myself, pointless. + Ceoil 23:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The UK Vs. USA issue is never going to be resolved, and its pointless even trying. Best we can do it try to represent each equally, and not prejudice in terms of amount of text, images or sound files give to either. + Ceoil 20:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's why I say you don't understand: by the time the UK kids had seen it, done it, bought the t-shirt, the yank kids were still getting to grips with it. It came and went, you can sound "punk" but you'll never be punk. The punk attitude shifted towards anarchist no-nonsense lifestyles then into free festivals which eventually led to acid house. All eventually fizzled out in a narcotic haze but of course you wouldn't know living, as you do, in the repressed Americas. I don't know what the "punk" kids get up to nowadays, probably causing mayhem on the internet :-) Stutley 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcherism

It's great to see a better compromise between UK and US punk in the article, the article seems a lot more balanced. Just a minor point i wanted to bring up. Does anybody think it's worth mentioning the english political climate when talking about the UK scene? From my understanding, the right wing policies of Margerat Thatcher where getting England out of an economic rut but at drastic social cost for common workers and labourers. That there were a lot of strikes and fights between the government and the unions that was having devastating effects on family (this is mostly from me watching the 'Filth and the Fury' DVD and the film 'Billy Elliot'). I understood that punk was a reaction to this, a mass act of rebellion against authoirty that was becoming a little totalitarian (not in a Stalin sense, of course). Is there anyone who knows much about this that might be able too add something to the article that will help explain why punk had such a huge explosion and then was dropped by the time the 80s started? Or anyone who disagrees with me. thanks (Justinboden86 04:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

I would like to see such a mention as well, but I couldn't write it myself very well. This was the explanation I saw in a documentary on punk I saw years and years back that I got from my old town's library. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 19:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Have been trying to cram the phrases "Summer of hate" & "winter of discontent" into the UK section, but haven't figured out a context yet. Thatcher is mentioned in Oi!, need to get Regan into Hardcore.

BYT, anyone know why New Wave is normally capitalised, when punk rock tends to appear in lowercase? + Ceoil 19:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Emo writer wanted

We need someone willing to write a graf or so on emo--I would think as its own subsection in the bottom "Legacy and recent developments" subsection.—DCGeist 06:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Not on the punk page please, would be better suited to the middle class poseur bandwagon jumper page. Stutley 15:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, there's some good Emo out there too; Fugazi?? Not much posing with those guys. + Ceoil 20:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted about this on WikiProject Emo music, although it seems like that place is kind of dead to be honest. Right now this article basically just stops in the 1990s, doesn't it? P4k 20:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that needs to be addressed, but we're going to have a v. long article on our hands if not carefull. Is Emo an offshoot of Alt. rock or just hardcore; could it be covered in the alt rock section? + Ceoil 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess emo was a kind of alt rock as this article describes it, but I think it's probably distinct and important enough to warrant its own section (I just don't know enough to write it, sadly). Plus the alt-rock section is long enough as it is. -P4k 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an offshot of hardcore, sometimes considered alt-rock. While I feel it's already encompassed by the hardcore section, this is probably the thing we should expand the most on if we need more stuff post-90s. Either that or mention more of the mass acceptance of punk, like the Rock and Roll Hall of fame inductions and so forth. WesleyDodds 01:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If the last 6 years are not mentioned then punk looks like a stub movement. 86.41.146.195 01:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to be talking about recent developements in punk, I think we might consider mentioning Choking Victim/Leftover Crack who have become pretty big in the punk scene and have a pretty unique sound, and probably also folk punk. That's just me. A blurb about emo might make sense too, but most "emo" today isn't very punk at all. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 01:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't emo be a section in the hardcore page? Also should there be a queercore section here?Hoponpop69 02:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Without doubt NoMeansNo needs to be mentioned alongside straight edge, in the hardcore secton. 86.41.146.195 03:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

NoMeansNo Doubt?—DCGeist 10:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

People, please keep in mind our priority is breadth on the subject of punk rock. There's only so much depth that we need before we end up directing people to other articles anyways. WesleyDodds 11:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

please can one of you guys help me i am writting a history essay on punk rocks influence on politics of the 70's if someone could help me it would be great because i need to use sources, and i would like to hear from some real liberal free thinkers. please post before the 28th as that is when my assingment is due thanks alot?????

Characteristics

Please rearrange the ideas in the first paragraph of section "Characteristics" into a better order. The paragraph needs a decent flow to be readable.

The introduction is ok.

What the hell does 'while also making a rhetorical fetish of the Sex Pistols slogan "No Future"' mean, anyway? Rintrah 09:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Early history section

The split between the Emergence of new scenes (supposedly dating from 1977, through Crime began in 1976) and The second wave sections is a conceptual train wreck. Anyone have a problem with merging the two (under The second wave header), while maintaining the distinction between those bands that further established the "classic punk" sound and those that deliberately expanded the sonic palette on the way to post-punk?—DCGeist 11:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Any crucial info missing from The second wave now?—DCGeist 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks and reads better now. + Ceoil 21:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Australian punk scene writer wanted

We've got Australia in the first graf of our lede. If it's going to stay there (and my sense is that it should), we need more coverage of the scene, particularly its early days. Right now we've got a poignant quote from The Saints in the Protopunk section and that's it. Radio Birdman, Cheap Nasties/The Scientists, The Victims—I know I don't have a feel for this. If you do, dial in.—DCGeist 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

See Punk rock in Australia. Some of that can be reduced and transferred. I'll see what I can do right now. Grant65 | Talk 06:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant. BTW, Punk rock in Australia is how I'm even able to talk about Cheap Nasties and The Victims.—DCGeist 06:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My parents were both in the scene, and knew a couple of people (My mum knew - and disliked - Nick Cave in his Boys Next Door days). Maybe I can get them to whip something up, but it's doubtful, and all I've inherited is drunken anecdotes. ~Switch ^t 16:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Left wing punk?

Seems to me like most punks have a libertarian bent, which would make far right wing not left wing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Puddytang (talk • contribs) 04:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Please provide authoritative cites identifying (a) "most punks" as "libertarian" and (b) "libertarian" as "far right wing" and we'll be certain to include that viewpoint in the article.—DCGeist 04:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the left wing is trying to take credit for Punk or if someone is trying to denigrate punk by associating it with the left-wing. The phrase links to an article on Punk Ideologies. From the way its written, it seems like it links to an article on left wing ideologies. It seems to me like the common denominator in punk ideologies is anti-establishmentarianism. Sorry if my post confused you, what I intended to do was question whether it is really accurate or neccessary to say that most punks are left-wingers. I don't have authoritative sources either way, but my personal experience leads me to believe that this is not true. The article on Punk ideologies seems to back up my opinion, punk idiologies run the gamut from communism to anarchism to straight-edge conservatism. "usually left-wing ideologies" seems at the very least like an oversimplified way to describe a complex subject. But you may be right about libertarians being left-wingers ;) It's just a gut reaction on my part that Punk is its own thing, not just some manifestation of the left-wing. Weren't punks rebelling against the excesses of left-wing acid rock? and isn't a DIY attitude usually associated with the right wing? I don't want you to say that most punks are right wingers, but this cuts both ways: what cites do you have that can back us the statement that most punk ideologies are left-wing? This may have been true in the 80s and early 90s, but I don't think it describes the attitudes of todays young skater punks. --Thanks Puddytang 05:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's oversimplified, largely because the left-right dichotomy is really flawed. I think most people generally feel punk is leftist though. Actually, most people just think it died in the 80s (little joke from the Daily Show, click here to see what I'm talking about). I'm an anarchist leaning towards post-leftism. I think most "punks" are relatively apolitical to a large extent with a bent towards liberalism, but the punks who really are politically active and consider politics to be an important part of punk (such as myself) would tend towards radicalism, and it would be much closer to leftist radicalism than rightist radicalism in most senses. Really, the key feature is anti-authoritarianism, which has manifistations on the left and right. But as a whole, most are liberal in terms of social values and most political punks are highly critical of capitalism. Of course there are exceptions to all this, but that is how it usually plays out, and that seems closer to left than right IMO. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Just stumbled by here and hope I can help establish consensus...I work at a radio station where we play a lot of punk music. I agree with Ungovernable in that it doesn't boil down to a simple left-right divide. Don't forget that certain ideals (freedom, independence, community, etc.) are variously associated with right and left politics. However, punk politics is most often what you'd call far-left, in my experience. Punk music is scornful of a range of established "left" and "right" music and attitudes, but my impression is that most punk bands are left of the mainstream. A small minority is right of the mainstream. The notion that "the left wing is trying to take credit for punk" strikes me as ludicrous. --Grace 07:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Puddytang's right, if the article is going to state this it should be cited. I added "anti-authoritarian" to the intro because I think that is worth noting. -P4k 06:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• The modern American definition of libertarian, meaning ultra-capitalist and pro-personal freedom (abortion, drugs, free expression, yet oddly pro-capital punishment) is not the universal definition of libertarian. Throughout much of history, and in many geographic areas, the word libertarian simply means someone who supports freedom, period. Spylab 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If Punk is considered anti-establishment, wouldn't it appear to follow a 'true' anarchist ideology (not the commercialised 'anarchy' idea of the Sex Pistols) involving an avoidance of centralised power? 82.18.227.37 12:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Straight-Edgers

In the last paragraph, "many straight-edgers despise corporate punk". Look at the article on straight edge for a good explanation. I think it would be good to link to this article somewhere, but the way it's put in there makes it seem like "straight-edgers" is a term for punk fans. Many punks despise corporate punk, I don't think this is just limited to straight-edgers. Puddytang 05:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Verifiability's the only concern here. I found a good hard source that has the advantage of naming names; but it does have the drawback of referring specifically to straight-edgers. If we can find an authoritative source that makes the case for punk fans generally, great.—DCGeist 06:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Further how?

"The first wave of punk aimed to be aggressively modern. Distancing itself from the bombast and sentimentality of early 1970s rock, it went even further." futher in what direction? I'm not sure this is a complete sentence. Puddytang 06:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Extensively edited.—DCGeist 07:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Clash or the Clash

Somebody should check that the "the"s that are part of band names are capitalized, and that the ones that are not aren't. Otherwise all the grammer and punctuation looks really good. Great article! Puddytang 06:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's correct, actually. I've always written it as the Clash, the Ramones and the Saints. Not The Clash, The Ramones, and The Saints. I could be wrong - might be worth asking the Language Reference Desk though. --Grace 07:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would cast my vote with the way you've always done it--lowercase "the" in every case. That would be a significant change in the article. At this point, it follows whatever naming convention is used for the title of the Wikipedia article on the band in question.—DCGeist 07:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the band: It's The Clash, The Saints, The Damned, the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, the Buzzcocks. If the definite article is part of the band's name, (i.e. appears on cover art and the like) it's capitalised; if it is not part of the band's name (i.e. doesn't appear on cover art and the like), but is included for grammatical reasons (i.e., "Hi, we're the Ramones"), it's lower case. That's the way it goes for those articles' titles, that's the way it should be written in articles. People have discussed this at length in the articles on the Ramones and The Smashing Pumpkins, for example. ~Switch ^t 16:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

New Wave and post-punk section

This section needs to be split and cut down. I removed the last paragraph because it's extra detail that can be moved to the post-punk article itself if necessary. As part of a summary in a broader article it's unnecessary. And while I prefer post-punk myself, New Wave was definitely the more notable and popular style of the two and needs more written about it, maybe like noting synthpop's roots in the punk aesthetic (ie. that while anyone can pick up a guitar, it's much easier to be DIY with a keyboard). WesleyDodds 07:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. All the considerations of punk I've encountered discuss post-punk of the late 1970s and early 1980s as a close relation of punk per se, New Wave as a much more distant one. You're looking to cut a relatively short graf that is essentially the entire coverage of U.S. and Australian post-punk, including the seminal post-punk album, the entire No Wave movement, etc. It's in straight summary style and absolutely necessary to a full understanding of the topic at hand. Not sure what it means to say "New Wave was definitely...more notable" than post-punk. It was certainly more popular, but that has little to do with the weight it needs to be given in an article on punk rock.—DCGeist 07:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem for me is scope vs. notability, and to me, it fails on both counts. If we were covering as much of a scope of punk rock as possible, then New Wave would need more coverage anyway. In terms of notability, New Wave artist sold way more records, had more media coverage and radio play at the time, and are often given preference in terms of coverage in rock histories (if post-punk is mentioned at all). Hell, up until about two years ago with this renewed interest in post-punk, both genres were pretty much lumped under "New Wave" to the average American rock fan.

As for both genres relations to punk, both are drastic departures from the genre as a whole; basically, being as far from punk while still being punk and not pop music, alternative/indie, or straightforward rock. That's pretty much the thesis of Simon Reynolds' book. I agree that the bit about Australian punk should probably stay in a different form, but when summarizing post-punk in the form of two or three paragraphs of the main punk rock article, we can do without mentioning No Wave or Mission of Burma. If anything we'd probably want to list Echo and the Bunnymen or Siouxsie & the Banshees before those things.

Basically, we don't this much about post-punk in the punk rock article. Some of that stuff can help fill out the post-punk page. This page is now pretty long. Page lengths and readability are concerns too, and with so many forms of punk discussed, we need to try and keep it to the basics about each genre and how they relate to the overall topic of punk rock. WesleyDodds 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Leaving us with a very clear cut difference of opinion. I don't think you can a history of punk without a sentence on where Marquee Moon fits in; same for Pere Ubu after 1975. And I don't know--I never got into them--but I have a feeling dem's fightin' words concerning Mission of Burma. I think the paragraph is very efficient and informative and hardly impairs readability. Other opinions? if there's a sense that post-punk coverage as a whole is too long at this point, my inclination would be to trim a bit from the two UK post-punk grafs and merge them into one. (PS: Siouxsie & the Banshees are mentioned twice--both in the section in question, and above as a first wave UK band)—DCGeist 08:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the Banshees weren't there before, so my mistake on that point. Aside from that, you can fit Marquee Moon into the NY scene section, and Pere Ubu can conceivably be listed along with the major post-punk groups at the beginning given they're probably the most notable US post-punk band. Thing is, UK post-punk had more of an impact than US post-punk overall; consider that the most notable non UK post-punk artists are Nick Cave (Australian) and U2 (Irish). Even then, most of the post-punk bands had their biggest success and exposure in the US in the mid to late 1980s, when by that point virtually all of them had become New Wave or alternative rock (or in the case of New Order, all three). WesleyDodds 10:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I see U2 and "post-punk" in the same sentence, my head hurts. (And War's one of my favorite albums, evuh.) In re: "UK post-punk had more of an impact than US post-punk overall". Absolutely--and currently, UK post-punk has two grafs (with, as you point out, that Irish divot), while U.S. and Australian post-punk together have one. Seems like the proper balance (I'm supposed to append "to me," here, aren't I?)—DCGeist 11:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so the question doesn't come up again via other editors (it has come up on the U2 talk page in the past already, as well as most everyone I've met): U2 is (or was, depending on your POV) definitely a post-punk band. Their main influences circa Boy were the typical post-punk touchstones (Bowie, Roxy, Television) as well as contemporary bands Joy Division and PIL. There's many who would insist that the Edge "stole" his guitar style from Keith Levine (there was a letter about this as recenlty as a year ago in Guitar World). For a time they were in the same band as Ireland's other major post-punk band, The Virgin Prunes. And Tony Wilson won't shut up about the time Bono came up to him and vowed to take Ian Curtis' place as "greatest frontman in rock". Allmusic pretty much sums it up in their review for 1980-1990 by saying U2 was a post-punk band that was able to play as if they were an arena rock band, and that's why they made it big. WesleyDodds 11:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Good explantion of this history. Still makes me head hurt (arena post-punk...it just sounds like a jackalope).—DCGeist 20:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The music press of the time referred to the arena-anthem strand of post-punk (U2, Echo & the Bunnymen, Big Country, Simple Minds) as "the Big Music". Yeah, it's a stupid name, and luckily it didn't catch on. WesleyDodds 01:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think to adequetly represent punk rock in the 80s the new wave/post punk section and hardcore section need to be generously long and about the same legnth as each other. The article is currently too weighted in the 70s, and even the section that discusses influences from the 60s is quite long. Once we get the 80s section well written, we can sink our teeth into the 90s, to me the best decade for punk rock. By the end of the year aiming for a well written section on emo and melodic punk in the 2000s. (Justinboden86 06:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

As primary writer on the current record-holder of longest article on Wikipedia (B movie) count me as a firm supporter of your plans for wholesale expansion. Any genre that produced Big Music deserves to be a Big Article, because in a Big Country, dreams stay with you. (Yo, WD, you totally left out my favorite cheesily lovable Big Music band of all: The Alarm. Come on down and meet your maker. Come on down and make the stand.)—DCGeist 07:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is life

Opinions: Do we need individual sentences where appropriate on each of the following, which appear in our very fine infobox, but nowhere in the article: Christian punk, Nazi punk, anti-folk, deathcountry, and (I'm truly in pain) jazz punk? If they have no place in this, the punk rock article, then do they belong in the punk rock infobox? (If I pick up the violin and start playing, after not having touched it for 15 years, I'm instantly jazz punk, right? Or classical punk? Punkical?) Ah...and then (on a happier, if no less discordant note) there's No Wave. Which surely belongs both in the article (as it currently does) and in the infobox (somewhere). Let's remember, vis-a-vis U.S. post-punk's notability, that Sonic Youth came out of the No Wave scene. (Not to mention--my violin stylings would have made me a No Wave star).—DCGeist 11:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That section about the minor subgenres needs to be reworked, partly because the veracity of some of those articles (ie. Punk blues) is suspect. I've been trying to get others to find real sources for them or list them in AFD for ages. We should sort those out before trying to write descriptions for them, because, honestly, I've found a lot of suspect punk subgenre articles that were started by someone who just opened an account and never used it again aside from creating that article. Jazz punk definitley needs to go. WesleyDodds 11:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Completely agreed. It's gone. (From the infobox, I mean.)—DCGeist 11:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad Religion, Pop Punk?

From where exactly you people got the information that Bad Religion is a Pop Punk Band???

I agree, especially since in the early 80's, the context that it is reffering too, they were a Hardcore band.Hoponpop69 00:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have an a issue of Guitar World somewhere that credits Suffer with instigating a new emphasis on melody in punk rock duirng the late 80s. WesleyDodds 02:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Pop punk secction revised.—DCGeist 04:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dodds, I can understand your quote, but I think the writer of the article was looking at Bad Religion from the wrong perspective. I think he was calling BR melodic in contrast to hardcore punk, where they emerged from. I like your quote, but i think it should be used in the punk revival section, considering BR mentored the punk revival. Although it was Nirvana that made it bankable, they were more influenced by post-punk than punk rock. Being children of hardcore, BR were from the more 'pure' lineage of punk rock. They were the ones who supported NOFX, Rancid, Pennywise, The Offspring etc; via Brett, via Epitaph. I can't claim they had responsibilty for Green Day, but considering they were big in California before Green Day, it's possible they had some influence. My point is BR don't deserve to be called pop punk, because to me they sound more 'rock' than any of the first wave punk rock bands. I'm not just talking about the Ramone's either, who were rockin' on songs like 'Judy is a Punk' and, of course, 'Blitzkreig Bop,' but let the pop flow for songs like 'I Wanna be you Boyfriend' and their cover of Chris Montez's 50's pop hit 'Let's Dance' ("We'll do the twist, the bop, the mash potato dance. Any ole dance that you wanna do; but let's dance")-all these songs are on their first album released 1976. Even the Pistols sound more pop to me than BR songs like 'Do What You Want' (from 1988, their earlier stuff was MORE hardcore), especially if you're talking 'Anarchy in the UK'. So why don't we reserve the pop punk section for the likes of Offpspring post-Ignition, Blink 182 post-Chesire Cat, Green Day post-Warning, Sum 41, Good Charlotte, Vandals (best pop punk band ever) and Guttermouth (second best pop punk band ever)? (Justinboden86)

Origin of the term punk

This section makes no mention of the older meanings of the word, which are relevant. In the nineteenth and earlier twentieth century, punky meant rotten - and punk was rotten wood. The Oxford English Dictionary has a first quote from 1795. I'm guessing John Lydon knew of the older meaning when he chose Johnny Rotten as his stage name. The John Lydon article says it refers to his rotten teeth, and I don't have a reference for my claim. Anyone? --Joesydney 11:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, mate. Too brilliant to be true. The etymological cleverness, that is. The teeth are right on. Here's a good reference:

[In November 1975], the group's identity had to be finalized. As part of this process of transformation and group bonding, individual names were changed first. Although they'd known Lydon for three months, he was so secretive and mistrustful that he hadn't told the group his surname. John was always spitting, blowing his nose and inspecting his rotting teeth. Steve Jones found this repulsive and used to say to John, "Your teeth are rotten, you look Rotten." The name was annoying enough to stick. (Jon Savage, England's Dreaming, p. 129)

—DCGeist 12:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't have a quote to back this up right now, but I heard it was because of his habit of saying to people "You're rotten, you are" or something to that effect. (Justinboden86 06:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Shadowy definition of a shadowy concept

These lines from The Cure's "Play for Today" are as good a definition of the Punk ethos as I have seen:

it's not a case of doing what's right

it's just the way i feel that matters

tell me i'm wrong

i don't really care

it's not a case of share and share alike

i take what i require

i don't understand...

you say it's not fair

it's not a case of telling the truth

some lines just fit the situation

you call me a liar

you would anyway

it's not a case of aiming to please

you know you're always crying

it's just your part

in the play for today

--Joesydney 11:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Discharge

Discharge and UK hardcore are not mentioned. Discharge started at the same time as US hardcore and created a much harder, rawer sound, US hardcore sounds tame by comparison. In terms of influence, go to the Wasted festival which attracts as many foreign as UK punks, I defy you to spot a leather jacket without Discharge written on it somewhere. You won't see too many Black Flag or Minor Threat logos. Stutley 23:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Work them in then! Its your encyclopdia as much as anyone elses... quercus robur 23:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

We got 'em!—DCGeist 00:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Discharge does deserve a mention. Great band with a lot of influence. Though I must admit, I was quite sad to see this video on YouTube. Notice the logo in the upper-right corner? Agggh! Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 01:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Graham! They've been added to the Anarcho section, I suppose the Anarcho scene was the UK equivalent to the US Hardcore scene but I've always considered Discharge to be a Hardcore band and a bit less political than the likes of Crass and Conflict. Their records didn't come with the obligatory Anarchist reading matter. As for the MTV clip, I might have to start watching ;-) Stutley 08:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, were the Dead Kennedys hardcore? They ought to be in the Anarcho section IMHO. Stutley 08:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the DKs were definitely hardcore. They just happened to be unusually interesting hardcore. The Discharge issue is a more problematic one. Is there somebody knowledgeable who'd like to step in and do something on UK 82? I begged and begged for someone to handle emo. No one did (and God knows, I understand), so I feckin' did it. But I gather people who care about things worth caring about actually care about UK 82. (It's not that I don't care...I'm simply ignorant). Somebody go for it. Then I'll copyedit and drive you batty.—DCGeist 10:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is way too long

This is 62 kb too long. Sections in this that already have their own article should be shortened, particularly the post punk section.Hoponpop69 22:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not way too long at all. It's well within the standard limits of article length. Many of Wikipedia's most respected FAs are considerably longer: please see, e.g., Bacteria. This article can be expanded by about 25% without running into over-long territory. And Ceoil has already explained the significance of the post-punk section.—DCGeist 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree its getting too long. Its because a bunch of garbage has been added about subgenres (instead of keeping each one brief).

Information about actual punk rock (such as the most high profile tour, the Anarchy Tour in the 70s; featuring the Pistols, the Clash, the Damned and the Heartbreakers) has been sacrificed for nonsense about non notable hardcore subgenres such as queercore. - Deathrocker 08:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh...Deathrocker, what planet are you calling from? (A) The Anarchy Tour is covered in the article, as it's been for a long time. (B) How exactly did you go about determining that queercore is "non notable" and anything written about it is "nonsense"?—DCGeist 08:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to condense some wording, particularly in the New Wave/post-punk and hardcore sections. I think we can get the same points across in less space, and if necessary I'll move some material to the main articles. WesleyDodds 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just moved a few things around (and to other pages if necessary). One of the main things I did was move the detailed explanation of hardcore's connection to alternative rock and particularly grunge. Such a detailed description is better suited for the hardcore punk page (which badly needs more citations), plus it's already covered more appropriately and logically on this page in the alternative rock section. I don't mind if the page is long if it needs to be, but we still need to watch out for redundancy and overly-detailed sections not necessary in the coverage of the genre as a whole. WesleyDodds 13:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, if we are allowing sections for distant and barely notable nonesense like queercore, etc. then where is the section in this article for gothic rock?... that form of music is FAR more linked with the encyclopediec defintion of the genre directly through bands such as Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Damned, UK Decay, Alien Sex Fiend (Nik Fiend was in a '77 punk act), etc. - Deathrocker 21:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can write something intelligent and efficient about goth and its ties to punk rock, by all means, go ahead. Deriding content as "barely notable nonesense" (nice neologism!) does nothing to serve the project.—DCGeist 21:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We should set a limit to how long the sections on subgenres can be. I agree that that is causing most of this clutter. Sections like pop punk and anarcho punk seem to be at an appropriate level.Hoponpop69 22:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hardcore and punk

Despite one editor's campaign of historical revisionism, hardcore punk is still a form of punk music, hence the word punk in the name. The first hardcore punk bands were considered part of the overall punk scene, and were were around before the musical term hardcore even came into existence. It was not until later (maybe the 1990s, I'm not sure) when there was a clear split between the punk rock scene and the baggy pant/wifebeater vest/baseball cap metal-influenced hardcore scene. Punk music has always been pretty diverse; just look at some of the first punk bands: The Ramones, Sex Pistols, The Clash and The Damned. They were not the same at all, and they were different from many punk bands to follow. Spylab 21:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really, certainly not in the UK they weren't seen as one and the same. The Pistols, the Damned and the Clash played with each other.. they had influences and elements in common and were viewed as part of the same "scene" when punk rock actually happened (in the 70s).

As for the actual fans and people who made up the "scenes", the original and encyclopedic punk rock scene (in terms of characteristics, media coverage, location and time) moved into new romantic, gothic rock, new wave, post-punk... this is historically documented with clubs such as the Blitz and the Batcave. They didn't move onto hardcore; those were merley people who were fans of punk... hense why they are a subgenre and not the same movement.

There were also very few connections between the original US punk movement and hardcore also. The States are generally more musically ignorant, however and the 70s Max's Kansas City bands were not as widely spread as punk was in the UK. It was in one small area... the only physical connection between the scenes musically is The Misfits (who relocated), and the fact that some hardcore would later play CBGB's to keep it open. (but so have numerous different styled bands after the 70s, even the likes of Korn) - Deathrocker 21:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your assertion that punk fans moved into new romantic, gothic rock, new wave and post-punk is not a complete picture. New romantic and the original gothic rock scenes were mostly a UK thing. Many American punks, did in fact, cut off their spiky haircuts, ditch the more outrageous clothing styles and form what became the hardcore punk scene. Pretending that there was some clean cut between punk and hardcore is just that, pretending. Spylab 22:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying that it is a subgenre; because it is. Its just not one and the same as punk rock, as I have shown above. The so called "spikey haired" leather jacket kids (which is also debatable) you are talking about allegedly across America, were not in the original punk bands or even part of the NY scene of the 70s (who moved into art punk and standard rock eras), there is no evidence to show it... Richard Hell & co didn't shave their heads and start playing hardcore all of a sudden.

As I said, the only real connection between the original US punk movement in NY and the Hardcore one of the 80s is the Misfits, and they stood out as a sore thumb in both (hense why they are now refered to as "horror punk"). - 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We should probably reply on here instead of talkpages, seen as this is the article its about. - Deathrocker 22:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You haven't shown that "Its just not one and the same as punk rock", all you've shown is that the same people weren't involved in first wave punk rock and hardcore bands. I really don't understand your argument: you agree it's a punk subgenre, wich would make it part of punk rock, yet you insist they are unrelated. And of course they were into the original bands; there's so many examples we can use. A random one is that Minor Threat covered the Monkees' "Stepping Stone" live often, but they didn't cover their version--they covered the Sex Pistols version, because they thought it was their song. They also covered Wire's "12XU". WesleyDodds 22:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Spylab. I don't even think it's most informative to describe hardcore as a "subgenre" of punk. I would say, from the early 1980s through the mid-1990s, hardcore was the primary manifestation--or, if you prefer, style--of punk rock. This is also, by the way, why it strikes me as important to have the leading hardcore sub- and fusion genres in our Infobox. They may hold little aesthetic interest for me personally, but in historical terms, these originated as punk sub- and fusion genres, and shouldn't be walled off from punk rock.

And Deathrocker, I hate to say it, but you're simply misinformed. Seminal New York hardcore bands like Agnostic Front and Murphy's Law were playing regularly at CB's in the early 1980s, when the club was both very healthy and the definitive venue for punk. (On a personal note, I later worked with Murphy's Law as a music video production manager. They absolutely saw themselves and were regarded in the downtown NY music scene as a punk band...no division between punk and hardcore at all.)—DCGeist 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not misinformed at all. Did you actually read what I said or are you been lazy?

There were very few connections between the original US punk movement and hardcore also. however(...) the 70s Max's Kansas City bands were not as widely spread as punk was in the UK. It was in one small area... the only physical connection between the scenes musically is (...) and the fact that some hardcore would later play CBGB's to keep it open.

How is that denying that hardcore bands then went on to play CBGBs after the original movement in NY died?.. that is exactly what it says. Incase you were blissfully unaware, the punk scene in New York is from way before that (Punk_rock#New_York).. with different people, different scenesters, and differemt bands playing music with different characteristics to hardcore. Understand?

My argument was; just because a band played CBGBs after the original NY movement died out to keep the club open, doesn't mean what they were playing is the encylopedic definition of punk. (and I used Korn as an example, who have also played CBGBs post-70s)

And as for this comment, I'm sorry but YOU seem misinformed:

"in the early 1980s, when the club was both very healthy and the definitive venue for punk. ":

How is that denying that hardcore bands then went on to play CBGBs after the original movement in NY died?.. that is exactly what it says. Incase you were blissfully unaware, the punk scene in New York is from way before that (Punk_rock#New_York).. with different people, different scenesters, and differemt bands playing music with different characteristics to hardcore. Understand?

My argument was; just because a band played CBGBs after the original NY movement died out to keep the club open, doesn't mean what they were playing is the encylopedic definition of punk. (and I used Korn as an example, who have also played CBGBs post-70s)

And as for this comment, I'm sorry but YOU seem misinformed:

"in the early 1980s, when the club was both very healthy and the definitive venue for punk. ":

How can it be history revised as "definative" of punk rock all of a sudden in the 80s, when its already happen there with entirely different people in the 1970s? Read; Punk_rock#New_York, what you are describing is definative of hardcore, and I'm guessing your POV is coming from that of a hardcore scenester, if like you say you have worked with hardcore acts. - Deathrocker 22:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is the encyclopedic definition of punk. I'm pretty sure hardcore is mentioned in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry. WesleyDodds 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Deathrocker, hardcore bands don't need to have been part of the original CBGB's scene. Those bands over in England certianly weren't, and they're punk. They could just listen to a stack of punk records and form a band, after all. That's kind of the point of a lot of punk rock. WesleyDodds 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong;

punk rock aggressive form of rock music that coalesced into an international (though predominantly Anglo-American) movement in 1975–80. Often politicized and full of vital energy beneath a sarcastic, hostile facade, punk spread as an ideology and an aesthetic approach, becoming an archetype of teen rebellion and alienation.[3]

   * The Ramones, Ramones (1976)
   * The Saints, I'm Stranded (Aust. 1976; U.S. 1977)
   * The Sex Pistols, Never Mind the Bollocks (1977)
   * The Clash, The Clash (U.K. 1977; U.S. 1979)
   * The Damned, Damned Damned Damned (1977)
   * Wire, Pink Flag (1977)
   * Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Scream (1978)
   * Pere Ubu, The Modern Dance (1978)
   * X-Ray Spex, Germ Free Adolescents (1978)
   * The Buzzcocks, Singles Going Steady (1979)[4]

Doesn't say a word about hardcore. - Deathrocker 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, there's more to the entry. You have to subscribe to read the whole thing. Plus I've seen quite a few encyclopedia entries and rock histories that cover hardcore as part of punk rock WesleyDodds 22:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Deathrocker, you're misinformed that there is anything like a clean break betweeen the original punk and hardcore scenes. The early 1980s hardcore bands evolved out of the late 1970s punk scenes, their sound and attitude were heavily indebted to late 1970s punk, in California many of the most significant bands were precisely the same, in New York many of the most significant hardcore bands considered themselves and were culturally recognized as punk bands. The original NY movement did not "die out" as you wrote--it evolved in a couple different directions, No Wave (with its "artier" sound) was one, hardcore (with its very punk rock sound) was another. Hardcore bands did not play CB's in the 1980s "to keep the club open" as you have now written twice--they played CB's because they were punk bands and CB's was the club every punk band wanted to play. You don't seem to be aware of these things.—DCGeist 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all.. I suggest you actually read what I've wrote on this talkpage before addressing me with your misinformed banter, along with repeating some correct parts I have already stated above (for the second time) as I said;

"the original punk bands or even part of the NY scene of the 70s (who moved into art punk.. )"

However, you have no evidence for the hardcore related stuff you're spouting, such as claiming they were very closely entwined.. when it is clear that the only band that bridges the two is the Misfits.. who moved away and changed their musical characteristics. As I said, the likes of Richard Hell and co didn't suddenly shave their hair and start playing hardcore.

Those bands played CBGBs to keep the club from going out of business; even though they were musically alien to the band's who played their in the 70s... That is what all club's do. - Deathrocker 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The hardcore kids listened to first wave punk rock and aimed to emulate it. That's the connection. WesleyDodds 23:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Deathrocker, you're simply making stuff up now. Instead of misrepresenting other online encyclopedias, try picking up a book. Try, for example, the definitive Trouser Press Record Guide, 4th ed. Here, for example, is the beginning of the Agnostic Front entry: "This pioneering skinhead outfit which has been on the New York hardcore scene since the early '80s debuted...with an album of standard-issue punk" (p. 9). Here's the classic Dave Marsh-edited Rolling Stone Record Guide from 1983: "Black Flag is one of the leaders of contemporary L.A. punk--a small, sometimes violent cultural movement that transplanted 1977-style British hard-core punk anger to the Californian promised land" (p. 42). I was too kind when I described you as misinformed. When you call 1970s punk and hardcore "musically alien," you reveal that you simply have no idea what you're talking about.—DCGeist 23:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have plenty of books thanks, try picking up "Punk." by Colegrave and Sullivan; learn a thing or two about what you are talking about. Includes content that has been authorised by numeous punk sources (such as the Filth and the Fury) and most of it is around 100 first hand account interviews of bands and people who were there in the punk rock movement.

400 pages, not a single mention of hardcore... nor Black Flag, Bad Brains, Minor Threat, etc. They're not listed in "Prinipal people and bands" either, sorry. Looks like you're wrong.

Also try the likes of "Vacant: A Diary of the Punk Years 1976-1979" by Nils Stevenson, "Please Kill Me" (more first hand account of the actual moment in NY) there are numerous books. - Deathrocker 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, he's not. There's something called consensus of sources. List something else besides that one book. And just because it doesn't mention hardcore doesn't mean that hardcore isn't related. It just means it doesn't mention hardcore. WesleyDodds 23:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is. I've cited three very well known books there and there are PLENTY more if needed (even the likes of Joy Division and post-punk are mentioned in it.)

A couple of people who weren't there, claiming hardcore was the same thing on Wikipedia Vs. 100 first hand accounts from bands, actual musicians who were involved in the orginal movement, etc laying out the history of what punk is, in numerous books on the subject... and without a mention of people involved in hardcore.

Hmmm tough one to decide who is more likely correct.

I'm not denying that its a subgenre, I'm pointing out the simple fact that it is not the same thing as punk rock nor does it have the same musical characteristics; hense the reason why it or the people involved with hardcore are not mentioned in those books... if it was part of it then it would have been included. - Deathrocker 23:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, stop. You're just being silly now. Colegrave and Sullivan's book is subtitled The Definitive Record of a Revolution and is billed as the "record of five years that changed the world," those being 1975 to 1979. It has a specific temporal focus and a concentration on the cultural "revolution" punk initially represented. Of course it doesn't cover hardcore, because hardcore is outside of its self-defined scope. Your argument that it "looks like [I'm] wrong" because you found a book called Punk that doesn't discuss hardcore is, again, silly. Colegrave and Sullivan don't discuss Crass or Subhumans either. So, by your logic, 1980s UK anarcho-punk also wasn't punk. That's beyond silly, it's...well, it's another s word. Any more books on your shelf, Deathrocker?—DCGeist 23:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned three books. And you arguments are weak... why do you think it mentions that time frame genius? Do you think they just said "oh... any time frame will do, lets miss certain bands out for fun". No; they set that timeframe because that is when punk rock historically happened.

Why do you think there are books specialising on the topic of Hardcore music?... if as you claim, its just the same movement as punk rock, why would people go to the effort of writing the likes of American Hardcore, about hardcore bands and the people involved in that scene?

Also, Anarcho-punk is an other SUBGENRE, get it? Its not actual punk rock itself.. its a different form of music (known as a subgenre) Crass aren't difinative of punk rock; however, it could be strongly argued they're definative of anarcho. - Deathrocker 00:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid to tell you, my friend, but you're on the wrong side of history. Julie Burchill and Tony Parsons, at the heart of the London scene, declared punk dead at the end of 1977 in The Boy Looked at Johnny. You want to call it dead at the end of 1979. But that's not the historiographical consensus. And I would l-o-v-e to see you tell Jimmy Gestapo of Murphy's Law to his face that he wasn't a true punk.—DCGeist 00:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

He isn't a punk, only the Dead Kennedys and to an extant Black Flag "got" punk in the bad ol' USA, probably because they kept popping over to London to find out what is was all about... Stutley 13:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why somebody might say 1977 as its final year; either way 77 or 79, its still the 70s.. so you basically proved my point, thanks. Also I'd thoroughly enjoy to see the look on Siouxsie Sioux's face if you played something by a hardcore band to her and said "artistically, you were the same as this". - Deathrocker 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Something to the effect of that is addressed in the authorized Banshees bio, in that they mention they're responible for setting the stage for a lot of later bands as evidenced by their inclusion on the first Lollapalooza (which included Henry Rollins and Rollins Band . . . which Siouxsie wasn't a fan of musically.)

Deathrocker, a lot of your arguments are logically flawed and you fail to consider the full scope of available resources. And this revert war with DCGeist concerning the page has got to stop. Both of you will probably end up getting a one-day ban for breaking the three-revert rule. Right now everyone needs to take a step back and let the issue rest for a bit. WesleyDodds 00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think there are books specialising on the topic of Hardcore music?... if as you claim, its just the same movement as punk rock, why would people go to the effort of writing the likes of American Hardcore, about hardcore bands and the people involved in that scene?

Same reason we have pages for rock music and punk rock: specificity. WesleyDodds 00:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the crucial point in this arguement is whether punk started and ended in the 70s, or whether it had a lineage and still exists today, and not just as an influence on alternative bands. It's a split that runs perpendicular to the London/America division. It constantly dissapoints me when documentaries or books focusing on punk rock fall flat when they mention the 80s. Just because the pistols disbanded, Clash went 'mainstream', Ramones melded into charicatures of themselves, and the rest of the bands became post-punk or new wave, does not mean that punk died with them. Hardcore emerged because fans of the music were dissapointed in the mainstream direction of new wave/post punk, and went underground. They became more anti-commercial, fiercely opposed to 'sell-outs.' But they were punk. Did they sound the same as 70s punk. Of course not, that would be standing still, instead they moved forward and developed the sound. It's still aggressive, short, loud, and fast. It's still about the same stuff, about saying what you want, making a blunt statement. Punk rock re-emerged from the hardcore scene in the 90s in the form of the Epitaph bands, as well as Green Day, later producing pop punk, and then again producing emo punk. For better or for worse, these are just the changing style of the same music. Just look at how rock n' roll changed between Little Richard and the Rolling Stones, or how blues has changed over time. There is still a lineage there, punk has changed, it did not become stagnant and die in the 70s. (Justinboden86 12:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

Goth and UK82

Deathrocker, like WesleyDodds before, has noted the close relationship between punk and goth. Is someone knowledgeable willing to write a little bit on the topic? There's nothing sacrosanct about the present organization of the Subgenres and derivative forms section; it can be altered as appropriate. And UK82 (aka UK non/post-Oi!/anarcho hardcore) still could use a well-versed editor's contribution.—DCGeist 00:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Goth is an alternative rock subgenre (in fact, goth bands were among the first labelled "alternative"), and I threw in that bit about the Cure in the section (although without mentioned gothic rock explicitly). Thus that would be the section to deal with it. I've thought about listing some major alt-rock subgenres, but since punk as a whole lead to alternative rock, I thought the detail was needless. I don't think we need anything (if at all) more than a sentence mentioning gothic rock's origins from post-punk.WesleyDodds 00:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that goth calls for more extensive coverage in alternative rock than it does here (and appreciated the toss-in of the Cure). Still, for historical informativeness (oy) and clarity, I believe we could use a couple sentences here about the ancestral lines between punk and goth. Despite my Sisters of Mercy 12-inches, I don't think I have the best feel for the most appropriate emphasis. And I know that a lot of lay readers of this simply won't think to move on to the alternative rock article. Could you write a little bit and place as most effective?—DCGeist 00:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot we can write about the connections, but per Wikipedia:Summary style I think we can and insist we cover it in this article with no more than a sentence or two. I'll try to rework the post-punk section a bit to mention, since it was a strand of post-punk before it truly became a form of alternative rock (and there's bound to be someone who'll insist Joy Division is goth). WesleyDodds 01:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You do that and I'll promise to deal with the Joy Division fans. The first time I ever got seriously stoned was to JD (and, oh Christ, yer post-punk U2 boys), so there I feel qualified.—DCGeist 01:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat related question: you've been citing the UK version of Rip it Up and Start Again, right? Because I've got the American version, which is over a hundred pages shorter, so any pages I cite would most likely not match up. WesleyDodds 01:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have. The U.S. version is 100 pages shorter? Oy. My initial thought would be to modify all references to align with that, simply on a gross distribution basis.—DCGeist 01:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the rubbish in the article can be pruned to make room for something that is genuinely connected to the original form of punk in a large way. Gothic rock is clearly closely tied and was originally dubbed "positive punk".

• Lords of the New Church - feat: Stiv Bators of the Dead Boys and Brian James of The Damned
• The Damned are considered one of the first goth bands aswell as first British punk band to achieve numerous things (see article.)
• Siouxsie & the Banshees - no explination needed
• Alien Sex Fiend - Nik Fiend played in 77 punk act Demon Preacher
• UK Decay - were first deemed a "punk" band (and sometimes still are), before the term "gothic rock" became wide spread; has many of the same musical characteristics.
• Bauhaus one of their primary influences was punk.
• One of the primarly places the London scene punks (as in the kids who were part of the movement in the 70s, attending shows and clubs) moved onto was goth club; the Batcave (with Sex Gang Children and Specimen) after the punk scene faded.
• The Virgin Prunes cited one of their main influences as the Sex Pistols; "Punks were the bastard children of Ziggy Stardust, as were the Virgin Prunes. Without the Sex Pistols and Bowie I wouldn’t be in music" -Gavin Friday.[5]

- Deathrocker 22:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Emo is a subgenre of hardcore punk, therefore a section on that should go in the harcore page, not here

Does anyone else feel that that information should be moved from here to ther hardcore page?Hoponpop69 05:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Emo should be covered on both pages. Probably in more detail in the hardcore article, but a summary-style paragraph is necessary here to give a full picture of the recent history of American punk. There are many references available associating emo with punk rock, to a lesser or greater degree outside of the shadow of hardcore. A few examples:

Emo is a subgenre of punk rock. Its roots are found in the mid-eighties D.C. scene, but many other contemporary American punk bands echoed its characteristic frantic, wailing big-guitar sound. (Tristan Laughter, quoted in Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo, by Andy Greenwald [p. 3])

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, more and more sXers were influenced by emo music. There have always been connections between emo and hardcore.... Bands such as Rites of Spring and Embrace added feelings and emotions besides anger and aggression to hardcore. While emo packs an emotional punch similar to hardcore, its melodic music and sensitive lyrics attract a more mellow fan base and encourage introspection rather than militancy around any issue. (Straight Edge: Hardcore Punk, Clean-Living Youth, and Social Change, by Ross Haenfler [p. 116)

[Travis] Morrison rants, screams and even sings prettily over a mish-mash of sounds that draws from D.C. punk's long history: Minor Threat's jittery hardcore, Rites of Spring's fractured emo.... (entry on the Dismemberment Plan, in The New Rolling Stone Album Guide: Completely Revised and Updated 4th Edition, ed. by Nathan Brackett [p. 244])

Emo is clearly more than a restricted subset of hardcore. It's a major expression of punk rock in contemporary culture and needs to be covered here.—DCGeist 05:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It should go onto post-hardcore and I exported it there[6] before Geist added it back to this article... maybe hardcore punk but even thats a bit of a stretch. its non notable, non direct decendant of punk rock.. and wouldn't ever be there unless the above user added it.

This is how distant that part is;

• Punk rock -> Hardcore punk -> Post-hardcore -> first wave of emo -> second wave of emo

It doesn't belong here at all, only the major events of significance; post-punk, oi!, hardcore, pop-punk do... this junk isn't needed and there are even 80s hard rock acts that have more in common with the article subject (such as Guns N' Roses one of the biggest sellers of all time, who cited these punk acts as prime influences) - Deathrocker 12:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

pfft. for better or for worse, (I'm not an emo fan, but i have to give credit where it's due), most punk bands of today are emo or emo influenced. It merits entry in the aritcle because it is currently the dominant style of punk rock today, in 2007. Whether that will change 4 years from now or not, it needs to be mentioned when talking about modern punk rock. Loosen up deathrocker, try and expand your tastes or if not stop condeming people who's tastes don't conform to yours. (Justinboden86 13:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

The music I think you're referring to is Pop Punk and Pop Rock, not Emotive Hardcore Punk. Inhumer 17:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't know what I do or don't like Mr. Epitaph (I've never stated my favourite or least favourite bands), that isn't what editing an encyclopedia is about to me. It is about factually correct information. So I suggest you keep your advice about people having "tastes" for this or that to yourself.

I don't really have time to squable about "conformity" on Wikipedia because its all I can do not to burst out laughing. But anyways, you are factually incorrect in your estimations; "most punk bands of today" aren't emo or emo influenced at all, there are some bands placing themselves under the post-hardcore tag but again; that information belongs on the hardcore article, as that is what it is a subform of; you don't see rock 'n' roll's article cluttered up with rubbish about brutal death metal (and they are like this case, very distantly related).

The section in question is second-wave of emo, anyways... that isn't the same as what is (incorrectly) refered to emo today. The most "dominant" and commerically successful subsidary that claims to be associated with punk rock, is still pop punk, with the likes of Green Day. - Deathrocker 13:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Emo is derivative of hardcore punk, but it's notably is so prominent that it has a place in an article about punk rock as a whole. WesleyDodds 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Deathrocker is right that our tastes aren't at issue here. What is at issue is the consensus of professionals writing in the field. Deathrocker holds to the opinion that punk rock ended as a movement and a sound in 1979; most writers in the field disagree. Deathrocker regards emo as irrelevant to a consideration of punk rock and its inclusion here as "junk"; most writers in the field discuss emo as one of the leading styles of contemporary punk rock. Deathrocker opines that emo is a "non notable, non direct decendant of punk rock"; I've provided three recent sources describing emo as a form of punk rock and can easily provide a dozen more. Deathrocker is entitled to his opinions; however, as they differ widely from the consensus views in the field, they can't guide the organization of this article--now matter how loudly he shouts about "rubbish."—DCGeist 17:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You're talking nonsense again Geist. As I've pointed out, numerous reputable punk historians don't mention hardcore in their books.. let alone a distant second wave American subsection of post-hardcore. (that's place in the article is in dispute here)

You have provided no sources to prove that emo is a direct decendant of punk rock at all; it is linked to the hardcore movement specifically, you can even find this out in the sources article of Emo (music)

Joy Division are an example of a band who "came out of punk" playing a different style. Embrace are an example of a band who "came out of hardcore" playing a different style. Understand? If you're so interested in hardcore then why not edit that article? Is what I'm wondering. - Deathrocker 22:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You keep missing a vital point. Emo is a very notable form of hardcore (which is a form of punk), and therefore deserves to be covered in some capacity here. Even if it's just derivate (as you claim) it'd still warrant a mention, like alternative rock has. WesleyDodds 00:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Dodds (Justinboden86 12:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

Although, does Queercore and Riotgrrl deserve to stay? If there are notable bands in those categories, are they notable because they are gay, or should they be placed under a more relevant category? eg can Sleater-Kinney be mentioned under punk revival section instead? Emo, especially Fugazi and those that followed them, deserve mention in main article but perhaps not the other two. If there's no opposition I'm in favour of moving notable artists out of queer and riot into more central categories, non-notables deleted with the paragraph, the heading changed to "Emo's Second Wave" (more active than "Second Wave of Emo"), and the dispute tag removed. Sound fair? (Justinboden86 13:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

I think they clearly deserve to stay. As you suggest, most of the bands in each movement may not be among the most "notable" punk bands of the era (though some would surely argue they are, and Bikini Kill undoubtedly is), but each movement certainly is notable as a trend in non-commercial punk. A simple Google Book Search shows about fifty published books discussing queercore; riot grrrl is covered in well over two hundred. Two sentences on queercore and three on riot grrrl, preceded by an introductory sentence, seems a perfectly reasonable amount of coverage.—DCGeist 19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough then, point taken. But if they stay I would suggest the article be trimmed so it's less 'list-like.' Are all the bands equally influential and notable (i can only recognise a couple) or are there a few with a following but do not necessarily deserve mention in the main article. At the very least, the list of punk musicians who set a precedent just by being gay is a little long. While we're at it, why not throw David Bowie in there too? Mentioning Jayne/Wayne County, fair enough. The others? I'm not so sure. Also Emo should get it's own heading, because they are so different to the other two styles. To me, it's like a title saying 'Oranges, Lemons and Pencils'. They just don't belong under the same heading. (Justinboden86 23:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

Oranges, Lemons, and Pencils. Damn. That is good, mate. That's exACTly what I asssembled. There was a general consensus that more coverage of recent punk history was required. These were the three main (relatively) recent and underground(ish) areas that were not covered at the time. So I created a grabbag (or...it's turning into a piñata under your analysis) and threw 'em in it. I strongly believe all need to be mentioned here and at least at their current level of emphasis. I have no intellectual defense for their current organization. Reassemble at will. Best, Dan—DCGeist 10:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC) (P.S. I agree five examples is a little long. My rule's generally three. I started at three; another editor (sorry, it's late, don't have the energy to check who) added to it and I think very wisely. Off the cuff: keep Jayne, Phranc (neither of whom I started with...shameful) and the Apostles guy, jes' fer bein' British.) (P.P.S. I'm not a gay punk fan and I'm guessing you're not either, but a gay punk fan might say that listing five's the bare minimum. I don't know.)

Okay, with Dan's blessing I'm going to attempt to rewrite that section. Anyone feel free to make constructive changes to what I did, just do no revert it. (Justinboden86 11:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)) P.S. Shouldn't Lou Reed get an honourable mention as an openly gay musician? :P (Justinboden86 11:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

You keep missing factual basis. Unlike emo, alternative rock is derived from punk rock itself, read Alternative rock#Alternative rock in the United Kingdom. Morrisey of the Smiths was in Slaughter and the Dogs, Robert Smith of the Cure was in Siouxsie & the Banshees, etc for example, do the connections to post-punk and gothic rock really need going over again?.... that is how alternative rock is directly derived from punk rock (the specific form, which has its characteristics described in the infobox) Hense why it is included and is a subgenre.

Emocore has no such ties, and is not directly derived from the form of music described here... it is however, tied in with the American post-hardcore and hardcore movements. Those forms that emo are derived from have articles, lists, catagories, infoboxes, etc of their own, you are portraying extreme bias against them by marginalising the hardcore article.... all articles are to be regarded on the same level. This article is about punk rock, not hardcore.

Not some inane garbage of "oh everything is punk rock"... regardless of the fact that it is NOT derived from the form described here... you are attempting to make things contradict itself. - Deathrocker 13:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I should point out I wrote most of the alternative rock article. You ignored that a large part of American alternative rock emerged from the hardcore movement, as did emo. However, emo is consider largely a form of punk, while alternative rock is its own separate genre. WesleyDodds 19:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ignore it; the less prominent, American form of alternative rock may be derived from hardcore, perhaps. But as I have shown above, the most famous bands in (British; post-punk, gothic rock, Smiths, Cure, etc) alternative rock are directly derived from punk rock specifically. The latter part isn't suddenly erased because of what Americans were doing. Hense why it is a subgenre.

Emo doesn't have that. There is no evidence to show that it had it origins and/or was dervied from anywhere else but, specifically the post-hardcore and hardcore movements. Its own article states that. As I said... you are attempting to marginalise the hardcore article. - Deathrocker 12:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not attempting to marginalize the hardcore article, and I doubt that is anyone else's intention. Firstly, this is an article dedicated to punk rock; that entails the core sound, its subgenres, and its legacy. Thus alt-rock and emo both deserve to be discussed here in some capacity. Secondly, alternative rock more specifically is drawn from hardcore (the US) and post-punk (the UK). Some bands like R.E.M. and the Smiths were merely influenced by punk rock; they didn't start as punk bands and they certainly don't fit the general characteristic. Both the US and UK indie scenes went through the hardcore and post-punk phases for a few years until the early-to-mid 60s when alt-rock started to develope. Punk as a whole is the major inspiration for alt-rock, but it direclty emerges from hardcore with Husker Du, the Replacements, Fugazi, the Minutemen, Meat Puppets, and Dinosaur Jr (which had two members that were formerly in the hardcore band Deep Wound), and post-punk with Bauhaus, The Cure, the Banshees, and New Order. Thirdly, emo is generally considered a subgenre of punk regardless, while alternative/indie is so diverse it has been classified as its own genre in rock. You say emo is a subgenre of hardcore and it is hardcore-derived. You seem to be ignoring that that still makes it a type of punk, since it is a subset of a subset (hardcore) of punk. WesleyDodds 12:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You are attempting to marginalise the hardcore article, that genre has existed for what? Over 25 years, yet you are acting as if genres that are diectly derived from that form of music can't just stand in that article alone. That is the form emo is derivative of (read its article), that is where it belongs as well as mention of America's form of alternative.

The Alternative movement in the UK was heavily derived from punk specifically, with parts of it (gothic rock and post-punk) intertwining. Bauhaus for example, don't take influence from "post-punk" because they were head to head and intertwined with it, like much of the early alternative movement which happened just after punk. A large part of their sound is derived from punk rock; and many of the people in these bands were actually in the original punk groups as well[7]. - Deathrocker 13:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"You are attempting to marginalise the hardcore article". No, I am not. I just said that. Please don't insinuate I have a viewpoint completely opposite from what I have been projecting. I'm pretty knowledgeable about hardcore. And as I recall, you were arguing about the emphasis placed on hardcore a while back, arguing it wasn't punk. Frankly, I find some of your points nonsensical or contradictory. We've repeatedly clarified our points: emo emerged from hardcore, hardcore is a punk genre (and often regarded as a purist strain of punk at that), emo and hardcore are both notable topics in regards to punk rock, alternative rock is generally considered a separate genre while hardcore is not, etc. I don't know what else to say. Given your remark about "marginalizing hardcore" I'm wondering if you are really listening to any of our points. WesleyDodds 13:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ummm no. Hardcore isn't punk rock; its a subgenre of it called hardcore, that was and still is my factual point. Just as punk rock isn't simply "rock and roll", its a subform, with different characteristics and a different name.

"hardcore(...) (often regarded as a purist strain of punk at that)"

By who?... a couple of Americans in the 80s who didn't know any better? If a couple of Americans suddenly decide Cola isn't any different to straight ahead Water should we suddenly re-write the H20 article with that in mind? Of course not. That certainly isn't the encyclopedic definiton, as has been pointed out before. Anyway... no point in covering that ground again....

My point with the "marginalising" comment is this; Emo is regarded as a subform of hardcore, and came out of movements pertaining to that. Correct? Well guess what, hardcore has its own article where information about one of its own subgenres can go. In a sense, it seems like you're saying "oh, the hardcore article isn't good enough... lets bring crap about emocore into the punk rock article instead. Even though factually it isn't directly derived from this specific form at all". Why on earth should that happen?

We're talking something that is three times removed from this actual form, there are subgenres of heavy metal that are more directly derived from punk rock. - Deathrocker 20:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Factually incorrect edits to Oi!

This is directed to the anonymous editor who keeps adding factually incorrect information to the Oi! section (in case he doesn't check the talk page on his anonymous IP account). Here are some direct quotes from Garry Bushell, who was right in the middle of the Oi! scene and would know better than anyone:

1) Oi never suffered from Nazi violence the way Sham 69 and 2-Tone had; the ag that blemished those early Oi! gigs was strictly football related. 2) Oi's legacy is a world-wide street-punk movement which is vocally pro-working class and against racism, unemployment, state bureaucracy and repression. ...

... Oi found itself on the sharp end of the sort of tabloid crucifixion usually reserved for the more macabre mass murderers. Corrupting its meaning, the same media immediately tried to bury it. Inevitably their version of events was as watertight as a kitchen colander in a tropical monsoon. They said Oi was for skinheads (but it was always more than that), that all skins were Nazis (and only a minority ever were) and that therefore Oi was the Strasser brothers in steel-capped boots (but the bands were either socialists or cynics…).

This comes from http://www.garry-bushell.co.uk/oi/index.asp Spylab 17:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sonic Youth, Green Day

Why are there pictures of Sonic Youth and Green Day in the punk article? Kylie is more "punk" than either of those and she's a talentless whore (in the media sense of course). Stutley 23:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To illustrate the legacy of the genre. And remember, Sonic Youth were on SST and Green Day were influenced by first wave punk and 80s college rock. WesleyDodds 06:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Punk is an attitude, a state of mind, those bands are Pop Groups that just happen to play their guitars slightly faster than Michael Bolton's backing band. Stutley 13:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sonic Youth is one of those bands that believe "punk is an attitude, a state of mind". They even criticized Green Day for not being a real punk band. Which is of course silly since Sonic Youth is not a punk band either and was more influenced by protopunk like the Stooges and No Wave (not to mention Glenn Branca), but whatever. Oh, and because you called Sonic Youth a pop band and compared them to Michael Bolton's backing band you've demonstrated you've never really listened to the band. Sonic Youth is synonymous for many rock fans with the word "atonal". WesleyDodds 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But wait, dude...you forgot Sonic Youth's Bad Moon Rising. You don't need to listen to 'em to know they're just some cheap Creedence cover band. (P.S. It looks like we're building a consensus to work Michael Bolton into the article. And it's about time.)—DCGeist 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn, this would have been more perfect had I mentioned Bad Moon Rising by name like I was planning to. WesleyDodds 05:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an extensive debate about Green Day being punk on their discussion page, but basically it boils down to this: Green Day emerged out of the punk scene along with Operation Ivy in California in the 80s. Their album Dookie propelled punk to the mainstream (Nevermind promoted alternative/"grunge" more than punk), along with the Offspring's 'Smash.' Since then, Green Day have became more popular and have left their punk origins further behind. Their 'American Idiot' album pales in comparison to NOFX's 'War on Errorism.' They are mentionable because they helped make punk big again and were, once upon a time, a punk band. However, they have never been, are not now, and never will be a 'pop group.' Backstreet Boys were a pop group. Monkees were a pop group. There is a difference even you, Stutley, should be able to understand. Sonic Youth I have no opinion on, except to say calling them a Creedence cover band is going a little too far. Justinboden86 13:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)]

It is astute of you to realise Kylie (who recorded with The Bad Seeds in their prime) has more incommon with the articles subject than Green Day do. Unfortunetly however, there are no laws against Californians pretending the music they play is related to punk, hense its inclusion in the article.

Rumour has it DCGeist is planning to levy for "Weird Al" Yankovic and the Village People's inclusion and image in the article, because obviously they're totally related to punk... no Americana history revisionism here. - Deathrocker 10:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Was that a Personal Attack? Inhumer 11:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Are you personally attacking me, by insinuating that I could have made one? - Deathrocker 12:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, It just seems like you're trying to insult DCGeist simply because his opinion differs from yours. Inhumer 21:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think deathrocker is onto something here...I think we should delete all the UK, Australian and German bands from the article and just have american bands. We can include every american artist from Little Richard to Eminem. (Justinboden86 06:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

Raggae

This page should also credit raggae as a major influence on punk music as it was highly evident in some of the early punk bands like The Clash and the Dead Kennedys and also in some newer punk like Rancid but is found, however small, in nearly every punk band Thesnoo 20:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly well known that punk was introduced to reggae by a couple of DJs in London after the punk movement was already well on its way, so it's not really a formative influence. Reggae is mentioned as an influence in the article. ~Switch ^t 03:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

After punk rock...

I think we should cut down on the "subgenres and derivative forms" and "legacy and recent developments" subsections. Some of the sections are even looking better than the main articles on their subjects. All we really need to do is give a vague overview and explain the development and differences from punk rock proper. All this excess is in danger of giving undue weight to recent history. Anyone think most of the information on subgenres, derivative forms, legacy and recent development should be moved to main articles (punk revival would need an article), and these sections should be shortened? ~Switch ^t 07:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends mostly on how long people feel the article should be. Personally I'm in favour of these parts being given more length but I'm not opposed to a reorganisation...it is a little messy at the moment. (Justinboden86 08:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

I agree with Justin. The fact that "some of the sections are even looking better than the main articles on their subjects" is hardly a problem for this article; it just means that a lot of work remains to be done on those other articles.—DCGeist 21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think some sections could be slightly shorter (Post-punk, Oi!) in order to act as more effetive summaries, but beyond that the emphasis on subgenres and derivative forms seems alright by me. WesleyDodds 22:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No mention of grindcore? No need, perhaps?

Napalm Death, who were one of the originators of the grindcore style, started out as a peace punk band, sounding like many of their peers in the mid 80's. Similarly, other early grind bands such as Repulsion and especially Sore Throat had a strong punk background, so I'm curious as to wether any mention should be made of them, either in the hardcore section or the fusion section.

Its a sub genre of Hardcore Punk, so its in Hardcore Punks infobox. Inhumer 11:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What is goth punk?

What is goth punk? Is there anything partiularly goth about AFI? I don't hear it if there is. Celtic punk yes, it makes perfect sense to inlude it there (Flogging Molly's success and all). But I don't know if goth punk exists, or means anything if it does, let alone being a major recent trend. Thoughts? ~Switch ^{t c g} 14:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a valid term to use on Wikipedia, at least not yet. The only time I've seen it used is in the first AFI article I ever read, and it was used to describe AFI specifically (the term "goth punk", which apparently has been affixed to AFI before, was brought up, only to make a point that the band doesn't like it and Davey Havok countered "real" goth punk was deathrock like Christian Death). WesleyDodds 19:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, AFI has been progressively adding more of a gothic rock influence, to the point where they covered Cure songs for an MTV Cure special and a Rhino Records goth box set. WesleyDodds 19:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A Google Book Search turns up quite a number of usages of the term. The touchstones vary from Bauhaus to the Damned, with the Misfits seemingly the most common reference point.—DCGeist 20:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand how anyone could cast Bauhaus as goth-punk, because they're almost universally considered the definitive gothic rock band. The Damned reference might make more sense, as that band started as punk rock and moved in a more goth/alternative direction later; so did Siouxsie and the Banshees. The Misfits, I think, is just mislabelling perhaps. Danzig's later music definitely had gothic influences, but The Misfits created and defined horror punk without goth influences - hell, they started long before goth existed. However, they shared certain visual aesthetics with the goth scene. That would be my explanation. But even All Music Guide doesn't have an entry for "goth punk." ~Switch ^{t c g} 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

goth punk probably not a relevant way to descirbe the misfits, at least by anyone who knows much about them. The horror punk label applies much better because they only did songs about horror movies. The Ramones toyed with that concept a little too with songs like "I Don't Wanna go Down to the Basement," "You Should Never Have Opened that Door" and, of course, "Pet Semetary." Goth would always be a secondary description of their music, and i would say goth punk itself isn't all that relevant. I think it would be best if AFI were categorised as a band who blended alternative rock with punk rock, or even hardcore punk, and then you could mention My Chemical Romance and a couple other in there too.(Justinboden86 04:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

Its a non notable neologism, not an actual genre. The term is redundant and was likely created by Warped Tour kids to describe any pop punk/Warpedcore band who wears black.

Gothic rock and Deathrock itself, came out of and was derived from punk... it also has a large chunk of those characteristics remaining anyway; so saying "goth punk" like something new is being added that wasn't there before, is stupid and uneducated. Especially when these kids apply it to bands like AFI who's most commerically successful album has more in common with straight ahead 80s new wave. - Deathrocker 12:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Deathrocker you made the completely unsubstantiated claim that I added the goth punk genre. I sign every piece of editing I do, and you can look back and see it was not me who introduced that stuff about AFI. I have introduced things into this article before that did not pass peer review, but the goth punk addition was not mine. You always take things a step too far and although you are not the only editor I have diasagreed with, you are the only editor I have no respect for. Punk did not stop in 77, it lived on and evolved and thrived. This does not mean that Placebo is punk; but it does mean there are alot of bands out there that sound nothing like the Pistols/Clash who still qualify as punk....and yes, some of them are american. I do not like AFI but I can understand they deserve mention, in the same way I do not like Buzzcocks but understand they deserve mention. A complete delete of a paragraph is not the way to improve the punk rock article, especially if it means you take legitimate information with the delete such as the celtic punk sentence. Edit it, make it more correct, do not just delete. (Justinboden86 15:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

You added false information back into the article, "goth punk" blatantly doesn't exist as a genre. Yet you added the pargraph back with this summary;

Justinboden86 (Talk | contribs)

(*sigh* goth punk term is used to distinguish the AFI sound from the rest of the punk rock section...perhaps can be reworded but AFI are very influential and big. Celtic punk valid too.)[8]

Now what you've added, makes it look like its saying AFI are influenced by MCR.

"Hardcore punk was also merged successfully with alternative rock to produce bands such as AFI, who drew inspiration from The Misfits and Samhain, and My Chemical Romance. Celtic punk, with Flogging Molly and Dropkick Murphys brought together the sound of Oi! and The Pogues"

And why are Dropkick Murphys mentioned after a sentence about AFI mixing elements of alternative rock with hardcore (which they didn't do until 1998 with the A Fire Inside EP) and even mention of MCR who didnt form until into the 2000s?

It makes the whole pop-hardcore section look worthless with its sloppyness. - Deathrocker 20:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted, not added, there is a difference. I beleived, as did Switch acting independently of me, that the topic required discussion. The rough opinion of the discussion was that goth punk was not a valid term, however it was also agreed that celtic punk still deserved mention. You went against the discussion by simply removing the paragraph. (Justinboden86 04:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

Does anyone else agree that the Post-punk, hardcore and oi! sections have got to be shortened?

They seem way to long compared to the other subections on genres.Hoponpop69 07:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

for a group consensus see the "After punk rock..." discussion. General agreement was they could be shortened slightly. (Justinboden86 09:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

I disagree. We shouldn't pander to some notion of an average reader with a short attention span. IMO the structure accomodates a long article, and it can be read in easily accessible chunks. If you see a lack of balance, add to the shorter sections. Ceoil 21:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ceoil. And, in that "After punk rock..." discussion, I agreed with what you then said, Justin--"Personally I'm in favour of these parts being given more length"--not in shortening.—DCGeist 21:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I just assumed because no one challenged the last comment on that discussion it was considered acceptable. Didn't mean to cause confusion. To clarify my position: there is nothing wrong with the article being too long, but if a particular summary is becoming a little too long winded with some unnecessary or non-notable information it should be cropped slightly. Likewise, if there is notable information not included it should be added. Having a glance at the sections mentioned, they seem to be easily readable and well structured summaries of some very influential subgenres, and do not really require much cropping. (Justinboden86 22:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

Passed FAR not long ago so shouldn't really need any work done to it. LuciferMorgan 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Better Badges

I started an article on Better Badges, who originated and then made most punk badges in 76-83, as well as printing many fanzines. It was promptly deleted. I've managed to get it restored, but it's still on dodgy ground. If anyone, especially admins, who remembers it would care to comment on the the AfD page or otherwise contribute, it would be appreciated. Wwwhatsup 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Green Day

Why do people "Green Day's not punk?" When there a lot of other bands that say that they're punk when they're not. Starting with Simple Plan they're no where near punk rock, but they still say "we're a punk band." So think about the other bands that call themselves punk that aren't before say that about Green Day.--69.113.131.124 22:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, as a Green Day fan, I would say that calling Green Day punk is just as silly as calling them "not punk." Labels limit people. I'm not sure what that has to do with the article, though. Is there something in the article that you disagree with? I think the article pretty clearly states what Green Day has done for and against the Punk rock community in a rather unbiased way.--JUDE ^talk 06:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardcore/Early West Coast/Music samples

Hope I'm not stirring up a bunch of crap by doing so, but I took the liberty of replacing one of the music samples, something I also did in the hardcore punk article. I removed the link to Dead Kennedy's "Holiday in Cambodia" and replaced it with Bad Brains "Pay to Cum", which I think is a much clearer example of hardcore punk music. In fact, I really don't think the pre-In God We Trust DKs are hardcore punk at all, but rather, are a good example of pre-hardcore West Coast punk. (With IGWT, of course, their sound changed noticeably.)

I was looking for somewhere to move the DKs sample to, but I noticed that there really isn't a section on early non-New York American punk, which is unfortunate, as a lot of these bands were historically important (and still have a lot of listeners). Specifically, I'm talking about bands like The Dils, The Avengers, pre-IGWT Dead Kennedys, X, The Germs, The Bags, The Screamers, etc. This scene was distinct from hardcore (and pretty distinct from what was going on in New York at the time as well) and lasted from roughly 1976-1980, after which it was largely eclipsed by hardcore. In the context of the Los Angeles scene, it was what was referred to as the "Hollywood" scene as opposed to the hardcore "beach" or "suburban" punk scene. At some point, I'll have to dig into some books and add a section on this, but if anybody else is so inclined, have at it. Peter G Werner 02:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see there's a little on this scene under "The second wave", so I put the DKs sample there. At some point, I'll try to expand the part on American "second wave" punk. Peter G Werner 02:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can verify what you're saying, feel free to add it. I always considered those bands to be purely hardcore...that they formed after they heard detroit/new york/conneticut/London punk rock. Justinboden86 12:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

He's pretty right on. LA and SF in particular had pre-hardcore punk scenes that included the above bands. Nevertheless, Dead Kennedys are usually singled out and considered hardcore. Aside from their heavy surf influence, they do fit a lot of the hardcore mold: insanely fast songs, political bent, extreme rejection of corporate culture, helped set up the hardcore touring circuit, etc. WesleyDodds 12:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you need to take into account that the Dead Kennedy's went through a couple of phases musically. The DKs of Bedtime for Democracy and In God We Trust clearly had a different sound than the DKs circa Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables. I think when they started out, they were pretty in keeping with pre-hardcore California Punk, however, by late 1981, they had clearly embraced hardcore.

I've been searching around for sources and it turns out there are entire books on the subject of early California punk: "[http://www.amazon.com/Punk-77-Inside-Francisco-Scene/dp/1889307149/ref=sr_1_3/102-9577645-0784117?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1172861568&sr=1-3 Punk '77: An Inside Look at the San Francisco Rock n' Roll Scene, 1977]", "[http://www.amazon.com/We-Got-Neutron-Bomb-L/dp/0609807749/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/102-9577645-0784117?ie=UTF8&qid=1172862401&sr=1-1 We Got the Neutron Bomb : The Untold Story of L.A. Punk]", and "[http://www.amazon.com/Make-Music-Go-Bang-L/dp/0312169124/ref=sr_1_2/102-9577645-0784117?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1172861568&sr=1-2 Make The Music Go Bang!: The Early L.A. Punk Scene]". "[http://www.amazon.com/American-Hardcore-History-Steven-Blush/dp/0922915717/ref=sr_1_2/102-9577645-0784117?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1172862401&sr=1-2 American Hardcore: A Tribal History]" also covers the differences between the "Hollywood" and hardcore scenes. Peter G Werner 19:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Addition to Article

Hey guys, just wanted to say i added an addition to the article called "Deterioration in Punk Rock". This is just some theories I've been hearing lately and I thought it would be a cool idea to add it to the article as an extention of information. let me know what you think.

who keeps deleting my new section in the article? I keep adding it in and someone keeps taking it out... if you think its inappropriate to have this addition to the article, and feel its not necessary or something, please explain why in this discussion page so that we can find out what will work best.. don't just delete it for no reason..-unsigned

• I'm not the one who deleted the section, but I agree that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The whole section was uncited opinion, which does not belong on an encyclopedic site such as this. Wikipedia is for presenting facts that are backed up by reliable sources. Spylab 12:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Agreed with Spylab. Virtually all uncited opinion; and what remained was redundant of discussion already present in article.—DCGeist 18:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • You might be able to incorporate some of it into the article, in much the same way it is mentioned that many people said punk 'died' at the end of the 70s, but it doesn't merit it's own heading. It also reads poorly and is littered with spelling mistakes and a biased POV. If I were you I would add one or two sentences under the Emo or punk revival section, but remember the Unsound compilations are as much about Epitaph expanding it's appeal than punk rock changing. It really just seems that while more 'pure' punk rock was secondary in popularity to pop punk such as Green Day, Offspring, Blink and Sum41 in the 90s, now alterntative bands that are frequently associated with Emo are dominating the charts over more solid modern punk rock acts such as the distillers. (Justinboden86 05:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

correction needed: Punk in Germany / Neue Deutsche Welle

The phrase "NDW brought together a diverse audience" is very right. The following "with members of the Krautrock and alternative scenes on one hand, and Nazi skinheads on the other" isn't right at all (and there is no citation, correspondingly). Nazi skinheads didn't play any role in the NDW. NDW started as punk rock with lyrics sung in german (Abwärts, Fehlfarben) and then became mainstream with acts like Ideal, Extrabreit and Nena. The remarkable fact is that german youth listened to german songs for the first time after World War II. That brought Krautrock acts back to life and opened a market for protest song acts, too. Nazi skinheads don't have anything to do with NDW, except for the fact that they belonged to its consumers. But that is true for almost every popular musical style; thus it doesn't belong into the article.

Please excuse my unpolished writing style. My English has become a bit rusty over the years in Berlin. --Jochim Schiller 15:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Opinionating

From the article:

Meanwhile, Patti Smith, Siouxsie Sioux, Ari Up, Pauline Murray, Nina Hagen, Gaye Advert, Poly Styrene, and other punk vocalists, songwriters, and instrumentalists introduced a new brand of femininity to rock music: "They adopted a tough, unladylike pose that borrowed more from the macho swagger of sixties garage bands than from the calculated bad-girl image of bands like The Runaways. They went beyond the leather outfits to the bondage gear of Sioux and the straight-from-the-gutter androgyny of Smith. They articulated a female rage that surpassed the anger of the women's movement of the sixties".

This is cited as Strohm (2004), p. 188. Is this list of performer's Strohm's or ours? The wording here suggests that Strohm's "they" refers to all of these. I suspect not. (The one that had me thinking about this is Nina Hagen, certainly not conventionally feminine, but also not very punk.) - Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Punk Rock "recuperation"

I recently added a section at the bottom of the Recuperation (sociology) page, concerning punk rock. Perhaps something along these lines might be relevant on this site?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.208.19 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 March 2007

Emo has NOTHING to do with Punk Rock

Why is there an article about Emo? Emo is, did not come from, and well never be Punk Rock. Black Flag, Green Day(pre American Idiot, which one can argue is Emo, even with its politcal connentations), The Offspring, The Clash, The Ramones, These are the REAL Punk Rock bands. Think about it this way, Punk rock is anti-establishment, as in giving everything a big fuck you. Perhaps it Emo is from Grunge(lyrics about emotions and how you feel about your girlfriend and complaining about stupid things) and If you argue this, need I mind you that Emo bands like Hawthorne Heights even mention cutting wrists in one of their songs? How would you think bands like the Misfits would feel if they heard Emo came from Punk Rock? Some "Punk" bands are actually Emo bands, like Good Charlotte, Good Charlotte is an Emo band, I am so glad I didn't see anything in this article about them, but if I look for a list of Punk Bands and I see Good Charlotte...I'm deleting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.129.74.38 (talk • contribs) 20 March 2007.

I KNOW, dude!!! Here's some sample lyrics from one of those awful bands always singing about girlfriends and stupid stuff:

Hey, little girl
I wanna be your boyfriend
Sweet little girl
I wanna be your boyfriend
Do you love me babe?
What do you say?

Same band...hell, same ALBUM:

Next time I'll listen to my heart
Next time, well I'll be smart
That girl could still be mine
But I'm tired of the hurt
Tired of tryin'
I'm tired of the pain
Tired of tryin'
I'm tired of cryin'

Oh, boo frickin' hoo. One more—same stinkin' band (talk about stupid!):

Hanging out on Second Avenue
Eating chicken vindaloo
I just want to be with you
I just want to have something to do

And can you imagine--this band called itself "punk"!! POSERS!!!! It's just pure emo DRIVEL. Feckin' Ramones.....

Oh.—DCGeist 03:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol! Actually, I never liked the Ramones that much because their lyrics always seemed really shallow to me, but still, that was funny. Now I have a strange desire to stop listening to Assuck and put in the Ramones instead, just for fun. I think I will. As for the actual person who posted this, the Offspring aren't much better than Good Charlotte; they are total sell-outs. Really, your definition of emo is lacking, because emo did grow out of the punk movement and it was nothing like the crap that gets called "emo" these days by trendy scenesters. And even that crap is derived from punk to some degree. If you don't see how there is some musical similarity between "emo" (as defined by scenesters) and punk, than you aren't listening hard enough. Besides, just because emo isn't punk as you claim doesn't mean it shouldn't have an article. Heavy metal isn't punk either, but it does have and should have an article. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 06:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Punk = The Ramones, Green Day, Offspring, Good Charlotte? Are you all mad? They are about as punk as The Osmonds. Stutley 22:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You guys aren't very bright. 'Emo' refers to 'emotive hardcore', with hardcore (punk) obviously being a genre of punk rock. Green Day is not a hardcore band or an emocore band and neither is Good Charlotte; I wouldn't refer to Green Day as truly punk in truth, rather pop punk throughout and the same with Good Charlotte. Try listening to some Rites of Spring or Embrace (U.S. band), seminal emotive hardcore bands (although Ian Mackaye resented the term). and compare it to Hawthorne Heights before you breathe again, please. I came here originally to enquire why emo is listed as a derivative of punk rock, whereas hardcore is listed as a subgenre. Ciaranpower 17:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Emo is generally seen as a derivative of hardcore, not a subgenre. It started out as a variation moslty played by hardcore musicians, but in a few years it had really ome into its own and was noticeably removed from hardcore. And hardcore is a subgenre of punk, so it's a derivative of punk. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 04:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this article goes with a very broad definition of punk rock precisely to avoid nitpicky battles like this one. Note that under "subgenres", the very first thing listed is "New Wave", something many people would consider as having an even more tenuous connection with punk than does emo. The only thing that I consider problematic in the organization of this article is that some subgenres/offshoots are listed under "Subgenres and derivative forms", while others are listed under "Legacy and recent developments". Those two sections should either be merged or at least differentiated in a more meaningful way. Peter G Werner 00:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The general idea behind the two separate sections is that the latter "Legacy and recent developments" section is structured more to indicate how punk has impacted modern music, such as leading to the creation of new non-punk genres (alternative rock) as well as achieving a respected stature in music (renewed popularity, long-lasting influence, etc.) WesleyDodds 02:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

True enough concerning alternative rock. But are queercore, riot grrrl, emo, and punk revival "non-punk"? Some of those things strike me more as relatively recent subgenres of punk than non-punk offshoots. Contrast that with "postpunk", which is a largely non-punk offshoot of punk that happened to grow out of punk at a much earlier date. Peter G Werner 03:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the thing is that they are so recent in punk, as oposed to post-punk. No one claims that post-punk (or New Wave)is a subgenre - the section header is "Subgenres and derivative forms" and post-punk is certainly derivative of punk. I don't think Wesley was saying those genres aren't punk, but they're so recent they aren't in the same league as hardcore (which riot grrrl and queercore are subgenres of) and the like. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 04:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter doesn't have the worst idea though. The article has its shape now because it evolved bit by bit, and in hindsight it could be rearranged to read a little simpler, just as far as the subgenres and developments are concerned. What about subgenres listed first, basically hardcore, Oi!, and maybe even ska. Then derivitives...like post-punk and new wave, and alt rock might fit in there too. And lastly, later developments, including riot grrl, emo, and local styles such as Celtic. I'd prefer later developments to recent developments because some of these sub-sub genres are getting on 15 or 20 years old now. Any thoughts about this? Otherwise the article has come together extremely well, and in my view fairly represents the US and the UK. And for the record, Offspring weren't sellouts. They released their 'Conspiracy of One' album on Napster before their record company released it, sacrificing their own profits in order to share their music. I see their change in style more as musicians growing up who wanna play more complex, slower stuff. Ramones slowed down in the 80s too. (Justinboden86 12:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

hmmm....guess I'm alone on this one...looks like we leave as is (Justinboden86 17:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

I guess this "debate" can go on forever, Emo is from the begining sort of a fusion between Hardcore and Indie Rock, however nowdays several bands have gotten the "Emo" Label, as a consequense of the "Third Wave" of Emo music, that was more mainstream, example of band Jimmy Eat World Wich are Boyband-esque *Mentions to picture*

Emo is certainly derived from punk, but now with Hawthorne Heights, Fall Out Boy, and the rest, it's become as far from punk as it can be.

Emo is in the article because we have some Americans who edit here that think everything derived from the subgenre Hardcore punk is punk rock itself. Even some heavy metal genres (like NWOBHM) are more directly derived from punk than emocore, with bands like Rites of Spring.

Its merely Americanization... editors like DCGeist for example have something against the hardcore punk article (the style which emo is a subgenre of), and refuse to use it for its subgenres and instead floods up punk rock with this irrelevent info. - The Daddy 11:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the article does say that there are those who think emo doesn't count as punk. The biggest problem is emo is a label attatched to so much stuff it's not funny (ie fall out boy not really emo). It really is a bad term because it has come to mean contradictory things. (Justinboden86 12:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

Protopunk: The Kinks and The Who

What's going on with the in-again out-again revision history on The Kinks and The Who? The Sex Pistols and the Ramones pretty clearly acknowledged their influence. Is this article going to indicate that protopunk just magically sprang up without any roots in older rock and roll? Pkeets 04:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. They're essential to the history. I've found good cites for them--their close links not only to protopunk but punk itself are unquestionable.—DCGeist 05:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My Generation

Please quote the relevant section from the source claiming "My Generation" to be inspired by the Kinks. Are you sure Townshend is not talking about the album rather than the song itself? Obviously, a lot of early Who was derivative of the Kinks (which Townshend would be the first to admit), but not much so "My Generation." The Wikipedia article for the song doesn't mention any influence by the Kinks at all, but rather traces its roots and influence to Mose Allison, talking blues, and call-and-response R&B.

"I went on to make two more demos [of the song]...the first introduced the stutter. The second several key changes, pinched, again, from the Kinks." (The "again" refers to what you are clearly aware of—Townshend's repeated acknowledgements of how much The Who's music of this period was derived from The Kinks': e.g., "I Can't Explain was a desperate copy of The Kinks." [p. 41].) You should know that reference to the claims of another Wikipedia article, especially one not well cited, is generally regarded as of little value.—DCGeist 17:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting Townshend's quote. The fact that several key changes were pinched from the Kinks doesn't give the song a "Kinks-influenced sound." Those key changes are not something that is exclusively connected to the Kinks' sound. In fact, I don't think you can speak of key changes as being typical of any band's sound. Obviously, you can talk about certain key changes being typical of certain genres, but not of individual bands. There is a difference between what Townshend is saying and how you are representing it in the article. "I Can't Explain," on the other hand, definitely has a "Kinks-influenced sound," as it is stylistically similar to certain Kinks songs.

Well, since I've both quoted it fully and contextualized it, it can't be said that I'm "misrepresenting" Townshend's quote. You must mean to say that I'm misinterpreting it, but the historical record demonstrates that I'm not. Virtually everything the Who was doing in 1965 musically (as opposed to lyrically and conceptually) was Kinks-influenced--some songs, like "I Can't Explain," so much so that it would be fair to describe their sound as "Kinks-derived." It is perfectly fair to describe "My Generation" musically as "Kinks-influenced." The fact that specific key changes are not exclusively connected to the Kinks' sound is irrelevant to the process of general (and clearly self-acknowledged) musical influence and specific (and clearly self-acknowledged) "pinching." By your logic, the Clash and Sex Pistols were not influenced by the Who because the elements they acquired were not "exclusively connected" with their mod predecessors--by your logic, indeed, virtually no one influences anybody, because very, very little is "exclusive." In closing, I'll note yet another specific indication of musical influence--the prominent use of tone riffs in both "You Really Got Me" and "My Generation" (see, e.g., Rooksby [2002], p. 20).—DCGeist 16:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

help

Couls someone take care of the headlines, and stuff? SOmeone clever deleted the whole article, and I just can´t get it the way it was before. Thanks

Done. Quadzilla99 19:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Cock Sparrer more representative of Oi!

Currently there is an image of an Exploited album to represent the Oi section, this is only there because a certain editor is a fan of that band. The Exploited are not even mentioned in the Oi! article, and are far less representative of the subgenre than others who are more worthy canditates to have their cover in its place. It should be either...

• A) Cock Sparrer - Shock Troops
• B) Sham 69 - Tell Us The Truth

- The Daddy 12:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

All experienced, nontroll editors know that other Wikipedia articles are not reliable references. The Exploited are arguably not the ideal representative for an album cover in this article, but their absence from Wikipedia's Oi! article only evidences the work that needs to be done there. As for Cock Sparrer, they are described by Gary Bushell as among the "forerunners of Oi!" (he lists Sham 69 as "pre-Oi!") ([9]); Sabin (1999) says Cock Sparrer (and Sham 69) were "co-opted by the Oi! movement" (p. 216). An image associated with the Angelic Upstarts, Cockney Rejects, or 4-Skins from 1981 or earlier would inarguably be appropriate.—DCGeist 06:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So we can agree on "The Good, The Bad & The 4-Skins" as the cover art representative for the Oi! section? - The Daddy 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is finding an image that won't be eventually taken down over copyright concerns. If you find an image of The 4-Skins that meets Wikipedia's copyright standards, then by all means use it for the Oi! section, the Oi! article and the 4-Skins article.Spylab 16:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ramones

hmm...I just wrote my justifications for Ramones not having girl group influences but it didn't post. Nevermind DC changed it to bubblegum pop and i accept that. My only point is that they extensively covered a lot of surf and pop/rock from the sixties, and in some songs such as 'i don't care' you can hear Joey trying to sound like he has an english accent. But they never come close to being like a girl group, lyrically or musically. And Phil Spector did produce them but he also produced the Beatles and John Lennon, who are not like girl groups.

(Justinboden86 06:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, the more I thought about it, the Strausbaugh cite wasn't supported by much else. They did cover the Ronettes' "Baby, I Love You" on End of the Century--check out their BBC performance complete with string section! Ramones "BILY". But bubblegum was clearly a much more significant influence from early on.—DCGeist 06:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality check nomination

Apologies for nominating this article for a neutrality check. It seems someone else noticed the issue at the beginning of the article at the same time and fixed it while I was in the process of nominating it. It looks much better now, my thanks to Dan for that. 66.56.208.21 04:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Lauren

The punk rock page and many others are controlled by a handful of people on Wikipedia

Can someone tell me (user 65.207.126.33) how on the page for the song "anarchy in the u.k." the two statements "-The lyrics can be interpreted as satirical, mocking not only the government but also directionless or purely fashionable rebellion.-" and "-The lyrics are however often viewed as somewhat satirical and light hearted-" are verified? I tried to remove them 2 or 3 times before because that was clear a view of the person that wrote them and not from fact but it kept coming back.You see, i tried to add a characteristic of punk rock that i found to be true of punk rock and punk rockers from living it over the years and researching it, And i find myself charged with vandalism. Its clear that until i see otherwise that topics on wikipedia is controlled by a handful of people that are only concerned with getting their own point of view across on a topic and don't really look at the true facts of the topic all, most of the time. And they only see if the added statements fit-in with what they personally think the truth is behind the topic. Here the example why i this seems to be true. Recurrently, i posted, under the characteristics section of the punk rock page, the following summery... -"Punk rock is a movement that originated as very aggressive rock music and turned into a full blown sociology and ideology that is Characterized by a group or individual that had a nature and mindset that composes of raw chaos and destruction aimed to cause random harm, unease and fear throughout sociality."- (And the reason i did that was just to sum up the characteristics of the punk rock lifestyle, not to vandalize this site in anyway. And the reason i didn't use quotes in with this summery is because, what quote out all the quotes of punk rock would sum up punk rock? Because there is such a varying range of actions and words can come out of the fundamental characteristics of the punk rock mindset and the nature of it.) And then i went on the page of the punk rock song "anarchy in the u.k." and saw the following statements "-The lyrics can be interpreted as satirical, mocking not only the government but also directionless or purely fashionable rebellion.-" and "-The lyrics are however often viewed as somewhat satirical and light hearted-" and thought i would erase them because they were clearly opinionated and bias and did not backed up by quotes from the band that recorded it. Yet, later on, the quotes that were written on the song's had be put back on and what i had wrote had be taken down and i was accused of vandalizing the site. How did i vandalize the site? I didn't use profanity and i didn't erase someones facts, I just added a paragraph trying to shine some truth on punk rock along with everyone else. And, yet somehow, im accused of vandalism and the reason that i think the person ( User: DCGeist ) gave me the warnings is because he at 1st brought up something i wrote on a massage board sometime ago to somehow prove that i was vandalizing this site....,what does something i wrote about punk rock on another website have to with what i write here?, The admins monitor this website. So i guess he is saying im vandalizing this site ether because hes mad at what i said on another site about punk rock or he just wants his point of view across. So if thats the case just ban me because i thought this place was a free place to post and look up facts not to see the view of a handful of people. Because i don't want people to to that don't know what punk rock is truly about to come here and only see mine or someone options and views of it and take it as unbiased truth and facts. (And im sure this will just be erased also but i don't care. and i would like to say that that i didnt bring this up as something personal. This is what seems to be going on and it needs to be brought up.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.126.33 (talk) 03:09, Jun 24, 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I assume you're a new editor. Welcome to Wikipedia. (I mean this in an entirely friendly way, you know how hard it is to get tone across on the internet.) With regards to your concern about the Anarchy in the UK page, I agree with you; those types of statements ought to be sourced. If you haven't taken this concern over to the talk page, I suggest you leave your concerns there. There is also a punk music project page with places to discuss articles that need developing.

I'm sorry that you were accused of vandalism. It's against wiki policy to accuse editors of vandalism without good cause. If it makes any difference, punk rock pages are magnets for real vandalism and I know that after the third or forth revert of the day I feel a little testy as well.

I remember the edit you made and agreed with the revert at the time. This is a Featured Article, so a lot of thought and effort has gone into the article, especially the lead paragraphs. It's customary to discuss large changes to featured articles on the talk page of that article before making them. So, go for it. Propose the changes you want to make or bring up problems that you have with the article. I'm all ears and I should hope that other editors here feel the same. Again, welcome. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to ask on my talk page--Gimme danger 05:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the article

Raise your hand if you're sick of reverting vandalism from anonymous IPs every few hours. --Gimme danger 05:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been doing it much lately but I don't mind doing the occasional vandalism revert. It's part and parcel of an article with this much traffic. I don't think semi-protection is necessary. (Justinboden86 02:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

Lock this page

• I feel we should lock this page. For some reason, people think it's funny to destroy the good name of Punk Rock. We should at least lock it down for a while to stop the vandalism.

The good name? What kind of a punk are you? It is a high traffic page. Keep an eye out and revert.SECisek 10:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)