punk?

jimistone said:
I agree.
But, if you look back in the thread, it was assumed that I had never listened to their record since I has said the pistols were lousy musicians.
They had a good record but they were lousy musicians. I stand behind this assertion all day long.
I learned to play guitar when flamboyant guitar work was all the rage.

That is what turned me off about punk. When the pistols hit big they were a joke in terms of musicianship. I saw them as being embarrassingly awful. Then all the boring new wave shit hit and I turned to country music, which was fantastic in the late 70's IMO.

I heard the Ramones before I ever heard the Pistols, and before I ever heard the term "Punk rock". I thought back then, and still do, that the Ramones were a great rock band and at the time they were different and had a powerful pulsating sound that I liked. That was before speed metal or new wave or whatever. It was just a new sound.
When it morphed into the sex pistols, and all the sex pistol wannabes that followed, and became "punk rock" it sucked IMO.
Click to expand...
Not many of the bigger punk bands were actually "lousy" musicians. They just weren't lame ass classic rock virtuoso musicians, and they didn't want to be. Individually, before Sid, the Sex Pistols members were pretty decent at their music. Paul Cook was a pretty good drummer, Steve Jones was okay on guitar, Glen Matlock was a good bassist, and Johnny Rotten didn't have a beautiful voice but he sure knew how to use what he had. They could play their songs and that's about all you can ask from any band. They're not the fucking Allman Brothers or Lynrd white trash Skynrd. You say you like the Ramones but the Ramones were actually probably less musically proficient than the Sex Pistols. They just worked as a unit much better than the Pistols did, and their songs were distinctly more "American", and so was their ethic. The Ramones would dominate live. They weren't into chaos and rich kid anarchy. They wanted to be a good band even with all of their limitations. Tommy Ramone did no drum fills, Johnny Ramone couldn't play a solo to save his life, Dee Dee Ramone just banged out root notes, but together as a rhythm section they were like a Panzer tank flying down a mountain. So advanced musicianship doesn't really have a whole lot to do with being a good punk band. But that doesn't mean punk bands couldn't play. That's one area you classic rock dinosaurs really missed the point of the whole thing.

The name "punk rock" was a turnoff also. While "punk" may have ment one thing altogether different in Europe and the east coast of the US, in Mississippi and the southeast USA, it ment someone being a weakling in prison, that was passed around from cell to cell to be used for oral and anal sex.

I can still remember a bunch of us laughing at the headlines about this band named the Sex Pistols and that they play punk rock.
Lol. We thought we had heard it all at that point.
We were going "punk rock? Does that mean they got their butt holes wore out in jail and they're singing about it now?"
Click to expand...
Many of the first wave american punk bands rejected that term for the same reason you did. The NYC people just wanted to play rock and roll on their own terms because you uninspiring geezers fucked up the radio for everyone. The term punk was dismissed at first, and then gradually accepted because, basically, if you can't stop it, embrace it and make it yours. I don't know how or why the UK people embraced it so quickly besides it being more about fashion for them.
 
I can careless for the term punk myself even though 90% of my musical diet would get labelled that in itunes. Rock and Roll works for my intents and purposes.
 
Greg_L said:
Not many of the bigger punk bands were actually "lousy" musicians. They just weren't lame ass classic rock virtuoso musicians, and they didn't want to be. Individually, before Sid, the Sex Pistols members were pretty decent at their music. Paul Cook was a pretty good drummer, Steve Jones was okay on guitar, Glen Matlock was a good bassist, and Johnny Rotten didn't have a beautiful voice but he sure knew how to use what he had. They could play their songs and that's about all you can ask from any band. They're not the fucking Allman Brothers or Lynrd white trash Skynrd. You say you like the Ramones but the Ramones were actually probably less musically proficient than the Sex Pistols. They just worked as a unit much better than the Pistols did, and their songs were distinctly more "American", and so was their ethic. The Ramones would dominate live. They weren't into chaos and rich kid anarchy. They wanted to be a good band even with all of their limitations. Tommy Ramone did no drum fills, Johnny Ramone couldn't play a solo to save his life, Dee Dee Ramone just banged out root notes, but together as a rhythm section they were like a Panzer tank flying down a mountain. So advanced musicianship doesn't really have a whole lot to do with beintg a good punk band. But that doesn't mean punk bands couldn't play. That's one area you classic rock dinosaurs really missed the point of the whole thing.


Many of the first wave american punk bands rejected that term for the same reason you did. The NYC people just wanted to play rock and roll on their own terms because you uninspiring geezers fucked up the radio for everyone. The term punk was dismissed at first, and then gradually accepted because, basically, if you can't stop it, embrace it and make it yours. I don't know how or why the UK people embraced it so quickly besides it being more about fashion for them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the Ramones weren't virtuoso musicians, but they were a tight band and had great songs. I dug it. I think I saw a video of the pistols before I ever heard the record. I literally thought it was a joke...a gag band like was done back then with "the rutles" and Spinal Tap. Then it turned into a movement and I turned my back on it. I may have been more receptive with a more open mind if the first dose I got hadn't have been the pistols. I just kind of ignored the rest of it that hit afterwards. I had spent a lot of time (years) and energy (practicing guitar in my room while my friends were partying and having a blast)....to get good enough on the guitar to get in a band. I was pretty damn good on guitar at that point...a lot better than I am now.
and it came down to how weird you dressed and acted as crteria to get in a rock band?
Proficiency on your instrument ment nothing and actually was frowned upon??
And the alternative was fucking disco?
I felt like a meat cutter in a world of vegetarians.
It was a nightmare that was still their when you woke up the next morning. I resented punk, new wave, and disco. I shut my mind to it...shot them all the middle finger and embraced outlaw country like David Alan Coe, Willie and Waylon, Hank Jr, and Billy Joe Shaver. There were a host of others and it was great music. Now country music is about where pop and rock was back then. I actually like some of the punk from that Era nowdays. I don't have the resentful closed mind now that caused me to hate it's guts back then.

I like the rythym pigs, the clash had some really good stuff, I love Blondies old stuff. I, like I have said, think Bullocks is a good record.

I just had a huge chip on my shoulder when that stuff hit right when I was old enough to play the bar scene and there was a backlash against disco. A fuckng dumb assed punk rock movement wasn't in my plans.
You are younger than me greg. You generation embraced it all. I was born in 1960. My generation didn't embrace it as much. At least in the southeast USA. Up north moreso
 
Last edited:
In addition to what Greg said about Ramones, their ethic etc, their influence would have never given guys like these dudes (and so so many more) the influence or confidence to do what they do. I think it it's cool.

Punk? Given how life and music tends to evolve I would say so IMHO. And oddly enough i can promise you everyone there has their record and everyone watching them seems to be having a blast and not giving a shit if the guitar players aren't as tight as they "should" be, that they are in key or on time vocally or that there is some asshole running around not playing bass. Kind of like Flea that one time. Becasue rock and roll. that's why.

Fun is still being had and the song is rockin.




Also PS. If anyone has any interest in going to a Fest in Gainesville let me know. I want to go to one before i die.
 
By the way, it was really "new wave" that took over and made it hard on a classic rock guitarist like me. But, the punk movement was the beginning of the end. I had to play that stupid "whip it" Devo song more times that I care to remember and a score of other sick new wave. In country bands I was playing "shake your booty", "macho man" and "La freak".
The late 70's /early 80s were a weird time musically.
I came of age just in time for the suckage.
Lol
 
jimistone said:
By the way, it was really "new wave" that took over and made it hard on a classic rock guitarist like me. But, the punk movement was the beginning of the end. I had to play that stupid "whip it" Devo song more times that I care to remember and a score of other sick new wave. In country bands I was playing "shake your booty", "macho man" and "La freak".
The late 70's /early 80s were a weird time musically.
I came of age just in time for the suckage.
Lol
Click to expand...

It's your own fault for being a cover hack. You should have written some songs. Start your own band. You can't blame "punk" for you not getting good gigs. Punk and your kind of style do not intersect. All the while punk and disco was happening, cheesy butt rock was still going strong. KISS, Boston, Aerosmith, Cheap Trick, Frampton, Van Halen, Skynrd, all that massive radio rock garbage was huge back then. There was plenty of room for a superstar guitar god like yourself. Punk was just a tiny blip on the radar.
 
The beginning of the end was too much lame assed classic rock guitar music. Double and triple albums, 20 minute drum/guitar solos, best of albums, auditorium live gigs, pretentious "concept" stuff etc etc.... most of the classic FM rock music around at the time was poor. Very poor. The "punk" "new wave" movement put music back in the hands of those that consumed it. At least for a while.
 
..... and yes I was a pretty decent guitar player back then and practiced for years in my digs or room. I didn't resent punk or new wave though, I embraced it and enjoyed it. Same as I do all music.
 
muttley600 said:
The beginning of the end was too much lame assed classic rock guitar music. Double and triple albums, 20 minute drum/guitar solos, best of albums, auditorium live gigs, pretentious "concept" stuff etc etc.... most of the classic FM rock music around at the time was poor. Very poor. The "punk" "new wave" movement put music back in the hands of those that consumed it. At least for a while.
Click to expand...

That's why I admire those first wave bands so much. I really do believe that those bands did what they did because popular music was so horrendously bad at the time. I think they felt that whatever they wanted to hear, they had to just play it themselves. Those first "punk" bands, while tame by today's standard, they were like an atomic bomb going off in the musical landscape at the time. Gordon Lightfoot and Disco Duck just didn't get it done for those people. Besides the birth of rock and roll, the punk movement, however you wanna define it, still resonates today. They paved the way for subversive music to get written and get played. Hell you could even draw a line from punk to this very site if you wanted to. DIY stuff like home recording fits under the umbrella of the punk ideology. You don't need anything or anyone but yourself.
 
Greg_L said:
That's why I admire those first wave bands so much. I really do believe that those bands did what they did because popular music was so horrendously bad at the time. I think they felt that whatever they wanted to hear, they had to just play it themselves. Those first "punk" bands, while tame by today's standard, they were like an atomic bomb going off in the musical landscape at the time. Gordon Lightfoot and Disco Duck just didn't get it done for those people. Besides the birth of rock and roll, the punk movement, however you wanna define it, still resonates today. They paved the way for subversive music to get written and get played. Hell you could even draw a line from punk to this very site if you wanted to. DIY stuff like home recording fits under the umbrella of the punk ideology. You don't need anything or anyone but yourself.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The extra political element that was attached to the movement here was also a reaction to what was going on around the place and the kids getting pissed off with it. We had just got through a 3 day week, massive power disruptions caused by the unions, the government hiking interest rates and pay restraint, unemployment hitting 3 million, in a nutshell no opportunity for the young. Then along came Thatcher... The kids used the music as a tool to hit back. They were good times in that respect. The kids MADE people in authority sit up and listen. None of us could identify with some wacked out hippy rock dude in his 30 metre tour bus and sequined robe and diamond studded hair brush heading back to his 30 room mansion...... It just wasn't relevant and if the musicians didn't speak for them they were damn well gonna speak up themselves..
 
...and as I have said here before, all that weird fashion stuff that went on shortly after the break out had nothing to do with punk or new wave as a movement. That was purely fashion echoing what was happening. The real movement was about getting out and playing the music where it could be accessed and not giving a fuck for the establishment that wanted us to listen to what they wanted to market to us. Good times.
 
muttley600 said:
..... and yes I was a pretty decent guitar player back then and practiced for years in my digs or room. I didn't resent punk or new wave though, I embraced it and enjoyed it. Same as I do all music.
Click to expand...

We can't all be as perfect, smart, and wonderful as you though mutt.
 
Last edited:
Greg_L said:
It's your own fault for being a cover hack. You should have written some songs. Start your own band. You can't blame "punk" for you not getting good gigs. Punk and your kind of style do not intersect. All the while punk and disco was happening, cheesy butt rock was still going strong. KISS, Boston, Aerosmith, Cheap Trick, Frampton, Van Halen, Skynrd, all that massive radio rock garbage was huge back then. There was plenty of room for a superstar guitar god like yourself. Punk was just a tiny blip on the radar.
Click to expand...
I've never claimed to be a "GUITAR GOD". I certainly dont consider myself one. I guess thats a jab at the kind of music i enyjoy and learned to play. I don't care for punk and new wave and you dont like the guitar rock of the early and mid 70s...so what man, we can still be friends cant we? I was not a guitar god but I used to be better than I am now but have gotten rusty. By 79 the the rock acts like Kiss, Aerosmith, skynyrd, Frampton and so on were pretty much over with. As far as good gigs go, I got plenty of good gigs. Country gigs paid far better than rock gigs. I learned that no matter what gendre you're playing, if you're playing covers you going to have to play songs you don't like and if you playing originals you'll starve. I played covers and even in country gigs they called for disco tunes I hated...but if you're going to have to play songs you hate you might as well do it at the highest paying gigs.

I had my run of playing what I liked to play. When Stevie Ray Vaughn hit and the blues guitar resurgence happened, I already knew all the tunes and had all the chops. I put together a 3 piece group and played the power trio stuff. Hendrix, Cream, Johnny Winter, ZZTop, some Trower, and a lot of blues. The crowds ate it up and they were listening crowds instead of dancing crowds. I had never got paid to play for that type of crowd before. It had always been dance crowds. I was a blast. The most fun I've ever had playing music. The casinos pretty much put an end to the weekend warrior bands playing nightclubs on the weekends. There is no night club scene to speak of in Mississippi any more. It's all casinos. circuit bands play them. If you have a day job you really can't do the casino gigs.
The many vfw's a cross Mississippi is all that's left for weekend gigs for the most part. They pay pretty well, but it's a classic country gig for the most part. I enjoy singing classic country and I played the vfw clubs for a few years...but I got burnt out on it. The local one still calls me from time to time and wants me to put a group together, but I'm done with playing bars.
 
jimistone said:
I've never claimed to be a "GUITAR GOD". I certainly dont consider myself one. I guess thats a jab at the kind of music i enyjoy and learned to play. I don't care for punk and new wave and you dont like the guitar rock of the early and mid 70s...so what man, we can still be friends cant we? I was not a guitar god but I used to be better than I am now but have gotten rusty. By 79 the the rock acts like Kiss, Aerosmith, skynyrd, Frampton and so on were pretty much over with. As far as good gigs go, I got plenty of good gigs. Country gigs paid far better than rock gigs. I learned that no matter what gendre you're playing, if you're playing covers you going to have to play songs you don't like and if you playing originals you'll starve. I played covers and even in country gigs they called for disco tunes I hated...but if you're going to have to play songs you hate you might as well do it at the highest paying gigs.

I had my run of playing what I liked to play. When Stevie Ray Vaughn hit and the blues guitar resurgence happened, I already knew all the tunes and had all the chops. I put together a 3 piece group and played the power trio stuff. Hendrix, Cream, Johnny Winter, ZZTop, some Trower, and a lot of blues. The crowds ate it up and they were listening crowds instead of dancing crowds. I had never got paid to play for that type of crowd before. It had always been dance crowds. I was a blast. The most fun I've ever had playing music. The casinos pretty much put an end to the weekend warrior bands playing nightclubs on the weekends. There is no night club scene to speak of in Mississippi any more. It's all casinos. circuit bands play them. If you have a day job you really can't do the casino gigs.
The many vfw's a cross Mississippi is all that's left for weekend gigs for the most part. They pay pretty well, but it's a classic country gig for the most part. I enjoy singing classic country and I played the vfw clubs for a few years...but I got burnt out on it. The local one still calls me from time to time and wants me to put a group together, but I'm done with playing bars.
Click to expand...

I guess I just don't understand why you and people like you are so bitter about punk. It doesn't make any sense. It's like you guys are personally offended by the celebrated lack of technical prowess in punk music. And it's really not even a lack of technical ability. It's just a different kind of technical ability. I'd bet all of my amps that the average classic rock blues lickers couldn't physically make it through a Ramones set without oxygen, advil, and a lot of cocaine. Frank Beard on his best day cannot drum as fast and precisely as "Smelly" from NOFX. And I'll tell you point blank, Olga from the Toy Dolls could probably play circles around you. That's just a few examples. Punk is well known for not giving a shit about being able to play, but in reality, that sentiment is largely overblown and overhyped. For me personally, I hate that attitude about punk music - especially when self proclaimed punk rockers live that way, and I hate punk bands that truly suck. It's fine if fans of other genres think punk musicians suck. whatever. But when punk players celebrate their own suckage because "it's punk rock", I can't go along with that. Punk is not a valid excuse for being a bad player. There are a lot of really bad punk bands. There are a lot of really bad classic rock cover bands too. But there aren't very many bad punk cover bands because punk bands usually try to do their own thing. That's kind of what it's all about.

Or maybe on some level you see that you and your ilk is the exact reason that punk came to be. Your own bloated and superficial style of music caused these inner city white guys to revert back to the roots of rock and roll because what you were offering them was absolute suckage. Your focus on guitar wizadry at the expense of good songs created a monster. Maybe you're mad at yourself for allowing rock to become the bloated piece of shit that it became, but the natural ego of musicians, and guitar players specifically, won't allow you to blame yourself so you look for a scapegoat. Maybe that's why so many blues rocking classic rock guys despise punk so much? Maybe partly? If you're honest with yourself maybe that's part of it.

Even reading more about your struggles, it's obvious that punk is not really the reason your were unhappy. Living in the cultural black hole of bumfuck mississippi during an era of monkey-see-monkey-do guitar rock banality probably had more to do with it.
 
Greg_L said:
I guess I just don't understand why you and people like you are so bitter about punk. It doesn't make any sense. It's like you guys are personally offended by the celebrated lack of technical prowess in punk music. And it's really not even a lack of technical ability. It's just a different kind of technical ability. I'd bet all of my amps that the average classic rock blues lickers couldn't physically make it through a Ramones set without oxygen, advil, and a lot of cocaine. Frank Beard on his best day cannot drum as fast and precisely as "Smelly" from NOFX. And I'll tell you point blank, Olga from the Toy Dolls could probably play circles around you. That's just a few examples. Punk is well known for not giving a shit about being able to play, but in reality, that sentiment is largely overblown and overhyped. For me personally, I hate that attitude about punk music - especially when self proclaimed punk rockers live that way, and I hate punk bands that truly suck. It's fine if fans of other genres think punk musicians suck. whatever. But when punk players celebrate their own suckage because "it's punk rock", I can't go along with that. Punk is not a valid excuse for being a bad player. There are a lot of really bad punk bands. There are a lot of really bad classic rock cover bands too. But there aren't very many bad punk cover bands because punk bands usually try to do their own thing. That's kind of what it's all about.

Or maybe on some level you see that you and your ilk is the exact reason that punk came to be. Your own bloated and superficial style of music caused these inner city white guys to revert back to the roots of rock and roll because what you were offering them was absolute suckage. Your focus on guitar wizadry at the expense of good songs created a monster. Maybe you're mad at yourself for allowing rock to become the bloated piece of shit that it became, but the natural ego of musicians, and guitar players specifically, won't allow you to blame yourself so you look for a scapegoat. Maybe that's why so many blues rocking classic rock guys despise punk so much? Maybe partly? If you're honest with yourself maybe that's part of it.

Even reading more about your struggles, it's obvious that punk is not really the reason your were unhappy. Living in the cultural black hole of bumfuck mississippi during an era of monkey-see-monkey-do guitar rock banality probably had more to do with it.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting you're claim that I was unhappy? I was pissed off that the rock landscape had changed, because I had learned a lot of classic rock guitar. But, I got into the country music scene that was going on at the time and enjoyed it very much. It was truly a great time in country music. I loved that stuff. Also, I wasn't in to van halen, and journey and foriener, and cheap trick. I was into the Allman brothers, Johnny winter, Albert king, hendrix, little feat, Johnny guitar watson, the Beatles, ...stuff like that. I did like Aerosmith though and a couple of song on one Frampton album. I like some of the Led Zep riff and groove...and pages guitar work, but i though the lyrics were pathetic and anlot od it was bloated garbage.
I also said, in this thread, that I like some of the punk of that Era now. I just didn't care for punk when it hit and I'm not really crazy about it now.

I do agree that there are a lot of bad punk bands and a lot of bad classic rocknbands.
I mean, it just different tastes in music man...no need to get nasty and take shots at my southern heritage. I can't help where im from.

By the way, I was on the west coast when punk and new wave was hitting. In San Francisco and then Alaska.
 
muttley600 said:
No... thats right Jimi. So whats the difference between me and you then...:)

I enjoyed those times and you...?
Click to expand...

Yes I really did man. I had a blast in the late 70's and early 80s. I was in new Orleans from 82 to 84. I enjoyed playing music there...not really in the city, although I did play there, but out in the country. On the west side of the river in south La. Man I had a ball down there in Cajun country. Those folk really know how to party and treat there bands like royalty!
They make folk in Mississippi look like rookie lightweights.
Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top