Punkers Hate Us More...Look

No offense, but I want to say that it is really silly to start a fight about punk/prog differences.

They like that crappy dumb music which its only good thing about it is attitude and maybe bass guitar, but let them like what they like, its not right to insult them for what they like. They don't go to prog forums messing around with why our music is for them pretentious, noisy, boring, and having no musical structure.

sigod wrote: Right, bored now. Let's visit a Salsa forum and stir up some trouble there...

I can see it already: Salsaman 7731 hates prog because you can't dance to it, maaaaaaaan! The girls leave the room: they hate the time changes.  Man, this music is no good! Except for Teakbois - Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe. Real dancehall stuff!

Yes, I can't really see The Clash fitting in here under any circumstances , whatever they may have played . I didn't get on with the later stuff anyway , then or now .

Siouxsie was very different to the Pistols  , but it doesn't make them any less relevent in my opinion.

By later punk I meant 79 onwards ,when the lies of Anti Pasti , Exploited and Discharge became the big punk bands - not very popular with the majority of '77 punks . 

Snow Dog wrote: Jon The Impaler wrote: SnowDog - there is an arguement for the Stranglers being punk ....and not . The early stuff , while being a bit more musical than much of the stuff made by others - was quite punky , as is their current stuff . Also quite recently they have played a ( the ?) major punk festival - Holidays in the Sun at Morecombe , and a similar event at Birmingham. We have similar arguements about othre bands and can't even agree who are good and bad - its all down to taste .There are hundred of bands I like , a lot on Punk 77 don't like some , I don't like some that they do - maybe its what killed the original punk movement , the fact we couldn't agree among ourselves and it broke down into different factions ( goth ,  Oi , anarcho , hardcore and many more ) .I didn't try to limit myself and follow one - I listened to many bands and liked a lot from across the board of punk - a problem with many of the early punks is that anything after 1977 punk for them doesn't exist.   My God you're right, I remember those arguments myself. My friend who was a "pure" punk if you like said that Siouxsie and the Banshees were "too musical". I guess they were compared to Sham 69. You have to admit that a lot of bands jumped on the Punk Bandwagon including The Stranglers. I always prefered the "New Wave" development as a result of Punk allowing accaeptable more different kinds of music.   Another problem is that bands that startedas "Punk" soon moved away from it. For example The Jams first album belongs in the Punk Movement, but later albums could hardly be described so!

Your friend was obviously a later punk then ( not knocking ,I liked a lot of later bands).

Yes , a lot of bands did jump on the punk bandwagon - many jumped off as quickly as well a year or so later, suppose they didn't want to be saddled with a dead movements name.

Interesting question as to what prog is - I doubt many here would like to claim The Clash , but they changed style more than many , they progressed ( god knows what to though , I didn't get it ) , but does that make them progressive ? From punk to reggae to Spanish/Mexixan/disco/pop . Trouble was with punks , as soon as things like that happen , its called selling out to the fans - guilty of saying it myself , but you can't stay the same forever , you learn to play better and want to try different things , unless you are The Exploited .Is it moving away from Punk or just evolving - there was no formula to what punk was at the beginning  , one of the most experimental bands was Alternative TV - they made some wonderful experimental sounds , some failed horribly , but they weren't afraid to try anything - there shouldn't have been barriers to punk if it stood to its ideals - I don't think many of the bands actually couldn't play  - many of the musicians had come from the pub rock scene( Stranglers , Dr Feelgood , Eddie & Hot Rods )  - the  great myth of them being unable to play -  obviously it would be picked up by some people and they would believe it , but even any of those that formed bands would learn to play  ( possible exception , Mr Vicious !).

The basic problem is that none of us know enough about each others music , so ignorance on all parts plays a big part , hence the myth's are believed.

The rivalry - if there has been one for the last 20 years , basically I assume would be because I reckon the large majority of us were all at school roughly the same time  ,we punks would be seen as the new upstarts , while we would be looking to replace the prog rockers - must admit back then I saw proggers and heavy metal fans as the same thing , but it appears there is a difference nowadays.

One thing the majority of us punks say on the new stuff ( Green Day , Rancid etc )  - we aren't overly fussed about it , its todays kids stuff. But get the really funny thing , we have really knocked the youth of today for being idle , lazy , work shy - you name it . Even we punks have become like our parents !

Snow Dog wrote: Jon The Impaler wrote: SnowDog - there is an arguement for the Stranglers being punk ....and not . The early stuff , while being a bit more musical than much of the stuff made by others - was quite punky , as is their current stuff . Also quite recently they have played a ( the ?) major punk festival - Holidays in the Sun at Morecombe , and a similar event at Birmingham. We have similar arguements about othre bands and can't even agree who are good and bad - its all down to taste .There are hundred of bands I like , a lot on Punk 77 don't like some , I don't like some that they do - maybe its what killed the original punk movement , the fact we couldn't agree among ourselves and it broke down into different factions ( goth ,  Oi , anarcho , hardcore and many more ) .I didn't try to limit myself and follow one - I listened to many bands and liked a lot from across the board of punk - a problem with many of the early punks is that anything after 1977 punk for them doesn't exist.   My God you're right, I remember those arguments myself. My friend who was a "pure" punk if you like said that Siouxsie and the Banshees were "too musical". I guess they were compared to Sham 69. You have to admit that a lot of bands jumped on the Punk Bandwagon including The Stranglers. I always prefered the "New Wave" development as a result of Punk allowing accaeptable more different kinds of music.   Another problem is that bands that startedas "Punk" soon moved away from it. For example The Jams first album belongs in the Punk Movement, but later albums could hardly be described so!

Exactly. Punk gave a fertile soil for new wave, where, amongst other things, keyboards were allowed once again. And even a band like The Police used punk as a springboard for success. I read in some bio about Sting that Sting in the early days played some punk with the Police and that he said something like: "Okay, we're going to play some punk songs and that means that the lyrics are banal and the music is horrible. So here are your punk songs, you bastards"  

Jon The Impaler wrote: SnowDog - there is an arguement for the Stranglers being punk ....and not . The early stuff , while being a bit more musical than much of the stuff made by others - was quite punky , as is their current stuff . Also quite recently they have played a ( the ?) major punk festival - Holidays in the Sun at Morecombe , and a similar event at Birmingham. We have similar arguements about othre bands and can't even agree who are good and bad - its all down to taste .There are hundred of bands I like , a lot on Punk 77 don't like some , I don't like some that they do - maybe its what killed the original punk movement , the fact we couldn't agree among ourselves and it broke down into different factions ( goth ,  Oi , anarcho , hardcore and many more ) .I didn't try to limit myself and follow one - I listened to many bands and liked a lot from across the board of punk - a problem with many of the early punks is that anything after 1977 punk for them doesn't exist.

My God you're right, I remember those arguments myself. My friend who was a "pure" punk if you like said that Siouxsie and the Banshees were "too musical". I guess they were compared to Sham 69. You have to admit that a lot of bands jumped on the Punk Bandwagon including The Stranglers. I always prefered the "New Wave" development as a result of Punk allowing accaeptable more different kinds of music.
  Another problem is that bands that startedas "Punk" soon moved away from it. For example The Jams first album belongs in the Punk Movement, but later albums could hardly be described so!

ivan_2068 wrote: Moogtron III wrote: boo boo wrote: ivan_2068 wrote: Good to see you here Boo Boo, hope your musical taste is better than a few months ago . well im still a bjork fan, hope that dosent make me a vunerable target. That shouldn't be so, because Bjork is a very original artist, with a progressive attitude without being progrock (or prog dance if such a thing exists). Bjork is   No Moogtron, I have no problem with Bjork, don't like her music very much but I respect people's taste. I like Meat Loaf and Jackson Browne music, so how could I criticize somebody for liking Bjork? Our argument was because he said Bjork should be included as a progressive rock artist and in that point I strongly disagree. But after the argument Boo Boo and I found we agree in many other things. Iván

Okay  !

Jon The Impaler wrote: a problem with many of the early punks is that anything after 1977 punk for them doesn't exist.

You might see a similar story here, except with 1983 or so

Jon The Impaler wrote: Maybe I am here just to show you we aren't stupid , you aren't here ....we have the same discussions only on different music ( mind , we don't talk about one hour drum solo's  .)

The problem is, anyone who thinks all punks are stupid is still going to think all punks are stupid no matter how much evidence they get to the contary, just like anyone who thinks all proggers are pretentious will carry on thinking it (especially with "Prog and nothing else"...)

Jon The Impaler wrote: We both have views on each other , its mainly stereotypical stuff - of course we all have mohicans and leather jackets the same as you all have beards ( do you all , by the way ?).

I did till yesterday . And longish hair too... damnit, maybe I am that stereotype

Jon The Impaler wrote: I think maybe we are all more tolerant than in 1977 at least.

I guess 20+ years of neither prog nor punk being very popular redirects our hatred towards pop music