Punk - musically significant or not?

[spectoremg]

A while back Danny Baker challenged the view that music in the UK was in poor health prior to the arrival of punk. No it wasn't, it thrived throughout.

Punk made a huge visual impression because media types loved repeating images of gobbing, pogoing and Sid Vicious covered in blood ad nauseam with Malcolm Mclaren laughing all the way to the bank. 

 

[BreadBin]

Punk allowed people the freedom to pick up an instrument and play it regardless of whether they knew how. Some of the music they produced was good, most of it was shyte. 

[upside downer]

Pretty much the whole 'press your own record' ethic started with punk which led to countless independent labels starting up. I'd consider that significant. 

Edited January 29, 2019 by upside downer

[stewblack]

Like all art forms the status quo is challenged from time to time. I believe this breathes new life into music, painting, sculpture and prevents things stagnating.

It happened for example with skiffle in a very similar way as it did with punk. Giving people with little or no formal musical education or experience a voice is always a good thing.

Cezanne had a similar impact on the complacency of the art world. Shook things up and much good came from the shaking.

I suspect if Mr Baker was a few years younger he'd hold a significantly different view. Like the rest of us he holds a strong affection for music which hit him at a certain age. Punk appeared to challenge the very validity of that music and he took this personally. 

As to the question posed in the title, well it depends on what music you listen to. A lot of bands and musicians who have enriched my life were picked up and bunged into the mixer as a result of the punk phenomenon so I for one an grateful for it. 

[Woodinblack]

10 minutes ago, BreadBin said:

Punk allowed people the freedom to pick up an instrument and play it regardless of whether they knew how. 

Did it really? Why didn't they have that freedom before? How did punk turn up if people didn't have that freedom. Wouldn't it be fair to say (from say Blues posts) the beatles did that, or any of those groups?

Anyway, the program I refered to before was called The secret science of Pop - https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2017-02-secret-science-of-pop

Doesn't seem to be on iPlayer any more but probably some bits on youtube. There is also a bit on youtube about the millenium whoop (shudder), and how music is picked by analysis rather than by people listening to new music. All very interesting

[Guest oZZma]

14 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

Anyway, the program I refered to before was called The secret science of Pop - https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2017-02-secret-science-of-pop

Doesn't seem to be on iPlayer any mor

put this way it almost makes sense. It's about pop and charts, not music in general.

Edited January 29, 2019 by oZZma

[Mykesbass]

It succeeded in giving Prog a bad name for 30 years!

[Newfoundfreedom]

Punk changed music as we know it. It blew the kneecaps off the overly pretentious 20 minute solo prog rock crap that was becoming extremely popular, and brought music back down to earth for the everyman. It introduced (maybe reintroduced to a new generation) short, sharp and extremely powerful songs that people could get behind, and defined music for a whole generation and more. Admittedly there was a lot of crap in there too, but that could be said about any genre and is pretty much down to personal taste. I'd hate to think where music would be now if it wasn't for punk. 

[Mykesbass]

7 minutes ago, Mykesbass said:

It succeeded in giving Prog a bad name for 30 years!

 

2 minutes ago, Newfoundfreedom said:

Punk changed music as we know it. It blew the kneecaps off the overly pretentious 20 minute solo prog rock crap that was becoming extremely popular, and brought music back down to earth for the everyman. It introduced (maybe reintroduced to a new generation) short, sharp and extremely powerful songs that people could get behind, and defined music for a whole generation and more. Admittedly there was a lot of crap in there too, but that could be said about any genre and is pretty much down to personal taste. I'd hate to think where music would be now if it wasn't for punk. 

QED!

[PaulWarning]

nothing much more to say really, once glam died we were left with pretentious prog and artist who took themselves way to seriously, punk really did take us back to Rock and Roll's year zero with the Ramones, the period I liked best was pre 1980 some great simple speeded up pop songs then, after that it all got a bit too shouty shouty for me.

A lot of people fell for McLaren's  publicity stunt about them not being able to play, some of the bands in the early days had been around for years, Stiff Little Fingers, The Stranglers, The Jam etc, great pop songs don't need to be complicated 

[Monkey Steve]

Undoubtedly.  From Thrash Metal and all the far too numerous sub genres to name, to dance music (from Joy Division to New Order, and through to the Prodigy), to say nothing of the post punk bands that had a huge influence on BritPop (I mean, Elastica's first album, it's a great punk/post punk album)

[Barking Spiders]

When punk came out I was still listening to Three Billy Goats Gruff (being an infant rather than backward!) so was unable to appreciate it. In hindsight I can see how it gave a stale music scene a healthy, albeit a swift, kick in the cojones. I've seen reruns of 1976 editions of TOTP and man they're dire. Not prog but the 'kin awful pop of the time, though reruns of  pre 1976 issues of the OGWT on BBC4 show the flip side of fluffy pop was just as bad; overly earnest singer songwriters, plodding proggers and dull noodly blues rock combos. Recently I've been listening to some punk and new wave compilations and to my ears many of the tunes sound fresher and more vibrant than most music released this month let alone what was around in 75-76. Sure there were loads of shoite punk bands , especially from the 2nd+ waves,  but for me most of the best music made since the 70s can be traced back to the original punk scene.

Edited January 29, 2019 by Barking Spiders

[Lozz196]

Irrespective of the so-called politics and shock factor, listen to some of the early punk bands, Buzzcocks, Undertones, Blondie. The Jam etc, and you simply have great 3 minute pop songs. Punk is still around today, it`s a nice little scene, with gigs going on all over the place, and loads of new great bands coming through. Yes there are the shouty brigade, but there`s much more than just that. Regrettably it seems punk is more associated with studded leather jackets and mohawks with shouted lyrics than how it started.

[PaulWarning]

1 minute ago, Lozz196 said:

 Regrettably it seems punk is more associated with studded leather jackets and mohawks with shouted lyrics than how it started.

yes got to agree @Lozz196 when we're are trying to get pub gigs and they ask what sort of music we play, we have to say Punk but quickly add stuff like the Buzzcocks Undertones and Clash otherwise they get totally the wrong idea, we've had people coming up to us after gigs saying they never realised how many punk songs they knew or liked

[BigRedX]

2 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

Did it really? Why didn't they have that freedom before? How did punk turn up if people didn't have that freedom. Wouldn't it be fair to say (from say Blues posts) the beatles did that, or any of those groups?

Speaking from personal experience, it absolutely gave musicians who weren't playing "conventional" blues-based rock or using conventional instruments the realisation that you didn't need to fit into the norm in order to be able to play live or release music for public consumption.

I formed my first band in 1975. Our instrumentation was 2 acoustic guitars fitted with pickups, a homemade solid electric balalaika all going into a 10 watt practice amp via a couple of practical electronics fuzz boxes, a bon tempi-style wind powered chord organ, and a home-made "drum kit" composed of tambourines and cans and anything that sounded good when hit, all held together with clamps acquired from the school chemistry lab.

There was no way that we could have preformed in public with these instruments, so we contented ourselves with recording at home, almost entirely for our own enjoyment. When punk came along, we realised that there might actually be other people who would enjoy the recordings that we were making, so we started putting out albums free on anyone who sent us a C60 cassette and an SAE, which we would return recorded complete with a photocopied A4 sheet as the cover. 

We put out 5 "albums" this way and were asked to contribute to an actual vinyl compilation EP which was played on John Peel's Radio 1 programme, and ultimately led to the band putting out a retrospective CD compilation on Chicago's Hyped To Death label in the early 2000s. The band even played some gigs in the early 80s, admittedly to mostly baffled audiences; but at least they didn't bottle us off stage as would have undoubtedly have happened in the pre-punk days.

Edited January 29, 2019 by BigRedX

[spectoremg]

I knew it wouldn't be long before a couple of people who swallowed the 'prog is bad' mantra of the time hook line and sinker came along. FWIW Genesis and Yes made some of their finest music in that period, and not a guitar solo to be heard. 

Ps. I thought 'Never Mind the B...' was great; an excellent rock album. 

[chris_b]

Don't believe the myths and newspaper headlines. There was nothing wrong with music up until punk. As happened in the 20's. 50's and 60's, the kids decided they wanted more energy in the music they listened to. New entrepreneurs emerged, new business models were created and replaced some of the old, but while Punk got the headlines, the music business evolved and carried on. For the simple reason, there was still a massive audience that wasn't catered for by Punk.

[BigRedX]

1 minute ago, chris_b said:

Don't believe the myths and newspaper headlines. There was nothing wrong with music up until punk. As happened in the 20's. 50's and 60's, the kids decided they wanted more energy in the music they listened to. New entrepreneurs emerged, new business models were created and replaced some of the old, but while Punk got the headlines, the music business evolved and carried on. For the simple reason, there was still a massive audience that wasn't catered for by Punk.

I think it very much depends on what music you liked back then. When I look at my music collection, there is a noticeable dip in the numbers of albums I was buying between 1974 when glam rock stopped being interesting and 1977 when punk bands started releasing records. The reason for this being there was very little new music released that I wanted to buy.

[spectoremg]

9 minutes ago, chris_b said:

Don't believe the myths and newspaper headlines. There was nothing wrong with music up until punk. As happened in the 20's. 50's and 60's, the kids decided they wanted more energy in the music they listened to. New entrepreneurs emerged, new business models were created and replaced some of the old, but while Punk got the headlines, the music business evolved and carried on. For the simple reason, there was still a massive audience that wasn't catered for by Punk.

This!

[Barking Spiders]

6 minutes ago, chris_b said:

Don't believe the myths and newspaper headlines. There was nothing wrong with music up until punk. As happened in the 20's. 50's and 60's, the kids decided they wanted more energy in the music they listened to. New entrepreneurs emerged, new business models were created and replaced some of the old, but while Punk got the headlines, the music business evolved and carried on. For the simple reason, there was still a massive audience that wasn't catered for by Punk.

Point taken but I was only giving my  POV  not making a blanket generalisation but to my ears most of the 'serious' stuff was way too earnest and po-faced while the pop of the time, particularly after glam had gone away, was insipid and flaccid. Mind you, I think punk gets a bit too much credit for shaking things up when there were fine bands like Dr Feelgood, Eddie & The Hot Rods  and The Motors who were offering an alternative before the Pistols and the Damned came along.

[tauzero]

2 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

Did it really? Why didn't they have that freedom before? How did punk turn up if people didn't have that freedom. Wouldn't it be fair to say (from say Blues posts) the beatles did that, or any of those groups?

Anyway, the program I refered to before was called The secret science of Pop - https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2017-02-secret-science-of-pop

Doesn't seem to be on iPlayer any more but probably some bits on youtube. There is also a bit on youtube about the millenium whoop (shudder), and how music is picked by analysis rather than by people listening to new music. All very interesting

I saw that when it was shown - basically, it said that music and lyrics were both becoming less complex. Because, after all, nothing Adele's written can touch the lyrical and musical complexity of James Brown's "Sex machine". Oh sorry, that's wrong, the examples given were equally facile in the opposite direction, which was a shame, because cherry-picking examples slightly undermined the premise. I don't disagree with that premise though.

Rock wasn't in an unhealthy state before punk, but it did provide new musical DNA which was incorporated into the mainstream.

[Geek99]

3 hours ago, BreadBin said:

Punk allowed people the freedom to pick up an instrument and play it regardless of whether they knew how. Some of the music they produced was good, most of it was shyte. 

Could that not be said of any genre ? 

[Al Krow]

1 minute ago, Geek99 said:

Could that not be said of any genre ? 

Not really. You can't just turn up and after a short spell be a competent jazz or classical musician.

[PunkPonyPrincess]

All music that exists as a reaction to a culture is significant

[tauzero]

27 minutes ago, chris_b said:

Don't believe the myths and newspaper headlines. There was nothing wrong with music up until punk. As happened in the 20's. 50's and 60's, the kids decided they wanted more energy in the music they listened to. New entrepreneurs emerged, new business models were created and replaced some of the old, but while Punk got the headlines, the music business evolved and carried on. For the simple reason, there was still a massive audience that wasn't catered for by Punk.

1977 - Sex Pistols "Never mind the bollocks", Meat Loaf "Bat out of Hell". I only bought one of those two albums.