|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
The Who- My GenerationI am spinning my SACD copy for the first time and I am amazed at how rip roaring tear down the walls great this sounds !!
I suspected it for a long time, and tonight my thought was confirmed. My Generation is the first punk song. You can hear the snarl, nihilism, venom AND ENERGY that must have sounded like something from Mars when it was released.
The Ramones ? Nah- The Who plaid loud and fast while they were wearing diapers.
The New York Dolls ? David Johansen thought eye shadow was something his mother wore at the time.
The MC5 ? They hadn't even discovered airplane glue when My Generation hit the airwaves.
The Sex Pistols- Heck they stole what they knew from the Ramones !!
No- it is The Who. You can hear the sonic fury at the end when they destroy their instruments. You can hear raw anger when Daltry screams "People Try to Put us Down------".
Excuse my exuberance but the SACD is so much better than previous issues that it does sound like a new record.
Best,
Follow Ups:
I guess I don't see the point in calling something punk before the New York bands, when the term came into existance to describe a musical style. Sure, you can argue that earlier bands has stylistic similarities, but as this thread points out, which bands are most similar will depend more on what particular facets of sound, look, or attitude each individual focuses on, than anything else.I don't call Muddy waters rock 'n' roll, even if he shares a lot with a ton of rock 'n' roll bands. I don't call the Chili Peppers Nu- Metal even though they share a lot with those bands (which I'll likely be laughed at for saying, but hey they were one of the earlier practitioners of the funk/rap hard rock combo which seems to define the genre these days).
I just figure it's an endless cuycle of arguement and speculation if you wanna figure out who was the first punk band or song by any defination other than when was the term thrown around in a musical sense on a somewhat regular basis.
> > I don't see the point in calling something punk before the New York bands, when the term came into existance < <The term predates the mid - '70s NYC Max's / CBGB scene. Lester Bangs was the first to use "punk" to describe a type of music in his 1971 essay "Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung" . He was referring to the mid - '60s garage bands and specifically The Count Five. A year later in 1972 Lenny Kaye used the phrase "punk-rock" in his notes for the hugely influential Nuggets compilation. When the phrase began to be applied to the first generation of New York punk bands it was, depending on who was saying it, either a put - down or a compliment.
Bangs may have used the term first, and he may have even used it in the context that's being discussed in this thread. But it's largely incidental to the piece in question, which is a Hunter S. Thompson-esque piece of babble that rambles rather incoherently. It's a great great piece of rock'n'roll writing, but it's as nutty as it is Gonzo-esque. And though not too many people saw it (I presume that Kaye, a fellow rock crit, was one), some who did were allegedly moved to seek out copies of the albums that the Count Five made to follow up on "Psychotic Reactions." The thing is that neither "Carburetor Dung," "Cartesian Jetstream," "Ancient Lace & Wrought-Iron Railings," or "Snowflaked Falling on the International Dateline" ever existed. I think that Burroughs may have tried to expand the meaning of 'punk' beyond a term for a prison rape victim, but Bangs definitely took it in a new direction, albeit in something of an elaborate prank on his readers. Some probably realized this by figuring that the Count Five never made records with Sun Ra & Rahsaan Roland Kirk, as he claims, and others may have decided it was a work of fiction by some of the song titles he invents for these nonexistent albums, such as "Cannonballs For Christmas," "Her Name Is Ianthe," "The Hermit's Prayer," "Creole Jukebox Pocahontas," and the immortal "Free All Political Prisoners! Seize The Time! Keep The Faith! Sock It To 'Em! Shut The Motherf*cker Down! Then Burn It Up! Then Give The Ashes To The Indians! All Power To The People! Right On! All Power To Woodstock Nation! And Watch For Falling Rocks!" But in spite of this, some did believe it was legit.
Thanks for the info, never really studied it myself. I guess what I mean is that once a word gets widely spread it takes on a sort of common definition. Even if it was first used earlier, I would venture to say that for the masses, punk as a descriptor with regard to music didn't come about until the mid seventies. Using words to describe things more esoteric than what they are commonly thought to describe just causes more harm than good and creates confusion in my opinion. When someone says punk, most people around here have a pretty good idea of what is commonly meant and I see no real benefit in trying to muddy the waters.
My Generation is a good call, but for my money it's the Kinks.
Ray Davies was more of a "punk" than Jagger, Richards, Townsend, Moon etc? Seems a strange call to me.
It was the large bowtie that confirmed him as punk.
...and to me, this is the band that really blew the doors off when it came to conveying anger, nihilism, and don't give a sh*t about anyone attitude. Not that it is a positive force, or that this should define punk for the ages. But they put down music to record that is some of the most vicious and aggressive I've heard, especially in context of their time.TV Eye is the first song I can really point to where you can hear the beginnings of the music that would become hardcore. (I admit, I don't have a good knowledge of underground 60s rock beyond the Velvets, MC5, etc.).
And Raw Power is packed with songs that would rip a new one out of many punk bands that have come since, up to the present day. I mean "You're Pretty Face is Going to Hell" and "Raw Power" are just devastating.
If you want to have punk before Punk, you could do worse than the Who, although I'd pick Can't Explain for its even younger inarticulate articulacy sort of thing.
....while I know exactly where you're coming from I think at best the Who would have to be classified as a "proto-punk" band. I believe in those days they liked to be considered a "Mod" band, but then you knew that. No the links and roots of Punk do go way back but I still think the touch stone would have to be the Ramones.While on the topic of the Who, what's your favorite Who album?
For me it's Quadrophenia, tho Who's Next & Tommy are also great!
Quadrophenia is my all time favorite album.
...as I said it's my favorite Who recording, Quad has a feel to it that is all it's own, I can't think of another album that I would consider similar, not in it's intent. The record is a period piece and in some ways very dated, but it works as well for me today as it did the first few times I listened to it and that's been awhile now.
Hands down my favorite Who album. Irks me that Tommy, which I think stinks, is considered one of Townshend's masterpieces, while this much-better rock opera never got quite the same notice.
Favourite Who Album?Mod Period: A Quick One
Psychedelic/Modish/Rockish Period: Tommy
Arena Rock/Concept Album Period: Quad
Later Period: Who Are YouIf I had to pick my best of all Who albums though... probably Quad, but my mood is always changing :) Maybe Live at Leeds as well if that one counts.
Seriously, though, the "punk ethos" that separates 1976 and later Punk from other raucous rock music actually detracts from my enjoyment of what were oftentimes great songs.Maybe thats why I prefer the nuggets style 60s garage punk to British styled 70s capital "P" Punk.
um, gee, like you couldn't have heard that fury in mono, on a transistor radio in 1964? golly, what were those people hearing then which got their attention... roger daltrey's brenda lee impersonation?tell it to link wray, baby.
if you need somekinda phoney two and a half dimension remix to allow you to experience the 'clarity' of rock'n'roll that sounded way cool and crunchy enuff to kick yer daddy's ass to begin with, you ain't never gonna do the hunch, much less have a clue.
sacd my butt. that rekkid sounded great the day it was released, and no amount of messin' with it can possibly go back in time to re-record it to sound any better than it does. ya might be able to fix it up to artificially sound more like a modern record, but guess what? it ain't. thank god.
I don't disagree, although there are plenty of other possibilities. But - I did a punk/new wave radio show in 1978 and the very first record I played on my very first show was My Generation. To me it is the ultimate reference point for that attitude.
I could argue this back & forth with you or anybody else that the Sonics were doing similar things right around the same time, but it really doesn't matter. Others might say Jerry Lee Lewis or a whole host of other malcontents. I'd go back to 1953 & say that if you've ever ever heard anything like Sugar Boy Crawford's 'Overboard' I'd like to know what it is, because that's the first punk song for my money. The argument that the Who was the first punk band is a good one, but then you might go & take a listen to the Beatles covering an Elvis song on the live album in Hamburg from 1962 & tell me you've ever heard anything that savage. 'My Generation' is tough to top, sure. But the Ramones were teenagers at the time, not babies; and maybe the MC5 weren't sniffin', but they were already a band by the time 'My Generation' came out. Nearly as remarkable to me on that record is the incredibly soulful cover of 'Please Please Please.' Did you really need an SACD to appreciate this record?
No- I did not "need" the SACD to experience the song for the first time. I have a US reissue LP from many years ago and have heard the song numerious times on the radio over the course of my life. The SACD did allow me to hear the tune with a new clarity however.I agree about "Please Please Please"; what do you think of "Shout and Shimmy" ?
I have heard alot of early Jerry Lee Lewis and feel that some of his recordings are incendiary to put in mildly. But Little Richard for example was even more outrageous and "raw", based upon what he put down on wax. But neither are "Punk" to me.
To me Punk is attitude and the first record that really transmits this along with fully intact teen age arrogance and swagger is "My Generation".
Best,
I like 'Shout & Shimmy,' but to me it's less of a tune than 'Please Please Please.' I prefer 'Daddy Rolling Stone,' and even 'Heatwave.'Whether or not Jerry Lee Lewis was 'punk' is a matter of opinion. Yeah, Little Richard was more of a screamer. But consider this, from Nick Tosches' "Country":
"By 1958 Jerry Lee Lewis was on top. Of all the rock-and-roll creatures, he projected the most hellish persona. He was feared more than the rest, and hated more too. Preachers railed against him, mothers smelled his awful presence in the laundry of their daughters..."
My point in bringing this up is that, if you're going to air a laundry list of early punk rock bands to play up that the Who did it first, there's always going to be something that came before. This is a game that can go on longer than one might think. To you punk is attitude, but the first bands that were specifically referred to as 'punk' included Television, the Patti Smith Group, and Mink DeVille--bands not necessarily known for punk attitude. 'My Generation' aside, I still think the Sonics were at least as punk as the Who. How many bands were doing songs like 'Psycho' in 1965?
"...mothers smelled his awful presence in the laundry of their daughters..."
hee hee hee...
It sure is fun exploring around.I will have to hunt down a copy of Link Wray- Rumble.
I understand your points regarding The Killa' but I just don't agree.
Sure he (and Little Richard, Elvis, Chuck Berry) stired something inside the youth of America, but he was part of a movement that went to the heart of capturing raw sexual energy on record.
To me Punk was not about that at all. Maybe my frame of reference is limited, but Punk is about complete and utter disregard for the establishemnt- adults, musical predecessers, authority. Rebelion. Sure there were others before them- Summer Time Blues comes to mind. But in just over 2min, The Who captured the sound of teen fury for all to hear and more importantly laid down a template for many more to follow in the years to come.
Thats all I'm trying (rather inelegently...) to say.
Best,
> > Punk is about complete and utter disregard for ... musical predecessers < <No it wasn't, not at all. Take it from someone who was there at the time: in 1977 - 78 I practically lived at CBGB and was hanging out with the staff of Punk magazine (one of the owners lived with me). The punks were extremely interested in older music; some of the musicians I knew were serious collectors. In '77 there was no such thing as "alternative rock" radio so the punks in NYC mostly listened to WCBS, the oldies station! The perceived decline in the quality of music was one of the most important factors responsible for the rise of punk. Punk musicians were reacting against prog rock and other soul - less commercial forms because they knew that rock 'n' roll had been a lot better in the past. Those better days hadn't been gone for long either. Lenny Kaye's Nuggets compilation of mid - 60s garage bands - records that in 1976 were only 10 or 11 years old - was hugely influential, every punk musician I knew seemed to have a copy. Further, look at some of the songs that punk bands played. The Dead Boys covered the Rolling Stones, the Dictators covered the Flaming Groovies, the Sex Pistols played Monkees and Modern Lovers songs. Punks certainly despised the contemporary music of the mid - Seventies but it's completely wrong to say they had "utter disregard" for all rock that came before them.
Indeed, I too think Punk was largely born out of disgust for ponderous mid-70s bands like Kansas, Styx and Boston. I know that's what me and my pals were thinking in 77 when we started a punk power-trio. The best Punk bands had strong early Rock and Roll influences tempered with an appreciation for the power and cruncha-cruncha of Heavy Metal. I always thought of The Ramones as a Metal band that played fast. The Stooges and MC5 were certainly Heavy Metal. And live, regardless of what the recordings sounded like, The Who were a heavy Metal band, at least by 1969.All the punkers I knew back in the day were Thin Lizzy fans. I think the first Punkers were as much about music as attitude and drew from a wide variety of influences. My band did oldies such as "Just Like Romeo and Juliet" and "Yummy-Yummy-Yummy I got Love in my Tummy", a song which can sound VERY heavy if a strong emphasis is placed on the rythym and the guitar is REAL loud and distorted.
Well, it's all about what punk is to the individual. In my definition of punk I have to take Jerry Lee Lewis into consideration, with Little Richard and others--but I also can't forget some of the rockabilly madmen that influenced the Cramps. The Misfits had nothing to do with attitude (in spite of their song with that title), but how anyone could not consider them a punk band is beyond me. I always try to remember that there was a 'punk' scene going on in NYC (as well as other places, though the name was most specifically applied here by Punk Magazine relatively early in the game) in 1975 that had nothing to do with the things you're describing. Nor did it have anything to do with the mohawks, safetypins through the cheeks, or Vivienne Westwood clothing that many associate with 'punk rock' through the media splash that it made in England in 1977. Also, Black Flag's early records talk about the things you're saying make a band punk, but just because Television's or Patti Smith's don't doesn't make them not punk. Besides, if punk is a question of having utter disregard for the establishment, then why did so many punk bands sign with major labels?I myself wouldn't have brought 'Rumble' up because I find it difficult to state in musical terms exactly what it is that makes that record punk. It's more a question of production values & feel than anything musical, except for the fact that it has a sloppy-by-design style of playing (much like Johnny Thunders or perhaps the Replacements) that does kind of make it sound like Wray was going for a feel that suggested an attitude. Some say they don't hear it. You would have heard this song if you've seen the movie Pulp Fiction, though it didn't make the soundtrack. But it's the kind of tune that had a lot of people wondering, when they saw that movie, where they'd heard it before.
As for punk having complete & utter disregard for musical predecessors--you're defining the Who as punk, yet they did covers on their first album. The Ramones were big Doors & Beach Boys fans; John Lydon liked Hawkwind also; the Damned & Siouxsie & The Banshees did Beatles covers; Gen X did a Lennon cover; X did a Doors cover (their first album produced by Ray Manzarek); the Minutemen did a Van Halen cover; the Pistols did Jonathan Richman, Monkees (Boyce-Hart?), and Eddy Cochrane covers; the Dickies' cover versions are legendary. So, though the Clash did sing 'No Elvis, Beatles, or Rolling Stones,' I think most people took it as at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek, in spite of the stupidity of the lyric (no Zeppelin, Boston, or Emerson Lake & Palmer would've been more like it), especially since they weren't above doing covers themselves.
...your Pistols/Jonathan Richman comment, wouldn't you consider Richman when he was with The Modern Lovers Punk, or at least proto-punk?
...you're Pistols/Jonathan Richman comment, wouldn't you consider Richman when he was with The Modern Lovers Punk, or at least proto-punk?
...but if you accept that they were (I do), it's another reason why I have a difference of opinion with Ross over what constitutes punk. Because JR & the Modern Lovers were hardly a band that had disdain for their musical predecessors; they were of course as influenced by the Velvet Underground as any band, probably, ever.
Which song would you most classify as punk and why using the Clash as an example:White Riot
Bankrobber
Train in VainI would choose White Riot, no lead instument, simple chord structure, outwardly politically inclined,speeded up rock tempo. Those early Who songs had the same framework so to speak.
About rebellion, I don't think it's simply about rebellion. But how it's presented that differentiates PUNK from other forms of rock.
So punk was a kind of "deus ex machina" sort of thing? Darby Crash
(perhaps you remember the Germs) was a huge Hawkwind fan. Regards,
ok, i can dig that.but, i'd still argue that lunk wray's "the rumble" absolutely transmitted teenage arrogance and swagger fully intact, with punk attitude, several years before the who came along.
as evidence, i'd submit the fact that wray's single was banned in several jurisdictions. "my generation" suffered no such like indignity, as it, and rock'n'roll, was fairly well accepted pop entertainment (like it or not) by the time the who came around.
.
Lots of people want to think punk is different.
Seeing that the definition of punk is that it is a counterculture or a rebellion I would think that punk actually is different. Some people want to think they are on to something.
> > Seeing that the definition of punk is that it is a counterculture
> > or a rebellion I would think that punk actually is different.
I always considered rock as being counterculture or rebellous even prior to the mid 70s. Punk IMO was just a return to form - a response to the music industries successfull attempts to can and package and market rock. Of course these days the terms rock, rock 'n' roll, etc are simply applied to any pop music.I quess it would be easier for me these days to argue I'm a punk music fan, as the terms rock and rock 'n' roll have been diluted to uselessness - and attempt to equate my favorite oldies to the punk genre (several have been mentioned in this thread).
Give me rhythm or give me death!
such interesting debates. From time to time this same issue pops up here and elsewhere - "What is punk?". I haven't conducted a survey but I would guess that debates about this genre seem to be more, say, multi-dimensional, than debates about other genres. Discussions of punk music almost always include comments about attitude, politics, andnorms (and breaking or bending them) in addition to the music per se.That fact, in my mind, illustrates the continuing force and relevance of the punk esthetic - whatever it is - because it challenges us in ways that many other musical forms do not.
I also find that many people have stereotyped "punk" as the mohawk coiffed, skin pierced, (and usually, by implication for people who do not understand the genre, no-brained) adolescent. Punk bands these days are just as likely to be comprised of 5 guys in jeans and shirtsleeves, and to have PhD degrees in philosophy or physics.
But this genre continues to stand out as intelligent and challenging, in an era of compliant music. As one of the other commentators mentioned here, punk was very much a rejection of existing norms, like rock and roll originally, and it continues to do so (witness the Clash's experiments with reggae and dub, the recent hardcore Dillinger Escape Plan, the hip-hop inflected Transplants, the "blues-punk" of the Immortal Lee County Killers, or the "country-punk" of the Waco Brothers...the list goes on). I am amazed at how many other genres get tagged with the "punk" label when they get pushed into other directions.
I also think that the punk link to early rock and roll - and The Who's My Generation - is inescapable. Check out the Clash's version of I Fought the Law. Or better yet, listen to Rancid's "Young Al Capone" (From Rancid (2000)) and think about the last time you saw or heard the Animal House soundtrack.
The bottom line is that punk is about passion, and the willingness to follow your passion without regard to existing norms.
It's all a matter of one's perspective. I can't see enough difference between early rock and roll - Hank Williams, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Chuck Berry and sixties rock and roll Bob Dylan, The Who, Velvet Underground, early Stones and Patti Smith, the Clash and the Ramones to justify an additional musical genre. It's all rock and roll to my ears. Going the other way I do see enough differences between this genre and Elvis, the Beatles, Grand Funk, Kiss and the hair bands of the eighties to have a seperate genre for this type music.I know it's all a matter of how one looks at things but it seems more right to me to label Hank Williams, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, the Who, Bob Dylan, VU, Patti Smith, Clash and the Ramones as rock bands. Elvis, the Beatles, Grand Funk, Kiss, hair bands and the wimpy asexual bands commonly associated with punk can all be classified as pop rock or something else.
that me me feel better about this whole thread...
thanks.
Chronologically maybe you are correct.But if Punk is about attitude- then I stand by my post.
Best,
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: