Are we not Punk (We are Who fans)

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

>against it, really I do, but afterwards I keep expecting Pete to come on
and
>say "I call it 'Lick My Love Pump'."

Brian:

I haven't laughed so hard since I heard Ricky Martin was headlining the Bush
party. Thanks.

>movement is really not punk... In some ways I can agree with him, but

Alex:

I don't hear that music as Punk at all...more like Rap/Metal or
Rap/Alternative or Rap/Industrial (take your pick), emphasis on Rap. NOT
Punk. Less Than Jake, Rancid, even the more commercial Green Day...that is
the Punk of today.

>News note:  Punk is dead!  After initially embracing it, the large monster
>that is called 'Rock & Roll' swallowed it up &, a few years later, shit it
out.

Scott:

Rock has been dead longer.

>have any affinity to Punk.  Guns & Roses?  Marilyn Manson?  Limp Bizcuit?
>Those bands have *nothing* to with Punk.  Speed metal?  You think speed
>metal grew from Punk?  How old are you?

Whoa there, partner. I'm older than you (sonny boy) and Speed Metal is
certainly a marriage of Heavy Metal and Punk, stronger on the HM of course.
It might be harder to see if you weren't there for the actual changes, but
before Punk the way to make a song heavier was to slow it down (check out
Spooky Tooth's I Am The Walrus or early Black Sabbath, for instance). After
Punk, everything sped up! Which was a good thing, IMHO.
But GnR are just hacks. To refer back to Spinal Tap, their musical maturity
can't even be charted.

>began to make an incorrect association.  Perhaps you read too many articles
on
>Nirvana written by overblown journalists desperate for some significance in
their
>writing.

Nirvana was influenced by Punk; check out Bleach. But they were not Punks.

>Anyway; I recall Roger saying The Who was the punk of the 60's.

Bjorn:

I wonder if he ever heard any Iggy Pop.

>Maybe Joey was simply referring to Americans as "we", and not necessarily
>The Ramones.

Jeff:

Maybe. The Ramones weren't even the first US Punk band, if you count NY
Dolls and Iggy Pop as I must. And the Velvet Underground too. What's more
Punk than I'm Waiting For The Man? AAA, maybe....

>Their first album surely influenced lots of prog bands in the seventies,

Lucas:

Definitely. But it had more of a minstrel feel to it. Court may have been
the most technically modern album of 1969. Maybe Abbey Road. One of them.

>to me, Crimson was truly revolutionary on their Bruford-Wetton and 80's
>phases.

I would agree with you there; it was no longer regressive. Which album I
can't say, as I lost track after Lizard (hated it).

>While ELP released "Love Beach"

(groan) Yeah, even Works I & II was weak but LB was unforgivable. I wasn't
unhappy when they broke up, and I used to work for them (Brain Salad Surgery
tour).

> Yes released 90125

It isn't THAT bad. Try Tales, which isn't commercial but just ponderous. Yes
lost me long before 90125.

>crap with Phil Collins and even the Who became a bit "poppy"

FD, one of their worst albums (the other being AQO, and it's no coincidence
both are very Pop albums).

> King Crimson never gave up creating complex and imaginative music.

Very true. As with Neil Young, they are musicians who never bowed to
commerciality.

>the first song that sounds like what's called HM nowadays, to me, is the
beatles'
>Helter Skelter)

Consider two points: 1) The Who live were a LOT heavier than in the studio,
and 2) HS was, according to McCartney, influenced by I Can See For Miles.

>roots can be found not just on the who, but also moody blues

I love the Moody Blues (up to 7thS), but really all they did was Sgt.
Pepper's over and over.

>of punk is nonsense. We recognize a punk song for its 2 or 3 power
>chords harmony,
>its drum lines that had almost no fills, the easy-assimilation
>(sometimes even comic)

You're focusing too hard on the details. Musically, The Kinks are closer to
Punk (YRGM, ADAAOTN) but AAA is certainly the Punk attitude, and "I hope I
die before I get old" should be the Punk oath of office, and plenty of songs
like So Sad, Disguises, Pictures Of Lily for three include the Punk sound.
MG, Substitute, and TKAA too, really. But more than anything else, The Who
were the aggressive, powerful, "fuck you" band instead of the "I really luv
you gurl" British standard that even The Stones fell prey to...and it's this
smash-you-in-your-face image that invented Punk. The Troggs, another Mod
band, also had this in the original WIld Thing...you can hear it...and in A
Girl Like You.

>To me, these facts are sufficient to say that this "Who was the first
>punk band" notion is completely false.

I don't see why you can't see it. Consider the first line from the first
song on their first album: "Out in the street/The cars go slowly/I done
wrecked/Woman, you don't know me/You're gonna know me/and I'm a gonna know
you..." Know in the biblical sense, I assume. THAT, my friend, is Punk all
the way through. Using feedback for lead is Punk, too...not trying to play a
tasteful lick, but just savage noise which hurts your ears. Yeah! How about
smashing your equipment. Is that not Punk?
Then there are the interviews. On The Beatles, about whom no one dared say a
contrary word: "Their music is crap." PT.

>Maybe he would sound very good on, say, "Red". But what about on "Frame
>By Frame"? "Fracture"?

I'm not familiar with them, but I have faith in Moon. Perhaps the others
would have had to adapt a bit.

>Well, I like it.

You have every right to, and not feel a bit bad about it. I'm not trying to
make you feel bad, but expressing my opinion...that's all. Worth what it's
worth.

>But when we talk about musical impact, I don't think that any PJ album
>was more important than what Rush did. Not even comes close.

Keep in mind that I have seen no impact from Rush. I think the sheer emotion
in the vocals, the cut to the core honesty of feeling, the pain in the
words...that makes Ten essential. Few albums have this, even by The Who.

>"Synthesized sterility" is a bit vague, isn't it?

Not to me. A certain amount of synth is going to sound sterile. When I
listen to 80's music, I hear it now (didn't so much then). There's more of
an honesty in real instruments, at least to me.

> So, does it mean that
>Rush, ELP and dance music are all alike?

No, but ELP didn't use the synth the same way as Rush and dance music has no
soul at all.

>I'll look for that specific song. But I have listened to Layla, Key to
>the
>Highway and Tell The Truth and I just can't find any relation to Rush on
>them.

Don't you notice how D&D is a very precision band, unlike The Who but much
like Rush? No variation, the cymbal right on cue, and so on. And that's what
drives me crazy about bands like Kansas and Journey...they're too fucking
perfect. I'll take a bit of adventure, please. Perfection gets boring, at
least to me.

>No, he shouldn't. Finding good musicians is much easier than most can
>think.

Not around here. Anyway, if it's easy to find a Moon-like drummer why have
our boys struggled oh these many years before getting the good Zak Starkey,
who is still no Keith Moon? One would think they could have, but instead
they went through two professional but unsuitable ones and even used a drum
machine for a song.

>How do I see the two bands - technical verses heart.

Steve:

Yes, exactly. A long time ago I had a post called "Those endearing young
flaws" which discussed flaws in Who music, like the missed chorus on the
pre-remixed Eminence Front and the missed cymbal at the end of WGFA, for
two. For me, this is one thing about The Who which sets them apart. Once
again, Neil Young is someone who doesn't worry about the details but has the
feel, boy DOES he!

>qualities - they just have complex meanings, song structures, and technical
>expertise.

Sounds like you're talking about Dream Theater too.

>What brand of car could Rush sell? Volvo?. ;)

And we know The Who would sell Jaguars.



"The new President of The United States is
    what I would call a cunt "
              Pete Townshend

               Cheers                 ML