Punk 101.........course outline needed.

[kerk]

Maybe this should be another thread.....maybe it shouldn't be a thread, but:

 

While waiting for an instructor to apply, how about some of the punk historians here post up a course 'outline'. This would be a class on the what is neccessary to fall withing the boundaries of 'Punk'. (No musical instructions, but everything else.) What would Punk 101 cover? Keep in mind, most students would be of punkless history, so it has to be basic. More specific courses could be offered in Punk 201.

 

The purpose of this course would be to begin to help students identify offshoots, imitations, and the real thing.

 

And who might be some 'real world' instrutors for the course?

Professor Rotten?

[Brocko777]

Misfits

Black Flag

Dead Kennedy's

 

That started the punk for me.

 

Thats a BIG classroom with allotta chalk on the board. (and a few nail scratches thrown in for good measure)

 

1. attitude

a.violent

b.introverted

c.obnoxious

 

2. Dress

A. Leather and more leather. Why the cows haven't come home.

B. Jack boots. Very cool but who's Jack?

C. Manic Panic. Nothing make a statement like green hair when you want everyone to leave you alone.

D. Chained wallet

 

 

3. Activities

A.Skateboarding

B.Wall Sitting

C.Skateboarding

D. Skateboarding

 

 

Looking at this kiricculium (sp... GOD I know that is way off and my spell check is down) punk has flowed over into many other areas which makes it such an essential part of the world!

Woo hoo!

 

(Is this what you were thinking?)

[kerk]

Yup. A lot of input was showing up on another thread, and Jeremy mentioned a course, so I thought a 'course sylibis' from some of the punk meisters might be interesting.

[Nicklab]

I tend to go a little old school here. Start at the beginning at work towards the present. So who does that old school include?

 

-MC-5

-The Stooges

-New York Dolls

-The Ramones

-Sex Pistols

 

There's a lot of ground that gets covered by these bands. Regarding the Pistols, I'd recommend Filthy Lucre Live and not Nevermind The Bollocks. The playing is much better on the live record.

 

As for the second wave, I'd definitely agree on the Misfits, Black Flag, and the Dead Kennedys. But I'd also throw in The Minutemen and Fear. Mike Watt's work with the Minutemen is awesome, and Scott Thunes work in Fear is just crazy.

 

Moving more towards the present, one of the few bands that I think is really punk is Rancid. Their bass player, Matt Freeman, is just amazing.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

First of all, I think it should be pointed out that punk comes in two main flavours: British and American.

 

The British school pretty much died out in the early 80s. But the later Brit punk bands, such as Discharge and GBH produced some interesting sounds.

 

Honourable mention should be made of Irish band Stiff Little Fingers.

 

Oh, and Australian band, The Saints.

 

And, distasteful as it is, some mention should be made of (ahem!) Oi! and the whole Skinhead thing, seeing as how their music was pretty much intertwined with punk. Listen to the Angelic Upstarts if you don't believe me.

 

 

I think there should be a couple of minutes spent on other versions of punk, such as

 

Flipper

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MS2mFfN1ks

 

Suicide (interesting use of farfisa keyboards)

 

Siouxie and the Banshees

 

and the X-Ray specs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAL_j-f8gmA

[mcbn]

If you need to take the class you'll never understand.

 

That being said...

 

There are 2 definitive types of US Punk...

 

East Coast: Misfits, Pennywise, H2O

West Coast: NOFX, Suicidal Tendencies, Black Flag, Dead Kennedys

[kenfxj]

Honourable mention should be made of Irish band Stiff Little Fingers.

 

How could I have forgotten Stiff Little Fingers? Alternative Ulster? White Noise? Great stuff. An Irish friend of mine is a great SLF fan. When someone says they were just an Irish Clash his response is "F**k off! The Clash are just an English Stiff Little Fingers".

 

 

[The Bear Jew]

No need to write a syllabus for the "Punk Rock 101" class... It's already been written.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/511PAQ3WZVL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

Please Kill Me.

 

You could just read this book and listen to the bands discussed in it (The Stooges, MC5, Velvet Underground, Television, Patti Smith, The New York Dolls, The Ramones, etc) and have a very good handle on the roots of this music.

 

On a side note...

The thing that bothers me most often when folks discuss punk rock or hardcore or emo is that it's really hard to know if everyone in on the discussion is actually familiar enough to be conversant about the genre and its history. I think it's important to at least be open-minded enough to appreciate the music (if not actually enjoy it)... very often, it seems that musicians (or other folks) have a somewhat limited knowledge of the diversity in the music and punk rock lifestyle... and then they try to either say it's got no value or they think it can be summed up by referencing one band or style of band in the genre--"It's three chords, a really fast beat and some drunk guy snarling about the government and cutting himself with a broken beer bottle"--yeah, some of it is, but there are punk bands like Shonen Knife who are all adorable Japanese women singing about how much they love cookies. They'd sooner sing about going to the sushi bar than the evils of war.

 

My point is that nothing is more frustrating than trying to have a conversation with someone who has a limited vocabulary. And it seems that folks have an easy time dismissing this genre without really knowing much about it... the same could be said for hip-hop.

 

When it comes to punk rock (or any music genre, really), there's no way to simply break it down to "there's east coast style, west coast style and Brit punk. The end." No way... you've got '77-style punk acts, gutter punks, straight-edge militant punks, cow-punks, queer-core punks, pop-punk, drunk-punk, metal-punk, Skate-Punk, Ska-punk, horror-punk, etc, etc. Plus, the genre is constantly expanding to include different influences and styles... it didn't all end when Sid ODed or when Joey Ramone died.. Punk is a living thing that continues to evolve and grow.

 

Punk's not dead--it just smells funny.

 

 

[kerk]

When it comes to punk rock (or any music genre, really), there's no way to simply break it down to "there's east coast style, west coast style and Brit punk. The end." No way... you've got '77-style punk acts, gutter punks, straight-edge militant punks, cow-punks, queer-core punks, pop-punk, drunk-punk, metal-punk, Skate-Punk, Ska-punk, horror-punk, etc, etc. Plus, the genre is constantly expanding to include different influences and styles... it didn't all end when Sid ODed or when Joey Ramone died.. Punk is a living thing that continues to evolve and grow.

 

Punk's not dead--it just smells funny.

 

 

That being said, wouldn't there be characteristics of 'punk' that you would find in all the mentioned groups? If so, what would they be? I would think that those common traits found in all the offshoots would be the best gauge to use if one wanted to form the parameters of 'pure' or 'basic' punk. Yea or nea?

[Eric VB]

Post deleted by RicBassGuy

[The Bear Jew]

 

That being said, wouldn't there be characteristics of 'punk' that you would find in all the mentioned groups? If so, what would they be? I would think that those common traits found in all the offshoots would be the best gauge to use if one wanted to form the parameters of 'pure' or 'basic' punk. Yea or nea?

 

I think the truly unifying element of real punk is that even when it is serious, it doesn't take itself seriously. I mean this in the sense that regardless of how high your mohawk is spiked, how many studs are on your leather jacket or how many times you shout "Oi!" in the course of your songs, you realise/accept that although everything in the world is bigger than you are and you most likely will not make a difference to anyone beside yourself, it's important to try and see what you can do to that effect... and see how far it goes. And even if it fails or falls apart, it's better to do something (even if it's lousy) to get your thoughts out there then it is to sit on your ass and do nothing.

 

But that's a kind of ambiguous quality to try and isolate, isn't it? By this description, a guy like Woody Guthrie qualifies as "punk," huh?

 

He even had a sticker on his guitar...

 

http://www.adliterate.com/archives/3c13276v.jpg

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

No way... you've got '77-style punk acts, gutter punks, straight-edge militant punks, cow-punks, queer-core punks, pop-punk, drunk-punk, metal-punk, Skate-Punk, Ska-punk, horror-punk, etc, etc. Plus, the genre is constantly expanding to include different influences and styles... it didn't all end when Sid ODed or when Joey Ramone died.. Punk is a living thing that continues to evolve and grow.

 

Yeah, I know what you mean. One also wonders what to make of the first Pogues' album, "Red Roses For Me". They had that "celtic punk" tag, but I don't know if they wanted it.

 

My point is that with all those something-punk bands it's hard to say whether the band considers itself punk, or whether the "-punk" suffix was added by a record company (or a magazine) trying to define the sound.

 

For that reason, I think it'd be best to look at bands that were happy enough to be lumped in with other punk bands rather than those that might conceivably be punk, but under another name/genre.

[Phil W]

My point is that nothing is more frustrating than trying to have a conversation with someone who has a limited vocabulary. And it seems that folks have an easy time dismissing this genre without really knowing much about it... the same could be said for hip-hop.

 

I see what you're saying, CMDN. There are threads where people try to enlighten us about artists we don't know (and I love those) and there are threads (or parts of threads) where there are plenty of situations where what you say applies. I think we should try to stay out of discussions where we don've have the knowledge and experience.

 

I'm fairly familiar with UK punk '77-'80 but still dislike it - likewise I'm fairly knowledgeable about hip-hop but feel disillusioned with a lot of that.

 

My own punk favourites were 'The Ruts' who integrated reggae well and wrote some nifty little punk songs. Of the later wave I did used to own some 'Subhumans' records and I was a fan of Bad Brains.

 

It is a very diverse field, that's true enough. I guess you listen with open ears and decide, but don't torture yourself listening to something you really dislike.

 

I have to play 'Pretty Vacant' in a cover band this weekend and it doesn't fill me with excitement - but then the bandleader is an old punk so it'll make him happy.

[DavidMPires]

I know that might not be the kind of punk/ska you guys are talking about. But I quite like Sublime

[Phil W]

Just shows how diverse the whole thing is/was and the influence that punk music and the punk aesthetic did have on a wide range of music.

[kenfxj]

There are 2 definitive types of US Punk...

 

East Coast: Misfits, Pennywise, H2O

West Coast: NOFX, Suicidal Tendencies, Black Flag, Dead Kennedys

 

Would the Great Lakes area count as East Coast? Stooges, MC5, Dead Boys

 

[The Bear Jew]

I know that might not be the kind of punk/ska you guys are talking about. But I quite like Sublime.

 

I'd say Sublime qualifies (qualified) as a type of punk rock... Ska/Punk/Hip-Hop/Folk/Reggae, maybe?

 

I'd say any band that samples D. Boone saying, "Punk rock changed my life" as well as having a song dedicated to KRS*1 is punk enough for me.

 

Having said that... I'm not a big fan, personally. Bradley's voice kind of annoys me.

[picker]

Punk 101? Simple.

 

Learn how to spit beer at people(and how to take being beaten up for it)without missing a single out-of-tune note.

 

After that, you are golden as a punk.

[The Bear Jew]

Punk 101? Simple.

 

Learn how to spit beer at people(and how to take being beaten up for it)without missing a single out-of-tune note.

 

After that, you are golden as a punk.

 

You're talking about a stereotype of a punk rock act that isn't always accurate. Sure, there are a lot of drunk-punk bands out there, but that's just one part of the genre. What about punk bands like Minor Threat, who made sobriety and level-headedness a cornerstone of its lyrical content?

 

It really helps to be informed before you comment.

[Nicklab]

Yeah, I guess that whole straightedge movement must be totally underground, huh?

[kenfxj]

Punk 101? Simple.

 

Learn how to spit beer at people(and how to take being beaten up for it)without missing a single out-of-tune note.

 

After that, you are golden as a punk.

 

That's funny. And if I said THIS was a country fan's idea of a hot blonde, that might be funny too. Of course, I'd never say that.

[picker]

Eric and all, punk music started out as exactly what I described, and I don't think ther can be any real argument about that. The straightedge movement and other hybrids that sprang out of punk cannot really be called punk anymore than rock can be called blues. The two forms shares things in common, and sometimes one sounds like the other, but they are not the same thing at all. I contend that the folks you are talking about aren't really punk, not in the classic sense of the genre, anyway, eregardless of what they say about it.

[The Bear Jew]

Well, we're back to the question of "Where did punk start/Who were the first punk bands?"

 

If you go by the bands generally associated with the birth of punk (The MC5, The Ramones, The New York Dolls, Patti Smith, Televison, etc), it'd be tough to say that they were all about spitting beer and being out of tune. As we've previously noted, these acts took their music seriously and, while they may have been rowdy, they certainly had more going on than a mess of noise and a wild stage show.

 

Sure, there were plenty of other bands associated with the birth of punk who were disastrous and sloppy (The Stooges, The Sex Pistols, etc), but is it fair to say that it's the only root of punk rock?

 

I'd say not.

 

Why can't straight-edge be considered punk? By your very own argument, many of the first rock bands considered themselves to be blues bands (like The Yardbirds), but they're considered rock bands by today's standards. When bands like Minor Threat started out, they were considered straight-edge punk.

 

Are we going to judge these artists in their own terms within the context of their own time period or look at them through the filter of the years that have passed between that time and now?

 

If we're going to do that, we could just say that all of the music we're discussing is basically the blues played through different dialects and cultural filters in different time periods and with varying lyrical content and be done with it.