Two of the earliest tracks with the punk sound were The Nile Song by Pink Floyd and Helter Skelter by The Beatles. I'm not suggesting that either of them were actually recorded with the same attitude though.
Two of the earliest tracks with the punk sound were The Nile Song by Pink Floyd and Helter Skelter by The Beatles. I'm not suggesting that either of them were actually recorded with the same attitude though.
"Seven and Seven Is" by Love, recorded in 1966, but sounding like it was recorded ten years later, is another one.
I saw them live before they had a recording contract. Unfortunately Siouxsie was very aloof & they wouldn't allow the local support band to do a sound check. Just as well their music was so damned good.
Their biography was a real insight. Its amazing they carried on so long. Severin correctly puts them in line with the glam rock 'family tree' thread. Im inclined to agree they (kind of) take strands of Roxy and carry on with it, alongside The Associates. now im sounding 'reet' pretentious!:o
To be fair they were personal friends and influenced each other. Bowie was more of a magpie than Bolan. And Bolan was influenced by Dylan and the 50s rockers like Little Richard and Chuck Berry.
both fed off eachother, but bowie was greater then bolan. t rex might be a glam favourite mainlyamongst young girls, but it was bowie who inovated and influenced the greatest.... again, im not fan.
I have always seen Status Quo as a kind of proto punk band in the early 70s.
Before you all fall about laughing hear me out. Between 1971-1975 they were the band you went to see if you did not get all the "prog or glam nonsense".
They played no nonsense rock n roll and were very loud. Paul Weller himself was a fan of the band at this time. He said he went to see them in 1972 and got blown back by the volume that they played at.
Yes they have become a parody of themselves and done some dubious things over the years. However to quote Francis Rossi in the 70s
"Hallo were Status Quo your not going to like us we make hit singles and are very loud"
but punk was more then a 'sound', it was an attitude, and quo simply didnt have that.
I saw them live before they had a recording contract. Unfortunately Siouxsie was very aloof & they wouldn't allow the local support band to do a sound check. Just as well their music was so damned good.
yeah i saw them too at derby in 81... after you obviously, didnt realise you were as old as me (if not older) lol.
no, bowie wasnt the original british punk, dying your hair orange isnt a qualifying fact! lydon is a ginge by birth...
bowie certainly influenced punk ethos, he cut new ground, he 'did it himself', but hadnt the socio political motivation that fueled punk.
I wasn't aware he'd disowned YA. It wasn't that bad.
He called it plastic soul and was meant as some kind of coded insult at the state of black American music at the time( actually the post classic soul, pre disco era wasn't that good for soul). It was an odd diversion for him and one that didn't last as he moved to Europe and moved into electronic music, maybe he was listening to Can and Kraftwerk at the time.
As for the punk side of things, Iggy Pop must have a lot to be grateful for as Bowie was his mentor.
He called it plastic soul and was meant as some kind of coded insult at the state of black American music at the time( actually the post classic soul, pre disco era wasn't that good for soul). It was an odd diversion for him and one that didn't last as he moved to Europe and moved into electronic music, maybe he was listening to Can and Kraftwerk at the time.
As for the punk side of things, Iggy Pop must have a lot to be grateful for as Bowie was his mentor.
I will always be grateful to Bowie for helping to bring Iggy back. It was a friendship though, rather than as a mentor. They'd known each other for years. Bowie worked on The Stooges Raw Power album & wrote Jean Genie about him.
It'd be interesting how he'd have developed if he'd lived. I guess he'd either have been an stately elder of British rock or lurched into cheesy irrelevance. Hard to call.
Bolan was very much a modern star in the image of Gaga/Madonna. An intelligent, talented, fiercely ambitious utilitarian, who latched onto popular culture and morphed his image according to what was the upcoming trend. The fact that he & Bowie arrived on the scene around the same time mudies the issue as to who influenced who.
Certainly populist punk had an ethos of anarchic attitudes, talent not being an issue and image mattering more than music talent. This goes against the very studied career trajectories of Bolan & Bowie in the 70's.
Populist Punk was about working class kids with little talent making careers out having striking imagery and being able to get the most attention from the media. Their cultural descendants arent the very PR controlled music stars of today, but the stars of Big Brother and TOWIE
I loathe comparisons between Gaga and Bowie. She has no where near his genius or songwriting talent.
Its pretty obvious where her (ahem) "influences" are from. Its very transparent whereas Bowie wasnt and seemed very original in the 70's (even if some argue he wasnt). Bowie took influences from the underground and obscure artists, Gaga just takes her imagery from the last 40 years of very public pop culture and recycles if for (mainly) youngsters who have no living memory of Bowie or Madonna.
It'd be interesting how he'd have developed if he'd lived. I guess he'd either have been an stately elder of British rock or lurched into cheesy irrelevance. Hard to call.
Bolan was very much a modern star in the image of Gaga/Madonna. An intelligent, talented, fiercely ambitious utilitarian, who latched onto popular culture and morphed his image according to what was the upcoming trend. The fact that he & Bowie arrived on the scene around the same time mudies the issue as to who influenced who.
Certainly populist punk had an ethos of anarchic attitudes, talent not being an issue and image mattering more than music talent. This goes against the very studied career trajectories of Bolan & Bowie in the 70's.
Populist Punk was about working class kids with little talent making careers out having striking imagery and being able to get the most attention from the media. Their cultural descendants arent the very PR controlled music stars of today, but the stars of Big Brother and TOWIE
Sorry but that's just wrong. The 'little talent' thing was mostly the punk image rather than the reality. There certainly were a lot of bands who just got up there on stage despite not being able to play well but in truth, the punk bands who made it, actually contained good musicians.
The Adverts even did a song about it One Chord Wonders. As you can hear, they blatantly can play their instruments I wonder what we'll play for you tonight.
Something heavy or something light.
Something to set your soul alight.
I wonder how we'll answer when you say.
"We don't like you - go away"
"Come back when you've learned to play"
I wonder what we'll do when things go wrong.
When we're half-way though our favourite song.
We look up and the audience has gone.
Will we feel a little bit obscure.
Think "we're not needed here"
"we must be new wave - they'll like us next year"
The wonders don't care - we don't give a damn.
ETA It's just occurred to me, after listening to that, that the desendants of punk are probably to be found on the metal scene these days.
the troggs were the first band i heard of to be called punk... the nme crossword in the early 70's often refered to them as such..
the who's 'my generation' has to be the punk anthem...
'Wild Thing' has a punk feel about it. I still have that Troggs LP.
I think The Who may be underestimated in their contribution to punk ( and metal). Townshend's first song 'I can't explain' has power chords and a kind of nihilist attitude about it! But musically The Kinks had 'All of the Day..' and 'You Really Got me' before it.
but punk was more then a 'sound', it was an attitude, and quo simply didnt have that.
I agree they didnt have the Political attitude of Punk. However they had an attitude to say. F You to the record company in 1969 when they went from Matchstick men to the Rock they are more famous for. No pop band these days would be allowed to do it and carry on with two flop albums and poor selling singles. Though through their no frills shows they built up a following and then hit big in 1972.
Sorry but that's just wrong. The 'little talent' thing was mostly the punk image rather than the reality. There certainly were a lot of bands who just got up there on stage despite not being able to play well but in truth, the punk bands who made it, actually contained good musicians.
The Adverts even did a song about it One Chord Wonders. As you can hear, they blatantly can play their instruments I wonder what we'll play for you tonight.
Something heavy or something light.
Something to set your soul alight.
I wonder how we'll answer when you say.
"We don't like you - go away"
"Come back when you've learned to play"
I wonder what we'll do when things go wrong.
When we're half-way though our favourite song.
We look up and the audience has gone.
Will we feel a little bit obscure.
Think "we're not needed here"
"we must be new wave - they'll like us next year"
The wonders don't care - we don't give a damn.
ETA It's just occurred to me, after listening to that, that the desendants of punk are probably to be found on the metal scene these days.
I agree there were talented musicians (Stranglers/Clash etc) but I would say the punk ethos influenced them at their heart. They were more serious "proper" musicians & would probably have surfaced anyway, rather than the very populist punk image promoted by the media at the time. There was a lot of crap on the punk scene that has been forgotten about now.
I agree there were talented musicians (Stranglers/Clash etc) but I would say the punk ethos influenced them at their heart. They were more serious "proper" musicians & would probably have surfaced anyway, rather than the very populist punk image promoted by the media at the time. There was a lot of crap on the punk scene that has been forgotten about now.
There's a lot of crap on every scene.
One thing I remember from the time is that part of the punk ethos was that the bands were not 'better' than their audiences. A sort of 'we're all in this together, anyone can do it' sort of attitude. There was a very symbiotic relationship between bands & their audiences. Something that's rarely seen now.
Certainly populist punk had an ethos of anarchic attitudes, talent not being an issue and image mattering more than music talent. This goes against the very studied career trajectories of Bolan & Bowie in the 70's.
Populist Punk was about working class kids with little talent making careers out having striking imagery and being able to get the most attention from the media. Their cultural descendants arent the very PR controlled music stars of today, but the stars of Big Brother and TOWIE
Curious rewriting of history there. You may want to read 'England's Dreaming' by Jon Savage for the best account but 'the striking imagery' was only a small part of a wider cultural context which involved a number of different strands.
Yes, the wannabe element was there but fans like Siouxsie and The Slits were the very few who couldn't play, most punks knew how to play very well. And many produced some very original and exquisite music. Siouxsie, who was a Bowie fan, included.
The punks included anarchists like Crass, Poison Girls, A Flux of Pink Indians who these days I would suspect are more likely to be New Age travellers or campaigning against climate change. I may be wrong but they had a clear political agenda.
Most punk bands like The Pistols, The Clash, The Damned etc were initially rather nihilistic rather than anarchistic although some would say just apolitical. Some developed politics, some didn't. They wanted to make their own music, that was the point. And all were very suspicious of the media quite unlike the darlings of the media which TOWIE people are.
Bowie and Bolan were all about image. Bowie had a very studied career trajectory cherry picking musical and artistic styles. He also had some fine collaborators, including Bolan, Eno, Fripp etc who helped him no end. Bowie was also pretty clueless for about the last 20 years in terms of his musical output.
Bolan's career had no such trajectory after 1973/4, he was on the comeback trail in 1977 when he died. The couple of hit songs which brought him back where little more than demos where he had tried to recovery his earlier style. But he's probably the reason I'm writing this now.
I love them both and have all their music including all their poor quality stuff I have to admit. The punk bands/artists can't be lumped in as a bunch of talentless people only concerned with image....sorry...The Clash, The Pistols, Siouxsie, The Cure, Buzzcocks..Naah.
There were many existing bands with musical talent who jumped on the punk bandwagon.
And if you are going the be considering Bowie against Bolan then you need to include the third part of that triumvirate Elton John.
This is the single that kicked it all off in 1976 (although punk origins go back to late 1975). I'm not hearing any Bowie, T Rex or Elton in here. I think some people are really clutching at straws on this thread
Could it not be argued that bands like the Stones/The Who/The Kinks/Velvet Underground etc were big influences on the Clash/Buzzcocks/Stranglers etc despite them not being classed as "punk" bands?
One thing I remember from the time is that part of the punk ethos was that the bands were not 'better' than their audiences. A sort of 'we're all in this together, anyone can do it' sort of attitude. There was a very symbiotic relationship between bands & their audiences. Something that's rarely seen now.
This is precisely the relationship between modern trashy reality TV stars: Katie Price, TOWIE etc. They essentially are no "different" from their fans. They sell themselves on the fantasy of fame acquired from image and capacity for publicity, rather than any inherent talent.
Hence the similarity to certain forms of the punk movement.
Could it not be argued that bands like the Stones/The Who/The Kinks/Velvet Underground etc were big influences on the Clash/Buzzcocks/Stranglers etc despite them not being classed as "punk" bands?
I think the Stranglers were more influenced by The Doors tbh. The Velvets were certainly an influence on punk, as were The Stooges, New York Dolls, MC5.
As someone who was there at the time, I can honestly say that I never once heard anyone mentioning the Stones/Kinks/Who in connection to punk. Obviously I can only go on my own experience but I don't recall them ever being a factor.
Comments
"Seven and Seven Is" by Love, recorded in 1966, but sounding like it was recorded ten years later, is another one.
Their biography was a real insight. Its amazing they carried on so long. Severin correctly puts them in line with the glam rock 'family tree' thread. Im inclined to agree they (kind of) take strands of Roxy and carry on with it, alongside The Associates. now im sounding 'reet' pretentious!:o
I haven't seen any particular evidence of this either, although I do know he has said some disparaging remarks about Aladdin Sane in the past. :eek:
In many respects, it was the other way around.
To be fair they were personal friends and influenced each other. Bowie was more of a magpie than Bolan. And Bolan was influenced by Dylan and the 50s rockers like Little Richard and Chuck Berry.
eh?... bowie was original, he was individual, he is one of the uk's most inovative and influencial artists...and im not a bowie fan!
both fed off eachother, but bowie was greater then bolan. t rex might be a glam favourite mainlyamongst young girls, but it was bowie who inovated and influenced the greatest.... again, im not fan.
but punk was more then a 'sound', it was an attitude, and quo simply didnt have that.
yeah i saw them too at derby in 81... after you obviously, didnt realise you were as old as me (if not older) lol.
no, bowie wasnt the original british punk, dying your hair orange isnt a qualifying fact! lydon is a ginge by birth...
bowie certainly influenced punk ethos, he cut new ground, he 'did it himself', but hadnt the socio political motivation that fueled punk.
The Kinks are also often credited with starting heavy metal as well...some band!
He called it plastic soul and was meant as some kind of coded insult at the state of black American music at the time( actually the post classic soul, pre disco era wasn't that good for soul). It was an odd diversion for him and one that didn't last as he moved to Europe and moved into electronic music, maybe he was listening to Can and Kraftwerk at the time.
As for the punk side of things, Iggy Pop must have a lot to be grateful for as Bowie was his mentor.
I will always be grateful to Bowie for helping to bring Iggy back.
the troggs were the first band i heard of to be called punk... the nme crossword in the early 70's often refered to them as such..
the who's 'my generation' has to be the punk anthem...
Bolan could also be a candidate for this title.
It'd be interesting how he'd have developed if he'd lived. I guess he'd either have been an stately elder of British rock or lurched into cheesy irrelevance. Hard to call.
Bolan was very much a modern star in the image of Gaga/Madonna. An intelligent, talented, fiercely ambitious utilitarian, who latched onto popular culture and morphed his image according to what was the upcoming trend. The fact that he & Bowie arrived on the scene around the same time mudies the issue as to who influenced who.
Certainly populist punk had an ethos of anarchic attitudes, talent not being an issue and image mattering more than music talent. This goes against the very studied career trajectories of Bolan & Bowie in the 70's.
Populist Punk was about working class kids with little talent making careers out having striking imagery and being able to get the most attention from the media. Their cultural descendants arent the very PR controlled music stars of today, but the stars of Big Brother and TOWIE
Its pretty obvious where her (ahem) "influences" are from. Its very transparent whereas Bowie wasnt and seemed very original in the 70's (even if some argue he wasnt). Bowie took influences from the underground and obscure artists, Gaga just takes her imagery from the last 40 years of very public pop culture and recycles if for (mainly) youngsters who have no living memory of Bowie or Madonna.
Sorry but that's just wrong. The 'little talent' thing was mostly the punk image rather than the reality. There certainly were a lot of bands who just got up there on stage despite not being able to play well but in truth, the punk bands who made it, actually contained good musicians.
The Adverts even did a song about it One Chord Wonders. As you can hear, they blatantly can play their instruments
I wonder what we'll play for you tonight.
Something heavy or something light.
Something to set your soul alight.
I wonder how we'll answer when you say.
"We don't like you - go away"
"Come back when you've learned to play"
I wonder what we'll do when things go wrong.
When we're half-way though our favourite song.
We look up and the audience has gone.
Will we feel a little bit obscure.
Think "we're not needed here"
"we must be new wave - they'll like us next year"
The wonders don't care - we don't give a damn.
ETA It's just occurred to me, after listening to that, that the desendants of punk are probably to be found on the metal scene these days.
'Wild Thing' has a punk feel about it. I still have that Troggs LP.
I think The Who may be underestimated in their contribution to punk ( and metal). Townshend's first song 'I can't explain' has power chords and a kind of nihilist attitude about it! But musically The Kinks had 'All of the Day..' and 'You Really Got me' before it.
I agree they didnt have the Political attitude of Punk. However they had an attitude to say. F You to the record company in 1969 when they went from Matchstick men to the Rock they are more famous for. No pop band these days would be allowed to do it and carry on with two flop albums and poor selling singles. Though through their no frills shows they built up a following and then hit big in 1972.
I agree there were talented musicians (Stranglers/Clash etc) but I would say the punk ethos influenced them at their heart. They were more serious "proper" musicians & would probably have surfaced anyway, rather than the very populist punk image promoted by the media at the time. There was a lot of crap on the punk scene that has been forgotten about now.
There's a lot of crap on every scene.
One thing I remember from the time is that part of the punk ethos was that the bands were not 'better' than their audiences. A sort of 'we're all in this together, anyone can do it' sort of attitude. There was a very symbiotic relationship between bands & their audiences. Something that's rarely seen now.
And if you are going the be considering Bowie against Bolan then you need to include the third part of that triumvirate Elton John.
Curious rewriting of history there. You may want to read 'England's Dreaming' by Jon Savage for the best account but 'the striking imagery' was only a small part of a wider cultural context which involved a number of different strands.
Yes, the wannabe element was there but fans like Siouxsie and The Slits were the very few who couldn't play, most punks knew how to play very well. And many produced some very original and exquisite music. Siouxsie, who was a Bowie fan, included.
The punks included anarchists like Crass, Poison Girls, A Flux of Pink Indians who these days I would suspect are more likely to be New Age travellers or campaigning against climate change. I may be wrong but they had a clear political agenda.
Most punk bands like The Pistols, The Clash, The Damned etc were initially rather nihilistic rather than anarchistic although some would say just apolitical. Some developed politics, some didn't. They wanted to make their own music, that was the point. And all were very suspicious of the media quite unlike the darlings of the media which TOWIE people are.
Bowie and Bolan were all about image. Bowie had a very studied career trajectory cherry picking musical and artistic styles. He also had some fine collaborators, including Bolan, Eno, Fripp etc who helped him no end. Bowie was also pretty clueless for about the last 20 years in terms of his musical output.
Bolan's career had no such trajectory after 1973/4, he was on the comeback trail in 1977 when he died. The couple of hit songs which brought him back where little more than demos where he had tried to recovery his earlier style. But he's probably the reason I'm writing this now.
I love them both and have all their music including all their poor quality stuff I have to admit. The punk bands/artists can't be lumped in as a bunch of talentless people only concerned with image....sorry...The Clash, The Pistols, Siouxsie, The Cure, Buzzcocks..Naah.
This is the single that kicked it all off in 1976 (although punk origins go back to late 1975). I'm not hearing any Bowie, T Rex or Elton in here. I think some people are really clutching at straws on this thread
The Damned - New Rose
Like you I am a big Bowie/Bolan fan.
Could it not be argued that bands like the Stones/The Who/The Kinks/Velvet Underground etc were big influences on the Clash/Buzzcocks/Stranglers etc despite them not being classed as "punk" bands?
This is precisely the relationship between modern trashy reality TV stars: Katie Price, TOWIE etc. They essentially are no "different" from their fans. They sell themselves on the fantasy of fame acquired from image and capacity for publicity, rather than any inherent talent.
Hence the similarity to certain forms of the punk movement.
I think the Stranglers were more influenced by The Doors tbh. The Velvets were certainly an influence on punk, as were The Stooges, New York Dolls, MC5.
As someone who was there at the time, I can honestly say that I never once heard anyone mentioning the Stones/Kinks/Who in connection to punk. Obviously I can only go on my own experience but I don't recall them ever being a factor.