[unique]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

If we're going to reduce this discussion to semantics I agree that you can talk about "impact" in terms of sales.

The better word (or more relevant, perhaps) is "influence". I think Prince has certainly been influential but you can hardly make that claim for Westlife, who weren't the first boy band by a very long way. They just happened to be part of a succession of similar groups from New Kids on the Block up to JLS or One Direction etc.

Influence and inspiration are terms better suited to analysing the wider effect of punk and its aftermath.

well, when it comes to westlife you can easily show it's influence. have you ever seen the shit on ITV and BBC1 on a saturday night?

if westlife wasn't so popular do you think louise walsh and simon cowel would have the x factor, and do you think it would be so popular?

just look at all the wannabees who want to be in the next westlife. and look at all the crap that fills the charts like you say, JLS and one direction. like it or hate it, that's the power of influence

now you may consider westlife and the rest to be a load of crap, but i bet the people who like westlife and the rest to consider punk to be a load of crap. so again it's a matter of opinion as to what is "best", but sales and viewing figures show how influential that stuff is

[maninthequeue]

Unique, you really are sending yourself for ridicule on this subject matter.

The idea that you spout that Punk was not more influential than Disco is like saying England's football team are more entertaining to watch than the Spanish football team!

From nothing - aggressive rock and roll music was all over the papers, outraged (but delighted) tabloids, noise, people starting up bands left right and centre, tiny labels getting hits...

Looking at 1975/6 now when you had about 5 majors and hardly any records getting released, it seems every bit as sinister and manufactured as the cynical end of pop today in this Reality TV, fame obsessed age today. Or Pre-Elvis USA 1950s... If you'd watched the regular 35 year old repeats of old Top Of The Pops on BBC4 you'd realise that.

Even the genuinely great rock acts were talked about in hushed tones as if they had joined some sort of ****ing pantheon, whilst they'd become increasingly out of touch to their audience, whilst releasing increasingly musical diminishing returns.

Add to the three day week; world Oil crisis; the £ sinking; Trade Unions on strike and it was a very depressing time to be a teenager in short it was boring, boring, boring, as they did not have the internet, only three channels on TV, no computer games; etc.

A lot of the punk bands (in the purest musical sense) were shite but its only if you restrict yourself very very narrowly to the music you can now hear on a record that you can then say - by way of a contrast New Wave; Two Tone; the New Romantics; Gothic & 80s Indie was wonderful because they took the Do It Yourself punk ideology and ran with it.

NONE of the New Wave, etc acts would have got through the lobby of EMI, CBS, Polydor, etc without 1977 punks. You'd still be being force fed the Brotherhood Of Man, Dooleys, boy bands in the vein of Kenny, the Rubettes & Bay City Rollers; bog standard New Faces/Opportunity Knocks musical acts; and dreadful Philly Soul/Disco-lite acts.

The record industry is precisely that - even the act of recording something, shipping the product to shops and advertising it is expensive and in the same line as Pepsi, McDonalds or Apple. The punks forced a load of music on an extremely unwilling industry that they would never have played never mind distributed, and the British & global music industry blossomed as a result.

Punk subverted the mainstream culture, not just on comedy shows watched by 8 figure audiences:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNw8_PJlJRg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-lLysa9Z4s

But also on the music by many of the "Dinosaurs" of the era:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP85Uc6H79U
Bob Dylan - Jokerman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGQaoa8XnG4
Neil Young - Hey Hey, My My (Into the Black)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-td1MhOjB4o
Rolling Stones - Shattered
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivW2Rkkj5gU
Paul McCartney & Wings - Old Siam Sir
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB6Ja_T-42k
Bryan Ferry - Sign Of The Times
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBqHDGr2_qs
Led Zeppelin - Wearing & Tearing

[unique]

if punk was more influential than disco, why was disco considerably more successful?

why did disco sell considerably more than punk?

and just look at the influence that disco had on todays dance music, which is considerably more succesful than any artists labelled post punk

so both the music itself, and what came from it was more successful. clear proof of it's influence

you have to let go of the fact that things you don't like are influential. i speak about the facts, regardless of what i prefer. i can't stand westlife and that type of stuff, but i understand and accept the influence it has. i don't try and deny something because i don't like it. that sounds like a bad punk habit

some punk was successful and influential, but mainly a very small number of bands, primarily the sex pistols and the clash. those two bands probably had more influence than all other punk bands put together, and they had the sales as evidence of influence

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

remember i was there too

but you evade the question of how old you are/were, frankly, i dont believe you m8, because if you were there you wouldnt have doubted the effect punk had on post punk acts, its influence on fashion, youth culture, music , youd KNOW that disco was for the 'non music fans' and that funk was the style music fans who like danceable music took too. throughout this thread you cite disco as the dance music but ignored ska, reggae, funk, jazzfunk, and northern, all were big during the disco era.

and sales is a measure of impact. more people bought disco records in the UK and the world than punk music. more people wore disco fashions than punk, in both the uk and the world. those things can be measured. there is little else in your points that can be measured. most of the other things you've mentioned have been done before, like political music. other genres of music did far more for equality than punk did. if anything, punk overall made backward steps in equality, thus rock against racism being started as a result of the rampant racism by punks

bib...sorry thats utter nonsense, just what are 'disco fashions'? where were the boutiques catering for them? yu claim you were there but this is another example of incorrect perception.

disco fashions were something trendy you put on to go out in... they werent something you lived in like punks, mods, rockers, new romantics, etc etc etc did. but disco goers in the daytime just wore boring bland attire.

Originally Posted by unique

if punk was more influential than disco, why was disco considerably more successful?

why did disco sell considerably more than punk?

can you not understand that popularity doesnt equate to influence ? the majority of the record (singles) buying public have no taste! they just want something simple and unchallenging. id suggest discos success was because mainstream pop was edging towards guitar based rock style music and there are people who simply dont like that.

why did 'bob the builder' outsell 'stan'? because it was better? more influencial? or because it appealled to the no-brainers?

and just look at the influence that disco had on todays dance music, which is considerably more succesful than any artists labelled post punk

lol still saying that dispite your own evidence shows that disco was only 1 of many styles? believe what you want to to prove a point, crediting todays dance on disco is simply wrong. it was part of the evolution, not responsible for it.

so both the music itself, and what came from it was more successful. clear proof of it's influence

but it didnt come directly and solely from it... THATS the point. and disco itself was an amalgamation of other styles, so ill credit motown with the birth of modern dance!

you have to let go of the fact that things you don't like are influential. i speak about the facts, regardless of what i prefer. i can't stand westlife and that type of stuff, but i understand and accept the influence it has. i don't try and deny something because i don't like it. that sounds like a bad punk habit

i dont like punk! not the original raw cack that many produced, i bet i have more disco tracks in my collection then (real) punk! there are plenty of things i dont like, but accepts their influence, bowie for one, but wouldnt or couldnt argue against him because the facts speak for themselves... what you have done on this thread is harden my stance on disco, because you have provided no evidence to suggest disco had a greater impact on british youth culture. all you have said is that disco sold more, and credit dsco with creating dance, which it didnt.

some punk was successful and influential, but mainly a very small number of bands, primarily the sex pistols and the clash. those two bands probably had more influence than all other punk bands put together, and they had the sales as evidence of influence

oh man... really? sales is evidence of influence? sill peddling that nonsense? no, its evidence of the popularity of a track. many great influencial tracks never sold much, because their 'influencialness' cannot be measured by sales.

is 'shaddap you face' more influencial the 'love will tear us apart'?

is 'better off alone' more influencial then 'cafe del mar'?

is 'please release me' more influencial then 'penny lane / strawberry fields' ?

is 'sugar sugar' more influencial then 'id rather go blind'?

is 'i cant give you anything (but my love)' more influencial then 'whats going on'?

nah, influence is a totally different proposition then sales.

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by maninthequeue

Unique, you really are sending yourself for ridicule on this subject matter.

The idea that you spout that Punk was not more influential than Disco is like saying England's football team are more entertaining to watch than the Spanish football team!

From nothing - aggressive rock and roll music was all over the papers, outraged (but delighted) tabloids, noise, people starting up bands left right and centre, tiny labels getting hits...

Looking at 1975/6 now when you had about 5 majors and hardly any records getting released, it seems every bit as sinister and manufactured as the cynical end of pop today in this Reality TV, fame obsessed age today. Or Pre-Elvis USA 1950s... If you'd watched the regular 35 year old repeats of old Top Of The Pops on BBC4 you'd realise that.

Even the genuinely great rock acts were talked about in hushed tones as if they had joined some sort of ****ing pantheon, whilst they'd become increasingly out of touch to their audience, whilst releasing increasingly musical diminishing returns.

Add to the three day week; world Oil crisis; the £ sinking; Trade Unions on strike and it was a very depressing time to be a teenager in short it was boring, boring, boring, as they did not have the internet, only three channels on TV, no computer games; etc.

A lot of the punk bands (in the purest musical sense) were shite but its only if you restrict yourself very very narrowly to the music you can now hear on a record that you can then say - by way of a contrast New Wave; Two Tone; the New Romantics; Gothic & 80s Indie was wonderful because they took the Do It Yourself punk ideology and ran with it.

NONE of the New Wave, etc acts would have got through the lobby of EMI, CBS, Polydor, etc without 1977 punks. You'd still be being force fed the Brotherhood Of Man, Dooleys, boy bands in the vein of Kenny, the Rubettes & Bay City Rollers; bog standard New Faces/Opportunity Knocks musical acts; and dreadful Philly Soul/Disco-lite acts.

The record industry is precisely that - even the act of recording something, shipping the product to shops and advertising it is expensive and in the same line as Pepsi, McDonalds or Apple. The punks forced a load of music on an extremely unwilling industry that they would never have played never mind distributed, and the British & global music industry blossomed as a result.

Punk subverted the mainstream culture, not just on comedy shows watched by 8 figure audiences:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNw8_PJlJRg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-lLysa9Z4s

But also on the music by many of the "Dinosaurs" of the era:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP85Uc6H79U
Bob Dylan - Jokerman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGQaoa8XnG4
Neil Young - Hey Hey, My My (Into the Black)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-td1MhOjB4o
Rolling Stones - Shattered
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivW2Rkkj5gU
Paul McCartney & Wings - Old Siam Sir
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB6Ja_T-42k
Bryan Ferry - Sign Of The Times
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBqHDGr2_qs
Led Zeppelin - Wearing & Tearing

exactly!

you tell it like i remember it.

[mushymanrob]

this article highlights just how many styles have gone into creating dance music. ok its not a definitive one, but it does underline my point that theres so much more to dance then the over simplistic 'it started with disco' nonsense. note disco is hardly mentioned (so this will be ignored by the refusenik lol :P )

http://www.listology.com/list/50-mos...muzik-magazine

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by unique

well, when it comes to westlife you can easily show it's influence. have you ever seen the shit on ITV and BBC1 on a saturday night?

if westlife wasn't so popular do you think louise walsh and simon cowel would have the x factor, and do you think it would be so popular?

just look at all the wannabees who want to be in the next westlife. and look at all the crap that fills the charts like you say, JLS and one direction. like it or hate it, that's the power of influence

now you may consider westlife and the rest to be a load of crap, but i bet the people who like westlife and the rest to consider punk to be a load of crap. so again it's a matter of opinion as to what is "best", but sales and viewing figures show how influential that stuff is

You're really starting to show up your limitations of understanding of music history now. You seriously think Westlife are responsible for the X Factor and all the insipid crap that comes from it?

Westlife were no more than pawns in the whole game. The influence was with Cowell, Fuller, Walsh et al and before them, Stock, Aitken and Waterman. These are people who reduced pop music to a commodity to be sold cheaply to gullible teenagers and pre-teens, a purely commercial enterprise with little regard for artistic merit.

And you're still failing to grasp the meaning of influence if you're still measuring it in terms of sales figures. In music there have been numerous examples of highly influential artists who achieved little commercial success at the time - before punk there was Iggy Pop, The Velvet Underground, Can, Kraftwerk etc. alongside popular acts like Bowie and Roxy Music, all of whom fused with punk's influence to create the explosion of post-punk music which would never have achieved success if punk hadn't happened. Punk opened the doors for artists who were willing to experiment and to work outside of normal pop music conventions. The record industry was highly conservative at the time and record companies would never have signed difficult or edgy acts. Punk not only inspired the independent sector which allowed artists to create their own work free of company interference but it alerted the big companies to the possible profitability of post-punk music and after the Pistols a scramble ensued for major labels to sign new acts, eager to exploit the commercial potential of a new teen rock phenomenon before it fizzled out or moved on.

The result of all that was an explosion of styles that influenced the next decade, not just in music but in fashion, printed media, film and art.

[unique]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

You're really starting to show up your limitations of understanding of music history now. You seriously think Westlife are responsible for the X Factor and all the insipid crap that comes from it?

Westlife were no more than pawns in the whole game. The influence was with Cowell, Fuller, Walsh et al and before them, Stock, Aitken and Waterman. These are people who reduced pop music to a commodity to be sold cheaply to gullible teenagers and pre-teens, a purely commercial enterprise with little regard for artistic merit.

And you're still failing to grasp the meaning of influence if you're still measuring it in terms of sales figures. In music there have been numerous examples of highly influential artists who achieved little commercial success at the time - before punk there was Iggy Pop, The Velvet Underground, Can, Kraftwerk etc. alongside popular acts like Bowie and Roxy Music, all of whom fused with punk's influence to create the explosion of post-punk music which would never have achieved success if punk hadn't happened. Punk opened the doors for artists who were willing to experiment and to work outside of normal pop music conventions. The record industry was highly conservative at the time and record companies would never have signed difficult or edgy acts. Punk not only inspired the independent sector which allowed artists to create their own work free of company interference but it alerted the big companies to the possible profitability of post-punk music and after the Pistols a scramble ensued for major labels to sign new acts, eager to exploit the commercial potential of a new teen rock phenomenon before it fizzled out or moved on.

The result of all that was an explosion of styles that influenced the next decade, not just in music but in fashion, printed media, film and art.

if the only way you can try and argue a point is to get personal and criticize someones knowledge, then it's a clear sign you are losing the argument

of course walsh and cowel are behind those acts, but if they weren't successful they wouldn't continue a search to find more acts like them. if westlist weren't successful you wouldn't have shows like x factor looking for more like them. those shows aren't looking for anything other than pop fodder which they can manipulate just like westlife

this has been going on for years, and not just in the music industry. if something is succesful, people will try and emulate it. that's the result of influence and impact. so when the beatles were popular, other merseyside and beat groups were signed. so the idea of punk opening doors for other artists is nothing new, it's been going on for years. apple makes an ipad, it's popular and other people copy it

of the other artists you mention as being influential, they were also successful and sold a lot, so their impact can be measured by sales

how many successful and established non punk acts turned to making punk music? i can't think of any. punks impact didn't influence many people to make a change to that style of music. remember punk was just another type of rock music, there was plenty of types of rock music around, from led zep to black sabbath and the who, to pink floyd and genesis, or the stooges and the ramones, or your classic rock acts like the stones and aerosmith. how many of them were influenced by punk enough to make punk music?

on the other hand discos impact was so big and influential that every man and his dog was falling over himself to make a disco track, from the stones to rod stewart, even dolly parton. then the novelty and parodies like seasame street fever, disco duck etc. that's a sign of influence over and above the clear impact of sales

[unique]

Originally Posted by mushymanrob

but you evade the question of how old you are/were, frankly, i dont believe you m8, because if you were there you wouldnt have doubted the effect punk had on post punk acts, its influence on fashion, youth culture, music , youd KNOW that disco was for the 'non music fans' and that funk was the style music fans who like danceable music took too. throughout this thread you cite disco as the dance music but ignored ska, reggae, funk, jazzfunk, and northern, all were big during the disco era.


bib...sorry thats utter nonsense, just what are 'disco fashions'? where were the boutiques catering for them? yu claim you were there but this is another example of incorrect perception.

disco fashions were something trendy you put on to go out in... they werent something you lived in like punks, mods, rockers, new romantics, etc etc etc did. but disco goers in the daytime just wore boring bland attire.




why did disco sell considerably more than punk?

can you not understand that popularity doesnt equate to influence ? the majority of the record (singles) buying public have no taste! they just want something simple and unchallenging. id suggest discos success was because mainstream pop was edging towards guitar based rock style music and there are people who simply dont like that.

why did 'bob the builder' outsell 'stan'? because it was better? more influencial? or because it appealled to the no-brainers?



lol still saying that dispite your own evidence shows that disco was only 1 of many styles? believe what you want to to prove a point, crediting todays dance on disco is simply wrong. it was part of the evolution, not responsible for it.


but it didnt come directly and solely from it... THATS the point. and disco itself was an amalgamation of other styles, so ill credit motown with the birth of modern dance!


i dont like punk! not the original raw cack that many produced, i bet i have more disco tracks in my collection then (real) punk! there are plenty of things i dont like, but accepts their influence, bowie for one, but wouldnt or couldnt argue against him because the facts speak for themselves... what you have done on this thread is harden my stance on disco, because you have provided no evidence to suggest disco had a greater impact on british youth culture. all you have said is that disco sold more, and credit dsco with creating dance, which it didnt.




oh man... really? sales is evidence of influence? sill peddling that nonsense? no, its evidence of the popularity of a track. many great influencial tracks never sold much, because their 'influencialness' cannot be measured by sales.

is 'shaddap you face' more influencial the 'love will tear us apart'?

is 'better off alone' more influencial then 'cafe del mar'?

is 'please release me' more influencial then 'penny lane / strawberry fields' ?

is 'sugar sugar' more influencial then 'id rather go blind'?

is 'i cant give you anything (but my love)' more influencial then 'whats going on'?

nah, influence is a totally different proposition then sales.

sales is a measure of influence. but you just don't understand it. perhaps you do, but you don't want to admit it as it disproves what you have been trying to say

your problem is that instead of saying punk was influential, and you liked it and talking about what was good about it, you tried to compare it to something else, and you made an incorrect statement by saying it was more influential or had more impact than another style. from then on you've failed to prove your point

many of the things you've posted are just plain rubbish, and actually prove what i've been saying. if you bother to check the sales of the songs or artists you are comparing as influential, you'll find in most if not all cases that the songs you will consider influential have sold more than the ones you don't, thus proving that sales is a measure of influence. just because a song gets to number 1 doesn't mean it will have long term sales. and just because a song doesn't get to number 1 doesn't mean it won't sell a load. strawberry fields forever didn't get to number 1, but it sold more than the track that beat it to number 1

if popularity isn't a sign of influence then what is? popularity means that people are influenced positively by something, and sales means that people are positively influenced by something enough to impact on sales

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by unique

if the only way you can try and argue a point is to get personal and criticize someones knowledge, then it's a clear sign you are losing the argument

of course walsh and cowel are behind those acts, but if they weren't successful they wouldn't continue a search to find more acts like them. if westlist weren't successful you wouldn't have shows like x factor looking for more like them. those shows aren't looking for anything other than pop fodder which they can manipulate just like westlife

this has been going on for years, and not just in the music industry. if something is succesful, people will try and emulate it. that's the result of influence and impact. so when the beatles were popular, other merseyside and beat groups were signed. so the idea of punk opening doors for other artists is nothing new, it's been going on for years. apple makes an ipad, it's popular and other people copy it

of the other artists you mention as being influential, they were also successful and sold a lot, so their impact can be measured by sales

how many successful and established non punk acts turned to making punk music? i can't think of any. punks impact didn't influence many people to make a change to that style of music. remember punk was just another type of rock music, there was plenty of types of rock music around, from led zep to black sabbath and the who, to pink floyd and genesis, or the stooges and the ramones, or your classic rock acts like the stones and aerosmith. how many of them were influenced by punk enough to make punk music?

on the other hand discos impact was so big and influential that every man and his dog was falling over himself to make a disco track, from the stones to rod stewart, even dolly parton. then the novelty and parodies like seasame street fever, disco duck etc. that's a sign of influence over and above the clear impact of sales

Influence isn't only about direct imitation, although there were literally hundreds of bands who formed around the time of punk, all hoping to muscle in on the action but few made it. The idea was there, though, that DIY ethic. They'd seen bands who could barely play getting up on stage and having a go so they tried themselves, often with little success.

As for established artists, if they'd tried to emulate punk they would have either come across as trite and insincere or it would have been commercial suicide. Punk was a grass roots youth movement which was inherently anti-establishment. The only established artists who were bold enough to ride punk's coat tails were those who more or less fitted the mould anyway, like The Stranglers or Dr.Feelgood or Ian Dury and none of them had had any commercial success before punk anyway.

Punk wasn't just about the music. What you seem to have failed to grasp throughout this thread is punk's influence outside of music. Disco might have been popular and many people might have released disco tracks but did disco encourage hundreds of people to go out and form their own bands? Did it spark off a new way of recording, distributing and selling music? Did it start a craze for fan-produced literature? Did it inspire independent film-makers like Derek Jarman or Julien Temple or Alex Cox? Did it inspire art in the way punk inspired the cut up / collage art of the period and in turn pave the way for picture sleeves on singles, previously restricted to only major artists? Punk had such a unique and identifiable fashion style that right up to this day anyone portrayed in film or TV who is young, angry and anti-establishment is kitted out in punk gear (just look at Noomi Rapace in the Stieg Larsson trilogy). What is disco's style? Who would wear anything from the 70s disco these days unless they're looking for laughs? Did disco inspire comedy (maybe inadvertantly :-)? Punk formed the breeding ground for alternative comedy; it provided the milieu for a left wing political youth movement which encompassed anti-racism and anti-sexism.

[maninthequeue]

Originally Posted by unique

sales is a measure of influence. but you just don't understand it. perhaps you do, but you don't want to admit it as it disproves what you have been trying to say

your problem is that instead of saying punk was influential, and you liked it and talking about what was good about it, you tried to compare it to something else, and you made an incorrect statement by saying it was more influential or had more impact than another style. from then on you've failed to prove your point

many of the things you've posted are just plain rubbish, and actually prove what i've been saying. if you bother to check the sales of the songs or artists you are comparing as influential, you'll find in most if not all cases that the songs you will consider influential have sold more than the ones you don't, thus proving that sales is a measure of influence. just because a song gets to number 1 doesn't mean it will have long term sales. and just because a song doesn't get to number 1 doesn't mean it won't sell a load. strawberry fields forever didn't get to number 1, but it sold more than the track that beat it to number 1

if popularity isn't a sign of influence then what is? popularity means that people are influenced positively by something, and sales means that people are positively influenced by something enough to impact on sales

Words fail me, they really do. You are so losing the plot on this argument you make Louise Mensch MP on last night's Question Time seem positively coherent.

So sales are the guideline that should be used. Period.

Where to start .... using your argument:

Cliff Richard is the second most influential solo act of all time in the UK ahead of Madonna, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Bob Dylan, etc and only behind Elvis Presley.

Shakin Stevens is the most influential act of the 1980s in the UK.

Rihanna is the second most influential female act of all time in the UK, well ahead every other female act ever excluding Madonna.

Westlife are more influential than The Who, The Kinks, Madness, The Police, The Jam, Adam & The Ants, Pet Shop Boys, Duran Duran, Coldplay, Roxy Music, Sex Pistols, The Clash, The Specials, Blur, Arctic Monkeys ...

David Cassidy more influential than Neil Young.
Bros are more influential than the Stone Roses.
Bucks Fizz are more influential than Joy Division.
Bay City Rollers more influential than the Sex Pistols.
East 17 more influential than Radiohead.
Robson & Jerome are more influential than the Manic Street Preachers & Pulp; etc.

So what you are saying is that because the likes of Velvet Underground, Big Star & Nick Drake sold next to no records when they existed then they are not influential compared to acts such as the Herman Hermits, Three Dog Night & The Osmonds even though they are now sighted as massive influences on pop music & culture?

Likewise Rock & Roll pioneers such as Robert Johnson, Big Joe Turner, Hank Williams, Muddy Walters, Bo Diddley, Howlin’ Wolf, Woody Guthrie are less influential than Pat Boone, Frankie Avalon, Paul Anka, Fabian, Ricky Nelson, Jim Reeves, Tommy Steele just because they sold not many records when they were around.

Your argument and opinion is seriously misguided if you believe that contemporary sales are a better indicator of influence than the coalition of critic polls by music writers, musicians, music fans on artists and music years and decades after the event.

[unique]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Influence isn't only about direct imitation, although there were literally hundreds of bands who formed around the time of punk, all hoping to muscle in on the action but few made it. The idea was there, though, that DIY ethic. They'd seen bands who could barely play getting up on stage and having a go so they tried themselves, often with little success.

As for established artists, if they'd tried to emulate punk they would have either come across as trite and insincere or it would have been commercial suicide. Punk was a grass roots youth movement which was inherently anti-establishment. The only established artists who were bold enough to ride punk's coat tails were those who more or less fitted the mould anyway, like The Stranglers or Dr.Feelgood or Ian Dury and none of them had had any commercial success before punk anyway.

Punk wasn't just about the music. What you seem to have failed to grasp throughout this thread is punk's influence outside of music. Disco might have been popular and many people might have released disco tracks but did disco encourage hundreds of people to go out and form their own bands? Did it spark off a new way of recording, distributing and selling music? Did it start a craze for fan-produced literature? Did it inspire independent film-makers like Derek Jarman or Julien Temple or Alex Cox? Did it inspire art in the way punk inspired the cut up / collage art of the period and in turn pave the way for picture sleeves on singles, previously restricted to only major artists? Punk had such a unique and identifiable fashion style that right up to this day anyone portrayed in film or TV who is young, angry and anti-establishment is kitted out in punk gear (just look at Noomi Rapace in the Stieg Larsson trilogy). What is disco's style? Who would wear anything from the 70s disco these days unless they're looking for laughs? Did disco inspire comedy (maybe inadvertantly :-)? Punk formed the breeding ground for alternative comedy; it provided the milieu for a left wing political youth movement which encompassed anti-racism and anti-sexism.

i don't fail to grasp anything. i know perfectly well the influence punk had. but i'm not the one trying to say that it's influence was greater than something else

[unique]

Originally Posted by maninthequeue

Words fail me, they really do. You are so losing the plot on this argument you make Louise Mensch MP on last night's Question Time seem positively coherent.

So sales are the guideline that should be used. Period.

Where to start .... using your argument:

Cliff Richard is the second most influential solo act of all time in the UK ahead of Madonna, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Bob Dylan, etc and only behind Elvis Presley.

Shakin Stevens is the most influential act of the 1980s in the UK.

Rihanna is the second most influential female act of all time in the UK, well ahead every other female act ever excluding Madonna.

Westlife are more influential than The Who, The Kinks, Madness, The Police, The Jam, Adam & The Ants, Pet Shop Boys, Duran Duran, Coldplay, Roxy Music, Sex Pistols, The Clash, The Specials, Blur, Arctic Monkeys ...

David Cassidy more influential than Neil Young.
Bros are more influential than the Stone Roses.
Bucks Fizz are more influential than Joy Division.
Bay City Rollers more influential than the Sex Pistols.
East 17 more influential than Radiohead.
Robson & Jerome are more influential than the Manic Street Preachers & Pulp; etc.

So what you are saying is that because the likes of Velvet Underground, Big Star & Nick Drake sold next to no records when they existed then they are not influential compared to acts such as the Herman Hermits, Three Dog Night & The Osmonds even though they are now sighted as massive influences on pop music & culture?

Likewise Rock & Roll pioneers such as Robert Johnson, Big Joe Turner, Hank Williams, Muddy Walters, Bo Diddley, Howlin’ Wolf, Woody Guthrie are less influential than Pat Boone, Frankie Avalon, Paul Anka, Fabian, Ricky Nelson, Jim Reeves, Tommy Steele just because they sold not many records when they were around.

Your argument and opinion is seriously misguided if you believe that contemporary sales are a better indicator of influence than the coalition of critic polls by music writers, musicians, music fans on artists and music years and decades after the event.

no, not at all. try fact checking before you post

sometimes you just have to accept that things you don't like can be more influential than things you like

what difference does it matter to you?

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

if the only way you can try and argue a point is to get personal and criticize someones knowledge, then it's a clear sign you are losing the argument

erm...you did that, you said that i had no real understanding of music or words to that effect.

of course walsh and cowel are behind those acts, but if they weren't successful they wouldn't continue a search to find more acts like them. if westlist weren't successful you wouldn't have shows like x factor looking for more like them. those shows aren't looking for anything other than pop fodder which they can manipulate just like westlife

yes you would, txf isnt about finding the next westlife but its a tv entertainment show looking for a star, yes to line cowells pocket, but it doesnt have to be a westlife.

this has been going on for years, and not just in the music industry. if something is succesful, people will try and emulate it. that's the result of influence and impact. so when the beatles were popular, other merseyside and beat groups were signed. so the idea of punk opening doors for other artists is nothing new, it's been going on for years. apple makes an ipad, it's popular and other people copy it

then who tried to emulate disco? it died, so its impact/influence was minimal!

no the idea of punk opening doors is nothing new, but no movement opened as many doors, inspired or created as much as punk did, and as has been said...not only in music, but comedy, literature, art, fashion. did disco do that?...please please please show me where!

of the other artists you mention as being influential, they were also successful and sold a lot, so their impact can be measured by sales

not their influence....

how many successful and established non punk acts turned to making punk music? i can't think of any. punks impact didn't influence many people to make a change to that style of music. remember punk was just another type of rock music, there was plenty of types of rock music around, from led zep to black sabbath and the who, to pink floyd and genesis, or the stooges and the ramones, or your classic rock acts like the stones and aerosmith. how many of them were influenced by punk enough to make punk music?

wow.... you dont get it do you...

on the other hand discos impact was so big and influential that every man and his dog was falling over himself to make a disco track, from the stones to rod stewart, even dolly parton. then the novelty and parodies like seasame street fever, disco duck etc. that's a sign of influence over and above the clear impact of sales

nonsense, a few artists does not equate to 'every man and his dog'.... in fact id strongly suggest that rap was bigger, look how many uk artists dabbled with that, wham! modern romancs (lol) blondie (not uk but uk chart), and how big an influence was funk on the early 80's chart.

Originally Posted by unique

sales is a measure of influence. but you just don't understand it. perhaps you do, but you don't want to admit it as it disproves what you have been trying to say

lol.. really, how can you stubbournly support that idea after what has been posted? the examples i gave, the damning list 'manintheque' has highlighted, no sales do not equate to influence.

your problem is that instead of saying punk was influential, and you liked it and talking about what was good about it, you tried to compare it to something else, and you made an incorrect statement by saying it was more influential or had more impact than another style. from then on you've failed to prove your point



many of the things you've posted are just plain rubbish, and actually prove what i've been saying. if you bother to check the sales of the songs or artists you are comparing as influential, you'll find in most if not all cases that the songs you will consider influential have sold more than the ones you don't, thus proving that sales is a measure of influence. just because a song gets to number 1 doesn't mean it will have long term sales. and just because a song doesn't get to number 1 doesn't mean it won't sell a load. strawberry fields forever didn't get to number 1, but it sold more than the track that beat it to number 1

lol you mean youve ignored the links i supplied that provides the evidence that punk was the most influencial movement of the last 40 years if not arguably ever? 'erasurehead' and 'manintheque' have also provided the evidences, and im still waiting for your evidence that disco trancended music.

if popularity isn't a sign of influence then what is? popularity means that people are influenced positively by something, and sales means that people are positively influenced by something enough to impact on sales

lol.. really? 'what is'?...

m8, youve lost, give up. no one seriously equates sales to influence, just reply to that damning list 'manintheque' posted

Where to start .... using your argument:

Cliff Richard is the second most influential solo act of all time in the UK ahead of Madonna, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Bob Dylan, etc and only behind Elvis Presley.

Shakin Stevens is the most influential act of the 1980s in the UK.

Rihanna is the second most influential female act of all time in the UK, well ahead every other female act ever excluding Madonna.

Westlife are more influential than The Who, The Kinks, Madness, The Police, The Jam, Adam & The Ants, Pet Shop Boys, Duran Duran, Coldplay, Roxy Music, Sex Pistols, The Clash, The Specials, Blur, Arctic Monkeys ...

David Cassidy more influential than Neil Young.
Bros are more influential than the Stone Roses.
Bucks Fizz are more influential than Joy Division.
Bay City Rollers more influential than the Sex Pistols.
East 17 more influential than Radiohead.
Robson & Jerome are more influential than the Manic Street Preachers & Pulp; etc.

So what you are saying is that because the likes of Velvet Underground, Big Star & Nick Drake sold next to no records when they existed then they are not influential compared to acts such as the Herman Hermits, Three Dog Night & The Osmonds even though they are now sighted as massive influences on pop music & culture?

Likewise Rock & Roll pioneers such as Robert Johnson, Big Joe Turner, Hank Williams, Muddy Walters, Bo Diddley, Howlin’ Wolf, Woody Guthrie are less influential than Pat Boone, Frankie Avalon, Paul Anka, Fabian, Ricky Nelson, Jim Reeves, Tommy Steele just because they sold not many records when they were around.

you cannot with any credibility still peddle that 'sales = influence' line... the only reason you are doing is because disco sold more then punk, and thats the backbone of your position on the punk v disco debate, without it, youve lost.

[unique]

Originally Posted by mushymanrob

erm...you did that, you said that i had no real understanding of music or words to that effect.


yes you would, txf isnt about finding the next westlife but its a tv entertainment show looking for a star, yes to line cowells pocket, but it doesnt have to be a westlife.


then who tried to emulate disco? it died, so its impact/influence was minimal!

no the idea of punk opening doors is nothing new, but no movement opened as many doors, inspired or created as much as punk did, and as has been said...not only in music, but comedy, literature, art, fashion. did disco do that?...please please please show me where!


not their influence....


wow.... you dont get it do you...


nonsense, a few artists does not equate to 'every man and his dog'.... in fact id strongly suggest that rap was bigger, look how many uk artists dabbled with that, wham! modern romancs (lol) blondie (not uk but uk chart), and how big an influence was funk on the early 80's chart.



lol.. really, how can you stubbournly support that idea after what has been posted? the examples i gave, the damning list 'manintheque' has highlighted, no sales do not equate to influence.


lol you mean youve ignored the links i supplied that provides the evidence that punk was the most influencial movement of the last 40 years if not arguably ever? 'erasurehead' and 'manintheque' have also provided the evidences, and im still waiting for your evidence that disco trancended music.


lol.. really? 'what is'?...

m8, youve lost, give up. no one seriously equates sales to influence, just reply to that damning list 'manintheque' posted

Where to start .... using your argument:

Cliff Richard is the second most influential solo act of all time in the UK ahead of Madonna, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Bob Dylan, etc and only behind Elvis Presley.

Shakin Stevens is the most influential act of the 1980s in the UK.

Rihanna is the second most influential female act of all time in the UK, well ahead every other female act ever excluding Madonna.

Westlife are more influential than The Who, The Kinks, Madness, The Police, The Jam, Adam & The Ants, Pet Shop Boys, Duran Duran, Coldplay, Roxy Music, Sex Pistols, The Clash, The Specials, Blur, Arctic Monkeys ...

David Cassidy more influential than Neil Young.
Bros are more influential than the Stone Roses.
Bucks Fizz are more influential than Joy Division.
Bay City Rollers more influential than the Sex Pistols.
East 17 more influential than Radiohead.
Robson & Jerome are more influential than the Manic Street Preachers & Pulp; etc.

So what you are saying is that because the likes of Velvet Underground, Big Star & Nick Drake sold next to no records when they existed then they are not influential compared to acts such as the Herman Hermits, Three Dog Night & The Osmonds even though they are now sighted as massive influences on pop music & culture?

Likewise Rock & Roll pioneers such as Robert Johnson, Big Joe Turner, Hank Williams, Muddy Walters, Bo Diddley, Howlin’ Wolf, Woody Guthrie are less influential than Pat Boone, Frankie Avalon, Paul Anka, Fabian, Ricky Nelson, Jim Reeves, Tommy Steele just because they sold not many records when they were around.

you cannot with any credibility still peddle that 'sales = influence' line... the only reason you are doing is because disco sold more then punk, and thats the backbone of your position on the punk v disco debate, without it, youve lost.

sales is influence. as i've mentioned before, try fact checking before you post

face the facts, disco was considerably more influential than punk. the legacy left behind on it's own is bigger than punk and anything you could consider post punk, before you even consider the influence on dance music

or perhaps you want to think of things as you want to imagine them, like the old blokes who still dress up as punks in london, caricatures like pearly kinds and queens

the bands mentioned as influential sold a lot of records, like VU, bowie and dylan. that demonstrates my point that influence can be measured by sales. and not all influence is necessarily good, but that's a matter of opinion in each case. it's perhaps your opinion that discos influence wasn't good but punks was, but that's not a fact. and that's the problem, your point of view is affecting your ability to discuss the points impartially. i would normally be one of the first to say how much impact punk had, but at the same time i don't want to convey a message that it was more important than it was, thus you can see that clearly from my impartial posts

if you want to think otherwise that's perfectly fine, but if you have any interest in other people learning about music from reading what other people say, surely you want people to read the truth rather than a romantic idea

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by unique

the bands mentioned as influential sold a lot of records, like VU, bowie and dylan. that demonstrates my point that influence can be measured by sales. and not all influence is necessarily good, but that's a matter of opinion in each case. it's perhaps your opinion that discos influence wasn't good but punks was, but that's not a fact. and that's the problem, your point of view is affecting your ability to discuss the points impartially. i would normally be one of the first to say how much impact punk had, but at the same time i don't want to convey a message that it was more important than it was, thus you can see that clearly from my impartial posts

Um, no. The point I tried to make before is that highly influential bands like the Velvet Underground, Iggy Pop and Can were not at all successful.

VU discography - most albums failed to chart anywhere

Iggy Pop - most albums achieved little success, particularly the Stooges era

Wiki doesn't include chart placings for Can's albums but my "Guinness Book of British Hit Albums" shows that none of their albums charted in the UK.

The Ramones - hardly any success in the UK. Only "End of the Century" hit the top 20 in the UK and that was largely due to their cover of the Ronnettes' "Baby I Love You"

Influence may equate with sales - David Bowie, Roxy Music etc - but it doesn't always.

Even after punk the same point still stands. Joy Division only achieved moderate sales but they have been cited as a major influence of dozens of later bands and their doom-laden songs have undoubtedly made an unacknowledged influence on a great deal more

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

sales is influence. as i've mentioned before, try fact checking before you post

no m8, its not. 'manintheque' has proven that with the (incomplete) list he posted.

face the facts, disco was considerably more influential than punk. the legacy left behind on it's own is bigger than punk and anything you could consider post punk, before you even consider the influence on dance music

nope, where are these 'facts' you speak of?. you have not provided anything other then your disco-biased opinion...fine...but in the real world i and others have listed, posted links to, and reasoned why punk has been the greatest influence on british music and youth culture, disco didnt. fact.

or perhaps you want to think of things as you want to imagine them, like the old blokes who still dress up as punks in london, caricatures like pearly kinds and queens

actually you get more caricatures of disco people, with rainbow afro wigs, ridiculous spangly dress suits etc.

the bands mentioned as influential sold a lot of records, like VU, bowie and dylan. that demonstrates my point that influence can be measured by sales. and not all influence is necessarily good, but that's a matter of opinion in each case. it's perhaps your opinion that discos influence wasn't good but punks was, but that's not a fact. and that's the problem, your point of view is affecting your ability to discuss the points impartially. i would normally be one of the first to say how much impact punk had, but at the same time i don't want to convey a message that it was more important than it was, thus you can see that clearly from my impartial posts

you are the only person to think that. sales = popularity of a track, it has nothing to do with influence as has been pointed out, many acts who were or are cited as influencial didnt get great commercial success, velvet underground is a prime example. whilst some commercially successful tracks were also influencial, the majority were not as 'manintheques' post highlights.

plus dylan and bowies most influencial tracks were not their biggest sellers.

if you want to think otherwise that's perfectly fine, but if you have any interest in other people learning about music from reading what other people say, surely you want people to read the truth rather than a romantic idea

lol..m8, thats rich coming from you!

several of us here have told you why punk is regarded as the most influencial genre over the last 40 years...we have posted evidence, proof of what we have said, its all there docuented...let alone the testimonies from the artists. so no, theres no 'romantic ideal', why should there be? i lived through the era, i know what it was like, i know what 'the kids' were into, what inspired them, that isnt a romantic ideal, it was my life.

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Even after punk the same point still stands. Joy Division only achieved moderate sales but they have been cited as a major influence of dozens of later bands and their doom-laden songs have undoubtedly made an unacknowledged influence on a great deal more

exactly, but according to 'unique' and his (? assuming there) way of thinking then bucks fizz were more influencial then joy division!

[unique]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Um, no. The point I tried to make before is that highly influential bands like the Velvet Underground, Iggy Pop and Can were not at all successful.

VU discography - most albums failed to chart anywhere

Iggy Pop - most albums achieved little success, particularly the Stooges era

Wiki doesn't include chart placings for Can's albums but my "Guinness Book of British Hit Albums" shows that none of their albums charted in the UK.

The Ramones - hardly any success in the UK. Only "End of the Century" hit the top 20 in the UK and that was largely due to their cover of the Ronnettes' "Baby I Love You"

Influence may equate with sales - David Bowie, Roxy Music etc - but it doesn't always.

Even after punk the same point still stands. Joy Division only achieved moderate sales but they have been cited as a major influence of dozens of later bands and their doom-laden songs have undoubtedly made an unacknowledged influence on a great deal more

yes they were successful. you are confusing chart positions with sales. i already pointed out that chart positions are only a reflection of sales in a particular market in a particular period

the artists you mentioned as influential sold loads of records. thus proving my point. the greater the influence, the greater the sales. bowie and VU are more influential than joy division thus they sold more. include the solo albums by lou to get an even bigger picture

even cliff was influential in his day. it was before your time, but don't you wonder why he sold so many records? even your so called "punk influenced" comedy had a big hit single with cliff richard, or have you forgotten about that?

[unique]

Originally Posted by mushymanrob

no m8, its not. 'manintheque' has proven that with the (incomplete) list he posted.


nope, where are these 'facts' you speak of?. you have not provided anything other then your disco-biased opinion...fine...but in the real world i and others have listed, posted links to, and reasoned why punk has been the greatest influence on british music and youth culture, disco didnt. fact.



actually you get more caricatures of disco people, with rainbow afro wigs, ridiculous spangly dress suits etc.


you are the only person to think that. sales = popularity of a track, it has nothing to do with influence as has been pointed out, many acts who were or are cited as influencial didnt get great commercial success, velvet underground is a prime example. whilst some commercially successful tracks were also influencial, the majority were not as 'manintheques' post highlights.

plus dylan and bowies most influencial tracks were not their biggest sellers.

lol..m8, thats rich coming from you!

several of us here have told you why punk is regarded as the most influencial genre over the last 40 years...we have posted evidence, proof of what we have said, its all there docuented...let alone the testimonies from the artists. so no, theres no 'romantic ideal', why should there be? i lived through the era, i know what it was like, i know what 'the kids' were into, what inspired them, that isnt a romantic ideal, it was my life.

he hasn't proven anything. in fact i showed how innacurate he was

you have put your points across and i've shown you were you were wrong and provided geniune accurate evidence to back up what i've been saying. you haven't provided any actual proof to backup anything you've said. don't you understand the difference between statements, proof and evidence?

it's a punk titled thread, so obviously many people who don't care for punk will avoid it so you aren't likely to get many opinions from people regarding disco or house etc, but even then there are other people who have also made statements that disco was the clear influence by house

http://i46.tinypic.com/10mkk84.jpg

all you have "told me" is why you THINK punk is the most influential genre in the last 40 years, but i've given you clear proof otherwise. and i live through the era too, so know your viewpoint is not truely representative of what really happened

link above is my near mint copy bootleg of spunk, with the same cd by the KLF you mentioned earlier so you know i didn't just google it up, plus my US dvd of rock n roll high school, just to show i do own the music i talk about. i also have anarchy in the UK 7" somewhere too, but my 7"s are stashed away

[unique]

Originally Posted by mushymanrob

exactly, but according to 'unique' and his (? assuming there) way of thinking then bucks fizz were more influencial then joy division!

perhaps your opinion. but joy division sold more records than bucks fizz. you are still confusing chart positions with sales

[maninthequeue]

Originally Posted by unique

perhaps your opinion. but joy division sold more records than bucks fizz. you are still confusing chart positions with sales

Wronger than Lord Wrongford of Wrongville. I took my info from the June 2012 Official Chart Company List of the Top 200 selling single artists in the UK.

For your info Bucks Fizz had 11 Top 20 hit singles and 3 UK#1 hits. Both Making Your Mind Up & Land Of Make Believe topped the European compiled chart. And Making Your Mind Up has sold more than 4 million singles worldwide, which is more than the 1.8 million single sales of Joy Division's back catalogue. But that is hardly surprising as Joy Division only released 5 singles in their lifetime (before the death of Ian Curtis, and reforming as New Order)

The rate you are gong you are going to dig your way through to Australia.

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

yes they were successful. you are confusing chart positions with sales. i already pointed out that chart positions are only a reflection of sales in a particular market in a particular period

chart positions are inextricably linked to sales!

the artists you mentioned as influential sold loads of records. thus proving my point. the greater the influence, the greater the sales.

you know 'posting material to deliberately wind people up' is against ds rules... because that line is the biggest load of bs ever posted in here m8!

'manintheque' posted a damning list of tracks that sold well commercially, but have little or no influence, compared with a whole range of artists who are influencial but sold little. so your statement there is utter rubbish.

bowie and VU are more influential than joy division thus they sold more. include the solo albums by lou to get an even bigger picture

....but you are comparing influencial against influencial...

who is more influencial? bucks fizz or jy division? because by youre reckoning its bucks fizz! but no sane person would say that!

even cliff was influential in his day. it was before your time, but don't you wonder why he sold so many records? even your so called "punk influenced" comedy had a big hit single with cliff richard, or have you forgotten about that?

cliff richard sold loads because his material appealled to a 'nice' safe audience. mass appeal does not = influence (and we are talking about influencing other musicians, fans, etc)

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

he hasn't proven anything. in fact i showed how innacurate he was

so lets get this straight then... you genuinely believe that...

Cliff Richard is the second most influential solo act of all time in the UK ahead of Madonna, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Bob Dylan, etc and only behind Elvis Presley.

Shakin Stevens is the most influential act of the 1980s in the UK.

Rihanna is the second most influential female act of all time in the UK, well ahead every other female act ever excluding Madonna.

Westlife are more influential than The Who, The Kinks, Madness, The Police, The Jam, Adam & The Ants, Pet Shop Boys, Duran Duran, Coldplay, Roxy Music, Sex Pistols, The Clash, The Specials, Blur, Arctic Monkeys ...

David Cassidy more influential than Neil Young.
Bros are more influential than the Stone Roses.
Bucks Fizz are more influential than Joy Division.
Bay City Rollers more influential than the Sex Pistols.
East 17 more influential than Radiohead.
Robson & Jerome are more influential than the Manic Street Preachers & Pulp; etc.

So what you are saying is that because the likes of Velvet Underground, Big Star & Nick Drake sold next to no records when they existed then they are not influential compared to acts such as the Herman Hermits, Three Dog Night & The Osmonds even though they are now sighted as massive influences on pop music & culture?

Likewise Rock & Roll pioneers such as Robert Johnson, Big Joe Turner, Hank Williams, Muddy Walters, Bo Diddley, Howlin’ Wolf, Woody Guthrie are less influential than Pat Boone, Frankie Avalon, Paul Anka, Fabian, Ricky Nelson, Jim Reeves, Tommy Steele just because they sold not many records when they were around. yeah? how is that inaccurate?

you have put your points across and i've shown you were you were wrong and provided geniune accurate evidence to back up what i've been saying. you haven't provided any actual proof to backup anything you've said. don't you understand the difference between statements, proof and evidence?

now now mr, you are not being truthful here

just where is your counter evidence? where have you posted that punk did not influence art? literature? comedy? fashion? let alone a whole range of musical styles? ... i have posted links that support that, your response has been the usual 'disco was far more influencial then punk', but have not supported it, you have not countered these points and they are important because they are evidence of punks influence outside of music. disco simply did not do that.

it's a punk titled thread, so obviously many people who don't care for punk will avoid it so you aren't likely to get many opinions from people regarding disco or house etc, but even then there are other people who have also made statements that disco was the clear influence by house

yes m8, we know disco influenced house, but the bottom line is that the disco dj's STOPPED making disco, they took it apart and rebuilt it, house is house, not disco, not nu-disco, and house is only 1 style of music thats influenced and created todays dance music.

all you have "told me" is why you THINK punk is the most influential genre in the last 40 years, but i've given you clear proof otherwise. and i live through the era too, so know your viewpoint is not truely representative of what really happened

oh dear, more untruths... you have not provided clear proof otherwise... all you do is stubbournly go on without backing it up that disco was more influencial then punk. but it clearly wasnt.

did disco directly create new genres of music and fashion that are still here today in an unbroken line?... no

did disco inspire a generation of young people to go out and create new music?.... no

did disco actively spearhead anti racism and equality?... no theres no equivelant to rock against racism.

can you still see disco fashions today (in anything other then fancy dress...lol)...no

did disco inspire any artists?..... no


did disco inspire any literature?.... no

was disco the only style of dance music popular in the 70's 80's?.... no

was disco directly and solely responsible for house music?... no

was disco the biggest selling/longest lasting style of dance music?..... no

now please, if you can provide a link that proves any of these statements are totally incorrect, then please do.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by unique

yes they were successful. you are confusing chart positions with sales. i already pointed out that chart positions are only a reflection of sales in a particular market in a particular period

Seriously? Where is your evidence for sales if not from chart positions, usually a barometer of how many records have been sold over a given period? The artists I cited did not sell in great numbers. The chart positions I linked to are representative of my argument. Regardless of chart placings it is well documented that acts like the VU did not sell well at the time they were around. Only much later, once their influence had filtered down to those they had inspired, did anyone take much interest. It was only when Bowie picked up on both Iggy and Lou Reed that many people in Britain even became aware of their existence. You're just backtracking now because I've shown you clear evidence to contradict your assertion.

Originally Posted by unique

the artists you mentioned as influential sold loads of records. thus proving my point. the greater the influence, the greater the sales. bowie and VU are more influential than joy division thus they sold more. include the solo albums by lou to get an even bigger picture

Bowie worked with Lou Reed after admitting Reed and the VU were a big influence on him. Bowie loved the whole Warhol factory set-up but despite the notoriety and infamy of most factory products (music, films, art) little of it achieved any commercial success. But influential? Hell yeah.

Originally Posted by unique

even cliff was influential in his day. it was before your time, but don't you wonder why he sold so many records? even your so called "punk influenced" comedy had a big hit single with cliff richard, or have you forgotten about that?

What's that got to do with anything? One of the characters in the comedy song was an anarchist and one was a punk, so there's the spirit of '77 in there explicitly!

Cliff was hugely popular but was he influential? He was an Elvis-like rock and roll singer. The Shadows were probably more influential than the leading man. I don't have a problem with that anyway. I said before that sales and success can be influential, of course they can. I already cited Bowie and Roxy Music as examples. What I'm trying to impress is that artists who do not achieve great commercial successes can also be influential because, in the case of the Sex Pistols, the success they achieved was in publicity and notoriety. They got themselves noticed. People who had never heard their songs were outraged! Going back to the Warhol factory a similar thing happened. People got to know about the styles and the attitude and the message not through buying the VU's songs but from other channels of publicity, from the shock of confrontation, from challenging perceptions and sexual morals, from drug use and an openness to homosexuality etc.

Punk's influence, similarly, was more far-reaching than any other style of the time because it buried itself in the consciousness of the nation, not just through music but from the huge media coverage, from the outrage and the violence and the confrontation. That had a huge effect on those who were around to witness it and who wanted to be like them.

Nothing since has been like that because no single act has galvanised and polarised the people of Britain in the same way. The only other time I can recall that the public went bonkers was during the rave scene and that was only because kids were taking ecstasy. It had nothing to do with the music.