[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

the dance people you mentioned took far more from disco than new romantics or anything else

I dont see that at all, the Trance tracks i like are nothing like disco, and its Trance in its many forms that came to symbolise 90's dance, dance as a genre, and that was borne in the clubs and raves in the uk and europe in the late 80's/early 90's.

personally, i don't see hip hop as such a direct move from disco. you had a few crossover tracks, but it was more a brand new thing really. most of the early old school hip hop was made by people who couldn't properly play music or sing, thus the drum machines, samples and rapping. if anything, the influence would come from early "rap" from james brown, isaac hayes, gil scott heron etc. musically it was a bit later that samples came into place and used funk records like james brown and george clinton, particularly in the gangsta rap phase

the KLF started off making hip hop style tracks as the jamms, but still slightly dance/disco influenced sampling abba and isaac hayes. the shamen however started off with rock/indie roots and got into the dance scene around the time when other indie kids were getting into it. a bit like how indie kids got baggy with madchester, but going in a slightly different directon

Tbh i dont think theres one clear path, reading up on disco and house, raves and klf, theres no defining evolution .

Im not into hip hop, i ignored it, so whether or not it evolved directly from disco is no something id place money on...lol.. its just my general perception.

I think dance as a modern genre has arrived more via europe, techno, rave culture then via disco, which i take on board appears to have spawned house and hiphop. But its a mish-mash, with styles of each being found or influencing others.

Anyway, i thought 'Apache' by the shadows supposed to have been the first track to influence the creation of hip hop!

[mushymanrob]

this is interesting, taken from wiki

"Influence of disco

Hip hop music was both influenced by disco and a backlash against it. According to Kurtis Blow, the early days of hip hop were characterized by divisions between fans and detractors of disco music. Hip hop had largely emerged as "a direct response to the watered down, Europeanised, disco music that permeated the airwaves",[34][35] and the earliest hip hop was mainly based on hard funk loops. However, by 1979, disco instrumental loops/tracks had become the basis of much hip hop music. This genre got the name of "disco rap". Ironically, hip hop music was also a proponent in the eventual decline in disco popularity. "

That suggests that hip hop evolved dispite disco more then as a natural progression from it.

[unique]

Originally Posted by mushymanrob

I dont see that at all, the Trance tracks i like are nothing like disco, and its Trance in its many forms that came to symbolise 90's dance, dance as a genre, and that was borne in the clubs and raves in the uk and europe in the late 80's/early 90's.


Tbh i dont think theres one clear path, reading up on disco and house, raves and klf, theres no defining evolution .

Im not into hip hop, i ignored it, so whether or not it evolved directly from disco is no something id place money on...lol.. its just my general perception.

I think dance as a modern genre has arrived more via europe, techno, rave culture then via disco, which i take on board appears to have spawned house and hiphop. But its a mish-mash, with styles of each being found or influencing others.

Anyway, i thought 'Apache' by the shadows supposed to have been the first track to influence the creation of hip hop!

firstly apache was covered by the incredible bongo band and is a bit of a cult classic, and it's that version that the sugarhill gang sampled, nothing to do with cliff richard

as for trance, as i mentioned before, there was a line from disco to hi energy to house to garage, to acid to trance, dance music evolved, so that's why it doesn't sound much like disco, but then if you listen to some disco such as georgio moroder and trumans underwater, you will hear clearer references

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

firstly apache was covered by the incredible bongo band and is a bit of a cult classic, and it's that version that the sugarhill gang sampled, nothing to do with cliff richard

as for trance, as i mentioned before, there was a line from disco to hi energy to house to garage, to acid to trance, dance music evolved, so that's why it doesn't sound much like disco, but then if you listen to some disco such as georgio moroder and trumans underwater, you will hear clearer references

You are correct, its nothing to do with cliff richard! (showing a huge gap in your knowlege here m8 lol)

'Apache' was a Shadows hit, their first #1, and a damn good track it was too.

That line is called 'dance', dance existed long before disco and its alive and well long after disco. Actually i think too much emphisis is being credited to disco, id strongly suggest 'funk' was more the driving force from the 60's onwards. Would we have dance today if disco never existed? hell yes! it was inevitable as dance is older then disco.

Nah, disco was just another dance craze, one that was huge and motivated people to dance and fueled the club scene. It came and went, and did impact on music,people have used elements of disco, as disco used elements of earlier styles. But i can find NO citation from any house or hip hop act that difinitively pronounces that ' if it wasnt for disco, thered be no house/hip hop'.

Modern dance and trance owes more to european techno and rave then disco, that evolved dispite disco with pioneers like kraftwerk leading the way.

Interesting that many of the greats like Stevie wonder ignored disco, but embraced funk. Its was Funk and Jazz funk that 'we' created in the early 80's.

[unique]

i know it was the shadows, and whilst they didn't write it, they were first to release it.

who knows if we would have dance music without disco

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

i know it was the shadows, and whilst they didn't write it, they were first to release it.

who knows if we would have dance music without disco

Then why mention Cliff Richard?

Because dance music is as old as music itself, It was inevitable that new technologies would be embraced to create music to dance to. Funk and Reggae were around before and after disco. Like i said, disco is getting far to much credit, it wasnt the start of dance (although id accept it was the first big dance style), it was a style popular for a while and like most old styles, still resonates today.

[unique]

Originally Posted by mushymanrob

Then why mention Cliff Richard?

Because dance music is as old as music itself, It was inevitable that new technologies would be embraced to create music to dance to. Funk and Reggae were around before and after disco. Like i said, disco is getting far to much credit, it wasnt the start of dance (although id accept it was the first big dance style), it was a style popular for a while and like most old styles, still resonates today.

i just mentioned cliff for a laugh really

i don't see disco getting too much credit though, or why it really matters if it does or it doesn't

the original point i think was that you said punk was more of an influence than disco but i don't think that's the case at all. and really, what difference does it make to either of us whatever the answer is?

i think whilst you link punk and acid, the real thing is just youth. the youth created punk as an alternative to what was around, using what they had at the time to do so, and acid house did the same. with people perhaps too young to remember punk properly to be influenced by it. both cases are just young people doing that young people do. maybe in later years influence will become greater with technology allowing more access to the past, and for free, such as youtube, downloading mp3s etc. there was less access to other music in the punk and acid years

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

i just mentioned cliff for a laugh really

i don't see disco getting too much credit though, or why it really matters if it does or it doesn't

the original point i think was that you said punk was more of an influence than disco but i don't think that's the case at all. and really, what difference does it make to either of us whatever the answer is?

i think whilst you link punk and acid, the real thing is just youth. the youth created punk as an alternative to what was around, using what they had at the time to do so, and acid house did the same. with people perhaps too young to remember punk properly to be influenced by it. both cases are just young people doing that young people do. maybe in later years influence will become greater with technology allowing more access to the past, and for free, such as youtube, downloading mp3s etc. there was less access to other music in the punk and acid years

...or is the 60's before your time of expertese? i note you know alot about the late 70's onwards but have yet to comment on any 60's stuff.

Oh i do think punk has more influence then disco, we still see punk fashions, we have punk music (of sorts) plus indie, goth and associated sub genres (like industrial). Plus punk was political, promoting equality, (early) political correctness. You cannot say the same for disco... what did it do politically? what was its unique message? where are the fashion (thank god, 'smooths' wearing open necked shirts with huge collars and medalions were sooo crass).

Punk was more then just music, disco was just dancing and having fun.

I stated this anyway in response to the poster who said disco was bigger, it might have been (depends on your perspective) but cited boney m and abba... boney m's biggest hit wasnt a disco hit, and abba werent a disco act, they were a pop act that employed some disco styles in some songs. but thats nothing new, pop has always embraced the trend of the time, its whats made our pop charts so interesting and varied.

I reckon that no other style of music has had such a big and wide impact as punk.

[unique]

the 60s was the teenage period for music, where it grew up from tunes like love me do to songs like whilst my guitar gently weeps

the 70s was the first period where music had matured for the full decade, both artistically and technically in respect of the hardware used, both instruments and studio facilities, and also live music amplification

i still think disco was more popular at the time as it was more accesible. just like today and it's the crap music that floods the charts and radio, and not the harder stuff, back then disco would be more on the radio/tv/movies than punk

fashion is a thing in itself. i worked in the rag trade for a bit so know the roots of fashions. with disco being popular and accessible it attracted the trendy dressers, the flares and platforms, which came before disco. punk did have it's own individual specific form of fashion, but it was small numbers of people who wore it, and mainly in the uk, london in particular, and it died out almost as quickly as it started. the emo fashions today are inspired by it, but that's fashion and not punk music

being a dj and playing a lot of house music at the boom of the dance scene, i got to know a lot of other dj's who had been doing it since the 70s and i could perhaps see more clearly the line between disco and house/garage, with the same producers and vocalists and remixers, or artists and producers being quite obiously influenced by disco, with either covers of disco tunes or using samples of disco records. even in the mainstream you had disco tracks like love sensation sampled endlessly such as by black box

disco had a clearer lineage before it, such as funk and rnb, the motown and philly sounds, punks is perhaps less clear and the music was a lot more different than most people knew before, so it stood out more, especially when combined with the fashions that were also very different from before. disco more smoothly transformed from one thing into another thing and those styles kept on moving. but punk pretty much died in the late 70s early 80s apart from a few hardcore punks. the later green day and emo lot are perhaps more a new generation of kids doing something than specifically starting to make music because they were influenced by punk. green days more recent work sounds more like the who to me than any punk band. american idiot is quite a progressive album and quite far removed from punk in any form

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by unique

Disco more smoothly transformed from one thing into another thing and those styles kept on moving. but punk pretty much died in the late 70s early 80s apart from a few hardcore punks. the later green day and emo lot are perhaps more a new generation of kids doing something than specifically starting to make music because they were influenced by punk. green days more recent work sounds more like the who to me than any punk band. american idiot is quite a progressive album and quite far removed from punk in any form

Punk never really died but its popularity waned quite quickly. Punk bands continued into the 1980s in the UK but achieved little success. In the US the hardcore movement, particularly on the west coast, was more prominent and early bands like Minor Threat inspired later, more famous bands like Sonic Youth, The Pixies, Mudhoney, Dinosaur Jr, Husker Du, Nirvana etc. who evolved from the US punk scene.

In Britain punk quickly evolved to the post-punk sound which has been the template for most bands since who come under the broad category of "indie".

I think punk was very much of its time - the anger and the shock of it are forever preserved in the amber of 1970s Britain and anything which has come afterwards has felt less relevant. Bands like Green Day are little more than a pastiche (John Lydon has made his feelings known on Green Day and their ilk).

You can revive almost any genre - new wave, electro, garage, psychedelia - but you'll never quite recapture the spirit of the original movement because it will be out of context of the time in which it occurred. I think that's more acutely true with punk. It had to change and evolve because it was always detined to be a short, sharp shock and not a long term strategy.

[Glawster2002]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

In Britain punk quickly evolved to the post-punk sound which has been the template for most bands since who come under the broad category of "indie".

I think punk was very much of its time - the anger and the shock of it are forever preserved in the amber of 1970s Britain and anything which has come afterwards has felt less relevant. Bands like Green Day are little more than a pastiche (John Lydon has made his feelings known on Green Day and their ilk).

I think you have to be careful when comparing British Punk and American punk, which is why I don't agree with Mr. Lydon on this.

Whereas British Punk was very much a product of the London Pub scene, with influences from the likes of Bolan, the American Punk scene traces its roots back to the likes of MC5, Iggy & The Stooges, & The Ramones, rather than from any British influence.

[unique]

Originally Posted by Glawster2002

I think you have to be careful when comparing British Punk and American punk, which is why I don't agree with Mr. Lydon on this.

Whereas British Punk was very much a product of the London Pub scene, with influences from the likes of Bolan, the American Punk scene traces its roots back to the likes of MC5, Iggy & The Stooges, & The Ramones, rather than from any British influence.

i look at the two as different things myself. punk is british. the american thing some call punk is garage rock or whatever you want to call it

a bit like garage can be rock or a type of vocal house music. or the original "techno" music was original house and very different to the later rave era techno

half the folk on the show last night weren't really what i'd call punk. i'd let adam ant pass as those were his roots, but weller is more of a mod than a punk, musically and style wise

and it was interesting to hear people mention punk had nothing to do with fashion or it was anti fashion, after the discussion earlier

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

i still think disco was more popular at the time as it was more accesible. just like today and it's the crap music that floods the charts and radio, and not the harder stuff, back then disco would be more on the radio/tv/movies than punk

That depends, i know hundereds of rock fans, punks, mods, new romantics, rockabillies etc that disco was hated by. However, chartwise, filmwise, yes it was more popular. why? because its simple inoffensive party music that appealled to alot of people whos musical tastes werent so ....developed. Punk was too confrontational for 'nice' daytime radio.

fashion is a thing in itself. i worked in the rag trade for a bit so know the roots of fashions. with disco being popular and accessible it attracted the trendy dressers, the flares and platforms, which came before disco. punk did have it's own individual specific form of fashion, but it was small numbers of people who wore it, and mainly in the uk, london in particular, and it died out almost as quickly as it started. the emo fashions today are inspired by it, but that's fashion and not punk music

Absolutely disagree with you on that. Punk fashions didnt end with safety pins and bondage trousers, punk fashions never died out but continued through the indie scene, through the goth scene, and yes, can still be found in proliferance today. the 80's were littered with punk inspired fashions, the 'do it yourself' look, the 'raid oxfam' look, the hair styles etc. Discos 'smooth boy' look was dead by 1982.

being a dj and playing a lot of house music at the boom of the dance scene, i got to know a lot of other dj's who had been doing it since the 70s and i could perhaps see more clearly the line between disco and house/garage, with the same producers and vocalists and remixers, or artists and producers being quite obiously influenced by disco, with either covers of disco tunes or using samples of disco records. even in the mainstream you had disco tracks like love sensation sampled endlessly such as by black box

You highlight my point about disco being over promoted/credited.

before disco there was soul, reggae, funk and (awful) philly, the scene was ready made, disco was just the latest version of dance, a more accessible, popular one - true, but it evolved out of (as you say) motown, funk, philly. So when the disco explosion arrived, it was just the latest version of dance. By the early 80's it had died out, with the next version of dance starting to emerge. Sure house and hip hop employed elements of disco, just like disco did from philly, motown etc.

The lineage i see is a dance lineage, blues and jazz in the 50's, through motown , soul, funk (which is imho a far greater style then disco, it was around before and after disco), philly, disco, hip hop and house through to modern r n b. It is mainly american and mainly black.

The dance genre of today is borne out of the electro/techno european scene, boosted by the acid house/rave movement, borrowing elements of house, Hi NRG, funk, disco and other older sounds.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Punk never really died but its popularity waned quite quickly. Punk bands continued into the 1980s in the UK but achieved little success. In the US the hardcore movement, particularly on the west coast, was more prominent and early bands like Minor Threat inspired later, more famous bands like Sonic Youth, The Pixies, Mudhoney, Dinosaur Jr, Husker Du, Nirvana etc. who evolved from the US punk scene.

In Britain punk quickly evolved to the post-punk sound which has been the template for most bands since who come under the broad category of "indie".

I think punk was very much of its time - the anger and the shock of it are forever preserved in the amber of 1970s Britain and anything which has come afterwards has felt less relevant. Bands like Green Day are little more than a pastiche (John Lydon has made his feelings known on Green Day and their ilk).

You can revive almost any genre - new wave, electro, garage, psychedelia - but you'll never quite recapture the spirit of the original movement because it will be out of context of the time in which it occurred. I think that's more acutely true with punk. It had to change and evolve because it was always detined to be a short, sharp shock and not a long term strategy.

exactly! fully agree.

Last night programme was as good as ever, the ethos of 'do it yourself' was prominant 'because no one else is going to do it for you'...

[unique]

there's always people who love some stuff and hate others

but punk music had a far smaller audience than disco. disco was also a much more global music, which is partly why it was more popular. punk was too much for some peoples taste so why it wasn't played on radio

until the house music period, people didn't use the phrase "dance music" in that way. disco, funk, rnb, etc weren't called dance music. in fact it was ballroom styles like latin etc that were more likely to be called dance music

the other fashions you mention like goth weren't punk. they were fashions in their own right. i worked near a bunch of stores selling goth and punk stuff in the 80s, so people still bought it in small numbers, but as "fashion" it was dead. just because there might be some folk walking around camden in mohicans today doesn't mean punk is still in fashion. some people just don't move with the times

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

there's always people who love some stuff and hate others

but punk music had a far smaller audience than disco. disco was also a much more global music, which is partly why it was more popular. punk was too much for some peoples taste so why it wasn't played on radio

Agreed, but so what? the fact is that punk changed things, punk changed peoples opinions, [unk created free thinking and do it yourself which is what people did and why the period 1980 - 83 is arguably the best time in british music, because of the variety you got, the innovation, the creativity, all down to punk ethos. disco comes nowhere near.

until the house music period, people didn't use the phrase "dance music" in that way. disco, funk, rnb, etc weren't called dance music. in fact it was ballroom styles like latin etc that were more likely to be called dance music

so?... that changes nothing, it was still music to dance to.

the other fashions you mention like goth weren't punk. they were fashions in their own right. i worked near a bunch of stores selling goth and punk stuff in the 80s, so people still bought it in small numbers, but as "fashion" it was dead. just because there might be some folk walking around camden in mohicans today doesn't mean punk is still in fashion. some people just don't move with the times

Are you the same person who elequantly and intelligently destroyed many of the untruths surrounding michael jackson? because tbh thats a load of cack m8! goth wasnt punk?, goth grew out of punk! siouxsie, the damned, accidentally created the genre, the style that the fans created by copying them. the 80's were strewn with post punk fashions, no not 77 style punk, but fashions borne out of punk.

I dont know why you are still, rather feebly for your standard, still going on about this tbh. punk might not have been globally as big as disco, but here in the uk (where it matters to me) punk was the biggest thing to happen. it had the biggest impact on music (arguably since the beatles), society, politicising the young, spawning an ethos of creativity, (do it yourself, why not), impacting heavily on fashion and comedy (alternative) throughout the late 70's and most of the 80's.

disco in comparison was party time fluff, which people soon got bored of and moved onto other forms of dance, by the early 80's disco was all but gone with funk and jazz funk influences being seen in the charts. you say it morphed into house and hip hop, but that article i posted said the hip hop was born out of a dislike for disco, it was a harder response to the disco fluff , dare i say punk inspired?

[unique]

!!!!!

punk was like a nuclear bomb exploding. it was short but hard and effective. people felt it's power for miles around

disco was a completely different thing. it was the popular music at the time, it was far more accessible, thus why it was more popular and why it came from one genre and moved to another

to me, whilst i wasn't a punk or goth, i knew many as i worked in the rag trade at the time and we had a load of goth/punk stores around. as far as i'm concerned, goth was it's own thing. punk was it's own thing. maybe some punks became goths, but the two styles of music were so different. even the fashions were different. the only thing similar was the prevalance of black (and purple for goths). goths were perhaps closer to a darker side of the original new romantic scene than punk

disco may have been fluff compared to punk, but it was more popular and lasted longer due to it's popularity and influenced dance music

punks influence was perhaps something different to just inspiring people to follow that style of music

both were 2 very different things that happened around the same time. personally i liked both, but i preferred disco, the proper stuff. the "punk" bands i liked the most, i don't particularly class them as punk so much. the clash for example might have punk roots, but they had rock n roll and reggae and early hip hop influences, plus had commercial pop sensibilities with some of the tracks

i also seperate new wave from punk as it was a different movement. so blondie and talking heads, the jam, the police, nothing like punk, and likewise mc5, the ramones, etc. i'd never think of iggy as punk

i don't think hip hop had anything to do with disco at all. neither a love or hate for disco. rappers delight was just one track. hip hop was it's own thing, like punk was it's own thing. i don't consider either as copying something else

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

!!!!!

punk was like a nuclear bomb exploding. it was short but hard and effective. people felt it's power for miles around

disco was a completely different thing. it was the popular music at the time, it was far more accessible, thus why it was more popular and why it came from one genre and moved to another

yep, disco was the latest dance style... punk changed things.. it was or became more then a style of music that has resonated through the decades.

to me, whilst i wasn't a punk or goth, i knew many as i worked in the rag trade at the time and we had a load of goth/punk stores around. as far as i'm concerned, goth was it's own thing. punk was it's own thing. maybe some punks became goths, but the two styles of music were so different. even the fashions were different. the only thing similar was the prevalance of black (and purple for goths). goths were perhaps closer to a darker side of the original new romantic scene than punk

but goth grew directly out of punk, fact. yes it became its own style, it evolved its own musical identity, but it started with siouxsie who first created the look and sound that goths adopted. it could be argued that if there was no punk, thered be no goth, unlike dance music/disco, because dance was around before disco and disco was dropped for other styles of dance.

disco may have been fluff compared to punk, but it was more popular and lasted longer due to it's popularity and influenced dance music

disagree. disco died and left no legacy, no fashion, no ethos, no way of thinking, no creativity,nothing. nada. punk did. so whilst punk music may have become marginalised into the 80's it was still there, and the ideas born out of punk , the fashions, ethos, creativity, artistry, let alone the musical styles it created from new wave, new romantic, rockabilly, goth and indie were alive and well for most of that decade. styles didnt change until the house / rave scene and madchester became popular in the late 80's. by then disco was a long forgotten memory, and unpleasant cheesy one at that.

punks influence was perhaps something different to just inspiring people to follow that style of music

eh? punk ethos was 'do it yourself', 'why not' so whilst the initial explosion created the scene, everybody soon went off and did just that!

lydon didnt want copycats, lydon suggested that everyone should think for themselves and do what they wanted. thats why the post punk era 79-82 was so diverse, punk went in 2 directions, into new wave and into hardcore. but punks became mods, new romantics, rockabilly fans, and into rock too which was also big at the time.

i worked in a youth club in 77-81, i saw punks from 77-8 turn into mods, new romantics and many into rockabilly.

, but i preferred disco,

ahhh we are getting to the core of it now!

i also seperate new wave from punk as it was a different movement. so blondie and talking heads, the jam, the police, nothing like punk,

my.... you have failed to understand what punk is.... new wave was the more acceptable , sanitised side of punk, what punk did was make the new wave/mod sound acceptable. the jam had failed to re-invent the 60's until punk opened that door. you refer to new wave as a different movement, but exactly like goth it existed purely on the back of punk.

blondie, talking heads, the police, the jam, were exactly doing what punk suggested them to do! the police for eg, rock/reggae fusion... never been done before, successfully anyway. they took the sounds they liked and married it with rock.. doing it youself.

id suggest you actually watch punk britannia, because paul weller there told you exactly this, they used punk .


like i said earlier, disco was a style of dance, dance isnt a style of disco.

[Kiko H Fan]

I would consider Dr Feelgood to be R&B, rather than punk.

What a shame that R&B has become a label for dreadful, bland, pop singers.
These singers are not fit to wear Dr Feelgoods socks!

[unique]

i guess someone is vastly misunderstanding various styles of music and also vastly over flating the importance of another style

most music is danceable. people were dancing to music since men beat on treestumps with sticks. but the term dance music wasn't used until house came along in the 80s

disco was the start of dance music more than any other genre as it started clubbing with the introduction of discoteques, clubs specially created to play that form of music with a dancefloor and lighting. going out at the weekend changed

punk on the other hand was a much smaller thing in smaller venues

the music itself had much less influence than the overall atmosphere at the time. new wave was as much punk as american garage, with is nothing to do with it. those were different things happening around the same time, if you didn't like one you might like the other. disco was closer to rnb, motown, jazz, funk, but was it's own thing. likewise new wave and garage was closer to punk but they were also it's own thing

ex punks went on to make other forms of music, from adam ant to malcolm mcclaren, but it doesn't mean the styles of music they made were influenced by punk music

perhaps a better understanding of the music you don't like would help you understand better

[mushymanrob]

Originally Posted by unique

i guess someone is vastly misunderstanding various styles of music and also vastly over flating the importance of another style

well thats not me!

most music is danceable. people were dancing to music since men beat on treestumps with sticks. but the term dance music wasn't used until house came along in the 80s

disco was the start of dance music more than any other genre as it started clubbing with the introduction of discoteques, clubs specially created to play that form of music with a dancefloor and lighting. going out at the weekend changed

so how can disco be the start of dance music if music wasnt called dance until house in the 80's, but had been around (like i pointed out) since music began?

wow... you clearly have little knowlege of the music scene prior to the mid 70's. discoteques and dance clubs were alive and well by the mid 60's. Here in derby there was 2 clubs catering for dancing to pop music, plus there was a vibrant northern soul scene complete with venues and dance styles.

True disco as a style did popularise music to party to, to dance too. it might have popularised the beginings of the club scene, but a) clubs were around long before 'disco' music, if they were here in derby im sure they were everwhere else! and b) if disco was soooo popular, why did it die out? by 82 it was funk and jazz funk plus latin that was being played. 'club country' , 'favourite shirts' 'bad boys' 'me and mr sanchez' jazzfunk influenced tracks with the energy of punk were played here.

punk on the other hand was a much smaller thing in smaller venues

have you not watched the programme? . true punk music had smaller venues, but punk was more then a musical style.

the music itself had much less influence than the overall atmosphere at the time. new wave was as much punk as american garage, with is nothing to do with it. those were different things happening around the same time, if you didn't like one you might like the other. disco was closer to rnb, motown, jazz, funk, but was it's own thing. likewise new wave and garage was closer to punk but they were also it's own thing

ex punks went on to make other forms of music, from adam ant to malcolm mcclaren, but it doesn't mean the styles of music they made were influenced by punk music

perhaps a better understanding of the music you don't like would help you understand better

wrong wrong wrong on every level.

punk had less influence? tell me then, just what social attitudes did disco change? sweet fa!

punk ethos blew away the boring 70's attitudes to women, gay and black people championing equality, creating a social atmosphere where alternative comedy flourished, punk attitudes created the environment where fashions exploded. punk was responsible for the most interestng and varied period in british music history, whos fashions lasted well into the 80's until the 'baggy' look came in with rave/house/acid/madchester.

new wave WAS punk! it was the natural progression from the angry first wave, the prog explained this to you! new wave, mod, new romantic, indie and goth were all born out of punk, they exist as a direct result of punk, it was punks following punk ethos of doing it yourself and creating new music. all new wave, mod and new romantic acts were ex punks, they created their own music on the back of punk, so to claim they were not punk influenced is utterly wrong.

and its not me who needs a better understanding of music if someone fails to comprehend exactly what punk did for our music scene, if someone fail to understand the evolution of british youth musical tastes

id suggest watching the programme, it might help.

[unique]

prior to disco, clubs mostly used venues created for other purposes or had been around for years, like multi purpose venues

disco was the real start of clubbing and the emrbyo of dance music. a phrase that wasn't coined until much later

specialised clubs were created and called discotheques, with special lighting installed, smoke machines, disco balls. the technics SL1200 mk2 was created and that made beat matching far easier for dj's who could keep the music at a non stop continuous pace as dance music today has

disco made the 12" maxi single popular, with extended remixes specially created for DJ's, with longer intros to make mixing easier, breakdowns and extended outtros to allow DJ's to mix into other tracks and keep the continous beat going, just as we have today. that wasn't around before disco and it continues today

again you also had the start of the superclubs, with studio 54, the precursor to clubs like ministry of sound

many of the names behind the big disco hits became big producers in the 80s for some of the biggest hit records. disco was the start of producers and remixers becoming more important towards a track making a hit than the artist. although you still have very talented musicians and singers involved in creating the music, with some of the names following on to make house and garage music in the 80s and 90s

disco had a huge impact across the globe and lit the fire for clubbing as we know it today

punk didn't have the same global impact. musically it wasn't particularly different from the garage bands that came before, apart from many of the acts were less talented in musical ability so it sounded more shambolic. as many people didn't like it, it just wasn't as popular as the far more accessible and commercial disco sound

if you had a better appreciation and understanding of disco you might understand things better. i like both punk and disco and watched the recent shows on both punk and disco. most of the people behind punk will tell you it was a swindle. many of the big names at the time will give a very biased opinion, if not plain lies about what happened. they want to take the glory and deny the flack that was aimed at them

your whole opinion seems to be very biased away from a type of music you openly dislike, and clearly don't know much about

[my name is joe]

the Punk v Disco thing is an age old divide. Some think music should say something and even effect social change while others just want to dance. It's the same with any art form, some people want films to say something and some want escapism etc...the argument will never be reconciled

For me i never understood why you couldn't make meaningful music that could be danced to, but hardly anybody ever does

[unique]

Originally Posted by my name is joe

the Punk v Disco thing is an age old divide. Some think music should say something and even effect social change while others just want to dance. It's the same with any art form, some people want films to say something and some want escapism etc...the argument will never be reconciled

For me i never understood why you couldn't make meaningful music that could be danced to, but hardly anybody ever does

i agree, it's pointless you can enjoy both things. people enjoy both comedy movies and thrillers or horror, but can't enjoy different genres of music

but when it comes to dance music, people generally want to let down their hair and enjoy themselves, and put the worries and pressures of the real world behind them, and not be reminded of them. you can dance away the blues with dance music. if you want to let out your aggression then you have rock music

likewise with hip hop you have commercial party music with stupid lyrics and you have much deeper music with social commentary lyrics, and you can enjoy both or just one style or neither

music is a form of entertainment so people want to enjoy it

[JohnnyForget]

Discotheques were around long before the seventies.

The term "Discotheque" to describe a club for dancing to records as opposed to a hall for dancing to a live band originated in France in the late fifties. Diverse styles of music tended to be played in discotheques up until the mid seventies when one style came to dominate, and this dominant style was consequently named "Disco Music".

Discotheques in the late fifties, sixties and early seventies with their more varied styles sound a lot more fun to me!

Oh, and Punk is a lot better than Disco (imo).

[Mallaha]

Originally Posted by mushymanrob

punk ethos blew away the boring 70's attitudes to women, gay and black people championing equality, creating a social atmosphere where alternative comedy flourished, punk attitudes created the environment where fashions exploded. punk was responsible for the most interestng and varied period in british music history, whos fashions lasted well into the 80's until the 'baggy' look came in with rave/house/acid/madchester.

The disco scene, love it or loathe it (I personally can't stand it!) has to take some credit for raising acceptance of black performers, and especially gay people. Both punk and disco can claim some credit for highlighting female performers.

It was also very influential on youth fashion, and the brightly-coloured, synthetic, body-conscious disco style is one of the ones that keeps coming back for more. Perhaps not so much for men, but certainly for women. In terms of mainstream fashion, I'd say it has more long-term impact than punk fashion. This does not mean that punk fashion had no impact, or that punk fashion was inferior.