Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
  1.  
    Fleet Foxes are good.
  2.  
    personally i beg to differ, but each to their own!
  3.  
    Dragging this thread back to Magazine, one of my favourite bands of all time along with Skids, Wire, and PiL, there's an article here: http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/opinion/columnists/billy-sloan/2008/09/21/new-edition-of-magazine-is-missing-john-78057-20745969/ where Mr Devoto has hinted that the reunion could become permanent, new songs an all. Sounds great at first but would we want that faultless back catalogue tarnished?
    As to PiL, would be nice to see too, but not the last line up as that was way too "rock"...obviously John McGeogh was in that too. John Lydon continues to be funny and articulate, but he does spend a lot of time contradicting himself...must be the booze?
  4.  
    yes, it's always a prob when bands 'reform'. they are entitled to write & perform what the hell they like, but many fans will just want to hear the old stuff played & any new material to be in the same vein (no pun intended with respect to Messrs Wardle & Richie!).

    Hopefully the February gigs will be a great experience for band & fans alike. if they do stay together & write new material, i for one will look forward to it - i just hope i like it, whatever direction it may take.
  5.  
    "punk music" started in ny and london circa 1977. (though some would argue that the Velvet Underground were the first punk band.) punk attitude has been around since forever: james dean, picasso, van gogh, copernicus, plato, etc. to me sid viscious was part of the punk scene,but he represents the worst aspect of what punk is: a low-life heroin addict. Lydon i have a lot of
    respect for because he was one of the first ones to start the whole punk thing. in america today though a lot of people think he's
    old douchebag and a hypocrite. he's constantly railing against the "shitstem", but seems to be quite the happy capitalist these days. (sex pistols merch, anyone?).
  6.  
    if go along with just about everything you said there Freakbag, apart from a) I'd consider the 1st punk band to be The Sonics (but i take your point about VU) - outstanding raunchy garage band that could still cut it 2day (in fact they supported The Horrors early this year), & b) i think the NY punk scene started some years earlier with the likes of Television, Stilletoes (Blondie), Ramones, Stooges, Patti Smith, NYD's. Tho' not all the accepted face of 'punk' music, they were the 'new kids on the block' who are always referred to as 'punks' by the older scenesters.

    & i like the was you've brought in that punk isnae restricted to music. free thinkers who look at things differently/produce art ahead of their time. i'd add Salvador Dali & Antonie Gaudi to your list.

    Vicious lived/acted like the tabloid press portrayed punks & the bulk of the general public thus assumed that all punks were like that. he became a parody & laughing stock as soon as he started pogo-ing at 100 Club! LONG b4 he joined the Pistols & started jacking up!
  7.  
    strictly speaking GB you're right about The Sonics, but the VU were and continue to be a massively influential band. the point about '77 was that's when the scene EXPLODED!, ha, ha. the Dolls ( who still put on a slammin' show) were more glam than punk and Television not really authentically a punk band, but they were all part of the primordial slop that would become what
    we think of as "punk rock". (let's not forget the Cramps- hillbilly swamp punk!!). i saw all these bands the first time around, but
    really nothing quite equaled walking into CBBG's and hearing the Ramones (and Wire) for the 1st time! they had a wall of sound that was unlike anything i had ever heard. for me 1977 was ground zero, a truly radical break from the past.

    not a big fan of Dali, but i see what you mean. Gaudi, of course, just brilliant. anyone who is an outsider artist, any field, whatever their talent level, to me they possess punk DNA.
  8.  
    the bands i mentioned are not punk in the respect of harsh, fast, nihilistic music, but still deemed punk all the same. of all the US punk bands i far preferred the more interesting & different sounds of the likes of Suicide, T.Heads, Devo, Cramps than the likes of Ramones, Dead Kennedy's.

    i saw the Dolls for 1st time last year & was terribly disappointed, but The Cramps in '06 still kicked ass & show the new bands how to rock out!

    I take it your American? New Yorker? i've still not made it to USA yet (1st trips 2 Vegas & NYC next year) & will be forever disappointed that i never made it to CBGB's & Max's.

    By the way, it may sound sacriligeous, but (apart from Waiting For The Man & Venus In Furs) i do not rate VU AT ALL!!!
  9.  
    yes, i'm a new yorker. Max's has been gone for a long time. CB's closed earlier this year and is now a John Varvatos Clothing shop. still worth checking out as the original walls have been left undisturbed and they display (and sell, of course) punk memorabilia. downtown ny has lost the freaky vibe it used to have in the late 70's and early '80's. the new music scene has
    migrated to Brooklyn.

    you might like Rancid then. I think they'll be touring the UK soon.
  10.  
    Rancid? i think not!!! yeah, i must've seen a website about the clothing shop as what you say rings bells. if i make NY next year, i'll be coming to you for suggestions on where to go for some live music....of an alternative bent!
  11.  
    here's one music guide that lists a lot of shows:

    http://www.ohmyrockness.com/index.cfm
  12.  
    that'll do for starters!! cheers!
  13.  
    I love Ulterior, the best new band around....
  14.  
    nice 1. i saw 'em supporting Faust a few weeks back, but they were besieged by sound problems. i'm hoping to catch 'em next month in a wee club in south London!
  15.  
    I'd like Mark to comment here (or Graeme) on the 'origins' of Punk and when, in their opinion, it 'really' started................
  16.  
    Punk really started in ny and london 1977 as i mentioned above. that was the pivotal year due socio-economic conditions in general and how bands felt about the music industry in particular. true there were proto-punk bands like the Sonics, MC5, and
    NY Dolls. What was different in '77 was the total rejection of hippie culture, an extreme anti-establishment attitude, a DIY
    philosophy that merged equal parts humor and nihilism. also an extreme sense of fashion. before '77 one hardly saw anyone
    wearing safety pins, torn clothing, mohawks, purple hair etc. the key word here is Extreme. it was liberating and cathartic
    because it gave everyone a clean slate to do what they wanted, incl writers, visual artists, and film makers without working
    under a preset condition of rules and regulations of how things ought to be. hippies may have questioned "authority"; punks
    outright rejected it. sure there were always outsider artists, but in 1977 it started a veritable movement of them.
  17.  
    Wire is not really a punk band.
  18.  
    It's not very punk to talk about what is punk or not punk.
  19.  
    above remarks are really referring to 'modern day punks', I posed 3-4 years ago on the list that, in my opinion, V.U were the 'original' 'punk' band but got shot down in flames (well almost) and a veritable (short) list of groups were mentioned as forefathers of punk...........
  20.  
    VU is just a band.