Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[groucho]

Quote:

I'm only defending the statement that they had more influence than the Beatles in the history of rock and roll,

You're defending against a statement that was never made by anyone in this thread.

AND you're doing it badly.

Quote:

I understand punk, James,

[no comment necessary]

Chris

[Ronny]

groucho wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 20:09

Quote: I'm only defending the statement that they had more influence than the Beatles in the history of rock and roll, You're defending against a statement that was never made by anyone in this thread. AND you're doing it badly. Quote: I understand punk, James, [no comment necessary] Chris

I'm glad you are the punk expert. You haven't answered one of my questions. You accuse me of saying that the SP's weren't influential, when I said they were no big influence and explained that they were influenced by someone else, maybe Richard Hell, NY Dolls, if not the Clash, I'm sure there were others. Rock and roll didn't start in 1977. If you can't hear the Beatles in the Clash you are the ignaorant one. If you can't hear southern rock in modern country, you are the ignorant one. Excuse me, let me communicate on your terms with some Lydon that you can relate to, "go fuck yourself, you bloody wanker"

Wow, I didn't know it took so much talent to talk like Johnny Lydon, yep you guys must be right, the SP's are the only thing that's ever happened in rock and roll. Green Day can't be punk, they sold out. Chrissy Hines is just a pretender, it's Lydon that's the King. Sid Vicious taught Victor Wooten his licks and Nirvana stole everything from the SP's.

Ok, I'm learning, again thanks for the punk lessons, this is fun.  

[maxim]

ronny wrote:

"... when I said they were no big influence and explained that they were influenced by someone else"

that makes very little sense

to be an influence and to be influenced are not mutually exclusive

in fact, one is, usually, the prerequisite of the other

[groucho]

I wouldn't bother trying to understand what the hell Ronny is saying, max. He has clearly liberated himself from the shackles of logic and coherency.

Which I suppose is kinda punk...

Chris

[rankus]

If you ask me, the first punk rockers could be as far back as Jerry Lee Lewis and Buddy Holly.... Both, had back then, what would be considered "punk ethic"... no?

And wasn't it Johnny Cash who is credited with first throwing TV's out windows and trashing hotel rooms?....

Punk is old man.... VERY old...

The 70's movement was nothing new at all....

[kraster]

When the Emperor of Austria criticised Mozart's opera as having too many notes he replied "Which notes would you like me to take out?".
He had a reputation of being a bit of a wild card in his day.

I know this aint exactly GG. Allin but at the time there was uproar over his antics.

[Ronny]

groucho wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 23:32

I wouldn't bother trying to understand what the hell Ronny is saying, max. He has clearly liberated himself from the shackles of logic and coherency. Which I suppose is kinda punk... Chris

You are giving me a good punk lesson, I appreciate it. Hey, kraster and rankus are correct. You are focused on your lifetime and clearly showing your age. What they and I are trying to tell you is that the SP's weren't doing anything new. Elvis was a much bigger shock to the establishment than the SP's were, much, much bigger and lasted a shitpile longer, influenced thousands of acts that followed him. I was around when both hit the airwaves.

As I mentioned, from my perspective of watching generations of bands come and go, the influence is passed on, the SP's took from their influences added an element of their own and influenced others that followed them, but just like all bands the influence isn't entirely controlled by one band, all bands have many influences. How important they are in a complete rock historical thing is debatable. Sure I agree they had their place, but rebellion is not generational to the pistols, it's a constant flow. The very essence of rock and roll thrived on rebellion from the get go. If you had been around from the start, you would no doubt see things differently, because you would be seeing the total package.

[maxim]

ronny wrote:

"If you had been around from the start...."

how old, exactly, are you?

[Ronny]

maxim wrote on Wed, 22 March 2006 00:10

ronny wrote: "If you had been around from the start...." how old, exactly, are you?

Old enough to remember seeing Elvis the first time he went on tv on the Ed Sullivan Show back in 1956. I remember that he got paid 50 grand for the performance which was the most paid per minute tv appearance up until that time. 50 grand back when gas was a quarter a gallon, cigarettes 30 cents a pack and a coca-cola cost a nickel. Price for a new Ford or Chevy was under 3,000.  

I remember that he did 3 songs, which was rare, Ed typically had the big stars sing no more than two. I guess it was Ed's way of rationalizing the 50 thou that Col Tom wouldn't come down on. That was about the time that I first got a transister radio. The transister portables were just being manufactured. I got a 6 transister Silvertone, color was Ice Blue. I'll never forget it, kept that thing up until 1964 when it finally crapped out on me beyond repair.

Rock and roll was considered by many as an evil music and Elvis as commisioned by the devil, although Elvis was no stranger to church, nor gospel music. It was every bit as shocking in it's day as it was when the SP's came out. I was also rebellious in my youth, I resented authority, thought I knew it all which is so typical of teenagers in any era. Kids were no less boisterous than they were in 77 when the SP's hit the waves or when Green Day came out later, but of course just like any other youths we thought that we were doing something special and unique only to find out later that history just repeats itself with new faces.      

[groucho]

Quote:

Elvis was a much bigger shock to the establishment than the SP's were, much, much bigger and lasted a shitpile longer

You continue to argue against statements that no one has made. "Elvis was a bigger shock than the Pistols." I hate to tell ya bud, but that's not exactly a hugely revolutionary statement. It's kinda blindingly obvious.

The real question, is: who do you think has said otherwise? Who the hell are you arguing with?

It's kinda like saying: "the internet wasn't a big invention... when *I* was a kid, someone invented television..."

Yes Ronny, there are MANY innovators. The Pistols were not the ONLY innovative force in Rock. Um, again: who said otherwise?

And this idea that anyone who understands the importance and influence of punk must be very young (and must also know nothing about the REST of music history)... well, you just make yourself look even sillier with that line.

Especially given WHERE we are having this discussion...

How do people this clueless get jobs in the music industry?

Chris

[maxim]

ronny wrote:

"Old enough to remember seeing Elvis the first time he went on tv on the Ed Sullivan Show back in 1956."

wow

[canada]

[quote title=groucho wrote on Wed, 22 March 2006 07:06]

Quote:

How do people this clueless get jobs in the music industry? Chris

It's people like you that make the music industry lame!

He obviously has a completely different perspective on this issue, so why don't you sit back and learn a thing or two or politely disagree.  He's gotta be at least in his 60s?  And he can name drop richard hell.  I think you're clueless.

[groucho]

Quote:

so why don't you sit back and learn a thing or two or politely disagree.

Probably for the same reason you're not choosing that route either...

Anyway, I'm not just idly insulting Ronny here for kicks. It's just kinda amazing to me that someone who says something as ignorant as this is actually out there recording punk bands (as he claims to be):

Quote:

Punk music is more underground, no big record sales, no big influence and mostly made up of musicians that could sniff glue better than they could play guitar.

I can only assume it's guys like that who drove guys like Albini to distrust engineers so...

Chris

[kraster]

Ronny's comment maybe a bit off but it does partly sum up what the UK punk movement was all about.

Punk was publically defined as a subculture from newspaper headlines and it was the punks themselves who fed the tabloids by presenting themselves as degenerate nihilists. Punks adopted stuff like glue-sniffing because it fitted in with their whole perception of the world and the world's perception of them.

England wasn't a fun place to be in the late 70s. By its nature punk was underground, no big record sales but it was influential. And a lot of punks were indeed more preoccupied with a tube of UHU than their guitars. That's what it was about. No future.

Both the Beatles and the Pistols are amazing snapshots of their time. Both massively, culturally significant. IMHO Musically, The Beatles were more diverse and more innovative. And as a consequence their influence on music is more diverse and probably more widespread in the mainstream.

[groucho]

Quote:

England wasn't a fun place to be in the late 70s. By its nature punk was underground, no big record sales but it was influential. And a lot of punks were indeed more preoccupied with a tube of UHU than their guitars.

Permit me to point out the obvious, but there is a great deal more to "punk" than what happened in the UK in the late 70s.

Limiting your view of the genre to only that one time and place is kinda like discussing blues, and ONLY talking about the artists in the Mississippi delta during the 30s, while ignoring every other phase of the music's development (& subsequent influence).

Or, for that matter, discussing Rock and only referencing what was happening at Sun Studios in the mid-50s.

The Pistols and what happened in the UK was a big spark for many, and the repercussions of that (and what was happening in the States BEFORE that) have been being felt for decades now.

THAT is (or was) the whole point of the discussion: not just the origins, but what has resulted FROM them. Punk rapidly became a MUCH wider thing than this "glue-sniffing nihilist" image (& if that's all someone got out of the UK punk scene, I'd say they were hugely missing the point). I mean, I can't believe I actually have to SAY that, for crying out loud. I thought this stuff was common knowledge amongst music fans.

Quote:

IMHO Musically, The Beatles were more diverse and more innovative. And as a consequence their influence on music is more diverse and probably more widespread in the mainstream.

I definitely agree with the first part of that statement. The second part is, I think, not such an open and shut case these days. Most of today's bands don't sound to me like they grew up listening to the Beatles. Personally, I think they could use a little MORE of the Beatles song craft, as well as Elvis's blues roots, etc.

But I ain't hearing it. What I AM hearing is a lot of people recycling punk's riffs and attitude, as well as openly influenced by the DIY nature of punk, which is - to me - its most important and lasting legacy.

Chris