There's always been this long standing idea that the punk movement needed to happen to save rock and roll from the "excesses of prog" and that the world during that time period was crying out for something new that punk delivered.
Is this an accurate representation of the time or just some revisionist history that has been cooked up to overstate the impact of the genre? Were music fans really crying out for something new and was there a general feeling that rock needed to be "saved" from itself?
no one was gonna sit by and let them get away with this
Jose Sanders
rock music was kind of the beginning of the end for music
it was the moment people began to accept well marketed mediocrity
Samuel Edwards
Every documentary about punk rock is exactly the same.
>Narrator: It was a time of excess and false rock and roll...*cut to clip of ELP playing in front of a wall of synthesizers* until *cut to clip of Johnny Rotten* punk rock saved us all.
And yet, people forget how punk had zero effect on the charts which continued to be dominated by the Bee Gees, Wings, Jefferson Starship, Rod Stewart, Foreigner, etc.
Gavin Allen
Punk was really never about rebelling against the rock music "establishment" of the 70's nor against pop music like Disco. It was always more about expressing angst at the dire social and economic situations in the UK (Thatcherite Britain) and the US (mid-70's stagflation, gas rationing, New York becoming the biggest shithole city in the developed world). I seriously doubt Patti Smith and Joe Strummer were sitting around saying, "Kansas fuckin' sucks. We need to do something about this!"
Quote Lydia Lunch:
>No wave music presented a negative and nihilistic world view that reflected the desolation of late 1970s downtown New York and how they viewed the larger society. Lydia Lunch noted: "The whole fucking country was nihilistic. What did we come out of? The lie of the Summer of Love into Charles Manson and the Vietnam War. Where is the positivity?"
Although the quote is about the No Wave scene (closely related to punk), it shows how artists from urban areas felt during the time. They were cynical, disillusioned, poor, and their music reflected that.
Wyatt Howard
Butthurt prog fanboy detected.
Nathaniel Rogers
The irony of it is that punk only returned rock music to. >rock music was kind of the beginning of the end for music Only classical music and jazz are worth listening to tier bait? >it was the moment people began to accept well marketed mediocrity Ironically, punk and grunge did just that.
Jason Ross
1/10
Thomas Reyes
ragtime exists retard
Ethan Watson
I think a lot of the critics at the time were envisioning that punk rock would be a sort of return to the mid-60s British Invasion kind of sound. It didn't quite work that way because among other things, the music industry had changed a lot in the 13 years since the Beatles broke. Back in those days, the industry was smaller and not as commercialized; radio stations and labels were willing to give any rock band a shot in the hope that something would stick.
In 1977, this was no longer the case. The industry had become a giant multimillion dollar business with musicians and record execs snorting lines of coke in the back of a limousine, and even though some punk bands (for example, the Ramones) had potential radio hits, no radio programmer was going to give a punk band any airplay that would distract airtime from "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy" and "Hot Blooded".
As Frank Zappa put it, "In the '60s, the record industry was run by crusty cigar-chomping old men. They didn't know a lot about this rock and roll thing except that it was selling and the kids were really into it, so they were willing to sign any rock band and give them a shot. What happened after that was the record labels hiring all these young, hip A&R guys to research what was cool and selling, but unfortunately what they did was instead turn rock into a commercialized mess. Honestly, we were better off when the crusty old men with cigars were running things."
Brody Price
This is true but rock music had developed this mentality since the start of the decade when Black Sabbath and Alice Cooper emerged; these guys were the first wave of "Welp, the '60s failed and we didn't achieve the utopia we all dreamed of."
Who's Next was also all about post-'60s burnout.
Adam Reed
Unironically yes, but also ironically yes as well
Kayden Scott
>the clash >punk
The British never made punk.
Christopher King
There are a couple good punk songs
Jaxson Moore
do you really believe that?
Asher Butler
Punk may have not gotten on the radio, but you can bet it had a massive impact on the industry. The shift of mainstream bands to a tougher sound by 1979 was definitely noticeable. Plenty of interviews with the 60s dinosaur rockers like the Stones or The Who also show how quickly punk bands delivered a wakeup call to their complacent, coked-out selves.
The state of the economy no doubt helped as well; a major recession struck the US in 1979 and the bloated excesses of the 70s were finished--nobody wanted to hear Jimmy Buffett singing about getting drunk on the beach in Hawaii when unemployment was at its highest since the 1930s.
Grayson Evans
The punk explosion in 1977 was exciting because of the sheer variety of bands coming out. There was everything from retro Chuck Berry licks to chainsaw heavy metal, Brill Building pop, bass and drum, ska, reggae, power pop, electronics--any style you could think of. It wasn't all Mohawks and being depressed and angry.
The Police's first single came out in 77 and was straight-up punk that sounds nothing like their later slick synthpop.
Ian Fisher
That it was. The DIY atmosphere was super-refreshing. Play anything you feel like instead of sitting in the Columbia offices doing coke with the record execs and discussing your latest multimillion dollar arena rock album based on cliches.
Luis Collins
Because pop music never existed before rock was created right?
Caleb Mitchell
I don't understand. You just described contemporary rock music.
Henry Wood
I don't know about "needed" but an overwhelming majority of people who shit on punk on Sup Forums either listen to various forms of punk themselves or music deeply indebted to it. that includes virtually all post-punk and "indie," and less obvious stuff like post-rock and trip hop
Isaiah Robinson
haha nice
Ian Collins
Dude, what passes for "rock" today is a girl singer doing dreampop with nu male backing musicians. It's every bit as stale and based on cliches as Foreigner were.
Ryder Myers
What the fuck? Have you ever been to backyard shows in Long Beach? Los Angeles? Everyone's doing their own shit. It's exactly as described except it's still happening.
Juan Sanders
Punk in the UK was for middle class kids to act out their working class fetishes.
Carter Evans
>this is what soyboys actually believe Do you only get your music from the Radio and Pitchfork or something
Eli Collins
Punk literally made people make fun of the only rock genre actually worth listening to. Imagine how much better rock music could've been if not for punk? It still wouldn't have been as good as jazz but still
Austin Myers
On OP's subject. Andy Summers was an industry vet who hung around the music scene in the mid seventies. Hell be the first to tell you there were a lot of leeches noodling around that time and he didn't feel too sorry when the press moved onto the punk scene and moved those guys out of a job. Also, I can't tell if the Police were the most punk band or the least punk band of the late 70's. They went into the scene totally unknown. Did the whole DIY thing with not a lot of label help. Hated by the punkier-than-thou types because they were carpetbagging using the energy of the scene and music. They took a chance and traveled to America on a paltry budget and evolved really quickly on their own terms.
Sebastian Ramirez
Serious question: Did punk need to happen for metal to happen?
