Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier
You guys are debating issues which have been debated countless times on here, on those occasions nobody left any the wiser.
Lets start with the Clash, there seems to be two schools of thought, one they were a punk band and the other they weren't but just carried the energy of punk (Stranglers fell into the same category) Anyways the first two albums fell into the punk category, but by London Calling they had stopped being called punk due to the sheer diversity of influences that were shown on that album. Personally, I'd just call them a punk band that that had evolved well beyond the majority of punk bands by their third album.
The Stooges, did they have the energy and attitude of the future punk movement well yes, but then again so did a lot of bands in the 1960s, but I would still call them proto-punk, simply because they were one of the biggest influences on the future punk movement.
|
As per before, you're just saying what I've been saying. The Clash circa-1977-1979 were perfect examples of punk. The aesthetic, the attitude, the sound. However, London Calling has few elements of that, they've got the attitude, but they present it with finesse.
Like we discussed with NYD earlier, The Stooges carry a lot of elements of punk, but not the full package. Obviously, music is ambiguous, but I was attempting to be constructive, not argumentative.