Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor
I've always contested that this is more or less what Punk is beyond the cultural aspect
which in terms of NY punk was very NY culture
if the other half of punk didn't happen yeah I guess it'd have half the notoriety
but it's not as if you didn't have CBGB bands that produced massively successful albums
|
To expound on my initial point. If we're defining punk by its core tenets (a rejection of "modern" rock, and acceptance of unbridled creativity in rock), I think it's silly to start at mid-70s CBGB's. That, and England, was just one in an unbroken chain of links going back to bands like the Modern Lovers, the Monks, Velvet Underground, the Stooges, etc, I guess beginning with the Fugs in the mid-60s. It was all part of what would become known as proto-punk, punk, post-punk, and alternative, and those "genres" are only referred to as such by their relation to punk. Drawing a line of demarcation is basically arbitrary, and the only reason to do so is to recognize the cultural snapshot of what the original English punk scene was, because that's when the public at large became aware that anything of the sort was actually happening.
And if we're defining punk by what people think of as "punk", then it still started with England, cause that's when "Punk" with a capital "P" rose to prominence, which is still that same cultural snapshot.
By your standard of what is "punk", you might as well just do away with the term in general.