Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadead2
That's what I'm saying though, I don't think the Sex Pistols had the passion they're claimed to (or if they did it has been vastly surpassed), and their "message" was, well, idiotic. Just because it's political doesn't mean their politics should be lauded. Moreover, the fact that they delivered their message with no artistry or subtlety gives me the impression that the poltics was more important to them than the art. Also, it takes way more balls in rock to write a pro-establishment song than an anti-establishment one, and in fact the "anti-establishment" IS "the establishment" in rock.
The folk music I've been exposed to--mainly '60s singer/songwriters like Dylan and Morrisson and recent indie-folk artists like Devendra Banhart--is music of subtle originality and artistry. Very different from punk.
I LOVE post-punk. Talking Heads are my favorite band of all time, and even the Sex Pistols-derived Public Image Ltd. were shockingly good if only a rare listen for me (probably one of the most evil, zombie-like aesthetics I've ever encountered). But I don't think the sounds those bands had were specifically Sex Pistols-influenced, and in some ways those bands (especially on the synth-pop Depeche Mode side) actually owed as much or even more to art-rockers like David Bowie, Brian Eno, Kraftwerk, and adventurous producers like Giorgio Moroder than to punk rock.
|
if you want to be really fuc*ing skeptical then i suppose that first paragraph has some validity
folk and post punk are different in sounds from punk but they share much of the same message and roots. post-punk may have only slightly used punk influences in their music but it was the punk ideals and popularity that gave rise to such bands, a lot of amazing bands in that genre came out at the same time. why? punk.
folk just has a very political, protesting message that punk has as well as the genre's simplicity, it just does it in a different way.