Your Day

Tristan_Geoff · 05-02-2017, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

Nah ofc not I just thought it was interesting that it's been long enough to where it makes the textbooks along with Hip Hop now too

Both of which originate basically on the same block as the urban form of counterculture which is really the important part for the purposes of the class

For the longest time it was as if music stopped in the 60's according to Schools

We had grunge come up in American History for some reason after Desert Storm.

Tristan_Geoff · 05-02-2017, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

oh wow that's embarrassing, really not doing my country justice I see

We did spend a whole day covering Woodstock though in the same class though so that was neat

The Batlord · 05-02-2017, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. Tristan Rosenstock

We did spend a whole day covering Woodstock though in the same class though so that was neat

Why? I mean, nothing against Woodstock I bet it was crazy but... a whole day? When people still like Hitler and Ayn Rand?

Tristan_Geoff · 05-02-2017, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Why? I mean, nothing against Woodstock I bet it was crazy but... a whole day? When people still like Hitler and Ayn Rand?

Just one class. It was more on 60s counterculture broadly but we mostly used examples of Woodstock protest songs.

The Batlord · 05-02-2017, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

I did bring up Devo because they formed because of the Kent State shootings the part that isn't taught until you get into college

I think it's really the souring of the flower children and the transition to violent punk

You should have gone on a long winded lecture about the origin of American punk until the professor lost their temper.

The Batlord · 05-02-2017, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

I think it's funny I had to have an argument on here about the origins of Punk as a cultural movement starting in NY and not the UK because "no one cared about CBGB" when it's in our history textbooks

And... here... we... go. I've already said at some point that punk would have just been an unlinked series of art rock scenes if not for the success of British punk, but I think it still bears saying that we wouldn't still be talking about punk to anywhere near the same degree if not for the Sex Pistols or The Clash.

But a hindsight view of punk from a college course that may or may not actually have its facts straight is not the best barometer.

Quote:

and like Devo is basically my case and point about the "post punk" distinction actually being arbitrary

Obviously the distinction is arbitrary. If not for the British scene creating the punk stereotype there would quite possibly be no distinction in the first place. And I'd cite Peter Laughner as my case. Dude came out with Rocket from the Tombs and Pere Ubu at the same time as the first CBGB's bands after checking them out in New York and didn't need two or three years "evolve". Evolution was simply the desired result from all parties involved.

The Batlord · 05-02-2017, 01:36 PM

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.

**Frownland** · 05-02-2017, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

.

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.

Then the credit goes to New York because of Suicide.

The Batlord · 05-02-2017, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

Well yeah proto-punk bands are Punk Bands

But my point is that "punk" is a term that is used to describe PUNK bands, and would be just as pointless to use to describe in hindsight bands like Velvet Underground as "proto-punk". They were just an underground rock band. The only useful description of "punk" is what it has been historically used to describe stereotypical punk and its offshoots that haven't been described as post-punk or new wave or whatever.

**Frownland** · 05-02-2017, 01:51 PM

1970

05-02-2017, 01:51 PM	#44090 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,548	1970 __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x