The Clash
Nvermind the Bollocks
Rocket to Russia

All the other stuff I have or have heard is a step down. Which may just mean I need to listen to some more stuff.

I like The Offspring but none of the albums stand out.

The NY Dolls would be on the list if I considered them punk (which I don't).

the NY Dolls were more glam-rock and a precursor to hair metal

All they had was a weird image. Good sound, but not punk in any way really, though it does have some attitude I guess. @cgw it sounds like you've not listened to a lot of The Offspring is that high on your list. Not trying to be snide, The Sex Pistols and The Clash are great and everything, but there's much better "punk" than that 90s pop-punk.

Listen to Dead Kennedys, Black Flag, Bad Brains and that's a good place to start if you want to listen to good punk.

also The Buzzcocks, The Undertones, Minutemen, Refused, the Damned, early Jam, Minor Threat, etc etc

Yup, and I could go on and on, there's so much good punk, I can go downtown and go see a band that's vastly superior to Offspring every week.

New York Dolls do = punk. In their own right, they are punk rock. Glam, okay.... hair metal, explain this Mr. Duck.....

add T.S.O.L. top that list... considering how much The Offspring wanted to be them, especially on their self-titled album. I mean listen to "Beheaded" and then listen to "Code Blue" by T.S.O.L. .... yeah. First album is a poor mans version of T.S.O.L.

Maybe not snide, but hopefully you're not trying to say THe Pistols and Clash are '90s pop-punk'? Shirley some mistake?

DKs and Black Flag both excellent bands.

Not really, closer to hair metal than punk. Listen to Personality Crisis, sounds like Kiss, who basically invented/shaped hair metal. Really not fast or aggressive enough to be punk. It's Chuck Berry with distortion.

The comment looks to be more directed at only the Offspring.

"Not trying to be snide, The Sex Pistols and The Clash are great and everything, but [in regards to the Offspring] there's much better "punk" than that 90s pop-punk.

I think you have to make the distinction between 'punk' and 'punk rock'.... may not be punk rock, but it reeks of punk. The attitude. I like to think of them are a more violent and self-destructive Stones myself.

This song I think is more suited for their punk side than Personality Crisis:


Sounds like it could be done by Adolescents even. Can hear the influence of the Dolls in them and many others in the punk scene.

I think you're reading it differently than intended. The 90s pop punk comment is regarding The Offspring. I don't see how you could even get that out of it, seeing the Sex Pistols released one album, in the 70s.

They're a punk influence because of the attitude, but so are bands like The Stooges and The MC5, and to some extent the garage rockers from the 60s even.

They do not have the full punk sound or image, they have bits and pieces of both, and are a huge influence on the genre, though.

You can here bits of the NYD in the Sex Pistols.. But they're not punk like the Dictators are not punk.

songs like "Frankenstein" sound like proto-Poison

but that's just me, I guess

i got into a heated argument with somebody else about this on another forum

It would be a heated debate because both sides can agree the influence. Johnny Thunders to me is more like a drag punker than a hair metal kinda guy. I would put him a long side Stiv Bators, and maybe even Darby Crash to an extent.

They may have the glam image to them, can not deny that.... I personally hear nothing in them that relates to Poison in anyway, but people can hear what they like I suppose.

I can see where ya would make that distinction... but at the end of the day, I would say they were more in debt to the Glam Punk sound than the Hair Metal scene.

I would put them in the protopunk/glam punk catagory before anything else.

You're debating in a grey area about the NYD. First up I'd say they were equally influential on both punk and hair metal. Lets look when they were around the early 1970s. Sure they had the proto-punk attitude of the Stooges but looked like they were influenced by Kiss and Alice Cooper and sounded like a destructive Rolling Stones. At this time there was the start of the burgeoning glam rock movement in the UK which they could've been part off as well. I'd say they were a shared influence between both punk and hair metal, I know that's fence sitting here, but to disect this further requires some deeper thought.

You're really just saying what I've been saying the whole time.

Strength in numbers my friend.

would it be sufficient to say that the NY Dolls are some sort of "missing link" between punk and hair metal?

Spot on, there are a number of bands around that are crucial to different genres, but it also makes the differences between certain types of music a very thin line as well.

I mean look at the high regard that Iron Maiden are held in and then look at how they influenced thrash and also power metal. Thrash is held in high esteeem while power metal is often shunned. Its like punk and hair metal.

probably Mutiny by Set Your Goals

London Calling - The Clash
Raw Power - The Stooges
...And Out Comes the Wolves - Rancid

Raw Power and London Calling are more representative of proto and post punk, respectively. Both are fantastic albums, but punk isn't just a sound, which neither albums have entirely anyway, but it's a lifestyle. The Clash were a legitimate punk group, and if you went with previous releases I would agree, but this was a record where they transitioned into their next phase. The sound is well-produced, and finer, whereas their previous work had been raw and abrasive.

That said, London Calling is one of the best albums of that era.

The Stooges were raw, but hardly representative of punk. They were a major influence a la the previously mentioned New York Dolls, but definitely don't belong as a punk rock band.

Disagree for the most part. London Calling was still a revolution to punk. Maybe a catalyst to post, but with it they opened the doors to punk by innovating other styles in its genre. Strong elements of grated simplicity was still present.

As for Stooges, they were considerably noted as the first punk band, before punk became a trend. A lot of it was taken and shaped from their sound.

You basically hit it on the head as to why they're post/proto. The Stooges don't display the aesthetic or sound of punk entirely. The attitude is there, but they were more or less a rock band that set up future bands to create punk, but this is like calling Velvet Underground or even Pixies/Suicidal Tendencies' debut the first grunge works. They didn't have all of the elements.

Simplicity is there in London Calling, but the abrasiveness is not. It'd be like calling PIL's material punk because of Johnny Rotten's work with The Sex Pistols.

In fact, there isn't a song on the entire album I'd consider punk rock sounding. If it were recorded by any other non-punk band, I doubt it makes your list.

Nope it has nothing to do with who they are and what they have previously released. Honestly I think we are narrowing down too much with certain attribute to a certain definition. Only thing I was trying to point out was each had punk value. Clash still used the qualities in punk but just improvised it. They still had the image and joe definitely had the voice. Stooges I believe had it close aesthetically. Performances were wild, dangerous and unbecoming.

Proto/Post and Punk. All had qualities.

Guess I'll agree to just disagree.

That's fine, I'm just trying to help you out with your criteria. I've made my point though.

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.

Maybe I'm auditioning to be a parrot.

Well I think you're spot on with a lot of the things you say, you're getting the point across in a different way. My approach just seems to be too blunt I think.

Some people on here you have to handle with kid gloves, otherwise thay can get very upset.

Music is a surprisingly touchy subject. I'm always amazed at how emotional people can get when you disagree with them/disrespect their favorite artist, almost at a personal level.

I have and still stand by my top three. The Jam, Dead Boys, Rancid, NOFX, The Ruts, Bad Religion, etc. are all good, just not quite as good. The Buzzcocks (who I also like) are more pop punk than the Offspring.

The NY Dolls came out of the same NY City scene as Kiss. The difference is that The NY Dolls are great and Kiss sucks. The NY Dolls inlfuenced the 80's hair metal bands? The thought makes my skin crawl. They had a lot more influence on the boys and girls at CBGBs than they did on 80s hair bands in California.

The first 3 Kiss albums are just as good as anything the New York Dolls put out. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluding themselves, they're both exactly the same thing.

As for the New York Dolls not influencing hair metal, you don't seem to understand that not all hair metal was Bon Jovi, Poison style MTV videos & Ballads. A lot of the early hair metal bands has a massive influence from both punk and the New York Dolls. Just look at Hanoi Rocks, Torme, Dogs D'amour Lords Of The New Church (Which featured Brian James of The Damned, Stiv Bators of The Dead Boys and Dave Tregunna of Sham 69. And plenty of others I can't be bothered to name right now.

Even Nikki Sixx once said Motley Crue's 3 biggest influences at the start of their career was The New York Dolls, The Sex Pistols & The Sweet.

Correct, both Kiss and the Dolls were early purveyors of "in yer face low-rent trashy rock" I was never a fan of either of these two bands but they do have their moments, the third Kiss release had a good pop edge to it and I can listen to "Strutter" from the debut anytime, also some of the best Kiss songs on these albums were the ballads.

Not many people outside the UK know who the Sweet are, but this song was one of their best. Pat Benatar did a superb cover of it on her debut album. For the record Sweet were also a huge influence on Def Leppard as well.


Sweet - No You Don't - YouTube

Well I wouldn't know that since I joined a few days ago. :P

Certainly my statements aren't from my own personal sentiments. I just like a good debate.

Actually I understand a lot of your reasoning Forward. Just wanted to open up different perspectives, which is the beauty of debating. :] Really debating has nothing to do with being right or wrong.

I said this about two pages ago, about Kiss and NYD. Well-said.

Well debating requires a competitiveness, I consider it discussing. I just don't see a point in discussing it when the points have already been made. It always feels like a waste after that, and usually there's no reward, and both parties still leave with the same POV. I'm not here to change anyone's opinion, but to raise a few points.