The Batlord |
05-20-2014 10:27 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfshelton
(Post 1451423)
I can't swallow this. Just because they didn't call it punk yet, doesn't mean it wasn't punk. And the term "proto-punk""---pshhhh.
|
Yeah it does. Punk was a marketing term that described a specific scene. So if you weren't an English "punk" band then you weren't punk (not counting the subsequent few decades of three-chord wonders of course).
But if you want to go specifically by musical standards the Stooges had songs that might be considered punk, but would you really consider the majority of their discography punk? Maybe Raw Power could partly qualify, but other than that the term "proto-punk" is perfectly accurate. "Down On the Street"? "Gimme Danger"? "I Wanna Be Your Dog"? It would take a serious stretch of the imagination to call any of that punk.
Trying to come up with strict qualifications for who is and who is not "punk" when "punk" is such a nebulous word in the first place is just pointless. Punk started in England when people started calling it punk. Anything else is just being argumentative.
Quote:
For instance, to say Iggy wasn't punk as f**k between '68 and '74 is crazy. I don't care if the term "punk" had been attached to anything at that point or not. The MC5 weren't punk because the Pistols hadn't come along yet? Ha!
|
I could certainly say Iggy was a punk mother****er, with "punk" used as an adjective rather than a noun, because of his attitude, but he wasn't an actual punk seeing as he wasn't a part of a punk scene.
|