Except many metal groups write simple and amateur music. While metal is praised for its speed and complexity most of the time, it doesn't do away with bands that are metal, but meet the minimalist and amateuristic aspect of punk. Look at Black Sabbath, much of their music is simple to play. So let's consider them punk rock.

Except the drumming material is simple. Even the bass material is simple. While they showed later on more technical ability, the original stuff isn't some great big technical master piece. It's simple material that sounds good.

Just listened. And they do sound punk. But i don't think anyone here said punk rock is playing guitars. Come on.

Yes, many posters on here, myself included, are familiar with Suicide. Especially their debut album.

I think we've all established elphenor is the king of all punk and the rest of us need shut up.

Can someone summarize the last few pages for me, because I don't want to bother. And somehow we got to talking about Black Sabbath and Bathory?

Elphenor claimed that punk music was an attitude. That DIY, amateur, simplistic approach to it. I said that punk has a sound, and that attitude can be applied to bands outside of the punk genre. Bands like Black Sabbath can be met with the amateuristic and simple approach. While bands like godsmack had a DIY attitude in there early days. But you wouldn't call either of those bands punk.

Okay, punk is an attitude, but not the one he describes.

It does involve DIY, but the punk attitude also includes having a lot of energy, generally protesting the system, and usually angst/anger towards society.

His point was that punk was an attitude, but also not a sound.

I'm not saying punk isn't an attitude. In fact it's the exact attitude that you describe. But punk music has a sound. And elephenor is claiming that what I'm saying isn't true.

Trying to figure this one out but I got nothing.

I'm on a tablet and it autocorrected to that for some reason.

Okay, so attitude of punk is [see above], and sound of punk is 4/4 tempos, simple and repetitive chord patterns, general loudness, and bad vocalists. Anybody have any counter-examples that will force us to add to the list?

I can agree with this entirely. The punk bands that don't meet these qualifications I don't consider punk. I think that's when they start moving into the punk rock surgenres like post-punk and new wave. Maybe not those ones specifically, but i think you get my point.

I'm sure there would be more people arguing with you, but after so long on this site we've all seen the "The Kinks Were Punk Before Punk Was Punk" dude come around about a million times and try to prove they're the most open-minded music snob around by arguing that punk is/is not this or that, and it's kind of hard to summon up the enthusiasm to start beating the dead horse again. But... you're wrong... and ****... eh.

All I ask is that you please refrain from starting a debate about 4'33". We've had quite enough of those.

So you're asking for folks to keep silent on silence?

Inb4 Frown tells us there is no silence.

Seriously. I.N.B.4.

Something something sound, something something vacuum, something something John Cage.


Did I do it right?

Inb4 Frown says no.

I think Ramones are EXTREMELY overrated. I've listened to their debut 5 times to get why it's so popular besides the fact it influenced a whole wide realm of music, and all I can give it is a 6.5/10. I even gave it a higher rating simply because iot was so unioque for its time. Lowest was 1, I believe. My first rating was 3.5. All I'm saying is, I don't wanna listen to the same song made of the riffing techniques and redundant, poor lyrics for half hour.

It's about energy, bruh. You're not supposed to analyze the Ramones or give them a number ranking. You're just supposed to feel the music.

All I can feel is the same song for a half an hour.

It's not really supposed to sound different. A lot of those early punk albums feel like bands that don't really know how to write songs trying for diversity when they couldn't do much more than race the same three chords to the end of a song. The Ramones for the most part didn't didn't concern themselves with any of that self-indulgent nonsense, and just did what they knew how to do. That would be awful for most bands, but the Ramones actually knew what their business was.

Some bands are so great that when you read something like that it really says I will never be able to see greatness even as it stands right before me. If you can't get the Ramones without having it spelled out for you you might as well not even bother listening to music. The helplessness expressed there is just too deep. No rope can reach the bottom of that well.

My favorite genre is punk (probly biggest punk fan on this site) and I only kinda like one Ramones song come at me.

personally i think their first album is sub par to the next fie or so....seriously....go listen to Leave Home - End of The Century

Ramones are severely overrated. Sex Pistols are better.

You keep claiming someone doesn't listen to punk. Who?

they both suck actually but ramones > sex pistols

The lack of appreciation for The Ramones debut album expressed on here is shocking and demonstrative of some sort of retardation. Get help, people.

Punk was a term created by the music press to refer to a bunch of bands that were just one step on the art rock ladder. If it wasn't for the London scene that blew the whole thing so far out of proportion we might not call punk anything. It would just be the arty rock bands from the mid/late seventies.

I've gone back and forth on what is and what isn't punk, but I think the only thing that makes sense is to apply it to what it was made to be applied to: the Sex Pistols and their contemporaries, and all the bands who jacked their sound like the fad that the punk scene was. Whether that means Television and Wire get called punk too is debatable, but it doesn't really matter anyway.

Suicide came around before even the Ramones or Television, so you could them proto-punk, art rock, or probably more terms that would be more relevant than punk.

Art rock is a dumb term.

What the hell makes a band art rock? I've heard that term applied to so many bands, but i look up the meaning on Wikipedia and it never matches the band the term is being attached to.

Poop on the Clash. Their experimentations were too skindeep to really be breaking any rules. They made some cool music and had a different sound than a lot of their peers, but they get more credit than they deserve just cause they were more high profile than the more experimental bands.

To be considered to be a part of any genre you don't have to meet all the rules. You can break some rules but still follow others.

My theory is that the Clash were just successful enough for people who don't listen to punk and who aren't confident enough to question genre classifications to deify London Calling as a classic punk album. Not saying it isn't punk, though I'd call it new wave, but that's just why I think nobody questions it.