The First Punk

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Tue Sep 09, 2003 2:38 pm

Who do you think was the first real punk, and why?

Was it Avril Lavigne?
Blink 182?
Green Day?
Sham 69?
The Ramones?
The Sex Pistols?
Patti Smith?
Lou Reed?
Keith Richards?
Chuck Berry?
Jelly Roll?
Mozart?

and for bonus points, are there any real punks still recording?? Who are they?

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Tue Sep 09, 2003 7:58 pm

It depends on what you define as being punk.

There still are punks performing, they just don't get any play time these days because pop rules the air waves.

der Moench · Post by **der Moench** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 7:42 pm

The Kinks are the Beginning, the Middle, and the End - of everything!

I'm heavily biased, of course, but I think that Dave Davies' riffs on "You Really Got Me" (composed by Ray Davies) have got to be considered as the first rumblings of punk music, even though I do not consider the band punk in any way. I just think that there is an attitude and a sound that conveys punk, and that that song was a solid pre-curser to the whole larger scene.

But I agree with Tamerlane, too: depends on how you define your terms.

A quote from one of the locals DJs here: "'Cos believe it or not, punk used to be an attitude, not a fashion statement." Ha!

Peace.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 9:12 pm

Got to agree with you about the Kinks DM, they were a revolutionary band and songs like "All Day And All Of The Night" and "You Really Got Me", can still be seen as being hugely influential in modern day bands like White Stripes, The Strokes etc.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 11:16 am

I dont know enough about Mozart but I would probably go there. To me "Punk" was never a genre of music, never a series of chords or lyrical style. Rather "Punk" is a theory, a moment. When Dylan threw down with the Electric Guitar, when elvis sang black music, when urban ethnic kids started screaming about "F the police" when a bunch of rowdy ugly as ass brothers started playing in New york.

There was no beggining and there will never be an end. The ideal world of Punk is quite dead to me, by that I mean the days of the pistols, sham, ramones, damned, kill... I mean those are gone. Even the second gens are gone... SxDx, Fear, OpIv, Bad Religion etc.. sure they still record but thier reason for being is long dead. In today's collective "acceptable" society, it isn't about being punk to seperate yourself because of ideal's or theorys. ITs being punk to fit in.

You should add in Iggy... hmm

Today's music almost all eventually (to make the big bucks) must slip into some pop. Check out "Indestructable" the new cd from Rancid. Sure I like it a lot but you can tell thiers some slight "Play me on mtv" tunes... not a lot but still.

If you want punk in my view today, stay clear from MTV or even major radio. Dylan is still punk. Although aging horribly. I always check out local show's just for the atmoshphere and the hope that somethings gonna be good. Currently I listen to a lot of Irish related punk... you know Dropkick, Flogging Molly, Pouges(sp?)

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:14 pm

I reckon the Kinks dont count - as punk as they may sound, they were miserable (dead end street) instead of reactive...

I secretly reckon Iggy was the first punk too...I think its a musical style as well as an attitude...Elvis wasnt a punk because he played country & blues...and Bob Dylan isnt a punk because...well he's far too narcissistic, and he doesnt have anything musically punk about him...

Raw Power was 1972 I think, which is the beginning...actually the New York Dolls were around at the same time and they were punk as they come too...

EDIT - are the White Stripes or the Strokes punk though *raises eyebrow*

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:01 pm

Were we agree Frogus is a very angle, but we disagree on the fact that punk has to be a certain sound. The first punks in the eairly 70's late 60's did what they wanted to because they needed a change. For instance, Kurt Kobain very punk.

Change. The reason the first "punk" bands of the 70's sounded so bad was because it wasn't about the music, but the message. Fast, Loud and to the point. Thats how they were, what they wanted etc. Dylan was punk because he went against the system. Narccistic? What about Bad Religion? I mean in my eye Punk is not something you can label, much like comformity comes in all colors so does rebellion.

Punk is the rebellion of music from its standard. Dylan goes electric, Elvis shakes those hips and sings black music, the Who i mean! The Who! Townsend was punk man...

anyhow back to work.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 7:57 pm

Originally posted by frogus
EDIT - are the White Stripes or the Strokes punk though *raises eyebrow*

Probably not the Strokes

but the Stripes stage shows do hark back to that other era when the Ramones, Pistols etc had a tremendous following, but like I stated earlier its all based on ones perception. Actually the Kinks were hugely reactive for a band that was entering the scene in the early 60's, but DM would know more about that then me.

Speaking of punk, the Stooges are touring Down Under soon, I can't miss that show.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Fri Sep 12, 2003 2:20 am

Nyah! I'm going to Frank Black & the Catholics, and the Cramps, but I think you win

der Moench · Post by **der Moench** » Fri Sep 12, 2003 5:22 am

Originally posted by frogus
I reckon the Kinks dont count - as punk as they may sound, they were miserable (dead end street) instead of reactive...

Ich bin dagegen! Total dagegen!

Sorry, I slip back into German when roused.

I would encourage you to do some deeper research into the music and the times of The Kinks. I think you will find them to have had a far, far more developed social conscience than just about any band I can think of - past or present - and believe that their world view was anything but "miserable."

Also: are "miserable" and "reactive" mutually exclusive? And does punk require "reactive-ness?"

Peace.

James Mason · Post by **James Mason** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 10:06 pm

Ahhhh, what is punk? The eternal question. How many times I have been witness to this debate I cannot begin to count. So what is the conclusion I have come to? Well, you guessed it, there isn't one. Nobody ever agrees what punk is, everyone always accuses people of being sell outs, people rarely like (and even more so dislike) music because that's truly what appeals (or doesn't) to them. Who was the first punk? How should I know, I don't even know what punk is.