Thanks. I did a search on the lyrics but I missed the one hit for The Damned on the first page. Joe Jackson burned that line into my brain.
Makes for an interesting question, though. Do spoken word intros count as lyrics? I never really thought of “Is she really going out with him?” as an actual lyric in “Leader of the Pack.” The lyrics start with “I met him at the candy store.”
If so, maybe punk really starts with “Is he really goin’ out with 'er?” 
Eugh. I didn’t want to get dragged into a historical debate…
You appear to be confusing punk with psychedelia. Punk, musically, has always been about restraints - 3 chords, 2 minutes, and one message.
That’s the classic misconception, but that’s never what punk was about. One message? What, exactly is the “one message”? Punk was “I can make music just as good as that asshole on the 30 foot stage up there, and I don’t need a fireworks display and 20 years of practice to do it.” The idea of restraints is what made people think punk was dead by 1980, when really they just didn’t get what it was about at all. “3 chords, 2 minutes” was applied retroactively for marketing purposes - to actually sum up the movement that way is not giving enough credit to how innovative the music was.
Yer shitting me. Who, might I ask, ‘generally recognizes’ that as the first punk release? Cite, bitch.
http://www.damned12.freeserve.co.uk/brianjames_int.htm
(That’s 77, by the way)
The Ramones played their first gig in England on July 4th, '76.
The Damned played their second gig ever on July 6th, 1976. They were backing the Sex Pistols.
… so clearly, the Sex Pistols are not punk. Because they came before The Damned.
First new wave punk band to record, yes. Inspired west coast hardcore, yes. But fuck me if they’re punk and the Ramones and Iggy Pop aren’t.
The first ENGLISH punk band to record, and one of many influences on west coast hardcore.
Well, New Wave was largely an english movement, and certainly started there, so I went for greater specificity.
The Love album by the Cult is seminal Punk, and if you don’t agree, I will kill you. Gothic and emo also have their roots in punk.
Wikipedia, although the reference appears to be to a biography of The Damned.
The Sex Pistols released “Anarchy In The UK” five weeks after “New Rose”.
Okay, a couple of issues here:
As far as new wave goes, you’re probably right. The history of new wave in the states is tangled - my take is, it developed alongside punk but was basically associated with a different aesthetic and a different stance on the part of the bands but still reflected the same core ideas as punk. Talking Heads, Blondie, etc. Its history in the US has more to do with marketing than music. In the UK the term had a slightly different meaning than in the US, and by that definition then the Damned were the first new wave band to release a single, as “new wave” pertains to music in the UK. This is all nitpicking, though.
Steophan, not that it really matters, but the Wikipedia page for punk lists Patti Smith’s single as the first punk single (Punk rock - Wikipedia). In the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t really matter when the physical releases happened. The Damned didn’t even form until 1976, two years after Television played their first show at CBGB’s and formed the nucleus of the punk scene in New York (for that matter, the Ramones played their first gig that same year), and one year after the release of The Dictators Go Girl Crazy!, which led to the foundation of Punk magazine and the naming of the scene in the first place. Even by your incredibly myopic definition of punk rock, the style had been well established long before the Damned (or the Pistols, for that matter) even got together. The Ramones, the Dead Boys, the Suicide Commandos, and even The Voidoids (who would provide McLaren with the inspiration for the Sex Pistols) were driving the punk scene in the US before punk was becoming a cultural force in the UK, and this isn’t even counting all of the punk bands who didn’t play that style of punk music - the first band to even identify themselves as “punk music” were Suicide, and they were advertising their gigs as such as early as 1971.
devilsknew, you’re absolutely right - Goth rock, emo, hardcore, twee, indie rock… all variations on the same theme, if you ask me.
Steophan and Exapno Mapcase know the score.
You should all just accept the correct definition of Punk = U.K. bands only. Life is so much simpler after you do.
No more endless bickering about whether Green Day and The Offspring were punk or not, no more co-opting alternative American rock bands from the 60’s and 70’s under an imaginary “punk umbrella”, and no more fighting with anonymous people on the Internet.
No more tossing and turning at night worrying about whether your favorite band is punk or not, either. You’ll have much less stress, and be a happier person.
And with all the free time you’ll save you can get back to the important things in life, like getting drunk, hanging out with friends, and actually listening to music instead of just arguing about it.
mounts bicycle
Trust me on this one. You’ll be glad you did.
rides off into the sunset and away from this silly thread
I can’t accept that definition because it’s completely ludicrous. The first bands to play the music came from the States, the first bands to be described as such came from the States, and the first bands to identify themselves as such came from the States. The origin of the name is an American magazine. In what twisted universe are American bands ineligible to be called punk? It’s not nationalism, dude, it’s straight history. And the facts have borne that out.
Joe Strummer in End of the Century?
CMC fnord!
! actually, IPS, 'cause I do remember Joe talking about crawling through the dressing room window to meet The Ramones who were kinda stunned by just how big they were in England (in the end everywhere) compared to their status/success in America (a phenomena already well known by American jazz and blues musicians. :().
Maybe this will settle this ridiculous argument but I doubt it:
Can any of you folks tell me when and where the standard punk uniform of '76-'77 of spiky hair, ripped shirts and jeans held together with safety pins originated? You all think you have the definitive answer to “What is Punk?” you should be able give this info without a moment’s thought.
So what? Only record releases matter? The Sex Pistols were a going concern fuckloads before the Damned were even a band. Are you actually going to sit here, show me your balls, and tell me that the only time a band matters is when they get into a studio and release a single? Not an album. A single. (Ramones, Blitzkrieg Bop, April 1976. But not punk, according to you.) (Piss Factory, June '74. Also not punk)
You’re telling me music only exists when you kill it. Fuck that.
(I’m pretty sure Richard Hell, Kolak, but fuck uniforms. Uniforms are the opposite of punk.)
E-Sabbath is right. Richard Hell (of the Voidoids, Malcolm McLaren’s acknowledged model for the Sex Pistols once he took over their management) was wearing distressed clothes long before the Sex Pistols even formed, and Suicide had already made it central to their image half a decade or more before. Not that the uniform is important, anyway, or that there was truly even one uniform. One might say the uniform for metalheads was leather and studs as made popular by Rob Halford of Judas Priest; you’re telling me metal wasn’t around until British Steel?
Anyway the discussion wasn’t supposed to be about who was the first punk or what it looked like, it was supposed to be about what it means, and there seem to be enough misconceptions flying around about that to start with.
:rolleyes:
punch line loser, again, is this really worth debating with? Patti Smith isn’t punk? Why engage?
I laid out my definition of punk - you did not comment. If you don’t want to comment on something that directly spoke to the Thread title, what straw man argument are you really looking to have them? Why *your *definition of punk is bestest? No wonder you actually engaged Steophan.
You have stated a couple of times that the Clash suck. Could you please attempt to engage in an interesting conversation and state your case as to why?
As a matter of fact I like your definition(s) better than the others I’ve seen - I was basically referring to it when refuting these other fools, but I guess there was no way for you to know that. My only issue, I guess, would be about the sound, because even though in the popular imagination that’s what it means, the sound is actually tied up in the other aspects of the music. I consider the Tough Alliance a punk band, even though they’re all bouncy synths and pop melodies - there’s some song on A New Chance where he sings “Baby I will always be there” and “fuck you” in more or less the same breath; also using “blah” as a singing syllable in the chorus seems pretty punk to me. Maybe you didn’t intend to set the definitions out as separate from each other, but that’s what I would have to say about that.
As for the Clash, I just think the songs are totally boring and more often than not barely even catchy. From what I’ve heard, there’s not much of a knack for melody there, and as a result I just don’t buy all the bluster. Definitely punk, but I just don’t get it.
Okay, thanks and yeah, hadn’t seen that.
Yep - punk is what it is and even my attempt at identifying those three major “traits” is a working attempt at best. And someone can have a punky attitude and not play music that is punky to me at all. I would argue that about the only fresh things Lady GaGa brings to her equation is an edgy wardrobe and punk attitude - both sprinkled on top of an entree made from very familiar ingredients. Let’s call it “Refried Madonna”. 
Not melodic? I’d revisit that - listen to **Career Opportunities**and tell me that it is not melodically designed to be in a freakin’ Broadway musical. Totally accessible and memorable, with a great chorus hook. That’s songcraft, my friend.
You can’t discuss punk without discussing what it looks like - the image is at least as important as the music. I get that you don’t like that, and that you’re coming at the question from the point of view of a self-identified punk. But you need to try to look at it from the outside, as you would any other movement.
You are focusing purely on the music, and missing the point entirely.