I was a New York Dolls fan. Bought both of their albums on American import and saw them as soon as I could. It was the connection to them that made me go and see the Sex Pistols in the first place. Changed my life, not necessarily for the better.

(Reply) (Thread)

->Where do you think it started?

In a garage, in Detroit, of course!

(Reply) (Thread)

We spent quite some time in my history-of-rock class (which started with Sacred Harp and American classical, briefly, then went through the Blues and onward, with most of the class being focussed post-1950) on the nature of proto-punk vs. punk, and relatedly, on the post-punk/new wave movements that followed. The way the class pitched it was that punk was a direct fuck-you to prog rock and its classicalized, highly-skilled-instrumentally compositions, and that new wave was the immediately-following counter-rebellion to punk (though keeping many of punk's elements), with the primary rebellious acts being (a) learning to play their instruments and (b) writing songs about non-social-issues perky stuff like lurve.

I still have trouble putting bands into 'boxes,' but the existence of the categories did help me realize that an awful lot of bands I like are post-punk/new wave (which itself later blended into gothrock and emo, of course).

(Reply) (Thread)

That is just what you would get out of a "history of rock" class. And about as accurate as one would expect from a "history of rock" class.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The teacher was actually pretty good about it, especially since 90% of the class had never really heard anything recorded before 1990 (and most of the class considered even those 'old' -- Kurt Cobain was practically classic rock in their minds). The class was more about listening to songs, characterizing them on multiple axes, learning about history and what people CALLED the music they made as they made it, how it might be called now ... more about asking interesting questions than giving definitive answers along the lines of "This is A, this is B, and these are the only right ways to call them."

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Then how were so many things that you said there so wrong?

The whole "we were rebelling against prog-rock" was mostly revisionist talk a couple years after punk started. The New Wave was already on it's way before punk started in England (for instance Blondie was playing shows in 1975). The myth of punk bands not being able to play is disproved by simply listening to the bands play. And bands like the Buzzcocks were writing songs about love pretty much from the beginning (or at least when Pete Shelley became the singer, a few months into their existence).

Post Punk and New Wave are two different things. There are relations between them, but only vague ones.

Someone fed you a load of crap.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

There was certainly "proto-punk" going on in the 60's, by some definitions. Strangeloves, Velvet Underground, Seeds, MC5, some would even say the Kinks qualified.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I could swear that there's a punk (leather jacket, spiked mohawk) in the background of one of Jacques Tati's movies, but I can't remember which one.

I don't have favorites, because I like stuff about most of 'em. I try reading history of rock books only when I want to bend my brain. I figure the real history resembles a 3D figure of those trees posters...

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

dammit.

ganked.

RIP Ron. The Stooges have been a MASSIVE influence on Prude and, in many ways, on a lot of Caustic stuff even though it can't be heard.

(Reply) (Thread)

The first punk? Mozart.

Bad Boys and groups "playing" music just to dis their parents have been around for a long, long time.

In terms of proto-punk by today's definition, I'd give the nod to John Lennon. Many punk rockers point to some Beatles songs as inspiration. Lennon was specifically anti-British establishment, which was the origins of what we now call "Punk".

(Reply) (Thread)