Talk:Punk rock/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Funny punk up for deletion

I wanted to notify people that funny punk is currently up for deletion. To comment, go here. The Ungovernable Force 08:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Who rewrote history to say Punk began in the USA?

I'm worried about the direction of the whole item on Punk Rock. It delves so deeply into rock music in the years leading up to the emergence of punk that it misses the point entirely that punk music in the UK was a sweeping away of all that existed at that point in time. Punk was year zero.

I’m worried that a Californian student (user WesleyDodds) who probably wasn’t even born in 1976 (no offence intended) rejected my Wiki edits where I changed the article to say Punk was predominantly a UK-based movement. I was there and trust me - the USA's involvement was negligible. I was in a punk band called Straitjacket in 1978 and some of my friends were in a punk band called Irrelevant (who went on to become Goodbye Mr Mackenzie). Punk was a UK phenomenon born out of the dreary, pointless, futureless, grey concrete bomb-site that was mid-1970’s Britain. Its musical influence was simply to be the OPPOSITE of any music that was already there - the passionless progressive rock, the silly glam-rock and the throwaway pop. It certainly WAS NOT some nice logical culmination of some obscure New York music scene. Reading this on Wikipedia was the first I’d heard of it and I was there at the time! It just has to make you laugh how history is being rewritten before your very eyes!

I'm also worried that some American revisionists are starting to say the Ramones were an important punk band. I’m not even sure you could even categorise them as punk; they were more comedy retro rock n’ roll than anything else and they dressed like refugees from Grease. They did have a single called ‘Sheena is a Punk Rocker’ but they also had a song called ‘Suzy is a Headbanger’ – I guess that makes them the founders of heavy metal too? It’s so wrong it’s almost laughable.

I’m worried that Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopaedia but it also seems to be a tool for Amercians to rewrite history to suit themselves.

I’m worried that rewriting history to portray America, in a Hollywood kind of way, as first at everything, inventors of everything and best at everything is becoming a national American pastime.

I’m worried that soon the American rewriting of punk history will be complete – a weird upside-down world where the Sex Pistols were imitating the Ramones, Gaye Advert modelled herself on Debbie Harry, the Stranglers were just trying to be Lou Reed and the Clash wanted to be the New York Dolls.

I’m worried that it’s 2006 and I still care.

I’m worried that it’s 2006 and I’m still around.

I’m worried that when I’m not, Wikipedia still will be. --Jcleary 12:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, most "reliable" and "neutral" sources (as defined by wikipedia policy) I've seen label the Ramones as punk rock, and musically they were very important. I've seen interviews with the Sex Pistols talking about how they learned to play their instruments by playing along to Ramones albums. Personally, I think that minus X and the Dead Kennedys, the early American punk scene was really crappy and not at all what I would think of as good punk (actually, X maybe shouldn't be in there either), but then again, the Sex Pistols were pretty crappy in my opinion as well. I think that the musical style was largely based on American bands (but British bands did have some influence), while the discontentment and general rebellious attitude came largely from the British, who as you say, were in a pretty bad social situation at the time in which there really appeared to be "no future". The way I always generalize the often debated topic of "who created punk" is, we started it, the British perfected it, we gave birth, you guys raised it into what it became. In terms of the article, I think it's relatively neutral and factually correct. If you can provide sources that back up your position, then please do so. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 23:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, there are arguments for both sides. The article as it reads at the moment doesn't to me quite make this clear. It's also lacking in citations for all of its origins claims, USA and UK-related. Some of the UK information (skiffle=>punk for example) is just plain wrong, and I would like to know where that citation comes from.
BTW, "Sex Pistols" did not learn their instruments using Ramones records - it is widely documented they played such songs as Small Faces and Who covers in their formative days (circa 1973-75). Useless musician Sid Vicious did apparently learn one Ramones bass riff, and based his entire musical career on it, but he was a late arrival in any case, and should not be used to deny the band itself all credibility. It should also be recognised that The Damned's first USA tour opened the eyes of a lot of USA "punk" bands, since they reportedly played much faster and wilder than many similar American acts at that time. Examples like this that can balance the article one way then the other are many, and there's sources for all of it, but I would need time to stick it all in there.
So I think the "USA/UK first?" debate is a myth that WP should not be perpetuating in an ideal world. Both countries had their seminal outfits, and there's arguments both ways for which were most influential. There's no point in getting bogged down in claiming origins along nationalistic lines, there was in reality a lot of crossover, with record sales as well as protaganists visiting each other's country. That's why the article badly needs some reliable sources, from people who have already sifted all this evidence, and have already come up with some verifiable conclusions. --DaveG12345 09:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the part about not perpetuating this ridiculous argument in the article, since it really is pointless, and like I said, both sides definitely had major influence. It really isn't clear-cut. The only thing I'll disagree with is the part about the Sex Pistols not learning to play to the Ramones. Like I said, it was a documentary and they themselves were talking about playing along to Ramone's albums and it wasn't Sid. Unless I'm just confusing things, I'm pretty sure that's true. They mentioned other bands as well, which could include the bands you mentioned. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 02:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you are confusing things - perhaps someone related to the group was discussing how Sid learned to play? I too have sources on that. If you have a citable source for your version of events, let's see it. Otherwise, do explain how the original line-up was playing along to Ramones albums in 1975... :-) --DaveG12345 21:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course punk was more popular in the UK, but it's simplistic to say it was predominantly a British form of music. Ignoring the Ramones and Legs McNeil having a fanzine called Punk, among other things, even as early as the early 1980s you had punk rock scenes popping up all over the world. Hell, it go to a point where places like Iceland and Brazil had post-punk scenes. WesleyDodds 15:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
"As early as the 1980s" is quite a telling statement - Europe (especially Scandinavia, France and Germany, for a few examples) were clued-up on UK punk and had their own nascent scenes well before the "early 1980s" - three or four years before. And of course, as late as the "early 1980s" it was all over in the UK bar the shouting (almost literally).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not being mean to user WesleyDodds or anyone else, but this discussion just seems to show the kind of cross-purposes that are IMO being pointlessly faffed around with if we insist on talking about a "year zero" and "ground zero" for all "punk" the whole world over (and I assume Mr Dodds concurs that this is a pointless endeavour - that's my interpretation of his post, so apologies if I have misinterpreted it).
The UK/USA/other-countries landmarks do not tally in any meaningful or helpful way with each other, and any attempt to make them neatly blend into a seamless worldwide "history of punk", where B followed A in strict Newtonian fashion, is pointlessly futile (as mentions of skiffle and Nuggets in the article seem to demonstrate). Far greater minds than ours with far greater time have tried this shoehorning job and have either admitted it's impossible, or utterly failed upon closer analysis.
So, since we all know this, why don't we all try and redraft the article as required to fit the verifiable facts, with some useful sections on "Origins of UK Punk" and "Origins of USA Punk" if we need them (I feel perhaps we do), and get rid once-and-for-all of this out-dated notion of a tidy but completely contrary to the facts idea of a consensual chronology of punk that spans all nations, colours and creeds, and which all started with - um - the Ramones (or insert whatever band/fanzine/nightclub you feel like here, basically)?
Punk simply didn't happen that way. It is undeniable, through sheer weight of documented testimony, that punk was a big big deal in the UK in 1976-77, at the same time as it was a very very small deal indeed in the USA, and the article should reflect that fact. But just because the Dictators (for example) existed and played to a few clued-up folks States-side, does not mean that the Pistols learned to play from them, that Rotten stole all his lyrical ideas from them, or that the UK-nationwide scandal of the Bill Grundy affair was not about a very significant UK TV moment, and was in fact all about spurious activities in some obscure NYC club/fanzine. Likewise, if Nirvana or Green Day or whoever from the USA subsequently became a big big deal (undeniably), it was not because of some pure lineage that linked them right back to primeval CBGBs or Jello Biafra, as if they'd never heard a Damned album in their lives (I rather think Green Day have the full set!).
Trying to make such a case (I'm not saying anyone is, but there are slight tendencies) is just plain silly. I hope you all get my drift and dinnae take offence. :-) --DaveG12345 21:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha! I was waiting for this to happen. Ecto 02:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was bouncing back and forth between NYC and London circa '76 (and traveling a bit in the US beyond that). I would say that the NYC scene got started earlier, but was pretty much ignored in the US outside of the city's orbit, the London scene a little later but quickly became the most important popular musical thing happening in England. - Jmabel | Talk 18:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, an interesting difference: the early US punk rockers were mostly in their mid-20s or beyond; the early UK punks were almost all under 25. - Jmabel | Talk 02:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It is probably most useful to not look as the Ramones being an influence on the Pistols or vice versa, but to look at the mutual influences of both bands and their repective scenes. It was largely the New York Dolls that influnced both scenes (and, to a lesser extent, the Velvets, Stooges and MC5), and it is important to remember that Malcolm's store was all about New York music and style, and it was here that the Pistols met and formed. This was also the case in Brisbane, Australia, with the band the Saints, who formed before the Ramones and Pistols, but sounded remarkably like those bands because they listened to New York music, and it wasn't until 77 that they started to be called a punk band because of their sound even though they had never even considered themselves a punk rock band previous to that. If the New York scene hadn't hapened, something big would have happened in London anyway, but it wouldn't have sounded exactly the same and it wouldn't have been called punk. Perhaps the reggae influence would have been stronger and it would have sounded more like that. But if they London scene hadn't hapened the Ramones and all still would have been punk bands, but punk wouldn't have the same sound now and it wouldn't have become one of the major influences on music that it is today. (Don't forget the common debt New Wave, ALternative and Emo owe to punk rock, and all the bands that have been influenced by that music since.) Justinboden86 05:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That sounds an intelligent analysis to me, but I think we should all try to use verifiable and reliable sources to put this together in the article itself, so as not to run the risk of doing original research on the matter. This is particularly important when it comes to crucial issues like influences and early chronology, or it runs the risk of subtle/moderate/extreme distortion - for example, I believe McLaren got into his New York thing after the Pistols had already formed (he and the shop were into Teddy Boy culture prior to that), and almost certainly after both Steve Jones and Glen Matlock had seen New York Dolls supporting the Faces in London. The Dolls were definitely an influence on the Pistols (as were the Faces, and both much more so than the Ramones), but whether McLaren brought knowledge of the NYC scene to the band independent of the musicians' own research is much less certain. London gigs featuring US artists, plus their coverage on UK radio and TV during the mid-70s, formed a backdrop that makes a perfect chronology of influences studded with clear pivotal events very difficult to discern IMO. Hence we should ideally leave this conjecture to the credible third-party sources in the article itself... Good discussion though. :) --DaveG12345 11:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Punk was almost a spontaneous worldwide movement in terms of the speed with which it spread, but most sources cite its main instigators as being The Velvet Underground, New York Dolls, MC5 and The Stooges. Early bands were popping up all over the place; The Saints formed independently of the American and British scenes in 1972, the Sex Pistols formed only months later as "The Strand", and the Ramones formed in late 1973. The independent scenes would become hugely influential as years went by - the Pistols credited the Ramones as the reason they became a serious band. Three years later, Crass, Gang of Four and Black Flag were already starting out. --Switch 11:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I just remembered, it's important to note that a famous quote often attributed to a member of the Pistols was actually by The Clash's Mick Jones: "This is the Sex Pistols, and we're the Clash, and you're [the Ramones] the reason we became a band". The 25th Anniversary edition of London Calling feaures a DVD in which Jones himself takes credit for the quote. --Switch 11:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Punk Rock = subgenre of punk?

I think that punk rock is stuff like the Ramones and stuff, sure father of punk or not but it does not capsulate everything. I couldn't say that bands like Dystopia couldn't be called punk rock, I feel that punk is a more general term for everything. Its honestly a misconception in labeling rather than genre confusion in my opinion.

That's not how it's viewed in musical discourse. "Punk" in reference to a musical style is basically just a synonym for the full "punk rock" if you're too lazy to say the whole thing. WesleyDodds 15:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It depends on who is taking part in the discourse, it seems. So far on this talk page three different editors have brought up a distinction along these lines, and I was one of them. Wesley, please keep in mind that you do not have the final say on how this issue is viewed in "musical discourse". Musical taxonomy is not a science and some of its categories are far from being settled or universal, so we cannot pretend that that is the case. Personally, I draw a line between punk and punk rock, and this article does not, but I am fine with leaving it that way because other editors with opinions different from my own had their say first. My point is, there is no authority on this subject, so please do not try appealing to one. Ecto 18:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, musical taxonomy is not an exact science, but neither is the English language. Variations terms are often used to mean the same thing; for example "motion picture" and "movie", or "soda" and "soda pop". Like Spylab said, the distinction between "punk" and "punk rock" when talking about music is mainly preference and shorthand. WesleyDodds 06:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Other than right here, I have never heard someone say that punk music is something different from punk rock. As has been written above, "punk" (in terms of music) is just short for "punk rock." I can't even imagine why someone would think they are different genres. Go ahead and try to explain it if you can.Spylab 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab
I can understand why, and I may have heard one or two people mention it (although, it could have been here). Regardless, I think most musical taxonimists would say they are the same, and like mentioned above, one is just easier and quicker to write. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 06:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


No I think Ecto is correct in saying that Punk Rock (US) and Punk (UK) were such very different types of music maybe there should be some kind of distinction. If you're going use the term 'Punk Rock' to describe the Ramones, the Talking Heads and Blondie (for heaven's sake!) then it's obviously something very different from 'Punk' - the Sex Pistols, the Stranglers, the Clash, the Adverts, X-Ray Spex, the UK Subs...

In support of this, I remember an interview with Debbie Harry in 1978 or '79 where she was asked why she thought two similar (but not identical) music scenes had appeared on both sides of the Atlantic. She said they were two independent strands that had reached a similar conclusion, or words to that effect. At that time Blondie did not regard themselves as punk (nor did the Ramones I suspect) - this is something that has been made up since then to try to tie the two music scenes together in some scientific WesleyDodds kind of way.

As for the actual terminology, on the streets in the UK we always called it 'Punk'. 'Punk Rock' was a term your Dad might use, maybe in the same breath that he would ask 'What's top of the Hit Parade son?'

In addition there was certainly no cultural similarity between the two scenes at all. I went to see Blondie in the Boston Orpheum Theatre while in the US in 1979 (supported by a comedy band call the Fools). After having been to so many riotous punk gigs in the UK it was weird to see an audience of young people who still dressed like early seventies hippies and who stayed seated right the way through - I felt like I needed to shake them until they woke up. It was really weird sitting down during a gig. Quite comfy though. Jcleary 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Fair enough, but that still doesn't mean one style is "punk" and the other is "punk rock." Wikipedia isn't the place to invent new types of terminology. It's for documenting established facts.Spylab 12:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab
Blondie and the Ramones were not regarded as, labelled as, or considered themselves as Punk or Punk Rock at the time. The inclusion of them in that genre is some recent phenomenon (partly due I suspect to a fairly successful attempt by some Americans to rewrite history and lay claim to the punk heritage). My point is that if you're going to start rewriting history and labelling pop bands such as Blondie and the Ramones as Punk Rock, you should make a clear distinction between that and the Punk scene in the UK, which was pretty far removed from that. The two scenes weren't related then and history should not be rewritten now to pretend they were. Jcleary 12:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I doubt anyone here is actively trying to rewrite history. Also, I'll search around for reference that the Ramones weren't called punk at the time. Fair's fair, after all. But I think you're simplifiying things. Punk was very important in the musical lineage of the UK, but I think it's a bit much to say that two separate things were going on in two different countries. For starters, the LA punk scene started to come together around 77-78, and they definitely called it punk. And people could get import records, after all. You really can't narrow down the genre to one focal point like "the Ramones were the first punk band" or "The Damned released the first punk single" because it isn't as simple as that; history rarely is. A lot of people and scenes contributed to the birth of punk. WesleyDodds 07:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
According to the article that seems to include every type of music known to man except classical! What is the point of listing every music style from the previous 20 years in an article that is supposed to be about punk? Skiffle for heavens sake! The Origins and Early Emergence sections are convoluted, misinformed and overly biased towards the US. The part about punk being brought to the UK on the 4th July (!!) 1976 by the Ramones is just pure American fantasy. The article somehow forgets to mention the fact that Ramones were supporting the Stranglers at that gig and the Sex Pistols first gig was in 1975. jcleary 08:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
And as for the use of the word 'punk' to mean different things on each side of the Atlantic, it's not without precedence: what we call crisps, you call chips; and what we call chips, you call fries! jcleary 09:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Australia is something of a happy medium between the two (for example, we call both crisps and fries "chips"), and here punk has always just been short for "punk rock". I'm pretty sure they were never two distinct forms of music. --Switch 11:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Really? How confusing. Are you really saying you've listened to Blondie and the Sex Pistols and you think they're the same kind of music? No wonder you don't know your crisps from your chips.
Thinking about what I said about Debbie Harry saying the two scenes were independent - I remember when I heard that - it was when she was talking about the reason for calling the album 'Parallel Lines'. And by the way - parallel lines don't come from the same point and also never meet. jcleary 12:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
They're no more diferent than Metallica and Pantera (thrash metal), or Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix (heavy metal), or Pink Floyd and Phish (prog), or Faith No More and Nine Inch Nails (alternative metal), or Sevendust and Limp Bizkit (nu metal), or several more bands from the same genres with wildly different music. In fact, their music itself is probably more similar, with the difference being derived from production and instrumentation more than musical style. "Punk" was just a broad term, no different than other genres with wide disparity. And, for the record, parallel lines meet at infinity (otherwise we never would have made it to the moon - but that's getting deeper into mathematics than I care to outside of uni). --Switch 11:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Does saying smart-arse break any Wiki rules? In case it does, I won't say it. That's a fair point about diversity within a genre, but I don't see the production and instrumental similarities you're talking about. Where's the near out of time slap-dash drums, the cheap echoey production, the overpowering driving rhythmn guitar, the irreverent lyrics about youth and anger and politics and disenfranchisement?
'In the Flesh', 'Presence Dear' ('could this be kismet' - oh very punk!), 'Sunday Girl', 'Baby I Love You'... They weren't punk then, they aren't now and they never will be. Most Blondie fans were under 12. They weren't punks!
I hope a bunch of kids come along when you're my age and start telling you that Rage Against The Machine and Justin Timberlake were part of the same musical genre, or that Nirvana only went into music because they heard a Kylie Minogue CD. It's pretty annoying. jcleary 12:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was unintentionally ambiguous, but I actually meant the opposite of what you inferred - In terms of written music, the Pistols and Blondie were similar. In terms of instrumentation and production, Blondie were more a pop band and the Pistols a garage rock band (though NMTB was a lot cleaner than their contemporaries). If the Pistols had had pop-music-level production, used synthesisers and keyboards and actually had a singer, they would have been just like Blondie.
I'm not saying Blondie are punk by modern standards - but they're sure as hell New Wave, and new wave was originally an alternate term for punk.
Just think about this, though: If the Ramones and the Pistols are in different genres, which do the Buzzcocks belong to? --Switch 06:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

<----moving out to margin

A few, slightly scattered remarks; I'll try not to ramble on too much.:

  • Someone above mentioned Boston. Except for—earlier—the young Jonathan Richman, punk in Boston was at most a pose.
  • It's funny how your ears change over the years. When I first heard the Pistols, what was striking about them was the extreme rawness, one of the rawest sounds on record at that time. Now I listen to them and I mostly hear well-structured, mildly clever pop songs.
  • Clearly Blondie and the Sex Pistols were doing two very different things. But let's stay very close to the Pistols: Siouxsie And The Banshees are arguably closer musically to Blondie than they are to the Pistols (or at least they were after an album or three). Listening almost 30 years later, without the benefit of knowledge from the time, who'd know that Wreckless Eric was part of an entirely different (North London pub rock) scene, little connection to the punks at all, while Siouxsie was right in there at the 100 Club and Marquee? To a large extent, a term like "punk" (at least if we are talking pre-1982) designates a scene more than a sound. And the mutual availability of records, images, etc. (not to mention travel) led to a lot of influences in a lot of different directions. The boundaries are almost impossible to draw. Were Big In Japan punk? Early Scritti Politti?

- Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Punk rock names/real names section?

While interesting in a useless trivia kind of way, I'm not sure that this section is relevent enough to include in this already-long article. Perhaps it should be its own article (or merged into the punk rock musicians lists), and the Punk Rock article can link to it.Spylab 18:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Yup. Entertaining, but belongs elsewhere. - Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
How about mentioning the practice in the 'Lifestyle' section of the punk subculture article, with one or two examples? Ecto 23:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its really needed, alot fo people who play some form of rock music, or other entertainment use stage names. And of course if the people are notable enough to have an article on here in the first place it will be mentioned there. - Deathrocker 12:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

X

Recent edit calls the band X hardcore. Really? I wouldn't say so at all. - Jmabel | Talk 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and Blink-182 is crust. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Guitar solos "taboo" in early days of punk rock?

In the article it says "Guitar solos were considered taboo in the early days of punk rock." Johnny Thunders & the Heartbreakers, Richard Hell & the Voidoids, The Dead Boys, Rocket from the Tombs, The Clash, The Damned, and the Sex Pistols all had guitar solos in their earlier albums. I suggest we change it to say "are usually less common in the genre," or just remove the sentence entirely. Dasilva 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit of a myth that's grown up around punk. If anything, they were considered taboo by the press - promoting an image of year-zero DIY fundamentalism - than the musicians themselves. Even 'Anarchy in the UK' has a solo, for Chrissakes. Tpth 02:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
You're both right. Guitar solos being taboo was a common idea at the time but guitar breaks still cropped up in many songs. It was a contradiction at the time. I think what people really meant was 'virtuoso' guitar solos were taboo. By the mid-seventies guitar solos could be minutes long, and in songs like Hotel California could be more important than the song itself. Punk was reacting against that.
If you like I can change the quote to be 'Virtuoso guitar solos were considered taboo..'? jcleary 08:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I changed it. Thanks anyway. Dasilva 19:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ages ago I watched a documentary on TV about the origins of UK punk. There was this musical performance show, like Top of the Pops or something, and all the teens watched it out of boredom. One night there was a hard/prog rock band that played a song with a masturbatory 9 minute drum solo (for crying out loud), and the band that played the next night was punk or protopunk, so all the kids went ape. I think that sums up punk music. Ecto 23:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinionated addition

Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know if I should have just deleted this or not. If somebody could let me know the proper process for this, that would be great.

I notice that this paragraph was just added to the article:

Punk music is never played for personal enjoyment; it is an inherently unappealing form of music. It is only ever played to stick it to The Man, and to piss off nuns.

Obviously, this is somebody's personal opinion, and not objective fact. Do I have the authority to just delete it?

Hell yeah! Wikipedia is all about DIY. I'll probably get to it though first, but for things that are clearly biased or one editors personal commentary, feel free to delete it (just say why in the edit summary). And since you're new, if you make any mistakes, you'll just be informed of why they're not great and everyone will understand. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 18:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks a lot! And I see you've already deleted it. Cfrydj 19:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Screamers

Probaly the best band in the L.A scene 1977-1980 along.\ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.26.106.89 (talk • contribs) 18 September 2006.


AfD on Minor Threat songs

A group of articles on songs by Minor Threat are up for deletion. You may be interested in adding to the discussion. --Switch 14:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Green Day

Do you think Green Day is a punk band?

See the Green Day talk page for extensive, extensive debate on this topic. But when it comes down to it, Green Day is widely recognized by a number sources to have lead a punk revival in the 1990s. WesleyDodds 21:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

punk rock was of a certain time born of certain condictions that no longer exist, therefore, it cant be exist any more. Green day made power-pop or guitar based pop more popular in the mainstream, allowing bands like weezer and fountains of wayne etc to gain recognition, they really have nothing to do with punk rock at all.

Punk rock never fully die out. Read the article. WesleyDodds 22:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Punk Music

shouldn't the article's name be "Punk Music" sense it's not only limited to Rock?

No, because it's commonly called "punk rock" and punk is a subgenre of rock music. WesleyDodds 22:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/u/n/Talk%7EPunk_rock_Archive_4_9cd8.html"