Talk:Punk rock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Punk rock article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Featured article star Punk rock is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 21, 2004.
This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated FA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Arts. It has been rated High-Importance on the importance scale.
A previous version of this article was considered for inclusion in the Wikipedia OmniMusica, but was not selected because of comprehensivity concerns.

Contents

[edit] Archives


[edit] Pearl Jam and punk rock?

I think the name of band Pearl Jam should be removed from this page. Although they gained commercial succes in the slipstream of punk-influenced Nirvana, and subsequently were added to the non-genre 'grunge' (a mash-up of styles played by Seattle bases bands that was only invented to sell these bands' music), they have absolutely nothing to do with punk in any way. Pearl Jam is just an early nineties version of classic rock, representing much of what punk rock was rebelling against. I didn't remove it myself, just to wait and see if people agree. I also think that people who don't agree should come with sources, which I highly doubt their existance.82.114.160.33 (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Germany

The earliest German punk I remember was PVC from Berlin. Abwärts from Hamburg were punk and experimental, laying groundwork for Einstürzende Neubauten. Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Either or both would be great. Just needs to be sourced appropriately--clearly shouldn't be a problem for Abwärts.--DCGeist (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Finland

There was an anonymous contribution today about Finland that got reverted for being uncited but is, to my knowledge, factually correct.

Punk in Finland Briard 1977, Pelle Miljoona, Eppu Normaali and Maukka Perusjätkä in 1979-1980. Most famous Finnish Most popular Hardcore punk bands from finland were Terveet Kädet, Kaaos, Riistetyt, Bastards, Rattus and Appendix. 90's punk bands Ne Luumäet and Klamydia and Apulanta.

Finland was an early adopter and has always been an enthusiastic supporter of punk rock. Terveet Kädet particularly influenced hardcore worldwide. Riistetyt represented Scandinavia played at the Olympic Auditorium international hardcore show during the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I note there is a category Category:Scandinavian hardcore punk groups. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We can certainly reintroduce some of these bands to the article--a couple of the formative bands in the Second wave/Rest of the world subsection and Terveet Kädet and perhaps Riistetyt in the hardcore subsection. We just need to identify appropriate sourcing.—DCGeist (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

hey im kayla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.126.188 (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletionist arguments false and weak

Once again, an attempt has been made to delete the well-established image of the Ramones' ground-breaking debut album.

Once again, the false claim has been made that "no source...specifically discusses the cover." In fact, as has been pointed out before, two sources cited in the section specifically discuss the cover: Bessman (1993) and Miles, Scott, and Morgan (2005).

Once again, the false claim has been made that there is "no justification" for illustrating the album. In fact, as has been pointed out before, the album has been described as "set[ting] the blueprint for punk" (Erlewine, AMG) and as a "cultural watershed" (Isler and Robbins, Trouser Press)--and those are just the two sources quoted in the article. There are hundreds of similar judgments about the album and its significance to punk rock available.

Once again, it is falsely suggested that our image policy demands that the visual content of a fair-use image be specifically discussed in order to justify its inclusion (though, of course, in this case the visual content is); in fact, our policy demands that the item be of verifiable significance to the article topic and the subject of well-sourced critical commentary.—DCGeist (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It cannot stay, as it is replaceable and replaced by free content. The lack of discussion of the image in reliable sources clearly shows that seeing the cover is not essential to understanding the subject. We can certainly use text to state the album's cultural importance, citing the sources you stated, the image does not add to that discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I just wanna interject with a simple note - I couldn't care less about the use of the image in this case - my edits related only to the picture caption (scroll down), which in its original form was vastly misleading. Thanks. :-) --DaveG12345 (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
(To DCGeist, above) I note you stated that your rationale was proper. However, you state only that the album cover illustrates "The Ramones" in the nonfree image rationale (aside from the standard no-commercial-harm etc.). I can understand you'd want to have the Ramones illustrated, they are an icon. I was able to find a free image of them performing (actually a couple) in the Ramones article. I hope that this can satisfy both of us—we can illustrate the band without needless use of nonfree content? (There are other free images if you don't like that one.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, first, I no longer know how to interpret your comments. Once again, the image of the Ramones' debut album cover is discussed in multiple reliable sources, which are cited in the section and which form the source of commentary within the section. This has been stated to you multiple times. The sources are clearly cited within the article and have been named for your personal benefit above. Here is the relevant article text: "The classic punk rock look among male U.S. musicians harkens back to the T-shirt, motorcycle jacket, and jeans ensemble favored by American greasers of the 1950s associated with the rockabilly scene and by British rockers of the 1960s. The cover of the Ramones 1976 debut album, featuring a shot of the band by Punk photographer Roberta Bayley, set forth the basic elements of a style that was soon widely emulated by rock musicians both punk and nonpunk." And once again, here are the cited sources: Bessman (1993) and Miles, Scott, and Morgan (2005).
As for your proposed substitution, the image is not of encyclopedic quality. The point of including an image of the Ramones is to (a) illustrate one of the most important and influential bands of punk rock and (b) to show the specifically influential look that they established (in significant part with the cover of their debut album, as the sources describe) and that is the topic of critical commentary in the section. The free image you have provided is unfortunately too dark and dense to be of illustrative value. If you have identified any free images of illustrative value, why not post them here on the Talk page and we can consider them—DCGeist (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but a free image need not be very good to replace a nonfree. It need only be on-topic and free. We don't use nonfree where free is available, even if quality is better. There is another free image in the Ramones article, perhaps you'd like that one better? There may also be more on Commons, I could have a look if you'd prefer a different one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
(To continue from above) There are actually a good number of them, now that I look.[1] Any preferences? I kind of like the full band one myself, but you seemed to think it was too dark. I could certainly see about lightening it up some. There are some clearer face shots as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the cited source, a single sentence about the cover is not significant commentary, certainly not enough to justify inclusion in the face of free replacements being available. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You're voicing your personal opinion as if it is policy. It is not. The item in question (the Ramones' debut album) is significant, as many reliable sources indicate. The visual content of its cover is significant, as multiple reliable sources indicate. No free image is available that will represent the significant item and/or its significant cover. The fair use image is thus not "replaceable." That's our policy. You clearly have a problem with our policy, so try to get it changed.
Your comments about "cited source" and "single sentence" are very revealing. Seraphimblade, how many times do you need to be told? There are cited sources on the importance of the image.
Again, I'm happy to participate in considering the inclusion of any free images that are of encyclopedic quality and have illustrative value. I "like" the live band shot as a photo too, but it has virtually no illustrative value in the context of this article. I am afraid that the "face shots" you are suggesting will also fall well short in the illustrative value department for different reasons, but by all means, let's take a look at them.—DCGeist (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It illustrates the Ramones. We're discussing the Ramones. (In fact, it's from near the exact same time period.) How could that fail to have such value? The sources are discussing, mainly, the appearance of the band, and the shot of the band certainly serves to illustrate that. I could see if some better gamma correction could be done to it, but it certainly serves to illustrate what the sources above are discussing. (Mentioning the album cover in passing is not coverage of it, it's a name-drop. Unless a source covered the image, went into depth about it, rather than just mentioning it, we're not talking about significant commentary.) Regarding policy, while you may have been right a year ago, see the policy on replaceability from our own policy: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect, or adequately conveyed by text without using a picture at all?" If the answer is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.)" In this case, free image plus text can convey information regarding the iconic look. The nonfree image is replaceable. As to the basis for this, the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution mandates it, see requirement #3: "Such EDPs must be minimal....Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." Now we've got free content to replace the nonfree, so the nonfree must go. The policy was changed the moment WMF made that resolution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, you include a very revealing parenthetical in your comment: "(Mentioning the album cover in passing is not coverage of it, it's a name-drop. Unless a source covered the image, went into depth about it, rather than just mentioning it, we're not talking about significant commentary.)" You imply that is not the case here. But you have clearly not taken the least effort to actually familiarize yourself with the cited sources. Bessman, for instance, mentions the cover photograph at two entirely different junctures in his book. The primary discussion of it runs to over six paragraphs.

When addressing matters of "significance," when identifying what constitutes "the same encyclopedic purpose," it really is vital to be familiar with the subject matter under discussion and the relevant literature. Yes, we are all aware (I hope) of the shift in general philosophy on the use of free and nonfree images; but the specific appropriate application of that philosophy often requires a certain knowledge of a topic or the willingness to spend the time and effort learning about it.—DCGeist (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish I had that source available, unfortunately I do not. What you cited earlier was a sentence regarding the cover. I wouldn't expect a few paragraphs on the image to change anything significantly, but I'll see if I can locate the source or at least that part of it then. The fact remains, if the image were being discussed in context of the "punk rock look", or an example of it, we could use any picture which illustrates the "punk rock look" to replace it. Let me see if I can locate that source, and hopefully a satisfactory image can be found. In the meantime, however, the image is still replaceable by free content, and still must go. That's not my choice to make, nor yours. WMF has mandated that this be done without exception when the image is replaceable, and especially when it is indeed replaced. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, it would help if you would not only educate yourself on the topic, but actually read the article you want to take a whack at. What I "cited earlier" was the text of this very Wikipedia article under discussion.
You have still made no case that the image is replaceable. It illustrates a very significant item, whose significance is confirmed by multiple sources. Do you have a free image that illustrates this very significant item? In addition, the visual content of the image itself has specific historical significance, as confirmed by multiple sources. It is thus per se nonreplaceable. No free image you might come up with will have the same historical significance (i.e., serve "the same encyclopedic purpose"). I will be interested to see if you come up with anything that has verifiable historical significance at all.—DCGeist (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are using the wrong standard. A free image need not be as good as a nonfree one, not as nice, not any such. It need be adequate, and that is all. A free image with text is adequate to illustrate the point. Maybe not as pretty, maybe not as nice, but none of those are relevant. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, maybe a third voice will help to break this deadlock. The Ramones are a seminal group; nobody doubts that. And their look and style set the tone for decades. And - this part breaks my heart - Wikipedia's fair use standards are too strict to have their album cover here. Or any other copyrighted album cover. Gnash your teeth along with me. Fair use only applies to the article about that album. Not the band, not the artists, and not the genre. Yeah, it sucks. That's standard site practice. And I wish a lot of fair use images could be used more widely. Gotta be consistent, though. Dangit. DurovaCharge! 08:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I tend to believe that FU allows the use of the album images here. They are relevant to punk rock and its development. If the album is discussed and referenced. Use of the image should be allowed. --evrik (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, you're actually correct—insofar as your analysis goes. United States fair use law would pretty unambiguously allow us to use the image, and it's relevant to punk rock. So, yes, it's fair use, and it's relevant. What prohibits its use is the nonfree content policy, and the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution upon which that policy is based, both of which require that nonfree images be removed if a free image can be found or created to serve the purpose. In this case, we have plenty of free illustrations of the Ramones. They need not be as good, only adequate. And they are. Therefore, we must get rid of the nonfree image and replace it with a free one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Then I agree: replace the album cover with a free image. The Ramones played small venues for over 20 years so there shouldn't be a problem getting material shot near the stage. Thank you for the correction; I've seen closer interpretations of fair use than what you argue here. DurovaCharge! 20:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
But Seraphimbalde has rather baldly misrepresented the case here. (Misrepresented it in good faith, to be sure!) The image is not there simply to represent the Ramones, which, of course, other images could satisfactorily do. It is there, per policy, (a) to illustrate their debut album, widely regarded as one of the most important and influential recordings in punk rock history, often as the most important and influential such recording, as attested to by our cited sources and many others, and (b) for the specific image itself which is of particular historic significance, as discussed in the article and as attested to by our cited sources. If the image was there solely to provide "an" image of the Ramones, it would certainly be replaceable by a free image. But it serves an encyclopedic purpose that goes well beyond that, a purpose that cannot be approached by a free image.—DCGeist (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
How about an article content request for comments and open this for broader input? (It's late and I wanna be sedated.) ;) DurovaCharge! 08:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
No objection there. To DCGeist, why can we not represent the album's importance using text? I'm certainly not disputing its significance, nor the fact that such is sourceable, as clearly both are true. What I do dispute is that this point cannot be adequately illustrated using text with a free image, describing the album's significance while depicting the band in that time frame. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Zappa & MI and Captain Beefheart

The article completely missed Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, and Captain Beefheart. Freak Out! (1966), Absolutely Free (1967), and Safe as Milk (1967) are such influential "protopunk" albums. They were protopunk 2-3 years before the MC5 album Kick Out the Jams. I think that they must be included in the Protopunk section or somewhere else in the article. —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 10:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember, we have an entire article on protopunk. Given the length of the present article, I think we really have to reserve discussion of those predecessors (and the several others that also might be mentioned) for that more specific article. The fact is, Zappa and Beefheart are simply not considered in the literature (which includes the testament of the early punk musicians) as nearly influential as were the MC5 and the Stooges (or, for that matter, the Kinks and the Who).—DCGeist (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whats happened to this page?

I'm sure when I read it a few months back it was for informative. Has someone sabotaged it?

Why does it not emphasize more on the start of the punk rock being the three cord punk groups influenced by the Kinks song "You really got me going" as this is what the music critics first referred to as "Punk Rock". Its not right to change history just because some people caught onto the scene years later and want to hold onto their little piece of history as the legit thing. The word Punk means "Amateur" or "worthless" from the original old meaning of the word being 'Rotten wood used as tinder'. The original punk bands were inexperience amateur bands just making songs out of a few cords. This developed the later publicized scene that McLaren learned from New York and took to the world.

Just because of some pro-Sex Pistol image lead Brits who loved their era so much they won't accept anything else as being Punk, we should still accept the original invented use of the word “Punk Rock” and not change try changing history by inventing the term “Garage Rock”. McLaren stolen image and music style became a major visual aspect of punk, but this is not what Punk Rock is. Punk Rock is a far bigger movement first influenced by the Kinks. The origin punk image grew from the Mod scene only with a rebellious nature influenced by the mood of youth growing in that era that turned it into uniqueness or being original with what you had.

Also what about "Positive-Punk" and the popier "Dark-Wave" which is a large branch of the punk rock image (better known as "Goth") surely this should get more credit as much of punk movement went this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Felice

A proposed deletion template has been added (not by me) to the article John Felice, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated ...... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glitter rock

Worth mentioning the influence of David Bowie and Lou Reed/Velvet Underground in the pre-history section? Red Gown (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Velvet Underground's importance is addressed in the pre-history section. They are mentioned again later in the article, as is Lou Reed specifically. I don't believe David Bowie is regarded as a sufficiently influential or characteristic progenitor of punk to warrant discussion in this overview article, but he could certainly be mentioned in the more detailed protopunk article.—DCGeist (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Must have missed the VU mention. Silly me. I think David Bowie *could* be worked in. He had a huge influence on punk as far as I can tell (Slaughter and the Dogs and Wayne County come to mind. The original Sex Pistols also spent a lot of time listening to him - even allegedly stole his PA.) Maybe he's considered more of a catalyist, however. But yes, the Ziggy album's influence on the Stooges definetly needs a nod in the protopunk article. Red Gown (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
As it happens, I've just been reading Dave Laing's excellent One Chord Wonders: Power and Meaning in Punk Rock, and he makes a strong case for the connection between Bowie and punk. Perhaps most pertinently to this overview article, he writes, "David Bowie's use of artifice influenced the formation of punk rock through his version of the visual excess and outrage he shared with the New York Dolls and Alice Cooper." And--you'll not be surprised--he devotes much specific attention to the Ziggy persona and album. I'm convinced. A sentence on Bowie here (and more in the protopunk article) would be worthwhile. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Problems with the emo section that need to be fixed IMMEDIATELY

I didn't want to edit this because i wasn't quite sure what to do regarding someone elses comment, so i'll just tell you what needs to be fixed. In the last sentence it says emo bands such as Panic at the Disco and Fall Out Boy don't even qualify as punk: "PATD and FOB are not emo. FOB has too much pop and little screaming in anything but a couple of songs. PATD i think is actually supposed to be like pop-rock, and is sort of the exact opposite of what emo is supposed to be. That sentence needs to be removed or whoever wrote this article will look like an idiot (no offense, but that's what will happen).==Darth 'ric (Mar. 25)== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.115.147 (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews to interview Richard Hell

Wikinews is to interview Richard Hell of Richard Hell & The Voidoids, Television (band) and Dim Stars about his life, music, career and future. If you have a serious question for Hell, please leave it on my talk page under the title "Richard Hell interview". This message will be struck out once I am no longer accepting questions. --David Shankbone 00:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the article (repost and update)

Well, we currently have five fair use images and 14 music samples on the page. We also still have four instances of the word "seminal", none of which appears in the sources (where there are any). One of them even forms part of this sentence fragment: "...is seen by many as the seminal album in the field." Many? Who? Not the reference provided at any rate. At present, the article is in breach of (at least):

  1. Wikipedia:Non-free content; "3(a) Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary."
  2. Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms; "Words and phrases to watch for... "seminal""
  3. Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words; "So, some people say that Montreal is the best city in the world - Who are these people? When, where and why did they say that? What kind of bias might they have? How many is some? Consider the radically different answers these questions might have and what the average reader would make of them, and you might understand just how fundamentally lacking is a statement that uses the "what-some-people-say" qualification."
  4. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images; "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended"
  5. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Captions; "Captions should be succinct; more information on the file can be included in the image or media description page, or in the main text."

In the ten days since I raised these concerns in talk, tried to improve the article, and was reverted, I see little progress in the article. I have, on the other hand received some modest support for the points I made. Where do you suggest we go now? Is someone else willing to edit the article to bring it more into line with our guidelines? If I make another attempt to do so, will I be instantly reverted again? Would it be best to get other people involved, perhaps via a Wikipedia:Featured article review? I await your suggestions. --John 16:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Update (April 2008); we still have five fair use images, but we now have 20 fair use music samples. This marks a further decline in compliance with our policies.
Now down to 2 seminals; still two too many though.
"Hardcore, appealing to a younger, more suburban audience, was perceived by some as anti-intellectual, overly violent, and musically limited." Some? Who? I appreciate the effort that has gone into referencing some of these claims, but it is still not good style.
Image formatting and captioning; same concerns exist as six months ago.
The "Pre-history" section is very Americocentric. For example, we currently have "In the early and mid-1960s, garage rock bands that would come to be recognized as punk rock's progenitors began springing up in many different locations around North America", followed by a discussion of bands including The Kinks and The Who. Who were not form North America at all.
New concerns: the overall writing style; we have 24 instances of the word "would", all of them inappropriate. Example: "...garage rock bands that would come to be recognized..." would be better as "...garage rock bands that (or which) came to be recognized.."
So, given the lack of overall progress in the last six months, I propose an improvement drive. I recognise this will require others' input and at this point it is just a choice between a FAR and some other form of input. What we cannot have is this article continuing to make a mockery of our FA standards by displaying the little star long term with all these unaddressed problems in it. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Some initial thoughts. This go-round, can we look forward to you again telling those who disagree with your assessment of the article and your interpretation of policy that their views "count relatively little"? Can we look forward to you again baselessly trying to dismiss those who disagree you with as collectively ill-informed "friends"? Can we look forward to you again describing media choices as "arbitrary" and "weird" based on your evident lack of familiarity with the topic area under discussion and specifically with most of the literature in the field? Can we look forward to you again policing MoS as if it is, you know, policy to be post facto imposed on an article, rather than a guideline to be referenced by those actively engaged in maintaining and improving it? Can we look forward to more hilarity like the time you pondered the "Anarchy in the U.K." poster and proclaimed in all seriousness, "If it is merely an image of safety pins we need, a free one could I am sure easily be prepared"? Can we look forward, in other words, to you, Johnny Boy?—DCGeist (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see you're off to a grand start with your inaccurate and, frankly, incoherent assessment of the Punk rock#Pre-history section. Way to go, Jellybean.—DCGeist (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Should have been clearer, sorry. When I said "Any thoughts?" I meant "Any constructive suggestions as to how these deficiencies which have lain unaddressed now for six months can be remedied?" --John (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
For the most part, you have not identified objective deficiencies, just things that happen not to accord with your personal opinion of what the article should look like. The fact that you have completely misread the Pre-history section, missing the transition that takes place via the reference to the British Invasion, means—to use your own standards and language—that your opinion is of no particular consequence here. However, you have managed to identify a minor tic in the writing style—the overuse of "would"—that is easily addressed. Thanks for dropping in, boychick. (Simmer down, JJ, that's a Yiddish term of endearment.)—DCGeist (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
John was, no surprise, incorrect when he declared that all 24 uses of "would" were inappropriate. It is perfectly appropriate when describing a sequence of past events to use, for example, the construction "X would become Y" rather than "X became Y." However, the "would" construction in such phrases is more effective when it is reserved for...to get real technical...the remote future-in-past tense, where it contextually connotes a relatively larger gap of time than that connoted by the simpler verb construction (in this way "X would become Y" operates expressively like "X later became Y").
The "would" construction is also useful for euphony in certain cases. For example, it is used in the passage "coming even closer to the sound that would soon be called 'punk'" rather than the less remote future-in-the-past construction "was soon to be called 'punk'" (the simple past construction, "was soon called 'punk,'" is clearly inappropriate here—the sense demands future-in-the-past). "Would" is employed here to avoid using the word "was," which appears immediately before the quoted passage, twice in the same sentence. The "remote" connotation of "would" is here ameliorated by "soon." In any event, John was right to observe that the "would" construction was overused. The 24 instances of "would" in nonquoted text have been reduced to 10.—DCGeist (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article has a lot of fair use music samples, but I think that is simply inevitable. There is no chance of getting the music samples licensed, all of them seem germane (we might be able to pare it down a little, but not much) and there is certainly no other content that can substitute for music samples in an article about music. The only sense in which it "weakens" the article is that it is not as good in terms of the one goal of "free content", but it certainly is a positive in terms of virtually all other goals. This is a case where the goals are simply in conflict with one another. It seems to me that the contributors to this article have made a reasonable choice in this respect. - Jmabel | Talk 00:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, the fair use images seem close to inevitable. It would be rather odd to do an article about punk rock that did not show a single example of a record jacket or poster, and I don't think any of the historically major acts (or their managers or labels) are about to release anything under GFDL. - Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the fair use music samples are a lot more defensible than the images. On a music article it makes sense to have samples of the music that the article is about, though 20 are too many. The images have been removed a number of times as they are being used decoratively and have been chosen arbitrarily (ie not by any sort of consensus-building exercise). If we were to have fair use images at all (I have argued that we do not need any and that free images could do the job), at the very least there should be a discussion about which ones to use and how many we absolutely need to have. Again, five fair use images is too many. Our policies are being broken here as long as we leave the article like this. Maybe we could even choose the most important two of the five we have meantime. Two would be better than five, even if my own preference would be zero. --John (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
There you go again, John. The article passed FAR with between seven and eight fair use images (I'm not certain of the status of one that has been removed from our database). Are you making a mockery of our FAR process? Tut, tut. It would appear that five fair use images is too few, if our community's views are to be respected. In addition, there are now inline citations for the commentary on each and every fair use image and text clearly indicating their significance. As usual, you abuse the word "decoratively," which means purely ornamental; like it or not, the fair use images convey visual information directly relevant to the topic of this article. You also, as usual, misrepresent the history of the discussion, dismissing the perspectives of editors such as Wwwhatsup and SwitChar who didn't toe your line concerning these images and their value. You have drawn—from nowhere but your cute widdle belly button, as usual—the arbitrary number of two fair use images. Great. Please find two appropriate fair use images to add to the article so we can restore it to the quality it had at FAR. Thanks, boychick.—DCGeist (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead paragraph

"...between 1974 and 1976 in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, where groups such as the Ramones, Sex Pistols, and The Clash were recognized..." It seems odd to me to mention Australia, but not mention an Australian band here. There's an implied parallelism between the two lists of three that doesn't quite work here. Maybe "...between 1974 and 1976 in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, where groups such as the Ramones, the Sex Pistols and The Clash, and The Saints were recognized..."?

This is something I've wondered about for a long while. You have the honor of being the first to raise it publicly. You're unquestionably right. There's an implied parallelism that is not fulfilled. Your suggestion is a completely worthy solution to that problem. The counterargument is that both from the global perspective and the (overlapping) historical perspective, the three aforementioned bands are regarded as far more important. Will other readers find it inappropriate to group The Saints with them in the lead paragraph? Let's see if anyone else weighs in on this and how they view it.—DCGeist (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It is another problem that the article currently has; as well as over-emphasising North American groups' contributions to the genre, it suffers (like a lot of these music genre articles) from trying to include every country in the world regardless of actual impact. "Meanwhile, in Antarctica, Amundsen and the Penguins were producing their first seminal album. Even tiny Liechtenstein contributed, with Used Tractor pioneering proto-post-punk in a manner that many journalists said was "ass-kicking"... Trouble is, when you click on the links, you find that the band is barely even notable enough to have an article, let alone to be worth mentioning in an overview article like this. They have presumably been added in a laudable attempt to present a world view. We need to tell it like it is here though, and we may need to accept that, significant though Australia's contributions were, The Saints do not rank with The Clash or the Sex Pistols. Not for the lead I think, and we should delistify the bits of the article which suffer from this fault. --John (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
But remember, as our lede states, "For the most part, punk took root in local scenes that tended to reject association with the mainstream." We need to strike the appropriate balance: naturally weighted toward the most celebrated acts and events, while still efficiently surveying the grassroots scenes that are also definitive of punk. I believe the article currently does strike the right balance. As for judging the "notability" of bands on the basis of whether they currently have Wikipedia articles or substantial Wikipedia articles, that betrays a misunderstanding of our project. It's a work in progress. Many topics of varying import in every field have for years had no specific Wikipedia coverage, or just stubs, or only poor articles. Efficiently referencing bands in an overview article such as this is one way of inspiring their coverage deeper down in the encyclopedia, as it were. There are several bands mentioned in the article that were once redlinked that are now covered in articles of some substance.—DCGeist (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

John, are you saying that the mention of the Ramones in this context over-emphasizes the American contribution, or are you just objecting to the Australian part? I was bouncing back & forth between NYC & London in the relevant period, and it seems to me that insofar as the London punks of that era respected anything (which wasn't a whole lot), they respected the Ramones. As for the Saints: the other way to go is to leave Australia out of the lede. But mentioning them with no example seems pointless, and if we are mentioning it, then as far as I know there isn't much of a controversy about the Saints being most important early punk band. - Jmabel | Talk 05:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

DC, I am delighted to be able to agree with you philosophically here, that the grassroots aspect of punk was and is part of its appeal. However I am labouring under no illusions about the differences between a band which possesses notability, and one which has a decent Wikipedia article (actually, distressingly few do). It's a tricky one but I don't, naturally agree with you that the article currently has the balance right. I will think about it some more and I thank you for opening up this line of reasoning.
Jmabel, my personal opinion would be that mentioning the Ramones in the lede over-emphasises the American contribution to punk; as a die-hard Clash, Pistols, Damned and Buzzcocks man, to me the Ramones and the Dead Kennedys were respected contributors but hardly "seminal"; but I also accept that in a world project like this, we are doomed to accept an Americo-centric view of punk as this is the consensus of the project. Whether including minor bands from all over the world is a good strategy to address that I doubt, as I said above. All that said, speaking as an internationalist Wikipedian, I think Australian definitely shouldn't be in the lede. --John (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone who was living in England at the time, and attended the July 4 1976 Ramones show, just missing the Patti Smith one week before, I don't think there's any doubt as to their influence on the formative UK scene. I agree with John - Australia doesn't belong in the lede. Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Several important points have been made. Punk rock did emerge independently during the mid-1970s in Australia, and it is simply historically inaccurate to state that it developed in the US and the UK without mentioning Oz as well. There is a failed parralelism that should be improved. Australia was not as important as the US and the UK and there's no way the Saints should be named alongside the Ramones, SPs, and Clash. Here's an edit that addresses all that, while also letting readers know exactly where the heart of the action was. Replace
Preceded by a variety of protopunk music of the 1960s and early 1970s, punk rock developed between 1974 and 1976 in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, where groups such as the Ramones, Sex Pistols, and The Clash were recognized as the vanguard of a new musical movement.
with
Preceded by a variety of protopunk music of the 1960s and early 1970s, punk rock developed between 1974 and 1976 in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Groups such as the Ramones, in New York City, and the Sex Pistols and The Clash, in London, were recognized as the vanguard of a new musical movement.
(If preferred: Groups such as New York City's Ramones and London's Sex Pistols and the Clash were recognized...)DocKino (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else who's stated The Saints don't belong to be mentioned alongside the other bands. I'd even argue Australia doesn't deserve mention in the lead, as the movement was so minimal compared to the other two, though this might require some rewording of the intro.Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No one's raised an objection to my proposed edit, so I'll give it a shot. Basically
  • We lose no information
  • We gain some good information, without excess verbiage
  • We solve the style problem Jmabel (I believe) pointed out
In addition, while I support keeping the mention of Australia, for those opposed, this edit does further deemphasize Oz, by making very clear that the most important groups were in the US and UK. DocKino (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


I think the edit's an improvement. I don't think there's any doubt that The Saints "I'm Stranded" - released in September 76 - and played by John Peel to the aspiring UK punks - wasn't an early and significant musical statement, and that it was borne out of a vibrant local scene. Without doubt it was a musical milestone. But one that was rapidly passed the moment The Damned put out "New Rose", and by the time the album came out, post-Clash, in Feb 77 the band just wasn't that significant, or The Australian scene at all. As the article reads at present the inclusion of Australia in the lede is acceptable. If the article didn't have such detail on the Australian scene it wouldn't make sense. To me, for instance, I would consider the French to be as, if not more, important to the development of punk - particularly Marc Zermati with his Mont De Marsan Fests in 1976 & 1977; the release of Metallic KO; the trafficking in 45's with the US and the UK. But that doesn't get a whole section and a mention in the lede. When it comes to 'recognition' what really made it happen was not just the music & style but it's exposure via fanzines, the music weeklies and tabloids in the UK, and Punk press in the USA such as Punk in NYC, Slash in LA, Search & Destroy in SF etc. They set the template for the Punk meme to spread. They don't get much of a mention either. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brazil

Someone recently added a few sentences about Brazil. It may or may not be accurate; it is entirely uncited and terribly written. - Jmabel | Talk 00:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's brought the section "Rest of the world" up to 18 redlinks. Style-wise, it is no worse than the rest of the section; it is a list of non-notable bands and is what I was parodying above with the punk bands form Greenland and Liechtenstein. It should go, obviously, the whole thing. --John (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"Obviously" the section is informative, properly cited, and should stay. Let's get cracking on writing articles for those redlinked bands, people! The rep of Wikipedia's at stake!!—DCGeist (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
More seriously, Aborto Elétrico does seem significant to warrant mention, and there's certainly sourcing available describing their import.—DCGeist (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It should go if it has reference to non-notable bands. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a lot more info out there about scenes in other parts of the world that we should be looking to accommodate. The best way could be through sub-pages. Punk in Brazil etc. That would take the pressure off here. It's a shame to dump good info that could built on. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that there is List of Brazilian punk and hardcore groups, which already has several paragraphs of text--more in fact than many articles that aren't designated as "lists." Should it perhaps be renamed and expanded?—DocKino (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Max Lazer Band

Why was my inclusion of the Max Lazer Band deleted? Was the author of this article even living in LA during the late 1970's? If so, why is he not aware of Max Lazer or The Cats and The Heaters for that matter?They were constantly playing gigs on the Strip.I remember because I WAS THERE.jeanne (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, information doesn't go into our articles just because you remember it and were there. We need to cite a verifiable source. Take a look at the relevant sentence again. It discusses the L.A. scene in 1977. All of the bands named were playing in the city that year, per the source cited at the end of the sentence: Mark Spitz and Brendan Mullen, We Got the Neutron Bomb: The Untold Story of L.A. Punk (Three Rivers Press, 2001). The Max Lazer Band are not mentioned in the book at all, let alone as playing in 1977, which is the time covered in this section of the article. I'm deleting them again, unless you can find a published source or a high-quality Internet source (not an amateur site or a blog) establishing that the band did play in L.A. in 1977. I don't believe they did. Meanwhile, please familiarize yourself with the encyclopedia's policy on verifiability: Wikipedia:Verifiability.—DCGeist (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Joel and Simon & Garfunkel

Quote:


John Holmstrom, founding editor of Punk magazine, recalls feeling "punk rock had to come along because the rock scene had become so tame that [acts] like Billy Joel and Simon and Garfunkel were being called rock and roll, when to me and other fans, rock and roll meant this wild and rebellious music."


Isn't this an odd statement? Simon & Garfunkel broke up in 1970, while Billy Joel made his album debut in 1971, and only achieved mainstream success in 1973. 130.238.66.35 (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No: it's a quotation, and he's just trying to talk about the type of music it contrasted to. - Jmabel | Talk 18:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, it's a quotation. I just don't think it works well in this context. When one thinks of the "bombast and sentimentality of early 1970s rock," is really Simon & Garfunkel the first thing that comes to mind? Aren't they more associated in people's minds with the 1960's? Furthermore, who would ever call them "rock and roll"? Folk-rock, maybe, but "rock and roll"? I have a hard time believing that anyone ever called them that. In addition, the previous quotation talks about endless solos going nowhere, which obviously does not apply to either Simon & Garfunkel or Billy Joel. So, I guess the whole section is pretty vague when it comes to what punk reacted against. As it stands now, it seems that their target was this voluminous thing "1970's rock," that apparently encompasses everything from folk music to Hendrix imitators. That's pretty non-specfic for a philosophy, I think. 130.238.66.35 (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You are right that S&G are not emblematic of '70s rock. It would be great if we could find a citable quotation that mentioned the likes of ELO, Yes, Foreigner, Journey, Boston, and/or Kansas instead. S&G as a duo are certainly 1960s (although Paul Simon as a solo act was still enormous in the era when punk first burst out). A for Billy Joel, I suppose I'm glad to see any swipe at him that isn't libelous, but that's me. - Jmabel | Talk 17:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] grunge

is grunge not a fusion or sub genre with punk being grunge is a mixture of heavy metal and punk?--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Grunge is a subgenre of alternative rock, which has a section in this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the term punk

I just wanted to say: the section on the origin of the term punk has gotten really good: succinct and probably close to definitive. Great work, everyone. - Jmabel | Talk 18:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Blank Generation"

'Richard Hell wrote "Blank Generation", which would become the scene's emblematic anthem of escape.' How is it an "anthem of escape"? Can we either kill of clarify "of escape"? - Jmabel | Talk 19:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Clause cut.—DCGeist (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Radiators From Space

Do The Radiators From Space really merit a mention, or was this just an effort to name something from the Republic of Ireland for that era? (We all have our pets - I loved Big in Japan at the time, and still do - but the question is, does it tell the readers anything they are likely to want to know?) - Jmabel | Talk 19:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I recall adding them—yes, in the spirit of our global perspective, simply to identify the first punk band of any note from the Republic of Ireland.—DCGeist (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maximum Rock'n'Roll

Does Maximum Rock'n'Roll perhaps deserve a mention beyond the one place it is cited as a source? Pretty damned influential on the U.S. DIY scene's ongoing self-definition, especially in the late 1980s / early 1990s. - Jmabel | Talk 21:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. The only question is--given the structure of the article--where? The lead text of Punk transforms? The Hardcore subsection? The Alternative rock subsection? The punk revival? None of them is quite exactly right. But wherever you think it works best, go for it.—DCGeist (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a particular place to put it, but would welcome suggestions. There may be a few other other zines that merit mention. Maybe Flipside? Any other suggestions? I think we'd want to stick to things that were specific to punk (or punk/DIY) and preferably ones that carried some reasonably serious writing about more than merely a local scene. - Jmabel | Talk 07:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)