| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  FA | This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of punk rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | FA | This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | | [edit] England I think England should be in Regonal scenes. I mean Sex Pistols, Clash, The Damned, Exploited ect.. all came from england.... Megabar09 (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Post Punk I don't know why Television should be considered "post-punk". They were playing at CBGB and Max's Kansas City before most other NYC punk bands existed. I suppose in retrospect they can be considered "new wave" but they were an integral part of what was later called the "punk" scene in NYC in the late 1970's. The problem with labeling "genres" of music (or any art form) is that it is really a practice of critics. In the late 1970's in NYC, the artists that played at the above-mentioned venues, (The Ramones, Blondie, Television, Talking Heads, etc.) did not originally refer to their music as "punk", "new wave" or whatever, but they, and other artists playing those clubs, (Wayne County, The Dictators, The Heartbreakers, The Shirts, etc.) seemed to know that they they were part of a movement that was outside the mainstream music of the time. I didn't want to necessarily edit the main article since I couldn't find specific quotes; I was just there at that time and remember it. Proclivities (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC) - Agree; they were fully formed musically long before post-punk happened. Ceoil sláinte 18:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
-
- The article makes clear that, in addition to Television, several other bands that existed before the punk movement or that emerged along with it "were retrospectively defined as post-punk": In England, "Some bands classified as post-punk, such as Throbbing Gristle and Cabaret Voltaire, had been active well before the punk scene coalesced." In the U.S., "The later work of Ohio protopunk pioneers Pere Ubu is also commonly described as post-punk." These statements, like the one concerning Television, are all supported by citations of quality sources. The preceding historical discussion explicitly covers the very point you raise, Proclivities, that the band was "playing at CBGB and Max's Kansas City before most other NYC punk bands existed." Please take a look at the first paragraph of the Early history section, which begins with the New York City subsection. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you meant about it being "covered" earlier in the article; I guess it was just the "post-punk" label that inspired me to open this discussion before considering prior mentions in the whole article. Thanks for pointing that out.Proclivities (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Los Angeles We need to get up a good section on the LA scene. I was surprised when I noticed there wasn't a subcategory for it. New York has its own tab, and so should LA. Instead, the subcategorization is in North America which is too broad. Tim010987 (talk), WikiProject Punk music, 16:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC) [edit] Australia? "Punk rock is a rock music genre that developed between 1974 and 1976 in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia". When did Australia register as a major Punk centre? Well the same can be said for Canada...Toronto feeding directly off the New York scene as it was happening right at 75/76 and also Vancouver with the L.A scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.178.19 (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC) - Please read the article—the phrasing of your question suggests that you may not have. Punk developed—exactly as the sentence says—not only in the U.S. and the UK, but also in Australia: Radio Birdman and the Saints are two incontrovertibly seminal punk bands. Both formed even before the Ramones did, and the Saints' first single came out before any British punk band's. Yes, substantial punk scenes arose in both Toronto and Vancouver (starting in '76, not '75) but, just as you say, they initially fed off American scenes. Canada (like France, say, where a similarly substantial punk scene arose in Paris) is not a place where punk's development occurred in the same way as the three countries named.—DocKino (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Timeframe and usages of the term "punk rock" The first line says that "Punk Rock" developed between 1974 and 1976.... is quite simply crap. The expression "Punk Rock" was used long before Johny Lydon started dressing like Richard Hell. Likewise, some mention needs to be made of the fact that prior to people like Caroline Coon's misuse, the term "Punk Rock" referred not to a genre, but to a wide array of founds and ideas. 41.245.131.192 (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC) - Did you read the rest of the article? That date has nothing to do with the Sex Pistols. Zazaban (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, my friend, what was meant was that prior to Johnny and the boyz the term "Punk Rock" was basically a basket into which anything could be thrown. Basically if you were a Rock band, but weren't Glam, or Metal, or Radio Rock, then you were Punk. In fact many groups that would today be labeled as "hippies" or "art rockers" and the very antithesis of punk, were at the time called "punk". It was only with the UK explosion of 1977 with the Pistols, Damned, Clash etc that Punk came to be seen as a single genre or sound, and suddenly there was a "Punk sound". prior to that anything that didn't fit neatly into little pigeonholes was Punk. Thus the idea of a "Punk Rock sound" was ludicrous, as Punk was a vast, diverse grouping. Punk was basically defined by what you were NOT. Getting into some very POV stuff, it still pisses me off today when some Sid Vicious clone type acts like they're all "Genuine Punk", whereas in fact they're blindly following like a lemming. Prior to the whole Grundy thing and its aftermath, Punk by its very definition meant that labels or dress code et al were meaningless. Now Punk is a rigid uniform bleh. Something needs to be added about what Punk Rock meant before it was appropriated by boring follow-the-fashion teenagers with too much time on their hands. 41.245.189.17 (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC) - If you read the article, you'll find that it states, among things, "The term punk initially referred to the scene in general, more than the sound itself—the early New York punk bands represented a broad variety of influences," and "Bands from the same scenes often sounded very different from each other, reflecting the eclectic state of punk music during the era."—DCGeist (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
That still gives the impression that "Punk Rock" was a focused, somewhat organized "scene". 41.245.155.173 (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC) The question is "What is the word Punk?". The original use of the word punk so many hundred years ago was for useless dead wood that was only good for tinder to start fires. From this people would call something or someone not of high quality as "Punk". The same way some people often say "he/she is just dead wood" when of no good. After the group the group the Kinks released the song "You really Got me" which was a simple song containing mostly three cords, it started a string of unprofessional groups with one off hits copying the style, hence the magazine critics calling it "punk rock" meaning amateur and not of high quality. The big difference between rock / hard rock / Heavy Metal and punk rock / Hardcore Punk is the quality and professional standard. Rock / Metal etc will have lead breaks and technical skillfull playing (or a good attempt at - thinking groups like early Venom) whereas Punk is not supposed to and will just be mostly strumming guitar rythms. Again in Rock / Metal etc the singing may be of a high harmonic quality where as in punk it will not be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.213.52 (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC) [edit] Image copyright problem with File:Pay to Cum.ogg The image File:Pay to Cum.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check -
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC) - Thanks. Rationale added.—DCGeist (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Fanboy POV-pusher A user is repeating removing info and claiming that Alternative Rock did not come out of Punk. He seems to be doing so to perpetuate the myth that Punk Rock is some sort of pure genre that came from nothing and has never developed into anything else. This is absolutely and totally wrong. Zazaban (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC) [edit] Anti-Punk Ignorant The above user who commented that a user who removed info regarding the punk rock article is absolutely misguided. That user is me. I never once posted that alternative rock did not come from Punk. I suggest that you get your facts straight. What I said was, grunge is not punk. Grunge and punk are not one and the same. They are as different as an apple is from an orange. I have been a hard core punk and a neo-punk since 1979. Since the early '90's, I've been involved in trying to revive punk during the grunge period of the 90's decade. I will be blunt and unapologetic again... Punk IS NOT grunge. Never has been and never will be. Obviously from your answer, you do not know anything about punk, its fashion, history, or its influences. Punk is a genre in and of itself. It didn't spring from anything known at the time it was born; it obviously didn't come from disco and it certainly was not influenced by hippy music. I should know, since I have almost 30 years experience as a punk, have conversed with the inner circle of the punk greats, and even made recommendations to them in the early 80's. This anti-punk clown therefore clearly does not know what he is talking about. He doesn't know anything even remotely relating to punk. He accused me of stating that punk did not come from alternative music. To correct you, I stated that punk IS NOT grunge. Don't make this same mistake again because it demonstates your low level of knowledge in this area and hugely dents your credibility. This shows that you do not like punk for some personal reason which wiki and I find very disturbing. Calm down. You are not correct in your statements. Marvinst (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC) - A: To Marvinist - be civil.
- B: The Ramones were founded in 1974, putting the origin year of punk firmly in 1974.
- And C: To Marvinist, again - You personal experience in no way gives you more authority on the subject. That is not how Wikipedia works. Such assertions are called original research and are not valid as sources for articles. kingdom2 (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- No one ever said that it was punk, you however said it had nothing to do with punk, which is a lie. Yes, punk did come from plenty of things around at the time it came into being. 60s garage rock was a huge influence. And to clarify, I do like punk as music, but I find the attitude of many of its fans to be annoying and elitist. Your comments said nothing other than 'I was around then, so shut up.' You made absolutely no effort to justify your point. Zazaban (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- To Zazaban: Be civil. While you are right on all accounts, personal attacks (even if they are indirect) in no way help the discussion process. kingdom2 (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- The comment about attitude wasn't actually intended to be an attack. Oh well, I don't care for being accused of being some sort of troll. Zazaban (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- In addition to Zazaban's excellent analysis, we should also point out here that Marvinst's central plaint is, of course, void: The article nowhere states that punk is grunge. It characterizes punk as an important influence on grunge. Here are the two relevant passages:
-
-
-
- "Alternative rock encompasses a diverse set of styles—including gothic rock and grunge, among others—unified by their debt to punk rock and their origins outside of the musical mainstream."
-
-
-
- "In 1991, Nirvana emerged from Washington State's grunge scene, achieving huge commercial success with its second album, Nevermind. The band's members cited punk rock as a key influence on their style."—DCGeist (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- And his edits were in fact saying they had absolutely nothing to do with each other, not that they were simply distinct. Zazaban (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to Zazaban First, I will be civil as long as you're civil to me. So far, you're the one who shot the first volley when you called me "fanboy". In kind, I had no choice but to shoot it back to you; all's fair in love and war. Second, I will counter your points with authentic references of my own which I will post for evidence that backs up my argument about punk's distinction. When I do, you better NOT remove them, pursuant to wiki's policy. Doing so will reveal you as a hypocrite, with all due respect. Lastly, and again with all due respect, you are not an appropriate source for information regarding punk. If you fail to realize that punk and grunge have far less in common; that punk is in a class all its own and was not influenced by "60's garage rock" - whatever that means; and that your personal taste precludes me as a credible source from my long, personal experience in the punk industry, then, you cannot be allowed to further bend punk history to your personal liking. To recap, I will provide adequate references. DO NOT edit the article back to its original falsehood when I do since I will have furnished you with proof/references. Marvinst (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC) - If you do not understand what "60's garage rock" means, then look it up. It is linked right there in the lead. Also, the point isn't that grunge and punk are similar, which, stylistically, they are not. The point is that grunge was influenced by punk, i.e. the grunge forerunners, before they started playing, listened to punk, enjoyed the music, and decided to start a band because of that enjoyment.
- Besides, credible references and quotes, one of which directly from Cobain, that support this are already in the article. In other words, if you do find credible sources to prove your point, the most that you can do with them is add the information as a counterpoint while leaving what is currently already there there. kingdom2 (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to kingdom2 OK, here we go again. To reiterate, 60's garage rock did not influence punk music. And I don't care what that long haired, anti-punk hippie Cobain was quoted as saying. You're going to depend your grunge history and contradict punk's with only ONE quote? And from a hippie who was part of a movement that helped bring punk down? That makes NO sense. I'm going to provide plenty a quote when the time comes that will vastly overshadow the quotes you have. And you godamn better not re-edit or I'll have you banned! I've done it before and I'll do it again! By the way, I'm damn happy that idiot Cobain died. He did nothing for punk but bury it using stupid american grunge music. You lame americans don't know anything about and have no taste for style, fashion, or music. Marvinst (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC) - I'm sorry, Grunge came directly from punk. This post just shows that this is based on your personal dislike for the genre and not on facts. It is well established that grunge came from punk, and you'd have to rewrite almost everything documenting the history of music to deny that. Also, empty threats to have people banned aren't going to work, thank you. Zazaban (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
-
- I tried to have a rational discussion, but oh well... kingdom2 (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, everyone take a step back and remember to be civil in your tone - and yes, that's aimed at everyone. Keep the discussion polite and targeted on the article, not our personal views on the subject or the other editors. Marvinst: please don't threaten people with bans in an aggressive tone. If you feel that the article needs to be adjusted, then please, CIVILLY, provide reliable sources that back up your statements, and bring them here for other editors to discuss how they can be worked into the article. We have to back up the statements in the article, so you need to provide references to be used in that manner. Then, everyone can discuss it POLITELY, please. I'll keep an eye on things and try to provide comments from an outside angle as well. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC) - Specifically, Marvinst, there's absolutely no evidence that Zazaban is "bend[ing] punk history to [his] personal liking." The article is the product of the collaborative work of many Wikipedians, is strongly sourced, and reflects the current consensus views on all the matters being argued here.
- I have already addressed the grunge issue, where Marvinst seems to be arguing not against the validity of any of the article's actual content, but simply in favor of a desire to have any mention of grunge entirely erased. Let's turn to the consensus view that punk has substantial roots in 1960s garage rock, even as it constitutes a distinct style and cultural movement. In addition to the multiple sources supporting this consensus view already cited in the article, we find that view expressed in books from leading publishers both generalist and scholarly (i.e., the most authoritative sources per Wikipedia's standards):
-
- From the "punk rock" entry in the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll (Rolling Stone Press/Summit Books): "Just before Britain's punk rock explosion, the Ramones had emerged from New York's more arty punk scene—alongside Talking Heads, Patti Smith and Television—with their stripped-down, hyperdriven remodelings of Sixties garage rock" (p. 449).
-
- Laurain Leblanc, in Pretty in Punk: Girls' Gender Resistance in a Boys' Subculture (Rutgers University Press), refers to punk's "roots in the machismo and 'masculinism' of '60s garage rock" (p. 47).
-
- In Popular Music: The Key Concepts (Routledge), Roy Shuker describes Lenny Kaye's famous Nuggets compilation of 1960s garage rock: "In his liner notes, Kaye termed the genre 'punk rock', a prescient acknowledgment of garage rock's subsequent influence: the advent of punk rock in the late 1970s and 1980s saw a revival of interest in the garage bands, whose sound is not dissimilar" (p. 116).
-
- In Dissonant Identities: The Rock'n'roll Scene in Austin, Texas (Wesleyan University Press), Barry Shank writes, "The musical roots of American punk rock lay in the midwestern and west coast garage rock of the midsixties" (p. 91).
- I could go on...and on...but I'll get to my conclusion: It is unlikely that an attempt to rewrite the article so it argues against this consensus view will meet with any success, per our policies concerning standards of verifiability and avoiding giving undue weight to minority theories.—DCGeist (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to DCGeist Your references DO NOT explicitly provide precise historical significance that punk rock was a result of 60's garage music. All it implies is that it gave it a facelift; not that it was influenced by it at all. And your references come from authors who themsleves have not been emersed in the vein of punk. For example, Roy Shuker (one of the authors you quoted from), is a post-hippie american. So, of course, he's going to credit his hippie origins as much as he can. I AM GOING TO PROVIDE ADEQUETE REFERENCES AND PROOF. YOU WILL ACCEPT THEM OR I WILL ALERT WIKI ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL LEANINGS TOWARDS GRUNGE AND AGAINST PUNK. BE A REAL MAN. ACCEPT THEM. Marvinst (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC) - Since logic has clearly left the building, I am just going to ignore any further posts and revert your inappropriate edits when they come. kingdom2 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
-
- That's clearly the proper plan of action.—DCGeist (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Gently, folks, I'm trying to explain how things work to our friend here. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Excessive vandalism I don't know if this has been raised in previous archived discussions, but of the 552 pages on my watchlist, this one is more prone to vandalism than any of them by a long shot. It is really rather annoying. Since this is a featured article and deserves some degree of watchfulness, I was wondering if we could get some type of protection on the article. I cannot be the only one who feels this way. kingdom2 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC) - Yea, looking at the history this could use a break. I'll semiprotect for two weeks and see what happens. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
-
- And as soon as the semiprotect goes down... bam! I think that this article might just be doomed to suffer from excessive vandalism. kingdom2 (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Would anyone here be overly opposed to a permanent semiprotect (or at least indefinite). kingdom2 (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- No opposition here. It's hard to find an IP contribution in the past six months that's been anything other than vandalism or spam.—DCGeist (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Folks, there's only been eleven vandal edits to the article since the protection came off on the 9th - that's less than one a day. There's been more on this one that I watch, in comparison; there, I revert and carry on. The protection policy says that indef protection is only used in cases of sustained, heavy vandalism and things like BLP or content issues - less than one edit a day isn't sustained, heavy vandalism. If you feel that it's necessary, you can request from another admin, but right now I don't think it meets the requirements for indef semiprotection. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
-
- Maybe you should ask youself why? Probably because this article is historically incorrect. Suddenly Punk, which everyone knew was all about the UK, is suddenly an American form of music and the Sex Pistols are now some kind of passenger on Richard Hell's back and that UK punk is somewhere behind the US in importance when it comes to punk, languishing with Australia and soon (apparently) that famous Canadian punk scene!! You can try to rewrite history but those of us who were there won't forget about the UK punk scene of 1976 and The Clash, The Stranglers, The Slits, Slaughter and the Dogs, UK Subs, Penetration, Stiff Little Fingers, X-Ray Spex, The Buzzcocks, The Damned, The Vibrators, The Ruts... no matter how much the American writers of Wikipedia try to rewrite history to pretend it happened otherwise. Of course what do you expect from the country who virtually wiped out their indigenous peoples, are the ONLY country who has ever dropped The Bomb in anger and then go around telling everyone they are the good guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.154.53 (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] David Peel There should be a reference to David Peel as an important protopunk musician. Songs like "Up against the wall motherfucker", "Here comes a cop" and others were certainly influential. Seeingmusic (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC) - Then be bold find a reliable source that mentions his importance and influence in protopunk. kingdom2 (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
-
- Good idea, here are some sources
http://books.google.com/books?id=04KtwVkHNv0C&pg=PA66&dq=%22David+Peel%22+punk&ei=OVXySabZCI2oyASay5yGCw "Ahead of his time, Peel played folk music with the emphasis of punk rock and the arrangements of lo-fi pop." http://books.google.com/books?id=DWto9_cXH1UC&pg=PA55&dq=%22David+Peel%22+punk&lr=&ei=D1bySaeVFImkzASco-HHBg#PPA55,M1 "David Peel is a New York-based musician who first recorded in the late 1960s, with Harold Black, Billy Jo White and Larry Adams performing as The Lower East Side Band. Though his raw, acoustic "street rock" with lyrics about marijuana and "bad cops" appealed mostly to hippies at first, the sound and DIY ethic make him an important, if little-credited, early performer of punk rock. " From Please Kill Me: The Uncensored Oral History of Punk http://books.google.com/books?id=mkG7Y6_J7pUC&dq=Please+Kill+Me:+The+Uncensored+Oral+History+of+Punk,&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=WlfySYajD5DflQf76oC_DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA64,M1 "The bill at the New York State Pavilion at the World's Fair was David Peel, The Stooges and The MC5. It was a famous show." If it's ok I'll insert peel into the appropriate section? Seeingmusic (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC) - Good refs. Just remember to make sure not to assign him undue weight (usually only crops up in POV debates, but can also apply to other situations). The coverage he receives in the article should be equivalent to that of his peers and contemporaries. A sentence or two is fine, but don't go writing a paragraph. kingdom2 (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, but these are not particularly good refs. The Scaruffi is essentially self-published--there's zero editorial oversight at iUniverse. Doesn't pass WP:V. The McNeil/McCain oral history mentions Peel twice, but in neither instance is he identified as a significant pre-punk/protopunk/punk-inspiring figure. That leaves the strange Pigging book. It does seem to pass our WP:V standards, qualifying Peel for mention in the appropriate protopunk article, but no way does he belong in this general overview article on punk rock.DocKino (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Peel was instrumental in bringing Punk into the mainstream by appearing with John Lennon, being one of the first punk acts on Elektra records etc. I can't understand your argument that Peel's inclusion in a history of Punk book does not identify him as a protopunk figure, especially since you immediately said he belongs in the protopunk article. Being a protopunk musician who's first album "sold close to a million copies" certainly makes him acceptable to be in the protopunk summary of the general overview article on punk rock.
Another reference to Peel as an early Punk Rock artist. Jeffrey Lewis's history of Punk Rock. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88QLxLHQW_M Seeingmusic (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC) - Man, I love Jeffrey Lewis (12 Crass Songs? Genius.), but this doesn't come close to meeting our WP:Verifiability standards.—DCGeist (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes but Please_Kill_Me:_The_Uncensored_Oral_History_of_Punk does, as does the Pigging book. There are only two things that need to be established. One, that Peel qualifies as a a protopunk musician. Two, that Peel is sufficiently notable to merit being in the summary of Protopunk. DocKino agrees with me that Peel is sufficiently notable to be in the Protopunk article. Being that he sold "close to a million copies" was on Elektra Records and Apple Records, as well as repeatedly touring with John Lennon, I can't see any logical explanation for why he shouldn't be in the summary of Protopunk. Both sides are in agreement that he is a verified protopunk musician, I can't see how there is any discussion as to whether he is notable enough to be included in this article. Seeingmusic (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Two things need to be understood here:
- (1) We can all agree that Please Kill Me: The Uncensored Oral History of Punk is the greatest source of all time, but it simply doesn't identify Peel as a significant protopunk musician at all or even link his music with punk rock, so it is irrelevant to the discussion.
- (2) You have one, just one, decent source that connects David Peel to punk. I will accept that is sufficient to win him a brief mention in the protopunk article. What you don't seem to realize is that not everyone who might be mentioned in the protopunk article can be mentioned in the summary "Protopunk" section in the punk rock article. There's a reason that there's a whole separate protopunk article--to allow for more extensive discussion of the impact of significantly influential figures like The Stooges and MC5 and to allow for the mention of more marginally pertinent figures like Peel (that article really needs work--maybe you'd like to work on it?). There are other pre-punk figures I can think of who belong in the protopunk article because some connection can be drawn, but like Peel are not important enough to the development of punk to make it into the summary section here: the Holy Modal Rounders and The Monks are two that immediately spring to mind.
- The fact that Peel toured with John Lennon and sold close to a million records is fine and dandy, but that doesn't make him a significant protopunk figure. Lots of people did all that and more--it doesn't make an artist particularly relevant to punk. Did any of the early punk acts cover a Peel song? Did any of the seminal punk musicians cite Peel as an influence? Was he a central figure in a widely recognized, significant protopunk scene, like Boston's Rat or the Cleveland circle? I don't see any evidence of any of that. If you can come up with some, I would be surprised, but it would definitely change my perspective. You did claim that it was "easy to find" "more" "solid references" that Peel was significantly connected to punk. Please find them; please do the work to make sure they're solid; and please make sure they actually say what you want them to say.DocKino (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ditto to DocKino above. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] NorthWest Punk I know that most of the people who would read this think that the northwest in the seventies, eighties, nineties and now is Grunge and Alternative Rock. However there was a lot of Punk/Hardcore bands (and even so Grunge is a sub-genre of Hardcore). For instance in the seventies (punk) there was The Tupperwares, (who moved to L.A. in 79' and re-named the screamers) The Lewd, The FastBacks, The Wipers, The neo-boys, The Cheaters, The Vains, Meyce, The Telepaths and many more bands. In the eighties (hardcore) there were The Fartz, X-15, Crime and offs, The Precednts, The Snots, The Refuzors, Mr. Epp and the calculations, The Mentors, DOA, Subhumans, SNFU among others. During the nineties (both of the above and riot grrrl) there were Bikini Kill, Bratmobile, Excuse 17, Sleater-Kinney, The Gits, Mudhoney (Garage Punk/Grunge) to name a few. I think it should have a page about it or at least have more mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.217.46 (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC) - What in the hell is your point? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
My point is there needs to be more mention of these bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.217.46 (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC) - You're wrong. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Wikiproject Body Modification I'm trying to start a Wikiproject on Body Modification, if anyone wants to join go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Body_Modification ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Images in article Hi, I added free-use photos from Wikimedia Commons that depicted several of the groups referred to in the article (e.g., The Cramps, Minor Threat, etc.). An editor removed these images calling them "image clutter". In both cases, these photos were the only image in their respective sections. I don't see how this is a case of "image clutter". The pictures that were put in followed the WP:Images guidelines, which states that "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic". The Cramps pic was put right after the Cramps were discussed, and the Minor Threat pic was in the Hardcore section, near the discussion of Minor Threat. Both groups are influential groups...it's not like I put up pics of some obscure groups. I'm just hoping to find support in the editor community for adding a few carefully-chosen pictures.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC) -
- Hi, After the Minor Threat and Cramps photos were removed a second time, in good faith, I tried to find out if the editor DocKino's assertion that the photos caused "media clutter" was grounded in Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I looked in WP:Images and in the WP:MOS (Wikipedia Manual of Style, section on images), and in the Music Project image guidelines. I was not able to find policies or guidelines stating that you cannot or should not have an image in a section that already has sound files. Could you please direct me to the policy or guideline that backs up your claim? Or, if it is a personal opinion or aesthetic preference, I would request that you consider that this article can be edited by other members of the Wikipedia community. Thank youOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. This is not a matter of policy or guideline. It is simply a matter of editorial decision-making, which involves the personal opinions and aesthetic preferences of all concerned. It is your personal opinion that the images should be added; it is mine that they should not. You see no aesthetic problem with, say, having three media elements in a modest-sized subsection ("Second wave"/"North America"); I do see a problem--the problem of image/media clutter. (As another point, this part of the article follows a chronological structure. The period covered here is 1977-78; it is far from ideal to include a photograph that shows musicians' visual style from 1982.) Concerns about image/media clutter are commonly raised as part of the editorial decision-making process, as are many, many other matters (e.g., word choice, emphasis, structure) that involve personal opinion and aesthetic preference. There is no policy or guideline that prohibits or explicitly argues against having three pieces of media in this subsection, nor is there any policy or guideline that prohibits or explicitly argues against having four, five, six, or seven pieces--just as there is no policy or guideline that prohibits or explicitly argues against, say, devoting a paragraph in the subsection to The Sillies. But would any of these be wise and productive editorial choices? I believe not. DocKino (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Johnny Ramone's downstrum technique Is there a reason this article does not mention how Johnny Ramone was influenced by Jimmy Page's guitar playing on "Communication Breakdown" and subsequently, popularized the downstrumming technique in punk rock? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC) - If you can find a reliable source on it, you are welcome to adding it to the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
He wasn't, that was pure speculation... Ramone liked some of there stuff, but he hated alot of what they were doing, he got that from the Stooges and the Mc5, and his always cited that...--DavisHawkens (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC) - There is a valid source for it in the Jimmy Page article. GripTheHusk (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Shouldnt that be enough?--Applegigs (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC) - It's arguably enough for the articles on Page and/or Ramone, but the opinion of one other musician (Andy Shernoff of The Dictators) about the source of Ramone's technique is hardly significant enough to be mentioned in this general overview article.—DCGeist (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
ok -- i give in to what everyone else agrees on.--Applegigs (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC) [edit] Sound samples Why are there two sound samples in the sections "Second Wave/North America", "Hardcore punk", "Punk revival", and three in "First wave / New York", but none in "Emo", "New Wave" and "Anarcho-punk". I suggest cutting one from the earlier, and adding a sample each to the latter. Thoughts? indopug (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC) - What would you suggest for New wave or Anarcho? For NW, I'd like something from the Specials or Talking Heads. Anarcho would have to be Crass; their page has a sample, but its not very good. Emo I dont care about. Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was thinking "Psycho Killer" for New Wave. I don't much about anarcho or emo to be honest. indopug (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not very knowledgeable about the band, but is the linked Coil (in the queercore/riot grrl section) the same Coil the article means to be referring to? As far as I can glean from the linked article, the industrial band Coil that's linked has no substantive connection to punk or to queercore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.35.59 (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC) - Read through again--Coil often dealt with implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, gay subject matter. Here's a Google Books reference ([1]), with this great line: "Nick Cave walked out on us saying we were too gay." DocKino (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- That doesn't necessarily make it punk rock though. This article is about the music genre, not the attitude, we have got Punk subculture for that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- The sentence in question specifically discusses the antecedents of queercore, not all of which are punk, and explicitly notes, "queercore embraces a variety of punk and other alternative music styles". The mention of Coil here is analogous to the discussion earlier in the article of the general antecedents of punk rock, which, by definition, are something other than punk.—DCGeist (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Los Saicos What about of Los Saicos the first band of punk in history, that Peruan band has a short action (1965-1967) but was really significant in the punk rock, with the same viral lyrics, and sounds caracterictics of the punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.201.164.6 (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC) - With proper sourcing, this sounds like something that would be good for our article on protopunk.—DCGeist (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks... ...for the article. I've got a bunch of niggling things about it that are neither here nor there, but in general, I thought that the article was encyclopedic. Good work, crew (by crew I guess I mean that I assume the article was a collaborative process - a kind of punky DIY process, in fact). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.102.8 (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC) - Thank you from all of us who work on this--Guerillero (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] This page needs to be rewritten Unduly harsh comment removed by the author, in favor of a kinder, gentler, wiki-friendly exchange. My apologies to those offended by my lack of diplomacy. The gist of the deleted comment is that I think this article could be much better. Punkhistorian (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC) what do you find wrong with it? --Guerillero (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC) - It would be nearly impossible to list everything here. I think it would be better to do it in installments. Punkhistorian (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Our "punkhistorian" is joking. Here's ph's true area of expertise.—DCGeist (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Controversial comment deleted by authorPunkhistorian (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC) - Tell you what, little buddy, tell us your real name, you much-respected editor and/or co-writer of several books, and I'll share with you my opinion of the quality of this Featured Article. Can't wait to be impressed by your professional credits!!—DCGeist (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Explanation of controversial comments deleted by authorPunkhistorian (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC) - Please try to stay civil Punkhistorian and remember no personal attacks. There IS a large group that edits this. Your ethos fails because you refuse to back up your statements. Why should we believe you if you offer no proof that you are a well known write/editor. (If you want to edit anything remember to cite your sources and your books can't be used by you because it would be a Conflict of interest I hope this helps --Guerillero (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Further explanation of comments deleted by authorPunkhistorian (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC) - Ok. So what specific things do you have a problem with?--Guerillero (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a Featured Article, whose content has been developed through an extended, collaborative process. Discuss any substantive concerns, especially any changes you believe should be made to the lede, on this page and attempt to develop a consensus for them. By the way, Punkhistorian, your concerns with this article might be more credible if Jobriath were not so poorly written and sourced.—DCGeist (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC) I don't remember reading anywhere that one has to "discuss concerns" or "develop a concensus" to edit a page on Wiki. Tell me something, DCGeist. You've "extensively expanded and revised" this article. Do you think it's well-written?? Do you think it's historically accurate or provides a balanced, informed, seasoned perspective of the subject? Frankly, with articles like this to your credit, you're in no position to criticize anything that I or anyone else has written or edited, so get off it. I spent less than an hour editing the Jobriath article, for the first time on Wiki, and it's far better than what preceded it. I'm also not finished. How many years have you been editing this "Featured Article" for? I hope you'll stop the sophomoric personal slurs and get back to the real issue at hand. -- Punkhistorian (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC) - Yes,the article is very well written and historically accurate. Well sourced, it gets right many facts that certain popular online sources get wrong. As for developing consensus in Talk for substantive changes to Featured Articles, yes that's common practice and a good idea, too. Now, let's take a look at some of the problems with your recent, low-quality edit whose specifics you did not feel were worth discussing with your fellow Wikipedians (despite Guerillero's request):
- Australia as a primary site of punk's development eliminated, despite the fact that the well-cited main text confirms this; despite the fact that the first recognized Australian punk single preceded the first recognized British punk single; despite the fact that the first recognized Australian punk EP preceded the first recognized British punk EP or LP.
- Punk's roots in garage rock eliminated, despite the fact that the well-cited main text confirms this. As a side effect, this edit results in a deeply vacuous sentence.
- Poor, inconsistent style (proto-punk) introduced.
- Improper comma (between "mainstream" and "1970s") introduced.
- Senseless "or" added between "political" and "anti-establishment". As a side effect, this edit also produces an improper comma.
- Needless addition of four band names resulting in an ungainly mess of proper names inappropriate for a lede (we call this "example creep") and a loss of appropriate focus on the most significant early proponents of punk (we call this a problem of emphasis).
- Senseless and improper replacement of "around" with "throughout" in description of punk's international spread during 1977. You really believe "throughout" is superior to "around"? There's just one plausible basis for that: if punk reached Africa, Indonesia, Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, etc., etc. in 1977. I was not aware that it did. Please provide us with your sources.
- In sum, I'm afraid that the evidence of your writing demonstrates that you have little basis for complaint about anyone else's.—DCGeist (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
|
