Warin wrote:ukimalefu wrote:The best part? how people fail and/or refuse to understand that is punk.
The best part is that some people cannot distinguish between new wave and punk.
No, that was later Talking Heads was part of the punk scene BEFORE anybody came up with the term "new wave".
Talking Heads used more than three chords. Not punk.
user wrote:Talking Heads used more than three chords. Not punk.
Blitzkrieg Bop is FOUR chords. Just stop.
More than three. TH was WAY above the musicianship of any punk band. If they started punk, it sure as hell didn't last very long.
OK, keep going. I won't.
Quote:The term "New Wave" itself has been a source of much confusion and controversy. It first circulated as a rock music genre in the early 1970s, used by critics like Nick Kent and Dave Marsh to classify such New York-based groups as the Velvet Underground and New York Dolls.[9] It gained a much wider currency beginning in 1976 when it appeared in UK punk fanzines such as Sniffin' Glue, and also in newsstand music weeklies such as Melody Maker and New Musical Express.[23] In a November 1976 article in Melody Maker, Caroline Coon used Malcolm McLaren's term "New Wave" to designate music by bands not exactly punk, but related to, and part of the same musical scene;[24] the term was also used in that sense by music journalist Charles Shaar Murray in his comments about The Boomtown Rats.[25] For a period of time in 1976 and 1977 the two terms were interchangeable.[9][26] By the end of 1977, "New Wave" had replaced "Punk" as the definition for new underground music in the UK.[23]
I would definitely call the Talking Heads New Wave. I would NOT call them punk.
Neither New Wave or Punk are terribly well defined, but they pretty much developed--in NYC at least-- side by side, in the same clubs with many of the same fans.
Yes, the Talking Heads were part of the "punk scene" but so were a lot of bands that were NOT punk.
They started out pretty definitively "post-punk" with 77.
DEVO is the only New Wave band. The rest are punk art fags.
Iggy Pop and the Stooges, the MC5, the Dictators, etc; that was proto punk. Blondie, Television, Ramones, Talking Heads are the classic four CBGB bands that basically was the first wave of what got called punk. Then the Ramones played the UK and you had the Buzzcocks, the Clash, etc and especially the Sex Pistols, which was basically a boy band used to hype clothing fashions. The Ramones and UK sound may have gotten famous and more well known and kind of absorbed the label, but TH and Blondie were just as "punk" at a certain time and place.
Putting the Ramones, Talking Heads, and Television in the same category of music kind of destroys any significance for that category. "Hm, I'd like to listen to something with a non-corporate DIY aesthetic" is not very meaningful when it comes to sound.
Geesie wrote:Putting the Ramones, Talking Heads, and Television in the same category of music kind of destroys any significance for that category. "Hm, I'd like to listen to something with a non-corporate DIY aesthetic" is not very meaningful when it comes to sound.
Thats kind of what I thought it was about originally, not exactly a sound or look or philosophy, but a state of mind and sort of a "non-serious" music in the sense that it was experimental.
I just can't put the Ramones in the "experimental" corner with the other groups.
The scene was certainly inclusive though.
The scene was certainly inclusive though.
Quote:TH and Blondie were just as "punk" at a certain time and place.
well, if you're gonna use temporal qualifications, the same thing could be said about The Beatles.
Séamas wrote:I just can't put the Ramones in the "experimental" corner with the other groups.
The scene was certainly inclusive though.
Minimalism can be experimental. They created a good formula. Lasted a zillion albums and inspired tons of people. No Ramones means no Wipers, for instance, who were rather experimental.
DukeofNuke wrote:well, if you're gonna use temporal qualifications, the same thing could be said about The Beatles.
No, it couldnt.
looks pretty punk to me ...
I guess there needs to be an agreed definition of "Punk".
StaticAge wrote:DukeofNuke wrote:well, if you're gonna use temporal qualifications, the same thing could be said about The Beatles.
No, it couldnt.
The First Amendment begs to differ. And the Supreme Court of Canada, who ruled in Crown v. Zündel that honestly held opinions can be expressed even if manifestly incorrect.
And with that we have been winged by Godwin's Law.
DukeofNuke wrote:
looks pretty punk to me ...
I guess there needs to be an agreed definition of "Punk".
How does that picture fit into the temporal definition I offered? I said time and place. Thats 60's Germany (guess). I love the Beatles, my favorite band ever, just saying.
I wasnt saying that at one point the Talking Heads sounded like the Ramones and so they were punk. Basically, I was saying that the term "punk" back then was applied to a scene of people making music that critics didnt like who all were in the same kind of clique. The term at that time did not indicate a specific sound or look.
Hmm, a vapid pop band, in Germany in the 60s, dressed like Stasi operatives. I don't know, maybe there is something at least proto-punk about that. 
StaticAge wrote:Séamas wrote:I just can't put the Ramones in the "experimental" corner with the other groups.
The scene was certainly inclusive though.
Minimalism can be experimental. They created a good formula. Lasted a zillion albums and inspired tons of people. No Ramones means no Wipers, for instance, who were rather experimental.
I guess in that sense Muddy Waters was experimental.
rjprice wrote:Hmm, a vapid pop band, in Germany in the 60s, dressed like Stasi operatives. I don't know, maybe there is something at least proto-punk about that.
Vapid?
Is nini on vacation or something? How is she letting us get away with arguing in the picture thread about music? But, yeah, there are plenty protopunk bands and songs stretching way back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BINOU2zh6Ac]The Sonics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4DV-5d6a5g]The Kinks (obviously, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q63XogYTIcc]The Who (didnt they just wish they were the Kinks at first?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oig8z4HvBL8]The Creation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM6nasmkg7A]MC5
Also, if Muddy Waters had been one member included in a scene that was doing all kinds of stuff and his style of blues was incorporated under the same umbrella as the others, then yeah, I guess he would be experimental too. Like Degas, when he was doing rather traditional portraits and stuff was still included as a radical "impressioinst."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BINOU2zh6Ac]The Sonics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4DV-5d6a5g]The Kinks (obviously, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q63XogYTIcc]The Who (didnt they just wish they were the Kinks at first?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oig8z4HvBL8]The Creation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM6nasmkg7A]MC5
Also, if Muddy Waters had been one member included in a scene that was doing all kinds of stuff and his style of blues was incorporated under the same umbrella as the others, then yeah, I guess he would be experimental too. Like Degas, when he was doing rather traditional portraits and stuff was still included as a radical "impressioinst."
Séamas wrote:rjprice wrote:Hmm, a vapid pop band, in Germany in the 60s, dressed like Stasi operatives. I don't know, maybe there is something at least proto-punk about that.
Vapid?
Vapid, yes, The Beatles. At least in the early days. Later on they tried to be all meaningful and important.
rjprice wrote:Séamas wrote:rjprice wrote:Hmm, a vapid pop band, in Germany in the 60s, dressed like Stasi operatives. I don't know, maybe there is something at least proto-punk about that.
Vapid?
Vapid, yes, The Beatles. At least in the early days. Later on they tried to be all meaningful and important.
Their harmonies, melodies, chord construction and arrangements were never vapid.
StaticAge:I was saying that the term "punk" back then was applied to a scene of people making music that critics didnt like who all were in the same kind of clique.
All I was saying was that, at one point in their early career, The Beatles also fit that description. For that matter, so did Elvis and Bill Monroe, but you couldn't really call any of them "Punk", could you ?
"Punk" was really just a fashion statement, (and by "fashion" I mean of the times, not necessarily of the clothes; although that's certainly there, too.)
Séamas wrote:rjprice wrote:Séamas wrote:rjprice wrote:Hmm, a vapid pop band, in Germany in the 60s, dressed like Stasi operatives. I don't know, maybe there is something at least proto-punk about that.
Vapid?
Vapid, yes, The Beatles. At least in the early days. Later on they tried to be all meaningful and important.
Their harmonies, melodies, chord construction and arrangements were never vapid.
Sounds like somebody knows something about music.
I don't.
The Beatles early stuff sounds like any other bubblegum pop to me. I like it, but I don't think it is especially deep or meaningful or anything. It is just fun to listen to and that is enough for me.
DukeofNuke wrote:StaticAge:I was saying that the term "punk" back then was applied to a scene of people making music that critics didnt like who all were in the same kind of clique.
All I was saying was that, at one point in their early career, The Beatles also fit that description. For that matter, so did Elvis and Bill Monroe, but you couldn't really call any of them "Punk", could you ?
"Punk" was really just a fashion statement, (and by "fashion" I mean of the times, not necessarily of the clothes; although that's certainly there, too.)
No, I mean it was specifically applied to those particular people at that particular time. Thats what the word originally meant, and it was applied by critics to the Ramones, Blondie, and the Talking Heads. Similarly, "Republican" means a certain kind of politician distinct to the USA, and even though there are plenty conservative political positions all over the place, it would be a mistake to describe Margarette Thatcher as a "Republican."*
Since then the word "punk" has changed its meaning, and its more of a style or fashion or what have you. By the new definition, sure, lots of people like the Beatles etc could maybe fit that description. BUT, if people are wondering how the Talking Heads could be called punk, then referring to how the description was originally coined means that "punk" in that sense only applies to a small group of musicians in NYC in the mid-70's.
*I am sure nini will appreciate the political references I am making here.
Séamas wrote:Quote:The term "New Wave" itself has been a source of much confusion and controversy. It first circulated as a rock music genre in the early 1970s, used by critics like Nick Kent and Dave Marsh to classify such New York-based groups as the Velvet Underground and New York Dolls.[9] It gained a much wider currency beginning in 1976 when it appeared in UK punk fanzines such as Sniffin' Glue, and also in newsstand music weeklies such as Melody Maker and New Musical Express.[23] In a November 1976 article in Melody Maker, Caroline Coon used Malcolm McLaren's term "New Wave" to designate music by bands not exactly punk, but related to, and part of the same musical scene;[24] the term was also used in that sense by music journalist Charles Shaar Murray in his comments about The Boomtown Rats.[25] For a period of time in 1976 and 1977 the two terms were interchangeable.[9][26] By the end of 1977, "New Wave" had replaced "Punk" as the definition for new underground music in the UK.[23]
I would definitely call the Talking Heads New Wave. I would NOT call them punk.
Neither New Wave or Punk are terribly well defined, but they pretty much developed--in NYC at least-- side by side, in the same clubs with many of the same fans.
Yes, the Talking Heads were part of the "punk scene" but so were a lot of bands that were NOT punk.
Ok, yes, you can put it that way. Damn, I tried to get out but you pulled me back in.
Heroes of Science Action Figures (click for full size)
A glaring absence of Isaac Newton, among others.
Geesie wrote:A glaring absence of Isaac Newton, among others.
Yeah, that is as big an omission as you can get.
Also: Jacques Cousteau?
He was a real kick-ass individual (I grew up on his shows/films), but he never called himself an oceanographer or scientist. He definitely promoted oceanography and worked with scientists, but it'd be really hard to call him one.
Last edited by Séamas on Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:49 pm.
Séamas wrote:Geesie wrote:A glaring absence of Isaac Newton, among others.
Yeah, that is as big an omission as you can get.
Also: Jacques Cousteau?
He was a real kick-ass individual (I grew up on his shows/films), but he never called himself an oceanographer or scientists. He definitely promoted oceanography and worked with scientists, but it'd be really hard to call him one.
And while Tyson is an actual scientist, I don't think his contributions to the field outweigh, say, Galileo or Copernicus.
And having Dawkins and not Darwin and Mendel is just hilarious.
You know what funny comic strips don't do? Telegraph the punch line 12 panels early.
Geesie wrote:A glaring absence of Isaac Newton, among others.
It's 20th century only.
Geesie wrote:You know what funny comic strips don't do? Telegraph the punch line 12 panels early.
You counted them, and made count them too.
ukimalefu wrote:Geesie wrote:A glaring absence of Isaac Newton, among others.
It's 20th century only.
Well then, they left out Emmett Brown.
Geesie wrote:You know what funny comic strips don't do? Telegraph the punch line 12 panels early.
Was it supposed to be funny? Somebody should send me a memo about these things.
