how the fuck isn't the title track of this not seen as Post-Punk
how the fuck would it
>>65601210
if nothing else that fucking opening chord dude
how many weeds have you taken in the last 24 hours OP
nice double negative faggot
kill yourself
>>65601225
what did they mean by this
>>65601273
Listen to the fucking song you newfag
>>65601292
>a hard day's night opening chord
what did the beatles mean by this
punk didn't exist yet
>>65601186
Because punk wasn't invented
I think the word you should be looking for is "proto-punk"
This is their second best album after Abbey Road
Prove me wrong
>>65601346
I think the word you should be looking for is "proto-post-punk"
>>65601394
It's their second best album after Please Please Me
>>65601425
>proto-post-punk
in other words...punk?
>>65601482
No, that's pre-post-punk or neo-proto-punk
>this thread
Confound you /mu/. You drive to drink.
>>65601186
are you retarded op?
>>65601342
>>65601346
>punk didn't exist yet
Los Saicos, The Kinks, the list goes on
>>65601482
No
Make this album into a milk carton.
It's jangle pop which is still ahead of its time
1. post-punk isn't a genre with identifiable formal elements. it's a name for a cultural moment and a general umbrella for a large variety of different genres.
2. punk didn't exist yet.
>>65603021
/thread
>>65601186
>Post-Punk
>>65603021
>1. post-punk isn't a genre with identifiable formal elements. it's a name for a cultural moment and a general umbrella for a large variety of different genres.
While retaining its roots in punk rock, post-punk is generally more complex and introverted. Also, musicians tend to be much more experimental, often incorporating influences from Dub, Electronic, Funk, Krautrock, Art Rock, and Experimental music.
>2. punk didn't exist yet.
See >>65602424
>>65603053
No
>>65603054
lol
>Hi I'm OP and I've never listened to Power Pop before.
Best: Tell Me Why
Runner Up: Any Time at All
Worst: Things We Said Today
Youre face when helter skelter was the first metal song
>>65603122
1) Not metal
2) Street Singer by Clear Light did it first on 1967
>>65603065
you're fucking retarded. i'm doing my phd dissertation on post-rock, and you are 100% incorrect.
>>65603169
You are even more retarded.
I'm doing my phd in post-punk and you are 100% incorrect
>>65603065
los saicos etc. aren't punk. punk, in this context is less of a formal identifier and more of a cultural identifier used to group together a family tree of musics that stem from a particular origin and share certain attitudes. that stuff is garage rock.
as with your definition of what post-punk is, that doesn't really make it more specific. both the feelies and the pop group are technically post-punk, but they're nothing alike! the only thing that unites them is the attitude and the culture, neither of which are there in a hard day's night.
>>65603208
By that logic, punk rock is garage rock
>both the feelies and the pop group are technically post-punk, but they're nothing alike!
The same can be said about any other genre. Jazz, Hip Hop, Prog Rock, etc
>the only thing that unites them is the attitude and the culture, neither of which are there in a hard day's night.
Neither attitude nor culture, but a pseudo-specific sound and trend-following
>neither of which are there in a hard day's night.
Agree
>>65603155
>Street Singer by Clear Light did it first on 1967
That beginning made me think you were gonna be right but nope.
No one will EVER find a metal missing link to dethrone Sabbath
>>65603269
wtf
>No one will EVER find a metal missing link to dethrone Sabbath
Obviously not with that attitude
Plus, King Crimson predated the Sabbath sound with 21st Century and Pictures of a City
>>65603303
dog, what do you even. Blue Cheer you fuck. also both of you are morons.
>>65603337
I know about Blue Cheer, what about them? They were not the firsts...
both of you are morons
>>65603303
>King Crimson predated the Sabbath sound with 21st Century and Pictures of a City
not this sound
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4605dtiBKuM
Damn, where's that image of the guy going on /mu/ and there are retards arguing about post avant dream funk or whatever
>>65603364
Lol you gonna post KC as a precursor to Sabbath! Sabbath! they didn't give a shit!
Yeah now you're gonna post some shit like "well uh... sun ra....and ....jazz..."
>>65601186
Because, even though the title track was the inspiration for the song "Burnout" by Green Day, anything considered "Post Punk" would've had to been recorded/released after 1979. If anything, it would be considered "Proto Punk" although there are better Beatles songs that serve as an example. (That's not to say that it's a bad song, though)
He's a big man /mu/
a big big man.
>>65603262
>punk rock is garage rock
sometimes.
>the same can be said about any other genre
yes, but even in those genres there are discernable formal aspects uniting the whole thing, and also more specific ways of sub-classifying each bit. post-punk is a really vague descriptor because it's more of a historical family tree than anything else, and OP is treating it like it's a definite 'sound' that you can attribute to musics that don't belong to that family tree..
>>65601342
Of course it did. It was just called ROCK & ROLL back then!
i feel like ozzy is really underappreciated as a music pioneer
>>65603383
It's not that different from Pictures of a City
Also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXRBLyLQtiM
>>65603413
wtf
>>65603466
>but even in those genres there are discernable formal aspects uniting the whole thing
Yeah, historical relationships. Larks Tongues has nothing to do with Close to the Edge, for example. Does this mean prog rock is not a genre?
>OP is treating it like it's a definite 'sound' that you can attribute to musics that don't belong to that family tree..
I don't agree with the OP, but you can indeed have some music that predated the "movement" which sounded similar to it (or at least to a specific subgroup of it)
>>65603494
No
>>65603529
prog rock can be defined in non-historcial terms, whereas post-punk can't. that's the point i'm making. the argument i was trying to make was an attempt to show why a hard day's night couldn't be post-punk- i'm not trying to claim that it's *actually* not a genre.
>>65603529
>It's not that different from Pictures of a City
Black Sabbath came out first so it doesnt matter either way.
I already listened to Clear Light and that beginning is the only thing metal.
>>65603208
Playing three chords and singing songs about blowing up train stations isn't punk?
I beg to differ, good sir.
Sure, Los Saicos were basically derivative of what was happening on the west coast of the U.S. during their time, combining the best elements of surf and garage, and giving it a distinct Peruvian flavor, but it was punk in it's own little way. Feel free to call it proto punk, if you like.
The literal blueprint for punk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axGsg3fPm84
recorded July 1972
>>65603597
>prog rock can be defined in non-historcial terms
How?
>whereas post-punk can't.
I just did
>the argument i was trying to make was an attempt to show why a hard day's night couldn't be post-punk- i'm not trying to claim that it's *actually* not a genre
Something could be post punk even if it didn't follow the punk rock explosion. See Pere Ubu's early singles
>>65603606
That song was already recorded in 1969 on the Pandemonium album.
>I already listened to Clear Light and that beginning is the only thing metal.
It returns to metal towards the mid-end
>>65603649
MC5 did it earlier, and The Kinks before them
>>65603262
>By that logic, punk rock is garage rock
No shit, sherlock! Even Lenny Kaye pointed that fact out on the liner notes of the original Nuggets compilation.
If it weren't for The Sonics and The Wailers, we wouldn't have The Ramones and The Dictators, and if it hadn't been for those bands we wouldn't have had The Fuzztones or The Cramps.
>>65603672
>MC5 did it earlier, and The Kinks before them
not like this. They came close just like Clear Light but didn't get all the way.
Black Sabbath was recorded in 1969 as well.
>>65603672
>That song was already recorded in 1969 on the Pandemonium album.
https://www.discogs.com/King-Crimson-Pandemonium-/release/5323295
>>65603622
>Playing three chords and singing songs about blowing up train stations isn't punk?
no? that's just rock'n'roll. punk is inherently historical.
>>65603672
>Something could be post punk even if it didn't follow the punk rock explosion. See Pere Ubu's early singles
yes, but it's still being defined in relation to punk. stuff like television/pere ubu is defined as post-punk because of a confusion of terms, one for describing a sort of sloppy rock'n'roll type sound and one for describing the early 70s DIY rock thing- while those bands were 'punk' in that they were part of the movement that was characterised as punk, they didn't fit the specific kind of music that journalists had termed 'punk' and they got retrospectively slapped with the label. same thing goes, more or less, with the majority of 'post-punk' bands.
>I just did
where?
>>65603701
>No shit, sherlock!
You would be surprised by the amount of people who think it's not
>>65603724
>not like this. They came close just like Clear Light but didn't get all the way.
I think there is a very important thing to define here. You arbitrarily define the beginning by what they did, dismissing other artists because they don't sound like that specific arbitrary definition. The same case could be made backwards to claim that Black Sabbath wasn't metal because they didn't sound like Blue Cheer.
>Black Sabbath was recorded in 1969 as well.
Fair enough. But 21st Century Schizoid Man was recorded earlier than that (October vs July/August)
>>65603787
My bad! It seems I was thinking about Devil's Triangle, but that one isn't metal.
>>65603823
>yes, but it's still being defined in relation to punk.
No, that definition is obsolete and dismisses evidence that proves it wrong.
Television is not post-punk
>while those bands were 'punk' in that they were part of the movement that was characterised as punk
Not even true. Chrome had more influences by Proto-Punk/Garage Rock bands like Stooges.
>where?
>>65603065
>>65603824
>dismissing other artists because they don't sound like that specific arbitrary definition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4EVj76htYs
the actual very first punk song
Released 11 December 1970
>>65603915
>the actual very first punk song
>Released 11 December 1970
lmao
Saicos and The Kinks already did it on 1964
MC5 and Stooges in 1969
Personally I think if you put the word "proto" on a genre label it should actually be related through exposure. Otherwise its just an isolated sound outside its time. Not many people claim there was any metal before Black Sabbath. For one heavy" songs such as 21st Century Schizoid Man, Clear Light, Nile Song, didn't really have an impact on metal like Black Sabbath did, so noone calls them protometal. Also, metal originally referred to music that was both "heavy" and had dark themes, usually occult. Sure, 21st century schizoid man has dark imagery, but it isn't written by a inherently "heavy" band with occult ties.
The same with punk, there are songs from The Stooges, or The Beatles or the Who, or Link Wray or random Brazilian garage bands in the 50s and 60s, that could be inserted right into 1977 punk rock albums, but noone is going to argue that they are punk (or proto-punk) because they it was so common and they didn't actually effect the punk-scene (yes yes I know that The Stooges are actually considered proto-punk but you get what i mean).
>>65603944
I said "actual"
>>65603944
>>65603915
Thousands of bands did "punk" before it was a think, since the 50s even
>>65603983
Have you ever listened to MC5?
>>65604003
Yes
>>65604010
Thats what I said sir....
>>65603968
>Not many people claim there was any metal before Black Sabbath.
Yeah, if you only ask people who barely know the best sellers
>songs such as 21st Century Schizoid Man, Clear Light, Nile Song, didn't really have an impact on metal like Black Sabbath did, so noone calls them protometal.
Who cares about who made metal popular? They played metal earlier, and that's what matters. They are not proto-metal just because they predated metal by a few months. They are simply metal.
>metal originally referred to music that was both "heavy" and had dark themes, usually occult
Musical genres are defined by the music, not the lyrics
>because they it was so common and they didn't actually effect the punk-scene
So, basically, Ramones appeared out of nowhere, taking influence from nobody, and made punk rock?
>>65604030
So? How would that song be punk but not mc5?
>>65604059
>but noone is going to argue that they are punk (or proto-punk)
>>65604068
>How would that song be punk but not mc5?
the drums for starters
>>65604090
I don't see how that would make the distinction between both songs being punk rock...
>>65603269
>No one will EVER find a metal missing link to dethrone Sabbath
The Beatles did doom on Abbey Road
https://vimeo.com/82799760
couldn't find a good link on youtuube
>>65604090
And, btw, the difference isn't really big if you compare it to Ramblin Rose
>>65603883
ah. i thought that was somebody else cos you didn't post with your trip.
>here
again, there's a historical bent to that definition- 'maintaining roots in punk'. being 'complex', 'introverted' and 'experimental' doesn't really mean anything.
> Chrome had more influences by Proto-Punk/Garage Rock bands like Stooges
as did, like, all of them.
this is getting a little muddy now because we're arguing based on the terms defined kind of inaccurately by music journalists. i don't really know enough about the history of the chrome to be able to argue that particular example, but as i see it, the evolution of punk as a term and an idea began with a movement of rock bands taking influences from garage rock and working independently from the mainstream that spread. as the movement gained traction within the music press, it became associated with a particular kind of sound that didn't represent the entirety of the movement that it was trying to describe that was, in formal terms, basically a sloppy kind of trad. rock'n'roll/garage rock. the term 'post-punk' ended up being used as a way of resolving this discrepancy between the newly created idea of punk as a 'type of music' and punk as a 'movement'. this is why we get bands that are described as being 'post-punk' and 'protopunk' simultaneously.
i am aware that i am arguing with a renowned tripfag here, so please correct me if i'm wrong.
>>65604185
they were damn close
>>65603672
>>65603823
>>65603883
Bands like Pere Ubu, Television, and Chrome were actually considered punk rock when they hit the scene, and the term was loosly being used to either describe bands that were still underground, didn't sound mainstream, got scant air play on the radio, or a combination of all three. Sure, all three bands have their own unique, distinctive sound, and neither of these bands sound alike, but they were considered punk, nonetheless.
>>65604266
exactly my point.
>>65602424
your a dorable
>>65604068
>who cares about who made metal popular
The people who make the labels. The fact that they played it earlier and didn't make an impact means they don't deserve the label
>Musical genres are defined by the music, not the lyrics
lyrics are music
>So, basically, Ramones appeared out of nowhere, taking influence from nobody, and made punk rock?
I never said they were devoid of influence retard. I recognized the Stooges as proto-punk in the same comment you twit, its easy to refute my arguments when I never actually made them in the first place isn't it?
If you're gonna call everything that sounds like metal "metal" and everything that sounds like punk "punk" you're throwing away the point of genre labels in the first place. Theres a reason "metal" isn't one of the genres listed on ITunes tags for the Beatles White album just because Helter Skelter is on it, its because the Beatles don't play metal.
>>65604182
Nah. There was indeed a "missing metal link", but not that one.
>>65604207
>ah. i thought that was somebody else cos you didn't post with your trip.
Oh, didn't realize that either.
>again, there's a historical bent to that definition- 'maintaining roots in punk'. being 'complex', 'introverted' and 'experimental' doesn't really mean anything.
But that's only half the definition (and I would argue those things still mean something, but whatever).
About post-punk, it's was just about punk/proto-punk bands drifting away from the "simple" style of punk and moving into more experimental territory (often using krautrock or funk influences). They usually had similarities between each other, like a web of similarities and innovations, just like prog rock, for example.
imo, the solution to all of this, is to stop making the stupid ramones distinction between punk rock and proto-punk, and recognizing post punk as a style of music that emerged from punk rock without necessarily being punk rock but with members of the genre sounding alike like each other.
Could be worse anyways, like post rock
>>65604220
Yup
>>65604266
Makes sense, but they still had a relatively specific sound and history.
>>65604322
Zank you
>>65604327
>The people who make the labels. The fact that they played it earlier and didn't make an impact means they don't deserve the label
No. You define genres and artists by how they sound, not by how popular they were.
>lyrics are music
Arguably, but not genre defining.
>I never said they were devoid of influence retard.
You kind of did.
> its easy to refute my arguments when I never actually made them in the first place isn't it?
I'm not trying to win an argument if that's what you are implying
>If you're gonna call everything that sounds like metal "metal" and everything that sounds like punk "punk" you're throwing away the point of genre labels in the first place.
Uhm, what?
>Theres a reason "metal" isn't one of the genres listed on ITunes tags for the Beatles White album just because Helter Skelter is on it, its because the Beatles don't play metal
Who cares about iTunes? Even then, nobody would tag White Album as metal just because of ONE of about 30 songs...
>>65604375
i guess we just have fundamentally different viewpoints on how to treat the genre confusion, i guess. i feel like punk rock should be an identifier for the history/culture/family tree/whatever you want to call it, with other more formally specific names for related musics (gothic rock, jangle pop, synthpop etc. etc.), while i guess your solution is to use punk primarily as a formal descriptor and get rid of the historical thing separating '77 punk from its predecessors.
i still maintain that the definition you provided was inherently historical- the descriptors you provided are certainly meaningful, but they only become descriptors of post-punk specifically when applied to that historical context ('maintaing rooots in punk').
still, your position is pretty respectable,
>>65604502
>i feel like punk rock should be an identifier for the history/culture/family tree/whatever you want to call it,
I agree, but that thing didn't start with Ramones
>i still maintain that the definition you provided was inherently historical
I guess so
>>65604538
>I agree, but that thing didn't start with Ramones
maybe not a few individual songs but as a band it did. They were the first punk band.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwsVWZ-c8Eo
>>65604620
>They were the first punk band.
MC5, The Stooges, the list goes on...
>>65604654
this song is a missing link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axGsg3fPm84
the band is not
