IGG Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 I will never understand people that can't understand people that trash a genre of music in direct response to said genre of music trashing the music that we love as their only means of getting attention. Lets face it the Punk thing was the brainchild of a promoter who came up with the idea of "I think I'll put together a band of retards and tell them to act anti-establishment to make some money" Talent not required !!! RjK So you have to agree with the opinion of every musician whose work you listen to?? What a small window of musical listening opportunity! I also wouldn't get to know any of your heroes too well....chances are they will all have an opinion that differs from yours, The Clash and some others had the balls to say how they were feeling at the time, good for them! Pete Townsend wrote "Hope I die before I get old", hey, some of his fans are older now, but he worte what he felt at the time. The Sex Pistols are/were a joke. Don't confuse The Clash, or others of the modern rock genre with one group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringBender Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Dudes who couldn't/can't excel musically became punk "musicians". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGG Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Dudes who couldn't/can't excel musically became punk "musicians". John Bonham supposedly had issues with playing reggae grooves, guess he was punk eh'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringBender Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 John Bonham supposedly had issues with playing reggae grooves, guess he was punk eh'? I can see right off the bat you and I wouldn't be able to pursue a conversation to any great length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Klu Posted December 27, 2007 Author Share Posted December 27, 2007 2 guitar solos located therein. Thats like 200% more guitar solos than a typical Who song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGG Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 I can see right off the bat you and I wouldn't be able to pursue a conversation to any great length. True, I abhor the ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RjK Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 So you have to agree with the opinion of every musician whose work you listen to?? What a small window of musical listening opportunity! I also wouldn't get to know any of your heroes too well....chances are they will all have an opinion that differs from yours, The Clash and some others had the balls to say how they were feeling at the time, good for them! Pete Townsend wrote "Hope I die before I get old", hey, some of his fans are older now, but he worte what he felt at the time. The Sex Pistols are/were a joke. Don't confuse The Clash, or others of the modern rock genre with one group. Now you are showing True Ignorance by assuming things about me when you have no idea what I am about. I am not even going to bother with you any more, have a nice day !!!!! RjK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaw Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 Amusingly, none of this describes The Clash. Really? Explain this quote then: "I don't even have to listen to their music. Just looking at one of their album covers makes me want to vomit..." Seems to me it falls under the disrespecting a band that came before them category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footsteps of Dawn Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 I love all the generalization that's going on in here. Ridiculous. Do you realize what you're saying? Wouldn't you be pissed if someone said, "All bands from the '60s were shit. Look at The Beatles, they couldn't play together worth a crap, so the rest of them couldn't possibly be any good"? Not to mention that this just doesn't make sense. "I don't like The Clash because I've heard The Sex Pistols and they suck." The Sex Pistols are ONE BAND out of zillions, and this thread isn't for them! If you don't like the Clash's music, fine, but don't say you hate them just because they're in the same genre as another band that sucks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGG Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 Now you are showing True Ignorance by assuming things about me when you have no idea what I am about. I am not even going to bother with you any more, have a nice day !!!!! RjK It's cute when you little fellers get all worked up. I don't know what you are about....you just joined this month, were you on the old forum? You're not going to bother with me anymore? Seems like you think you've quarelled with me in the past, and you are now at wits end? This is the first time I've adressed you, but if its that scary of a happenstance, I'll look the other way when you enter a thread. I actually agreed with you on the Sex Pistols. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Klu Posted December 27, 2007 Author Share Posted December 27, 2007 Really? Explain this quote then: "I don't even have to listen to their music. Just looking at one of their album covers makes me want to vomit..." Seems to me it falls under the disrespecting a band that came before them category. I've never found a primary source for that quote. At this point its just a urban legend quote that fits in with the punk stereotype. Even though it sounds more like Johnny Rotten if it were actually said, it wouldnt shock me though. Before they found their political purpose, the Clash were searching for their angle like most bands do. In any event, their actions were pretty clear... - they went out of their way to get Bo Diddley on their tour - London Calling's album cover is an obvious homage to Elvis - much of London Calling itself is a homage to early rock. - virtually all their early '76 material was influenced by the Kinks and the Who. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RjK Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 Oh how wrong you are Its quite possible that I am wrong as I was not there, but I do recall reading as well as seeing a documentary about the origins of Punk and while I may have some minor errors, in a nutshell my post is reflects what I have seen/read. What I was getting at was how some Punk musicians seemed to favor bashing Zepplin among others as dinosaurs and therefore not relevant anymore. How else do you expect die hard fans to react when they read/see stuff like this. I just can't respect musicians who attack for no real reason (other than to get attention for their own musical efforts) other bands, it shows a lack of character in my opinion. RjK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RjK Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 For the record I enjoy some of The Sex Pistols tunes as well as The Clash, its the people (as usual) who take things the wrong way and use the music as an excuse for violence (sound familiar these days) that truly ruin things for me. RjK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Klu Posted December 27, 2007 Author Share Posted December 27, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 I don't quite get this thread either but I like the Clash a lot and I like a lot of punk music. It's not my absolute favorite genre but I think it absolutely needed to happen and had a very important impact on the future of a lot of music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kakdaddy Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 I've never found a primary source for that quote. At this point its just a urban legend quote that fits in with the punk stereotype. Even though it sounds more like Johnny Rotten if it were actually said, it wouldnt shock me though. Before they found their political purpose, the Clash were searching for their angle like most bands do. Paul Simonom did actually say that, but who cares? Keith Richards & Clapton don't like Zeppelin either, should anyone hate the Stones or Cream based on that? Page doesn't like Pink Floyd, should Floyd fans boycott Zeppelin records? It's ridiculous. More to the point, beyond what a phenomenal band the Clash were, Joe Strummer had more intergrity & heart out there than the bands of today, his peers at the time of the punk movement, & the vast majority of those who came before him. The Clash is really one of the few bands that is even beyond their great musical output, they are actually a way of life. Those of you who don't understand that last comment don't know the Clash. I'm listening to Johnny Cash & Joe Strummer sing "Redemption Song" right now, it doesn't get much better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kakdaddy Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 Ooops, forgot... I didn't answer the threads' question. I don't like the Clash because.... they left a void that U2, Public Enemy, & Rage Against Machine combined could not fill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGG Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 Ooops, forgot... I didn't answer the threads' question. I don't like the Clash because.... they left a void that U2, Public Enemy, & Rage Against Machine combined could not fill. I regret that you're only round these parts a few times a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Klu Posted December 27, 2007 Author Share Posted December 27, 2007 Paul Simonom did actually say that, but who cares? Oh shit, well then it all makes sense. The dude was the bands artist as well as bassist. He must have saw Zep 3's cover and swore them off forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaw Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 I think it absolutely needed to happen and had a very important impact on the future of a lot of music. Disagree and disagree again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 Disagree and disagree again. Why? As much as I love a lot of 70s rock, there needed to be an alternative. Change is important in music or we'd still be listening to "How Much is that Doggy in the Window". You think a lot of the 80s/early 90s music would have happened had punk not made its way to our ears? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaw Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 Why? As much as I love a lot of 70s rock, there needed to be an alternative. Change is important in music or we'd still be listening to "How Much is that Doggy in the Window". You think a lot of the 80s/early 90s music would have happened had punk not made its way to our ears? Why? Because I think it led to the image is everything, screw the music mentality of modern music. The Clash specifically may not fall in that category (I will give them some credit) but punk in general was and is pure shize, imo. I agree there needed to be an alternative, but NOT a downgrade which punk was, imo. I'm not a big fan of 80's/90's or current rock (with some exceptions). A lot of that has to do with punks negative influence.....the 'so easy, anyone can do it' saying comes to mind. Who wants to hear music that anyone can do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Klu Posted December 27, 2007 Author Share Posted December 27, 2007 Disagree and disagree again. Thats lazy. Then again your stance is lazy. I once agreed with you, which coincidently was before I actually listened to punk. The same supposed know-it-all's who hate the Clash out of principle likely enjoy The Who. Shit, The Clash are practically Yes/Gentle Giant/Jethro Tull/King Crimson compared to The Who. The Who could only wish they put out an album as varied and challenging as Sandinista. But generally their sound is similar, and still Mick Jones was more advanced on guitar than Pete! The only difference between them are the labels people slapped on them. New Wave/Punk saved rock. The late 60's-early 70's generation were past their prime by 76-77. All the the bands of that era were already slipping. Punk didnt force change or make music shittier, the previous gen. just ran out of ideas. Television (the band) are at times considered punk, but they had distortion-free twin lead guitarists! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaw Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 Thats lazy. Then again your stance is lazy. I once agreed with you, which coincidently was before I actually listened to punk. The same supposed know-it-all's who hate the Clash out of principle likely enjoy The Who. Shit, The Clash are practically Yes/Gentle Giant/Jethro Tull/King Crimson compared to The Who. The Who could only wish they put out an album as varied and challenging as Sandinista. But generally their sound is similar, and still Mick Jones was more advanced on guitar than Pete! The only difference between them are the labels people slapped on them. New Wave/Punk saved rock. The late 60's-early 70's generation were past their prime by 76-77. All the the bands of that era were already slipping. Punk didnt force change or make music shittier, the previous gen. just ran out of ideas. Television (the band) are at times considered punk, but they had distortion-free twin lead guitarists! Firstly, how is my stance lazy? I don't know how I can make it more clear. Second, I've seen and heard the Who. Mister, the Clash are no Who......and unworthy to hold the Who's jock strap. New Wave/Punk saved rock my ass! They killed it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Klu Posted December 27, 2007 Author Share Posted December 27, 2007 Firstly, how is my stance lazy? I don't how I can make it more clear. Second, I've seen and heard the Who. Mister, the Clash are no Who......and unworthy to hold the Who's jock strap. New Wave/Punk saved rock my ass! They killed it! You've not used any/specific Clash songs for your arguments. You've not used any/specific punk songs for your arguments. Therefore I must assume you've never heard them in depth/at all, which makes your vigorously impassioned non-arguments lazy at best, ignorant at worst. You've used only punks reputation, or your preconceptions for your arguments . Again, no specifics to confirm you've actually heard any of what you are slagging. Maybe you need an examples? Example: Clash City Rockers improved the I Can't Explain riff by giving it a turnaround. Subjective, but its specific. Example: Ivan Meets GI Joe is not punk. Its not quite disco or techno either. It has a tasty piano riff. It does not sound like the work of a punk band. Punk and New Wave ARE rock. They arent blues based with a designated solo part at the 2:00 mark, singing babybaby...or the dragonmaster approches! or...the astral plane shimmers with gold... so maybe thats confusing you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.