What Are you Listening to Right Now?

[Marky Dread]

Small Faces, 'Odgen's Nut Gone Flake' (1968; 2012 mono remaster).
IMO, more fun than 'Sgt. Pepper', 'Satanic Majesties', 'Tommy', 'Village Green', 'Pet Sounds' or 'SF Sorrow'.

Great album and yes great fun. Not better than some of those you mention but more fun, yes.

[Kory]

Found out one of my local libraries has several of these Soul Jazz comps. I checked out this one and the Akron one. Good stuff.

I wonder what it would look like to write a history of punk/post-punk without all the official major bands. Do the big names actually represent, writ large, what was happening, or were they just the most marketable and didn't really represent what was going on in dozens, even hundreds of little scenes all over the world. Put another way, is the story of punk actually all these groups who took their shot and then stopped, and then the members went off to have anonymous weird or ordinary lives?

Surely without the 'official major bands' it would have been a very small underground scene that would disappear pretty quickly.

Oh sure. I'm talking about a kind of historian's game playing. The big bands undoubtedly inspired (even if in a kind of repellant way—e.g., the No Wave scene, which was a rejection of punk) all these smaller bands. But what I'm getting at is that when we focus on the bands that made it, that gained greater and long-lasting attention, we're missing a key element of the story, which is all those bands who didn't make it, who broke up after releasing a 7" that was heard by a few hundred people. If punk is supposed to be a celebration and encouragement of the amateur and non-conformist, aren't these people the real story? Who makes history, the politicians or the average chumps? It's the same question of where we should train our gaze. The answer is both, of course, but too often the inclination is to go with "the leaders." But that marginalizes another part of the story, ignoring variety and idiosyncrasy that counters the conventional tale.

I'd be interested in knowing how big a band like, say, Delta 5 was at the time though. I mean, even somebody like Go4 wasn't that big, were they? They only gained their "fame" over the course of decades from word of mouth and new people coming along and picking them up. Delta 5 (I assume) was a tiny-ish band, but now we have a really nice collection of their sessions. How much is marketing/making it worth now in this age of information?

[Marky Dread]

Found out one of my local libraries has several of these Soul Jazz comps. I checked out this one and the Akron one. Good stuff.

I wonder what it would look like to write a history of punk/post-punk without all the official major bands. Do the big names actually represent, writ large, what was happening, or were they just the most marketable and didn't really represent what was going on in dozens, even hundreds of little scenes all over the world. Put another way, is the story of punk actually all these groups who took their shot and then stopped, and then the members went off to have anonymous weird or ordinary lives?

Surely without the 'official major bands' it would have been a very small underground scene that would disappear pretty quickly.

Oh sure. I'm talking about a kind of historian's game playing. The big bands undoubtedly inspired (even if in a kind of repellant way—e.g., the No Wave scene, which was a rejection of punk) all these smaller bands. But what I'm getting at is that when we focus on the bands that made it, that gained greater and long-lasting attention, we're missing a key element of the story, which is all those bands who didn't make it, who broke up after releasing a 7" that was heard by a few hundred people. If punk is supposed to be a celebration and encouragement of the amateur and non-conformist, aren't these people the real story? Who makes history, the politicians or the average chumps? It's the same question of where we should train our gaze. The answer is both, of course, but too often the inclination is to go with "the leaders." But that marginalizes another part of the story, ignoring variety and idiosyncrasy that counters the conventional tale.

I'd be interested in knowing how big a band like, say, Delta 5 was at the time though. I mean, even somebody like Go4 wasn't that big, were they? They only gained their "fame" over the course of decades from word of mouth and new people coming along and picking them up. Delta 5 (I assume) was a tiny-ish band, but now we have a really nice collection of their sessions. How much is marketing/making it worth now in this age of information?

I think it's always been a select/experimental audience for a lot of the smaller lesser known Punk/Post Punk groups.

[Dr. Medulla]

I'd be interested in knowing how big a band like, say, Delta 5 was at the time though. I mean, even somebody like Go4 wasn't that big, were they? They only gained their "fame" over the course of decades from word of mouth and new people coming along and picking them up. Delta 5 (I assume) was a tiny-ish band, but now we have a really nice collection of their sessions. How much is marketing/making it worth now in this age of information?

Yeah, there is that question, too, of how we define "big" bands versus "small." Dead Kennedys were never big in the context of overall rock. Nor were the Pistols or Clash. Just spit-ballin', but maybe you use a quant argument and go by whether a band released a full album and how many copies were pressed. Any group signed to a major or had national distribution is out. No methodology would ever be fully satisfying—there'd always be exceptions—but that'd be a start.

[Kory]

I'd be interested in knowing how big a band like, say, Delta 5 was at the time though. I mean, even somebody like Go4 wasn't that big, were they? They only gained their "fame" over the course of decades from word of mouth and new people coming along and picking them up. Delta 5 (I assume) was a tiny-ish band, but now we have a really nice collection of their sessions. How much is marketing/making it worth now in this age of information?

Yeah, there is that question, too, of how we define "big" bands versus "small." Dead Kennedys were never big in the context of overall rock. Nor were the Pistols or Clash. Just spit-ballin', but maybe you use a quant argument and go by whether a band released a full album and how many copies were pressed. Any group signed to a major or had national distribution is out. No methodology would ever be fully satisfying—there'd always be exceptions—but that'd be a start.

That makes sense to me. I think a great chapter could be written on the bands that don't make that first cut but wound up with some impressive notoriety maybe 20 or more years later vs. the ones that didn't, and some kind of analysis on what might have happened there.

[Marky Dread]

Some of those bands have grown merely through influence. Sadly doesn't equate to financial status.

[Dr. Medulla]

I'd be interested in knowing how big a band like, say, Delta 5 was at the time though. I mean, even somebody like Go4 wasn't that big, were they? They only gained their "fame" over the course of decades from word of mouth and new people coming along and picking them up. Delta 5 (I assume) was a tiny-ish band, but now we have a really nice collection of their sessions. How much is marketing/making it worth now in this age of information?

Yeah, there is that question, too, of how we define "big" bands versus "small." Dead Kennedys were never big in the context of overall rock. Nor were the Pistols or Clash. Just spit-ballin', but maybe you use a quant argument and go by whether a band released a full album and how many copies were pressed. Any group signed to a major or had national distribution is out. No methodology would ever be fully satisfying—there'd always be exceptions—but that'd be a start.

That makes sense to me. I think a great chapter could be written on the bands that don't make that first cut but wound up with some impressive notoriety maybe 20 or more years later vs. the ones that didn't, and some kind of analysis on what might have happened there.

It'd be a semi-playful reconsideration of punk that necessarily punishes financial success and probably longevity. So even the terms of analysis establishes a definition of punk that a lot of people would justifiably have problems with.

[Marky Dread]

I'd be interested in knowing how big a band like, say, Delta 5 was at the time though. I mean, even somebody like Go4 wasn't that big, were they? They only gained their "fame" over the course of decades from word of mouth and new people coming along and picking them up. Delta 5 (I assume) was a tiny-ish band, but now we have a really nice collection of their sessions. How much is marketing/making it worth now in this age of information?

Yeah, there is that question, too, of how we define "big" bands versus "small." Dead Kennedys were never big in the context of overall rock. Nor were the Pistols or Clash. Just spit-ballin', but maybe you use a quant argument and go by whether a band released a full album and how many copies were pressed. Any group signed to a major or had national distribution is out. No methodology would ever be fully satisfying—there'd always be exceptions—but that'd be a start.

That makes sense to me. I think a great chapter could be written on the bands that don't make that first cut but wound up with some impressive notoriety maybe 20 or more years later vs. the ones that didn't, and some kind of analysis on what might have happened there.

It'd be a semi-playful reconsideration of punk that necessarily punishes financial success and probably longevity. So even the terms of analysis establishes a definition of punk that a lot of people would justifiably have problems with.

The problem is the word "punk". What that means to people in general. You can have a punk attitude but not play punk music. I think this applies to most post punk groups in their non acceptance of any musical rules. And all the better for it.

[Dr. Medulla]

I'd be interested in knowing how big a band like, say, Delta 5 was at the time though. I mean, even somebody like Go4 wasn't that big, were they? They only gained their "fame" over the course of decades from word of mouth and new people coming along and picking them up. Delta 5 (I assume) was a tiny-ish band, but now we have a really nice collection of their sessions. How much is marketing/making it worth now in this age of information?

Yeah, there is that question, too, of how we define "big" bands versus "small." Dead Kennedys were never big in the context of overall rock. Nor were the Pistols or Clash. Just spit-ballin', but maybe you use a quant argument and go by whether a band released a full album and how many copies were pressed. Any group signed to a major or had national distribution is out. No methodology would ever be fully satisfying—there'd always be exceptions—but that'd be a start.

That makes sense to me. I think a great chapter could be written on the bands that don't make that first cut but wound up with some impressive notoriety maybe 20 or more years later vs. the ones that didn't, and some kind of analysis on what might have happened there.

It'd be a semi-playful reconsideration of punk that necessarily punishes financial success and probably longevity. So even the terms of analysis establishes a definition of punk that a lot of people would justifiably have problems with.

The problem is the word "punk". What that means to people in general. You can have a punk attitude but not play punk music. I think this applies to most post punk groups in their non acceptance of any musical rules. And all the better for it.

Yup. The term is so open to interpretation that any argument promises to lose a wide chunk of the audience right off the bat because they disagree with the definition used. Which is probably why academics like writing about punk—it's about staking out conceptual turf and throwing rocks at other smarty pants over it.

[Marky Dread]

Yeah, there is that question, too, of how we define "big" bands versus "small." Dead Kennedys were never big in the context of overall rock. Nor were the Pistols or Clash. Just spit-ballin', but maybe you use a quant argument and go by whether a band released a full album and how many copies were pressed. Any group signed to a major or had national distribution is out. No methodology would ever be fully satisfying—there'd always be exceptions—but that'd be a start.

That makes sense to me. I think a great chapter could be written on the bands that don't make that first cut but wound up with some impressive notoriety maybe 20 or more years later vs. the ones that didn't, and some kind of analysis on what might have happened there.

It'd be a semi-playful reconsideration of punk that necessarily punishes financial success and probably longevity. So even the terms of analysis establishes a definition of punk that a lot of people would justifiably have problems with.

The problem is the word "punk". What that means to people in general. You can have a punk attitude but not play punk music. I think this applies to most post punk groups in their non acceptance of any musical rules. And all the better for it.

Yup. The term is so open to interpretation that any argument promises to lose a wide chunk of the audience right off the bat because they disagree with the definition used. Which is probably why academics like writing about punk—it's about staking out conceptual turf and throwing rocks at other smarty pants over it.

Yeah I agree. I think Savage is a good writer but there is a smugness and superior attitude about him I strongly dislike. I've never liked the term punk that much. I mean the field is wide and getting wider when current Green Day are chucked in the same pot as Dead Kennedy's.

[Dr. Medulla]

I think Savage is a good writer but there is a smugness and superior attitude about him I strongly dislike.

Savage's book is one of the better ones, imo, in that he does seek to go beyond the basic narrative of this, then this, then this, and finally this, and instead does seek to historically ground the early English punk scene in the collapse of the welfare state consensus. Meaning that punk and Thatcher were fuelled by the same disruptions. That adds a lot of complicated meat to the story. It doesn't necessarily mean his argument is persuasive, but he makes the effort to make punk about more than just music, about more than just the rock n roll continuity.

[101Walterton]

That makes sense to me. I think a great chapter could be written on the bands that don't make that first cut but wound up with some impressive notoriety maybe 20 or more years later vs. the ones that didn't, and some kind of analysis on what might have happened there.

It'd be a semi-playful reconsideration of punk that necessarily punishes financial success and probably longevity. So even the terms of analysis establishes a definition of punk that a lot of people would justifiably have problems with.

The problem is the word "punk". What that means to people in general. You can have a punk attitude but not play punk music. I think this applies to most post punk groups in their non acceptance of any musical rules. And all the better for it.

Yup. The term is so open to interpretation that any argument promises to lose a wide chunk of the audience right off the bat because they disagree with the definition used. Which is probably why academics like writing about punk—it's about staking out conceptual turf and throwing rocks at other smarty pants over it.

Yeah I agree. I think Savage is a good writer but there is a smugness and superior attitude about him I strongly dislike. I've never liked the term punk that much. I mean the field is wide and getting wider when current Green Day are chucked in the same pot as Dead Kennedy's.

Aside from the punk ‘attitude’ I always consider punk as a music genre to relate to the bands that came out of the 1st wave say from 75- 85.

[muppet hi fi]

Neko Case, 'The Virginian' (1997).
In about 2003 or so, Greil Marcus declared her the finest working singer in popular music. He may have been right.

[muppet hi fi]

Liz Phair, 'Whip Smart' (1994).
Not as startling as her debut, but her scrappy little band of Chicago homies really cement their off kilter groove on this one.

[Marky Dread]

This.