Is there a conscious reason for no American bands? Talking Heads, for example, are as important as anyone to a discussion about a post-punk aesthetic. Another couple American bands that comes to mind are Suburban Lawns and Romeo Void.
That said, you hit the high notes for UK artists (maybe Bauhaus should be in there?).
Yeah, I assumed she was already familiar with Talking Heads (I know she knows Suburban Lawns already). I pretty much only included bands that I personally like, and America doesn't get much play from me. I suppose I should include Pylon and Polyrock though.
Yeah, I assumed she was already familiar with Talking Heads (I know she knows Suburban Lawns already). I pretty much only included bands that I personally like, and America doesn't get much play from me. I suppose I should include Pylon and Polyrock though.
It's a weird thing that in the post-punk story, it ends up being almost exclusively the UK, even tho the original NY punk scene, with the exception of the Ramones, started off with a lot of what we think of as post-punk. And what is nominally post-punk in the US gets thrown under the banner of punk/hardcore.
Bauhaus is track 9 yo!
Careful reading is for mama's boys and Bible students.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Yeah, I assumed she was already familiar with Talking Heads (I know she knows Suburban Lawns already). I pretty much only included bands that I personally like, and America doesn't get much play from me. I suppose I should include Pylon and Polyrock though.
It's a weird thing that in the post-punk story, it ends up being almost exclusively the UK, even tho the original NY punk scene, with the exception of the Ramones, started off with a lot of what we think of as post-punk. And what is nominally post-punk in the US gets thrown under the banner of punk/hardcore.
I would guess that as the UK bands eventually defined the term "punk" in the public consciousness more so than the CB's bands, the UK bands that came after them likewise got to be definitive "post-punk." It's one of those times where labels don't help since they belong together stylistically, as you noted. Was the term coined by the press, as usual? I like the description of the style as (paraphrasing here) the energy and independence of punk, but with college degrees. In that case, the term also makes more sense for the UK because the American bands were definitely not dumb (except the 'mones). You could make the argument that the American "version" of post-punk is No Wave, so it's really just semantics, but it does mean that groups like the Bush Tetras, ESG, Liquid LIquid, etc. get left out of discussions (and out of my list).
Yeah, I assumed she was already familiar with Talking Heads (I know she knows Suburban Lawns already). I pretty much only included bands that I personally like, and America doesn't get much play from me. I suppose I should include Pylon and Polyrock though.
It's a weird thing that in the post-punk story, it ends up being almost exclusively the UK, even tho the original NY punk scene, with the exception of the Ramones, started off with a lot of what we think of as post-punk. And what is nominally post-punk in the US gets thrown under the banner of punk/hardcore.
I would guess that as the UK bands eventually defined the term "punk" in the public consciousness more so than the CB's bands, the UK bands that came after them likewise got to be definitive "post-punk." It's one of those times where labels don't help since they belong together stylistically, as you noted. Was the term coined by the press, as usual? I like the description of the style as (paraphrasing here) the energy and independence of punk, but with college degrees. In that case, the term also makes more sense for the UK because the American bands were definitely not dumb (except the 'mones). You could make the argument that the American "version" of post-punk is No Wave, so it's really just semantics, but it does mean that groups like the Bush Tetras, ESG, Liquid LIquid, etc. get left out of discussions (and out of my list).
My understanding of post-punk is related to how bands regarded the original punk blast. Those who thought, yeah, perfect, but lets strip it down further, those became hardcore, proudly keeping the punk tag. Those who looked at punk as a reset and an opportunity to then move on became what we normally think of as post-punk, basically remaining suspicious of rockist attitudes and forms. So, was it back to basics or charting something distinct altogether? No Wave fits the post-punk definition of well, radically rejecting rock even more than most proper post-punk bands.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Yeah, I assumed she was already familiar with Talking Heads (I know she knows Suburban Lawns already). I pretty much only included bands that I personally like, and America doesn't get much play from me. I suppose I should include Pylon and Polyrock though.
It's a weird thing that in the post-punk story, it ends up being almost exclusively the UK, even tho the original NY punk scene, with the exception of the Ramones, started off with a lot of what we think of as post-punk. And what is nominally post-punk in the US gets thrown under the banner of punk/hardcore.
I would guess that as the UK bands eventually defined the term "punk" in the public consciousness more so than the CB's bands, the UK bands that came after them likewise got to be definitive "post-punk." It's one of those times where labels don't help since they belong together stylistically, as you noted. Was the term coined by the press, as usual? I like the description of the style as (paraphrasing here) the energy and independence of punk, but with college degrees. In that case, the term also makes more sense for the UK because the American bands were definitely not dumb (except the 'mones). You could make the argument that the American "version" of post-punk is No Wave, so it's really just semantics, but it does mean that groups like the Bush Tetras, ESG, Liquid LIquid, etc. get left out of discussions (and out of my list).
My understanding of post-punk is related to how bands regarded the original punk blast. Those who thought, yeah, perfect, but lets strip it down further, those became hardcore, proudly keeping the punk tag. Those who looked at punk as a reset and an opportunity to then move on became what we normally think of as post-punk, basically remaining suspicious of rockist attitudes and forms. So, was it back to basics or charting something distinct altogether? No Wave fits the post-punk definition of well, radically rejecting rock even more than most proper post-punk bands.
Yeah but is hardcore post punk? I think so. Fugazi for instance has to be considered post punk right?
Yeah, I assumed she was already familiar with Talking Heads (I know she knows Suburban Lawns already). I pretty much only included bands that I personally like, and America doesn't get much play from me. I suppose I should include Pylon and Polyrock though.
It's a weird thing that in the post-punk story, it ends up being almost exclusively the UK, even tho the original NY punk scene, with the exception of the Ramones, started off with a lot of what we think of as post-punk. And what is nominally post-punk in the US gets thrown under the banner of punk/hardcore.
I would guess that as the UK bands eventually defined the term "punk" in the public consciousness more so than the CB's bands, the UK bands that came after them likewise got to be definitive "post-punk." It's one of those times where labels don't help since they belong together stylistically, as you noted. Was the term coined by the press, as usual? I like the description of the style as (paraphrasing here) the energy and independence of punk, but with college degrees. In that case, the term also makes more sense for the UK because the American bands were definitely not dumb (except the 'mones). You could make the argument that the American "version" of post-punk is No Wave, so it's really just semantics, but it does mean that groups like the Bush Tetras, ESG, Liquid LIquid, etc. get left out of discussions (and out of my list).
My understanding of post-punk is related to how bands regarded the original punk blast. Those who thought, yeah, perfect, but lets strip it down further, those became hardcore, proudly keeping the punk tag. Those who looked at punk as a reset and an opportunity to then move on became what we normally think of as post-punk, basically remaining suspicious of rockist attitudes and forms. So, was it back to basics or charting something distinct altogether? No Wave fits the post-punk definition of well, radically rejecting rock even more than most proper post-punk bands.
Yeah but is hardcore post punk? I think so. Fugazi for instance has to be considered post punk right?
Fugazi gets classified as post-hardcore, which, intellectually or ideologically, seems more akin to that definition of post-punk. It sees value in hardcore, but more so it sees it as an artistic straightjacket. Hardcore, tho, in its emphasis on purity—faster, louder, simpler—was about taking the Ramones blueprint and essentializing it even more. Don't make it more complex, make it simpler.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
It's a weird thing that in the post-punk story, it ends up being almost exclusively the UK, even tho the original NY punk scene, with the exception of the Ramones, started off with a lot of what we think of as post-punk. And what is nominally post-punk in the US gets thrown under the banner of punk/hardcore.
I would guess that as the UK bands eventually defined the term "punk" in the public consciousness more so than the CB's bands, the UK bands that came after them likewise got to be definitive "post-punk." It's one of those times where labels don't help since they belong together stylistically, as you noted. Was the term coined by the press, as usual? I like the description of the style as (paraphrasing here) the energy and independence of punk, but with college degrees. In that case, the term also makes more sense for the UK because the American bands were definitely not dumb (except the 'mones). You could make the argument that the American "version" of post-punk is No Wave, so it's really just semantics, but it does mean that groups like the Bush Tetras, ESG, Liquid LIquid, etc. get left out of discussions (and out of my list).
My understanding of post-punk is related to how bands regarded the original punk blast. Those who thought, yeah, perfect, but lets strip it down further, those became hardcore, proudly keeping the punk tag. Those who looked at punk as a reset and an opportunity to then move on became what we normally think of as post-punk, basically remaining suspicious of rockist attitudes and forms. So, was it back to basics or charting something distinct altogether? No Wave fits the post-punk definition of well, radically rejecting rock even more than most proper post-punk bands.
Yeah but is hardcore post punk? I think so. Fugazi for instance has to be considered post punk right?
Fugazi gets classified as post-hardcore, which, intellectually or ideologically, seems more akin to that definition of post-punk. It sees value in hardcore, but more so it sees it as an artistic straightjacket. Hardcore, tho, in its emphasis on purity—faster, louder, simpler—was about taking the Ramones blueprint and essentializing it even more. Don't make it more complex, make it simpler.
Yeah reminds me of my radio station days. A lot of people were defining musical genres.
Yeah reminds me of my radio station days. A lot of people were defining musical genres.
The terminology has its value as rough categorization in terms of aesthetics or intellectual bent, but getting hung up to deny distinct approaches is where it goes to fuck. As in, You can't do that because ….
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Yeah reminds me of my radio station days. A lot of people were defining musical genres.
The terminology has its value as rough categorization in terms of aesthetics or intellectual bent, but getting hung up to deny distinct approaches is where it goes to fuck. As in, You can't do that because ….
Exactly and people would not play some music because it didn't follow the gente they defined for their show.
Many bands had a post-punk sound before punk. Pere Ubu etc.
Right—that's the aesthetic side of the equation. The intellectual component—i.e., where do we go after punk—necessarily comes afterwards. So we get these confusing attempts to categorize, where bands that sound more what we think of as post-punk get lumped in with punk because that's what was happening (or about to happen). I love that stuff intellectually because it messes things up, it complicates any attempt to sketch things out neatly, and shows what a weird evolution it actually was.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
The Undertones - 'The Undertones' (1979; 2009 remaster w/bonus tracks).
Sweet, love that band.
Yup, sometimes I think I like them as much or maybe even more than the Ramones. Saw them open for the Clash in 1979, with David Johansen in the middle spot. I hadn't heard/of them yet. Needless to say that was one of the best nights of music I've ever witnessed (and all for $7 US, at that!).
Strong shoes is what we got and when they're hot they're hot!
- Marky Dread and his fabulous Screaming Blue Messiahs
