Heston and Marky's Friday Top 5

[Marky Dread]

New York Dolls - New York Dolls
MC5 - Kick Out The Jams motherfucker
Patti Smith - Horses
Stooges - Raw Power
Velvet Underground - Velvet Underground

[101Walterton]

New York Dolls - New York Dolls
MC5 - Kick Out The Jams motherfucker
Patti Smith - Horses
Stooges - Raw Power
Velvet Underground - Velvet Underground

I can’t say Kick out the James without adding the motherfucker

[Marky Dread]

New York Dolls - New York Dolls
MC5 - Kick Out The Jams motherfucker
Patti Smith - Horses
Stooges - Raw Power
Velvet Underground - Velvet Underground

I can’t say Kick out the James without adding the motherfucker

Poor Silent Majority.

[101Walterton]

New York Dolls - New York Dolls
MC5 - Kick Out The Jams motherfucker
Patti Smith - Horses
Stooges - Raw Power
Velvet Underground - Velvet Underground

I can’t say Kick out the James without adding the motherfucker

Poor Silent Majority.

Bloody autocorrect

[Marky Dread]

New York Dolls - New York Dolls
MC5 - Kick Out The Jams motherfucker
Patti Smith - Horses
Stooges - Raw Power
Velvet Underground - Velvet Underground

I can’t say Kick out the James without adding the motherfucker

Poor Silent Majority.

Bloody autocorrect

I hate it. Does my nut in.

[Dr. Medulla]

I chose my top 5 based upon just how influential those artists were to what followed both sides of the pond.

I know you said no Nuggets bands, but wasn't the original Nuggets compilation massively influential for what became punk? The bands weren't proto-punk, but the effect was the same.

This is somewhat an intriguing subject. Here is my take on it : The brilliant Nuggets double album compilation put together by Lenny Kaye and released by Elektra in '72. Often I've heard just how this album influenced the punk rock generation '76 onwards and Jon Savage is always keen to include it in his appraisals and rightly so. However proof is in the pudding and while a lot of bands copped their attitutde from the idea of that earlier punk snarl the music paints a very different picture. The nuggets bands (most of them) seem to to take a lot of inspiration from The Stones and in particular Jagger's swagger. Now listening to punk bands from the US and UK they all appear to take inspiration from either The Stooges or The Dolls to some degree with the Sex Pistols also using early mod bands The Who/The Creation/ Small Faces and that shaped the majority of the sound. There are alternates like Talking Heads / Television who come from a more art-punk approach.

The Ramones influenced tons of bands and that is really because what they played (brilliantly) was so simplistic which gave rise to the ''anybody can do this attitude'' (you really can't). I don't hear the sound of those nuggets/garage rock bands as much in punk rock to be honest even though some of the songs got covered. Just as much as punk bands took the Ramones 1-2-3-4 approach many copied Lydon (Rotten) in trying to sound different most these bands are the ones that fell by the wayside. I think the biggest infuence on the first wave of US/UK punk bands are The Stooges/The Dolls with each band incorporating their own use of other stuff from the past such as The Ramones love of Bbblegum pop or The Clash with steals from The Kinks/The Who.

Just to add, a number of songs on Nuggets also fit in the psychedelic rock genre. I mention it only to expand the range of those bands.

Anyway, if the Nuggets thesis has merit (and I don't really know if it does; how many copies of this were sold? who was buying them?), it's the notion of back to basics. One common interpretation of punk is that it treated the Beatles and so much that followed as fucking up rock n roll by making it smarter, artier, skilled, and professional/careerist instead of fun and amateurish. It was a reset. Nuggets fits in the sense of serving as a reminder or blueprint that while rock n roll was being betrayed, there were those fun and amateurish bands out there flying the flag. So it's attitude more than sound. I dunno, maybe. It fits if you want it to, but whether it actually had a concrete effect is questionable.

[Marky Dread]

I chose my top 5 based upon just how influential those artists were to what followed both sides of the pond.

I know you said no Nuggets bands, but wasn't the original Nuggets compilation massively influential for what became punk? The bands weren't proto-punk, but the effect was the same.

This is somewhat an intriguing subject. Here is my take on it : The brilliant Nuggets double album compilation put together by Lenny Kaye and released by Elektra in '72. Often I've heard just how this album influenced the punk rock generation '76 onwards and Jon Savage is always keen to include it in his appraisals and rightly so. However proof is in the pudding and while a lot of bands copped their attitutde from the idea of that earlier punk snarl the music paints a very different picture. The nuggets bands (most of them) seem to to take a lot of inspiration from The Stones and in particular Jagger's swagger. Now listening to punk bands from the US and UK they all appear to take inspiration from either The Stooges or The Dolls to some degree with the Sex Pistols also using early mod bands The Who/The Creation/ Small Faces and that shaped the majority of the sound. There are alternates like Talking Heads / Television who come from a more art-punk approach.

The Ramones influenced tons of bands and that is really because what they played (brilliantly) was so simplistic which gave rise to the ''anybody can do this attitude'' (you really can't). I don't hear the sound of those nuggets/garage rock bands as much in punk rock to be honest even though some of the songs got covered. Just as much as punk bands took the Ramones 1-2-3-4 approach many copied Lydon (Rotten) in trying to sound different most these bands are the ones that fell by the wayside. I think the biggest infuence on the first wave of US/UK punk bands are The Stooges/The Dolls with each band incorporating their own use of other stuff from the past such as The Ramones love of Bbblegum pop or The Clash with steals from The Kinks/The Who.

Just to add, a number of songs on Nuggets also fit in the psychedelic rock genre. I mention it only to expand the range of those bands.

Anyway, if the Nuggets thesis has merit (and I don't really know if it does; how many copies of this were sold? who was buying them?), it's the notion of back to basics. One common interpretation of punk is that it treated the Beatles and so much that followed as fucking up rock n roll by making it smarter, artier, skilled, and professional/careerist instead of fun and amateurish. It was a reset. Nuggets fits in the sense of serving as a reminder or blueprint that while rock n roll was being betrayed, there were those fun and amateurish bands out there flying the flag. So it's attitude more than sound. I dunno, maybe. It fits if you want it to, but whether it actually had a concrete effect is questionable.

I know that it's one of those things that it's brilliant to say you were a fan of at time of release but I expect the truth is many didn't hear it 'til long after it's release. McLaren had the 13th Floor Elevators ''You're Gonna Miss Me'' on his juke box in 430 Kings Road. So the Pistols would've heard that at least. But it doesn't reflect in their sound one bit. Of course there are always those that are clued in more than others but it's a snobbery I dislike to say yeah I was there from the start. It's not about who heard it first but that you've heard it and apprecite it that matters.

Another somewhat relevant thing is the Pistols stay in the punk frame because they recorded one proper album (with Rotten) and so are kept forever more in a time capsule. Other bands carried on like The Clash developing and pushing their musical boundaries further. As soon as the majority of bands could play better they left punk rock behind and retained just the all important attitude.

[Dr. Medulla]

I chose my top 5 based upon just how influential those artists were to what followed both sides of the pond.

I know you said no Nuggets bands, but wasn't the original Nuggets compilation massively influential for what became punk? The bands weren't proto-punk, but the effect was the same.

This is somewhat an intriguing subject. Here is my take on it : The brilliant Nuggets double album compilation put together by Lenny Kaye and released by Elektra in '72. Often I've heard just how this album influenced the punk rock generation '76 onwards and Jon Savage is always keen to include it in his appraisals and rightly so. However proof is in the pudding and while a lot of bands copped their attitutde from the idea of that earlier punk snarl the music paints a very different picture. The nuggets bands (most of them) seem to to take a lot of inspiration from The Stones and in particular Jagger's swagger. Now listening to punk bands from the US and UK they all appear to take inspiration from either The Stooges or The Dolls to some degree with the Sex Pistols also using early mod bands The Who/The Creation/ Small Faces and that shaped the majority of the sound. There are alternates like Talking Heads / Television who come from a more art-punk approach.

The Ramones influenced tons of bands and that is really because what they played (brilliantly) was so simplistic which gave rise to the ''anybody can do this attitude'' (you really can't). I don't hear the sound of those nuggets/garage rock bands as much in punk rock to be honest even though some of the songs got covered. Just as much as punk bands took the Ramones 1-2-3-4 approach many copied Lydon (Rotten) in trying to sound different most these bands are the ones that fell by the wayside. I think the biggest infuence on the first wave of US/UK punk bands are The Stooges/The Dolls with each band incorporating their own use of other stuff from the past such as The Ramones love of Bbblegum pop or The Clash with steals from The Kinks/The Who.

Just to add, a number of songs on Nuggets also fit in the psychedelic rock genre. I mention it only to expand the range of those bands.

Anyway, if the Nuggets thesis has merit (and I don't really know if it does; how many copies of this were sold? who was buying them?), it's the notion of back to basics. One common interpretation of punk is that it treated the Beatles and so much that followed as fucking up rock n roll by making it smarter, artier, skilled, and professional/careerist instead of fun and amateurish. It was a reset. Nuggets fits in the sense of serving as a reminder or blueprint that while rock n roll was being betrayed, there were those fun and amateurish bands out there flying the flag. So it's attitude more than sound. I dunno, maybe. It fits if you want it to, but whether it actually had a concrete effect is questionable.

I know that it's one of those things that it's brilliant to say you were a fan of at time of release but I expect the truth is many didn't hear it 'til long after it's release. McLaren had the 13th Floor Elevators ''You're Gonna Miss Me'' on his juke box in 430 Kings Road. So the Pistols would've heard that at least. But it doesn't reflect in their sound one bit. Of course there are always those that are clued in more than others but it's a snobbery I dislike to say yeah I was there from the start. It's not about who heard it first but that you've heard it and apprecite it that matters.

I'll go halfway with you here. There are people who act as tastemakers and inspire others to imitate or embrace a spirit (e.g., Ramones, Pistols). That's not snobbery to say there are those who are there from the start and inspire others. Is there a connection with some proto-punk band to Nuggets, where they got others to listen to it, etc? Again, maybe, I dunno.

Another somewhat relevant thing is the Pistols stay in the punk frame because they recorded one proper album (with Rotten) and so are kept forever more in a time capsule. Other bands carried on like The Clash developing and pushing their musical boundaries further. As soon as the majority of bands could play better they left punk rock behind and retained just the all important attitude.

I'm a bit dubious of this idea that early punk bands were about valourizing amateurism. That came later, I think. The early ones wanted a record deal and all that as much as anyone. They wanted into the industry, not to avoid it. So getting better at what you're doing, if you stay together, isn't a betrayal of any kind because there was no expectation of staying basic and outside.

[Marky Dread]

I know you said no Nuggets bands, but wasn't the original Nuggets compilation massively influential for what became punk? The bands weren't proto-punk, but the effect was the same.

This is somewhat an intriguing subject. Here is my take on it : The brilliant Nuggets double album compilation put together by Lenny Kaye and released by Elektra in '72. Often I've heard just how this album influenced the punk rock generation '76 onwards and Jon Savage is always keen to include it in his appraisals and rightly so. However proof is in the pudding and while a lot of bands copped their attitutde from the idea of that earlier punk snarl the music paints a very different picture. The nuggets bands (most of them) seem to to take a lot of inspiration from The Stones and in particular Jagger's swagger. Now listening to punk bands from the US and UK they all appear to take inspiration from either The Stooges or The Dolls to some degree with the Sex Pistols also using early mod bands The Who/The Creation/ Small Faces and that shaped the majority of the sound. There are alternates like Talking Heads / Television who come from a more art-punk approach.

The Ramones influenced tons of bands and that is really because what they played (brilliantly) was so simplistic which gave rise to the ''anybody can do this attitude'' (you really can't). I don't hear the sound of those nuggets/garage rock bands as much in punk rock to be honest even though some of the songs got covered. Just as much as punk bands took the Ramones 1-2-3-4 approach many copied Lydon (Rotten) in trying to sound different most these bands are the ones that fell by the wayside. I think the biggest infuence on the first wave of US/UK punk bands are The Stooges/The Dolls with each band incorporating their own use of other stuff from the past such as The Ramones love of Bbblegum pop or The Clash with steals from The Kinks/The Who.

Just to add, a number of songs on Nuggets also fit in the psychedelic rock genre. I mention it only to expand the range of those bands.

Anyway, if the Nuggets thesis has merit (and I don't really know if it does; how many copies of this were sold? who was buying them?), it's the notion of back to basics. One common interpretation of punk is that it treated the Beatles and so much that followed as fucking up rock n roll by making it smarter, artier, skilled, and professional/careerist instead of fun and amateurish. It was a reset. Nuggets fits in the sense of serving as a reminder or blueprint that while rock n roll was being betrayed, there were those fun and amateurish bands out there flying the flag. So it's attitude more than sound. I dunno, maybe. It fits if you want it to, but whether it actually had a concrete effect is questionable.

I know that it's one of those things that it's brilliant to say you were a fan of at time of release but I expect the truth is many didn't hear it 'til long after it's release. McLaren had the 13th Floor Elevators ''You're Gonna Miss Me'' on his juke box in 430 Kings Road. So the Pistols would've heard that at least. But it doesn't reflect in their sound one bit. Of course there are always those that are clued in more than others but it's a snobbery I dislike to say yeah I was there from the start. It's not about who heard it first but that you've heard it and apprecite it that matters.

I'll go halfway with you here. There are people who act as tastemakers and inspire others to imitate or embrace a spirit (e.g., Ramones, Pistols). That's not snobbery to say there are those who are there from the start and inspire others. Is there a connection with some proto-punk band to Nuggets, where they got others to listen to it, etc? Again, maybe, I dunno.

Another somewhat relevant thing is the Pistols stay in the punk frame because they recorded one proper album (with Rotten) and so are kept forever more in a time capsule. Other bands carried on like The Clash developing and pushing their musical boundaries further. As soon as the majority of bands could play better they left punk rock behind and retained just the all important attitude.

I'm a bit dubious of this idea that early punk bands were about valourizing amateurism. That came later, I think. The early ones wanted a record deal and all that as much as anyone. They wanted into the industry, not to avoid it. So getting better at what you're doing, if you stay together, isn't a betrayal of any kind because there was no expectation of staying basic and outside.

Neither of those probably came across to you as I intended. The fisrt point I was making regards snobbery. Is not that there are innovators who inspire as that is a given and essential. I'm referring to those who claimed to have heard stuff from the off but never did 'til way after the event but claim the former. To me this is a musical snobbish attitude claiming that somehow you are more validated because you heard it first etc. I've encountered this a fair bit down the years when all the person has done is read the relevant books. It's not about being in a fortunate position from the start but learning and appreciating great music not matter when you were born.

The second point was not that I was suggesting any form of betrayal regards bands moving on from a punk rock sound. Of course bands want to play as well as they can and get better at their craft. No my point was that once they could play more complex music they did. The best bands always stretched out a bit further that's why an awful lot of what followed that first wave of bands sound as if they are stuck in a straightjacket. The Clash had rock n roll/reggae/etc etc Buzzcocks experimented with longer tracks that were Can inspired The Damned went psycehedlic and pop and so on. But always keeping the all important attitude.

[gkbill]

This is somewhat an intriguing subject. Here is my take on it : The brilliant Nuggets double album compilation put together by Lenny Kaye and released by Elektra in '72. Often I've heard just how this album influenced the punk rock generation '76 onwards and Jon Savage is always keen to include it in his appraisals and rightly so. However proof is in the pudding and while a lot of bands copped their attitutde from the idea of that earlier punk snarl the music paints a very different picture. The nuggets bands (most of them) seem to to take a lot of inspiration from The Stones and in particular Jagger's swagger. Now listening to punk bands from the US and UK they all appear to take inspiration from either The Stooges or The Dolls to some degree with the Sex Pistols also using early mod bands The Who/The Creation/ Small Faces and that shaped the majority of the sound. There are alternates like Talking Heads / Television who come from a more art-punk approach.

The Ramones influenced tons of bands and that is really because what they played (brilliantly) was so simplistic which gave rise to the ''anybody can do this attitude'' (you really can't). I don't hear the sound of those nuggets/garage rock bands as much in punk rock to be honest even though some of the songs got covered. Just as much as punk bands took the Ramones 1-2-3-4 approach many copied Lydon (Rotten) in trying to sound different most these bands are the ones that fell by the wayside. I think the biggest infuence on the first wave of US/UK punk bands are The Stooges/The Dolls with each band incorporating their own use of other stuff from the past such as The Ramones love of Bbblegum pop or The Clash with steals from The Kinks/The Who.

Just to add, a number of songs on Nuggets also fit in the psychedelic rock genre. I mention it only to expand the range of those bands.

Anyway, if the Nuggets thesis has merit (and I don't really know if it does; how many copies of this were sold? who was buying them?), it's the notion of back to basics. One common interpretation of punk is that it treated the Beatles and so much that followed as fucking up rock n roll by making it smarter, artier, skilled, and professional/careerist instead of fun and amateurish. It was a reset. Nuggets fits in the sense of serving as a reminder or blueprint that while rock n roll was being betrayed, there were those fun and amateurish bands out there flying the flag. So it's attitude more than sound. I dunno, maybe. It fits if you want it to, but whether it actually had a concrete effect is questionable.

I know that it's one of those things that it's brilliant to say you were a fan of at time of release but I expect the truth is many didn't hear it 'til long after it's release. McLaren had the 13th Floor Elevators ''You're Gonna Miss Me'' on his juke box in 430 Kings Road. So the Pistols would've heard that at least. But it doesn't reflect in their sound one bit. Of course there are always those that are clued in more than others but it's a snobbery I dislike to say yeah I was there from the start. It's not about who heard it first but that you've heard it and apprecite it that matters.

I'll go halfway with you here. There are people who act as tastemakers and inspire others to imitate or embrace a spirit (e.g., Ramones, Pistols). That's not snobbery to say there are those who are there from the start and inspire others. Is there a connection with some proto-punk band to Nuggets, where they got others to listen to it, etc? Again, maybe, I dunno.

Another somewhat relevant thing is the Pistols stay in the punk frame because they recorded one proper album (with Rotten) and so are kept forever more in a time capsule. Other bands carried on like The Clash developing and pushing their musical boundaries further. As soon as the majority of bands could play better they left punk rock behind and retained just the all important attitude.

I'm a bit dubious of this idea that early punk bands were about valourizing amateurism. That came later, I think. The early ones wanted a record deal and all that as much as anyone. They wanted into the industry, not to avoid it. So getting better at what you're doing, if you stay together, isn't a betrayal of any kind because there was no expectation of staying basic and outside.

Neither of those probably came across to you as I intended. The fisrt point I was making regards snobbery. Is not that there are innovators who inspire as that is a given and essential. I'm referring to those who claimed to have heard stuff from the off but never did 'til way after the event but claim the former. To me this is a musical snobbish attitude claiming that somehow you are more validated because you heard it first etc. I've encountered this a fair bit down the years when all the person has done is read the relevant books. It's not about being in a fortunate position from the start but learning and appreciating great music not matter when you were born.

The second point was not that I was suggesting any form of betrayal regards bands moving on from a punk rock sound. Of course bands want to play as well as they can and get better at their craft. No my point was that once they could play more complex music they did. The best bands always stretched out a bit further that's why an awful lot of what followed that first wave of bands sound as if they are stuck in a straightjacket. The Clash had rock n roll/reggae/etc etc Buzzcocks experimented with longer tracks that were Can inspired The Damned went psycehedlic and pop and so on. But always keeping the all important attitude.

Hello,

I think I understand your point about musical snobbery (my term is hipster envy). When I come across these thoughts, this song seems to share similar tendencies:

[Marky Dread]

Just to add, a number of songs on Nuggets also fit in the psychedelic rock genre. I mention it only to expand the range of those bands.

Anyway, if the Nuggets thesis has merit (and I don't really know if it does; how many copies of this were sold? who was buying them?), it's the notion of back to basics. One common interpretation of punk is that it treated the Beatles and so much that followed as fucking up rock n roll by making it smarter, artier, skilled, and professional/careerist instead of fun and amateurish. It was a reset. Nuggets fits in the sense of serving as a reminder or blueprint that while rock n roll was being betrayed, there were those fun and amateurish bands out there flying the flag. So it's attitude more than sound. I dunno, maybe. It fits if you want it to, but whether it actually had a concrete effect is questionable.

I know that it's one of those things that it's brilliant to say you were a fan of at time of release but I expect the truth is many didn't hear it 'til long after it's release. McLaren had the 13th Floor Elevators ''You're Gonna Miss Me'' on his juke box in 430 Kings Road. So the Pistols would've heard that at least. But it doesn't reflect in their sound one bit. Of course there are always those that are clued in more than others but it's a snobbery I dislike to say yeah I was there from the start. It's not about who heard it first but that you've heard it and apprecite it that matters.

I'll go halfway with you here. There are people who act as tastemakers and inspire others to imitate or embrace a spirit (e.g., Ramones, Pistols). That's not snobbery to say there are those who are there from the start and inspire others. Is there a connection with some proto-punk band to Nuggets, where they got others to listen to it, etc? Again, maybe, I dunno.

Another somewhat relevant thing is the Pistols stay in the punk frame because they recorded one proper album (with Rotten) and so are kept forever more in a time capsule. Other bands carried on like The Clash developing and pushing their musical boundaries further. As soon as the majority of bands could play better they left punk rock behind and retained just the all important attitude.

I'm a bit dubious of this idea that early punk bands were about valourizing amateurism. That came later, I think. The early ones wanted a record deal and all that as much as anyone. They wanted into the industry, not to avoid it. So getting better at what you're doing, if you stay together, isn't a betrayal of any kind because there was no expectation of staying basic and outside.

Neither of those probably came across to you as I intended. The fisrt point I was making regards snobbery. Is not that there are innovators who inspire as that is a given and essential. I'm referring to those who claimed to have heard stuff from the off but never did 'til way after the event but claim the former. To me this is a musical snobbish attitude claiming that somehow you are more validated because you heard it first etc. I've encountered this a fair bit down the years when all the person has done is read the relevant books. It's not about being in a fortunate position from the start but learning and appreciating great music not matter when you were born.

The second point was not that I was suggesting any form of betrayal regards bands moving on from a punk rock sound. Of course bands want to play as well as they can and get better at their craft. No my point was that once they could play more complex music they did. The best bands always stretched out a bit further that's why an awful lot of what followed that first wave of bands sound as if they are stuck in a straightjacket. The Clash had rock n roll/reggae/etc etc Buzzcocks experimented with longer tracks that were Can inspired The Damned went psycehedlic and pop and so on. But always keeping the all important attitude.

Hello,

I think I understand your point about musical snobbery (my term is hipster envy). When I come across these thoughts, this song seems to share similar tendencies:

Really good stuff.

[Dr. Medulla]

Neither of those probably came across to you as I intended. The fisrt point I was making regards snobbery. Is not that there are innovators who inspire as that is a given and essential. I'm referring to those who claimed to have heard stuff from the off but never did 'til way after the event but claim the former. To me this is a musical snobbish attitude claiming that somehow you are more validated because you heard it first etc. I've encountered this a fair bit down the years when all the person has done is read the relevant books. It's not about being in a fortunate position from the start but learning and appreciating great music not matter when you were born.

The second point was not that I was suggesting any form of betrayal regards bands moving on from a punk rock sound. Of course bands want to play as well as they can and get better at their craft. No my point was that once they could play more complex music they did. The best bands always stretched out a bit further that's why an awful lot of what followed that first wave of bands sound as if they are stuck in a straightjacket. The Clash had rock n roll/reggae/etc etc Buzzcocks experimented with longer tracks that were Can inspired The Damned went psycehedlic and pop and so on. But always keeping the all important attitude.

Sorry, I was just riffing a bit on the second point. That supposed punk value of being suspicious of technique and skill. Proto-punk and Nuggets suggests that, but, as you said, how many bands actually aspired to stop there? Ambition and/or careerism led the more creative ones to pursue something more. To those who dogmatically see amateurism and a really basic and fast sound as the alpha and omega—hardcore, for lack of a better word—anything more is betrayal. It's a reject of curiosity in favour of a conformity.

As to your first point, okay, gotcha. You reject the bullshit status stuff. Even if a person is the one to have heard it first, so what? It's a flimsy premise to establish one's credibility.

[Wolter]

Fun fact, in 1993/4 everyone I ever spoke to in a coffee shop in Charleston SC was living in Seattle before grunge broke and totally had strong opinions about every band before anyone else knew about them.

[Marky Dread]

Neither of those probably came across to you as I intended. The fisrt point I was making regards snobbery. Is not that there are innovators who inspire as that is a given and essential. I'm referring to those who claimed to have heard stuff from the off but never did 'til way after the event but claim the former. To me this is a musical snobbish attitude claiming that somehow you are more validated because you heard it first etc. I've encountered this a fair bit down the years when all the person has done is read the relevant books. It's not about being in a fortunate position from the start but learning and appreciating great music not matter when you were born.

The second point was not that I was suggesting any form of betrayal regards bands moving on from a punk rock sound. Of course bands want to play as well as they can and get better at their craft. No my point was that once they could play more complex music they did. The best bands always stretched out a bit further that's why an awful lot of what followed that first wave of bands sound as if they are stuck in a straightjacket. The Clash had rock n roll/reggae/etc etc Buzzcocks experimented with longer tracks that were Can inspired The Damned went psycehedlic and pop and so on. But always keeping the all important attitude.

Sorry, I was just riffing a bit on the second point. That supposed punk value of being suspicious of technique and skill. Proto-punk and Nuggets suggests that, but, as you said, how many bands actually aspired to stop there? Ambition and/or careerism led the more creative ones to pursue something more. To those who dogmatically see amateurism and a really basic and fast sound as the alpha and omega—hardcore, for lack of a better word—anything more is betrayal. It's a reject of curiosity in favour of a conformity.

As to your first point, okay, gotcha. You reject the bullshit status stuff. Even if a person is the one to have heard it first, so what? It's a flimsy premise to establish one's credibility.

Exactly you did well to decipher my ramblings.

[Marky Dread]

Fun fact, in 1993/4 everyone I ever spoke to in a coffee shop in Charleston SC was living in Seattle before grunge broke and totally had strong opinions about every band before anyone else knew about them.

This is exactly the bullshit I have come across with regards to punk. People have read a few books on the subject and then tell you exactly what went down. I lived through those years genuinely and they were not pleasant at times. But just because I was fortunate enough to see most of the major players and buy the music first time out doesn't give me any bullshit bragging rights over anybody. Sure experiencing things first hand gives you a feel for the period but that's it. Anybody of any age that tells me they like the music that I like makes me just wanna start up discussion and pass on as much music as possible. When I bought all the Clash stuff on CD for the first time I was walking home from town and bumped into a guy who had just moved in down the street he was maybe 10 years younger than me. He asked what I'd been buying so I showed him the Clash CDs he said he had a compilation tape of The Clash and loved it. Later that evening I knocked on his front door and gave him the first 5 albums on vinyl. This is a guy who I'd known for about 10 mins and didn't even know his name at the time. He was blown away and we chatted often about The Clash and punk in general and I was able to turn him onto The Stooges and tons of other cool stuff. I just saw it as handing on the baton.