Thread: uk vs. us punk?
View Single Post
Old 04.19.2011, 05:09 AM   #40
jonathan
children of satan
 
jonathan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 320
jonathan kicks all y'all's assesjonathan kicks all y'all's assesjonathan kicks all y'all's assesjonathan kicks all y'all's assesjonathan kicks all y'all's assesjonathan kicks all y'all's assesjonathan kicks all y'all's assesjonathan kicks all y'all's assesjonathan kicks all y'all's assesjonathan kicks all y'all's assesjonathan kicks all y'all's asses
I really dislike this idea that the Stooges and the Velvet Underground (or just about any bands before the Ramones) are "punk". Punk is a label, given to punks by punks. There is no a priori "punk" or "punkness". If you're the Velvet Underground, you probably thought of yourself as art rock. If you're the Stooges then you're a coked out kick-out-the-jams-motherfucker rock and roll band. That being said, you have to leave these bands out if you're talking about U.S. vs U.K. punk.

For me, I'd have to say U.S. punk, particularly early 80s bands, both east and west coast (Void, Black Flag, Bad Brains, Minor Threat, Rites of Spring, etc.). That isn't to say that the U.K. does have their moments: Rudimentary Peni and early Napalm Death. And I'm not the biggest Discharge fan, but saying that Discharge is shit is basically saying that punk is shit. Their influence is unmatched by just about any punk band you can name. Without Discharge, what can be called "punk" today would not exist, even emo.
jonathan is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|