the RAMONES

[voltron]

Who could forget Motorhead paying tribute to The Ramones in song?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyKlvVPpxo8

[HappyGilmore]

Personally, as for the whole "who started punk?" debate, I've always taken my cue from Steve-O, from SLC Punk, when he says "Who cares who started it? It's music."

I was gonna post the same thing.  Great movie, by the way.

I don't know that I'd lump TELEVISION in with THE STOOGES or THE DICTATORS.  "Proto-Punk" is post facto term, and MC5 would need to be included with any first or second "Proto-Punks". 
[/quote]
Couldn't ? and The Mysterians also be included with any of the "Proto-Punks"?  They also had a garage/punk feel as well.

[Allhallowsday]

Couldn't ? and The Mysterians also be included with any of the "Proto-Punks"?  They also had a garage/punk feel as well.

? AND THE MYSTRIANS are really too early an act to be called "Proto-Punk"... timing is important with how all music is categorized.  They are "Garage Rock" (think of it as '60s Punk, rough Rock not always well produced, or flamboyantly cheesey, and what I myself would probably call "First Wave" but I don't know anybody who uses such a term).  You Kind of answered your own question: Garage Rock is not "Punk"; rather, Punk was emulating many aspects of Garage Rock, particularly the focus on short, fast, 45rpm type songs (though 45s is a mixed topic, as far as who wanted, aimed for, failed at, emulated or repelled...)  Nor is "Proto-Punk" "Punk"(THE STOOGES original name was THE PSYCHEDELIC STOOGES...)  The majorly influential Proto-Punk artists were VELVET UNDERGROUND, THE MC5, THE STOOGES, NEW YORK DOLLS, there are other "fringe" acts often associated with that term, but I'm not sure I agree.  Plus, not all Punk bands were "garage-like," usually had some nostalgic factor, and out of that grew the broader term "New Wave". 

Despite naysayers of music criticism, it's knowledge of music that enriches our lives in more ways than one. 

[HappyGilmore]

? AND THE MYSTRIANS are really too early an act to be called "Proto-Punk"... timing is important with how all music is categorized.  They are "Garage Rock" (think of it as '60s Punk, rough Rock not always well produced, or flamboyantly cheesey, and what I myself would probably call "First Wave" but I don't know anybody who uses such a term).  You Kind of answered your own question: Garage Rock is not "Punk"; rather, Punk was emulating many aspects of Garage Rock, particularly the focus on short, fast, 45rpm type songs (though 45s is a mixed topic, as far as who wanted, aimed for, failed at, emulated or repelled...)  Nor is "Proto-Punk" "Punk"(THE STOOGES original name was THE PSYCHEDELIC STOOGES...)  The majorly influential Proto-Punk artists were VELVET UNDERGROUND, THE MC5, THE STOOGES, NEW YORK DOLLS, there are other "fringe" acts often associated with that term, but I'm not sure I agree.  Plus, not all Punk bands were "garage-like," usually had some nostalgic factor, and out of that grew the broader term "New Wave". 

Despite naysayers of music criticism, it's knowledge of music that enriches our lives in more ways than one. 
[/quote]
I'd agree with that, mostly.  I've heard people generalize them into the proto punk movement, so to speak.  And I definitely agree with not every punk band being 'garage-like'.  I hate that term and when people get thrown into that category.  Don't get me mistaken, I quite like the 'garage-rocky' feel, but also feel there's a definite separation between the two.

And, I quite like MC5 and The Stooges.  I've never been too much of a Dolls fan, but can appreciate their place in history.

[Psycho Circus]

OOPS! 

I appear to have started an in-depth "proto-punk" debate.

[Rev. Powell]

Couldn't ? and The Mysterians also be included with any of the "Proto-Punks"?  They also had a garage/punk feel as well.

? AND THE MYSTRIANS are really too early an act to be called "Proto-Punk"... timing is important with how all music is categorized.  They are "Garage Rock" (think of it as '60s Punk, rough Rock not always well produced, or flamboyantly cheesey, and what I myself would probably call "First Wave" but I don't know anybody who uses such a term).  You Kind of answered your own question: Garage Rock is not "Punk"; rather, Punk was emulating many aspects of Garage Rock, particularly the focus on short, fast, 45rpm type songs (though 45s is a mixed topic, as far as who wanted, aimed for, failed at, emulated or repelled...)  Nor is "Proto-Punk" "Punk"(THE STOOGES original name was THE PSYCHEDELIC STOOGES...)  The majorly influential Proto-Punk artists were VELVET UNDERGROUND, THE MC5, THE STOOGES, NEW YORK DOLLS, there are other "fringe" acts often associated with that term, but I'm not sure I agree.  Plus, not all Punk bands were "garage-like," usually had some nostalgic factor, and out of that grew the broader term "New Wave". 

Despite naysayers of music criticism, it's knowledge of music that enriches our lives in more ways than one. 

Not naysaying musical criticism, but I think there's too much obsessive genre-izing/labeling/categorization going on today.  I can't tell techno from drum n' bass from house music, or sludge metal from stoner metal, and I don't care to; the differences are too subtle to be meaningful to me.  In classical music, critics only notice meaningful stylistic shifts about once every hundred years (the baroque, classical and romantic categories cover only 300 years between them).  In popular music, there seems to be a new style popping up every week.

Ideally, each band forms it's own unique genre, based on whatever it's particular influences are, and what it brings to the table that's new. 

[Psycho Circus]

Okay, to get this back on track, I have to say that I do really have alot of respect for the Ramones. I don't own squat by them or really listen to them, but I did really enjoy:



I know it's part of their early 80's pop dabbling, but I like that album the most. 

[Wag]

Don't know about proto-punk and stuff, but I do know that none of my friends would sing I Wanna Be Sedated with me on Singstar earlier tonight. I'm thinking of getting new friends.

[Allhallowsday]

Couldn't ? and The Mysterians also be included with any of the "Proto-Punks"?  They also had a garage/punk feel as well.

? AND THE MYSTRIANS are really too early an act to be called "Proto-Punk"... timing is important with how all music is categorized.  They are "Garage Rock" (think of it as '60s Punk, rough Rock not always well produced, or flamboyantly cheesey, and what I myself would probably call "First Wave" but I don't know anybody who uses such a term).  You Kind of answered your own question: Garage Rock is not "Punk"; rather, Punk was emulating many aspects of Garage Rock, particularly the focus on short, fast, 45rpm type songs (though 45s is a mixed topic, as far as who wanted, aimed for, failed at, emulated or repelled...)  Nor is "Proto-Punk" "Punk"(THE STOOGES original name was THE PSYCHEDELIC STOOGES...)  The majorly influential Proto-Punk artists were VELVET UNDERGROUND, THE MC5, THE STOOGES, NEW YORK DOLLS, there are other "fringe" acts often associated with that term, but I'm not sure I agree.  Plus, not all Punk bands were "garage-like," usually had some nostalgic factor, and out of that grew the broader term "New Wave". 

Despite naysayers of music criticism, it's knowledge of music that enriches our lives in more ways than one. 

Not naysaying musical criticism, but I think there's too much obsessive genre-izing/labeling/categorization going on today.  I can't tell techno from drum n' bass from house music, or sludge metal from stoner metal, and I don't care to; the differences are too subtle to be meaningful to me.  In classical music, critics only notice meaningful stylistic shifts about once every hundred years (the baroque, classical and romantic categories cover only 300 years between them).  In popular music, there seems to be a new style popping up every week.

Ideally, each band forms it's own unique genre, based on whatever it's particular influences are, and what it brings to the table that's new. 

No argument.  Current music criticism is baloney.  Talk about posers.  However, I do not care for being suggested as a genre-izer, labeler, categorizer, etc.  Uhm, "obsessive".  I find most modern music boring, so forgive me if I seem married to my terminology... I wasn't the one who brought up "Proto-Punk" nor the RAMONES but I still think that was an important time in music but "important" influence is not necessarily a good one. 

ps. RAVEL, my favorite, has been described as "Expressionistic" so I guess he missed the Romantic boat.   

[Rev. Powell]

Couldn't ? and The Mysterians also be included with any of the "Proto-Punks"?  They also had a garage/punk feel as well.

? AND THE MYSTRIANS are really too early an act to be called "Proto-Punk"... timing is important with how all music is categorized.  They are "Garage Rock" (think of it as '60s Punk, rough Rock not always well produced, or flamboyantly cheesey, and what I myself would probably call "First Wave" but I don't know anybody who uses such a term).  You Kind of answered your own question: Garage Rock is not "Punk"; rather, Punk was emulating many aspects of Garage Rock, particularly the focus on short, fast, 45rpm type songs (though 45s is a mixed topic, as far as who wanted, aimed for, failed at, emulated or repelled...)  Nor is "Proto-Punk" "Punk"(THE STOOGES original name was THE PSYCHEDELIC STOOGES...)  The majorly influential Proto-Punk artists were VELVET UNDERGROUND, THE MC5, THE STOOGES, NEW YORK DOLLS, there are other "fringe" acts often associated with that term, but I'm not sure I agree.  Plus, not all Punk bands were "garage-like," usually had some nostalgic factor, and out of that grew the broader term "New Wave". 

Despite naysayers of music criticism, it's knowledge of music that enriches our lives in more ways than one. 

Not naysaying musical criticism, but I think there's too much obsessive genre-izing/labeling/categorization going on today.  I can't tell techno from drum n' bass from house music, or sludge metal from stoner metal, and I don't care to; the differences are too subtle to be meaningful to me.  In classical music, critics only notice meaningful stylistic shifts about once every hundred years (the baroque, classical and romantic categories cover only 300 years between them).  In popular music, there seems to be a new style popping up every week.

Ideally, each band forms it's own unique genre, based on whatever it's particular influences are, and what it brings to the table that's new. 

No argument.  Current music criticism is baloney.  Talk about posers.  However, I do not care for being suggested as a genre-izer, labeler, categorizer, etc.  Uhm, "obsessive".  I find most modern music boring, so forgive me if I seem married to my terminology... I wasn't the one who brought up "Proto-Punk" nor the RAMONES but I still think that was an important time in music but "important" influence is not necessarily a good one. 

ps. RAVEL, my favorite, has been described as "Expressionistic" so I guess he missed the Romantic boat.   

Not aimed at you in particular, but at what sometimes passes for music criticism in general.  And it's been a pet peeve of mine that had been simmering for a while.  Of course, there are a few other terms to describe classical styles, and maybe it's only with the benefit of time that we're able to look back and condense the styles down to some reasonable broad differences.  To me, Beethoven is his own genre, Bach is his own genre, Ravel is his own genre, and so on.  In reality contemporary bands are, or should, each be their own genre as well.  I think if they're deliberately trying to fit into a pigeonhole--to be a "death metal" band, or to be a "west coast rapper"--they're probably pretty boring as artists.   

[zombie no.one]

Not aimed at you in particular, but at what sometimes passes for music criticism in general.  And it's been a pet peeve of mine that had been simmering for a while.  Of course, there are a few other terms to describe classical styles, and maybe it's only with the benefit of time that we're able to look back and condense the styles down to some reasonable broad differences.  To me, Beethoven is his own genre, Bach is his own genre, Ravel is his own genre, and so on.  In reality contemporary bands are, or should, each be their own genre as well.  I think if they're deliberately trying to fit into a pigeonhole--to be a "death metal" band, or to be a "west coast rapper"--they're probably pretty boring as artists.   

nail on the head, agreed with all of that...

[JaseSF]

The Ramones flat out rocked. Love that surfer vibe they have going in many of their songs too.

[Hammock Rider]

The Ramones are great. Their music rocks and they appeared on the Simpsons back in the day. They sang at Mr. Burns' birthday party and so offended him that he ordered them killed. Luckily, he thought they were the Rolling Stones.

[Allhallowsday]

...Not aimed at you in particular, but at what sometimes passes for music criticism in general.  And it's been a pet peeve of mine that had been simmering for a while.  Of course, there are a few other terms to describe classical styles, and maybe it's only with the benefit of time that we're able to look back and condense the styles down to some reasonable broad differences.  To me, Beethoven is his own genre, Bach is his own genre, Ravel is his own genre, and so on.  In reality contemporary bands are, or should, each be their own genre as well.  I think if they're deliberately trying to fit into a pigeonhole--to be a "death metal" band, or to be a "west coast rapper"--they're probably pretty boring as artists.   

Well, as implied, all of the terms I used are post facto and not about any artist trying to fit a "pigeonhole".  There are a sickeningly awful lot of categories and labels and have been for at least 20 years (ever growing and more and more cynical and self conscious).  However, trends are apparent in all art forms through all of human history.  Any band being at least 30 years old makes me tend to feel comfortable categorizing it. 

I think we all agree THE RAMONES rock; here's JOEY with THE DICTATORS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUKk6JXPFec&feature=related

[StatCat]

Couldn't ? and The Mysterians also be included with any of the "Proto-Punks"?  They also had a garage/punk feel as well.

? AND THE MYSTRIANS are really too early an act to be called "Proto-Punk"... timing is important with how all music is categorized.  They are "Garage Rock" (think of it as '60s Punk, rough Rock not always well produced, or flamboyantly cheesey, and what I myself would probably call "First Wave" but I don't know anybody who uses such a term).  You Kind of answered your own question: Garage Rock is not "Punk"; rather, Punk was emulating many aspects of Garage Rock, particularly the focus on short, fast, 45rpm type songs (though 45s is a mixed topic, as far as who wanted, aimed for, failed at, emulated or repelled...)  Nor is "Proto-Punk" "Punk"(THE STOOGES original name was THE PSYCHEDELIC STOOGES...)  The majorly influential Proto-Punk artists were VELVET UNDERGROUND, THE MC5, THE STOOGES, NEW YORK DOLLS, there are other "fringe" acts often associated with that term, but I'm not sure I agree.  Plus, not all Punk bands were "garage-like," usually had some nostalgic factor, and out of that grew the broader term "New Wave". 

Despite naysayers of music criticism, it's knowledge of music that enriches our lives in more ways than one. 

ok my first post in close to 3 years, wow 

I think garage rock was EXTREMELY influential to what punk evolved into, it's just nowhere near as mainstream and known as 70s-later punk. Of course "garage rock" was a term made up in the 70s, these bands just called it rock n roll for the most part I'm sure. It's really under-acknowledged unfortunately. Maybe that's a good thing though, it's kind of a very small collector community.

Frankly a lot of 60s garage (way more than you'd think) is more extreme, faster, and angrier than 70's punk ever was. Stuff like the MC5 and Stooges is a whole different thing that I'm personally not a fan of. The Velvet Underground were much more of an art rock band.

Anyway if you want to really experience 60s garage you have to search out compilations- that's where the best stuff resides. It was a singles genre really, there are few albums that stand out from the pack and are solid the whole way through. Compilations like back from the grave, teenage shutdown, pebbles, etc etc (it's really an endless pit when you start getting into it) Nuggets is a mix of 60s styles with mostly only more professional kind of garage acts being included (by that I mean standells, blues magoos, etc- ones on major labels with albums)

If I had to pick between 60s garage and 70s-80s punks, it's definitely a no contest win for the 60s stuff. It's more consistent with better musicianship, memorable hooks and lyrics, not to mention better influences (British Invasion bands)

Here's some examples of 60s garage that out snarls and is more edgy than lots of bands in the 70s deemed punk. It really brings the whole labeling thing into question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLU8lfy0slw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItKwJYBoWL8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghil469LHFE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfvAVlFoRmg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-mnUw26ifA

All recorded around 1966-67, those are just the tip of the iceberg. Hard to deny that any of these aren't punk sounding at all.