Can A Group Get Popular And Still Stay 'Punk'?

[dave]

My opinion is that it depends on the group. I never really considered the White Stripes that punk, but the Jesus and Mary Chain's Psycho Candy still sounds ragin' to me all these years later. Any other opinions out there?

[Rockin Rod Strychnine]

Yeah, the two Combat Rock singles and "Train in Vain" still get played on Classic rock stations.

John Battles said:

I just remember that The Clash were very popular , at least , toward the end. They had a top - charting LP , two big hits on the radio and on MTV , and one earlier hit back in rotation. They were playing bigger concerts and ginormous festivals. Of course , that all lasted little over a year.

When Mick Jones got the sack , Strummer carried on like the band was going to get back to square one. Virtually no one admits to liking the resulting album , but , I've been told the revamped lineup was'nt bad, live. Of course , by '82 , the accusations of selling out were on everybody's lips. "Combat Rock" lacked direction , but , I did'nt think there was a hit , there. The album as a whole hardly sounds like a sellout.  I saw them on that tour , and they brought the rock. 

[Rockin Rod Strychnine]

So how come we use the word "punk" instead of "rebellious" when that's what is implied?

[John Battles]

Not that I listen to Classic Rock Radio (Except at Five Guys. It still " beats " the  drum machine driven hip hop  I have to hear every day.), but , I should'nt be surprised......

Hell , "Should I Stay or Should I Go" was one of the only deliberately Garage Rock - inspired hits of the early 80's. If not THE only.     The Clash worked their balls off to make it. I did'nt have a problem with that.   They were'nt even being called"Punk" by that many people by the time "London Calling " came out, never mind "Combat Rock".  By then, they were just called "Rock". They still did several songs from the first album when I saw them in June , '82 , because Terry Chimes was back on drums.
Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Yeah, the two Combat Rock singles and "Train in Vain" still get played on Classic rock stations.

John Battles said:

I just remember that The Clash were very popular , at least , toward the end. They had a top - charting LP , two big hits on the radio and on MTV , and one earlier hit back in rotation. They were playing bigger concerts and ginormous festivals. Of course , that all lasted little over a year.

When Mick Jones got the sack , Strummer carried on like the band was going to get back to square one. Virtually no one admits to liking the resulting album , but , I've been told the revamped lineup was'nt bad, live. Of course , by '82 , the accusations of selling out were on everybody's lips. "Combat Rock" lacked direction , but , I did'nt think there was a hit , there. The album as a whole hardly sounds like a sellout.  I saw them on that tour , and they brought the rock. 

[Jerrie O'Koon-Hughes]

I think the word "rebellious" hits it right on the head.  Music that tries to push forward and stir things up.  That tries to rise above what has become ordinary and mainstream.  What was once rebellious becomes the normal.  It can still be good music, but no longer rebellious.  A lot of the pop-punk bands sound good and are exciting to hear, but are not really changing things.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

So how come we use the word "punk" instead of "rebellious" when that's what is implied?

[Rockin Rod Strychnine]

Some groups staying true to something just so they don't get mainstream sounding sometimes becomes stale....The Clash may have stayed true to punk while their music changed.  It never really got mainstream sounding but it got boring.  However, it never got stale.

[dave]

Ya think so, Rod? I recently listened to London Calling again after 20 years, and I've gotta say it sounds stale and affected, while their 1st LP still sounds diamond-sharp. 

The Ramones could still tinker around with slight differences, but it was still essentially "Da Ramones Sound"...

Maybe it depends on the band, but I find that at 48 I still like the "young, snotty, and pissed-off" records. 

Popularity rubs the edges off a band's sound. The Strokes first album sounded great for about one listen, but after that it just seemed  too slick.

[Rockin Rod Strychnine]

Are you refering to the production of LONDON CALLING or their actual performance?  Because I think that record showed growth while not getting boring.

With that current Ramones thread going somewhere else, I think the best thing to say here is that they could have easily become stale if their 10th album sounded exactly like the first in terms of style.  Maybe a better term would be stagnant to clarify my definition of stale.
 
dave said:

Ya think so, Rod? I recently listened to London Calling again after 20 years, and I've gotta say it sounds stale and affected, while their 1st LP still sounds diamond-sharp. 

The Ramones could still tinker around with slight differences, but it was still essentially "Da Ramones Sound"...

Maybe it depends on the band, but I find that at 48 I still like the "young, snotty, and pissed-off" records. 

Popularity rubs the edges off a band's sound. The Strokes first album sounded great for about one listen, but after that it just seemed  too slick.

[dave]

Both, actually. This is just an example, I'm not out to crucify anyone. To me, all these years later their experimenting w/ different styles just seems cheesy, like something Paul Simon would do. 

Anyway, I'm middle-aged now, so I can be cranky now ;P  I still like experimental punk (Chrome, Desperate Bicycles, Urinals, etc.) but it's got to have energy if not aggresiveness, and hopefully both.

Incidentally, this is what I'm listening to now, this first 45 deserves hall-o-fame status:

The Dogs - Charlie Was a Good Boy "Total bad-assery from France, circa '78." For fans of the Dolls/Thunders/Devil Dogs-style of punk.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Are you refering to the production of LONDON CALLING or their actual performance?  Because I think that record showed growth while not getting boring.

With that current Ramones thread going somewhere else, I think the best thing to say here is that they could have easily become stale if their 10th album sounded exactly like the first in terms of style.  Maybe a better term would be stagnant to clarify my definition of stale.
 
dave said:

Ya think so, Rod? I recently listened to London Calling again after 20 years, and I've gotta say it sounds stale and affected, while their 1st LP still sounds diamond-sharp. 

The Ramones could still tinker around with slight differences, but it was still essentially "Da Ramones Sound"...

Maybe it depends on the band, but I find that at 48 I still like the "young, snotty, and pissed-off" records. 

Popularity rubs the edges off a band's sound. The Strokes first album sounded great for about one listen, but after that it just seemed  too slick.

[John Battles]

 I LIKE(D) "London Calling" for reasons that are radically different than "The Clash" . I still give it a spin once in a while , but the first (US and UK) HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY FAVORITE .

They carried that energy over into the second album , to an extent , but lose the plot somewher. Still some good songs , there. Later , "Sandinista " is where , to me , their self - indulgence emerges in full force. Does'nt mean there are'nt some good songs , though.....I dunno.

A friend told me The Clash were The Beatles of Punk. That they started with this ruff'n'raw thing , and , eventually came up with "London Calling" , which he called their "Sgt. Pepper", moving into "Sandinista!" , which he called their White Album. Interesting theory. I guess "Combat Rock " would be more of a "Let it Be" , if anything ,than an "Abbey Road". I guess , too , it makes no difference.

Bottom Line : Were they uneven? Yes. Did they still make some great music ? Of course.

But , bands that were considered "Punk" , But , made it? Hmmmmmmmm. I admit , I like Elastica , just the first album , still play it once in a great while. I liked The Jesus and Mary when they just had those now - unattainable singles in The UK. I DID'NT THINK THEY HAD A HOPE IN HELL OF MAKING IT IN THE USA. But , I also did'nt think Dwight Yoakum would make it , because he was TOO Country. But , you could say bands like that were merely Punk reaction. I don't think Punk "Came back " until the 90's , when CBGB's started doing a booming business , and The Dictators , Real Kids , DMZ, Jayne County and the like were back at it.....iN THE UK , HUGE FESTIVALS LIKE "Holidays in The Sun " gathered up nearly every English Punk band still living and eager to play......There was even a BIG festival , recently , to commemorate the Diamond Jubilee - co - billed as "The Last Jubilee".

I knock a lot of the 80's stuff,  sure , but there was always good music , if you were willing to go find it , and we did , without the internet , without MP3s.

If people still ENJOY Punk Rock , then , you could argue it's not dead. The more I heard Pop Punk , the more I wanted to retreat into the vastly underrated Dickies , and The Rezillos/Revillos , Vibrators , Buzzcocks , Boys, Lurkers , even The Cichlids ,  bands with pop hooks that did'nt sound like 10 year olds wetting their pants , ok?

[John Battles]

P.S. Despite the Elastica / Wire controversy , when I first heard "Connection" by Elastica , on the radio , I thought it was "Message To Charlie " by Lithium Xmas.
 
John Battles said:

 I LIKE(D) "London Calling" for reasons that are radically different than "The Clash" . I still give it a spin once in a while , but the first (US and UK) HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY FAVORITE .

They carried that energy over into the second album , to an extent , but lose the plot somewher. Still some good songs , there. Later , "Sandinista " is where , to me , their self - indulgence emerges in full force. Does'nt mean there are'nt some good songs , though.....I dunno.

A friend told me The Clash were The Beatles of Punk. That they started with this ruff'n'raw thing , and , eventually came up with "London Calling" , which he called their "Sgt. Pepper", moving into "Sandinista!" , which he called their White Album. Interesting theory. I guess "Combat Rock " would be more of a "Let it Be" , if anything ,than an "Abbey Road". I guess , too , it makes no difference.

Bottom Line : Were they uneven? Yes. Did they still make some great music ? Of course.

But , bands that were considered "Punk" , But , made it? Hmmmmmmmm. I admit , I like Elastica , just the first album , still play it once in a great while. I liked The Jesus and Mary when they just had those now - unattainable singles in The UK. I DID'NT THINK THEY HAD A HOPE IN HELL OF MAKING IT IN THE USA. But , I also did'nt think Dwight Yoakum would make it , because he was TOO Country. But , you could say bands like that were merely Punk reaction. I don't think Punk "Came back " until the 90's , when CBGB's started doing a booming business , and The Dictators , Real Kids , DMZ, Jayne County and the like were back at it.....iN THE UK , HUGE FESTIVALS LIKE "Holidays in The Sun " gathered up nearly every English Punk band still living and eager to play......There was even a BIG festival , recently , to commemorate the Diamond Jubilee - co - billed as "The Last Jubilee".

I knock a lot of the 80's stuff,  sure , but there was always good music , if you were willing to go find it , and we did , without the internet , without MP3s.

If people still ENJOY Punk Rock , then , you could argue it's not dead. The more I heard Pop Punk , the more I wanted to retreat into the vastly underrated Dickies , and The Rezillos/Revillos , Vibrators , Buzzcocks , Boys, Lurkers , even The Cichlids ,  bands with pop hooks that did'nt sound like 10 year olds wetting their pants , ok?

[Kendal Killjoy]

The way I view this argument now is the same way I view any other genre.  E.G. You can't write classical music, even if you write in the same style.  Classical music (like Baroque, like punk) was a type of music in a certain time period, you can write neo-classical, contemporary, etc.  So one can play punk-revival, or neo-punk, or third wave/fourth wave/fifth wave punk etc.  But the genre, just like, say, modernism or vorticism, or victorian, is tied to it's time period.  It's sound + attitude + time period = genre in my eyes.

As far as "But Punk is an attitude/lifestyle" it always struck me as odd that punk gets to claim all that rebellion for itself, claiming that old acts from the 50's/40's were "punk before there was punk"...truth is that certain attitudes have always existed and it's ego-centric of the genre to claim the attributes for itself when they existed prior (e.g. same thing with Screamin Hay Hawkins being "psychobilly before there was psychobilly", or other such claims with other genres).  Punk is just another footnote in a long lineage/tradition of that attitude.

I am on point with Sam that many of those early seventies punk bands and "proto-punk" bands wanted to achieve success (just listen to the Ramones bitch in interviews about how they formed a cultural niche but never had the cash to go with it), and that whole anti-mainstream thing started with 80's hardcore DIY aesthetic...which is great to have an outlet when there isn't one in the mainstream, but I don't think NOT having people hear your music is the point.  It's kinda like a kid who sits alone at lunch and isn't well liked saying "well, good, I didn't want them to like me anyway".

So, yea, there's a dollar's worth....just give me 98 cents back...

[John Battles]

no , all the credit for being rebellious should'nt go to Punk alone , nor even Punk and it's myriad offshoots...But what gets called "Rebellious" over the years, hoo boy. I guess you could say Heavy Metal or Hard Rock had a rebellious "Who gives a fuck" attitude in the 70's , with The Sabs , The Purps , Thin Lizzy , Alice Cooper and the like , even tho' a good deal of those acts made millions. But , by the 80's , the public was being told that bands Like Quiet Riot , Motley Crue , (Later) Scorpions , (Later ) Priest and solo Ozzy were rebellious and even HEAVY !    The Underground Metal scenes were just taking off around that time , but , what passed for Metal at all....YEESH.  REAL Metal or early Hard Rock , sure , e.g.  Dust , Sir Lord Baltimore , Blue Cheer , MC5 , was rebellious as Hell , but , most of the bands that did make some real money ended up with nothing to show for it.

Just an example....Blues , not the shit that passes for it today , is Rebel Music. So is Country , Rockabilly ....But , just not what usually passes for it , today.

But , I guess I'm preaching to the converted when I say that.

Did people really think Screamin' Jay Hawkins was the demon daddy to "Psychobilly"?

I mean , I'm sure some of those bands were influenced by him  in the 80's , but , apart from "Frenzy" , "Stone Crazy" and maybe one or two other songs , Jay did'nt havemuch of a Rockabilly base. I'd wager Sceaming Lord Sutch was a far bigger influence on that stuff , even though he , too , only dabbled In Rockabilly stylings. You can , of course , hear things in earlier , groundbreaking sounds that are reflected in the music of later acts who took more of the credit for breaking down musical barriers. I think Hawkins is more a forerunner of Punk in his general disregard for the status quo , that he presented himself as anti-social , with a bad attitude , in a musical context , though he was a great instrumentalist and arranger , and could have sang Opera if he's had a mind to.  He was , however , a very likeable man. God help anyone who pissed him off , but , he was affable and frequently hilarious.