Quote:
|
Originally Posted by candymoan
"you cannot have heresy without an orthodoxy"
okay.. i'll give you that..
but what about velvet underground? wouldn't you say that pioneers of that calibre have something radical to offer that transforms norms?
think of it this way.. does the attitude impose an expansion, that eventually progresses into something else?
you have the velvets --> the stooges --> the ramones --> pistols and clash --> joy division and post-punk --> no wave
et cetera..
my main argument is, the uk punk brought this movement mainstream attention, and exposed minds to it..
i'm thinking of influence..
everyone that saw the pistols live, formed their own band...
kinda thing..
|
Hmm. Well, I'm going off the Velvets, but point taken. You can plot a route back from the Velvets to 60's minimalists/ free-jazz, and from there back through Webern/ Cage/ Ives/ Penderecki/ Stravinsky/ Wagner etc on one side or Ayler/ Coleman/ Davis/ Coltrane/ Hampton etc on the other. I think you may have a point insofar as punk offered a more mainstream exposition of one certain, very specific kind of music, which in turn may have inspired some good things, but I think that is missing the fact that nearly 100% of bands inspired by the Pistols (or whoever) are utterly shite. My point being that people who make decent music will make it regardless of where they take their influences. Alright, The Beatles, The Pistols, VU or whomever may have inspired, in part, some good bands, but all of the above are more responsible for the slew of dross (but not the lack of imagination of its makers) that is contemporary rock music 1950-present.