Talk:Punk rock/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Conclusion

So to sum it up:

1)The article itself states(with reliable sources) that there were references, at least as early as 1970 referring to bands, their sound, their attitude, and their fans as "Punk Rock". 2)These were not limited to one person, or to one publication. 3)The Punk Rock bands that emerged between 1974-1976 were clearly influenced by the earlier Punk Rock bands(as the article itself states, with reliable sources). 4)The original(c 1970) Punk Rock bands were chiefly American. None of these bands or references had ANYTHING to do with Australia. 5)And the 1974-1976 bands that achieved success(eg. The Sex Pistols, The Ramones, The Clash) cited each other as well as the earlier bands as being alike. No mention was made of the Australian bands, who according to the article's sources did not emerge until late 1975 or even 1976. 6)When someone(not just me, I have now checked the article's edit history, as well as some of the discussion history) attempts to correct these errors, they are basically told to just shut up, as this is the way the article has always been. Even though the article's own sources state something to the contrary. Well, some of them, some "reliable" sources perpetuate the fiction that Punk Rock began in the mid-70's. 7)Even a citation tag asking for the definitive statement was quickly removed, as "this is the way the article has always been", and "the article itself states these facts". So now a Wikipedia article is its own reliable source? Again the article actually states that "Punk Rock" dates from at least as early as 1970(with sources), then dismisses these sources, and states that that wasn't really Punk Rock after all because another source from many years later doesn't think it should be called that. 8)So to anyone reading the article who wonders how if there was an identifiable sound, scene, attitude and fanbase all called "Punk Rock" from c1970 but why the article(which even makes reference to this, with reliable sources) states that 1974 in Australia is the TRUE starting point, well many people have tried to set this right, but without any success. !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiles The Clown (talk • contribs) 06:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what's got you so hung up on Australia, but if the article identifies anything like a "TRUE starting point" of what is now known as punk rock, it's clearly the CBGB scene. You don't need to shut up, you just need to calm down and read.

Did you catch that "now known" bit? That's a hint at your other problem. You don't seem to understand that the primary meaning of words and terms can change. Yes, there were references in 1970 to certain rock bands as "punk rock", but--as most everyone else comprehends--those bands are no longer known as punk, but as garage rock, or psych, or protopunk, or hard rock. The article makes that pretty darn clear as well. Sorry you're having so much trouble with the concept. DocKino (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If an outside opinion is any use, this doesn't seem to be a disagreement about the facts so much as about how they should be stated in the lede. The problem, which has troubled other articles, is value Wikipedia places on beginning an article with a very simple declarative statement: X is Y. I think an accurate statement would be something along these lines: "Although the term 'punk rock' had been used since the 1960s to describe simple, high-energy and usually low-budget rock music, it is now used almost universally to refer to the genre which developed between 1974 and 1976 in the United States and the United Kingdom, which placed heavy emphasis on just those values." But most editors will say that's too complicated for a lede. If anyone can say that simply, your problem is solved. (As it happens, I think pre-recorded work of two Australian bands in two remote Australian cities is not sufficiently notable for the lede, and I'm familiar with both the bands. Chris Bailey thought it was hilarious to be included in the "punk scene," but it brought him work of course. I have no cite for that. The punk scene in France was much more extensive, influential, and the bands actually had record deals - Little Bob Story, Stinky Toys, etc, etc)KD Tries Again (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

More simply, I'd propose changing the opening sentences as follows:- "Punk rock is a rock music genre that developed between 1974 and 1976, principally but not exclusively in the United States and the United Kingdom. Rooted in garage rock and later styles of music now often described as "protopunk", punk rock bands eschewed the perceived excesses of mainstream 1970s rock..." The input from Australia (and elsewhere) is described in the article, as is the music called "protopunk" - it doesn't need to be given much weight in the lede. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Need help at Richard Manitoba (The Dictators)

Grateful it any interested editors would take a look at the discussion here, and earlier parts of Talk Page. I think negative feelings about Manitoba are an obstacle to consensus on the issues raised. Any help appreciated.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Ätzttussis (Punk in West Germany)

Shall this imaginary band "Ätzttussis" stay in here forever? Just because user:DCGeist and user:Ceoil don't have a clue about the German language and the German punk scene? Sorry - this "band" is nothing but a typing error!

Rob Burns may be a fine source (I doubt it, since he is obviously not important enough for a wikipedia article), however there are certainly better sources - though one needs to understand German to make use of them. But how can anyone even concider to understand the German punk scene good enough to write about it, without understandig German? That's like a blind guy writig about colours!

So, take it from a German ex-punk rocker (and a respected author in the German Wikipedia):

• A band called "Ätzttussis" has NEVER existed! If at all, the band is called "Ätztussis". But they are not and were not noticeable at all, even the German Wikipedia has no article about them.
• "S.Y.P.H. is just another German '80s band - not at all more important than PVC, Fehlfarben, Normahl, Deutsch-Amerikanische Freundschaft or the notorious Ton Steine Scherben and later Slime (to name a few of the important ones).

Ask Rob Burns - if he knows anything about the German punk scene of that time he will agree with me! Greetings from Berlin, Jochim Schiller (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What the word Punk actually means

The originally use and origin of the word "Punk" is for wood that is at the point of rotting and is only good for use a tinder to start fires. Nowadays the term survives mostly amongst people into camping and the out-doors and is more often termed as "Punk Wood". Back when everyone relied on fires for cooking and heat and the term was a common part of life, it was just "punk". From the original term the word punk also began to be used in reference to something of poor quality or that was only good for the fire. Fire in literature was also a reference for hell and writers would cleverly use the term for someone who is associated with a sinful lifestyle. When the term was first used in reference to rock music it was from music magazine critics (who had obviously studied English language and literature whilst perusing their career as a journalist) referring to the three-cord amateur garage band genre of songs that was first sparked by the Kinks and had nothing to do with the later outrageous looking and rebellious styled image that was picked up on and then popularized by McLaren. RottingSouls (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That's one explanation, but it's not referenced. You may have missed the section on Etymology in the article - in my view that section should come higher up in the article itself, before the Characteristics section. Views welcome on that point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually i think an older use of the work Punk was to describe a prostitute. As used by Shakespeare in "measure for measure" (1603), and Samual Buttler in "hudibrass" (1663). The use to describe wood is a couple of centuries after this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.27.224 (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Punk Rock = Garage Rock

The tern "punk rock" was also applied in the mid-1960s to the rather similar genre of music which is covered on Wikipedia under the rubric "garage rock." The two movements overlapped chronologically to a certain extent because there were a few 1960s garage rock artists who a decade later figured in the 1970s punk/new wave movement. Iggy Pop is the most prominent 1970s punk/New Wave figure who actually got started in the 1960s: his band the Stooges were arguably the ultimate 1960s "garage band." Marc Bolan, Lou Reed, Debbie Harry, and even David Bowie are other examples of overlap between the two movements. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems fairly well covered already in the "Garage rock" and "Etymology" sections of this article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Letters?

Why are the infobox letters white? NoremacDaGangsta (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Its common use over all rock music articles. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres/Colours, but the key reason is that black on red provides very poor contrast and is unreadable on some displays.--SabreBD (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I mean NOT white lol. NoremacDaGangsta (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes more sense - I was a bit puzzled. The infobox is a separate template, but thanks to you pointing it out I and went and changed it back. So good job, as I didn't have it bookmarked (although someone here probably did).--SabreBD (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-free media overuse

Appears there is way too much non-free content in this article, specifically the audio samples. Keep in mind WP:NFCC #8: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. It appears a number of samples in this article do not relate to the article content, or the reader is not required to hear the sample to understand the concept. Usually, a good rule of thumb, do we have a source which is discussing particular elements in the specific song? If not, the sample should go. Do others agree, and if you are more familiar with this article, want to take a shot at cleaning up, removing, and possibly adding additional sources to bring this article more in line with WP:NFC? Thanks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The historical significance of nearly all the clips is clear, and the benefit to readers' understanding of being able to listen to examples of punk rock from the different periods of its development, from the different places where it spread, and from the different styles into which it evolved, is obvious and important. Given the nature and the age of the material, these fair use items are not plausibly pushing out free items that might be substituted. In sum, the usage fully respects the tenets of our NFC policy. That said, this is an FA, and under our best practices, as you suggest, we would ideally have sourced discussion of song elements audible in each sample. I'm happy to get to work on that.—DCGeist (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but ran into a bit of ownership issue last time I tried cleanup, and didn't really feel like making the effort at the time. There also seem to be a lot of disc covers and similar types of images. Punk rock is such a broad category, it's hard to imagine free content not existing to illustrate it. It's almost like trying to imagine we couldn't illustrate the articles on watercolor painting or architecture with exclusively or near-exclusively free content. It appears to just have gotten worse since last time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If i counted correctly having 25 non-free samples/images is a serious violation of the WP:NFC policy. Time for a FAR? Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd really only rather see a FAR happen if an article is genuinely degraded beyond hope of being restored to FA-worthiness in the near future. Since it can be cleaned up by removing the nonfree content and where possible replacing it with free, I don't think that's necessary, unless you see other problems that also cause serious concern about continuing FA status. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The nature of recorded music and the time period covered by the history of the genre make punk rock a very different matter from watercolor painting and architecture. The comparisons are inapt. The comprehensive representation of punk rock history requires the use of non-free content that, in this case, in no way pushes out free content. Images of thousands of significant watercolors and works of architecture are freely available or are readily attainable; this is simply and obviously not the case with examples of punk rock in its formative and developmental era. As for images, there are five non-free images, the specific importance of which is sourced in each case and which again, in each case, do not occupy a niche that could be filled by free content. The use of these items thus fully abides by the letter and spirit of our NFC policy and their removal would not constitute "cleaning up", but degradation of a high-quality article. Again, adding sourced discussion of elements audible in each historically significant song sample is what is called for here.—DCGeist (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And there's the owner of whom I speak. And I don't have near as much going on this time. So, the cleanup needs done, and given the breadth of the topic, it can certainly be illustrated by free content. We don't need an illustration and sound clip for every moment in "the history of punk rock", text explains historical significance fine. We can have a few samples of CC stuff, and there are of course tons of free visual media on Commons of even highly notable punk rock artists. I certainly invite your help with getting the article done that way, but help or hinder, it's getting done this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Call me as many names as you like. Your unprovoked ad hominems and your misuse of the word "cleanup" don't make your radical misinterpretation of policy one bit more valid. I have no intention of "helping or hindering" you in any way. I remain focused only on maintaining the article's present high quality according to our policies. If you wish to aid me in that effort, we can work happily together. If you seek to degrade the quality of the article, that's your problem, not mine at all. "It's getting done"? Ah, now that's quintessential ownership attitude. "It," I gather, is your idiosyncratic vision of a purified article. We'll see about it.—DCGeist (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no intention whatsoever of degrading the article, or any article. It's a good one. But not because of the nonfree content. If you took every media file on the article out, free and nonfree alike, it would still be an excellent article. It's prose, not media, that makes an article. The prose here is done very well. I've no intention of changing that. I'm trying to avoid an FAR, as you've already seen suggested. At this point, the nonfree content in this article does cause it not to meet FA standards. As far as I can see, everything else does. So, yes, that needs to be cleaned up, or whatever term you prefer. You can call it "degrading the article" if you want to, you can choose whatever term you want. But clearly, at this point, I'm not the only one who's noticed the problem. I know you like the article like it is, but others do edit articles, and compliance with nonfree content criteria is required. You seem to have the idea that illustrating one narrow portion of an article is the test for replaceability. The only test there is whether free media can illustrate the subject in general, not a subsection of it. Free media clearly exists for punk rock, so any nonfree media fails NFCC #1. Again, your input is most welcome on what free media is best, but nonfree is not an option. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

How do you understand an ever changing style of music without sound clips? I doubt you are going to find ANY music that is cc or not copyright from the proto-punk through the post-hardcore periods. If you do it isn't going to show the style. The style was kept alive by a small group of bands (the Ramones,black flag, minor threat, bad brains ect.} and everyone else was just trying to copy them. American Hardcore (the film) points that out. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I could see that justifying one or two sound clips of the most notable punk bands, but not the around twenty we have now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy with 8 samples showing the biggest changes with the genre. (Early NY punk, Early english punk, the Ramones, the clash, hardcore, oi, pop punk, modern punk) I agree each heading shouldn't have more then one sample and alternative rock dosen't need a sample at all.

On a unrelated note why is there a too may pictures banner at the top of the talk page. Punk has only 17ish while rock has over 30. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What I would remove:

• "Blitzkrieg Bop"
• "Hot Wire My Heart"
• "Chinese Rocks"
• "We Are the One"
• "White Riot"
• "Television Addict"
• "Panik"
• Totally Wired"

also I would be open to PiL's record cover being removed

• "Fat Lip"

If the samples fit into the band's page or the sub genre's page then by all means add them there.--Guerillero | My Talk 20:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It'd be a start. I think eight is still overdoing it (and probably, especially for newer styles of punk, we could find CC material), but it'd be a step in the right direction. We'd still also need to get to the images (mainly album covers), there are so many free images of those bands available that I can't conceivably see a justification for using nonfree ones. Joey Ramone even has a street in NYC named after 'em (pictured on Commons)—you want to show significance, I don't know how you do better than that! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

True. Plus reading this its against policy to use album covers except on pages about that album. WP:Non-free content#Images_2--Guerillero | My Talk 21:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's get started there. I think probably the best solution from there is to evaluate the remaining sound samples individually. We may want to move that discussion to the nonfree content review started with this, though—that may get a few more opinions to consider, and I hate to have the discussion fragmented all over the place. Would that work for you? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Can they come here? It is better to have the whole discussion in one place so nothing gets lost. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Works for me either way. We'll get some additional input either way anyway, so it's not a huge thing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Guerillero, I'm afraid you've misread the policy, which bars the use of album covers as "part of a discography". The use here—to illustrate significant events in the history of punk, where the specific imagery on the albums was a substantial part of that historical impact—is obviously very different from the sort of usage our policy regards as unacceptable.

In that light, and given the evident fact that "several editors" have not actually "agreed the images are unacceptable"—despite a certain misleading edit summary—I am restoring the Strength thru Oi! image. The Metal Box image is not quite as central to the history of punk, and free media of FA-worthy quality and historical relevance has been identified for the post-punk subsection.—DCGeist (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

DCGeist, between here and the NFR, you've now been told by five editors that nonfree media is overused, while only one other has agreed with you. What's it going to take? Ten? Twenty? A hundred? You seem to keep thinking that everyone but you "must be wrong" or "misunderstands" things, but it doesn't work like that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

DCGiest I am trying my hardest to find some middle ground. Seraphimblade, Tbhotch, Andrew c, and MASEM want most of the content removed while you want none of it removed. Having some of it removed makes the majority of them happy and it keeps a FAR from happening. I personally have doubts that this article could go through a FAR and survive without any changes to the media. --Guerillero | My Talk 14:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Much of the expressed desire for media removal has not been solidly grounded in policy. You yourself misread the policy (more precisely, the guideline exemplifying policy)—no shame in that, it's long and dense—and it appears that Seraphimblade misunderstands it as well, because he didn't correct you. In addition—in the case of the Ramones and Strength through Oi! images, for instance—there has also been evident and grievous misunderstanding of the informational purposes the historical items serve, as I have repeatedly attempted to explain. Seraphimblade, I'm sorry you find the word "misunderstand" so irksome. What word would you prefer I use to describe your erroneous belief that the Ramones image merely serves to demonstrate the band's "impact/fame" in some general way or that the Strength through Oi! image just takes the place of a picture of some random Oi! band?

As for my own position, the fact is that since this latest discussion has begun, the Metal Box image and no fewer than three sound clips—by the Screamers, Husker Du, and Sum 41—have been removed from the article without any resistance on my part. It's obviously not fair to characterize my position as an "all/none" one. (These facts also belie Seraphimblade's ad hominem contention that I think I "own" the article or, most recently, that I am "edit warring" over this matter.) Along with making sure the article is policy-compliant, it's important to make sure that it continues to represent Wikipedia's best work. Focusing on the media that is most historically important and from which maximum informational value can be derived is a productive part of that process. You evidently share a similar perspective, which is most valuable in maintaining and improving the quality of our encyclopedia.

Finally, I don't regard an FAR as something to fear. A good review can be an effective means of making sure that an FA reflects our most up-to-date best practices.—DCGeist (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And here, I've just cut one of the two clips from our summary Hardcore subsection. While "Holiday in Cambodia" is an enormously important recording, our informational purposes here are satisfactorily served by focusing on the more pivotal (and more typical-sounding) "Pay to Cum".—DCGeist (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Good start. Now we've got to get all the images, and most of the clips (one or two might be alright). This is not a "compromise" scenario, this amount of media is noncompliant, and the vast majority of it is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. We don't have to "get all the images", because the use of the existing fair use images conforms to our policy--perhaps not with the policy that you wish existed, but certainly with the policy that does. And we don't have to "get most of the clips" for the same reason. Your arbitrary arithmetic--"one or two might be alright"--is ludicrous and utterly unfounded in policy. Our policy does not identify an "amount" of media that is per se noncompliant. If any given amount was per se noncompliant, our policy would reflect that, so your statement there is objectively false. You glibly, baselessly claim that the "vast majority" of the media is noncompliant, when you have not made a reasoned case against almost any of the specific items of media in the article, when you seem to be unfamiliar with the actual wording and intention of our policy, and when you have demonstrated repeatedly that you do not even recognize the encyclopedic purpose served by the media in multiple cases. So...no, we don't have to fall into line and do what you order. Please see WP:OWN. You are not sovereign of this process, you are not sovereign of this article, and you are not sovereign of Wikipedia's fair use policy.

If and when you are ready to engage with each piece of media you find problematic, one by one, in turn, I stand ready to respond. It would help if you would first actually trouble yourself to read the article, think about how each item of fair use media actually serves to inform the reader, and determine in which (if any) cases you can identify an item of free media that comes even close to duplicating the informational purpose and value of the existing item. DocKino (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the nonfree content review was pretty conclusive, so I'm going to start removal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Which review is that? Which items were specifically reviewed, at what time, and with what critical commentary? Until you can answer those questions, and we have a specific examination of each distinct item you have a problem with in a specified version, then no conclusions will have been reached.—DCGeist (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I listed every single item at the nonfree content review, which I did invite you to participate in. The images were discussed as a set rather than individually, which is fine, given that they're all in the same article. You don't get to void or reframe a discussion because you don't like its outcome. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The review is ongoing, and it is not "fine" to discuss completely different items, each with a specific encyclopedic purpose and distinct critical commentary, as a "set." Your argument for removing the media as a group is evidently based not on any specific policy problems but on the notion that there is some general limit on the amount of non-free media that is acceptable in a genre (or any?) article. I see no basis at all for that notion in policy, and you have yet to articulate a case for where you find it in policy. As I have noted in the review, we need an RfC to resolve this policy question, which I will draft and post tomorrow.—DCGeist (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I noted the same problem with all of them, namely that they are replaceable by free content, regardless of "commentary" or any other consideration. (That doesn't mean each subsection might have media content, and that's quite alright if it doesn't. The only question for replaceability is "Can we get a free media file showing punk rock, the subject of the article?") Regardless, however, since the current weight is clearly against it, they need to stay out pending any further showing. If you'd like to file an RfC or anything else, you're perfectly welcome to do so, but for right now several others have agreed with my assessment. Nonfree content cannot stay even given a "no consensus" result, let alone a clear consensus against. As stated above, you cannot unilaterally void the outcome of a discussion because you personally disagree with its outcome. Evidently, several other editors found it fine to consider them as a group. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I missed the link to the review in this very long discussion, but since silence is taken as content you can put me down for wanting to take these case-by-case rather than a blanket removal.--SabreBD (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(indent reset) I'm unclear on how discussing "each one individually" would be of benefit. It would go something like:

• Image01.jpg: Can we get a free image of punk rock? Yes, we can. Replaceable.
• Image02.jpg: Can we get a free image of punk rock? Yes, we can. Replaceable.
• Soundfile01.ogg: Can we get a free sound file of punk rock? Yes, we can. Replaceable.
• Soundfile02.ogg: Can we get a free sound file of punk rock? Yes, we can. Replaceable.

The objection to every one is the exact same. If we have free images or sound files of punk rock (not necessarily every facet or era of punk rock, there's nothing in NFCC requiring each subsection to be illustrated at all!), all nonfree content is replaceable and fails NFCC #1. It doesn't matter if it has commentary, what have you. Commentary is a necessary but not sufficient condition, the content must also not be replaceable with free media that illustrates the article's subject (again, not that particular facet of the subject, just it in general.) That's clearly not the case here for any of the images or sound files. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating that you feel you can determine the nature and outcome of a debate before it has occurred. It is traditional to allow the others to put their side. I am less than convinced that these do all fall under NFCC #1, because they are not simply representing punk rock, but aspects of its diversity and development. Perhaps you should try a debate on these and see it it follows the pattern you outline.--SabreBD (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I did, and it did. Four other editors agreed and were just fine with reviewing them en masse. One disagreed. This is just a stalling tactic at this point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That debate still seems to be open. This is not stalling but an attempt to get a consensus. I am prepared to accept reasonable arguments, as we all should be.--SabreBD (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've no problem with you attempting to form whatever consensus you like. What the current state of the discussion indicates, however, is that the images and clips do not currently enjoy a consensus to remain. Even if you assert that there is no consensus to remove them either, that would be the default state, as nonfree content is presumptively unacceptable and requires a consensus for, not just no consensus against. So, during the discussion, the material must stay out. If you can then gain consensus later that some of it is acceptable, that's a new matter. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You will have to point me to the policy on that one. The section on enforcement in the NFCC policy talks about files without a fair use rationale, but I don't see anything about those lacking consensus (perhaps it is somewhere else). It would be a bit of a problematic policy, since it would mean that one or two editors could go to any article, state there is no consensus and then legitimately remove all material. Even when, as is the case here, the material has rationales and has enjoyed a long-standing consensus and regardless of whether other editors are willing to find a new consensus. Which is also the case here. The sooner we get to that point the sooner consensus will be achieved and the article improved.--SabreBD (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's cut the lawyering. There is no policy that says exactly those words. Policy does make clear that nonfree content is generally unacceptable with limited exceptions. With free text, if a consensus cannot be arrived at whether to keep or remove it, it stays—free text or media is presumptively considered acceptable in the absence of a consensus otherwise. Nonfree media is the opposite, so a "no consensus" result would result in not using it, since the "default" is that we do not use nonfree media. Because a policy does not address an exact case that's at issue does not mean it is inapplicable, and I'm not sure if you're being deliberately disingenuous or you really didn't know that. Regardless, now you do. Time for the stalling and lawyering to come to an end here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• This is a vexed issue. The strictly legalistic answer, according to enwiki's policy, is that there should almost never be fair use. Some of the book covers we wave through certainly wouldn't pass NFCC8, and perhaps other NFCCs; but we are practical about that, thank heavens, since any owner of the rights to sell a book would almost always kill to have the cover displayed at the top of a WP article (and often the designer/artist of a book cover would be in the position, although we seem to have no rule about mentioning those poor souls when book covers are used under FU, ahem—even where their identity is easily accessible within the book). Similarly, we often turn a blind eye to the draconian restrictions on fair use when it comes to short sound files illustrating popular music styles, since on balance their use could reasonably be assumed to increase the likelihood of a sale of a related commercial product rather than threatening the owner's revenue from such. I think the number of files needs to be kept under control, though. (1) Often, three is about the limit Black Kite et al. will be willing to endorse. An argument for more could be put, I suppose. (2) I see some of the files are used in more than one article as FU. Is that allowed? (3) It's comforting that the recordings are all many decades old and unlikely to have much commercial value. BTW, I see current top-10 album articles with FU claimed: this is a flagrant breach of the NFCC? (I can't remember which number).

  I'd like to see some educational value built in, as suggested above, by commentary on the actual sound; the year is missing from a few captions; the sound description pages need an audit. Aside from that, some leeway should be allowed for the FU claim here, I believe. Tony (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I am in broad agreement with what is in Tony's summary of the issues. I am not sure what the number of non-free samples on this article should be, but I am pretty sure that we will only get consensus somewhere between what is on the page now and zero. We clearly have to do due diligence here: discussing if a sample is needed in a section and if so does it meet the much higher bar that necessitates a non-free sample, looking seriously for alternatives (and this takes a lot of time and effort), and, if a sample makes it though all that, as mentioned above, we should be proving commentary and (as the MOS implies) placing samples in context. I suggest that, whichever side of this debate editors are on, such a process likely to enhance the article not damage it and to make it compliant with key policies. I would like to get on with this sooner rather than later, but that does require that interested parties sign up to a lengthy process and have to be willing to listen to reasoned arguments. Simply stating that all must go or all must stay wont get us any further. I am willing to begin setting it up here if editors are willing to accept it.--SabreBD (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Keeping article current

I'd like to initiate a discussion on keeping the article up to date. Have there been developments within the punk scene over the past few years significant enough to warrant inclusion that we don't currently address? Are we still amid a "punk revival" as the title of the last (most recent) section of our history puts it, or is it time to create a new section/sub-section? Is the end of the article just fine as is, and we can wait on this discussion for another year or so?—DCGeist (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It is in need of some updating. (the newest references are from 2005-2007) Has anyone notable commented on the state of the current punk scene? --Guerillero | My Talk 02:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

why is punk rock associated with alternative rock?

as mentioned in the heading, punk rock is a genre of rock music and not alternative rock. Why are bands like green day and the offspring called alternative? bands who play hard rock or heavy metal are not labelled as 'alternative' and they are also rock music genres. Of course, alternative music is more influenced by punk rock but it is still a genre of rock. There is hardly a single punk band that is rock, but rather all are alternative rock. I demand a reason or explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.190.38 (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Because, simply put, punk rock was viewed as an alternative to what was being called rock music in the late 70s. I'll need to go dig up the sources that talk about this but essentially it was the desire of the early bands to not conform to the existing model of rock 'n' roll. Rather, they wanted to change it. --Kyle Kepone | My Talk 08:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Should have more emphasis on Surf and Swamp rock

The article tends to gloss over the disparate influences of punk rock, such as surf and swamp rock. Instead, the article tends to focus on the obvious, such as British bands and one-hit garage bands. By doing so, the article ignores an important subject and that is whether the Vietnam war should be considered an influence on the advent of punk rock.

Instead, the article focuses on songs of alienation, rather than protest music, and would lead us to believe that the Sex Pistols were the first band to record a lyrically boisterous punk anthem that had an opinion.

Obviously, politically motivated songs are traced back to Josh White, the Weavers, beatniks, Woody Guthrie and Bob Dylan, yet, none of the songs rose to the level of punk anthem.

When you think about it, the most lyrically similar song to the Sex Pistols song "God Save the Queen" is "Fortunate Son" by Creedence Clearwater Revival. CCR is often considered to be "swamp rock." which in fact refers to a mix of music that ranges through Cajun, Creole, rock and rock roll, and New Orleans R&B.

This may be only a leap of intuition, but the music of New Wave, punk, and ska punk of the 1980s and 1990s would be heavily influenced by music (ska, reggae) from the same geographic region - the Caribbean. "Swamp rock" seems to be treated as only a niche genre, when the reality is, it has many similarities to the music that has defined New Wave, ska punk, and punk.

Not saying that "swamp rock" defined punk, I'm simply saying that it deserves to be part of the discussions.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.171.236 (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a significant and reliable external reference that agrees with you, it should be mentioned. Otherwise, it shouldn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That was the idea behind adding this to discussion. I was hoping that someone out there would have a reference that supports my idea.24.23.171.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

How many copies did Dookie sell?

On this article, it states that Dookie sold "over 20 million albums in just over two years." Though according to Green Day's episode of Behind the Music, it was "on its way to selling 10 million copies" in 1995. So what I'm wondering is, the statement about it selling 20 million copies is referenced—is the reference wrong or is the person who put that statement on the article wrong? If no one replies to this, I will just edit the article and put 10 million. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. The line was improperly changed without anyone catching it before. As the source shows, the album received RIAA's 9-times-platinum certification in May 1996—there is usually a month or so lag time between the registered sales and the certification announcement. The album was released in February 1994. I've corrected the "20" to "9".

That said, most of the substantive edits you were made were not good. "Successful" and "major stars" do not mean the same thing. Those two Living End albums didn't reach the top of the chart "again"—the BAND did. Worst of all, you screwed up a direct quotation—never, ever do that. And then you have the piss-poor attitude to tell us in edit summary: "Valid edits, so do not revert!" That is not on, good buddy.—DCGeist (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever DCGeist, that has nothing to do with what I am talking about, so don't bring it up when it has nothing to do with what I am asking, if you have a problem with my edit, and least tell me at my talk page. And about the "reaching the top of the chart again", it said again and when I was editing it I put the stuff in the wrong order. And about the "successful" and "stars", "successful" is better, "stars" is just a term that people use, it is not an official term, it's not like The Living End became the Belt of Orion or something after they released that album. And I did not screw up a quote. Can't you be a little nicer to me? And like every other article I edit on, everybody is always saying how bad my edits are. I'm sorry I'm such a terrible editor. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

UK R+B Scene

There's a theory I've read a few times that original New York Punk was heavily influenced by the UK R+B acts going over to the States in the late 1960s and 1970s.

By that I mean, the Rolling Stones. If you listen to Rolling Stones songs like "rip this joint" (written in 1970), live:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfVUHd-oZ4M&feature=related

It's just uncanny. It could be a song by The Clash, or the Pistols, with a bit more anger. Guitar, bass, drumming are the same. Vocals are getting there. Ranty.

As I said, there's a long standing theory that Punk was actually heavy R+B of the early 1970s, by bands like the Stones, fused with a political lyricism of Dylan.

What I'm saying is, the two biggest acts in America in 1970-1974 were probably The Stones and Dylan. Makes sense.

Punk - especially The Clash and The Sex Pistols - is essentially heavy UK R+B music, musically - as in, taking away the lyrics.

Wonder if the link is worth publishing a little?

As in, punk didn't start with Iggy Pop. Music was just heading that way, and acts like The Stones were experimenting with ranting R+B years before.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

NOFX "pop punk"?

Is there any reliable source for NOFX being "pop punk"? I have searched everywhere and I cannot find a single source that supports the label "pop punk" for the band. The only places I found that even mention anything about this is Wikipedia and Allmusic. If someone is going to use Allmusic as a source, please find another source to "back it up". And if anyone actually does have a source (that is not Allmusic), please present it. Otherwise, I will remove any mention of NOFX in the pop punk section entirely. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There are many high-quality references to NOFX as "pop-punk" in the serious literature. Here's one. Here's another. And here's yet another. Please learn how to do library or Google Book research before mucking about with Featured Articles. Here's yet another—not sourceable in that form, but more than enough for a serious researcher to come up with the full cite.

Oh, and in reference to your comment in a thread above: I don't believe you're a terrible editor, just one who would benefit from practicing reading out loud to develop a better ear. No, most readers don't actually read out loud, but when the sound of the words is off, the reading experience is markedly poorer for it. Your edits routinely evidence obliviousness to euphony and flow, and you needlessly eliminate terminology and phrasing that is perfectly clear, perfectly appropriate, and standard within a given field and replace it with unnecessarily stiff, overformal, and thus poorer language.—DCGeist (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I do know how to do library and Google Books, I am not stupid (contrary to popular belief). I have just been told by some editors that Google Books is not a reliable source. And my edits are not any different from any other featured articles. Look at other FAs, most of them uses the same "language" as most of my edits. And if I do only one thing wrong, just fix that, don't revert my whole edit. I know that I did fix valid things, like bands names (or words) should not be abbreviated (like I said on your talk page, if you are talking about the Sex Pistols, put the "Sex Pistols", do not abbreviate it to "The Pistols" (most editors would agree with me there), and talking about independent record labels, it is better to use "independent" rather than "indie", but that one is not as important as abbreviating a band name). How is the language I use "poorer" than any other editors? And by the way, I actually have found some (not alot though) sources that state NOFX is not "pop punk" (not sure if these would be considered reliable sources). --Blaguymonkey (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Blaguymonkey about the "Pistols / Sex Pistols" thing. Abbreviating their name as "the Pistols" throughout the the article (there were 13 occurrences when I searched the text) is not professional, encyclopedic writing. I have no doubt that, were an FA reassessment undertaken, this repetitive and unnecessary abbreviation would not pass muster on the "brilliant prose" requirement. The band's name is the Sex Pistols, it's simple and logical to refer to them by their full and proper name rather than saying "the Pistols" throughout, which is basically slang. I take your point, DCGeist, that certain other publications (I don't know which one you're referring to specifically but I'll go out on a limb & guess Rolling Stone?) often use abbreviations like "the Stones" for the Rolling Stones or "Sabbath" for Black Sabbath, but we are not those publications (Rolling Stone often uses slang, nicknames, & abbreviations that our style guidelines would ask us to avoid using throughout our prose, such as "Ozzy" in reference to Ozzy Osbourne or "Rage" in reference to Rage Against the Machine). Our featured article criteria require that the prose be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." Unnecessarily abbreviating proper band names falls under this criteria (I call it unnecessary because the band's name is only 2 words; this is not a long name like "...And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead" or "The Number Twelve Looks Like You"). No useful purpose is served by abbreviating it, whereas not abbreviating it enhances the clarity and professionalism of the prose. This edit is a positive contribution to the text, and your continual outright reverts of such do not strike me as a collaborative, good-faith spirit. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Having been watching this particular edit war, I have to agree. It's not like we're talking about Thee Silver Mt. Zion Memorial Orchestra and Tra-La-La Band with Choir, after all, anyway. siafu (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

While I've never minded "the Pistols", I just took a look at what I think most people regard as the definitive history of punk--Jon Savage's England's Dreaming--and from what I can tell he invariably uses the full name.

On the other hand, IllaZilla, I see no need for you to attack DCGeist's action as violating "a collaborative, good-faith spirit." He gave a very clear reason for the action in his edit summary, and your comparison to "Zep" was, indeed, inapt. DocKino (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The comparison may have been off, but the edit was correct and served to improve the text, not degrade it, so his flat-out revert was uncalled for. My comment also stemmed from his outright reverts with dismissive edit summaries such as these [1] [2]. Having looked over the diffs of those edits, I saw several edits by others which also served to improve or clarify the wording, yet were reverted outright. I did not think that appropriate. True, the entirety of the edits may not have been improvements, but in those cases only the troublesome parts needed to be changed back; whole series of good-faith contributions did not need to be reverted outright. Blaguymonkey came to me in good faith asking for help, and I got the distinct impression he was being reverted wholesale without regard to the actual quality of his edits, and was effectively being shut out of/chased away from the article. Then when I too was reverted for an entirely good-faith and positive contribution, I couldn't help but feel there was some ownership going on... --IllaZilla (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears the most pertinent issue, then, may be a difference of opinion over the quality--and, therefore, value--of Blaguymonkey's edits. While they are unquestionably made in good-faith, I find the vast majority of them have either a neutral or negative effect. But let's leave aside those that have a neutral effect (though, insofar as most of those concern issues of style where there is nothing wrong with the well-established style, those changes should be avoided per WP:MOS). Just considering the remainder, the ratio of negative to positive edits in Blaguymonkey's edits on this article and other articles of comparable quality is high: I'd assert 3:1. In such a circumstance, wholesale reversion is absolutely appropriate. Yes, it's nice to pick and choose--and I appreciate the fact that you did so--but it is by no means what is demanded of other editors. What is most called for here is that Blaguymonkey develop his skills by practicing them on lower-quality articles where he's more likely to make a positive difference. And even that vision is optimistic, because I must tell you, IZ, he keeps making the same sort of missteps over and over again and does not seem terribly open to learning. DocKino (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with you on some of these points. Blaguymonkey is still new (3 months), and still learning, but clearly has good-faith intentions and the ever-so-important enthusiasm and drive to make (perceived) improvements. I've been trying to help coach him along, and hopefully have established myself as someone he feels comfortable coming to for help and guidance. I do see, however, why he frequently feels bitten, and I'd hate to lose someone who obviously has good intentions as well as initiative. Good writing skills can be taught, and take time to develop, but a contributor lost is often lost for good. I'm not sure I agree with you on the 3:1 ratio...looking at a diff, I'd say most were either neutral or positive: The aforementioned "Pistols" abbreviation, the removal of "superfast" (which, despite your assertion, I do not find a definition for in Merriam-Webster or the New Oxford English Dictionary...yes "super" is a prefix, but "superfast" seems odd as a single word...hyphenating as "super-fast" would, to me, appear less awkward), and the fixing of a redirect ("trash metal#crossover thrash"...note that trash metal is a redirect to thrash metal) in favor of a direct link to crossover thrash (which has its own article). The rest were minor, neutral wording adjustments. Blaguymonkey has specifically expressed frustration in his edit summaries when all of his edits are reverted outright despite the fact that several of them were certainly justified improvements. When a new user is clearly expressing this kind of frustration, it would be a much more diplomatic move to review the diff and only revert the bits that need reverting. It would perhaps then become clearer to him which of his edits are perceived as non-improvements. Surely this is a frustration we can all appreciate, having all been new once. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

@IllaZilla I agree that "super-fast" would be less awkward. I decided to change it from "superfast" to "super-fast". I assume that it will be reverted, but I decided to just do it. I have asked other peoples opinions on this and most people agree with me and IllaZilla. And I am honestly not trying to cause edit-wars, arguments or anything, I am simply trying to improve the article. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

@DocKino No, DCGeist did not provide a very clear reason for reverting, besides saying my edit was "outright poor-quality" or "unecessary". As I said above, I do not want to start arguments with anyone on here, but I feel that DCGeist was being rather rude about my edits. I would not mind if I made a simple mistake (as everybody does sometimes) and it was reverted, but I do not like my whole edit (with most of it being valid) reverted because of one simple mistake and someone being rude about it. And I also do not appreciate DCGeist acting as if I am stupid (stating "Please learn how to do library or Google Book research before mucking about with Featured Articles.") --Blaguymonkey (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to focus on two out of the many issues in Blaguymonkey's recent edits:

The correct phrase "the first released version of 'Blank Generation'" was changed to "the original version of 'Blank Generation,'" which is incorrect. Not only is there a version of the song that was recorded earlier, that earlier version is sampled in this very article. One of the reasons we ask editors to gain experience and competence before diving into Featured Articles is so that they do not introduce factual errors like this.

The article consistently uses closed compounds, per the two leading American English dictionaries, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition. Changing "superfast" to "super-fast" or "breakup" to "break-up" on no better basis than personal preference flies in the face of our Manual of Style, introduces stylistic inconsistency to the article for no objective gain, and violates modern American English style—the style in which the article is consistently written.

Blaguymonkey, your repeated protestations that you are "simply trying to improve the article" are sweet, but irrelevant. The vast majority of editors intend to improve the articles they work on. Unfortunately, the vast majority of edits you have made to this article have done nothing to improve it, and most have lowered its quality. In general, so long as you continue to favor certain synonyms over others that are equally proper without regard to euphony and flow, your progress as an editor will continue to face a major, self-constructed obstacle.—DCGeist (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

@DCGeist Look, I make most of my edits based on what other editors have told me in the past, such as people have said "the original version of "Black Generation". And I do not make edits based on my own personal opinion, and people have also told me that spelling it as "breakup" is not correct and that it should be "break-up". I do not appreciate you acting as if I am stupid (I'm not), and despite your assumption, I do have experience with Wikipedia. And yes, saying "all I am trying to do is improve the article" is relevant, as alot of editors (you ecpecially, DCGeist) keep saying that my edits just make everything worse. Another thing, most of my edits are valid, using terms like "climed to number whatever" in reference to an album charting is not encyclopedic, it's not like the album literally climed the chart to get whatever number it was. And you reverting every single edit I make is incorrect, as I keep saying, if I only did one thing wrong, just undo that, not my whole edit, I know that your recent revert undid important things, such as fixing the broken links it says to fix on this talk page. I understand that this article is featured and you ar trying to keep it that way, but reverting every single edit I make will not do anything to improve the article. And I am not going to start an edit-war over this, so please just stop reverting every single thing I do on this article. And please stop with your attitude towards me and my "outright poor-quality" edits. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I see in edit summary that you're "getting tired" of having your poor edits reverted. Well, I'm getting tired of seeing you take an excellent article and make it worse because you don't have the skill set to do anything else to it. Your tireless insistence on making edits whose poor quality has been explained to you over and over again is now past tiresome, and is bringing your exalted good faith into question.

Do you have the slightest clue how inane you sound when you lecture us about how "it's not like the album literally climed the chart to get whatever number it was." Oh, I see. It didn't literally "clim" (ridiculous--you can't even spell, but you'll lecture us about English), but you fantasize that it literally "reached"--the verb you insist on imposing...and imposing...and imposing. Do you have the slightest clue what "reach" even means, etymologically? (Do you have the slightest clue what "etymologically" means?) It means "to stretch oneself." I suppose songs literally do that in your little fantasy realm. Look, this is the English language--we have lots of perfectly good words at our disposal, not just the ones you pick out as you special favorites.

Let's keep it simple--no more attempted changes from you to this article until you build a consensus for them here in Talk. Clear enough for you? Your behavior is making me damn tired, but I've still got enough energy to make sure this article doesn't suffer from your oh-so-precious attitude. Don't want to get reverted again? Then it's time--past time--for you to learn about consensus building, or just move the heck on.

Dear IllaZilla, you defended this character a while back as a "newbie" who was getting unfairly "bit." Well, he ain't so new no more--he's just one of those unfortunate Wikipedians with a vastly overinflated and distorted perception of both his talents and his value to the project. DocKino (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@DocKino: As an uninvolved outsider, the above comments seem to me to be pretty offensive and inexcusable, no matter how "tired" you may have been. I suggest you remove them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of this on-going argument and all of DocKino's insults to me. I'm done editing this article. Editing an article on a topic I actually like is not worth people insulting me (DocKino) and being rude to me and acting like I am stupid. There, now my "poor edits" won't be on this article anymore. And no, I'm not "stomping off" or anything like that, I just decided I'm not editing this article (or maybe all of Wikipedia) anymore.

@DocKino I'm getting "damn" tired of your (and DCGeist's) attitude—I find your guys' attutides to be very offensive and rude. And by the way, I do know how to spell "climb", it was just a typo. And I am getting tired of your behaviour, acting like all of my edits are horrible. You, DocKino, are very rude, and, maybe you should learn how to communicate nicely to people before coming on talk pages. You may have more experience on Wikipedia than me, and you may even be a better editor than me (I am sure you think so), but at least I am nice. And it would probably be best if you adopted a better attitude before talking to me at all. About the "reach" thing, yes, I know what "Reach" means (I am not stupid, contrary to your belief), and why I use reach is because most articles use that term. And just so people know, what I am saying is not meant to be "personal attacks". Sorry if I am being "somewhat uncivil" or whatever, I am trying my best to not be too offensive but get the point across to DocKino that he needs to adopt a better attitude. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I sense some ownership problems (of both edits and the article) on all sides. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

@Guerillero Well, I do not feel that I have ownership over this article. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Crust punk

Crust punk should really have it's own section under anarcho-punk. As it is now the only place it's really mention in this article is under anarcho-punk as a development that came out of that genre. It's one of the biggest styles in punk, just like Oi!, hardcore punk, post-punk and the other styles listed. In fact, that whole section that deals with the diversification of punk rock should be expanded greatly. Not only listing some of the bigger styles, but going into a little more detail with some of them that are lacking right now. 67.174.145.113 (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides crust punk, there are at least a few other genres that belong in that section, like grindcore and street punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.145.113 (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the smaller sub-sub-genres of punk rock should be confined to their respective pages and on the pages of their direct parent genre --Guerillero | My Talk 00:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree crust punk, surburban punk, and underground punk really revived the culture. It all started with local bands. I tend to put these anti-establishment bands under 1-3 categorys all together, speed punk, hardcore and/or riot punk which made its scene in the early 80s as political and anti-establishment then turned maintstream (pop punk, modern punk, post-modern punk) in the 90s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No original research, please. You must cite reliable sources to back up your claims. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Update Sourcing Style

While looking over the sources for the new section, it looks great by the way, I saw that this article is using Harvard Sourcing. There is a way (via a template) to do this with the author name linked to the book that he wrote for easy sourcing. I am currently implementing this on straight edge and I think that it makes checking sources a good deal easier.

I was wondering if anyone would be opposed to me switching over to this type of formatting. The only visible change will be that the author's name will be a blue link to the book or journal citation. The parenthesis around the year and the p. for page will not change.

{{harv}} is the template if you are interested.

thanks --Guerillero | My Talk 00:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. DocKino (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I will put this near the top of my to do list--Guerillero | My Talk 04:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

But this article already has a consistent and acceptable citation style. Implementing a template format would only increase the page-size of an already large article, and IMO make things needlessly complicated. Also, I don't think the current style is Harvard referencing.—indopug (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with this article's sourcing style, and guidelines state that we should stick to previously-established sourcing styles anyway. Particularly given this is a Featured Article, wholesale revamping the ref formatting is one of the most inconvenient and unnecessary things that can be done. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Section names

Since we are retreating into WP:LAME territory, I thought It may be more productive to discuss this on the talk page then via tweets. @Hoponpop69 why do you feel that these two sections should be combined --Guerillero | My Talk 03:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Punk art exhibits

Couple of items in my inbox today - Archive immortalizes East German Punk rock scene and RUDE AND RECKLESS: Punk/Post-Punk Graphics, 1976-82 - make me wonder if there isn't room for a separate article just dedicated to listing punk related exhibits. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"First known use of the phrase punk rock"

"The first known use of the phrase punk rock appeared in the Chicago Tribune on March 22, 1970, attributed to Ed Sanders, cofounder of New York's anarcho-prankster band The Fugs."

Yet the article about the Deviants states that "they were the first act ever to be introduced as a punk rock band by the underground DJ Jeff Dexter at Tiles Club in London's Oxford Street, August 15, 1967". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.163.25.207 (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I examined the supposed source for that claim in the Deviants article, Joe S. Harrington's Sonic Cool: The Life & Death of Rock 'n' Roll. It does not support one single detail of that claim. The unsupported claim and its false sourcing have been deleted from the Deviants article. Case closed.—DCGeist (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Monks??

There doesn't seem to be any mention of the German band The Monks, who released just one album called Black Monk Time in 1966, and although they were rather unknown during their time, they have been regarded as rather important in the history or garage and punk music. So, is it really worth mentioning them since they didn't really influence anyone and disapeared without a trace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smurfandbuffalo (talk • contribs) 15:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. If they were unknown (outside Germany) in their time, and "didn't really influence anyone" as you say, it's a bit difficult to see how they would best fit in to the article as now written. But Allmusic says that they "anticipated the blunt, harsh commentary of the punk era", so it could be done. At present they are mentioned in Timeline of punk rock, but not in Protopunk. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Are their any big sources that discuss their influence? --Guerillero | My Talk 17:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That DIY sound

While I think the article gives good coverage of the DIY ethic associated with punk, I wonder if it could use a bit on the widespread DIY musical movement inspired by punk that straddled both New Wave and post-punk in the years following 1977. There's really nothing at all on DIY right now between Spiral Scratch and riot grrrl. For more details on exactly what I'm talking about, see here and here. DocKino (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I will look over the books stashed in my dorm room. I think i have someting that bridges 1979-1985 diy ethics --Guerillero | My Talk 15:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There's some stuff about DIY (and punk DIY) at DIY ethic. It may be of some use to you? 92.133.29.28 (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Issues/Suggestions

I don't envy anyone writing about "punk". I have a few issues/suggestions:

(1) Philosophy/Visual Presentation-This section seems to define the music (punk was a media created label after all) too narrowly. If the purpose of punk bands was initially to get back to basics, then why did so many of punks original practitioners immediately branch out into a broader spectrum of music? The Clash, Blondie, the Talking Heads, John Lydon, even Television from their debut to the recorded version of the band, did not stick to minimalism. The Ramones themselves even went through a period of experimentation ("Baby I Love You", with string instruments). If minimalism was ever the point (maybe more the means than the end itself), every single first wave punk act quickly moved beyond it. In that case maybe it never was the point. I'm not sure some of the sources, such as the editor of Punk magazine, are that reliable on the subject.

The discussion of philosophy and visual presentation also reflects that British side of things over the NY side of it. But there was a substantial distinction in the politicized nature of the music, the overarching musical philosophies involved, and the fashions. For years, for example, the Ramones were not considered a punk band because they did not fit the British version seemingly in attitude and visual presentation; the variation between the scenes needs to be reflected. Punk fashion in the article is really British punk fashion.

The same point could be made about the discussion of female punk artists. I agree with the characterization but in sticking too narrowly to the superficial British version (ie, that a punk performer needs to wear safety pins and bondage outfits, etc.), some of the bigger female punk influences, such as Debbie Harry, who also transgressed traditional female roles in popular music and who probably had a bigger impact in the US and UK than all the other female artists listed combined, arbitrarily gets excluded from the discussion.

(2) New York Scene-The traditional Television centered story doesn't really hold up. The Magic Tramps, Suicide, The Fast and Wayne County all played CBGBs (then called Hilly's on the Bowery) in 1972/73. (See the book "All Hopped Up And Ready To Go"). And can you really draw a line between the Dolls and the punk scene? All of the so-called NY punk bands were connected to the Mercer Arts Center scene that developed around the Dolls. The Ramones even began as a glitter band. Television is at the core of CBGBs becoming a major punk venue-The Stilletoes knew members of Television and started gigging with them; Chris Stein and Debbie Harry knew Tommy Ramone and the Ramones came in; Patti Smith was also drawn in. But there was a whole scene around and predating the CBGBs scene.

I also think the claim the Hey Joe/Piss Factory is the first punk record is suspect. Overlooking recordings by the Dolls, I'm not sure it fits as a punk recording. On this point a label biography is not a strong source.

Finally, and this again speaks to the narrowness of how punk is defined in the article, bands like Blondie and the Talking Heads get very little written about them while the article is heavy on the Ramones, Television, Richard Hell and Patti Smith. This reflects the preoccupations of music writers more than historical accuracy. In their heydey Blondie and the Talking Heads had a huge global impact. Ignoring them (something that writers like Clinton Heylin did not do in his published history of the US punk scene) creates a distorted picture.

(3) Pop Punk-On this same point, how did the Ramones "pave the way" for pop punk when their contemporary, Blondie, which was always being assailed for its pop tendencies, is not even mentioned. It's very hard to listen to the first two Blondie albums and not see the connection to pop punk. And Blondie had a much bigger musical impact; the Buzzcocks even opened for them on the 1978 UK tour. I realize a music writer may have written that, but the claim doesn't withstand much scrutiny, certainly not enough to justify a very strong claim that the Ramones "paved the way" regarding this style of music.

Again a very tough subject, but maybe these are bases for some improvement.Alexhaniha (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

CBGBs chronology

The problem with CBGBs chronology is that there are always priority issues. Overlooking the point I made above about bands like the Magic Tramps (there is a gig flyer that anyone can find on the internet for this gig, which Blondie's Chris Stein, a friend and roommate of Eric Emerson and sometimes guitar player in the Magic Tramps, attended), and using Television as a starting point, the punk chronology goes Television->Stilletoes (which became Blondie-they were called Angel and the Snake only for two gigs)->Ramones. It is indisputable that the Ramones opened for Blondie/Angel and the Snake the same way that the Stilletoes were playing in support of Television. Both Tommy and Dee Dee Ramone are on record as saying that in books like On the Road with the Ramones and (if I recall accurately) Kozak's CBGBs history This Ain't No Disco and/or the the American Band Ramones biography. But Tommy Ramone's exact quote in On The Road is: "A couple of months after I started playing drums, we started playing shows. The first gig was at CBGB, opening for Blondie, who were called Angel and the Snake." But not really making an issue of that (I always wonder if you can be an opening act when there are 10 people in the building), the Stilletoes should be mentioned for an accurate CBGBs punk chronology, which the Heylin and Kozak books document effectively.Alexhaniha (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It was the Roman Kozak book. Dee Dee Ramone is quoted on page 25 as follows: "The first club we played was CBGB. Chris Stein and Deborah Harry were our friends and they got us the job there, opening up for them in 1974."Alexhaniha (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• (1) I'd eyeballed three sources when I copied the August 16, 1974, passage: Tommy does say "opened" in the source you've adduced; Dee Dee says merely "played with" in his memoir Lobotomy with Veronica Kofman; punk historian George Gimarc—who gives the most detailed account of the gig I have found—writes nothing to indicate that the Ramones played as an opening act. You've added a second description of "opening" from Dee Dee and my guess is that's accurate, but it is not "indisputable." I'd like to see one more strong, independent source stating it before we make that determination.

• (2) This is not the article on CBGB and does not profess to give a complete chronology of the club. Nor is it the article on Blondie and does not profess to give a complete history of the band. The Stilletos are simply not central to an understanding of the article's subject, punk rock, and their inclusion in the section, I believe, would do more to muddy it than to improve it. Many overview histories of punk much longer than this one ignore them entirely, as this one can comfortably continue to do.—DCGeist (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Anya Philips in Heylin's From The Velvets to the Voidoids and who was at the club on the August 16, 1974 is also directly quoted as saying the the Ramones opened for Blondie/Angel and the Snake. So we have two band members and someone in the audience. The Gimarc book is not detailed at all, simply ignores who opened for who (someone had to), and there isn't even the slightest indication he was present. (The entry for the same day about a Tiger Lily's performance in London provides the exact same level of "detail"). And the Kozak book was from 1988, closer in time to events than Lobotomy. And no one seems to dispute that the Stilletoes were playing in support of Television, the same way the Magic Tramps had played in support of two jazz acts in October, 1972. Even as a logical matter it makes perfect sense; the Stilletoes/Blondie already had ties to the club while it was the Ramones' first official gig outside of playing as a three piece band at Performance Studio in March, 1974. This article should strive to be as objective as possible (Isn't that the point of an encyclopedia?) and not degenerate into jockeying for position for the respective band's prestige. (Is Patti Smith being in the audience so vital, or did Heylin, a big Patti Smith fan, emphasize it to try to give her the earliest possible tie to a club that is identified as the epicenter of the NYC punk scene?) The story of Television "discovering" CBGBs (overlooking that bands were already playing other venues like Club 82, Kenny's Castaways and Coventry) is relevant only because it shows how CBGBs became a punk venue. In that case, the chronology should be accurate in describing how Television brought in the Stilletoes, the Stilletoes/Blondie brought in the Ramones, etc. This is merely the accurate story of how the scene was built, and the emphasis of certain aspects over others seems arbitrary. Your rationale that the inclusion of such a simple factoid would "muddy the waters" is difficult to understand. How? And since you mention other histories, such as they are, it bears noting that by giving a distorted and overly restrictive interpretation of "punk", these histories opened the door for people like Simon Reynolds to completely bury the genre as backward looking and conservative. The hilarious irony is that the bands that got trashed for breaking with "punk" orthodoxy, such as Blondie and the Clash, and the bands that were pushed to the sidelines, like the Talking Heads, wind up saving the genre from the trash heap of history. That said, this is not a history with all the usual selections but an encyclopedia entry. If the article includes a section about CBGbs becoming a punk venue, there is no harm in making the section accurate. At least I can't see it, but Wikipedia never fails to distinguish itself. It should be noted in any event that the Gimarc book mentioned the Stilletoes, as did the Heylin book, the Kozak book and All Hopped Up. And all the histories mention Blondie, which was (circa 1974) the Stilletoes (Harry, Stein, O'Connor, Smith) minus the two additional female singers. If info is supplemented about Blondie then the Stilletoes are a very brief part of the package in giving the band background. Alexhaniha (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Punk aesthetic" needed as subtopic in this article

This article explains the philosophy (!) of punk rock, but what it really needs, in my opinion, is an explanation of the punk aesthetic. Punk, at least when subgenres of music is the topic, is an art form. Art forms all have an aesthetic, certain qualities that characterize them. What is the punk aesthetic? Rough-edged? I don't really know, but there must be a book that explains it that could be quoted in this article.

Without a discussion of the punk aesthetic, one would have to conclude that "punk" is a catchall term that rock bands and rock critics attach to musical forms without giving it very much thought. What do these subgenres have in common:

pop punk, cyberpunk, hardcore punk, garage punk, proto-punk, Christian punk, celtic punk, post-punk, anarcho-punk, daft punk, ska punk, dance-punk, art punk, glam punk, crust punk, horror punk, punk jazz, punk metal, nazi punk, Punk pathetique (Ha!), noise punk, cowpunk, Guerrilla punk, folk punk...

If you can answer this question, you will have an explanation of the punk aesthetic. 207.158.4.90 (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Drum and bass is heavily influenced BY Punk Rock

It's not about proof that it is... you can hear it in Many a drum and bass song. So I have no idea why you people think I am vandalizing the article.... Me coming from being a punker and then delving deep into Electronic Dance Music, I can safely say that drum and bass is Punk rock incarnate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.40.65 (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You will need a wp:reliable source to support this. DVdm (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What other source do I need besides the music? The drum beats and basslines in alot of Drum and BASS could be considered punk riffs and beats........ sooo I have no idea why you are trying to rain on my parade... I thought wikipedia was supposed to be about this kind of shit. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_hardcore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.40.65 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey. While there is a good chance that this is true, for inclusion on wikipedia we need for a high quality source to confirm this. This seems counterintuitive at first, but its the way we insure that what is printed here is correct. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 20:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Also note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself. See wp:CIRCULAR. DVdm (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

76.115.40.65, your initial comment above is a classic case of Wikipedia:No original research ("It's not about proof ... you can hear it ... I can safely say"). The standard on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; That is, that a claim can be backed up by a reliable, published source, not simply that you believe it to be true. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

well then I'll add an influence part for that part of the article... that's all i want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.40.65 (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're quite getting it: What you need to do is cite reliable secondary sources to verify these claims. If you just add unsourced text to the article in order to justify adding "drum and bass" to the infobox, it's just going to be reverted again. Go look for some reliable sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Punk Metal

Why is the article Punk metal deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkswede (talk • contribs) 14:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I found 2 AfD for "punk metal": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punk Metal (2005) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punk metal (2007). Looking at the page logs, it appears to have been prodded about 6 week ago. Crossover thrash appears to be the relevant extant article. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That punk metal would be the same thing as crossover thrash doesn't really make any sense to me. Crossover thrash is a fusion genre between thrash metal and hardcore punk, punk metal is an umbrella term used to describe crossover thrash, grindcore, crust punk etc. --Punkswede (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

that was the biggest issue with both times the article went through a deletion process. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No Wave

needs to be mentionedMidnightCrisis (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is. Three times. DocKino (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

DocKino FTW. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

blah blah

The Faith is/was indeed an important straight edge band, one of the first bands along with Minor Threat, their split LP with Void (who influenced thrash metal, therefore they should be mentioned in this article as well) had this song "You're X'd" that talked about straight edge and was written around the same time the Minor Threat's song was, the reference I used this time is from the Dischord Records page so how can it not be reliable? It's an interview with Thurston Moore from Sonic Youth saying how The Faith (and Void) influenced his music, his thoughts on The Faith and he called them "the most potent distillation of what 'D.C. straightedge hardcore 1980' was all about." Also I believe that the other reference I used first was valid too, but this some other user said it wasn't, although it's not the original publication of the interview with The Faith that defines them as straight edge, the website I found got permission from the magazine that first published it, so the content was not altered; and it's not some random website, it's a Washington D.C. punk archive. But I'm sure all this means nothing to any of you so DustyCoffin (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it does not pass as a reliable source. The record label's webpage does not have editorial oversight--Guerillero | My Talk 23:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

How doesn't it have it? DustyCoffin (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there an editor of the website who fact checks the pages? I can't see one. Besides, primary sources such as interviews are not seen as excellent sources here on wikipedia. For a Featured article, "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate." While stub and start class articles can get away with using lower quality sources from time to time, featured, good articles, and B class articles to an extent can not. That is why so many editors were reverting your addition. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

Perhaps a list of non-punk genres punk inspred could be added?, well the New wave of British heavy metal was more punk influenced than blues influenced.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

--IllaZilla (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Heavy Metal & Hard Rock as Influences?

Several Heavy Metal/Hard Rock Songs such as Paranoid by Black Sabbath, I'm Eighteen by Alice Cooper and Communication Breakdownby Led Zeppelin, can be labeled as Proto-Punk. Also, Early Heavy Metal bands like Deep Purple were labeled as part of the Freak scene, a Post-Hippie, Pre-Punk Movement. All of this same information can be found on the linked pages. This all leads to the idea that Heavy Metal was one of the Many influences of Punk Rock that led to the Genre's creation, The genre isn't the direct fore father of Punk ,but one of the many influences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.38.58 (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

on any/all of that. Just a bunch of your own analysis and opinions. Unsuitable for inclusion. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that heavy metal influenced punk first. Quite the reverse. Punk influenced heavy metal first. Punk is an older form of rock. See my post about garage rock down below. In the early 70's Dave Marsh, Lester Banngs, and Lenny Kaye wrote about what we now call the garage rock of the mid 60's as being "punk rock." This was long before The Ramones and The Sex Pistols (by the way, I think that Creem magazine was also the first to use the term "heavy metal"). If my claim that punk influenced heavy metal first sounds ridicuous, then try this: Go to Youtube and look up "1966 Heavy Metal." You might find a few things, but not much, other than maybe a few songs Cream's first album (they were more acid rock or proto-metal; they have never been referred to as heavy metal in the rock critical community). Then look up "1966 Punk." You will come up with hundreds of songs!!! Then go check out these: "Voices Green and Purple," by the Bees (1966), "The World Ain't Round, It's Square," by The Savages, "Destination Lonely," by The Huns (1966), "We're Pretty Quick,' by the Chob (1967), "1523 Blair," by The Outcasts (1966), "I'm Movin' On" and "From a Curbstone," by Evil (1966), "Project Blue," by The Banshees (1966), "Circuit Breaker", by The Pastels (1965), "The Courtsheip of Rapunzel," by The Bruthers (1966), "Rats' Revenge," by The Rats (1963, while Kennedy was still presedent!!!). Holy Cow! Punk rock 1963-1967!!! And the list goes on and on. Randy Holden played in the garage band (i.e. punk band), The Sons of Adam up through the first half of 1966, then he went to play in another garage(i.e. punk) band, The Other Half, later that year. He later went on to play in Blue Cheer (the first true heavy metal band) for a brief time. Many of the first American heavy metal musicians had played in garage (i.e. punk) bands. Punk influenced heavy metal first. Early, formative years: Punk (1963-1967); Heavy Metal (1968-1972)Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Punk started in early to mid-1960's, not the mid-70's

The assertion that punk started in the mid-1970's is factually innacurate and should be modified to "in its most currently recognizable form," (I stated something similar to that in my insertion), because the name was first used in publications by Dave Marsh (Creem Magazine. May, 1971) and Lenny Kaye (later in the Patti Smith Group) (original liner notes to Nuggets compilation, Electra, 1972) to describe what we now call the garage rock of 1963-1967. Lester Bangs also wrote on the matter at Creem in the early 70's. Lenny Kay was in the New York musical community where the term "punk rock" became commonly used circa 1975. People in the New York scene were very well aware that the term had been used previously. Consult Lenny Kay and Dave Marsh for correction on this matter if you don't believe me (Lester Bangs, bless his soul, is no longer with us, but you can research his archives).

The role of mid 60's garage rock is in bad need of, not only greater appreciation, but of a full re-evaluation in the history of punk rock. Since the explosion of New York and British punk in the mid to late 70's garage rock has been seen more as a precursor to punk, rather than true punk itself. However, this was not the view in the early 70's. Let me explain:

I have always been interested in how punk evolved and its earliest roots. Like everyone else, I have spent most of my life with the persective that punk started in the mid-to-late 70's, and that previous influences were mainly prototypical, although I have to admit that I have always found certain songs by Iggy & the Stooges to be very punk way before their time. I also had heard about how garage rock from the 60's had infuenced punk, but I had tended to regard it as proto-punk, not actual punk.

But, a few things have changed my mind on this. The first thing was when I bought the Nuggets compilation. I was surprised to read the original 1972 liner notes written by Lenny Kaye (later with the Patti Smith Group) referring to what we now call garage rock of the mid 60's as "punk rock." And he seems to use the term as if it was common knowledge amongst hip people. Then, I later found out that Dave Marsh had referred to Question Mark and the Mysterions as "punk rock," a whole year before that in Creem Magazine (May 1971). And, I have also read that Lester Bangs wrote about it in Creem during this time, identfying punk as a mid-60's phenomenon.

Needless to say, I really enjoyed the Nuggets collection, so I began trying to find other more obsure collections (Pebbles series, Back From the Grave series, Teenage Shutdown series, Garage Beat '66 series, etc.) and I can now say that I am positively in love with this music!!! At its best, it achieves a wild kind of magic that no other form of rock can compare. It does not necessarily always sound like what we now think punk should, but it doesn't necessarily need to (because Dave Marsh, Lester, Bangs, and Lenny Kaye were talking about the whole garage "punk" music in all of its stylistic dimensions, not just thrashy sounding songs--although there were plenty of those). You hear a lot of blues, R&B, surf, rockabily,British invasion, and psychedlic inluences mixed in with the rougher harder diamond edges. It is 60's music, after all. But, in various degrees, there is a certain kind of punk swagger runs through it all, which gives it an edgier feel than the better known music of the time.

But, what is really surprising is that there are a bunch of crazy, hard-driving songs that sound punk as hell to moder ears. Check out "1523 Blair," by The Outcasts (released Jan. 1967, recorded 1966), "I'm Movin' On" and "From a Curbstone" by Evil (1966), "We're Pretty Quick," by the Chob (1967), "Voices Green and Purple," by the Bees (1966) (check out the artwork on the record cover!!!), "Project Blue" by The Banshees (1966), "And there are many, many other songs in this vein. These are just a few.

Want some pure rock & roll magic, try these: "It's a Cryin' Shame," by the Gentlemen (1966), "It's Gonna Take A While," by The Morticians (1966), "Cry a Little Longer," by The Grodes (1966), "She's Been Travelin' Round the World," by The Seeds of Time (1966--do you hear a little Ramones, PIL, and U2 in there?), "Abba," by The Paragons (1966). The list goes on and on. You can keep searching for songs for the rest of your life and keep coming up with gems from this era.

I acknowledge that the 60's garage rockers had not claimed the word "punk" for themselves. If the word punk had been used in the 60's, it would most likely have been used in a disparraging way by an older person. And, I also acknowlege that it wasn't until the mid to late 70's that bands started calling temselves "punk," and adopting a look, philosophy, and ideology that was completely seperate from other forms of rock.

In the 60's it wasn't really necessary to do that, because the youth had their collective back up against the wall and had to stand united against the older establishment; any divisions in the ranks would have weakend their efforts rather than strengthened them. There would have no use in creating a distinction between "punk" and "hippie" at that time. All of the rock of that era, whether you call it "mod," "British invasion," "folk" "punk," "garage," "psycedelic," "acid," "hippe" whatever was tied up in a nexus. To appreciate just how true this is, watch the Standells performing in a club during the opening credit sequence of the movie, "Riot on Sunset Strip" to understand what I am talking about. They are punky as hell!!! ...and yet somehow there is the hippy thing at the same time. But, the more you excavate through the 60's, the more you find punk. The term was not self-referentially used at that time, but the reality of its existence was already very much there. And all it needed do would be to find people to point it out and codify it (Marsh, Bangs, Kaye, et. al. in 1971-1972). Want to see what typical rock & roll was like in 1966? Check out the Sylvania TV ad from that year on Youtube (with that wild rock & roller guy). What do you find? Punk!!! Keep on searching, researching, listening to records by garage bands. Get deeper into the lesser known ones. You will come to realize that this was the first golden age of punk rock. Don't take my word. Check it out for yourself. You will come to the same conclusion.

So let's talk about "punk" as it relates to the 60's: Is it necessary for musicians and people in a certain cultural milieu to have to self-define thier own genre or label and create a whole seperate look and philosophy to be considered a part of that label or deignation? No. Did the first heavy metal performers (such as Blue Cheer, early Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, etc.) call themselves "heavy metal?" No. In fact many of them denied the label after it later became fashionably applied to them. Their look and aesthetic style was not much differnt from other bands of the late 60's (check out Robert Plant's or Ian Gillin's tie-dye shirts in '69--same thing that Crosby, Stills, and Nash would have been wearing). They were just singing to their generation. Does that mean that they weren't "heavy metal?" Of course not. The term was coined to apply to them. Of course, later on, heavy metal would evolve into having a whole seperate look and identity from other forms of rock, but that was a few years away. By the way, didn't the Ramones deny the label punk for awhile circa '78? Does that make them not punk?

Did the mid 60's garage rockers have to call themselves "punk" and look completely different form everyone else at that time to be punk? I say no. Because, the term "punk rock," as it was first used, applied to them. Did The Creation ever have the slightest clue in 1966 that people would one day be refering to them as "freakbeat?" Certainly not. Does that mean that they weren't freakbeat? Of course not.

I'll be the first person to grant that, when the term "punk rock" was first used to describe these 60's garage rockers, it was used to designate a sub-genre within a larger genre (much as was the case with "freakbeat"). It did not necessarily denote a whole seperate movement. Does that make it not punk? No. There is no way of getting around it: the garage rock of the mid-60's was the original form of punk rock and was the first style to be designated as such within the rock critical community. That is not a matter of opinion, but fact. Do your research.

I am in no way disparaging the later more identifiable punk rock post-1975. It was my love of that music that brought me to want to discover where it came from. And, it is my love for great bands such as The Clash, who proudly showed thier solidarity and proclamed "We're a garage band" on thier first album, that led me to this. And I have heard Joe Strummer say in a documentary that he considered the garage bands of the 1960's to be the original punk. I wish that some of the other great 70's punk icons could have been as generous. Some people said that the Clash moved away from punk on the London Calling album. Wrong 'em boyo, The Clash returned punk to the richness and diversity of expression that it had known in the 60's.

There can be no denying the genius of the bands of the 70's punk movement, particularly the British bands. They created a whole new look and philosophy to go with thier brilliantly updated punk sound at a time when rock really needed it. And, they took something that had started almost accidently years before and brought it out into the light of day for the whole world to see, while developing it in new ways. The punk movement of the 70's should have been the ultimate vindication for the long neglected and forgotten 60's punk rock bands. But, instead the 60's groups have been relegated to proto-purgatory ever since. The very punk people who should be championing this music have reduced it to orphan/stepchild status. And, that is just not right.

DIY: The 60's punk bands didn't say much about it--they went out and did it--like no one ever before or since. They had the gumption to go out and form bands by the hundreds of thousands--playing live and recording (often on numerous independent labels--sounds familiar?). There is no way of counting, but I have read that in 1966 there could have been at least 300,000 garage bands active in the United States alone--a phenominon that touched practically every niegborhood in the country. There is nothing even comparible in any other rock era in terms of size or scope. The amount do-it-youself grassroots rock bands at the time was staggering. In terms of size, 1966 was the greatest explosion for punk rock ever (or any kind or rock, for that matter). When people mention 1977 and 1992 as the years that punk broke, I laugh. If you don't believe me go look at the factory orders for Ludwig drums and Fender guitars and amps. The factories had to go through massive expansions and run quadruple 24-hour shifts night and day. Fender today is the largest guitar company in the world, but the factory they have now is a fraction of the size as the one they had to build then to keep up with the demand.

But, the 60's garage punk craze was a stealth revolution. Nobody know what to call it or make of it at the time. It is almost as if these bands did unconsciously what later gerations would have to do consciously. They were the invisible, forgotten punk revolutionairies (the real Genration X). Due to the overabundance of competion, there was just no way for most of these bands to ever have much monetary succes (many of the later punk bands got filthy rich in comparison and stole a lot of the credit). The guitar and drum manufacturers were the only ones who made much money out of the whole garage rock craze.

All-Female Bands: If the guys in many of those bands' lacked feminist awareness (is it ever as high as it should be?), then here is the perfect antiodote: go to the Girl Garage Mayhem blog on Myspace and read the list of approximately 160 all-female groups operating at the time. Then go listen to them on Youtube. This is over ten years before The Runaways or The Slits. The Pleasure Seekers were really terrific. The girls in these bands had a ton of attitude and make some of rocks first defiantly feminst statements. Yet they have all been overlooked or forgotten. What a tragedy.

Sadly 60's punk gets very little mention in most books and histories about punk rock. Rarely are any pre-1975 artists, other than Iggy and The Stooges or The Velvet Underground mentioned. And, the Velvets were more avant garde than punk. There are hundreds of bands form the mid-60's who deserve serious discussion. Isn't it time they got their due? We need to engage in a greater appreciation and critical re-evaluation of garage rock as the original form of punk rock. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem very knowledgeable and enthusiastic about the subject. Why don't you start a new article? It would be good to note punk's 1960s ancestry in this article, but better still to have a full article about the topic. If you start it, I will help. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

We already have an article: Garage rock. The "Revivals" section of that article contains some content on '60s garage rock's influence on the punk rock movement of the '70s. It could do with some expansion, provided it can be properly sourced. I have also made some replies to Garagepunk66 at User talk:IllaZilla#punk rock started in the 60's regarding the problem of undue weight. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You certainly know a lot about the subject, but your additions are not "encyclopaedic". By this I mean they are not primarily factual and tend towards expressive opinions, such as "responded with wild fury". This is all good stuff if you were writing your own book on the topic, but Wikipedia is not for original research. The challenge you face is getting the sourced information across, without it being excessively dry or straying into fanciful descriptions that add your own view on things. You also wish to change how the article describes the history of Punk rock's roots. To do this you need really good authoritative sources that already do this. You cannot gather together sources you have researched to present a case for it that isn't actually stated in the sources themselves. No matter how persuasive a case you may think it all makes. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A new article on the subject is probably the last thing we need. The Nuggets-era bands are covered at garage rock. This article covers the music that developed in the (early to) mid 70s, which became generally referred to punk rock. Yes, those bands (Sex Pistols, Clash, etc.) were influenced by earlier bands like the Seeds, 13th Floor Elevators and so on - but they established what was and is seen as a new genre, which deserves its own article - this one. This article has a section on Prehistory which covers the 60s bands and those intermediates - Stooges, Patti Smith, Modern Lovers, etc. in the US, and the pub rock bands in the UK - who linked the two. It's always difficult to categorise music in the way that an encyclopedia needs to do it, breaking it into discrete chunks - but, the right way to do it, in my view, is as we do it here now. Though perhaps I'd support changing the opening sentence to read "Punk rock is a rock music genre that emerged and developed....." Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

PS: By the way, the statement that ".. the garage rock of the mid-60's was the original form of punk rock..." is not true - there were plenty of what we would now think of as punk-style rockers in the 1950s - famous ones like Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard, and many not-so-famous ones as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

But those 50's rockers have never been referred to by rock critics as "punk rock." The garage bands of the 60's were. They were referred to as such by well-known rock critics in the early 70's, one of whom (Lenny Kaye) would be involved in the New York punk scene later on in the mid 70's. If you don't believe me, go talk to him (and Dave Marsh). There is no getting around it: 60's garage bands were the first bands to referred to as "punk rock," It is the job of an encyclopedia to deal in facts. Do your research. There is a huge popular misconception about this. It needs to be cleared up.

By the way, I am not talking about the Stooges and the Modern Lovers: I am referring to the bands that came far earlier in the period 1963-1967. They were ones that the early 70's critics were referring to. There were possibly as many as (or more than) 300,000 of these bands in America in the mid-60's. It is sad that punk enthuiasts know or care so little about these wonderful bands. Their music and hisory should be treated as a national treasure--a whole magnificent historical and cultural frontier to be re-discovered. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide any contemporary references from the 1960s to support this? . . .Mean as custard (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be hard to find written references in the 60's, unless they were said in a disparaging way by older people who were not part of the rock community. I think that Frank Zappa says something in a movie he appered in, about "punks," referring to people in certain kinds of ameteur bands. It is very possible that the term "punk" was used colloquially in certain circles in the 60's, but we'll never know. However, we do have the retronyms provided by rock critics and in the early 70's and alusions to the word being used colloquailly in certain circles by that time. We also have more recent commentaries. Lenny Kay wrote a second essay (an afterward) for the 1998 release of the Nuggets CD (Rhino) box set (his origianl 1972 essay is also included). He seems to speak of punk as a continuum across time --as if it can exist whever the attitude exists--with a special love for local scenes. Also included in the box set is a foward by Gary Sterwart of Rhino, and two new essays written by Greg Shaw and Alec Palao, who both assert garage rock as the original (and purest) form of punk rock. Greg Shaw says that he used the term "punk rock" along with Lenny Kaye his early 70's writings on the same topic. He says that after the advent of the Sex Pistols, he like many others, began to use the term "garage," but now feels that the 60's bands should have the term "punk" returned to them. This is coming from one of the people who originated the term, "punk"!!! We should take heed. The box set booklet also contains a brief commentary by Electra records founder (and initiator of the original Nuggets LP project), Jack Holtzman, as well as some remarks by mastering techician Bill Inglot. Mike Stax contributes the well-researchd song by song discussion/band biographies, and yes he uses the terminology of "punk." He refers to certain songs as "punkers" and makes several referenes about Texas punk.

Yes, would you believe that Texas was one of the most fertile places for the development of punk in the 60's? Go listen to the song, "It's a Cryin' Shame, by the Genlemen and so many other great punk songs from the "Lonhorn State." The bass drum stomp in the beginning of that song and the revving power chord progressions sound so much like the Sex Pistols. But, niether the Sex Pistols, or anybody else, ever did a song that could touch this one. The exultant mixture of the deepest sadness and the highest joy has never been equalled, except perhaps in Dylan. The guitar solo lifts us into a whole new dimension. A hard driving punk song about...love! One of the reatest rock & roll songs of all time!!!

By the way, Nuggets is just the tip of the iceberg. There are a host of great CD and LP compilations: "Pebbles" series, "Back From the Grave" series, "Teenage Shutdown Series," "Garagebeat '66" series, etc. There is a lot of music by 60's garage rock (i.e. "punk") bands to be found. The amount of recordings in existence is staggering.Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's perfectly true that Lenny Kaye and Dave Marsh used the term "punk" in the early 70s to refer to 60s bands like the Seeds. That's not disputed. But they were isolated instances, and the term "punk rock" did not come into common parlance until a few years later with bands like the Ramones and the Sex Pistols. It is those 70s bands that this article is primarily about, as they are the bands now generally known as "punk rock". And, by the way, there's no need to try and educate some of us about the music - some of us were there at the time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

PS: By the way, I'm not really sure what this argument is all about. The article doesn't say that punk "started" in the mid 1970s - it says that it "... developed between 1974 and 1976... [r]ooted in garage rock..." Which is basically what you are saying - except that you prefer to use the term "punk" rather than "garage" for the 60s music, which is both confusing to readers, and out of line with most reliable sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to see something actually published during the 1960s. For example, "Glam Rock" is a term for a genre of the early 1970s, but I don't recall the term actually being used at the time. - I'm not sure if that makes it any less valid. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Not all of the remarks were isolated. Dave Marsh's remarks in the May, 1971 Creem were, indeed, isolated. But, Lenny Kaye's original liner notes for Nuggets were not. They were very broad and gereral. He is adressing the whole generational garage "punk" phenominon:

"...In addition, most of these groups (and by and large, this was an era dominated by groups) were young, decidedly unprofessional, seemingly more at home practicing for a teen dance than going out on a national tour. The name that has been unofficially coined for them--"punk rock"--seems particularly fitting in this case." [L. Kaye, "Headed, Decked, and Stroked..." original liner notes for Nuggets. (Electra, 1972)] Just to see just how general and broad his remarks were, read his entire liner notes to get the full context.

He speaks of the term "punk rock" as if it is already being used colloquially within hip circles. What had, up until this writing, been unofficial, he codifes in writing and makes part of our larger (official) cultural lexicon. And this was done on a release by a major Warner-owned record label. The Nuggets LP had wide distribution. By the way, the development of punk began in the early to mid 60's. There is simply no way to factually substantiate any assertion to the contrary. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not it was "already being used colloquially within hip circles" doesn't matter. What matters is general common usage - and that most reliable sources refer to the 60s genre as "garage rock" and the 70s genre as "punk rock", while obviously recognising that one influenced the other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not denying that the current common usage of the term "punk rock" is the post-1974 understanding of the term, and that this should remain the overriding framework of the article. I am certainly not saying that Wiki should radically re-define its definition of punk as it appears in the top heading (or anywhere in the article for that matter). Wiki should should continue to base the article within a post-1974 punk framework. But, there should be refinements. Wiki could insert "in its most currently recognizable form" (or or "in its modern form") into the heading. It will be more factual and historically accurate. Then, later in the article Wiki could give a slightly longer and better-written explanation of garage rock and its influence (in the "Garage and Mod" section). They could briefly mention, in that section, that the term "punk rock" was originally used to describe the garage rock bands of the mid 60's (and show the necessary documentation, based on the writings I have mentioned). I don't think that there is anything radical about that. But, it would be more factual and enlightening. I think it will contribute in a positive way to people's understanding and appreciation of punk's long history and development, without, in any way, diminishing the domminant focus on post-1974 punk. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Now, I also want to mention that I was not only speaking of how the term was used "colloquially in hip circles," but also how it was codified into a larger cultural lexicon by Lenny Kaye in hsi 1972 piece. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As for usage today: there are a lot of people who use the term "60's punk," to describe the genre I am referring to (1963-1967 garage rock). Go to You tube and you can find hundreds, perhaps thousands, of songs that are referred to as "60's punk," punk," "punker," etc. to this genre. For 1966, alone, can find as many (or probaby more) more references to songs described as "punk" as any year ever (includeing 1976, 1977, 1982, 1992,etc.)!!! I am no lone prophet speaking in the wilderness on this issue. It is the belief of almost all people who are fans and collectors of 60's gargage rock, and is taken as almost gospel truth, that punk rock started in the 60's. Almost all garage rock compilations use the word "punk" in various references, not only in in liner notes and song descriptions, but often on the front cover or album tiltle or subtitle. There are people in the people in the rock critical community in the last twenty years (not just in the early 70's) who share this perspecive: Lenny Kaye, Greg Shaw, and Alec Palao (to all of whom I made references above). Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement "punk developed in the 70's" is not necessarily untrue, but incomplete. It should say: "punk developed as it is commonly known today..." "punk developed in its currently recogizable form...," or punk developed in in in its modern form..." ("...in the 1970s). Punk was developing in the period from 1963-1967, which early 70's rock critics identified as "punk." Retroactivly, we can also now attribute that punk was developing between 1968-1972 (Iggy and the Stooges, Death, MC5, etc.) and 1973- 1975 (certain glam rock: New Yourk Dolls, Dictators, Dead Boys, etc.), in light of what would happen in the mid to late 70's. We can see that the 68-72 and 73-75 periods form a bridge between the original mid 60's garage punk and the 1975-1977 (and later) modern punk eras.Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop saying the same thing, at great length, over and over again. We get your point. We don't agree that the article needs changing. It's fine as it is. WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It is false and misleading, and incomplete. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The only change I would agree to - if other experienced editors here agree - is to add, at the start of the second paragraph, words like: "The term was first used by some US music critics in the early 1970s to describe garage bands and their devotees. By late 1976...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kind consideration. Best Wishes.Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me – I would support that. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I am also fine with Ghymrtle's suggested change.--SabreBD (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks - I've made that change. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Gmyrtle Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Heading innacurate

The statement in the heading that bands seen as "vanguard of new movemnet" is is partially, but not not completely true (can be misleading), at least not as it relates to New York scene...actually many rock critics in 1974-1975viewed the punk scene in New York as a "revival" or "resurrection" of punk. Also: statement about garage bands not clear (when?--are we talking about mid 60's or Stooges era?). The garage bands the critics were referring to were from the mid-60's. This needs to be pointed out. It is probalbly best to refer to punk, at the top of heading, "..in its modern form..."

There is a great website devoted to the etymology of punk (and the developent of how the term came to be used in rock) (www.johnsavage.com/punk-etymology). It quotes and cites numerous articles from 1969-the late 70's. From 1971-1975, "Punk Rock," is used time and time again to refer to the garage rock of the mid-60's. The word "garage band," is also used, but not nearly as often as "punk." The critics do allow the extension of the term "punk rock" to apply to contemporary artists of that era (1971-1975), as well. You will see references to various contemporry artists of the time that the critics percived as "punk rock" at the time. Some references may surprise you (Bob Seger, Grand Funk Railroad). Some may not (Iggy and the Stooges, early Alice Kooper). But, one thing is certain: the barometer for whether or not they considered a contemporary group artist "punk" was the degree to which that group or artist was percieved to embody the spirit of the mid-60's garage bands. The critics later speak of the mid-70's punk movement in New York (they were there at the time) as a punk revival (not as a new thing called punk).

"...the punk music revival is in full swing. Punk rock,of course, is for the form of music [desinating the retonym that was applied in the early 70's to garage bands] which originated in the early 70's when rock writers en masse began writing about the albums they threw away in 1967 (only to scour the bargin bins in 1971), and then reached its height in 1972 when the Nuggets collection stormed the nation's charts." [M. Saunders, "The Shakin Punk Survey, Shakin' Street Gazette, 7 November 1974}]

They talk about the influence of the Nuggets compilation LP on their New York contemporaries. Greg Shaw, in his Rolling Stone review of Nuggets says:

"Punk Rock at its best is the closest we came in the 60's to the original rockabilly spirit of Rock 'n Roll, ie Punk Rock The Arrogant Underbelly of Sixties Pop..." (Rolling Stone, Jan. 4, 1973) [G. Shaw. Rolling Stone, Jan. 4, 1973]

Shaw in a later review for a live show by the Sex Pistols at the 100 club (Record, June 1976) describes them as "punk rock," but in the context of how they fit into his previous definition of the term, not as a new definition. It is not until the Sex Pistols got really big and become a cause celebre all over England (post-Grundy show appearance) that the term "punk" shifts away from its previous definition to designating a new phenominon. But, the article that goes into the most detail about the early definition for mid 60's garage as "punk," is "White Punks on Coke," by Mick Houghton (Let it Rock, Dec. 1975) He talks extensively about the "resurrection," of punk currently going on (i.e. what we would assume to be the New York Scene--CBGB's, etc.). At great length, he litanizes the various "punk" bands of the 60's: ? & The Mysterions, The Castaways, The Count Five, The Shadows of The Knight, The Barbarians, The Seeds, The Blues magoos, etc. Read it. To Houghton:

"There is an intrinsic worth in punk rock [referring to 60's punk]. It is certainly the first of the mid-sixties genres to be resurrected." [M. Houghton. Let It Rock. Dec. 1975]

"But that challenge [to the British Invasion] was taken up by a plethora of amorphous garage bands which sprang up in the suburbs of American cities. It is among these groups that punk rock began. (Let It Rock, Dec. 1975) [M. Houghton. Let It Rock. Dec. 1975] Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the default for every article in Wikipedia is for the present day, unless otherwise stated. So naturally the article is about the subject "..in its modern form...". When else would it be? Including this phrase in the lead is leading the reader prematurely into the history of the term. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Another possibility would be a WP:HATNOTE at the top of the page, along the lines of: "This article describes the style of music that first developed during the mid-1970s. For related styles of music sometimes described as "punk", see Garage rock and Protopunk." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It is, indeed, necessary to say "...in its modern form....," beacause there is a popular misconception that punk started in the mid to late 70's. Punk started far earlier. Without the addition of "...in its modern form...," people will assume that the development of punk started at a later time than it actually did. I realize that Wiki has to work within the framework of popular usage, but an encyclopedia must also be accurate and historically informative. It does not detract, in any way, from the popular usage of punk (1975-present) to point out that it did not grow out of a vaccum but in a historical continuum that had started earlier than is generally believed.Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"Etymology" is vague and confusing

The "Etymology" section of the Wiki "Punk Rock" article is vague, omits key information, and does not make it clear enough that garage rock (1963-1967) was the first genre of music to be spoken of as "punk rock." It also omits the fact that Lenny Kaye (future member of Patti Smith Group) referred to it, as a whole genre, as "punk rock" in his original liner notes to the Nuggets compilation LP (Electra, 1972) (L. Kaye, "Headed, Decked, and Stroked..." original liner notes for Nuggets. (Electra, 1972)) The Wiki "Etymology" section speaks as if the word "punk rock," was used arbitrarily by critics in the early 70's. This is false and innacurate. The critics knew exactly what they were referring to: garage rock of the mid-60's.

In the early 70's certain inluential rock critics retroactively used the term "punk rock" to describe the mid-60's garage bands as a sub-genre, whether individually or collecively, making it the first time the word was used as such to refer to a style of rock. (D. Marsh, Review for Question Mark & the Mysterions. Creem Magazine. May, 1971]) (L. Kaye, liner notes to Nuggets LP compilation. Electra Records. 1972)

To quote Lenny Kaye's liner notes to the original 1972 "Nuggets" LP compitaion:

"...In addition, most of these groups (and by and large, this was an era dominated by groups) were young, decidedly unprofessional, seemingly more at home practicing for a teen dance than going out on a national tour. The name that has been unofficially coined for them--"punk rock"--seems particularly fitting in this case." (L. Kaye, "Headed, Decked, and Stroked..." original liner notes for Nuggets. (Electra, 1972)) Lenny Kaye took the colloquial, unofficial term that was floating around and, in the act of writing about it, officially codified it in the larger public mind in his notes on a major record relase by a major record label with widespread distribution (Electra).

No doubt the previous Wiki editors have read the website, "Etymology of Punk (and the Developent of How the Term Came to be Used in Rock) (www.johnsavage.com/punk-etymology). But they have made a bad misreading of its contents. It quotes and cites numerous articles from 1969-the late 70's. From 1971-1975, "Punk Rock," is used time and time again to refer to the garage rock of the mid-60's. The word "garage band," is also used, but not nearly as often as "punk." The critics do allow the extension of the term "punk rock" to apply to contemporary artists of that era (1971-1975), as well. You will see references to various contemporry artists of the time that the critics percived as "punk rock" at the time. Some references may surprise you (Bob Seger, Grand Funk Railroad, Springsteen, etc.). Some may not (Iggy and the Stooges, early Alice Kooper). But, one thing is certain: the barometer for whether or not they considered a contemporary group artist "punk" was the degree to which that group or artist was percieved to embody the spirit of the mid-60's garage bands.

The current "Etymology" secion of the "Punk Rock article in Wiki, badly misreads the intent of rock critics of the early to mid 70's and makes it seem as if the term "punk rock" was used arbitrarily by these critics, but it was not. There may have some been confusion about what constituted "punk" in terms of contemporary artists of the time, but here is absolutely no confusion about how it realted to the garage rock bands of the mid-60's, which were considered the foundation of the definition.

In the article, "The Shakin' Street Punk Survey," by Metal Mike Saunders (that appeared in the "Shakin Street Gazette" Nov.7, 1974) Sauners speaks of the mid-70's punk movement in New York as a punk "revival" (not as a new thing called punk): "...the punk music revival is now in full swing.". (M. Saunders, "Shakin' Street Punk Survey," Shakin Steet Gazette. November, 1974) He also talks about the influence of the Nuggets compilation LP on their New York contemporaries." (M. Saunders, "Shakin' Street Punk Survey," Shakin Steet Gazette. November, 1974)

Over a year and a half earlier, Greg Shaw, in his Rolling Stone review of Nuggets had said:

"Punk Rock at its best is the closest we came in the 60's to the original rockabilly spirit of Rock 'n Roll, ie Punk Rock The Arrogant Underbelly of Sixties Pop..." (Rolling Stone, Jan. 4, 1973) (G. Shaw. Rolling Stone, Jan. 4, 1973)

A few years later, Shaw in review for a live show by the Sex Pistols at the 100 club (Record, June 1976), describes them as "punk rock," but in the context of how they fit into his previous definition of the term, not as a new definition (keep in mind that, at that time, they often did covers of old mid-60's songs, such as "Stepping Stone," by Paul Revere and the Raiders and "Substitute," by The Who). It is not until the Sex Pistols got really big and become a cause celebre all over England (post-Grundy show appearance) that the term "punk" shifted away from its previous definition to designating a new phenominon.

But, the article that goes into the most detail about the early definition for mid 60's garage as "punk," is "White Punks on Coke," by Mick Houghton (Let it Rock, Dec. 1975) He talks extensively about the "resurrection," of punk currently going on (i.e. what we would assume to be the New York Scene--CBGB's, etc.). At great length, he litanizes the various "punk" bands of the 60's: ? & The Mysterions, The Castaways, The Count Five, The Shadows of The Knight, The Barbarians, The Seeds, The Blues magoos, etc. Read it. To Houghton:

"But that challenge [to the British Invasion] was taken up by a plethora of amorphous garage bands which sprang up in the suburbs of American cities. It is among these groups that punk rock began. (Let It Rock, Dec. 1975) (M. Houghton. Let It Rock. Dec. 1975)

Over and over, the rock critics are absolutely clear that they consider the garage rock to be the original (and touchstone) form of punk rock. However, the Wiki "Etymology" section of the "Punk Rock" article does not sufficiently reflect this. It only makes occasional references to these critics and makes their statements appear to be equivical. It does mention that Ed Sanders used the term, "punk rock," to describe the Fugs (in a 1970 article). But, Sanders remarks does not attempt to define a whole genre of music. It is likely that he is using the term "punk rock" in context of how it was probably being used colloquially at the time: to describe garage bands of the mid-60's and how the term could also be used to denote contemporaries who considered themselves to be following in the eccentric spirit of the garage bands. In all likleyhood, Sanders is using the term in exactly the same context as critics, such as Dave Marsh, Lenny Kaye, Greg Shaw, Mike Saunders, and Mick Houghton.

After careful reading of what was said, time and time again, by influential rock critics 1971-1975, there can be absolutely no doubt that garage rock is the first genre of music to be referred to as "punk rock." The "Etymolgy" section of the Wiki "Punk Rock" article must be ammended to reflect this reality. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the Etymology section already seems to do exactly what you are suggesting. What changes to the wording are you proposing? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm simply going to quote Ghmyrtle's comment of 30 October: "Please stop saying the same thing, at great length, over and over again. We get your point. We don't agree that the article needs changing. It's fine as it is. WP:NOTSOAPBOX." I also highly recommend reading WP:TLDR. Multiple treatise-length diatribes on the same topic, repeated ad nauseum, are unlikely to win you any adherents. --IllaZilla (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it was you who had recommended that I contribute to these talk sections. I have backed away from trying to do edits, myself,on this site, as you recommended. Maybe I've been a bit too long-winded--I will try to say less in the future. But, can you blame me? I am trying to use facts and evidence to support my recommendations. I think that the facts are overwhelming in favor of what I am advocating. And, yes, I think that there are factual errors and/or omissions in the article that stand to be corrected. an you blame me for trying to champion the unsung hereoes who were the original pioneers of this musical genre? None of them have ever recieved anything approching the just amount of credit they deserve. I can think of no other musical genre that has shown as much neglect towards its own founding members. There is now an urgency. Most of the people who played in these bands are currently in their sixties and many of them are deceased--each time I read a biography, I learn of another one passing. I would love to see the remaining creators bask in thier well-deserved moment of appreciation before they leave this world. I think that we have a responsibility to champion them while there is still time. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I repeat: What changes to the wording are you proposing? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I leave it up to you to decide on how any changes in the wording take place, but something could be said to the effect of: "Regardless any confusaion about how the term "punk" was applied to contemporary artists of the period, the critics were clear that the term always applied to the garage bands of the mid-60's." References and Quotes to G. Shaw and M. Houghton could be added to further that process of clarification.

Some other possible chages: The Pre-History section could be re-named "Early Formative History," or better yet, "Origins," or "Early Origins," because, factually speaking, garage rock cannot be conisdered a pre-history to punk (in light the facts mentioned above). The mid to late 70's punk section, currently called "Early History" could be re-named "Classic Era"--and I have often heard of this period referred to as "Classic Punk." That would emphasize, even more, the pride of place that 70's punk enjoys in this article (and rightfully should). Then, the later periods (i.e. hardcore, etc. could be labelled "Later Periods"). The Garage and Mod section could be slightly expanded and improved (garage rock is ever in need of more discussion, both here, and in its own C-class Wiki article).

The Garage and Mod section is jumbled and confusing, and makes several factual errors, such as "...by 1966 mod was in decline..." Perhaps the British motor scooter-driving "ticket" type of street mod was in decline, but otherwise, mod, as a general fashion craze, was at its all time high in 1966 (both in England and America)...and the mod fever swept America like a tidal wave in 1966. See the Life Magazine cover story on the mod craze (May 13, 1966). Also, watch Antonioni's Blow Up to see mod at its pinnacle in swinging 1966 London. Furthermore, the section makes it seem as if garage rock was beginning to go out (along with mod) in 1966, whcih is silly. 1966 was the pinnacle year for garage rock and mod.

The heading at the beginning of the "Punk Rock" article could be a little bit more clear that in the early 70's critics used the term "punk rock" to describe the mid-60s garage rock bands and their later devotees (i.e. Iggy, MC5, as well as the other cointemporaries that were designated as such at the time for whatever reason). It could also that punk developed "...in its modern form..." in the mid to late 70s (punk had already through a very full and exhausstive period of evolution in the years 1963-1967, culminating in the well-evoved punk sound of 1966 & 1967).

Ghmyrtle, I want to thank you for your kind inquiry to me. I know that I have probably been a little bit too outspoken recently, and I realize that I have been asking for a lot--probably too much, and I will try to back off a little on the posts. I don't expect Rome to be built in a day, so I can be patient. I greatly appreciate your kindness and do not want you to think that I don't appreciate the positive changes you have made in the articles, and I thank you for backing me up on a couple of occasions. Perhaps, in coming months, I could help (in a quieter way) to create some new articles on some of the lesser known garage rock bands covered on the Garage Rock list--and you could check them for accuracy and grammar and change or modify them if you see fit. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that you seem to be engaged in a serious case of WP:SYNTH and possibly even WP:OR. The view that there was a continous music genre called "punk rock" from the 1960s garage punk to the early 1970s protopunk is largely anachronistic and suffers from a case of complete hindsight. The bands usually dubbed protopunk from the late 1960s and 1970s referred to their own music as "rock'n'roll", as did the 1960's garage bands. From this "punk music" emerged as a deliberate and separate music genre in the 1970s, and it was then that music connisseurs starting to find connections to earlier bands with a similar sound. That is the way it is being presented in authorative reliable secondary sources, like Legs McNeil & Gillan McCain (eds), Please Kill Me, and that is what this article should reflect. We don't engage in revisionistic research on Wikipedia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This --Guerillero | My Talk 12:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You really hit the nail on the head, Saddhiyama. I completely agree. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have never once claimed that the garage bands of the mid-60's (I've been talking primarily about them, not late-60's MC5/Stooges) referred to themselves (at that time) as "punk rock"--I will be the first one to say that they called themselves "rock & roll." AMEN. I have said repeatedly that the way the term "punk rock" was later applied to them was done in retrospect. I have already said that the term was applied to them "retroactively" during the period of 1971-1975 by influential rock critics in magazines such as Creem and Rolling Stone: some of the most famous and influential rock critics of all time (from the founding generation of rock critics)--people such as Dave Marsh, Lester Bangs (not only writer, but also band-mate of Joey Ramone's brother and friend and fellow-traveller with the Clash on '78 tour), Greg Shaw, and finally, Lenny Kaye, who would later become instrumental in the formation of the New York punk scene as a member of The Patti Smith Group. All of these individuals are well known and respected in the field of rock journalism and equally, if not better known, than the ones who wrote the books to which you refer.

You mistakenly claim that any relationship between garage and later punk was based on mere coincidental similarity. You say (without substantiation) that garage rock's connections to later punk were first established in the post-1976 climate, but while there may have, indeed, been people in the late 70's who attempted to draw such connections, they were not the first in light of the earlier sources I referenced, which had written publicly of Nuggets' influence on the New York scene. The Nuggets LP (Electra, 1972) with Kaye's liner notes (talking about mid-60's bands as as "punk rock") sold well and recieved a lot of attention. Kaye's invovement in the Nuggets project was commissioned by Jack Holtzman, president and founder of Electra records. And, you completely miss the point that garage rock had already been cristened with the "punk rock" name several years before (long before The Ramones and Sex Pistols) by the people I have mentioned. I don't see the point of the "WP: SYNTH" claim. And, the WP:OR claim is silly. I've done a lot more than you to substantiate my claims, and I have taken great care to do so. But you've provided me with nothing of substance here. You are doing exacly the thing you accuse me of. It's one thing to say that the majority of reliable sources do not back my point of view at this time (a point of view I can respect), but it is another thing to make the claim that garage rock's connection to punk was not established until the late 70s, after I had already provided relaible facts to the contrary, which you cannot refute.

When the well-known writers I mentioned had earlier used the term "punk rock" to designate garage rock as a genre, they generously extended the use of the term to apply to contemporary artists (of 1971-1975), but only in individual references, not yet as a whole genre or subgenre (or subgernre) the way they had already done for the garage bands of the mid 60's. The garage bands had never before been singled out as a genre. But, when they were finally given the dignity to be singled out as one (in the early 70's) the term that was consistently used for them by influential rock critics was was "punk rock." Garage rock was the first genre of music to be designated as "punk rock." That was a very special desigantion--a badge of honor, and it never should have been taken away by later generations. And, it is because of this special designation given to the garage bands, and because of the fact that the critics were generous enough to extend the use of the term to subsequent artists, and because people, such as Lenny Kaye, helped popularize use of the term (not only in the New York scene, but far beyond), that we have the term today as it is now used, and we should be grateful. When it comes to defining the origins of punk rock, it is a mistake to put later sources (no matter how reliable and well-written) on a higher level of authority than the original texts that first established and defined use of the term. That puts the carriage in front of the horse, and it is the job of good scholarship, to constantly examine and re-examine origins to make sure that proper meanings do not get lost in the shuffle. Now matter how wonderful the books you mention are, they make a cardinal error of overlooking garage rock as the first form of punk rock. I might add that all of those books do a great job convering punk post-1974, but their shortcoming is that they are weak in their understanding of how punk earlier-on came to be. I am not saying that anything is wrong with these books, other than that the earlier history is just not their area of expertise. Most books attempting to trace the early history of punk tend to be either New York-centric or London-centric which stunt their ability to look deeper and wider. What about the Pacific Northwest? Southern California? Texas? Midwest? Why not look towards suburbs and small towns, not just major metropolitan areas? Pre-1968? There is just such a huge hole in our understanding of the roots of punk, and these books are not able to adequately fill it. I am not a revisionist (that already occured post-1976). I am just trying to restore an important part of punk's original meaning that has been lost.

In the first selection form Punk: The Whole Story, edited by Mark Blake (a Mojo Magazine publication), well-known rock journalist and early member of the Sex Pistols and later London S.S. Nick Kent, it says some very interesting things:

"For me, punk didn't start in 1976: it started in 1971 when I first read US rock magazine Creem. The writer Dave Marsh claims he coined the phrase "punk rock" in a review he wrote for the magazine late '71 of a gig by ? & The Mysterions. But it was fellow Creem scribe Lester Bangs who really took the term and and created a whole aesthetic for it. For Bangs and his disciples, punk rock began in 1963 when Seattle quartet The Kingmen hit Number 1 stateside with the deliciously moronic Louie, Louie, grew with the influx of one hit wonders from the US mid-60's that Creem correspondent, Lenny Kaye paid fullsome tribute to with his influential 1972 album Nuggets..." Now you have it: an early member of the Sex Pistols expressing, not only the influence of garage rock on his band (early on they played songs such as "Steppin' Stone"), but also from where they derived the term "punk rock."

Also, read the newer essays (which I have already alluded to and referenced) included in the 1998 Nuggets CD Box set (Rhino) (by Greg Shaw, et. al). They are very clear about defending garage rock's status as "punk rock." They intentionally advocate the re-use of the term "punk rock" to apply to garage rock. Go read them. They are written by some of the same people who were originators of the term, "punk's," early use.

"...'Call this stuff what you like.' The current term of the choice is "garage," but I still feel it should have first dibs on "punk." (G. Shaw. "Sic Transit Gloria...: The Story of Punk Rock in the 60's." Rhino, 1998) Clearly, these statements (by both Kent and Shaw), necessitate a much greater examination into garage rock and its role in the development of punk.

Remember that I had said (please go back and re-read my posts) that most musical genres do not start with an externally applied label, nor a self-referential monicker. There is usually a process of awareness that grows in time. Labels come into popular use, usually later on, to designate the music that has already been in existence. This is almost always the case. Alan Freed came up with the term "rock 'n' roll" several years after the musical form had actually begun. In the 1980's "Freakbeat," was retroactively applied to certain mid-60's London based bands--though the term was not used by those bands at the time, it still applies. I am abundantly aware and have stated numerous times that, after 1974, punk became a deliberate and self-referential movement, replete with its own fashion senibilities, manifestos, etc. (this was the moment that punk entered its modern era). But, I contend (I believe correctly so) that punk's life as a musical form preceeded its life as a sperate subculture by over a decade.

In chapter one of Marcus Gray's biography on The Clash (The Clash: Return of the Last Gang in Town), he discusses garage rock's influence on Mick Jones circa 1973--60s garage bands such as the Standells, etc. as well as later bands such as MC5 and Iggy & The Stooges. He then goes on to discuss Lester Bangs' use of the term "punk rock" in the early 70's. According to Gray:

For many years following 1976, 'punk' would be almost exclusively associated with the movement of of aggressive back-to-basics UK rock bands kick-started by the Sex Pistols. Malcolm McLaren and his charges insisted that they had started something new, and a Year Zero mentality developed which denied that the genre had a lengthy history. Beyond all the posturing and denial at the time , there was some recognition that the term punk had enjoyed a previous life; but what little had been written about the subject was not widely circulated, and the general understanding of the background remained vague. And, that sitation still remains the same today, Wiki editors. The 70's punk explosion was an incredible thing, but sadly one big casualty was the awareness of punk's long prior existence. MC5 and The Stooges have now gotten at least some of their belated recognition, but the garage bands of the mid-60s seem to be forever cursed to wallow in, not only obscurity, but worse, denial of their fundamental contribution the genre.

Perhaps the author of one of the most well-regarded biographies of the Clash suffers from what you would call "a case of complete anchronistic hindsight" and "the view that there was a continous music genre called "punk rock" (1963-1974). I am not asking for radical or major changes in the article's message or focus, nor any major change of overall classifications/labels that Wiki uses (I have no problem with the label, "garage rock," by the way)--I just want to see a better and more accurate reflection of garage rock's historical contributuion to punk rock reflected in the narrative, and to see it recive proper recoginiton as a legitimate form of authentic punk. I only asked for slight and subtle changes in wording in the texts (in heading and etymology) and subtitles as well as an improved "Garage and Mod" section. I'm not here to be on a soapbox of spout out unsubstantiated opinions--my opinions are based on knowlege that I have gleaned--and have a great deal of respect for empirical truth. I am not the only person who espouses the the kinds of beliefs I have been advocating in these posts. They are shared by practically all garage rock enthusiasts--a sizable and knowlegable constituency (we have to become knowlegable, because finding the music we seek is like a form of labor-intensive archaeology). The belief that garge rock is the original form of punk rock is universally accepted in these spheres, and is the position taken on almost all of the CD and LP compilations, as well as on numerous Youtube music posts. You can go on Youtube and find hundreds of references to mid-60's garage rock referred to as "punk." I just happen to be one of the first to bring it to your attention. When choosing the wording in the article, you have to be sensitive about the perspectives of different groups within the punk rock milieu and choose the wording more carefully, because there are different valid perspectives. This article is general and does attempt, after all, to refelct the entire history of punk rock. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)