Quote:
Originally Posted by Forward To Death
Is that your opinion now? Because it's pretty fitting for someone who's against the nitpickery going on here. It's not a point, it's an illustration of a point that's being made.
|
First of all, the remark wasn't intended to imply that I was against nitpicking. It was just a matter of the subject between punk and protopunk in frequent cases. You can nitpick all you want, cool, I do it sometimes. But I don't find it necessary between so and so often.
As for your remark, that's why I tried to clarify something so vague using my personal taste you've thrown in as a spin to this discussion.
I don't consider it a top anymore, but I do consider it a punk album. Maybe punk innovated with reggae. That may not make it sound so obviously punk like others, but they still had the same direction. With lyrics, concise instrumentations, vocals, and even image. It's still connected to the punk era, as well.
Quote:
|
Or maybe they just sound like garage rock/glam rock, but it's common to associate them with punk. Tbh, what's the difference between NYD and Kiss in terms of sound? Not much, so I'd stick with glam rock. As for the Stooges, I jist don't hear what's so punk, rather than just garage rock. They just sound like a raw heavy garage rock band with poor production. No way I'd associate them with punk if I didn't see it or hear it before.
|
Really? I find NYD different. Vocals and lyrics especially. A lot of their songs are short and stripped down. Kiss kind of had that similar tone instrumentally. As for Stooges, I see your point. But I also consider those characteristics put together a formation of punk.
Quote:
|
It was sarcasm to illustrate the point that you're defining everything too loosely, and tbh if that's what you really think, that people shouldn't be nitpicking over genre classification, then you should be in favor of merging genres. Green Day's punk now, not pop punk. All that emo crap, that's punk now too.
|
I never said you shouldn't do anything. Again it was a statement to a point about protopunk.
Quote:
|
But do you know which bands fit into which category? See, that's being observant.
|
Don't take it too seriously it was a facetious remark about genres. If I wanted to analyse I would do it.
Quote:
|
I just think you should either tell us why those artists are closer to punk, why it's nitpicky to call them proto-punk instead, etc. If for no other reason, for the sake of discussion.
|
That's fine. I gave some examples already. But really it was only meant as a mild comment from a personal perspective. It wasn't meant as something negative. But somehow it went all sensitive...
Quote:
|
It's not that big of a thing for me either, but I definitely don't see any of those bands as punk bands, and I've stated why I think that. Garage punk/glam punk isn't too far off, and I would have to agree that's what they sound like, just not actual punk.
|
I understand your perspective. As characteristics suiting a genre though, I find them close enough to consider them as punk bands. Your criteria seems to be bold, and in that way I sort of agree.