Music Banter - View Single Post - Why is "Post-Punk" even considered "Punk"?
View Single Post
Old 05-25-2016, 12:37 PM   #3 (permalink)
EPOCH6
V8s & 12 Bars
 
EPOCH6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 955
Default

To understand the link between roots genres and their subgenres you always have to look at the first wave of artists, not necessarily what the subgenre looks like today almost 40 years later.

I'm not much of a post-punk buff but from what I understand it started in the late 70s with bands like Siouxsie & the Banshees and Wire.

This is Siouxsie & the Banshees in '79:



That's pretty punk.

A couple of years later in '81:



Things are getting weirder and "post-ier" but the roots are still there, you can still smell the punk.

This is '77:



Again you can still smell the punk but it's definitely evolving, this is one of the less adventurous tracks on the album.

Somebody that actually knows post-punk well will be able to give better insight but I think at the most basic level post-punk bands were basically adventurous punks taking what they know about punk, their snarky vocals, their crinkly guitar tones, and their disdain for traditional rock and roll tropes and pushing the genre in more experimental directions from within. Fast forward 40 years and yeah the roots may not be as evident as they once were, but trace back the influences far enough and it all makes sense.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbycob View Post
There's 3 reason why the Rolling Stones are better. I'm going to list them here. 1. Jimi Hendrix from Rolling Stones was a better guitarist then Jimmy Page 2. The bassist from Rolling Stones isn't dead 3. Rolling Stobes wrote Stairway to Heaven and The Ocean so we all know they are superior here.
EPOCH6 is offline   Reply With Quote