Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 552474)

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but the general consensus, in the history books as you say, is that they were not a punk band but rather a glam band or at most a protopunk band. And if you want to get into a who came first discussion, the Velvet Underground predate the New York Dolls by six years.

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger (Post 552478)

The New York Dolls weren't doing anything The Rolling Stones weren't doing already. Never heard anyone say they started punk though.

The Deviants were doing the whole 'punk rock' thing in 1966 / 67.
It didn't take off then , Why?
Because people weren't ready for it. They even had a whole scene behind them , the whole UK counter culture scene.

But they never got being above a cult band because they didn't sell any records , so yes sales DO have a lot to do with it.

Punk would have never taken off the way it did if the Pistols hadn't been top of the charts & been on prime time TV.

Originally Posted by Veronica Lodge (Post 552482)

Again, I'm sorry, I disagree. (And I can totally understand why you would disagree with me.)

I don't think the Ramone's were the first punk band. They were the first SUCCESSFUL punk band (with the Sex Pistols), however TNYD were the beginnings of punk. They fused glam rock with a new genre - punk. Their own.

Originally Posted by Veronica Lodge (Post 552420)

This is why I think most people shouldn't catergorize music.

I think the general public doesn't really know ENOUGH about music to categorize it. Thankfully, there are people out there not like this, and most people on MB are said people.

One of the things that really really urks me especially is this discussion of punk, and its forefathers. If people actually looked in books and researched, they would know the story and evolution of punk.

In all honesty, I think everyone is entitled to their opinion, but their opinion is only valid if its an educated one.

With that being said, I'm going to direct this next bit to Tobias. I think it's great that you are willing to learn more about music and branch out. But forget about catergorizing music. Forget about putting a label on it. Genres were designed to direct kids in records stores where to put the album on a shelf. Listen to what you want, for real real, and don't be focused on what's punk, and whats pop-punk. In the end, it's all the same - it's music. :)

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 552461)

Hell no! For example, the Beach Boys were pop and they totally kicked ass.


The Ramones were the fathers of punk, but their sound was also a throwback to early 60s pop rock. It went against the grain because that's not what pop music sounded like in 70s, but their music still definitely had a pop quality to it.

Originally Posted by Veronica Lodge (Post 552484)

(Also, I feel really bad that we totally took over Tobias' thread about the origins of punk. - However, everyone's opinions are super interesting...)

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 552485)

I don't suppose you'd be able to hook a guy up with that one by any chance? :)

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger (Post 552486)

I'll see what I can do ;)

Originally Posted by FaSho (Post 552542)

I can help out. What specific bands?