There were thousands of garage bands putting out stuff that were just like them at the same time.
What makes them stand out so much?

There may have been thousands of garage bands around at that time, but Los Saicos were more than likely completely unaware of these bands to be influenced by them. Their only knowledge of American and British music culture was restricted only to the very well known acts.

Furthermore, they put together a sound, image and attitude that was crude enough to be labelled punk many years later. The important aspect about this band though, is that they were presenting their sound and image in a conservative latin environment where saying stuff like "F**k off"! just wasn`t the done thing.

There are a load of links about this band on the web, below is just one.

Punk owes its origin to the Peruvian band Los Saicos | NU Intel

Black Flag. :)

huh? they aren't even "punk" - they're hardcore punk, that evolved from original punk

all branches of the same tree.

Thank you for the lesson. :wave:
The second wave around 1980 is when "real" punk began in my opinion.

The thread is about who invented punk and not when you thought it was best. :wave:

And I think they invented punk.

Black Flag? naw... it was already established before they came out. They had an impact on Hardcore, but not punk as a whole... even in hardcore they didn't invent it anymore than Middle Class, DOA, Misfits, Bad Brains or Mentally Ill.

Does... he seriously think that or is he kidding?

ok - I invented punk

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...nter/EGG02.png

Il Duce - I was thinking posting that but decided against it:laughing:

You should ask him.

After watching a documentary on him, I'm going to have to say William S. Burroughs. :laughing:

Ramones were the first to exhibit the music, life and clothing style of what we call punk music. The Sex Pistols were manufactured as well.

Stooges, Velvets.
Punk was around before it was called Punk.

It may have been around in some forms before it was around as Punk. But still, until it has an identity all its own and a definitive image all its own, it is not around.

So the question would be who was the first to brand it as punk.

Stooges, sure. The Monks, maybe.

But none of them are punk, only given the title in hindsight. So have to figure out who it was that caused them to go back and be labeled as punk, and then you find the inventor of punk.

The Ramones surely, put their debut out in 1976 and this was closely followed by all the well known punk albums (labelled punk in 1977)

I didn't vote on this because the idea that either of those bands invented punk is preposterous. Sure they were two of the earlier, most influential, and pioneering acts, but a lot of people on this thread have rightfully mentioned plenty of other artists who deserve consideration and should've been included in the poll.

All of the early 70s punk rock bands(Sex pistols, Ramones, Stooges) are just Rock and Roll groups, protopunk at the very most. The Velvet Underground is pretty rad, but pretty damn far from being anything even remotely punk rock. The earliest legitimate punk group that I know of is the Germs, both in terms of vocal melody and instrumentation. There could be some that came before that were actual punk rock groups, I'm not really a punker, but Johny Rotten, Iggy Pop, Dee Dee, and certainly Lou Reed had nothing to do with them.

Based on what you've written above, I'd certainly say you were no punker!

some homosexual in prison invented punk

(at least that's what the slang originally meant)

Yeah... NO.

To say Iggy Pop had nothing to do with the establishment of punk rock is flat out wrong. They might not have called themselves The Punks but referring to themselves as The Stooges wasn't exactly better. It's like the difference between calling someone a bum or an ass or maybe a jerk or a prick. They're terms that more or less describe the same thing when used colloquially as they were back in their day.

But ultimately the musical style grew from the attitude of not giving a crap about perceived social and industry expectations for the artist's creation as well as presenting a creative output that forced the listener to consider unexpected perspectives.

Based on that attitude I'd say modern punk rock and its attitude exists as they do because of this guy:

http://assets.rollingstone.com/asset...te-coleman.jpg

Ornette Coleman is not just one of the Free Jazz pioneers. He's the badass mofo who INVENTED it. In 1959 his first album with Atlantic Records was released - 'The Shape of Jazz to Come', modern punks familiar with The Refused are recognizing a familiar album name right now. That album marked one of (if not the) first time a musical artist was able to release a full album of an untested style to the mainstream. It proved that a record that eschewed traditional methods and relied primarily on emotion and passion over technique and control could still be a commercially viable product thereby satisfying both the bean counters at the label and the creativity of the artist.

He might not be a 'punk' per se but if it weren't for Mr. Coleman's badassery up there, I really don't think we'd have nearly as much freedom of styles and techniques available in popular music today.

In other news: Charlie Parker isn't jazz.

Charlie Parker was ragtime, proto-jazz at best.

:laughing:

Woody Guthrie. I once heard Tom morello say he was the first punk-rocker.

Its all relative. I wasn't speaking in technical terms, I just consider Sex Pistols and the Ramones to be far removed from what the majority of the 80s punk rock movement resembled.

^ This! Plus Sun Ra. Throw in Woody Guthrie for the Strummer connection and maybe Phil Ochs.

Read on for something interesting.

The Jazz-Punk Connection

While I would call Iggy and The Stooges Raw Power the first Punk Rock album for it's attitude and in your face anger that inspired a lot of outsiders and musicians in the middle of the 70's, or even their first album and maybe the Velvet Underground's White Light/White Heat, without legends like Ra, Coleman, and the others mentioned in the article, possibly NOTHING would have happened.

Think about The Stooges' Funhouse (those Sax breaks!), think about the MC5's "Starship," "Black to Comm," and "Skunk (Sonically Speaking)," think about the first two Velvet Underground Albums. All had to have that major inspiration that made them want to kick down the barriers or at least offer a new edge to Rock.

Woody Gutherie and Phil Ochs are punk now?

No. I do not care what any historian says, what musicians says or what anyone else said. They are not punk, and they never were and never will be. Same goes with Johnny Cash.

They were folk/country.

Next thing you will try and tell me is it was Ledbelly or Bob Dylan. No, get over it find someone who was punk please.

As I stated before The Stooges Raw Power is about as influential to what turned into Punk Rock as it got. One can maybe call the Stooges First album or even Velvet Underground's first two, but when it came to the proximity of the Late 70's Punk Scene, to me it was Raw Power. A bunch of outsider kids going through the Cut-Outs shortly after Columbia decided to let The Stooges go in the Mid 70's can possibly tell you the story more than I. Yeah, there were the Dolls and Lou Reed, but Raw Power just stood out from them all.

Now moving back into Thinking Too Much Mode (as I love to do...)

To me, a person who actually slam danced at hardcore shows back in The 80's, it's not as 1+2 as it seems, especially with the bands I heard at that time (this even goes beyond Dead Kennedys). One can say Punk started somewhere, but there were the prototypes. they may not have been Punk as a Genre, but Punk as in attitude.

I already linked to the Jazz-Punk connection. that says more than what I even can in a small post.

Going back to the remark about Ochs and Guthrie...

Punk as a defiant attitude in Music itself had to have some major influences. I can never say Dylan as he turned more into an occasionally great singer songwriter by the Late 60's/Nashville Skyline era (more the spark for the Folk based Indie by his 70's albums. Not a dismissal.), although Highway '61 Revisited and Blonde on Blonde had some effect on the more literate Punks just for breaking away from Folk with an image and attitude that still is copied from time to time (Patti Smith, John Cooper Clarke being examples). Johnny Cash not as much of a Punk originator either when you look through his whole career, although he was closer when you look at the highlights which at least make him a major influence (The Sun recordings, the live albums recorded in prisons in a time when the industry was trying to move Country into softer sounds, his American Recordings albums. That took guts!).

If you want to throw genres around on a simple face value level, Guthrie and Ochs were Folk. Unlike Dylan and Cash, who had soft stages in their careers, Guthrie and Ochs stood out enough to spark many early Punk Rockers through their attitudes and constant political stands.

Now, if you're looking at a more apolitical stand, you could go through a lot of Garage Punk. How about The Sonics?

Let's go even further to some wild 50's R&B singers - Screamin' Jay Hawkins? Bunker Hill? Screaming with the madness that can sometimes match up with the best of Hardcore. Genre-wise, they were on the same page as Little Richard, but when all was said and done, Screamin' was the part of the influences of the Cramps and Bunker Hill was certainly way too way out for a lot of listeners.

Rockabilly? That too! Despite a few who went the Pop Star route (Elvis left that building when he went to RCA...now THERE'S the original Indie Snob comment of all time), there were those who still kept a rocking.

To me, Punk has been around for along time in attitude. The defiance, the willingness to stand out, the pride in taking a stand may it be with politics or outright shock. Yeah, I may be a bit of a Historian in my listening myself, but for every movement, there had to be something that started it in one way or another. It's not just what's known as what's thought of as part of the Genre.

BTW, for the record, I still have not voted yet. But between the two, I just may go for The Ramones, but I can't say they invented Punk either...just the confirmation that someone understood Raw Power in a time when the industry was trying to get rid of it. That first album alone tops Never Mind the Bollocks for it's buzzsaw guitars alone. The Sex Pistols were great, don't get me wrong, but without John Lydon (or, later Sid), they would have been a kick ass Pub Rock band. Now if it were a match between The Ramones and THE DAMNED, then it would be the never ending decision.

That's because the majority of the 80s punk movement had moved in the direction of hardcore.

Me.

Link Wray!

^no.

Link Wray: on wiki Link Wray is credited with fathering Punk, also The Dictators and Blue Cheer and (I'm sure) a few other bands too (that I didn't mention) are also mentioned with their part in the formation of Punk.

The Dictators
Blue Cheer

Citing Wikipedia doesn't count.

That is like going to a meeting of experts and pulling out a pamphlet and claiming you know more than them, when i reality you know nothing and just wanna look like you do so not to be called an idiot in their presence.