I like mature and immature music alike. I do hate all the people who say "you can't have rock n roll unless it's immature, primitive and stupid" but more the same I'm also annoyed by people who think great lyrics or virtuoso musicianship is a bare necessity.

Thing is, I have those days where I can listen to Larks Tongues in Aspic or Tales From Topographic Oceans and rub my chin like the pretentious f*ck that I am, and then afterwards, I might crank up some Fear.

My house smells just like a zoo
It's chock full of shit and puke
Cokroaches on the walls
Grass growing on my balls
oh well im so clean cut
and I just want to fuck some slut

AHHHHHHHH LUUUUUUUUV LIVING IN THE CITEH!!!

:thumb:

Bummer for you I guess and also kind of sad if you think laughing is "weak". I just thought what you said was pretty funny. The idea that art can be defined as "regressive" strikes me as kind of silly. Also, hearing a 17 year old saying he or she can't tolerate things that are adolescent is also pretty humorous and, ironically, it's a fairly adolescent way of looking at things.

That's what I'm saying though, I don't think the Sex Pistols had the passion they're claimed to (or if they did it has been vastly surpassed), and their "message" was, well, idiotic. Just because it's political doesn't mean their politics should be lauded. Moreover, the fact that they delivered their message with no artistry or subtlety gives me the impression that the poltics was more important to them than the art. Also, it takes way more balls in rock to write a pro-establishment song than an anti-establishment one, and in fact the "anti-establishment" IS "the establishment" in rock.

The folk music I've been exposed to--mainly '60s singer/songwriters like Dylan and Morrisson and recent indie-folk artists like Devendra Banhart--is music of subtle originality and artistry. Very different from punk.

Anarchical messages are hardly a good thing since anarchism is pretentious radical-chic nonsense.

I do respect those bands somewhat for their passion and intensity, though I don't really listen to them often. If it were true that they were indebted specifically to the Sex Pistols and not to early punk in general, it might be a case against my argument that Never Mind the Bollocks had a negative effect on music, but it wouldn't make the album any better, it would just show that it has been surpassed.

I LOVE post-punk. Talking Heads are my favorite band of all time, and even the Sex Pistols-derived Public Image Ltd. were shockingly good if only a rare listen for me (probably one of the most evil, zombie-like aesthetics I've ever encountered). But I don't think the sounds those bands had were specifically Sex Pistols-influenced, and in some ways those bands (especially on the synth-pop Depeche Mode side) actually owed as much or even more to art-rockers like David Bowie, Brian Eno, Kraftwerk, and adventurous producers like Giorgio Moroder than to punk rock.

It isn't weak to LOL, but it is to LOL in lieu of defending one's opinions. I'm glad this time you've at least started to explain what you take issue with.

How? Power chord-based shock-tactic hard rock is NOT a timeless thing.

16 actually, but it's irrelevant, it has no bearing on what I should look for in art. Also, I specifically gave an example of a certain situation in which I can appreciate "adolescent" music, but I don't think the Sex Pistols fall into that category.

The laughing wasn't in lieu of anything. I lol'd because what you said made me lol.

Most music in general isn't timeless. What's your point? That has nothing to do with whether or not it makes sense to label art as regressive.

True. But it does have a direct bearing on how hilarious it is to hear you look down on things that are "adolescent".

I'm by no means saying you are required to like the Sex Pistols, all I'm saying is that a lot of the reasons you've given are pretty dubious.

if you want to be really fuc*ing skeptical then i suppose that first paragraph has some validity

folk and post punk are different in sounds from punk but they share much of the same message and roots. post-punk may have only slightly used punk influences in their music but it was the punk ideals and popularity that gave rise to such bands, a lot of amazing bands in that genre came out at the same time. why? punk.

folk just has a very political, protesting message that punk has as well as the genre's simplicity, it just does it in a different way.

My problem with punk is not simplicity--you can do artistic and original things with simple formats, as in the best of pop. And yes, you're right that post-punk did take its spirit and drive from punk, but that has no bearing on the actual quality of punk music. Maybe I was wrong to say that Never Mind the Bollocks had a negative effect on music, but that does not change its content: slick, safe hard rock based on fat, glossy power chords, with by modern standards little energy or intensity, with artless, machoistic, and politcally unintelligent lyrics.

hey, to each his own man, i see what you are saying, i do, i just don't agree. differing tastes i suppose :]

Thats what I love about that album

http://www.4poofsandapiano.com/images/4PsJR.jpg

These guys are pretty overrated..

Judging punk entirely on The Sex Pistols is like judging prog entirely on ELP.

Which unfortunately a lot of people do in both cases.

And I wouldn't really call a song like God Save the Queen safe, at least in it's lyrical content.

Though I think in itself, Sex Pistols weren't really safe, because to be safe you have to be at least competent musicians, and The Sex Pistols were so freaking awful that there was indeed something fresh and defiant about their music.

I don't know how you could possibly say The Sex Pistols weren't energetic and intense. Talented? No, but they were very energetic.

Just because their guitarist didn't give shred solos and make stupid "emotional" faces doesn't mean they lacked energy, if anything, energy was the one thing they had going for them.

Dude, have you read some of Peter Sinfield and Greg Lake's lyrics lately? :laughing:

I don't really know where you get the machoism in punk thing from.

I see a lot more women involved in punk than with prog. Hell, Rush were notoriously sexist, I say that even as a fan.

Since you hate punk and love prog, you'll probably get a kick out of these, or lose your shit and send your fist through the monitor. One or the other.

Death to the Beatles.
History Of Punk - Genesis, ELP & Yes
The History Of Punk - Tommy, Jethro Tull, Rick Wakeman & King Crimson

I remember reading these a few years and they sent me into a fanboy rage, saying stuff like "Punk fans with their short attention spans and utter disgust for talent wouldn't know music if it bit them in the ass". But now I just laugh at the stupidity of such elitists, and you should too.

I love prog AND punk, and I'm really tired of people who still think there's some kind of war going on. Can't we all just get along?