When exactly did punk die?

[TheT Organization]

I'll say when the Vans Warped Tour started.

[Clem]

The Warped Tour started in '94 or '95. I don't think anyone could say that punk was extremely healthy from the start. A genre that is equally dependent on a uniform as much as it is the music is going to face some difficulties. The Warped Tour didn't kill punk. Punk killed punk.

[flapjacks]

It only genuinely challenged establishment values for a VERY short period of time. Even the "best punk album of all-time", the Clash's London Calling, is basically post the height of punk (and the genre-bending shows that). I'm not saying the Sex Pistols were the greatest punk band ever or that everything relies upon them, but you can basically say that by the time of their film and soundtrack ("The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle"), and their American tour, the genuine purpose of punk was over. And I'm not saying John Lydon is a genius, but if you listen to early interviews with him in PiL then you can sense from him how the experiment has gone wrong and there's no purpose to being "punk" anymore.--You can sense this in what he says about the audience not "getting" what has happened, AND in his not "getting" it that PiL isn't going to succeed either. (The interviews with Tom Snyder are HILARIOUS, by the way.)

If you want an exact instant, then I say it's at the end of the Sex Pistols' American Tour with John Lydon bored on stage singing "No Fun" to a totally apathetic audience--because the ironies are too great, and the purpose of them being there doing that is pointless.

I'm not saying that all "punk" after 1978 or whatever is "not punk", but the genre's cultural importance--anything touching on actually changing social values or challenging ANYTHING in a genuinely threatening way--died long, long ago. From my point of view, I could care less about whether something's "true punk" or not: if it's good music I'll listen.

[Cool The Kid]

It only genuinely challenged establishment values for a VERY short period of time. Even the "best punk album of all-time", the Clash's London Calling, is basically post the height of punk (and the genre-bending shows that). I'm not saying the Sex Pistols were the greatest punk band ever or that everything relies upon them, but you can basically say that by the time of their film and soundtrack ("The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle"), and their American tour, the genuine purpose of punk was over. And I'm not saying John Lydon is a genius, but if you listen to early interviews with him in PiL then you can sense from him how the experiment has gone wrong and there's no purpose to being "punk" anymore.--You can sense this in what he says about the audience not "getting" what has happened, AND in his not "getting" it that PiL isn't going to succeed either. (The interviews with Tom Snyder are HILARIOUS, by the way.)

If you want an exact instant, then I say it's at the end of the Sex Pistols' American Tour with John Lydon bored on stage singing "No Fun" to a totally apathetic audience--because the ironies are too great, and the purpose of them being there doing that is pointless.

I'm not saying that all "punk" after 1978 or whatever is "not punk", but the genre's cultural importance--anything touching on actually changing social values or challenging ANYTHING in a genuinely threatening way--died long, long ago. From my point of view, I could care less about whether something's "true punk" or not: if it's good music I'll listen.

I don't know anything about punk, but I do know I fukks with nearly anything punk related AFTER the Sex Pistols. I know they're like, punk personified, but I hate their music. Songs like "Havana Affair", "Rock The Casbah" and "Spanish Songs in Andalucia" prove you can have somewhat politically conscious music without making people suffer through it. It's kind of like Tupac vs. Talib Kweli (outside of the who came first thing)...

*continues lurking*

[Bone Daddy]

It only genuinely challenged establishment values for a VERY short period of time. Even the "best punk album of all-time", the Clash's London Calling, is basically post the height of punk (and the genre-bending shows that). I'm not saying the Sex Pistols were the greatest punk band ever or that everything relies upon them, but you can basically say that by the time of their film and soundtrack ("The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle"), and their American tour, the genuine purpose of punk was over. And I'm not saying John Lydon is a genius, but if you listen to early interviews with him in PiL then you can sense from him how the experiment has gone wrong and there's no purpose to being "punk" anymore.--You can sense this in what he says about the audience not "getting" what has happened, AND in his not "getting" it that PiL isn't going to succeed either. (The interviews with Tom Snyder are HILARIOUS, by the way.)

If you want an exact instant, then I say it's at the end of the Sex Pistols' American Tour with John Lydon bored on stage singing "No Fun" to a totally apathetic audience--because the ironies are too great, and the purpose of them being there doing that is pointless.

I'm not saying that all "punk" after 1978 or whatever is "not punk", but the genre's cultural importance--anything touching on actually changing social values or challenging ANYTHING in a genuinely threatening way--died long, long ago. From my point of view, I could care less about whether something's "true punk" or not: if it's good music I'll listen.
Sex Pistols and punk have nothing to do with each other. They were a created band for the purposes of fashion, nothing more nothing less.

[Apey]

Sex Pistols and punk have nothing to do with each other. They were a created band for the purposes of fashion, nothing more nothing less.

You could argue thats what made them the archetypal punk band...

A ton of great bands formed because they saw and/or were influenced by the example of The Sex Pistols (Joy Division, Buzzcocks, The Clash), so they can't be written off that easily.

And I agree with Flapjacks that "punk" was only interesting/relevent/challenging for a very small period of time, but the music it influenced (post-punk) is some of the best rock music ever made and is still relevent to this day...'punk' become a joke very quickly, but it was a nessercary step in the evolution of rock music.

[TheT Organization]

Sex Pistols and punk have nothing to do with each other. They were a created band for the purposes of fashion, nothing more nothing less.



Thank Malcolm McLaren for that.

[Bone Daddy]

You could argue thats what made them the archetypal punk band...
A ton of great bands formed because they saw and/or were influenced by the example of The Sex Pistols (Joy Division, Buzzcocks, The Clash), so they can't be written off that easily.
And I agree with Flapjacks that "punk" was only interesting/relevent/challenging for a very small period of time, but the music it influenced (post-punk) is some of the best rock music ever made and is still relevent to this day...'punk' become a joke very quickly, but it was a nessercary step in the evolution of rock music.
You could only make the argument honest if you say that Sex Pistols were the embodiment of punk fashion anything beyond that you're in hazy territory.Thank Malcolm McLaren for that.
And Vivienne Westwood since it was her shop and her clothes that made the Sex Pistols. They even bit the name of her store(Sex) for their name. It's funny to me that John Lydon is so outspoken about "real" punk when he couldn't have been less punk initially.

[Clem]

A ton of great bands formed because they saw and/or were influenced by the example of The Sex Pistols (Joy Division, Buzzcocks, The Clash), so they can't be written off that easily.
All it means is that those bands liked shiitty music. I don't think the Sex Pistols should get credit for anything.

[TheT Organization]

You could only make the argument honest if you say that Sex Pistols were the embodiment of punk fashion anything beyond that you're in hazy territory.
And Vivienne Westwood since it was her shop and her clothes that made the Sex Pistols. They even bit the name of her store(Sex) for their name. It's funny to me that John Lydon is so outspoken about "real" punk when he couldn't have been less punk initially.



The dude wasn't punk at all. But hell, neither were the Sex Pistols. It was all about image and packaging...nothing more, nothing less. Not to mention being at the right place at the right time.

All it means is that those bands liked shiitty music. I don't think the Sex Pistols should get credit for anything.


The Pistols had no talent whatsoever. Johnny Rotten just didn't care, Sid Vicious was a junked-out loser that couldn't even play the base that killed his own girlfriend, but when it comes down to it...who do kids idolize out of all of punk rock? Sid...Maybe Henry Rollins, Greg Ginn, or Glen Danzig come close to that.


I'll give them credit for being cool and having a couple of songs that I like (like the Ramones)...but that's about it. There ten times more better bands anyway.

[TheT Organization]

It only genuinely challenged establishment values for a VERY short period of time. Even the "best punk album of all-time", the Clash's London Calling, is basically post the height of punk (and the genre-bending shows that). I'm not saying the Sex Pistols were the greatest punk band ever or that everything relies upon them, but you can basically say that by the time of their film and soundtrack ("The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle"), and their American tour, the genuine purpose of punk was over. And I'm not saying John Lydon is a genius, but if you listen to early interviews with him in PiL then you can sense from him how the experiment has gone wrong and there's no purpose to being "punk" anymore.--You can sense this in what he says about the audience not "getting" what has happened, AND in his not "getting" it that PiL isn't going to succeed either. (The interviews with Tom Snyder are HILARIOUS, by the way.)

If you want an exact instant, then I say it's at the end of the Sex Pistols' American Tour with John Lydon bored on stage singing "No Fun" to a totally apathetic audience--because the ironies are too great, and the purpose of them being there doing that is pointless.

I'm not saying that all "punk" after 1978 or whatever is "not punk", but the genre's cultural importance--anything touching on actually changing social values or challenging ANYTHING in a genuinely threatening way--died long, long ago. From my point of view, I could care less about whether something's "true punk" or not: if it's good music I'll listen.


First of all...this is a quality point.




Punk and hip-hop are interesting in the fact that they became exhausted by the corporations of the world. The only difference is punk died years before hip-hop did.


First of all, the DIY aesthetic behind it died very fast. Cats would organize shows on their own time, travel around the country doing shows, and basically didn't give a fuk. Concert promoters fukked the majority of them around...not to mention the internet.


Second, and most importantly, punk stoppped being punk.


Punk was all about "fukk society", anarchy, and fukking shiit up. That scared people back in the day and they never took punk seriously in the late seventies/early eighties and many people regarded it as absolute trash. It was only really when New Wave got popular in the early eighties that punk started getting popular in the states. The Ramones and the Dictators were around before them, but punk just started to explode then. New Wave got popular, and punk was starting to become a parody of itself with Chipmunk punk and crap singles. Looking back though, it's wasn't as bad then as it was now.


The shiit was underground still for a while....but lets go to the nineties when punk gets bigger.


Atleast you had labels like Revelation, SST, Dischord, Epitaph, and Fat doing there things back then and it was atleast still cool. The bands were great and had actual talent and drive, but the image of what was punk stated to get sold back to the people that were rebellling aganst the system to begin with.


Then Blink 182 becomes popular...My Chemical Romance, Warped Tour, Pac Sun, Hot Topic, and other atrocities capitalized off of selling the image of punk.


Anybody can be punk now...all they have to have is $30 bucks and they can buy a Dead Kennedys t-shirt from Hot Topic without even touching any of their albums. And thus...the premise behind being punk is meaningless.

[Clem]

The dude wasn't punk at all. But hell, neither were the Sex Pistols. It was all about image and packaging...nothing more, nothing less. Not to mention being at the right place at the right time.




The Pistols had no talent whatsoever. Johnny Rotten just didn't care, Sid Vicious was a junked-out loser that couldn't even play the base that killed his own girlfriend, but when it comes down to it...who do kids idolize out of all of punk rock? Sid...Maybe Henry Rollins, Greg Ginn, or Glen Danzig come close to that.


I'll give them credit for being cool and having a couple of songs that I like (like the Ramones)...but that's about it. There ten times more better bands anyway.
The idea of anyone idolizing Henry Rollins is both funny and sad. I don't think most folks know who he is outside of his ****ty talk-show's and segments on VH1. Rollins isn't an icon like Ozzy, Sid, Danzig, Iggy, etc.

[Apey]

All it means is that those bands liked shiitty music. I don't think the Sex Pistols should get credit for anything.

Not really the point IMO...

Just one example (I could give many more) - seeing the Pistols was what inspired Shelley and Devoto to form the Buzzcocks. The Buzzcocks were the first band to to establish their own independent record label (to put out Spiral Scratch.) This example was what inspired kids all across the UK to form their own labels. This is how bands like The Fall, Gang of Four, etc. etc. were first able to get their first records released.

These things don't happen in a vaccum. Whether the Sex Pistols were any good or not is beyond the point...they played an important role in the evolution of the music.

Of course, if it wasn't them, it would have been someone else probably...but it was them.

[Bone Daddy]

Not really the point IMO...

Just one example (I could give many more) - seeing the Pistols was what inspired Shelley and Devoto to form the Buzzcocks. The Buzzcocks were the first band to to establish their own independent record label (to put out Spiral Scratch.) This example was what inspired kids all across the UK to form their own labels. This is how bands like The Fall, Gang of Four, etc. etc. were first able to get their first records released.

These things don't happen in a vaccum. Whether the Sex Pistols were any good or not is beyond the point...they played an important role in the evolution of the music.

Of course, if it wasn't them, it would have been someone else probably...but it was them.They played an important role for sure, but to act that it was a beneficial role to the culture is wrong. Merely popularising a look dod nothing for punk other than increases it's profile which is here nor there.

[Zayus]

It only genuinely challenged establishment values for a VERY short period of time. Even the "best punk album of all-time", the Clash's London Calling, is basically post the height of punk (and the genre-bending shows that). I'm not saying the Sex Pistols were the greatest punk band ever or that everything relies upon them, but you can basically say that by the time of their film and soundtrack ("The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle"), and their American tour, the genuine purpose of punk was over. And I'm not saying John Lydon is a genius, but if you listen to early interviews with him in PiL then you can sense from him how the experiment has gone wrong and there's no purpose to being "punk" anymore.--You can sense this in what he says about the audience not "getting" what has happened, AND in his not "getting" it that PiL isn't going to succeed either. (The interviews with Tom Snyder are HILARIOUS, by the way.)

If you want an exact instant, then I say it's at the end of the Sex Pistols' American Tour with John Lydon bored on stage singing "No Fun" to a totally apathetic audience--because the ironies are too great, and the purpose of them being there doing that is pointless.

I'm not saying that all "punk" after 1978 or whatever is "not punk", but the genre's cultural importance--anything touching on actually changing social values or challenging ANYTHING in a genuinely threatening way--died long, long ago. From my point of view, I could care less about whether something's "true punk" or not: if it's good music I'll listen.

I think the only band you can really make an argument for being punk after that period is Bad Brains. And they were half reggae anyway.

[Clem]

Not really the point IMO...
I don't know.. how much credit for the music they should get after them since everyone was more talented.

I guess at some point Jesus should get credit for Gang of Four also.

[Apey]

I don't know.. how much credit for the music they should get after them since everyone was more talented.
I guess at some point Jesus should get credit for Gang of Four also.
True, true. I'm not even a Pistols fan...just think the whole arguement of "they were just a fashion band" doesn't tell the whole story either.
I fukk with PIL though - Metal Box is a great album...