"As for "garage" I always thought of it as "basic" music played loud and fast with minimal chord changes."
Sounds like you're describing punk music to me. Most garage music was mid tempo. Garage is a very loose term describing amateur musicians of the mid 60's trying to play the best they could play, most of it was so bad it was great. How about The Barbarians? they were another Boston garage band, "Are you a Boy or are you a Girl" "Moulty"
The Remains had three hits in New England. Diddy Way Diddy was the biggest one. Same tune as Captain Beefheart except it was really fast and rocking as opposed to Beefhearts slow bluesy version, most of Barry and The Remains stuff was really fast.
The Troggs were another great garage band and they were British. Their greatest hits is a great CD.
Reviving Creedence Clearwater
Punk is like pornography, I may not always be able to define it, but I know it when I see it (or hear it). Garage is, in my mind, less rebellious and less political. Punk is The Clash (first last and always). On a slightly different note, I've never known for sure what New Wave was. At one point, it was supposed to have included Elvis Costello, Tom Petty, Blondie, The Cars and (my personal favorite) The Shirts, a great band out of New York. God bless Annie Golden wherever her beautiful voice is nowadays!
Garage was a bunch of kids having fun. Punk was The Real Kids the first time I saw them in 1977, I opened for them and had never even heard the term and didn't for a while after that night. We went in with our amps to the ceiling and silk glam krap on and bored the hell out of everyone in the club which was called The Rat and not because it's proper name was The Rathskeller. They came out after us with little amps and two KLH hifi speakers for a PA and sounded terrible but completely blew us out of the water (Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you Mr Jones) I had the strange feeling that I was very old that night. I was 24. I realized that it was the antithisis to everything I had tried to play for the preceding 5 years, it was rock n roll back to it's basics with an attitude, anyone could play this stuff, but not really it had to be real. I always thought of new wave as sanitized punk made for the masses, commercial punk if you will. I never really got into either style but respected punk a hell of a lot more than new wave which I thought was more superficial than anything else. Punk was a political statement and new wave was a hairstyle. I liked The Ramones, the Sex Pistols, The Clash and many of the other British punk bands I came to hear in the next few years, Buzzcocks comes to mind but there were many more. I always liked Elvis Costello and thought he was too good to be tagged new wave. The Cars were from my homestate but always bored the hell out of me, I remember them when they were a local band.
I have a confession to make (and let the flaming begin). I have NEVER understood the appeal of the Sex Pistols. To me they were, to use a Western phrase, all hat and no cattle. The Clash and The Ramones had attitude AND ability, the Sex Pistols had outrageous behavior and a marketing genius behind them.
You are band on - The Pistols were about calculated outrageous behaviour, and Malcolm McLaren marketing them...but so what?
Most rock and roll has been a combination of these two things; the early Stones, for example. (Even the sainted Beatles - and especially Elvis). The talent often takes a while to emerge; the Pistols did not possess that talent, but they made one great rock and roll album - one more than Foreigner, Styx, Journey, Whitesnake, blah blah blah.
Most rock and roll is, to a large extend, "institutionalized rebellion", but it's still got a good beat and you can dance to it.
Heavy Metal really fits the above general definition. Bored, suburban (mostly white) guys who have to follow "the rules" at school or at work or at home, get to let loose at the Ozzy or Maiden show. Society rolls on, as this energy is usually channeled into these concerts, etc. - no threat to the status quo, not that these fans would ever endeavour to change anything socially.
Punk began the same way (Anarchy in the U.K. is about PERSONAL anarchy - give the wrong time, stop a traffic line - silly, juvenile stuff, Billy Liar-stuff, early John Lennon even).
Bands like the Clash and the Ruts (and many more, say Tom Robinson, who was not punk, so to speak) injected social politics into the mix, and usually came up with potent music.
Society doesn't (usually) change overnight, and not because some rock star says it should, but Bono (and Michael Stipe and Bob Geldolf) are all the children of the British punk movement and their efforts, while overall a drop-in-the-bucket, at least has probably moved some kid somewhere to think about things outside of just television and themselves. (The reason why the Clash titled their 1980 album "Sandinista").
And it's got a good beat and you can dance to it.
"If the kids were united"
Most rock and roll has been a combination of these two things; the early Stones, for example. (Even the sainted Beatles - and especially Elvis). The talent often takes a while to emerge; the Pistols did not possess that talent, but they made one great rock and roll album - one more than Foreigner, Styx, Journey, Whitesnake, blah blah blah.
Most rock and roll is, to a large extend, "institutionalized rebellion", but it's still got a good beat and you can dance to it.
Heavy Metal really fits the above general definition. Bored, suburban (mostly white) guys who have to follow "the rules" at school or at work or at home, get to let loose at the Ozzy or Maiden show. Society rolls on, as this energy is usually channeled into these concerts, etc. - no threat to the status quo, not that these fans would ever endeavour to change anything socially.
Punk began the same way (Anarchy in the U.K. is about PERSONAL anarchy - give the wrong time, stop a traffic line - silly, juvenile stuff, Billy Liar-stuff, early John Lennon even).
Bands like the Clash and the Ruts (and many more, say Tom Robinson, who was not punk, so to speak) injected social politics into the mix, and usually came up with potent music.
Society doesn't (usually) change overnight, and not because some rock star says it should, but Bono (and Michael Stipe and Bob Geldolf) are all the children of the British punk movement and their efforts, while overall a drop-in-the-bucket, at least has probably moved some kid somewhere to think about things outside of just television and themselves. (The reason why the Clash titled their 1980 album "Sandinista").
And it's got a good beat and you can dance to it.
"If the kids were united"
How much!?!
As my Man says (goodness knows where he stole it), 'punk is not a sort of music, it's a lifestyle. It's a good way for shy and vulnerable boys&girls to overcome their chips-on-the-shoulder.' Anyway, i love it cuz it's true (of course i don't mean modern 'bubblegum' bands). And no matter how 'heretic' it may sound, i think CCR had a bit of 'punk' to them, too. Ah well... they DID have one-chord songs, didn't they? And take 'Porterville', for instance... doesn't it sound like a typical bubblegummy punk anthem ("I don't care! I don't care!" humm...)?
Nothing will get you dead quicker than being deadly serious about yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I would never describe The Troggs as a Garage band but that term is more of a US phrase, though if one is to use Bob's defintion of Basic music played loud and fast then suppose they qualify."
Roy, that was not my definition that was Harleys, I just quoted him. Mine was: kids playing in cellars, garages etc. having fun. Garage music is primitive music played by kids that usually had more energy than talent. During the mid 60's every American neighborhood had it's own band and many of them rehearsed in garages and a few also had a hit or two. The term originated with the Nuggets collection I believe.
Punk was a style of living in which the kids rejected just about everything and just kind of self destructed with drugs, and their music reflected that attitude, that's why you don't see many old punks left, they're all dead.
For me the epitome of the punk style of music even though it preceded the movement by several years were The Stooges, especially the Raw Power album, that things just rips your CD player apart or turntable or whatever you play it on. I have never heard such pure primal energy captured on a record before or since. I am not a punk expert but I will paraphrase someone before me in this thread "I know it when I hear it" Most punk music had a lot of anger in it, it was not pretty soothing music by any means and was not very commercial, the best ones hardly sold at all, it took thirty years for "Raw Power" to be recognized for what it was. The ones that sold toned it down like The Clash did. The Stooges sold virtually nothing for LP's in their day. I saw them back in 1969, most of the audience hated them and thought they couldn't play and just pretty much ignored them, this was right after their first album had been released and Iggy hadn't gotten angry enough to bait the audience too much yet. The Ramones really never made much money either.
I think some bands like The Clash injected politics into their music, but I don't think politics was at the root of punk music, or if it was it was rejection of it at least here in the States. I was never a huge Clash fan but there was one thing I always respected them for though and that was taking less royalties from their albums to keep their price down.
"I would never describe The Troggs as a Garage band but that term is more of a US phrase, though if one is to use Bob's defintion of Basic music played loud and fast then suppose they qualify."
Roy, that was not my definition that was Harleys, I just quoted him. Mine was: kids playing in cellars, garages etc. having fun. Garage music is primitive music played by kids that usually had more energy than talent. During the mid 60's every American neighborhood had it's own band and many of them rehearsed in garages and a few also had a hit or two. The term originated with the Nuggets collection I believe.
Punk was a style of living in which the kids rejected just about everything and just kind of self destructed with drugs, and their music reflected that attitude, that's why you don't see many old punks left, they're all dead.
For me the epitome of the punk style of music even though it preceded the movement by several years were The Stooges, especially the Raw Power album, that things just rips your CD player apart or turntable or whatever you play it on. I have never heard such pure primal energy captured on a record before or since. I am not a punk expert but I will paraphrase someone before me in this thread "I know it when I hear it" Most punk music had a lot of anger in it, it was not pretty soothing music by any means and was not very commercial, the best ones hardly sold at all, it took thirty years for "Raw Power" to be recognized for what it was. The ones that sold toned it down like The Clash did. The Stooges sold virtually nothing for LP's in their day. I saw them back in 1969, most of the audience hated them and thought they couldn't play and just pretty much ignored them, this was right after their first album had been released and Iggy hadn't gotten angry enough to bait the audience too much yet. The Ramones really never made much money either.
I think some bands like The Clash injected politics into their music, but I don't think politics was at the root of punk music, or if it was it was rejection of it at least here in the States. I was never a huge Clash fan but there was one thing I always respected them for though and that was taking less royalties from their albums to keep their price down.
Agreed, but like anything, punk music evolved, just like 50's rock and roll or the Beatles or counry-rock or Prince.
Much of today's "mall punk music" takes the image of, say, Sid Vicious, and has calcified it. The look, the attitude and, in some cases, the limited musical ability (cause Sid Vicious was useless...the Pistols should have kept Glen Matlock in the band).
Kind of like any band that tries so very hard to ape an specific style of an earlier band, without realizing that growing past these self-inflicted restrictions is part of the magic, part of the journey.
Thus punk, as originally defined in the British mid-70's model, as properly evolved into L.A. early-80's hardcore, D.C. hardcore, speed metal hybrids, "grunge", Guns 'n Roses, Teenage Fanclub, Sum 41, Rancid. etc...
Labels for music is an effective way to get a grasp on all the myriad of styles out there, but once you put your toe in the water, it's best to throw out labels and let music (from all sources) flow freely - some you'll like and some you won't...regardless of labels.
(Beatles, Clash, X, Matthew Sweet, Gram Parsons, Klaatu, Gordon Lightfoot, Kate Bush, Judas Priest, Beach Boys, Undertones, Jayhawks, Dead Kennedys, Kraftwerk, E.L.O., P.F. Sloan, Ramones, Neil Young, Sloan, Luna, Neko Case, Bad Brains, ...and the beat goes on...)
Much of today's "mall punk music" takes the image of, say, Sid Vicious, and has calcified it. The look, the attitude and, in some cases, the limited musical ability (cause Sid Vicious was useless...the Pistols should have kept Glen Matlock in the band).
Kind of like any band that tries so very hard to ape an specific style of an earlier band, without realizing that growing past these self-inflicted restrictions is part of the magic, part of the journey.
Thus punk, as originally defined in the British mid-70's model, as properly evolved into L.A. early-80's hardcore, D.C. hardcore, speed metal hybrids, "grunge", Guns 'n Roses, Teenage Fanclub, Sum 41, Rancid. etc...
Labels for music is an effective way to get a grasp on all the myriad of styles out there, but once you put your toe in the water, it's best to throw out labels and let music (from all sources) flow freely - some you'll like and some you won't...regardless of labels.
(Beatles, Clash, X, Matthew Sweet, Gram Parsons, Klaatu, Gordon Lightfoot, Kate Bush, Judas Priest, Beach Boys, Undertones, Jayhawks, Dead Kennedys, Kraftwerk, E.L.O., P.F. Sloan, Ramones, Neil Young, Sloan, Luna, Neko Case, Bad Brains, ...and the beat goes on...)
How much!?!
Sheena, I agree with you completely. I think CCR, or more accurately John Fogerty, had a lot of the "punk" attitude. "Suzie Q" is a good example in one respect. They had to know it was way too long to be commercial and it was going to get criticised and/or chopped up by radio stations but that's the way they wanted to do it and so that's the way they did it. "Fortunate Son" is a song that easily could have been covered by The Clash and would have fit right in with the other cover songs they were doing, like "I Fought The Law".
I also agree that labels are for soup cans (NOT an original thought but I don't know who to attribute it to). I listen to all kinds of music and I can usually find something to like in every genre. Some styles take longer than others but that's as much because of what I bring to the process, in terms of background and interests, as it is what the composer/performer contributes.
Finally, John Lennon was as Punk as they come! My story and I'm sticking to it.
I also agree that labels are for soup cans (NOT an original thought but I don't know who to attribute it to). I listen to all kinds of music and I can usually find something to like in every genre. Some styles take longer than others but that's as much because of what I bring to the process, in terms of background and interests, as it is what the composer/performer contributes.
Finally, John Lennon was as Punk as they come! My story and I'm sticking to it.
Just as Rocket 88 is generally accepted as being the first rock n roll record by most experts, The Stooges are also generally accepted as being the first punk band by most experts. Let's not forget punk is a style of music first and foremost and is not 60's music at all and doesn't really even belong in this part of the forum. Lennon had a rebellious attitude yes, but punk music? no.
CCR were about as much of a punk band as Lawrence Welk was a surf band. They were a commercial pop band. You need labels for music otherwise verbal cummunication would be complete chaos.
CCR were about as much of a punk band as Lawrence Welk was a surf band. They were a commercial pop band. You need labels for music otherwise verbal cummunication would be complete chaos.
With all due respect, 'cause I am very much enjoying this thread, punk (at least the 1976 British stuff) was not about music first and foremost. It was about attitude, which is why bands such as the Pistols and the Clash and the Buzzcocks and the Jam and older bands like the Stranglers and the Vibrators could all fit under that label.
Johnny Lydon has remarked a number of times about how punk was NOT supposed to have a uniform (ripped clothes or a certain type of haircut) nor a uniformity in the music.
It became codified very quickly, but of course, but it wasn't supposed to. Punk was (is) an attitude - the music followed, which is why PIL and Gang of Four and the Slits were all sired by British punk, though they don't sound like the Pistols.
No, CCR were not a captain P Punk band, but some of the attitudes were parallel. The point made about the Clash and Fortunate Son is a good one! It would have fit like a glove.
Lennon did not play punk music as it's narrowly defined now, but the early years, and the cheap equipment and the leather and the lack-of-manners on-stage and the swearing and the alcohol and the rock-and-roll swagger...yeah, that's punk.
Or, more to the point, that's rock and roll.
Which is all punk was, even if it had the conceit that it was different. Which is why the London Calling album is a great rock-and-roll and punk album.
The Clash came to embrace all the Americana that had fueled the music they grew up with (Strummer was a HUGE Beach Boys fan in the late 60's - Jones, while a big Mott The Hoople fan, also liked the big guitar rock bands).
The London Calling album brilliantly (yes, I use the word correctly here) positioned punk as the latest in the long line of noble REBEL ROCK AND ROLL MUSIC.
To which John Lennon was an honoured member.
Johnny Lydon has remarked a number of times about how punk was NOT supposed to have a uniform (ripped clothes or a certain type of haircut) nor a uniformity in the music.
It became codified very quickly, but of course, but it wasn't supposed to. Punk was (is) an attitude - the music followed, which is why PIL and Gang of Four and the Slits were all sired by British punk, though they don't sound like the Pistols.
No, CCR were not a captain P Punk band, but some of the attitudes were parallel. The point made about the Clash and Fortunate Son is a good one! It would have fit like a glove.
Lennon did not play punk music as it's narrowly defined now, but the early years, and the cheap equipment and the leather and the lack-of-manners on-stage and the swearing and the alcohol and the rock-and-roll swagger...yeah, that's punk.
Or, more to the point, that's rock and roll.
Which is all punk was, even if it had the conceit that it was different. Which is why the London Calling album is a great rock-and-roll and punk album.
The Clash came to embrace all the Americana that had fueled the music they grew up with (Strummer was a HUGE Beach Boys fan in the late 60's - Jones, while a big Mott The Hoople fan, also liked the big guitar rock bands).
The London Calling album brilliantly (yes, I use the word correctly here) positioned punk as the latest in the long line of noble REBEL ROCK AND ROLL MUSIC.
To which John Lennon was an honoured member.
How much!?!
