Is "My Generation" the first punk-rock song?

[Ilash]

Buried Alien's thread about Helter Skelter being possibly a proto-punk song got me thinking about a song that is generally more regarded as such. Taking that even further would you say that the Who's My Generation (the studio original, not the live versions) is the first actual punk-rock song. After all, it does have many of the atributes that punk-rock would have: Few chords (I'm not well versed in musical theory so I have no idea how many but it is clear that My Generation is not exactly a complex song), a defiant angry attitude, a fast tempo and highly electrified guitar and bass sound over powerful, wild drumming. Of course The Who were better musicians than any punk-rocker, even at this point but otherwise how different is it from what would come later.

[Spike-X]

Sure, why not?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Yeah, I'd say one could make a good argument that "My Generation" was punk before we really knew punk existed. It was certainly a great influence on the punk movement.

[Buried Alien]

What's ironic is that the Who were among those veteran rock acts that the Sex Pistols, etc., were supposedly rebelling against.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[JeffreyWKramer]

What's ironic is that the Who were among those veteran rock acts that the Sex Pistols, etc., were supposedly rebelling against.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)


I'm not sure the Pistols would have identified the Who as the sort of band they were rebelling against, but if they did, they would have been objecting to the later-period version of the band - the arena-rock giant - not the version that played songs like "My Generation" in tiny clubs.

[Ilash]

To the best of my knowledge, the Who were one of the few classic rock acts that the punks still respected. Pete Townshend, for example, jammed with the Clash at a concert while the Jam based their whole approach on the Who. During the punk invasion, Pete was probably more weary of the Who at the point than the punks were.

[Lubichev]

I think The Who's smashing of their instruments had a big influence on Punk. Conciously or unconciously.

[Adam Crocker]

Few chords (I'm not well versed in musical theory so I have no idea how many but it is clear that My Generation is not exactly a complex song)

Punk tends to stick to three, keeping the chord progressions and structure of the song as simple as possible.

To the best of my knowledge, the Who were one of the few classic rock acts that the punks still respected. Pete Townshend, for example, jammed with the Clash at a concert while the Jam based their whole approach on the Who. During the punk invasion, Pete was probably more weary of the Who at the point than the punks were.

No not really. The Who were regarded by Britain's punks as every bit a part of the arena rock aristocracy as Led Zeppelin, even if many of them were influenced by their sixites incarnation. (Including the Pistols who rehearsed the Who's "Substitute" alongside Small Faces and garage rock songs in their early rehearsals. In fact "Substitute" is a common part of their live sets.)

And while the facts you have on the Clash and the Who are correct, the Clash's encounter with Townshend was in 1980, long after they had stopped being a punk band and scrapped punk orthodoxy. And while the Jam did base themselves on the Who it was pretty much exclusively on sxities Who. Paul Weller's values were largely tied to the British invasion and he stated he only plays the early stuff in a joint interview with Townshend in 1980. Plus I have a hard time seeing him liking arena-rock Who in any case. Paul Weller's always been very picky in his musical tastes and while he cites Ray Davies as a big influence he seems to be mostly into the Kinks' sixties stuff as well. He did however say that Townshend was one of the few old guard rockstars he respected, simply because Townshend was still honest.

[leonaozaki]

They seem tame now, but the Who were certainly scary in 1964 in a way the Beatles never were: "Hope I die before I get old!"

Also, the opening riff from "Clash City Rockers" is almost identical to the opening riff from "I Can't Explain."

And what about the Kinks? As long as we're trying to locate punk's roots in the early 60's, we can't ignore "You Really Got Me" and "All of the Day and All of the Night."

For that matter, there's the Stones. Think about it: in 1963, they released the single "I Wanna Be Your Lover" with "Stoned" on the flipside. In 1963! I think that did a lot to open the door in the next couple of years to the Who and the Kinks.

Oh, and the Who were big old lumbering dinosaurs in 1976.

rob

[Adam Crocker]

And what about the Kinks? As long as we're trying to locate punk's roots in the early 60's, we can't ignore "You Really Got Me" and "All of the Day and All of the Night."

More to the point "1977" directly ripped off "All of the Day and All of the Night." Go ahead, just listen to the two.

[leonaozaki]

More to the point "1977" directly ripped off "All of the Day and All of the Night." Go ahead, just listen to the two.

1977 is on SUPER BLACK MARKET CLASH, right? I'm just wondering because it's been a while since I listened to that CD.

rob

[Kevin]

More to the point "1977" directly ripped off "All of the Day and All of the Night." Go ahead, just listen to the two.

I feel dumb for never realizing that.

I'm also a bit surprised nobody's brought up the fact that the bonus track on the CD release of Patti Smith's Horses is a live version of My Generation.

[Adam Crocker]

1977 is on SUPER BLACK MARKET CLASH, right? I'm just wondering because it's been a while since I listened to that CD.

Yeah.

God I hate SUPER BLACK MARKET CLASH. They add on a few missing early Clash songs and then strike off 'Capital Radio One,' 'Bankrobber,' and 'Armagiddeon Time' and load it up with dance remixes that Mick Jones did in the 1980s. And one of those songs 'Jail Guitar Doors' already appears on the U.S. edition of the Clash's first album. Had they just added '1977,' 'Gates of the West,' and 'Groovy Times' it would have beefed up an already great and cohesive rarities collection.

[Adam Crocker]

I feel dumb for never realizing that.

Hey I didn't notice until I had it pointed out to me.

[leonaozaki]

Yeah.

God I hate SUPER BLACK MARKET CLASH. They add on a few missing early Clash songs and then strike off 'Capital Radio One,' 'Bankrobber,' and 'Armagiddeon Time' and load it up with dance remixes that Mick Jones did in the 1980s. And one of those songs 'Jail Guitar Doors' already appears on the U.S. edition of the Clash's first album. Had they just added '1977,' 'Gates of the West,' and 'Groovy Times' it would have beefed up an already great and cohesive rarities collection.

I feel your pain. There are some great songs on it-- I absolutely love "Gates of the West"-- but the second half just draaaaaags. I do kind of like "Robber Dub" though. So is there any way to get those songs? Is BLACK MARKET CLASH available?

rob

[Adam Crocker]

As for the topic itself: "My Generation," first punk song? Possibly I guess, though it depends on my mood at the time. What was the first punk rock record seems to be turning into a perennial debate the way "what was the first rock'n'roll record"? The term punk was originally coined to describe sixties garage rock and you could argue that it had an even better claim on being "punk" because it was it was even harder and simpler sounding than "My Generation." Lester Bangs, who spent a good part of his career chronicling the roots of metal and punk, once said that around the time the Ramones were getting started he thought that punk was this music that started with garage rock and ended when the Dictators' first album flopped. The Dictators, punk. Yet they sounded like a 70s hard rock band taking a piss. And the Clash loved them. (So did Joey Ramone from what I heard.)

Then of course we get into the proto punk bands and early punk bands. Usually it's a debate between the Ramones and the Stooges, who created the punk template? Often it seems to come down to tempo, because the Ramones' speed was more punk than the Stooges, though the Stooges did lay down the primitive sonic assault that punk drew from. Some even debate among Stooges albums: what's more punk? "I Wanna Be Your Dog" or "Search and Destroy."

[Ilash]

Oh, and the Who were big old lumbering dinosaurs in 1976.

rob

Yeah, like that's gonna get by me.

Care to explain why this is so? The Who always remained authentic throughout their career and though they did change their style, that just means that they were willing to progress beyond what they started off with, which is something that the punks may have scoffed at but those that mattered at all, did the same thing themselves. By 1976 at least, the Who hadn't sold out for a second and Pete Townshend was still writing songs for the Who to perform exactly like he did in the mid-sixties. He was also still able to understand the teenage psyche better than any of the punks could ever hope to do with the release of the band's masterpiece, Quadrophenia from 1973. The only other albums between that and 1976 were Odds and Sods, a rarities compilation and The Who By Numbers, a very introspective album that showcased Townshend's own psyche at the time. How did any of that make the Who dinosaurs? Was it the fact that they played sold out monstrous tours? Or that they were millionares? If so, I fail to understand what they have to do with anything? Are musicians and their music only valid if they're dirt poor and unsuccessful. If not, what makes you say this? I could somewhat understand you saying this about most of the 60s icons (though if you ask me, the only reason the world needed punk was to deal with the newer bands like Kansas, Styx and Journey, bands who truly has little to do with what rock and roll once stood for) but the Who seem above this particular criticism.

[Royal]

Some even debate among Stooges albums: what's more punk? "I Wanna Be Your Dog" or "Search and Destroy."

*sigh*

"KICK OUT THE JAMS, MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!!"

[leonaozaki]

Yeah, like that's gonna get by me.

Care to explain why this is so? The Who always remained authentic throughout their career and though they did change their style, that just means that they were willing to progress beyond what they started off with, which is something that the punks may have scoffed at but those that mattered at all, did the same thing themselves. By 1976 at least, the Who hadn't sold out for a second and Pete Townshend was still writing songs for the Who to perform exactly like he did in the mid-sixties. He was also still able to understand the teenage psyche better than any of the punks could ever hope to do with the release of the band's masterpiece, Quadrophenia from 1973. The only other albums between that and 1976 were Odds and Sods, a rarities compilation and The Who By Numbers, a very introspective album that showcased Townshend's own psyche at the time. How did any of that make the Who dinosaurs? Was it the fact that they played sold out monstrous tours? Or that they were millionares? If so, I fail to understand what they have to do with anything? Are musicians and their music only valid if they're dirt poor and unsuccessful. If not, what makes you say this? I could somewhat understand you saying this about most of the 60s icons (though if you ask me, the only reason the world needed punk was to deal with the newer bands like Kansas, Styx and Journey, bands who truly has little to do with what rock and roll once stood for) but the Who seem above this particular criticism.

Sorry, should have been clearer: the Who were big old dinosaurs to the first generation of punk rockers in 1976. They were just as much an arena-rock band as your favorite bugaboo, Led Zeppelin. None of that detracts from my enjoyment of their 70's records like WHO'S NEXT and QUADROPHENIA.

rob

[Ilash]

Punk tends to stick to three, keeping the chord progressions and structure of the song as simple as possible.



No not really. The Who were regarded by Britain's punks as every bit a part of the arena rock aristocracy as Led Zeppelin, even if many of them were influenced by their sixites incarnation. (Including the Pistols who rehearsed the Who's "Substitute" alongside Small Faces and garage rock songs in their early rehearsals. In fact "Substitute" is a common part of their live sets.)

And while the facts you have on the Clash and the Who are correct, the Clash's encounter with Townshend was in 1980, long after they had stopped being a punk band and scrapped punk orthodoxy. And while the Jam did base themselves on the Who it was pretty much exclusively on sxities Who. Paul Weller's values were largely tied to the British invasion and he stated he only plays the early stuff in a joint interview with Townshend in 1980. Plus I have a hard time seeing him liking arena-rock Who in any case. Paul Weller's always been very picky in his musical tastes and while he cites Ray Davies as a big influence he seems to be mostly into the Kinks' sixties stuff as well. He did however say that Townshend was one of the few old guard rockstars he respected, simply because Townshend was still honest.


Okay, well then I stand corrected.

Still, see my response to Rob to see why this does surprise me a whole lot. And yeah, the Kinks are insanely important a band, I would be the last person to debate that.

[Ilash]

Sorry, should have been clearer: the Who were big old dinosaurs to the first generation of punk rockers in 1976. They were just as much an arena-rock band as your favorite bugaboo, Led Zeppelin. None of that detracts from my enjoyment of their 70's records like WHO'S NEXT and QUADROPHENIA.

rob

Ah, okay, now I see where you're coming from. Sorry to lash out like that but I really don't see where those punk guys were coming from. I would agree with them about Zeppelin of course but lets not go there.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Ah, okay, now I see where you're coming from. Sorry to lash out like that but I really don't see where those punk guys were coming from. I would agree with them about Zeppelin of course but lets not go there.

What they were coming from was the stance that commercial/pop success and the "hit song" mentality - the search for the all-mighty chart-topper and playing the same songs year after year in concert - damaged the credibility of rock and roll. One can agree or disagree with that, but it was part of the punk aesthetic. The Who and Zep both did those things.

[Ilash]

What they were coming from was the stance that commercial/pop success and the "hit song" mentality - the search for the all-mighty chart-topper and playing the same songs year after year in concert - damaged the credibility of rock and roll. One can agree or disagree with that, but it was part of the punk aesthetic. The Who and Zep both did those things.

But I keep hearing how Zeppelin were famous for not catering to the singles market and the Who were clearly album-oriented by that point. And why would the punks have a problem with bands playing their back catalogue in concert? The Sex Pistols had no problem playing Substitute in concert so why shouldn't the song's originators?

[JeffreyWKramer]

But I keep hearing how Zeppelin were famous for not catering to the singles market and the Who were clearly album-oriented by that point. And why would the punks have a problem with bands playing their back catalogue in concert? The Sex Pistols had no problem playing Substitute in concert so why shouldn't the song's originators?

The punks covered stuff, but they didn't think it cool to endlessly play the same songs over and over. Punk was about change and newness, not back catalogs.

They also weren't generally about long, drawn out pieces of music, either. Things like "Stairway to Heaven" and "Baba O'Riley" were the antithesis of the short, snappy punk song.

[Spike-X]

The Sex Pistols had no problem playing Substitute in concert so why shouldn't the song's originators?

Because when the Pistols did it, it was an ironic recontextualisation!

[Jonathan Bogart]

Goodness, am I going to be the first one to mention the Fugs? Their first album, released the same year as the Who's first, was much more punk-rock in the d.i.y., flip-the-bird-to-society, no-discernable-musical-skill sense. By comparison, the Who of "My Generation" were paycheck-taking professionals singing about teenage relationships like Frankie Avalon or someone. And what are those bass guitar solos but the same kind of bombast that would fuel, a decade later, twenty-minute versions of "Moby Dick"? So "Slum Goddess" by the Fugs is my vote for the first punk-rock song.

The Fugs inhabit a weird space; their first album was produced by Harry Smith, of American Anthology of Folk Music notoriety, on Folkways Recordings, and they palled around with Allen Ginsberg (another punk connection, kind of: he also showed up on the Clash's Combat Rock). So they were as much an outgrowth of the Beat underground and the folk underground (like, say, the Holy Modal Rounders) as they were the first recorded underground rock & roll band, beating the Velvets to the punch by two years.

That's not to say they're any good; they have to be taken in one-song doses, if at all. But punk was never about being good.

[Ilash]

The punks covered stuff, but they didn't think it cool to endlessly play the same songs over and over. Punk was about change and newness, not back catalogs.

They also weren't generally about long, drawn out pieces of music, either. Things like "Stairway to Heaven" and "Baba O'Riley" were the antithesis of the short, snappy punk song.

Blech. Ya know, it's this kind of thinking that illustrates just why I have so much of a problem with punk-rock. Their whole belief system just strikes me as being so severely limited that the only thing punk was really ever good for was about two years worth of decent material and then paving the way for stuff that wisely ignored most of these ridiculous ideologies. And considering the fact that most punk songs sound virtually the same as one another, I find it pretty ironic that they dare to apply change and newness to the description of themselves.

[Ilash]

Because when the Pistols did it, it was an ironic recontextualisation!

It was? I just thought they found a good song that would fit their ideology nicely and decided to cover it. Anyway, The Pistols were too flippin' stupid to really think of ironically recontextualising the song. :p

[Adam Crocker]

Kramer's right. The Who, to the punks, were basically a part of the arena rock aristocracy that they had seen as running it's course by 1976, if not earlier. And repetition of the hits ad nauseaum was another problem. I was actually reading through Uncut's collection of old articles on the Who from NME and Melody Maker and found out that their set list had basically remained the same from the earlier seventies with very few new songs


Or that they were millionares? If so, I fail to understand what they have to do with anything? Are musicians and their music only valid if they're dirt poor and unsuccessful.

Oddly enough being millionaires had much to do with it. You may not approve of it but the prevailing attitude was that established rock stars were out-of-touch millionaires shagging groupies and fiddling while Rome burned. Britain has always been far more class conscious than the United States and punk in Britain came about, and it was poor. And in the grips of an economic recession by the time punk came around. This is why British punk tended to be much more political than it's New York counterpart, angrier, and why the Clash lied about their backgrounds early on in a fit of punk Stalinism. (In many ways they succumbed to the worst excesses of punk's own cultural snobbery.) It didn't help that none of these bands really reflected the state of things at the time in Britain, at least as British youth saw things.

Because when the Pistols did it, it was an ironic recontextualisation!

Well I think they also took the piss out of it by butchering the lyrics, but I'd have to give it a listen again.

(It's a different case though for the covers done by the various New York bands, but they subscribed to a less strident set of values.)

[JeffreyWKramer]

Blech. Ya know, it's this kind of thinking that illustrates just why I have so much of a problem with punk-rock. Their whole belief system just strikes me as being so severely limited that the only thing punk was really ever good for was about two years worth of decent material and then paving the way for stuff that wisely ignored most of these ridiculous ideologies. And considering the fact that most punk songs sound virtually the same as one another, I find it pretty ironic that they dare to apply change and newness to the description of themselves.

Punk shook things up. That was good. It instilled a lot of energy back into rock, which was also good. It helped remind people of the power of the core rock sound - guitar, bass, drums, vocals - and shifted momentum away from the pretentions of art-rock and arena rock. Those were all good things.

On the down side, lots of the punks were every bit as pretentious in their own way as were acts like Jethro Tull and ELP in their arty-farty way. Moreover, some of them weren't very skilled. The better punk acts - the ones which survived, like the Clash and X - did so because of skill, and they quickly recognized and transcended the limits of the initial punk aesthetic. The energy sparked new wave, and the reemphasis on short, snappy songs helped revitalize pop.

In many ways, punk was more important as an influence and a catalyst than for the music itself. Still, the better music continues to stand on its own terms.

[Adam Crocker]

Blech. Ya know, it's this kind of thinking that illustrates just why I have so much of a problem with punk-rock. Their whole belief system just strikes me as being so severely limited that the only thing punk was really ever good for was about two years worth of decent material and then paving the way for stuff that wisely ignored most of these ridiculous ideologies.

Well again, it describes British punk and the even more strigent American hardcore than it does New York Punk, who were simply more about creating something new as an alternative to the established status quo and weren't afraid to acknowledge their influences.

Oddly enough though, if you want punk along the lines of the Jam, Britain spawned several great pop-punk bands such as the Buzzcocks, the Undertones (whose songs are striking in their teenaged naivete, not only for being punk, but from an northern Ireland city wracked by sectarian violence), and the Only Ones.


Anyway, The Pistols were too flippin' stupid to really think of ironically recontextualising the song. :p

Then you don't know Johnny Rotten.

[Adam Crocker]

In many ways, punk was more important as an influence and a catalyst than for the music itself. Still, the better music continues to stand on its own terms.

Very well said Kramer.

[Ilash]

Kramer's right. The Who, to the punks, were basically a part of the arena rock aristocracy that they had seen as running it's course by 1976, if not earlier. And repetition of the hits ad nauseaum was another problem. I was actually reading through Uncut's collection of old articles on the Who from NME and Melody Maker and found out that their set list had basically remained the same from the earlier seventies with very few new songs


Oh, you have that mag too, huh? Cool. I love it, not least of all because it's nice to have a magazine that's so well stacked. As for the Who not playing new songs, there are a few things to remember. 1) Pete was very unprolific at the time so there actually wasn't that much in way of new material. 2) The new material basically came down to stuff from Quad, which was a live nightmare apparently and By Numbers, which just didn't have the sort of songs that would actually fit their live act.


Oddly enough being millionaires had much to do with it. You may not approve of it but the prevailing attitude was that established rock stars were out-of-touch millionaires shagging groupies and fiddling while Rome burned. Britain has always been far more class conscious than the United States and punk in Britain came about, and it was poor. And in the grips of an economic recession by the time punk came around. This is why British punk tended to be much more political than it's New York counterpart, angrier, and why the Clash lied about their backgrounds early on in a fit of punk Stalinism. (In many ways they succumbed to the worst excesses of punk's own cultural snobbery.) It didn't help that none of these bands really reflected the state of things at the time in Britain, at least as British youth saw things.


Yeah but I'm sure that they didn't turn down any money coming their way. I really have trouble believing people who make statements that basically translate to them wanting to live in poverty, as is clearly the case here. I'm fairly sure they wanted to be successful and if so, do they really think they would have been any different than the "dinosaurs" they so dispised within a few years.


Well I think they also took the piss out of it by butchering the lyrics, but I'd have to give it a listen again.

(It's a different case though for the covers done by the various New York bands, but they subscribed to a less strident set of values.)

True that. The Ramones did some great covers of classic rock songs, including Substitute actually.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Very well said Kramer.

Thankee. I think I'm reliving my past as a fourth-string music journalist and commentator (college radio, music reviews in the college paper)

I think the high mark of said past is when the jock frat on campus called during one of my shows and asked me to play something for their party, I dedicated Devo's "Mongoloid" to them. They were not pleased, needless to say.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Yeah but I'm sure that they didn't turn down any money coming their way. First off, a lot of the money went to their labels or their managers - Malcolm McLauren, in the case of the Pistols. These guys often had really crappy contracts. Second, the money they did get, they pissed away for the most part.
I'm fairly sure they wanted to be successful and if so, do they really think they would have been any different than the "dinosaurs" they so dispised within a few years.
No, you're wrong on that count. I think they wanted to be heard, but they didn't want to be millionnaires. Witness the Clash, who broke up after they started being chart-toppers. Witness the post-Pistols acts like PIL. These guys were not just posers, they were more concerned about the integrity of the music than they were with success.

Now, the producers and agents and such, that's another matter. Some of them wanted to make tons of money and didn't care a shit about aesthetic concerns or art. That's how we got Bow Wow Wow and, much more egregiously, Sieg Sieg Sputnik.

True that. The Ramones did some great covers of classic rock songs, including Substitute actually.
The Clash were the Punk Kings of Cover, though. Their versions of "Brand New Cadillac" and "I Fought the Law" achieved the rare feat of truly surpassing the originals in every way. Even the Beatles and the Who couldn't quite manage that.

[Ilash]

Well again, it describes British punk and the even more strigent American hardcore than it does New York Punk, who were simply more about creating something new as an alternative to the established status quo and weren't afraid to acknowledge their influences.

Yeah but didn't they realize that the new thing that they were creating was going to be old within no time at all. It was a pretty short-sighted idealogy as far as I can tell.


Oddly enough though, if you want punk along the lines of the Jam, Britain spawned several great pop-punk bands such as the Buzzcocks, the Undertones (whose songs are striking in their teenaged naivete, not only for being punk, but from an northern Ireland city wracked by sectarian violence), and the Only Ones.

Cool, thanks for the recommendations but would I be wrong to assume that they're as limited as the Ramones, a group that I love in small doses but could well come to hate over a long exposure to them?



Then you don't know Johnny Rotten.

Probably not. I honestly have no idea how intelligent the band actually are, I was just being facetious but I really can't help thinking of them as a dumb, silly little band based on the songs I've heard, no matter what evidence you bring to the contrary. To me, God Save the Queen is just as dumb (though definitely as funny) as Sabbath's Iron Man and just as threatening. Hey, this reminds me, weren't you going to start a thread on the "authenticity" based on a similar discussion we had about this topic in another thread? I hope you still get around to that at some point because that should be one interesting discussion.

[Ilash]

First off, a lot of the money went to their labels or their managers - Malcolm McLauren, in the case of the Pistols. These guys often had really crappy contracts. Second, the money they did get, they pissed away for the most part.

That just means they were unfairly handled, much like many of their classic rock predecessors and that they couldn't actually manage the money they had. Don't mean they didn't want it.


No, you're wrong on that count. I think they wanted to be heard, but they didn't want to be millionnaires. Witness the Clash, who broke up after they started being chart-toppers. Witness the post-Pistols acts like PIL. These guys were not just posers, they were more concerned about the integrity of the music than they were with success.

Didn't the Clash break up because of in-fighting and the fact that their last album was hailed as one of the worst albums, like, ever? I actually don't get musicians who don't want to do well for themselves. After all, if they make good money out of their music then they simply don't have to worry about finding other jobs and can concentrate on their music full time. And their music could have all the integrity in the world while still making them money. I don't mean to come out like some intensely materialistic capatalist because I'm not but I really don't think "commercial" need be such a dirty word when it comes to music. And the Beatles absolutely prove this.


Now, the producers and agents and such, that's another matter. Some of them wanted to make tons of money and didn't care a shit about aesthetic concerns or art. That's how we got Bow Wow Wow and, much more egregiously, Sieg Sieg Sputnik.


No surprise there.


The Clash were the Punk Kings of Cover, though. Their versions of "Brand New Cadillac" and "I Fought the Law" achieved the rare feat of truly surpassing the originals in every way. Even the Beatles and the Who couldn't quite manage that.

Oh totally. Especially I Faught the Law, which is not only much better than the original but is also light years ahead of other versions of the song that all those other punk artists also did in the same vain. But hey, The Beatles did record the definitive version of Twist and Shout and the Who released the definitive version of Young Man Blues.

[Jonathan Bogart]

Oh totally. Especially I Faught the Law, which is not only much better than the original but is also light years ahead of other versions of the song that all those other punk artists also did in the same vain. But hey, The Beatles did record the definitive version of Twist and Shout and the Who released the definitive version of Young Man Blues.
Both untrue; actually, all three untrue, but the "I Fought the Law" claim was Kramer's. The Isley Brothers and Mose Allison versions deserve better recognition, though both acts have other claims to greatness; the Bobby Fuller Four has none.

But that may just be my irritation with the idea of "definitive versions." I've said before that I prefer the pre-rock idea of a song as a melody with lyrics, rather than three minutes of wax. (Or digital encoding.)

[JeffreyWKramer]

Didn't the Clash break up because of in-fighting and the fact that their last album was hailed as one of the worst albums, like, ever?


That, and they were becoming the sort of big hit band they didn't want to be.

I actually don't get musicians who don't want to do well for themselves. After all, if they make good money out of their music then they simply don't have to worry about finding other jobs and can concentrate on their music full time. And their music could have all the integrity in the world while still making them money. I don't mean to come out like some intensely materialistic capatalist because I'm not but I really don't think "commercial" need be such a dirty word when it comes to music. And the Beatles absolutely prove this.

Well, none of those folk wanted to be living in poverty again, for sure, but it would have been easy for any of them to do things a lot more commercial than Big Audio Dynamite and Public Image Limited, if that's what they'd wanted. The fact they didn't do that tells you something about their priorities.

Commercial doesn't have to be a bad thing, but it often is, particularly when concern for the music is a secondary (or tertiary, or even more remote) concern compared to making boatloads of money, selling lunchboxes, etc. See also New Kids, Backstreet Boys, etc. These folk had a vision of music that was different than what tends to sell, and they went with the musical vision rather than going for the dollars.

[Adam Crocker]

First off, a lot of the money went to their labels or their managers - Malcolm McLauren, in the case of the Pistols. These guys often had really crappy contracts. Second, the money they did get, they pissed away for the most part.

McLaren actually blew most of the Pistol's earnings on making his goddamn movie, which became "Rock'n'Roll Swindle." He wasn't that bright or cunning of a businessman and scam artist as people claim that he was.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Both untrue; actually, all three untrue, but the "I Fought the Law" claim was Kramer's. The Isley Brothers and Mose Allison versions deserve better recognition, though both acts have other claims to greatness; the Bobby Fuller Four has none.

Well, Bobby Fuller did do "Monster Mash" ;)

But, sorry, I have to disagree with you. While I love the original version of "I Fought the Law", the Clash's version is better on every level - better musicianship, better energy, better fit of the lyric content with the sound. This is fairly rare with covers. I'll grant Ilash "Twist and Shout", though narrowly. Hendrix' "All Along the Watchtower" is another obvious example.

But that may just be my irritation with the idea of "definitive versions." I've said before that I prefer the pre-rock idea of a song as a melody with lyrics, rather than three minutes of wax. (Or digital encoding.)
Yet, some classical performers do more outstanding versions of the pre-rock standards than do others. This isn't unique to rock.

I don't know about definitive versions of a song, but some versions are better than others.

[JeffreyWKramer]

McLaren actually blew most of the Pistol's earnings on making his goddamn movie, which became "Rock'n'Roll Swindle." He wasn't that bright or cunning of a businessman and scam artist as people claim that he was.

No, he wasn't competent - but he still ripped the Pistols blind.

[Jonathan Bogart]

Well, Bobby Fuller did do "Monster Mash" ;)
For the record, that was Bobby Pickett.

Yet, some classical performers do more outstanding versions of the pre-rock standards than do others. This isn't unique to rock.
What? Yo-Yo Ma does a better version of "Night and Day" than Jascha Heifetz? Or did you mean classic performers?


I don't know about definitive versions of a song, but some versions are better than others.
Granted. But much (most?) of the time it's just different versions of a song, where better and worse is a matter of taste. Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower" is brilliant, but Dylan's is great too. To praise one, it shouldn't be necessary to denigrate the other.

[Adam Crocker]

Re Rotten;

Well I don't he was as well read as Mark E. Smith, Joe Strummer, and Paul Weller, Johnny Rotten was a lot more clever and smarter than the Sex Pistols' work would let on. In fact it's surprising how many people take "Anarchy in the U.K." straight, when Rotten was actually taking a piss. From what I read about the band, I wouldn't say that most of them were fundamentally dumb, but the rest of the members simply had more straightforward ideas about music. Johnny Rotten, or John Lydon, on the other hand had much more sophisticated musical tastes. He listened to Krautrock, in particular Can. Was a great fan the experimentalism of dub reggae and electronic prog band Van Der Graaf Generation, as well as Captain Beefheart, possibly the weirdest single rock musician ever, and most challenging. Much of the Pistols' sarcastic and anti-social edge comes him, rather than McLaren as is popularly claimed. (Though Rotten probably got a few ideas from McLaren spouting off about, despite his denial that there was any influence.)

When he broke from the Pistols he got a band together with his friend John Warble (Jah Wobble) who loved dub as well and a guitarist named Kieth Levene who was a big fan of Krautrock, and Yes interestingly enough, and went in a direction completely different from the Sex Pistols. Early Public Image Ltd. is one of the stranger and more challenging post-punk bands, relying on very heavy, dub-inspired basslines; proto-industrial, ambient guitar feedback; Lydon's expressionistic rants; and jittery, tribal drums. Granted later Wobble and then Leven left or were kicked out the band and Lydon turned it into something much more poppy, but post Pistols Lydon wanted to have a band that made strange, challenging music.

Plus he made a cool million back in the eighties playing the real estate market.

[howyadoin]

And one of those songs 'Jail Guitar Doors' already appears on the U.S. edition of the Clash's first album. Had they just added '1977,' 'Gates of the West,' and 'Groovy Times' it would have beefed up an already great and cohesive rarities collection.The vinyl version of The Clash that I bought waaay back when had "Gates of the West" and "Groovy Times" on a bonus single. Mere words cannot express how much I love those songs.

[JeffreyWKramer]

For the record, that was Bobby Pickett.

Ah. I stand corrected.

Granted. But much (most?) of the time it's just different versions of a song, where better and worse is a matter of taste. Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower" is brilliant, but Dylan's is great too. To praise one, it shouldn't be necessary to denigrate the other.

Well, to be worth covering in the first place, the song has to have something going for it. Unfortunately, this doesn't prevent a bad cover of a good song (see Limp Biskit), but I don't see it as denigrating to say a cover is occasionally better than the original. Something can be better than something else without saying or implying the "something else" sucks.

Also, I don't believe taste or quality are entirely subjective, though there are certainly subjective components to them. But, I've made that argument plenty of times and have no interest in repeating it at the moment.

[Adam Crocker]

Cool, thanks for the recommendations but would I be wrong to assume that they're as limited as the Ramones, a group that I love in small doses but could well come to hate over a long exposure to them?

Happily, yes you would be wrong. The Buzzcocks are the closest to the Ramones in their use of repetition, but that's less due to the cartoonish primitivism of their work as opposed to the band applying the concepts of Krautrock to guitar pop to give it a hypnotic quality. And even then they don't sound like they are using the same song over and over. Your best bet is their original singles collection Singles Going Steady that collects their singles from 1977-1981, their peak period. Their stuff from after their renuion isn't so good, but I have heard that their last two albums pulled up the quality of their work significantly.

The Undertones are even poppier, abandon punk after their first two albums for outright pop. They don't rely on propulsion the way the Buzzcocks do and have sincere innocence that not only feels fifties/early sixties, but is utterly shocking. Their song "Teenage Kicks" was John Peel's favourite record of all time and a great song.

The Only Ones out of all of these had the best musicianship and were pretty advanced for punk. In fact they used it more as flag of convenience than a rallying cry for frontman Peter Perrett's romantic pop songs, and often seemed more like the Modern Lovers than a child of Stooges. John Perry even dares to solo (competently I might add) on their classic anthem "Another Girl Another Planet." (He also has written a book on ELECTRIC LADYLAND for 33&1/3 series of books on classic albums for Continuum books; and I have heard he devotes a great deal of it to using his guitar knowledge to analyze Hendrix's tricks.)

[howyadoin]

I can't wrap my head around using "hate" and "Ramones" in the same sentence.

[leonaozaki]

I can't wrap my head around using "hate" and "Ramones" in the same sentence.

How about, "I don't hate the Ramones; instead, I totally love them."

rob

[Adam Crocker]

How about, "I don't hate the Ramones; instead, I totally love them."

Or "Journey represents everything I hate about music just as much as the Ramones reprsent everything I love about it"?

[Ilash]

Hey, don't get me wrong, the Ramones are far and away my favourite punk band but it doesn't much change the fact that their music is extremely monotonous. I haven't actually come close to hating them yet either, no matter how much I've listened to them but they do start to bore me after a while.