No. I wasn't around during WWII either but I still know what happened. In the early 70s The Dolls played London numerous times, made their infamous OGWT appearance and even worked with Malcolm McLaren. If you're trying to tell me, and vast swathes music historians or journalists worth their salt that this didn't massively influence what came much later from the UK, then you're plain wrong.
Cultured as ****: http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/dog-...park-in-hull/story-30248804-detail/story.html
I didn't say they had no influence, just that as far as punks in the UK in the late 70's were concerned, the New York Dolls weren't considered a punk band. FACT.
The 74-75 New York scene around CBGB's and Max's Kansas City was an influence but London did not just copy it, what happened in London in 76 was 99% unique and the same can be said for the ripple effect out to Manchester and beyond, each city evolved their own punk/post-punk scenes and independent record labels, Rough Trade, Factory, Zoo, Postcard all had their own style. Cultural revolution was much harder to copy before the internet, each silo needed its own creativity.
This is punk... This is glam rock sped up... The latter influenced the former, but was not punk as far as English punks were concerned.
The original Stooges version from the 60's wasn't punk, neither were the Eddie Cochrane or The Who songs that the Pistols also recorded. Mind you, the Pistols version of Something Else wasn't really punk either, it was terrible.
Was 'Proto-punk' a term coined in retrospect to describe bands of a punk ethos that existed before punk had actually happened? I'm thinking of The Stooges, MC5 etc.
According to the Allmusic guide: Proto-punk was never a cohesive movement, nor was there a readily identifiable proto-punk sound that made its artists seem related at the time. What ties proto-punk together is a certain provocative sensibility that didn't fit the prevailing counterculture of the time ... It was consciously subversive and fully aware of its outsider status ... In terms of its lasting influence, much proto-punk was primitive and stripped-down, even when it wasn't aggressive, and its production was usually just as unpolished. It also frequently dealt with taboo subject matter, depicting society's grimy underbelly in great detail, and venting alienation that was more intense and personal than ever before. Most musicians classified as proto-punk are rock performers of the 1960s and early-1970s, with garage rock/art rock bands the Velvet Underground, MC5 and the Stooges considered to be archetypal proto-punk artists, along with later glam rock band the New York Dolls.
The term 'punk' was first used by American music journalist Dave Marsh in 1970, to describe 60's band Question Mark and the Mysterians, who we wouldn't consider to be a punk band at all. Most will remember this 1966 track from the Inspiral's cover...
Myself, and no doubt Stanley, recall the original.One of those songs that wasn't big over here but everybody in your circle seemed to like. I would have thought most people would have been aware of it because of the Stranglers cover version, which was very good.
The Stranglers version was poor, the Inspiral's version was much better, there's actually loads of versions, this is a rather different take on it...
Agreed. Some people spend more time analysing, dissecting and talking about music than listening to it. I always quote Duke Ellington. "There are only two types of music. Good and the other kind."
