Re: the replacements..

Date: 23 May 2003 13:03:37 -0700
Newsgroups: rec.music.phish
Size: 1,581 bytes

James Dean Young <email-address-deleted> wrote in message news:<email-address-deleted>...
> In article <email-address-deleted>, wjb67
> <email-address-deleted> wrote:
> >
> > apparently you live on a planet that doesn't know a goddam thing about
> > what PUNK ROCK really is.
>
> I'm almost 40 and was around for the punk movement...were you? I'd call
> The Replacements "rock and roll" before I would call them anything
> else..and mind you, this was one of my favorite bands growing up!
yes, as a matter of fact I was.
Replacements were indeed "rock and roll"...so were Gen X, and the
Ramones etc. etc. etc.
> > next thing you know you'll try to tell me that Elvis Costello, Devo,
> > and Talking HEads aren't punkk rock either.
>
> These musicians are closer to "new wave" than they are to "punk
> rock"...remember new wave? Bands like The Ramones, Sex Pistols, and
> The Plasmatics are what you would call punk rock...aggressive and raw!
okay, so it's all about being aggressive and raw. that's what punk
rock is now?
it has nothing to do with the fact that the CBGB's scene where Talking
Heads and Ramones and the Cramps and Blondie etc all got thier
start...THAT is the scene that first was called "punk" by the likes of
Lester Bangs and others? I remember new wave...it was a bullshit term
coined by radio and record label A&R men so that they wouldn't have to
call certain bands or sounds "punk rock". Then it became "underground"
and "alternative" and "modern rock"
like D. Boon said: "Do you want New Wave, or do you want the truth?"