I take it as a handy acid test; as soon as someone tells me they're into Derrida or deconstructionism, I know that I can, with reasonable confidence, stop paying attention to anything they say.

I suggest that the "punk" era was decidedly post modern and as such, on a whole, the movement devalued hero worship or the notion of heroes.

That is why, at least over here in the U.S.A., the edge of the stage ceased to be an edge.

Everyone was in the same cesspool together.

John T, I agree with your "acid test."  Unfortunately, in post-modern theory, and for many in the culture, that school has near "god-like" status.

That school also makes it convenient to avoid having to listen to a meaningful critique, since anything one might say can simply be ignored on word theory - not understanding - grounds.

Doherty is certainly a moron, but even when trying to be objective, we have to understand that others hero-worship him. I definitely wouldn't put him in the same category as guys like Lydon, Strummer and Jake Burns.

Yes but you are making the wrong comparisons there.

Compare him to Adam Ant and you're pretty much in the same ball-park.  Put in those terms and you'd be thinking like for like and realise it's not about looking at the past through rose-tinted specs it's just that the dross gets forgotten as will the Libertines when talking about the last decade in retrospect.

Jonbouy

Doherty is certainly a moron, but even when trying to be objective, we have to understand that others hero-worship him. I definitely wouldn't put him in the same category as guys like Lydon, Strummer and Jake Burns.

Yes but you are making the wrong comparisons there.

Compare him to Adam Ant and you're pretty much in the same ball-park.  Put in those terms and you'd be thinking like for like and realise it's not about looking at the past through rose-tinted specs it's just that the dross gets forgotten as will the Libertines when talking about the last decade in retrospect.

 
Interesting point Jon, and I agree it makes more sense.
 
 

John T


Adam and the Ants were a great band. Really unique and imaginative. 

As we can see from the rest of the thread art is subjective.

I'm not doubting what you are saying, but I'd still put Stuart Goddard alongside Doherty as making for a fairer fight, even if I wasn't making a comparison between the Ants and the Libertines.

Over here in London ON....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgSlxrfjYFE

I refute the claim of Bullocks and simply suggest that things were just different over here.

A good thing to come out of it was that 'Bollocks' instead of Bullocks became acceptable English after a court ruled what that was good enough for Prince Charles was indeed acceptable to be used in an album title available on public sale.

Bullocks, bollocks, tosh, it's all the same to me.

All that happened in the US that was intrinsically different was the fact that Mommy and Daddy had  greater disposable incomes than their British counter-parts that they could spend on gear in order that their little Johnny could take part in the superficial appearance of it all.

The real durable revolt into style that happened in the US around the same time came from acts such as the Talking Heads.

It's all just Rock 'n' Roll to me but I like it.

I'll change that spelling, thanks for the correction.



"All that happened in the US that was intrinsically different was the fact that Mommy and Daddy had  greater disposable incomes than their British counter-parts that they could spend on gear in order that their little Johnny could take part in the superficial appearance of it all."


If you say so... I've never been to England.

I remember the times over here as austere.

best regards,
mike

New York, in the late 70s, which is where a lot of this stuff was springing from, was largely a terrifying crime-ridden ****-hole. It's kind of absurd to claim the US punk and new wave bands were notably privileged. Talking Heads were kind of lower middle class, just about, but most everybody else was flat broke.

1976-78 I was in NYC with a couple of friends at the time. That was around when NYC almost(?) went bankrupt...as did a few other cities then. 

I saw RAMONES at CBGB's then...

Jonbouy

I refute the claim of Bullocks and simply suggest that things were just different over here.

A good thing to come out of it was that 'Bollocks' instead of Bullocks became acceptable English after a court ruled what that was good enough for Prince Charles was indeed acceptable to be used in an album title available on public sale.

Bullocks, bollocks, tosh, it's all the same to me.

All that happened in the US that was intrinsically different was the fact that Mommy and Daddy had  greater disposable incomes than their British counter-parts that they could spend on gear in order that their little Johnny could take part in the superficial appearance of it all.

The real durable revolt into style that happened in the US around the same time came from acts such as the Talking Heads.

It's all just Rock 'n' Roll to me but I like it.

Jonbouy, it is interesting to read your perspective on this.  However, I agree with John T and I think you are mistaken about "all that happened in the US...".  Times were very tough for most aspiring musicians back then (I was one of them) and the economy was also bad as Mike pointed out.  Broad strokes don't seem to hit the nail on the head for me.


Rimshot

Rimshot

Jonbouy

I refute the claim of Bullocks and simply suggest that things were just different over here.

A good thing to come out of it was that 'Bollocks' instead of Bullocks became acceptable English after a court ruled what that was good enough for Prince Charles was indeed acceptable to be used in an album title available on public sale.

Bullocks, bollocks, tosh, it's all the same to me.

All that happened in the US that was intrinsically different was the fact that Mommy and Daddy had  greater disposable incomes than their British counter-parts that they could spend on gear in order that their little Johnny could take part in the superficial appearance of it all.

The real durable revolt into style that happened in the US around the same time came from acts such as the Talking Heads.

It's all just Rock 'n' Roll to me but I like it.

Jonbouy, it is interesting to read your perspective on this.  However, I agree with John T and I think you are mistaken about "all that happened in the US...".  Times were very tough for most aspiring musicians back then (I was one of them) and the economy was also bad as Mike pointed out.  Broad strokes don't seem to hit the nail on the head for me.


Rimshot

I'm not saying the UK holds exclusivity on poverty, I'm suggesting more parents in per capita terms had more money to spend on musical gear for their kids than their British counterparts.

I also said I might be wrong.

HTH

Rimshot


Johnbouy
I'm not saying the UK holds exclusivity on poverty, I'm suggesting more parents had money to spend on musical gear than their British counterparts.

How would you ever be able to quantify that?  I only can tell you my perspective as I lived it in L.A. during those years.
Thanks.

Rimshot

I feel sure there are facts and figures laying around the internet to prove my suspi cions wrong.

Me personally I never had it so good, I was living of the fat of the record industry whilst engaging in as much hedonsitic activity as I could and doing as little work as possible.  Punk spoiled that little holiday for me.

I've always understood that Mr Joe Average in the US was better off than his UK counterpart, I can quite believe I've arrived at that conclusion because of many years of media hype and misinformation though.

I can explain that I had my first full time 40 hour a week job at 13 and I couldn't afford to buy my first guitar until I was 20.

I played a hand me down import from the days when "import" didn't mean "good". Someone's uncle gave it to some one who let me borrow it... and yes, I gave it back when I got my own guitar.

I played a Ampeg Gemini from the mid 1960's and it sounded fine, but never really worked.

The only technicians I could find were used to billng at industrial rate pricing, and they didn't know how to fix guitar amps any way... they just took what little precious money you did  have and gave you back a broken amp. So I had to learn how to fix amps.

In my experience the USA punk movement was 98% do it your self and it wasn't at all about hero worship and that is the only point I was trying to make.


Even post punk bands such as R.E.M. started as anonymous back ground music bands for house parties. I've seen Michael Stipe perform many times in the early days with his long hair completely covering his face to obscure his "self". I've also seen him perform with his back to the audience while staring at a wall. Some of course will interpret this as showmanship or perhaps worse... but if you were there, in the moment, I'd suspect that one would agree it was simply a reluctance to step up and become the front man or "hero" in a scene that wasn't really looking for heroes. He knew the scene.

Some will probably say duragatory things about Mr. Stipe because after all, he has become rather well known and he's been on the cover of magazines. Some may even point out that as an individual he was born to parents who had a few extra coins in the bank than someone such as myself.

I bring it up because he was one of the most famous "anti heroes" to have been leveraged into a super star... and he has never really seemed comfortable with it. His roots are in USA punk.

I offer it as proof that there is an undercurrent of populism that pervades the USA.




Once again, the only point I hoped to make was that I feel the USA audience did not make a practice of making heroes of the front men in the punk scene bands.

I was there, it seems like a bunch of other people were there too... and that's what I remember; a bunch of people making music with out anyone else's approval or homage.

It seemed like a typical post modern experience.


all the very best,
mike