Tuesday, August 24, 2004

Punk vs. Metal 

This is a long standing argument. Let me give my perspective. A lot of bands start out being Metallica cover bands. The riffs are just infectious and sound pretty badass. At the Drive In, one of my all time favorite bands started out this way. There's nothing wrong with that.

ValuedCustomer (an anonymous comment poster who likes to argue with me on everything) hates punk because the people in the bands are idiot(s) who just happened to pick up the instrument and didnt bother to get any better. He is being stupid of course and using one example (or anecdote) to describe a whole bunch of bands. This argument is bad since a well known punk band, Fugazi, started out with straight up punk and have evolved tremendously. Regardless, early punk does tend to sound kinda rough and it seems like the guitarists aren't very good. The reason behind this is simple. Punk was an underground movement of young people who were fed up with the music industry. People like Ted Nugent and Fleetwood Mac dominated. Essentially, the rock music of the late 70's and early 80's sucked ass (by and large). Then the punks came along. The Ramones came up with simple songs and weren't very good. They produced short, very limited music. It rocked. That was the point. Punk was straight up rock and roll without the big arena show bullshit. That's what punk meant, and that's why I like it. The punk bands eventually formed their own touring systems, out of basements and houses. Their message was "We don't need a bunch of millionaires to tell us what music to go see." Sure, a lot of punk was bad, but so was a lot of metal.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?