Malcolm Mc Laren Is Dead! Rest In Peace!

[e.g.:]

The DIY ethic was in play long before Punk. It was merely a surge. How do you think the music industry began? I've read many stories of small labels (for instance eg records) where everybody worked together at the grass roots level to make things happen. Cmon, most industries start as cottage industries. Let's not over romanticize the movement (too late for that really).

Fifties Rock n Roll was the first punk.

The underground or small labels have always been around. Punk helped bring the underground above ground with the tried and true techniques of fashion and publicity. A very simple case of bandwagonism.

I know that it instilled many kids with a sense of self vindication and/or freedom (which is a good thing), but, as usual, it was just another form of chicanery and slavery.

People don't really want change and revolution. They just want it to look like it.

[Homebelly]

American "Punk" and English "Punk" were two entirely different things.
The UK punk thing was only really partly about the music.
The influence Malcolm had was only to bring it into focus.
I think he was probably as shocked by how it took off as any one else.
The impact of the Bill Grundy interview should not be missed here. It was pivotal.
To fully understand why the change was important you really do need to look at what England
was like in 1976/77. The Schools changing from Grammar to comprehensive, the building of tower block housing estates
even while that experiment was failing, thousands of kids leaving school with a shity education and no job opportunities, and no representation or understanding from any quarter. The music was the least of it.
Even the foot baller players were taking the piss living like lords of the manor chasing well spoken super models and crashing Ferraris.
Every thing was about moving up the ladder of the social classes.
Working class people all of a sudden taking on affected middle class accents.

The "Punk" thing was happening every were because it had to. All Maclaren really did was use it as a chance to promote him self. At that point in England if you didn't go to quite the right school, or was not born in quite the right street or town, it was almost impossible to change. The DIY aspect wasn't about a fuck you to the establishment so much as it was an alternative. That alternative existed in all areas of society from business through to art and fashion. It wasn't just Music, it was Poetry--john cooper clark and Don Letts-- Fashion, Art-- Jamie Reid, and later Damian Hurst. TV, eventually-- Janet Street Porter. And all of this wasn't just exclusive to working class tower block kids, Two examples would be the Copeland's who where US ambassador kids and Joe Strummer who was an english ambassadors kid..
The point being, UK punk scene was a chance to be let off the leach in what was shaping up to be a very repressive and elitist culture.
Hell.. when the eighties came and Thatcher was in full swing, that aspect became quite obvious.

[Machinesworking]

I'm not even going to disagree with this, I simply would like you to name me musical movements that you think were revolutionary, because by your own strict standards, nothing is. If you don't consider changing fundamental parts of rock music important then the only thing left is total genre shifts, IE big band VS rock VS classical VS jazz, everything else is Fluff. All electronic music is basically rock music in structure so it's garbage etc. This line of thinking is so firmly tied to your taste that it's pretty worthless.

I'm not saying that to be a jerk, but because I see nothing in your argument that isn't personal opinion, as opposed to observation. Here's an example of the difference, I hate Disco music, can't stand House, find most Detroit Techno boring, but I would never claim that any of them weren't important movements in music that changed things. I don't have to like or care about a kind of music to see it's importance to music as a whole. I don't think you're capable of that, otherwise you would realize how silly your opinion seems. It runs contradictory to every rock journal and historical analysis of music to date, but I'm sure you think that's because you're rebelling or something right?

My personal opinion is and will always be that the hippy movement and the punk movement both changed the face of music drastically. Fortunately I'm not alone in that, most major rock journalists for the last forty years are in agreement on that, but yeah you go you maverick you .

Stripping guitar solos, increasing tempo, reducing the age of performers etc (a dubious claim anyway). are not revolutionary changes in my book.

Simple stuff really.

Still a few chords, verse, chorus, manufactured and distributed by the same type of infrastructure as everyone else. Where's the rebellion?

The changes were just a different flavor of icing on the cake. No new recipe.

Fluff.

Once again, my POV. Agree to disagree, but you'll not prove or convince me otherwise.

You are correct though, they have only a little in common with hard rock and heavy metal (distortion and anger). They do have a lot in common though with the original British Invasion groups like the Beatles and Paul Revere and the Raiders (song structure is identical).

Once again, its hardly revolutionary stuff.

[Jarvisimon]

The pistols were really just a boy band (albeit with unsavoury intentions) who played standard rock n roll badly without understanding what "anarchy" really is.

The talent that is Johnny Rotten/Lydon deserves far more than this. There was nothing 'standard' about his singing.

"For me Malc was always entertaining and I hope you remember that," Lydon said in a statement he signed under his Sex Pistols' name Johnny Rotten. "Above all else he was an entertainer and I will miss him, and so should you."

Malcom R.I.P.

I'm not saying that Lydon and Co were a bad thing. However, their idea of "Anarchy" was merely encouraging lawlessness and on the whole quite negative, whereas a band like "Crass" understood there was more to it than spitting, swearing when the cameras were filming and wearing vivienne westwood clothing (far too costly) and came up with a far more integral and intelligent version. They also made headlines for subverting politics (remember the thatchergate tapes?) as well as teeny mags (the loving single)

Anyway, back to your point about Lydon's remarks about Malcolm (in a FOX TV interview), I shan't be missing McClaren just because Lydon's said I should. Yeah, it's sad when anyone dies but McClaren wasn't my inspiration, neither did he make me rich or famous, so although i'll tip my hat to him in respect, my "miss him" glands haven't been affected by his demise.

[leedsquietman]

The Buzzcocks
Magazine
The Cortinas
The Only Ones
Wire

Other great British bands which influenced, or were part of the UK punk scene.
Rough Trade went on to bigger things with The Smiths and The Sundays before their demise.
Factory (Joy Division/New Order/, Durutti Column, Happy Mondays etc) see the movie 24 hour party people.

If anyone doubts how grim things were in many parts of the U.K. consider that the Factory Nightclub which hosted the big events which showcased the likes of Joy Division, Iggy Pop etc. was built into the 'crescents' of the big ugly dogpile Hulme estate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1qpf9hogI0
http://www.exhulme.co.uk/page2.php

[e.g.:]

I'm not even going to disagree with this, I simply would like you to name me musical movements that you think were revolutionary, because by your own strict standards, nothing is. If you don't consider changing fundamental parts of rock music important then the only thing left is total genre shifts, IE big band VS rock VS classical VS jazz, everything else is Fluff. All electronic music is basically rock music in structure so it's garbage etc. This line of thinking is so firmly tied to your taste that it's pretty worthless.

I'm not saying that to be a jerk, but because I see nothing in your argument that isn't personal opinion, as opposed to observation. Here's an example of the difference, I hate Disco music, can't stand House, find most Detroit Techno boring, but I would never claim that any of them weren't important movements in music that changed things. I don't have to like or care about a kind of music to see it's importance to music as a whole. I don't think you're capable of that, otherwise you would realize how silly your opinion seems. It runs contradictory to every rock journal and historical analysis of music to date, but I'm sure you think that's because you're rebelling or something right?

My personal opinion is and will always be that the hippy movement and the punk movement both changed the face of music drastically. Fortunately I'm not alone in that, most major rock journalists for the last forty years are in agreement on that, but yeah you go you maverick you .

Stripping guitar solos, increasing tempo, reducing the age of performers etc (a dubious claim anyway). are not revolutionary changes in my book.

Simple stuff really.

Still a few chords, verse, chorus, manufactured and distributed by the same type of infrastructure as everyone else. Where's the rebellion?

The changes were just a different flavor of icing on the cake. No new recipe.

Fluff.

Once again, my POV. Agree to disagree, but you'll not prove or convince me otherwise.

You are correct though, they have only a little in common with hard rock and heavy metal (distortion and anger). They do have a lot in common though with the original British Invasion groups like the Beatles and Paul Revere and the Raiders (song structure is identical).

Once again, its hardly revolutionary stuff.

My personal taste has not effected my POV. How did you reach that conclusion from my posts? In fact, I am taking a much more detached approach than the rest, who keep claiming a "fundamental" change. In fact I claim that it is this "fundamental" change that is just a matter of taste.

And nowhere did I make value judgments and call anything "garbage". You're projecting. Please read carefully.

As far as the social impact, (either Hippie or Punk), it is my observation that pop culture revolutions are a result of, rather than a cause of change.

All the wonderful things attributed to these movements were going to happen with or without them. Pop culture (yes, Punk is Pop culture) is a reflection of, rather than a source of real social change.

[oblique strategies]

[Guff Tong]

EG: I have to agree, that from your fist post you are basicaly just un-impressed with punk.

No hate at all, just not impressed.

....Thats very punk you know.... It shows your ability to tollerate without prejudice but not to take all at face value...to look behind the facade and seek the truth..... many anarchists would be proud of you for reaching this level of awakeness.

Without knowing it you are all that punk became: aware, awake and outspoken.

Onwards and upwards my freind.

[e.g.:]

Thanks for the props.

I am equally unimpressed with most things popularly perceived as culture. As a previous poster mentioned, quite correctly, I wouldn't consider other "influential" music movements as revolutionary to anything but music; certainly not to the Human Condition. I love music for what it is, and not for how it has been represented or for what others have perceived.

Cultural revolutions run so much deeper than represented by the media and perceived by disaffected youth.

If my comment about "icing" is demeaning, let me rather say that pop cultural revolutions are just the waves on top of the sea of a much deeper set of factors.

Once again, thanks for the props. If this is Punk, then let me stay Punk.

[Machinesworking]

Thanks for the props.

I am equally unimpressed with most things popularly perceived as culture. As a previous poster mentioned, quite correctly, I wouldn't consider other "influential" music movements as revolutionary to anything but music; certainly not to the Human Condition. I love music for what it is, and not for how it has been represented or for what others have perceived.

OK I thought you were doing the typical sideways move..... IE we are on a music forum, we are talking about music, you are interjecting that the term "revolution" or revolutionary must apply to human culture as a whole rather than to music, but without clarifying that, but you're also saying punk was unimportant to music, that is how your arguments read, which is bullshit. You don't have to like punk to realize that it was revolutionary to music, if you don't realize that you're simply unaware. That, is all I'm saying.

FYI to the individual, music is a revolution to the human condition, that IMO is undeniable. People will find a glimmer of hope in music and not off themselves, plenty of music fans have stated exactly that.

[oblique strategies]

Personally, I think revolution starts at home, within one's self, then moves outwards. In this regard, music, & all art, can be part of the revolutionary process, even if that art has no obvious "revolutionary" text or subtext. What moves individuals can become a collective experience, & thus move society.