Talk:Proto-punk

message: The Kinks are often overlooked as the pioneers of punk that they really where/are. They played heavy, fast, power chord driven rock music (for the 60's at least). Just listen to "I'm Not Like Everybody Else", a song recorded in early 1966. Bands like The Who and The Ramones were huge fans of the Kinks. In the mid-late 70's they (the Kinks) got back to their hard rock/punk roots, like on the live album "One For the Road".
The Kinks have been making their way back in (and out) of the list again. There is a difference between band that are an influence on later punk and those that belong to the immediate period before. Most commentators make this distinction--Sabrebd (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Kinks 

message: chronologically, how are they protopunk if they formed in 1975, after the ramones? 24.23.97.35 00:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pere ubu 

message: I addded Radio Birdman to this topic. I don't mind if someone cleans up my verbiage, however it cannot be denied that they were a major influence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crassus cazius (talk • contribs) 00:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio Birdman 

message: This could def be a good & valuable article, but it's going to take a good deal of effort. I assisted Professor Vivien Goldman with her recent courses on punk at NYU. One week we had Lenny Kaye and Seymour Stein in to talk. When we got on to the roots topic, Lenny, with Seymour agreeing, waxed eloquent on Bing Crosby. He'd just written a book about crooners. Punk, it seemed, could be expressed as "an attitude and an amplifier". 
I think it would be good to break it down into the various strains, and then develop them individually. Then re-synthesize the thing as a whole.
Wwwhatsup 23:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs work

message: Crawdaddy just revived a 1975 article on the 60's roots of punk. I guess the coke refers to Coca Cola? One good point raised is that a constant vital element of punk rock is the existence of local small record labels. Wwwhatsup (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: White Punks on Coke

message: What about the Monks? From their article "Because of these features, the Monks are often referenced as forerunners of the later punk movement." Unsourced, but I recall seeing a rockumentary which made the same claim. They certainly had many of the musical elements that came to define punk. Check out this video --Wormcast (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Monks 

message: This article has a music genre infobox, but is proto-punk a sub-genre? The lead doesn't describe it as such. Garage rock and Pub rock clearly are, but it seems to be more a term to describe a range of influences, rather than a cohesive genre. Feel free to point out counter-arguments and sources here, but if there are no serious objections I will delete the box in a few days.--SabreBD (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I waited nearly a month. If you object please comment and explain why.--SabreBD (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it.  It seems to me that if a "genre" can only be defined retrospectively, as this is, it shouldn't really have a "genre" infobox.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since my edit was reverted I am going to give it a little more time so that editors can express views here and perhaps provide evidence over the issue of being a genre.--SabreBD (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub-genre

message: No mention of the Saints, formed 1974? The Saints (band)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.163.108 (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the Saints are usually classified as what most people define as full-fledged punk, because their first album came out in 1977 (even though the band had been around for a few years).  On pg. 136 of the current edition of his book, If Your Like the Ramones..., Peter Aaron describes them and he indicates that they probably sounded very punk even before their first album, because they were completely unaware of the New York and London scenes.  He puts them in his chapter devoted to "punk" bands of the 1975-1978 era.  Keep in mind that there had been a long tradition of punky sounding bands in Australia going back to the mid-60s garage scene there.  Listen to 60s Aussie bands such as The Missing Links, the Throb, The Chimney Sweeps and you will see where The Saints probably got a lot of their influences.  Some people assume that they were just jumping onto the '77 bandwagon, when that may not have been the case at all. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The Saints

message: Richard Hell & the Voidoids were punk or at least new-wave, not proto-punk.  In 1977 Sire Records released a promotional double 7 inch 33 1/3 RPM set with the catalog number PRO 696 labeled "NEW WAVE rock 'n' roll Get behind it before it gets past you." featuring Richard Hell & the Voidoids in the company of Dead Boys, Talking Heads, and the Saints.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.32.44 (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Hell 

message: hello, how do you insert a box showing the stylistic origins? and other info 188.222.41.105 (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Infoboxes are for genres. The box was removed because this is not a genre. See Sub-genre above.--SabreBD (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylistic origins  

message: May I suggest that the concept of "protopunk" is a gen X construction, the result of very poor music historians attempting to understand and conceptualize all of music history relative to their own roots? I'm conceiving a music historian that sees three phases of rock music: proto-punk, punk and post-punk. Do you see where I'm going with this?
Might I suggest that acts such as MC5, The Who, The Velvet Underground and The Stooges should be given the label classic rock? I know, I know....classic rock is what your parents listened to....but my gen y years can't really hear enough of a difference in sound between The Who, The Stooges and The Rolling Stones to justify placing them in different genres.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.69.26 (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - the terms proto-punk, punk, and post-punk do seem to privilege punk as some kind of monolithic phenomenon. 90.224.25.46 (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, it is not up to any of our ears, whichever generation they are from, to define the definitions, that is up to the sources. I am pretty sure you would be able to find sources that calls them "classic rock", but if there are sources that defines these bands as being protopunk, then it is legitimate to include them in this  genre as well, they are not mutually exclusive. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

text: US AOR and hard rock radio stations in the late '70s and early '80s were referring to pre-'74 bands (Beatles/Stones/Doors/Floyd/etc) as classic rock; term is ancient. Footy0604 (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foresight / Classic Rock 

message: Being unfamiliar with editing articles I am writing here.  The link behind "Wire" leads to the article about wires ("A wire is a single, usually cylindrical, string of metal.") but not to the Band "Wire". This should be corrected.  Thanks.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.17.11 (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Now done - thanks for noticing!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong link in "Wire" 

message: The Doors, protopunk?? YAAACK  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.154.65 (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Doors??? 

message: *The opening statement errs factually when it says: "Typically, proto-punk artists were not themselves considered punk..."  Knowledgeable wiki editors are aware that in the early 70s, critics called them punk.  I do not necessary suggest that the artists always used the term to describe themselves.  But, we could re-word this in a more accurate way.  The modified statement could read: "Typically, proto-punk artists are not usually themselves classified as punk..."  The improved wording shifts things to the present tense, which is more accurate.  "Classified" sounds better than "considered," here, because it is more precise and encyclopedic.   After all, people can consider artists to be punk (i.e. as an adjective) that they would not actually classify as punk (i.e. Tom Waits, for instance).  The addition of "usually" accounts for existing differences of opinion.
*Furthermore, even though the statement is correct when it says that protopunk draws from different genres ("...it includes a wide range of musical backgrounds and styles."), it comes out sounding too general and vague and needs to be further qualified.  We could mention garage rock, Detroit rock, and glam rock as particular instances form which it draws.  The modified statement could read: "...it includes a wide range of musical backgrounds and styles, such as garage rock, Detroit rock, glam rock, and others." 
*Also, the heading creates the false impression that the artists and bands listed in the paragraph are the only ones that could be considered influential, when there could be others.  So we need to add that these artists are "...some of..." the ones considered influential.  There is really no fixed of set amount.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the necessary changes in wording, giving the introductory statements more factual accuracy and precision. Basic meaning of content remains the same.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a list of other styles - "such as garage rock, Detroit rock, glam rock, and others" - should be included.  Not all glam rock can be classed as "proto-punk".  But I'd be content to leave in "garage rock", most of which probably can be counted as "proto-punk".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

text: You make a good point that not everything from the various genres is considered protopunk.  Perhaps we could still include Detroit and Glam, but qualify them with "certain artists," (keeping in mind how so many associate the eras of MC5/Stooges and the New York Dolls with protopunk--we just couldn't leave those periods out for particular mention).  For instance the statement could read: "...it includes a wide range of musical backgrounds and styles, such as much garage rock, as well as certain Detroit and Glam rock artists, and others."  Would that work a little better? Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so.  The intro is supposed to summarise the main points of the article, not to cover every detail or possibility.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true.  The statement, as you have re-worded it, should suffice. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual error in opening statement/Need to add mention of certain protopunk genres in heading/Add "...some of..."

message: The article title is Protopunk - no hyphen - but the opening sentence uses Proto-punk - with hyphen.  We should be consistent.  What do most sources say?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems prudent. Common use of the term by major music publications seems to include the hyphen across the board, as is evidenced by AllMusic, this Rolling Stone article, and this Pitchfork article.urs145 (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphen 

message: I propose to rename this article to Proto-punk. A simple Google search returns more results for this rendering, and a great deal of this article (including references) refer to it this way, not as "protopunk". 22:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems prudent. Common use of the term by major music publications seems to include the hyphen across the board, as is evidenced by AllMusic, this Rolling Stone article, and this Pitchfork article.urs145 (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to rename article to Proto-punk 

message: I added this Peruvian group (Armando Pattroni) 181.67.105.19 (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Los Saicos 

message: There is a lot of punk rock-related coverage on this article but it's not even clear whether "proto-punk" has anything to do with "punk rock" (are progressive rock and progressive trance related? Not really, so you wouldn't find paragraphs in the "progressive trance" article talking about King Crimson and Jethro Tull). Some of the info about punk needs to be trimmed or moved.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punk rock coverage 

message: We have one or two editors seeking to include Peru in the infobox, as the first-named of three countries of origin of the style - presumably in recognition of Los Saicos.   Is such an important claim justified?   I doubt it.  Views?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghmyrtle, the truth that if necessary, add to Saicos not as creators, but as pioneers of protopunk and add them to the article, since there are recordings , media and testimonies of great figures related to this style believe that this group, not only pioneer protopunk but also of garage rock, several years before they were developed in the United States. It 's not about recognition as you want to point out, if not locate chronologically since its formation. I agree with you that has misread the idea that actually emerged in Peru punk , something we know , did not happen , but it Saicos , has pioneered the aforementioned musical style. I reliable references that prove their veracity. Regards! Adriel ricardo morales (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peru 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Proto-punk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119211010/http://www.simplysaucer.com/00-timeline.html to http://www.simplysaucer.com/00-timeline.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415040720/http://www.sonicunyon.com/records/artists/simply to http://www.sonicunyon.com/records/artists/simply
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I recommend that one of proto-punk's origins be jazz. I just read Lou Reed's article here, and it quotes him as being inspired by Ornette Coleman. I suggest a similar citation be added as an edit. I'll probably do it myself eventually. If you disagree with the suggestion, then just reply back to me here. Thanks. Lighthead þ 21:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jazz origins 

message: i think it should be was a musical genre as no one makes proto punk songs anymore and you can't since punk existsAutograph84 (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call proto-punk a genre but more a retroactive recognition of groups with different sounds/attitude/message that had some influence on early punk bands. Not sure there can be any proto-punk purity here. Footy0604 (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  was or is? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion