What's so post about post-punk?

[Kory]

I also have this vague notion of including Subway Sect in there somewhere as the sort of anti-rock, anti-image, sort of disinterested and disconnected personality thing Doc was referencing above. Sort of a post-punk band in the midst of the original UK punk thing.

I have limited understanding of SS, but I've heard the same thing about them being out-of-step/ahead of the original UK punk scene. Pere Ubu and Devo are two more I just thought of that were post-punk before punk seemed a thing.

Maybe part of the problem is that "post" has that chronological quality to it and suggests punk has to precede it. If it had a different name that was divorced from punk entirely, perhaps we'd feel more confident about things.

It seems that in a lot of writing about the subject, the "post" period begins with the dissolution of the Pistols (the "creators" of punk) and the establishing of PiL. Which of course discounts Magazine, which may be why they aren't in Reynolds' book (or maybe Devoto fucked his wife). But by and large, all the original bands had released their first albums and were about to release their second (which were mostly flops). The impression you get from these accounts is that the scene just felt well and truly over, and each band sort of scattered. So I wonder if it's just that journalists seemed to think that a new era had been born by the Pistols ending, and their writing/chronology is typically what we use to put the genre in a compartment. Even if some of the music was more conventional, it didn't hurt that by this point a lot of the original guard had moved on to something more art-rock (Devoto, Lydon, Sioux).

[Dr. Medulla]

I also have this vague notion of including Subway Sect in there somewhere as the sort of anti-rock, anti-image, sort of disinterested and disconnected personality thing Doc was referencing above. Sort of a post-punk band in the midst of the original UK punk thing.

I have limited understanding of SS, but I've heard the same thing about them being out-of-step/ahead of the original UK punk scene. Pere Ubu and Devo are two more I just thought of that were post-punk before punk seemed a thing.

Maybe part of the problem is that "post" has that chronological quality to it and suggests punk has to precede it. If it had a different name that was divorced from punk entirely, perhaps we'd feel more confident about things.

It seems that in a lot of writing about the subject, the "post" period begins with the dissolution of the Pistols (the "creators" of punk) and the establishing of PiL. Which of course discounts Magazine, which may be why they aren't in Reynolds' book (or maybe Devoto fucked his wife). But by and large, all the original bands had released their first albums and were about to release their second (which were mostly flops). The impression you get from these accounts is that the scene just felt well and truly over, and each band sort of scattered. So I wonder if it's just that journalists seemed to think that a new era had been born by the Pistols ending, and their writing/chronology is typically what we use to put the genre in a compartment. Even if some of the music was more conventional, it didn't hurt that by this point a lot of the original guard had moved on to something more art-rock (Devoto, Lydon, Sioux).

Isn't it that Devoto fucked Tony Wilson's wife?

But, anyway, yeah, I think you're basically right that we're working with terminology set out by music journalists operating in a Pistols-centric music universe. And I gather that the end of the Pistols did drain the energy or sense of momentum out of whatever community existed, tho that seems more coincidental or convenient than meaningful. The way punk broke in the UK ensured it would be a short-term sensation. If it had been allowed to develop without the sensationalism, it might be different, but it was just burning jet fuel in '77 and could be maintained. That said, the curiosity for me is that post-punk goes in such a different direction after punk. Conscious or not, it seems built on rejection of punk aesthetics as much as punk rejected the mainstream. Intellectual and artistic curiosity up the hoo-ha, but so skeptical and dark.

[Kory]

I also have this vague notion of including Subway Sect in there somewhere as the sort of anti-rock, anti-image, sort of disinterested and disconnected personality thing Doc was referencing above. Sort of a post-punk band in the midst of the original UK punk thing.

I have limited understanding of SS, but I've heard the same thing about them being out-of-step/ahead of the original UK punk scene. Pere Ubu and Devo are two more I just thought of that were post-punk before punk seemed a thing.

Maybe part of the problem is that "post" has that chronological quality to it and suggests punk has to precede it. If it had a different name that was divorced from punk entirely, perhaps we'd feel more confident about things.

It seems that in a lot of writing about the subject, the "post" period begins with the dissolution of the Pistols (the "creators" of punk) and the establishing of PiL. Which of course discounts Magazine, which may be why they aren't in Reynolds' book (or maybe Devoto fucked his wife). But by and large, all the original bands had released their first albums and were about to release their second (which were mostly flops). The impression you get from these accounts is that the scene just felt well and truly over, and each band sort of scattered. So I wonder if it's just that journalists seemed to think that a new era had been born by the Pistols ending, and their writing/chronology is typically what we use to put the genre in a compartment. Even if some of the music was more conventional, it didn't hurt that by this point a lot of the original guard had moved on to something more art-rock (Devoto, Lydon, Sioux).

Isn't it that Devoto fucked Tony Wilson's wife?

He denies it, but that's the story.

But, anyway, yeah, I think you're basically right that we're working with terminology set out by music journalists operating in a Pistols-centric music universe. And I gather that the end of the Pistols did drain the energy or sense of momentum out of whatever community existed, tho that seems more coincidental or convenient than meaningful. The way punk broke in the UK ensured it would be a short-term sensation. If it had been allowed to develop without the sensationalism, it might be different, but it was just burning jet fuel in '77 and could be maintained. That said, the curiosity for me is that post-punk goes in such a different direction after punk. Conscious or not, it seems built on rejection of punk aesthetics as much as punk rejected the mainstream. Intellectual and artistic curiosity up the hoo-ha, but so skeptical and dark.

I wonder how much of that comes from an influence of northern England. Post-industrial wasteland equals the mood of an entire subgenre? There's no denying that a huge chunk of what we consider post-punk was influenced by Gang of Four and Joy Division, and it accounts for Magazine's attitude as well. PiL are definitely under the umbrella, but because of Lydon, I think they still have a lot of personal, first-person lyrics as you mentioned earlier. I'm not sure how many early bands were influenced by the Banshees—I hear some of their stuff in Sad Lovers & Giants and maybe The Sound.

[Dr. Medulla]

I wonder how much of that comes from an influence of northern England. Post-industrial wasteland equals the mood of an entire subgenre? There's no denying that a huge chunk of what we consider post-punk was influenced by Gang of Four and Joy Division, and it accounts for Magazine's attitude as well. PiL are definitely under the umbrella, but because of Lydon, I think they still have a lot of personal, first-person lyrics as you mentioned earlier. I'm not sure how many early bands were influenced by the Banshees—I hear some of their stuff in Sad Lovers & Giants and maybe The Sound.

That's super intriguing! So if UK punk is rightly/wrongly a London scene, post-punk is the hinterlands' interpretation and progression/rejection of that. Throw The Fall in there, too, who never made sense to me as a punk band. I like that idea for escaping the weird temporal issue of the term, but it also seems a better way of appreciating the diversity of post-punk—it's drawing from more locales and regional cultures. You might even be able to apply some variation of metropole/periphery theory to music culture. If someone hasn't explored that already, it's a dissertation waiting to be written.

[gkbill]

I wonder how much of that comes from an influence of northern England. Post-industrial wasteland equals the mood of an entire subgenre? There's no denying that a huge chunk of what we consider post-punk was influenced by Gang of Four and Joy Division, and it accounts for Magazine's attitude as well. PiL are definitely under the umbrella, but because of Lydon, I think they still have a lot of personal, first-person lyrics as you mentioned earlier. I'm not sure how many early bands were influenced by the Banshees—I hear some of their stuff in Sad Lovers & Giants and maybe The Sound.

That's super intriguing! So if UK punk is rightly/wrongly a London scene, post-punk is the hinterlands' interpretation and progression/rejection of that. Throw The Fall in there, too, who never made sense to me as a punk band. I like that idea for escaping the weird temporal issue of the term, but it also seems a better way of appreciating the diversity of post-punk—it's drawing from more locales and regional cultures. You might even be able to apply some variation of metropole/periphery theory to music culture. If someone hasn't explored that already, it's a dissertation waiting to be written.

Hello,

This is very interesting and fits with my experiences (how convenient!). Living in Albany, NY, punk took music from some unapproachable stage/background you never could possess to something anybody could do. You didn't have to be from New York - Albany bands sang/played/wrote about living in Albany rather than sing/play/write about how cool it would be to be in NYC.

[Dr. Medulla]

I wonder how much of that comes from an influence of northern England. Post-industrial wasteland equals the mood of an entire subgenre? There's no denying that a huge chunk of what we consider post-punk was influenced by Gang of Four and Joy Division, and it accounts for Magazine's attitude as well. PiL are definitely under the umbrella, but because of Lydon, I think they still have a lot of personal, first-person lyrics as you mentioned earlier. I'm not sure how many early bands were influenced by the Banshees—I hear some of their stuff in Sad Lovers & Giants and maybe The Sound.

That's super intriguing! So if UK punk is rightly/wrongly a London scene, post-punk is the hinterlands' interpretation and progression/rejection of that. Throw The Fall in there, too, who never made sense to me as a punk band. I like that idea for escaping the weird temporal issue of the term, but it also seems a better way of appreciating the diversity of post-punk—it's drawing from more locales and regional cultures. You might even be able to apply some variation of metropole/periphery theory to music culture. If someone hasn't explored that already, it's a dissertation waiting to be written.

Hello,

This is very interesting and fits with my experiences (how convenient!). Living in Albany, NY, punk took music from some unapproachable stage/background you never could possess to something anybody could do. You didn't have to be from New York - Albany bands sang/played/wrote about living in Albany rather than sing/play/write about how cool it would be to be in NYC.

Yeah, I'm really intrigued by the idea of reframing the whole thing in terms of geography rather than chronology. At first blush, punk/post-punk works better in the UK than the US, as the US birthed all kinds of punk scenes in the late 70s and into the 80s, but some kind of metropole/periphery idea is a neat way of thinking about this kind of music. Kind of like my musing, a year or so ago, when thinking about the great Killed by Death compilation series of obscure punk bands, of writing a history of punk and deliberately excising all the big names. It also gets us closer to punk's anyone-can-do-this ethos rather than the star system that it claimed to reject. George Hurchalla's Going Underground: American Punk, 1979–1989 is a solid step in this direction, tho it's more of a rescue mission than coherent narrative.

[Marky Dread]

Musically punk was sped up R&B and RnR. Post punk wasn't restricting itself to that narrow straight jacket by playing unorthodox rhythms and incorporating different sounds. The punk band's that survived caught on and also started playing with and expanding their sounds. While some went more pop.

[Kory]

Musically punk was sped up R&B and RnR. Post punk wasn't restricting itself to that narrow straight jacket by playing unorthodox rhythms and incorporating different sounds. The punk band's that survived caught on and also started playing with and expanding their sounds. While some went more pop.

Indeed, I was thinking more about it this weekend and mulling over the difference between straight ahead rock on amphetamines vs. an openness to experimenting with genre, particularly dub, krautrock, and funk.

[Dr. Medulla]

Musically punk was sped up R&B and RnR. Post punk wasn't restricting itself to that narrow straight jacket by playing unorthodox rhythms and incorporating different sounds. The punk band's that survived caught on and also started playing with and expanding their sounds. While some went more pop.

Indeed, I was thinking more about it this weekend and mulling over the difference between straight ahead rock on amphetamines vs. an openness to experimenting with genre, particularly dub, krautrock, and funk.

Intellectually, tho, why does this happen? And in this order? (The order part is interesting to me because, as we've mentioned, it does seem to go in the opposite direction, or more concurrently, in the US.)

[Kory]

Musically punk was sped up R&B and RnR. Post punk wasn't restricting itself to that narrow straight jacket by playing unorthodox rhythms and incorporating different sounds. The punk band's that survived caught on and also started playing with and expanding their sounds. While some went more pop.

Indeed, I was thinking more about it this weekend and mulling over the difference between straight ahead rock on amphetamines vs. an openness to experimenting with genre, particularly dub, krautrock, and funk.

Intellectually, tho, why does this happen? And in this order? (The order part is interesting to me because, as we've mentioned, it does seem to go in the opposite direction, or more concurrently, in the US.)

Just a thought, I haven't fully developed this: If you consider UK post-punk to actually be "prog-punk," then there's not so much an order as a push and pull of reactions. Prog was created to push the boundaries of a genre that was stagnating a bit, punk was a reaction to prog's overindulgence, and post-punk was perhaps a reaction to punk's stagnating simplicity, looking to push the boundaries again. It could be that it just depends on where you drop into the process that makes it seem like there's an order (again, in the UK at least). Or it could be that rock music has a tendency to become more complicated over time, and needs a palate cleanser every once in a while before it starts developing again.

In America (I'm thinking this as I'm typing it, so bear with me), prog didn't really exist, so it went straight from garage rock and British Invasion ripoffs to soft rock and folk rock, then the CB's scene and then no-wave, which might be considered the US.'s prog rock (???). Much of the popular music in the states in the 70s was imported at the time, or it was AM radio crap, unless I'm totally forgetting something (which is likely because it's still early here).

[gkbill]

Musically punk was sped up R&B and RnR. Post punk wasn't restricting itself to that narrow straight jacket by playing unorthodox rhythms and incorporating different sounds. The punk band's that survived caught on and also started playing with and expanding their sounds. While some went more pop.

Indeed, I was thinking more about it this weekend and mulling over the difference between straight ahead rock on amphetamines vs. an openness to experimenting with genre, particularly dub, krautrock, and funk.

Intellectually, tho, why does this happen? And in this order? (The order part is interesting to me because, as we've mentioned, it does seem to go in the opposite direction, or more concurrently, in the US.)

Just a thought, I haven't fully developed this: If you consider UK post-punk to actually be "prog-punk," then there's not so much an order as a push and pull of reactions. Prog was created to push the boundaries of a genre that was stagnating a bit, punk was a reaction to prog's overindulgence, and post-punk was perhaps a reaction to punk's stagnating simplicity, looking to push the boundaries again. It could be that it just depends on where you drop into the process that makes it seem like there's an order (again, in the UK at least). Or it could be that rock music has a tendency to become more complicated over time, and needs a palate cleanser every once in a while before it starts developing again.

In America (I'm thinking this as I'm typing it, so bear with me), prog didn't really exist, so it went straight from garage rock and British Invasion ripoffs to soft rock and folk rock, then the CB's scene and then no-wave, which might be considered the US.'s prog rock (???). Much of the popular music in the states in the 70s was imported at the time, or it was AM radio crap, unless I'm totally forgetting something (which is likely because it's still early here).

Hello,

I'm just sharing personal observation so it's limited but prog also seemed to have too much fantasy lyrical content. When I think prog, I'm thinking Yes, ELP, etc. Post-punk was more reality-based.

[Dr. Medulla]

Musically punk was sped up R&B and RnR. Post punk wasn't restricting itself to that narrow straight jacket by playing unorthodox rhythms and incorporating different sounds. The punk band's that survived caught on and also started playing with and expanding their sounds. While some went more pop.

Indeed, I was thinking more about it this weekend and mulling over the difference between straight ahead rock on amphetamines vs. an openness to experimenting with genre, particularly dub, krautrock, and funk.

Intellectually, tho, why does this happen? And in this order? (The order part is interesting to me because, as we've mentioned, it does seem to go in the opposite direction, or more concurrently, in the US.)

Just a thought, I haven't fully developed this: If you consider UK post-punk to actually be "prog-punk," then there's not so much an order as a push and pull of reactions. Prog was created to push the boundaries of a genre that was stagnating a bit, punk was a reaction to prog's overindulgence, and post-punk was perhaps a reaction to punk's stagnating simplicity, looking to push the boundaries again. It could be that it just depends on where you drop into the process that makes it seem like there's an order (again, in the UK at least). Or it could be that rock music has a tendency to become more complicated over time, and needs a palate cleanser every once in a while before it starts developing again.

In America (I'm thinking this as I'm typing it, so bear with me), prog didn't really exist, so it went straight from garage rock and British Invasion ripoffs to soft rock and folk rock, then the CB's scene and then no-wave, which might be considered the US.'s prog rock (???). Much of the popular music in the states in the 70s was imported at the time, or it was AM radio crap, unless I'm totally forgetting something (which is likely because it's still early here).

That has merit, I imagine. The celebration of amateurism and distrust in formalism/technique in punk married to prog's vanguardism. Which would be kinda funny given that punk was, in part, a reaction against prog, so providing means for more people to go that route would be an unintended consequence. I guess what I'm really playing around with is what kind of ties post-punk has to punk (beyond crossover of membership), and whether the name is anything more than a journalism holdover. That is, people generally feel comfortable treating punk and, say, disco has distinct genres, but post-punk is bound to punk. But is there a meaningful connection there beyond the former punks and the name? If the UK had used the name No Wave, say, would it post-punk seem more distinct intellectually and aesthetically?

[Kory]

Musically punk was sped up R&B and RnR. Post punk wasn't restricting itself to that narrow straight jacket by playing unorthodox rhythms and incorporating different sounds. The punk band's that survived caught on and also started playing with and expanding their sounds. While some went more pop.

Indeed, I was thinking more about it this weekend and mulling over the difference between straight ahead rock on amphetamines vs. an openness to experimenting with genre, particularly dub, krautrock, and funk.

Intellectually, tho, why does this happen? And in this order? (The order part is interesting to me because, as we've mentioned, it does seem to go in the opposite direction, or more concurrently, in the US.)

Just a thought, I haven't fully developed this: If you consider UK post-punk to actually be "prog-punk," then there's not so much an order as a push and pull of reactions. Prog was created to push the boundaries of a genre that was stagnating a bit, punk was a reaction to prog's overindulgence, and post-punk was perhaps a reaction to punk's stagnating simplicity, looking to push the boundaries again. It could be that it just depends on where you drop into the process that makes it seem like there's an order (again, in the UK at least). Or it could be that rock music has a tendency to become more complicated over time, and needs a palate cleanser every once in a while before it starts developing again.

In America (I'm thinking this as I'm typing it, so bear with me), prog didn't really exist, so it went straight from garage rock and British Invasion ripoffs to soft rock and folk rock, then the CB's scene and then no-wave, which might be considered the US.'s prog rock (???). Much of the popular music in the states in the 70s was imported at the time, or it was AM radio crap, unless I'm totally forgetting something (which is likely because it's still early here).

That has merit, I imagine. The celebration of amateurism and distrust in formalism/technique in punk married to prog's vanguardism. Which would be kinda funny given that punk was, in part, a reaction against prog, so providing means for more people to go that route would be an unintended consequence. I guess what I'm really playing around with is what kind of ties post-punk has to punk (beyond crossover of membership), and whether the name is anything more than a journalism holdover. That is, people generally feel comfortable treating punk and, say, disco has distinct genres, but post-punk is bound to punk. But is there a meaningful connection there beyond the former punks and the name? If the UK had used the name No Wave, say, would it post-punk seem more distinct intellectually and aesthetically?

The way that I always describe it to people who haven't heard of it, is "the energy and ideals of punk with the experimentation of prog," and then I go on to elaborate that these bands took the level playing field that punk sort of created, used some of its DIY and anti-establishment ideals and created something that wasn't quite so restrictive, or "year-zero" based. In other words, they took punk's "there are no rules" paradigm literally and seriously where the second wave of punk did not. I think they were inspired by punk, but not beholden to it. A great example would be Joy Division, who started as a result of being at the LFTH show, but went on to be basically the poster children of post-punk.

[Dr. Medulla]

The way that I always describe it to people who haven't heard of it, is "the energy and ideals of punk with the experimentation of prog," and then I go on to elaborate that these bands took the level playing field that punk sort of created, used some of its DIY and anti-establishment ideals and created something that wasn't quite so restrictive, or "year-zero" based. In other words, they took punk's "there are no rules" paradigm literally and seriously where the second wave of punk did not. I think they were inspired by punk, but not beholden to it. A great example would be Joy Division, who started as a result of being at the LFTH show, but went on to be basically the poster children of post-punk.

I remember reading Wilson Neate's 33 1/3 book on Pink Flag, where he argued against the album being punk but instead post-punk, but at the same time in spirit it seemed punk in spirit because of that resistance to rules and expectations. In that respect, post-punk/No Wave seized punk's spirit better than those groups who openly called themselves punk but fell into a rockish formalism. That gets into the question of whether punk is chiefly an attitude (if so, what is the attitude?) or an aesthetic (if so, what is the aesthetic?). Depending on how you want to play around with those definitions, then maybe post-punk becomes meaningful punk while the bulk of hardcore, Oi, etc is just superficiality. I'm not making that argument, mind you, as it then gets us into territory where "everything you think you know is false."

[Marky Dread]

Musically punk was sped up R&B and RnR. Post punk wasn't restricting itself to that narrow straight jacket by playing unorthodox rhythms and incorporating different sounds. The punk band's that survived caught on and also started playing with and expanding their sounds. While some went more pop.

Indeed, I was thinking more about it this weekend and mulling over the difference between straight ahead rock on amphetamines vs. an openness to experimenting with genre, particularly dub, krautrock, and funk.

Intellectually, tho, why does this happen? And in this order? (The order part is interesting to me because, as we've mentioned, it does seem to go in the opposite direction, or more concurrently, in the US.)

I think as an opposition to the glitz and glamour of Glam rock and the bloatead nature of stadium rock. Punk had to take music back to basics it had to be easy (easier) to play and be completely accessible with the D I.Y aesthetic and small clubs etc. Post punk brought back some of the experimental elements of prog and some aspects of Glam.

I feel it happened in this order simply because punk had to be the antithesis of the previous generation. Attitude playing as big a part initially as musical quality.