Talk:List of 1970s punk rock musicians

Early discussions
The Tubes? -- Punk? Does anybody else think so? Sjfloat 16:56 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * On further reading, probably not - I'll take them off the list. I didn't know much about them, still don't know quite enough to write an article, though they sound sorta interesting. Now - Adam and the Ants, punk???? Does anybody else think so? (New Romantic IMHO). GRAHAMUK 04:43 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I rather liked The Tubes first album. They were intentionally a sort of parody. But I still thought their stuff was pretty great. Maybe I'm among those that they were poking fun at. :) I can't help thinking that the name of what was probably their most popular tune, 'White Punks on Dope', may have contributed to the supposed punk association.  But a quick listen to their music dispels any such idea. They were in a sense rebelling (or at least critically commenting) against the 70's AOR institution and pop culture in general, but stylewise they exhibited the very bombast and excess that punk rose up to overthrow; and again, this was probably part of the joke (though I still think they performed it pretty well). As far as Adam and the Ants go, the stuff I'm familiar with I would not call punk. But I think they may have had a punkier, somewhat more obscure history, i.e. before their pop radio days. Someone more knowledgeable should weigh in on this.Sjfloat 17:49 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Something else to point out, a lot of bands mentioned and noted, though great, were definitely not part of the first wave, and wow, I mean for california alone, a lot of first wave bands are missing and a lot of second wave bands have taken their place. It's amazing with the vast resources that the internet and collectors have to offer, that great bands from labels like Dangerhouse are missing. Where are the Randoms? Where's Black Randy and the Metrosquad? PLEASE DO RESEARCH BEFORE MAKING A HORRIBLE LIST LIKE THIS!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.103.204 (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Later...
Black Flag was arguably a good, genuine punk band. But I wouldn't put them in the 'First Wave'. Both the London and NY scenes (and probably DC's, I guess) were pretty mature by the time they showed up. Right? Weren't they more Second Wave, hardcore, L.A.? Might say the same or similar of DK, The Germs, The Dickies, etc.
 * I think the person who added that was referring to the original black flag line-up with Keith Morris of the Circle Jerks, before Rollins showed up. That line-up released a Nervous Breakdown EP in 1978, which was definatley early enough to be first wave. Meltingwax 17:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. 71.68.17.30 18:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Earlier...
Also, I'm not sure the Dolls belong here either. They were sort of antecedents. There's a list for that: Pre-Punk Bands (and they're already there BTW). Sjfloat 17:49 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Channel 3
Orange County punk band Channel 3 must have been an oversight on your part.


 * Yes, Channel 3 was a punk band prior to their awful "Airborne" album. The CD "The Skinhead Years" offers a good retrospective.  I have returned them to their rightful place on the list. Gaohoyt 00:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

First Wave Time Period
Of course this is arguable, but the First Wave of Punk is 74-78. Some even argue that it ended when "Never Mind the Bullocks..." was released (Sex Pistols) because of it's effect upon the idea of punk itself. It became a fashion. I suggest at least excluding any band formed after 78 in the First Wave List of Punk Bands. Matthewbtyler 20:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)matthewbtyler


 * Consensus for this article seems to agree that the timespan covered is 76-80, hence reverted deletions of Crass, Black Flag, etc quercus robur 21:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Matthewbtyler is right... WP:OWN seems to be been violated by people who are clueless about the genre. There should be a list for actual, real punk, as Matthewbtyler suggested, then "second wave" covering Oi!, hardcore and anarcho, as that is the time frame they came in. - Deathrocker 14:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up
I'm deleting bands without Wikipedia articles, bands that started in 1980 or later, bands that aren't really punk rock, and bands that aren't notable. I'm also adding headings and alphabetizing it better.Spylab 13:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab


 * Keep your dirty mits off unless you're willing to write some articles for those bands. 71.68.17.30 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Seperate lists
There needs to be strickly seperate lists for punk rock and hardcore bands, the current list pretends hardcore is punk, when the two are different forms of must. - Deathrocker 00:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The're not different. Hardcore is a subgenre of punk rock.  WesleyDodds 13:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They're very different... If you're going to see genres that way, realize that you can start equating The Circle Jerks with Elvis Presley. 71.68.17.30 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider X Hardcore Punk or Regular Punk? I think they're Hardcore. It seems to work better as one long list. Aaronproot

Adds
I've added The Rings and The Worst. The Rings are pretty well known. From London, included Twink and Alan Lee Shaw - played Mont-de-Marsan in 1977. Single I wanna be free. The Worst are more obscure. From Manchester they tried to top everybody else with ramshackle amateurism. I saw them at the London Roundhouse, maybe with The Buzzcocks. Both bands require disambig before linking.Wwwhatsup 16:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

First, second, third, and fourth waves of punk
Here's my two-penneth (or two cents) - this is how I perceived things at the time:

pre-punk or the godfathers of punk
these were the bands that formed well before the first wave of punk and were cited as big influences by the first wave and would have been classified as punk had they formed later.

they include: the stooges, new york dolls, velvet underground, mc5, (and possibly others).

Ad1mt (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad1mt (talk • contribs) 16:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed about your choices: Add to this The Pink Fairies, closely related to MC5 (Mick Farren). Also The Slits claim Patty Smith as influence.(EstherLaver (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

first wave
these were the bands that were influenced by the "godfathers" of punk or other 60's bands, without being influenced by any of their contemporaries, during the period between mid-1974 through end of 1975.

they include patti smith, the ramones, the sex pistols, the saints (australia), the bands that included richard hell, the stranglers and the jam (possibly a few others).

it must be remembered that punk started in both new york & london (& arguably australia) independently & at the same time, although there was some cross-influence via an NME article about new york punk & via malcolm mclarens failed atttempt to revive the new york dolls. I might have missed some new york bands but I think you get the idea.

some dispute that the stranglers and the jam were punk. however I saw the stranglers several times in 1976-7, and in my view they had the attitude of punk (big time), and also the challenging lyrics of punk, although their music was much more adventurous than most punk, but this was never a problem for me. I never saw the jam live, but the fact that mark perry wrote about them in his legendary & seminal punk fanzine sniffing glue is good enough for me.

second wave
these were the bands that formed no later than Dec 1976 (before punk hit the mainstream when the sex pistols swore on UK TV). They were directly inspired to form by seeing one of the first wave of punk bands, and not by learning about punk in the media.

there are too many to mention, but UK bands would include: the clash, souxsie & the banshees, the buzzcocks, the damned, generation x, the adverts. US bands would include crime, talking heads.

third wave
these were the bands that formed during the punk heyday of january 1977 through the early 1980s, usually after learning about it in the media, or by direct influence by the one of the first or second waves. there are far too many to mention, and probably number over a 1000 in the UK alone.

fourth wave
these are the bands that formed in the last 20 years (the punk "revival"), well after the punk heyday that ended in the early 1980s.

Ad1mt (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the above classification has similarities with how most British critics view the development of punk. However, it is not helped by including both American and British bands. The two countries had two very distinct scenes. The first wave in Britain is usually seen as embracing bands formed in 1976 and the first half of 1977. (After all, the legendary Roxy Club didn't even open as a punk club until December 1976). The second wave are those bands formed in the wake of the initial 'Punk Explosion'. The third wave (1979 onwards) is contemporaneous with Oi!, the ska revival, the electronic music boom and the increasing popularity of 'post-punk'. Yozzer66 (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why have this divide between the US & UK bands? - it just doesn't make sense. There was massive influence in both directions, especially from the Ramones on the first & second waves of the UK punk scene in 1976.  Its difficult to imagine now how important the 1st Ramones album was. I was totally blown away by it, and there is an interview with Joe Strummer that I saw (I think on the Ramones doc "20th Century") where he says this too - all the early UK punk bands idolised the Ramones. I've seen a photo taken in the Roundhouse dressing room of Johnny Rotten sitting at the feet of Johnny Ramone in awe, I've read that Sid Vicious idolised Dee-Dee & that Sid's chain & padlock necklace was given to him by Dee-Dee - you never see a photo of Sid without it.


 * The reason I have such strict classifications of the early waves of punk, is that (in my opinion admittedly), 99% of the punk bands that formed after the Pistols swore on TV, were totally derivative, formulaic, boring crap. I can think of only one post-1977 band that were good - a Newcastle band called Punishment Of Luxury, who were genuinely original (there will be others I could think of - I just can't think of them right now).  To me, its very interesting and significant that every one of the first wave of punk bands and most of the second wave refused to describe themselves as punk.


 * One final point. The significance & meaning of the Punk is different to every person you ask.  Some say it was about revitalising pop music.  Some say it was a revitalising of the whole culture (not just music), including fashion and graphic design and the music industry itself (i.e. the do-it-yourself label philosophy).  Some say it was a musical dead-end.  And all these views are correct in some way - there will never be complete agreement.  In my opinion it was the "formularisation" of punk which occurred in 1977 with explosion of new bands, that ultimately was its downfall.

Ad1mt (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For the purposes of this list, if you do not make the distinction between US & UK bands then the 'first wave' must consist solely of a handful of Americans. ALL of the multitude of UK punk bands came after the small but influential American (by which we mean the New York) scene. In Britain, pub rock directly preceded, and overlapped with, early the punk scene. Those bands were equally as influential as the New York bands and helped to give the British punks a distinctive, native feel. (For example, many early punks cite Dr. Feelgood as a huge source of inspiration. Other punk bands started life as pub-rockers. Groundbreaking labels such as Stiff Records championed both pub-rockers and punks, and they often toured together). Yozzer66 (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Pub Rock wasn't punk. The early CBGB bands were punk, it was with them that the concept, the approach, most of what came to defined as punk was born...they were definitely far more influential than pub rock. Pub rock definitely played it's role in the development, but it wasn't much more significant than the influence from say, Glam Rock or early Power Pop. It was the New York scene responsible for giving birth to what was first, officially designated as punk, bottom line. Theburning25 (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this article could be split by country, given that things developed at different paces on opposite sides of various oceans. I agree that the current list in the article is a bit too broad, and that the U.S. bands should just be limited to the anomalies that sprouted up in Cleveland, New York and elsewhere in the early-mid-70s and ruling out any bands that formed in the late 70s/early 80s. Morganfitzp (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This list needs stricter editing
It is no wonder the factual accuracy of the article is disputed. A good proportion of the bands listed are NOT in the first wave of punk music. The list either needs stricter editing OR the article should be re-named (something like 'List of punk musicians performing in the 1970s'). Yozzer66 (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously. XTC???  Good band, but whoever listed them as punk, let alone first wave punk, has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.  This is just plain silly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.158.223.4 (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Initially, in the UK, the definition between 'punk' and 'new wave' was blurred. It simply wasn't clearly defined or was it policed by over-zealous music journalists or fans. Believe it or not, in 1977, the same people that spiked their hair and wore safety pins in the ripped jeans also championed both the Sex Pistols and XTC!!! Yozzer66 (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion
I've started a deletion dicussion, at Articles for deletion/List of musicians in the first wave of punk rock - not necessarily because I think it should be deleted, but because I don't think it's possible to objectively define who or what constitutes the "first wave". So deletion, a good source that shows there's a generally-accepted definition, renaming, or perhaps something else - not sure what I think the solution is. But please do offer any thoughts you might have. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion
I've renamed the article, as decided by consensus at Articles for deletion/List of musicians in the first wave of punk rock -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will see what kind of magic i can pull editing wise --Guerillero &#124;  My Talk   14:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"... musicians"? No, "bands".
This article is mis-named. A musician is a person; this should be a list of people who play punk rock music. Instead, it is almost exclusively contains punk rock bands.

Why isn't it called "List of 1970s punk rock bands"? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)