Talk:Proto-punk

The Ramones
The Ramones were said to have been a result of Protopunk. However, The Ramones were part of the original punk movement. The Sex Pistols did branch from protopunk, the Ramones were in protopunk. Also, I added that the original protopunk bands were Blondie, Patti Smith, and the Ramones at CBGBs. The New York Dolls were also part of this triplet, however, they are credit (in college music history courses) as being wave 2 punk movement bands. This is because they knew how to play their instruments before they started playing as a band.


 * if your knowledge about punk is coming from college music history classes, then your knowledge is necessarily flawed and you're wasting your money at that school. knowledge about punk (or any art/music form) can't be received


 * the ramones are generally seen as the point at which protopunk became true punk. also, all first generation punk bands were a direct result of protopunk, which is best defined as bands that were active before the term 'punk' was coined. Joeyramoney 19:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Patti Smith, Blondie, and The Ramones are not protopunk. Smith and The Ramones, along with Hell, Suicide, and Television, are all major playors in First Wave Punk. Blondie is New Wave; I'm not even sure how you thought they were proto-punk. Quinibus

Protopunk music goes all the way back to The Who's angry instrument smashing. Several British groups, notably John's Children and The Move, were influenced by The Who and developed outrageous stage acts to compensate for their poor playing. These groups were amongst the first protopunks. At around the same time in America, groups like the MC5 developed angry, repetitive music with an anti-society message. Eventually, British protopunk and American protopunk became intertwined circa 1972, to form the basis of punk rock.

Many vastly more popular and well-known musicians emerged from protopunk groups. For instance, Marc Bolan, formerly of John's Children, invented glam rock, a theatrical variant of protopunk, and hid behind groundbreaking costumes to disguise his amateurish guitar playing. He became one of the most influential rock stars ever. The New York Dolls and other protopunks, were influenced by his music and costumes, and created an angry variant which was absorbed into the styles of garage rockers such as The Ramones.

And that's the origins of punk. Your helpful mate, Percussion


 * That's a nice history, but incomplete: you left out Lou Reed, Bowie, and Iggy Pop. Also: note, The Ramones may have sold the most t-shirts to sub-urban kids, but they aren't the only major band in the early punk movement; just the most accessible.Quinibus

I'm not sure why exactly Pere Ubu should be considered proto-punk, like the article suggests. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.Quinibus
 * Terminal Tower

Television isn't protopunk. They played with at CBGBs at the same time as the Ramones..Quinibus

Wait, why is Greenday listed as proto-punk? This is'nt right.

Green Day is not protopunk. Protopunk refers to the origins of punk in the 60s and 70s. Green Day weren't around until 89. The punk movement was well established and moving towards the mainstream by that time.

The article suggests that Eddie Cochran and Iggy Pop were both known as the "Godfather of Punk". Which is correct?
 * neither, it's Ricky Nelson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Neil Young? I mean Tonight's the night. On the beach. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.206.52 (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What "protopunk," means is subject to different interpretations. The New York scene of the 70s, though it was the first to self-consciously call itself "punk" (thanks in large part to the influence of early 70s rock critics), did not originally see itself as inventing punk (at least not pre-Punk Magazine), but rather to bring back (and update) the kind of rock & roll (already being referred to as "punk") that people were yearning for: mid 60s garage and MC5, Stooges, etc..  That is one reason why the Ramones make so many nostalgic and stylistic references to 60s rock & roll.  They were essentially an updated garage band--punk in that kind of way.


 * At first, the New York scene was only a music scene--it did not consider itself to be a completely distinct and separate subculture or lifestyle, in the way the London scene would later make obligatory in most people's minds. It had no manifestos, doctrines, no recognizable "look."  The Ramones never considered themselves part of any subculture other than just being four guys form Queens who loved rock & roll--punk in the kind of way that people such as Lester Bangs and Lenny Kaye had earlier waxed about.


 * So, deciphering exactly where protopunk ends and punk begins is highly problematic. Were the Ramones any less punk than the Sex Pistols?  Were the Stooges any less punk than the Ramones?  Were the 60s garage bands any less punk than the Stooges?  It was the 60s garage bands, after all, that (retroactively) got called punk first.  So, where do you draw the line? For most people it is CBGB's.  But, the Dictators were playing there before the Ramones, and they are usually considered protopunk, which doesn't quite make sense.  Furthermore, the New York scene was never as much of a subculture/lifestyle as people usually assume.  So, if your requirement to be considered punk is subculture/lifestyle, then you would have to discount almost all of the New York bands and artists (including the Ramones) and start with the London scene.  If your baseline is CBGB's, then you would have to re-classify The Dictators and other bands as punk, not protopunk.    If your requirement is to go along with the original definition as used in the early 70s, then you have to push the whole punk thing back to 1963, and regard certain rock & rollers form the 50s and early 60s as protopunk (i.e. Chess rockers, rockabilly, Link Wray, surf, etc.).  I think that a lot of this essentially boils down to whether you consider punk to be primarily a form of rock and roll music or as a lifestyle/subculture.  Personally, I consider it to be music first and last: as an ongoing thread in rock & roll.  The subculture stuff if OK as far as I am concerned, but you can take it or leave it.  The whole "proto" thing came about in the late 70s, so that people wouldn't confuse the then current 70s punk from the previous stuff.  But, now punk is seen as a trans-generational phenomenon, so is there any longer the need to remove anything pre-1975 from its classification? Unfortunately, wiki has no choice but to classify artists according to the current prevailing view. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Garagepunk66 This is definitely a muddy and confusing issue. And it's something that can be observed throughout Wikipedia. A good example: Television is listed as both protopunk AND punk rock in their infobox. How can this be so? What's the logic here? Two other examples of this are The Stooges (same thing) and The Dictators' album Go Girl Crazy!. While I can see that most people generally use chronology when assessing whether or not a particular band is punk rock or protopunk (therefore, it might make sense to have the Stooges and Television fall into both since they both formed before punk rock is generally said to have started), the Dictators' album makes no sense. Since all the songs on it were recorded and released around the same time, how can it fall into BOTH genres? One would of course argue that we should follow whatever the sources say, but as you pointed out above, even they contradict each other. I think the best thing to do would be to gather some sources showing this contradiction (ie. some sources labelling 1960s garage bands as "punk", and others calling them "protopunk", etc.) and maybe bring this up on either WikiProject Punk music, or the Music genres task force so that a consensus can be reached on this, and hopefully make this grey area more clear. Johnny338 (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The Kinks
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)

John Cale
I added a mention of Cale, as he was certainly very heavily involved in the scene. Also, someone should consider mentioning Neil Young. 124.178.105.179 14:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Neil Young is proto-alternative (or will be, once such a category is established). He was still too much of a CSNY hippie in the 70s to be protopunk

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

Radio Birdman
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)

Needs work
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)

I would go further and say that the 'Notable examples' section is now a joke. Perhaps it should be dispensed with and replaced with a link to List of forerunners of punk music where people can have a field day adding their favorite bands. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

punk academia? really? well i guess if yer even gonna bother, shouldn't you at least include Third World War (band), Hawkwind, and the Pink Fairies, who countless punk bands have sited as influences, and are even listed on Wikipedia as such? seems whoever wrote this article has a problem with the limeys; all the bands listed are yankees.--12.149.100.21 (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

oops, just saw the List of forerunners of punk music...sorry about that. i even forgot to sign in, damn am i loose in the brain or what?--Almightybooblikon (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There's not much mention of Hawkwind, which was 'the band punks were into before punks were invented'. They were totally anti-establishment, anti corporate rock and resolutely 'underground'. It was their attitude that greatly influenced many of the early punks, such as Johnny Rotten who was a mega Hawkwind fan. Also, ever heard Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters (aka Bob Calvert)? Totally punk in 1974. I think they deserve much more of a mention, even if their major influence is often overlooked by the 'mainstream'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.183.10 (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

White Punks on Coke
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)

The Monks
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)

I would consider the monks as a garage band, not a protopunk band. They might have had some influence but adding them would mean adding any garage band. --Eze226

Sub-genre
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)


 * I waited nearly a month. If you object please comment and explain why.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 20:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

The Saints
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)

It would depend on what they sounded like prior to 1976, rather than simply when they were formed. Sometimes bands can be around for a while and not pick up a "punk" sound until after a certain point (e.g. The Jam, who are reported as dating back to around 1972, but are certainly never described as proto-punk. They were apparently a simple cover band for several years). I'm not sure but about the Saints, but it's certainly a possibility I suppose. Theburning25 (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

Richard Hell
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)

New Wave was used interchangeably with punk during the 70s, there probably wasn't a single band from the first wave scene that wasn't referred to by it at least once. The Voioids were a punk band and perhaps in a chronological sense were not a "proto-punk" project, but they do have proto-punk roots through earlier bands members were involved with (such as Television). Richard Hell individually is an essential proto-punk figure, that's not's even up for debate. Theburning25 (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Stylistic origins
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)


 * 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)

Foresight / Classic Rock
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Your comments are I'm afraid, rather short-sighted. I myself am "Gen Y" and can certainly hear a difference in The Stooges, MC5 and the Velvet Underground vs bands like Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, Queen. Of course general consensus is leaning increasingly toward your own take on "Classic Rock". Included among CR playlists now are acts like the Ramones, The Clash, Talking Heads, even 80s and early 90s Alternative bands. Classic Rock has apparently shifted from it's original purpose as a babyboomer rock retrospective, into playing anything that is slightly "old" at the moment.

The Stooges, MC5 and VU did not get the same level of radio support as their AOR peers. They did not come close to drawing the arena crowds of your typical Classic Rock band, they did not produce Mick Jagger, Robert Plant, Jim Morrisson iconic "rock stars" and generally, did not fit in with the musical landscape and culture. Iggy and Lou Reed were anti-60s, anti-hippie/flower power. It is more than simple "construction" to recognize that these bands were the early equivalent of underground rock, who very much laid the groundwork for punk. Their influence has been documented ever since those very early punk days and it isn't just a "Gen-Xer" phenomenon to cite this. Proto and early punk wasn't even a Gen-X thing. Gen-X is more popularly tied to early-90s Grunge, for fecks's sake.

Now you did mention The Who, and I will give that they are a, well, "classic" example of a Classic Rock band. There were a few acts like that who were stylistically bold enough to spill some of their influence onto punk. One major thing to distinguish the likes of The Whos from The Stooges etc, is the "cult" element. These bands seem to share a recurring theme of short-lived stints, to which their lack of success is largely attributable. They wound up with niche followings and a kind of "mythical", "what could have been" legacy. These bands were far more influential than famous. To me, actually, that's the difference between "influencing punk" and being protopunk. The Who, Kinks, Bowie, or at a stretch Alice Cooper or the Doors, are acts I would consider influential to the formation of punk, but would not call protopunk. They fit under other rock genre molds just fine, and for all intents and purposes are Classic Rockers. The "cult" acts-Stooges, MC5, VU, The Sonics, Modern Lovers, NYDs, Monks...I would consider to be protopunks, in the sense that they were actually punk before their time. They were very on the fringe, and more difficult to classify (back then). They may be from our "dad's era", but around 8 out of 10 dads of our dads were NOT listening to them. Theburning25 (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Classic Rock" was a term invented in the early 2000s. Before classic rock stations all that music was played Album Oriented Rock stations, a format that dates back to the early 60s. AOR stations just played good rock music and didn't care much about genre distinctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.27.185 (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)

Wrong link in "Wire"
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)
 * Now done - thanks for noticing! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Sorry I'm so late, but in case anyone else is curious, the Doors are considered protopunk partly due to Jim Morrison's notorious antics (Iggy Pop has long spoken of Morrison's influence on him). Plus, songs such as "Break on Through", "Hello I Love You", and "Soul Kitchen" have an attitude and aggression that is a precursor to punk. In any case, it really can't be changed in the article unless one can provide reliable sources that outweigh the sources claiming that they are protopunk. Johnny338 (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Factual error in opening statement/Need to add mention of certain protopunk genres in heading/Add "...some of..."

 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * That is true. The statement, as you have re-worded it, should suffice. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hyphen
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)

Proposal to rename article to Proto-punk
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)


 * This seems prudent. Common use of the term by major music publications seems to include the hyphen across the board, as is evidenced by, , and urs145 (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Punk rock coverage
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)

Peru
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)


 * 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)

When I looked at the sources it seemed like a lot of them were talking about punk rock, not proto-punk.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Article appears to be going in wrong direction and needs a lot of work
There are some issues that need to be raised here. This article is over-reliant on one brief AllMusic piece (with no named author), and, though cited, even goes to the point of copying its statements ad verbatim in the lead section, which is borders on plagiarism. The old wording (a while back) in the lead was much better. Someone removed Ghmyrtle's statement about mid-1960s garage as part of what constitutes definitions of proto-punk. If someone had just taken the time to ask him, he would have pointed out the Lester Bangs piece "Protopunk: The Garage Bands" that appeared in the Rolling Stone History of Rock & Roll (both 1980 and 1992 editions) that was dedicated to mid-60s garage bands. This Wiki article used to treat proto-punk in broader terms. While the term proto-punk is today more often used to designate the small group of bands in the early 1970s the lead refers to, it now overlooks the large number of earlier bands that the term is also applied. So, in the hierarchy of usage, it goes something like this:
 * 1) Music from approx. 1969-1974 that influenced punk movement of mid to late 70s (most common usage)
 * 2) Garage band music from approx. 1963-1968 that also had influence on later punk (second most common usage, possible original form)
 * 3) Certain music 1958-1962 (i.e. Link Wray) (distant third--may be difficult to find sources)

The third instance may prove too difficult to include, unless we can find some good sources, but the first two should be included and discussed both in the lead and body of the article. User: Ilovetopaint, what should we do about all of the "citation not mentioned in article" tags? This article needs a lot of work. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I made some modifications in the lead section. I changed the wording so that it does not quote ad verbatim.  I re-instated Ghmyrtle's wording relating to 60s garage and cited Bangs' piece in RS.  I made the statements more inclusive of the totality of protpunk.  However, the text section is going to need some work.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but one thing I have to remind you is to stop adding OR text like "most often used to designate". It's not supposed to be our job to figure these things out.
 * As with any article, if you can find valuable material on "proto-punk", then include it, but be careful of WP:NAMEDROP and WP:OFFTOPIC.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sometimes wording things gets tricky. I wouldn't say that "most often used to designate" is an original thought. It's just there to describe the prevailing view.  However, I'll admit that it sounds a bit awkward.  I will be careful.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I went in and addressed some of the problems. I removed statements sounding synthetic or non-neutral.  I added citations in some places where they were needed.  Having addressed that, I removed the synthesis template at the top and other obsolete tags.  There are still some places (lower-down in the article) that need citations, so I left that part of the template up at the top. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

"the prevailing view" - and you know this how? It doesn't say it in the source. When writing articles, please maintain a NPOV. Don't embellish the sources with OR.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links 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)

Jazz origins
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)

Pink Floyd
In this article, writer Stuart Berman comments on Pink Floyd's influence on later bands - which no-one denies. An IP editor here keeps claiming that the article justifies adding Barrett-era Floyd as a "proto-punk" band. Does anyone agree, or have a view? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In interpret that the article say that early Pink Floyd can be considered a "proto-punk" band, in the way that bands such as The Rolling Stones or krautrock bands such as Can or Neu! were, they weren't proto-punk bands like MC5 or The Stooges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:200:e800:d8c:d81c:49f5:1e12:e680 (talk • contribs)


 * No, the source you cited does not fully endorse the proto-punk genre. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And you've been genre-warring on various Pink Floyd articles for more than a year as Special:Contributions/2800:200:E800:D8C:0:0:0:0/64 from Peru. I'm quite certain you've used other IP addresses as well. You have been disruptive for too long. Binksternet (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

was or is?
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)


 * 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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Dave Davies.png

This article's main academic references are not about proto-punk, the only articles mentioning it are from AllMusic, anonymous original authors and random copywriters.
[|Wikipedia Reliable Sources] Says that if there's no reliable source, then it should not have an article on it. Is AllMusic even a reliable source? I cannot find the author of the Proto-punk article on it. If we strip down anything definition-wise on this article from All-Music, the absolute mention of proto-punk almost disappears. HannahCritter (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You started this account today and have made only four edits to two talk pages, and you want both articles deleted? With one Google search I found several reliable sources that discuss proto-punk explicitly, including Alchemy of Punk: Transmutation, Subversion, and Poetry in Punk Avant-Gardes, Punk Rock: Music Is the Currency of Life, My So-Called Punk: Green Day, Fall Out Boy, The Distillers, Bad Religion—How Neo-Punk Stage-Dived into the Mainstream, Screaming for Change: Articulating a Unifying Philosophy of Punk Rock, Rebels Wit Attitude: Subversive Rock Humorists, and PUNK: Loud Guitars, Louder Statements. Carlstak (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have been lurking for a while.
 * my account’s age has nothing to do with what I said.
 * I do not pitch deleting both articles but rather the upbringing of sources that are unreliable. Thanks for bringing up new sources.
 * Why should we rely on the unreliable sources in the current article rather than using the excellent examples in literature that you sent?
 * I think it’s a step to the right direction if we move towards reliable sources.
 * On a personal note, Death as a band sounds pretty punk to me, what is the source that calls it proto-punk? HannahCritter (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)