After reading chapter Punk The Sound of Criticism? in the reader I have a little more insight to a period of music history which fascinates me. Basically the article is about a rock journalist observing a music festival at CBGB’s in the summer of 1975 during the beginning of the first wave punk movement right before the punk explosion in 1977 when it really hit the mainstream. He details what CBGB’s looked like and the general atmosphere of the festival, then begins to mention the now iconic bands Television, the Talking Heads, and briefly The Ramones. He goes on about how punk is the kind of music that is “saving”  rock from the over the top arena rock of the day. He also draws a lot of comparisons to the punk bands and the Velvet Underground and the Warhol art movement of the late 1960’s. I personally found this article to a be little ironic since the author goes on about how these bands and this movement aren’t pretentious yet he writes about them in a pretentious way (or at least to me he comes off as pretentious). I disagree with some of his description of Television and his comparison of Tom Verlaine to Keith Richards, but do love his short depiction of The Ramones. I also agree to an extent that the Talking Heads may have been the closest band of that scene to be the most “Velvet Underground-ish” because both bands had such an odd way of going about making music which made them both so unique to themselves. Towards the end he asks the question if these bands will ever become bigger than just CBGB’s regulars but in the end it doesn’t matter which made me laugh only because he had no idea how iconic these bands would become in the years to follow or how popular the Talking Heads would be. One of the reasons I deeply enjoy punk music and the culture of it is because this initial scene in New York in the mid to late 1970’s which focused on making music that had a message and allowed people to freely express themselves however they wanted regardless of musical skill. This notion appeals greatly to me and is what I believe punk it truly about which is why a band like the Sex Pistols rub me the wrong way in some aspects since they seemed (or at least some members of the band seemed) to be more focused on fashion and using punk as an excuse to party all the time and act like animals rather than express ideas the way many American punk bands did. Not to say the NY bands didn’t focus on punk fashion and party a lot, but they didn’t seem to let it get in the way of their music.

Personally I view the development of popular music genres such as rock and pop music to be a positive thing. I think when artists experiment and push the genre into new territories (such as many rock artists did in the 1960’s) it leaves room for artists after them to continue the progression they started or to mix and blend these new styles. I think when a genre sticks to the same format and never changes it stagnates the genre, but also leads fans to become bored with it very quickly after the initial fascination dies down and something new takes it’s place in mainstream society. Even though early rock ‘n’ rollers such as Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, etc. were popular at the time had bands such as The Beatles, Beach Boys, The Rolling Stones, etc. stayed in that formula of simple R&B based music about sex and cars I feel rock music’s popularity would have fizzled out and many people would have lost interest in it. Because of the artists of the 1960’s changing and experimenting more by pushing boundaries with new recording technology rock’s development not only enticed audiences but showed the larger music community that this was a serious form of music and not just a “teenybopper trend” as it was viewed in it’s earlier years. By the time rock was established in the 1970’s many bands seemed to have perfected the genre and their own individual sounds whether they chose to draw on already established styles (ex. Led Zeppelin), continue with experimentation (ex. Pink Floyd), or return to rock’s roots (ex. the Ramones). I think development becomes detrimental when artists don’t know how to keep themselves grounded and experiment too far in certain directions, a prime example being the progressive rock movement in the 1970’s. While it established the complexity and intellect of rock music was sometimes too pretentious and ridiculous with 10+ minute songs featuring four keyboards, two guitars, two drummers, etc. which is what sparked first wave punk rock groups to return to the simple early rock ‘n’ roll format. I think the balance is needed for a genre to continue to grow and develop in a healthy manner because when you only have one direction it looses audiences, depth, and appeal. With both complex and simple forms of rock music coinciding it gave birth for a steady middle ground to develop the genre further with bands such as Fugazi and Sonic Youth in the late 1980-1990’s. Bands such as them were able to make “simple” complex rock music or “complex” simple rock music depending on how you look at it. I think a good modern example of a band that continues to develop the genre without becoming too over the top with experimentation are The Strokes who take influence from older rock but experiment with newer sounds. While their newest music is not as critically or culturally acclaimed as their earlier work they manage to keep evolving as a group by exploring various aspects of rock music (new and old) to maintain a new style.