Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:43:30 Alan wrote:
>
> I'll allow that what constitutes a "song" will differ from person to person, but to me the whole point of punk is to voice aggression. 

>For me, that blinds whatever songcraft might be there.

Then you need to redefine your "whole point of punk". Cause that's NOT what it was entirely about. It was only one aspect of one movement in the punk arsenal.

> I guess it depends on the band. I'm not a huge Ramones fan, for example, but I love a lot of their songs. But>Lydon and crew? I've tried many times over the years, but punk just generally sounds like a lot of noise to me.>Chord progressions and lyrics, yes, but songs? Not to my mind.

Methinks you need to listen to The Clash, Sham 69, 999, The Angelic Upstarts, and Buzzcocks for who were all melodic as as hell. The Sex Pistols were not the measuring stick to which all punk was held up to...only its tipping point. Like my wife, someone has fed you a definition of punk that's not only misinformed you but scared you away from some great POP music.

Jaimie Vernon,
Bullseye