Hell, London Calling had punk, reggae, rockabilly and straight pop on it. All before the end of side one.

>----- ------- Original Message ------- -----
>From: :audities@smoe.org
>To: craigtorso@verizon.net, audities@smoe.org
>Sent: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:55:57
>
>> I'm sorry, Alan, but I gotta go with Jaimie on
>this one: you seem to have 
>> a misapprehension of what punk is, both lyrically
>and musically, that's 
>> going to make it hard to continue this
>conversation much further.  I'm not 
>> saying that you're in any way duty-bound to
>listen to or appreciate punk, 
>> I'm just saying that your statements on the topic
>so far suggest that part 
>> of your disdain for the style is based on a
>misreading of intent.
>>
>And just a word in defense of aggression, here for 
>a moment. Given the 
>societal forces that gave rise to punk (at least
>its English incarnation) in 
>pre-Thatcherite Britain, is it really any surprise
>that the music was fired 
>by people looking to work out their frustrations?
>Take rampant unemployment, 
>simmering tensions between youth and the police and
>an economy that was 
>generally in the toilet with no prospect for
>improvements, and I'm guessing 
>you'd be pretty hacked off as well.
>Even still, it seems pretty reductive to just write
>it off as "aggressive," 
>and nothing more. There was some serious melodicism
>in the songs of The 
>Clash. I've already opined on the sonics of "Never
>Mind the Bollocks."
>And one of the things that doesn't get written
>about nearly enough to my 
>mind, is the intersection between punk and reggae.
>For a group of people 
>generally written off as scribbling swastikas
>across their shirts, the punks 
>were remarkably inclusive. Before there were any
>punk records in the 
>jukebox, DJs were spinning King Tubby and Studio
>One tracks between sets.
>That seems pretty forward thinking to me.
>
>john micek