"You may well ask me such things, that to some I shall answer truly, and to others I shall not." And she added, "If you were well informed about me, you would wish me to be out of your hands. I have done nothing except by revelation."
- Jeanne D'Arc (The Trial of Jeanne D'Arc, trans. by W.P. Barrett)
The historical origins of music aren't clear. However, the internet, which is never at a loss for words, provides a wealth of competing theories, which as a matter of fairness, will be listed without comment, though I'll omit the purported dates so we won't have to remember anything.
The various wellsprings of song include:
Lyre accompaniment to Greek poetry recitals, accompaniment to seasonal and fertility rites, celebrating a successful harvest, bird songs that inspired the Flintstones and Barney Rubble to explore their inner fem, tribal drummers playing long boring solos so people started adding vocals, aliens giving ancient Egyptians another nudge towards higher civilization after Cleopatra complained that the pyramids could be built by any peasant with Legos, artists trying to make money without working in fields or factories (the quest continues to this day), marching bands needing gigs in between wars of conquest, promoters trying to spice up monotonous gladiator shows, Johann Sebastian Bach needing something to do when not having sex with every woman that came within 10 feet of him, desperate attempts to make mimes less irritating by adding soundtrack music, trying to inspire people to buy more stuff for Christmas, and the release of the Beatles Sgt. Pepper album. [citation needed, some experts claim that modern music started with the release of Lady Gaga's Born This Way single]
...the dawn of professional musicians...
The search for the origins of professional music isn't so elusive. It dates back to the early period when people began to congregate into villages similar to modern day social networks like Facebook and Twitter, with the resulting array of social behavior ranging from a global love of cats to the intense hatred of people one hardly knows, and of course the practice of "unfriending," though back then it was called exile, banishment, or witch trials.
The earliest known reference to musicians who no longer performed useful daily tasks, such as food production, defense of the village, or crafting implements, appears to come from Sumerian clay cuneiform fragments that experts estimate were written around 234,456 B.C. and are from the second chapter of The Lost Gospels Of Murgatroyd, page ten, paragraph 14, and translated by the Shitzu U scholar Ivy Shitz in 1946, which reads:
"I travers'd the iniquities of the world during harvest,
I lay in sweet repose, hidden from dutys of the plow,
to find succor in bless'd sleep and escape
the devilish rancor of fellows resenting mine sloth,
and in dream comes heav'nly visions of undiminisht light,
severe in lustre, full of bestial harlots, casual in vertue,
with wanton amours, rivers of Mead,
and wings to fly from all werk,
to enjoy the love of a fawn'g mosh pit multitude.
Then the guiltie Serpent appears, and so sayeth,
to sate thy rockn'rola appetites, becometh a musician,
and be deliver'd from judgement, whether in Heav'n or Hell,
and attain the ease thee seeks."
It should be noted that some Internet sleuths claim that the verses appear to be a clumsy transposition of Middle English with phrases inaccurately lifted from texts by Bunyan and Milton, and furthermore, the clay fragments appear to be actually part of a broken Hello Kitty ashtray that was discovered in the clearance section of a Chicago dollar store, and the date on the price tag indicates the date of manufacture is 1982. Said experts add that the purported cuneiforms are just brush texture marks from a cheap paint job intended to keep the price of the item at a dollar.
Since we're all familiar with the inaccuracy of internet data, these so-called corrections can be dismissed as fake news, and the transcription can be assumed to be as accurate as a modern day bio of a rock star or Hollywood actor, well within Internet standards of veracity.
...godfathers of punk...
It was probably around this time that Godfathers of Punk appeared, though most Internet accounts vary depending on which Record Label press release is the source document. Because of the vast and confusing body of data on the subject, it’s best to leave the subject a matter of personal conviction between each person and their streaming playlists.
…before we go into the history of punk rock…
In attempting to present the reader with an accurate history of a music genre, we have to address the fact that artists will say anything to get people to buy albums.The temptation to lie like a dog isn't exclusively a musical vice. Politicians routinely issue outrageous statements with no appearance of embarrassment or shame, and certainly in America, such elastic standards of truth are considered justified if the goal is to get super rich.
As such, I'll assume all musical sources are true unless proven otherwise. Also, I won't bother with dates or names so no one has to remember anything.
The music industry never made any secret of the fact that they were in the entertainment business until the 60s, when the young rebels of rock and roll rejected the shallow values of money grubbing, reliance on top 40 singles, embraced the importance of relevance and social consciousness, and explored the deeper artistic aims and profit margins that could be achieved through the broader canvas of the long playing album.
The major labels were certainly taken aback at first, but came to Jesus very quickly; after all, the higher markup on albums made revolution, peace, and love a win-win for all, and figured that once these rebellious crusaders became rich, they'd see the light and get serious about extracting every possible revenue stream from their adoring fans.
Which is how it pretty much stayed through the CD era, as artists and labels kept prices up by increasing the content of new releases to 50-60 minutes, even if that meant consumers had to buy the whole package to get the song or songs they actually wanted. Sure, singles were still released, but were priced well above that of old school 45s.
...the turning point...
The turning point in the United States was the development of what was known as the “concept album,” which in theory meant the songs were part of some really deep theme, man, or in the case of one famous example, The Who’s “Tommy,” told a story that had a lot of deep meaning and significance. Like with Tommy, the story could be so awesome that it was necessary to issue the work as a double album, which not only allowed the plot to fully develop, but increased the take. Like sand in a bikini bottom, art and business always finds a way.
That was when the United States and England began to diverge (again); while the Yanks moved towards albums, the British artists, as a general rule, still thought in terms of releasing singles first for an audience that wanted the songs heard on the radio, then following up with albums. Even progressive rock groups, who specialized in long, complicated songs, made sure to release airplay friendly singles.
The point was, you released 45s to get airplay, and made your money doing live performances. Of course, it’s more complicated than that, but good enough for the purposes of this blog entry.
…singles and LPs…
That’s why punk rock developed differently than in America, and without the English rockers, the music could have just ended up being a cult or critic’s band type genre. There, most of the radio airplay, which was critical to success, centered on the BBC and pirate stations. That made it easier to break one’s music, and all a band needed was a single (or even a tape with the pirate stations). I’m simplifying, of course, but across the Atlantic pond, a band or artist didn’t necessarily need to record an album or even get signed to get attention from the music media.
In other words, the British music culture never abandoned the single, which in America had receded in influence during the 60s. That’s an important difference, because how the punk genre developed in England influenced it’s American counterpart.
Singles were always the primary form of promo, and given the most studio time. A group might spend a couple of hours recording the single, and be given just one more to record the rest of the album. The single, at least the "A Side," represented the artist's best effort to sell music to the public. American groups in the 60s eventually started recording albums first, then selecting cuts from it to be singles. This practice would be reinforced by Rock mags that'd mainly review the LPs as a unit, unlike English pubs that would have celebrities commenting on the latest singles as well.
In England, even groups like the Beatles would release singles first, then later include those on an album, or in the case of songs like "Rain," or "Hey Jude," those would end up on a later compilation album. Singles would often be left off of a U.K. album because it was seen as making the public pay for the song twice. There's a lot of other reasons and exceptions, of course, but as a generality, that's basically how the two cultures approached singles.
…the beauty…
The beauty of a single is that the consumer generally knows it from radio airplay, wants the song and can buy it. The lower cost also encourages people to take a chance on a new group. Until the advent of streaming, the main choice the labels offered was to buy a set of songs, most unheard, and unlike most other products, there was no money back guarantee. In the CD era, new releases were almost always near the one hour range to keep the price up, which taxed the abilities of more than one group to fill with killer cuts. Most consumers have experienced the joy of buying an album and only liking some of the cuts, but as with products like phone-based customer service and autocorrect, the consumer has learned to eat poop and like it.
There were always singles, of course, but the CD versions were more expensive than vinyl 45s, and never really caught on. Labels (and artists with big expenses) had no incentive to give consumers just the songs they wanted. Which, incidentally, is the reason why the industry hated cassette decks that could tape songs off the radio. Most consumers won't buy albums if they can get the actual song they want (for free or otherwise).
…indies…
Indie artists have always put out albums, of course, but after going through the expense and labor of putting one out, they ran into the dirty little secret of the music business, and the major labels had the same problem, which was that distributors hold most of the power, both in distribution and payment. More than one indie label in the 50s and 60s went under when the distributor screwed them out of their money.
That's why Walmart, the biggest retail seller, can require an otherwise rebellious artist to put out a PG rated version of an album (in America, revolution is all about saying a lot of dirty words). You can be a rebel, if you don't mind losing millions in sales. Most end up choosing compromise, which is the American Way, and most fans will understand the deep angst involved. [citation needed on the last sentence, I'm just assuming consumers think like Record execs and millionaire artists]
…very early punk…
By the late 70s, a new band in the US that wanted to make the big time faced many obstacles besides fighting oppression by The Man and achieving world peace. There was the expense of "pro level" instruments and equipment, and being told that labels required quality demos that could cost thousands of dollars to record. Then the tape was submitted to the labels, who would only choose a few from the thousands submitted. If you were lucky, one of the label A&R men might discover you, but most had to submit demos.
If you got signed, your advance was generally a loan against royalties, and if the record flopped (or didn't make the money back), as most did, then you either played what they told you to try and make the money back, or they owned your publishing.
…you can make it…
An artist could break through on a regional level, mainly through live performance, but their ability to make money from recording was limited by the ferociously corrupt music media and of course, being at the mercy of distributors who might not even bother to pick up a product that wouldn't sell the minimum number of copies required to make the kind of profit that was considered worth the trouble.
There was one exception, where a new sound or culture would arise in some city or region that the industry couldn't ignore, like the psychedelic bands in San Francisco, or the beat groups in England, but that wasn't always a given. A scene in Boston got a lot of hype in the 60s, for example, but not much came of it.
Keep in mind, I'm moving very quickly. For a deeper understanding of music history, a search on Google can unearth a lot of interesting and fun detail to flesh out my narrative or confirm my ignorance. Either way, please follow your heart, or whatever your spirit animal tells you to do.
…Back to England...
Just before the English Punk explosion in the 70s, there was a popular club level music called Pub Rock, which was essentially sped up R&B and 60s rock, which spawned groups such as Dr. Feelgood and Brinsley Schwartz, and was headed in the same direction of the NYC scene that featured groups like the Ramones and Patti Smith, that is to say, cult status fortified by support by friends who were mostly Rock critics.
However, two things happened, both in England and in America.
The Pub Rock movement became a scene where many of the future punk stars got their start. One example was Joe Strummer, a founding member of the Clash who was in a group called the "101'ers" and another being Nick Lowe who was a member of Brindley Schwartz, who became a solo artist and producer for the influential Stiff label (Elvis Costello, etc).
In the states, an English manager/promoter named Malcom McLaren had failed to make a group called the New York Dolls into big stars, and went back to England and tried again with a group called The Sex Pistols. From this point on, the events are historical and well documented on the internet and worth further study. I could delineate it all here, but I do need to start getting to the actual point of this essay. My duty to truth demands it.
…getting the breaks…
What broke punk wide open wasn't massive record sales, but the Sex Pistols managing to capture both the imagination of a subculture of young people looking for something new, and generating an epic amount of negative publicity that, as usual in such cases, had the effect of raising their profile to the international level. That made people talk about punk, and even the mainstream media began looking around for punk bands to cover.
The crowning glories were that their single, Anarchy In The U.K., was banned from the BBC, and causing an national uproar when they responded to an interviewer's challenge to say obscenities on TV and thus finding it almost impossible to find places to play in the ensuing uproar. Which of course had the effect of putting punk on the map. Not many artists can say that a whole country hated their guts, though a great many try to achieve that (though not too hard of course, just enough to sell records).
The Pistols had one other big effect on the scene; the audiences that came to the early Sex Pistol gigs included fans like Joe Strummer and Billy Idol, and bands like the Buzzcocks were formed by those fans who often hadn’t played in a band before or could even play instruments. It was a similar situation to the early 60s rock scene there.
…basic currency…
The currency of punk was the single. Groups that the industry wouldn't touch put out singles which were eagerly played on the pirate stations there.The basic aesthetic was; if you wanted to play, then form a band and just do it. Put out a single if you were capable of creating a song, don't wait till some label found you. That resulted in the recording of a lot of music that varied in quality, much like today’s digital age, but the lack of gatekeepers and perceived expense made the music game accessible to a lot of young people, who took advantage.
The emphasis on live performance also gave fans an on opportunity to see bands up close, which wasn't unique of course, but in America, music had evolved too much into American Dream territory, to make it big and play big gigs for lots of money. It was all about stars and audiences buying albums and watching them in big halls and stadiums (or in disco, dispensing with musicians and just playing records).
It goes without saying that punk eventually ended up there too, but young people really do prefer to see and hear music from their own generation, so each wave has to rise and fall so the next get their turn.
That's a very broad stroke, but essentially the truth. Like I said in the October blog, if it wasn't punk, it'd have been something else.
The whole punk thing created an opening for a new generation of musicians, and that's why the Pistols are such a big symbol in the upcoming serial novel. Musicians have played in clubs and bars forever, but only at certain times did they feel that it was part of something bigger and could play their own songs and music.
…other examples…
Other periods that were similar included early Delta Blues, 50s Chicago Blues and Rock and roll, Doo-Wop, Early Rap, Bop, and free jazz, to name a few. Artists that were playing something new, and important enough that the money wasn't always the point. It was something they loved enough to do for free, which was often necessary because of the often low or non-existent pay they had to accept to play.
Many of the people reading this blog will understand that sensibility; writing indie books, doing crafts, hobbies, or playing/recording music has to be from love as the financial rewards aren't often there. Most of the bands who played punk didn't earn much, but got the chance to feel like part of something bigger, and like the feeling an indie author gets when he or she publishes a book, there's a feeling that they've beaten the odds and did something not everybody could do.
That was Punk's biggest contribution; it helped reset the cycle (in rock) and made the starting line open to anybody again. In the pre-digital era, that was no small thing.
…important and influential punk artists and groups…
As far as a list of important punk artists, that’s something the reader can find in abundance on the internet. The lists can vary, depending on the compiler’s tastes, or agenda, but most are sources of many hours of rewarding exploration, listening pleasure, argument, and judgements as to the level of intelligence or taste in other cretins and philistines who don't get it.
What I can do, though, is list the groups that were important to me and other punk rockers at the time. What was heard in the Mabuhay, both on stage and over the PA system during breaks, and talked about by artists there were often different than described in articles about the music.
For example, the San Francisco rock scene that started in the 60s was still vibrant in 1977, yet the Mabuhay never played anything by the Jefferson Airplane or other psychedelic groups. There were writers at the time that asserted that many of those now legendary groups were Godfathers of Punk, but in reality, it was sort of true, and sort of not.
...record collection...
As an avid record collector, for example, I had every Airplane, Hot Tuna, and Grateful Dead album, but had no desire to hear that stuff in the club, or even thought of them as musical heroes or influences there. The names that meant something included The Sex Pistols, Clash, Wire, Generation X, Ramones, Patti Smith, Television, Iggy Pop, The Stooges, to name a few, and in terms of 60s groups, one heard talk about the Kinks, Stones or even Captain Beefheart rather than the Beatles or Beach Boys.
There wasn’t a consensus either; there were punk artists that thought this or that group was “too pop,” and most of the mainstream attempts to incorporate punk were laughed at, particularly the ones who did it to prove they were the original punks. I won’t name examples of the latter, but will quote Lenny Bruce who said, “there’s nothing sadder than an aging hipster.”
THE SERIAL NOVEL, "THE QUITTERS" BY AL HANDA, THE FIRST CHAPTER DEBUTS IN FIRST WEEK OF JANUARY 2022, MORE DETAILS TO COME LATER THIS MONTH!
…which brings us too…
Which brings us to a preview of the upcoming serial novel, "The Quitters." (maybe it's actually a non-sequitur transition but its getting around time for this blog entry to wrap it up...).
The main objective is to convey some of the energy and feeling of the era, and to avoid the clichés that have become part of the Punk Rock ethos in print and popular media (unless it helps the story). The general mythology is that it was this spontaneous, ribald, and angry trip, and to some extent that was true, but a lot of it was pretty much like the Buddy Holly movie, just a bunch of young musicians who just wanted to play new music and maybe become successful (but as a novelist dedicated to making it real, man, some mythology may be inserted to inflate the importance of my characters).
...the beaten path...
My path to punk music started in the various new and used record stores that I frequented. The best ones carried a wide range of music publications, and I read every one I could afford (and loitered in the store and read at the rack when I couldn’t). Like most who ended up liking punk, I was getting bored with what was in vogue at the time; well dressed disco dancers in platform shoes, really really really long power ballads by guys in spandex, and the mellow singer-songwriter thing. It was all getting a bit old by 1977.
What I saw in those music magazines, particularly the ones from England, were accounts of new punk groups, which of course made me seek out or special order the records. For example, the first single I bought was by the Sex Pistols, and the first album was the first Clash release, both only available as an import at the time. I was fascinated by articles about New York's punk scene, which was centered in clubs like CBGB’s and began to buy albums by the Ramones, etc.
The album that really knocked me out was Television’s “Marquee Moon,” which wasn’t punk the way the Ramones or Pistols did it, but was intense, different, and displayed incredible musicianship. In fact, Johnny Rotten of the Pistols was on record as hating the group because it reminded him of the Grateful Dead, but later groups like R.E.M. and U2 cite them as an influence. In my case, the album showed that punk was a sensibility, not a style, and open to new ideas and influences.
...one problem though...
The main problem was that I lived in the SF South Bay area, and didn’t know anyone else who liked punk until I ran into an old friend who was thinking of forming a band that would play atonal blues punk, influenced by Captain Beefheart and Frank Zappa. I immediately signed on as the guitarist (not that I was that good, but I was the only one he found who was willing to play punk). I was also the youngest member until later on, though relatively old for a punk rocker at age 23.
Which is one of the key points of the novel, which is the main character is the youngest member, and has a different outlook on what transpires, though in keeping with the fictional aspect, the music played will be quite different from what my band did.
The main character is Nym, who's quite young , and at the start of the book has just switched over to bass after being the guitar player for a couple of months. The leader is an uncomplicated surfer type named Roder who lives in Santa Cruz, California, who shares vocal duties with his friend, Quill, whose actual ambition is to be a stand-up comic. The guitar spot is held by a succession of players who come and go, and the drummer is Hydie, who has an odd link to Roder, and gradually becomes a mentor to Nym by chapter five.
This big sister-little sister relationship will continue when the scene shifts to Southern California and Nym begins playing in the surf-punk and paisley underground scenes.
...technical terms...
I’ll avoid technical terms as much as possible. The main reason is the classic stand-up comic adage, that if the house band is laughing, you’re in trouble because the routine is too in-crowdish. Some musicians who read my book might roll their eyes at how some of the passages read, but the point is to get the average reader to understand what's happening on stage in layman terms, and have a clear picture of what’s going on from a point of view they haven’t seen before.
Also, like said earlier, I want to convey some of the energy of the time and music, and the best way (in my opinion) is to do it in first person, and in more or less in real time. That’ll also include interior dialogue, which does occur even when playing at extremely loud volume.
Because the narrative will run in real time, certain details like songs will seem to be passed over or given short shrift. However, loud two minute songs at max speed have different effects on the musician’s mind, depending on what’s going on around him or her. One number might feel like it comes and goes quickly, but others will feel like it’s goes on for a long time.
...standard line...
The standard mythology is that an artist feels the most alive and spiritual on stage, but really, the feelings can be all over the map, and that's why you have the occasional musician who berates the audience or even walks off the stage. It's a business that requires the work and cooperation of a lot of people even at the club level, and subject to human frailty and emotion.
Movies about music have one main difference from real life; the soundtrack makes it seem like the musicians hear the same thing the audience does, but there were gig’s where I could only hear myself, or one of the members of the band played played their part wrong and the sound became a jumbled mess that we all had to find our way out of, which needs to happen fast in a two minute song. Luckily, as you’ll find out as the novel progresses, music played at max volume can hide a lot of mistakes in real time (which in live albums are generally fixed in the studio later).
...one final thing...
One final detail; the first person viewpoint will shift on some of the chapters, much like the Japanese classic book and film, "Rashomon." One reason is that I feel traditional exposition would slow the pace of the narrative. I'd like the reader to feel like they've just stepped into the flow and find out more about the characters through their actions, thoughts and words rather then being told in descriptive third person passages. Shifting the narrative view makes the process easier, and I think more natural.
I’m not going to describe events with hindsight. The characters are all young, and my view of what happened then differs from how I see it now. That means, for example, that attitudes towards the elder statesmen of rock and roll might seem uninformed or disrespectful, but in retrospect, not necessarily wrong. Punk rock did get trash talked, particularly in the early days, and the story will be more interesting if it reflects the times rather than attempt to present some sort of adult perspective (which, let’s face it, would make for a boring book).
It’s important to note that the book is going to be a satire, a humorous work, and one of the inspirations is Junichiro Tanizaki’s book, “The Secret History Of The Lord Mushashi.” What Tanizaki did was take the respectful Confucian style of historical novels and reverse the sensibility, so that all of the petty and scandalous things that were normally left out were put back in, and exaggerated in lurid detail. A cynic might suggest this is already the norm in modern biographies, but that’s only partly true. Most bios are tightly controlled by publisher legal departments and concessions agreed to in exchange for access to the subject.
...other influences...
Other inspirations are Soeseki’s “I Am A Cat,” a popular smarty pants serial in Japan that ended up running three volumes, Robert Graves’ “I, Claudius,” Charles Dickens’ “Pickwick Club,” Arthur Conan Doyles’ “Sir Nigel,” Tom Wolfe’s essays, and Mad Magazine in the 60s. I’m sure writers can come up with modern equivalents, but I’m just listing what my own influences are.
Another influence permeates the book. A while back, the artist Todd Rundgren said in an interview that rock critics needed to be the same age as the artists. The reason is older critics often become cynical and jaded over time, and forget that each generation rediscovers rock and roll, and that it feels new and exciting to them. Also, music does change, and that the influences often aren’t what an older person might assume.
So when I say that the book will reflect what the punks felt and thought back then, that’s what I’ll try to keep in mind. Back then, it all felt exciting, and while later on, yes, it did become all business once money came into the picture, that hadn’t happened yet.
There was only one punk club (that survived for any length) in SF at the time. Nobody was getting rich, or knew where the music was heading or even what was good, but we wanted to give it a try and find out. That's a feeling everyone should have at any age.
