- Posts: 15657
it had the feel of one of those heavy Sunday morning religious discussions.
Calvert wrote: Heh, indeed.
It all seemed so overblown and preposterously self-important. I wanted to hear that Trevor bloke say 'look, I'm a human, why doesn't anyone ask me about how my mother's doing?'
He did put punk into Room 101.
George wrote: Baker loves his prog doesn't he? Especially King Crimson. He also seems to have become increasingly dismissive of the old 'this is why punk had to happen' argument over the years, even if he was himself an enthusiastic champion of it back in the day.
Mm, I sort of agree. I love glam (Bowie is my God) and some old hippy music plus loads of jazz etc. but I was very Year Zero, chucking out old albums (or selling them) except for the glam. From my POV it was great fun and liberating to do that. It was about Destroying in Order to Create, and the best way to experience punk in 77 was to immerse yourself in it. So I wouldn't come home and stick on a Joni Mitchell or Marvin Gaye album, although those are forever somewhere in my heart. They just needed to put away for a bit while we lived right in the moment.
satchmo76 wrote: I think Baker's revisionist view of 1970-76 is an over-reaction to the Year Zero posturing that he rightly condemns in punk. It's also a London-centric view of punk because it overlooks the value it had in, say, Manchester, in producing Buzzcocks, Fall, etc. His singling out of Sham 69 as his one exception to the rule just seems willfully perverse.
I don't disagree that Bowie, Roxy, Bolan, early 70s Rod Stewart, early 70s Elton, etc, were just as crucial as punk (who would disagree?) but I think to prefer the early 70s to the late 70s is just twisting the history to suit a clear bias. They are at least equal whilst also containing an equal amount of dross (at least the punk dross was only in two minute segments, not 20)
A small portion of despair and enlightenment delivered to your inbox every Friday