Quote:
I'm going to disagree. Perfection was an aspiration of the albums that Punk derided and attacked; prog rock was aiming at perfection, Punk was aiming at imperfection. It seems like a complete disbasement of this thread that now we can say that an album is perfect "by its own definitions". For example, one of the cherished ideas of punk was that musicianship not be an obstacle to self-expression, so now we have to say that NMTB is "flawless" because it isn't performed very competently. Just because you like an album, doesn't mean you have to find a contrived way to attach the words "perfect" or "flawless" to it.
"By its own definitions", Californication had the best mastering ever, but no one is going to put it up for a thread on perfect mastering ... at least, not sincerely, on these forums.
Punk rock, at least in its initial form, wasn't going after perfection; it was going against the status quo. Prog rock took a hit because it was perceived as being pompous, boring, and had nothing to say. Many bands did strive on amateurism, but those bands are mostly forgotten. As for the early punk bands, often the members were musicians that had been around for a while playing in pub rock bands. The Clash is one example, they were all excellent musicians, and they lived through the punk movement to popular acceptance.
England's punk scene had political and economic roots. The economy in the United Kingdom was in poor shape, and unemployment rates were at an all-time high. England's youth were angry, rebellious and out of work. They had strong opinions and a lot of free time. They hated how so many bands had stopped speaking to them, had become rich, or were making pompous music that had strayed from what rock was all about. So they formed their own bands.
I agree with you on the sound of Californication, but that's beside the point. The early UK punk bands did set up their own rules, which they promptly broke, i.e. the Clash's second album, which was produced to sound like a late 70's heavy metal album. But they did want albums that they could be proud of, and when they accomplished that goal, which they often did, then they did create flawless records; one just has to enjoy that type of sound.
To me, what was really thrilling was all the great post-punk and punk influenced albums that came out after 1977, punk rock broke the barriers for bands that didn't have a lot of money or connections, or guitar players that couldn’t do twenty minute solos. Yet they were talented in many respects.
Don't misunderstand the point that I'm getting at, to this day I certainly like my Pink Floyd, and saw ELP, Yes, and countless other big name bands back in the day. But when I picked up that Sex Pistols album back in 1977, wow, it was an awakening, and if that can be said about an album, then I believe one can call it flawless.
If one can accept the definition of flawless as: Without error; perfect. Then I would counter that a lot of prog rock was very imperfect, although having perfect musicianship, it was excessive in many respects, from overblown guitar playing to pretentious lyrics and often pretentious music itself (group YES is an obvious example). Punk rock, again in the beginning, strived to get back to the soul of Rock and Roll and open the doors to anyone who thought they could do a better job at making music than the rich bloated generation that had been at the top of the rock charts through the 70's.
By opening those doors, the Punk movement made it possible for bands like Red Hot Chili Peppers (who started as part of the California punk scene), U2, REM, NIN, Talking Heads, Devo, Blondie, Nirvana and countless other bands to eventually get their start and go on to record some of the great music we enjoy today.
