Strat wrote:Leatherman isn’t punk for fucks sake. It’s basically a folk song.
Sorry, all the musical parts are there. By this logic Bad Religion wouldn't be a punk band
I don’t know. The open chords. The rhythm. It’s not all power chord and down strokes that i generally associate a punk song with.
Re: Spritzy punkers
Posted: Thu February 20, 2020 1:51 pm
by Jorge
Lots of open chords and arpeggios in punk. The way I see it it's about the energy, the melody and a certain aesthetic approach
Re: Spritzy punkers
Posted: Thu February 20, 2020 1:53 pm
by Strat
It bounces. It doesn’t thrash or propel.
Gonna have to disagree with you all idiots here and this is where I part ways from rm. good luck. Morons
Re: Spritzy punkers
Posted: Thu February 20, 2020 1:54 pm
by Ms Harmless
I always feel like their "punk" stuff courts 50s rock n roll too; there's always a bit of "Last Kiss" in their jangly riffs
Re: Spritzy punkers
Posted: Thu February 20, 2020 1:56 pm
by E.H. Ruddock
Strat wrote:It bounces. It doesn’t thrash or propel.
Gonna have to disagree with you all idiots here and this is where I part ways from rm. good luck. Morons
Re: Spritzy punkers
Posted: Thu February 20, 2020 1:56 pm
by Jorge
Strat wrote:It bounces. It doesn’t thrash or propel.
Gonna have to disagree with you all idiots here and this is where I part ways from rm. good luck. Morons
Hold on a second, all this time I was talking about the Touring Bank 2000 version of "Leatherman" because that's the only version I've ever heard. I just listened to the studio version (for the first time ever!) and it has a completely different rhythm, feel, and aesthetic, and I agree with you that I would not call it punk at all
Re: Spritzy punkers
Posted: Thu February 20, 2020 1:57 pm
by OmegaprimeVKM
And what about the prissy spunkers?
Re: Spritzy punkers
Posted: Thu February 20, 2020 1:58 pm
by Strat
theplatypus wrote:
Strat wrote:It bounces. It doesn’t thrash or propel.
Gonna have to disagree with you all idiots here and this is where I part ways from rm. good luck. Morons
Hold on a second, all this time I was talking about the Touring Bank 2000 version of "Leatherman" because that's the only version I've ever heard. I just listened to the studio version (for the first time ever!) and it has a completely different rhythm, feel, and aesthetic, and I agree with you that I would not call it punk at all
Are you pimping me here to keep me around rm?
Re: Spritzy punkers
Posted: Thu February 20, 2020 1:58 pm
by Jorge
theplatypus wrote:
Strat wrote:It bounces. It doesn’t thrash or propel.
Gonna have to disagree with you all idiots here and this is where I part ways from rm. good luck. Morons
Hold on a second, all this time I was talking about the Touring Bank 2000 version of "Leatherman" because that's the only version I've ever heard. I just listened to the studio version (for the first time ever!) and it has a completely different rhythm, feel, and aesthetic, and I agree with you that I would not call it punk at all
Well it does kind of sound like Hüsker Dü at some points
Re: Spritzy punkers
Posted: Thu February 20, 2020 1:58 pm
by Ms Harmless
theplatypus wrote:
Strat wrote:It bounces. It doesn’t thrash or propel.
Gonna have to disagree with you all idiots here and this is where I part ways from rm. good luck. Morons
Hold on a second, all this time I was talking about the Touring Bank 2000 version of "Leatherman" because that's the only version I've ever heard. I just listened to the studio version (for the first time ever!) and it has a completely different rhythm, feel, and aesthetic, and I agree with you that I would not call it punk at all
I do agree that it's a folk song in its narrative, maybe a bit of Johnny Cash in there (and Neil Young of course)
Re: Spritzy punkers
Posted: Thu February 20, 2020 1:59 pm
by Jorge
Strat wrote:
theplatypus wrote:
Strat wrote:It bounces. It doesn’t thrash or propel.
Gonna have to disagree with you all idiots here and this is where I part ways from rm. good luck. Morons
Hold on a second, all this time I was talking about the Touring Bank 2000 version of "Leatherman" because that's the only version I've ever heard. I just listened to the studio version (for the first time ever!) and it has a completely different rhythm, feel, and aesthetic, and I agree with you that I would not call it punk at all
Are you pimping me here to keep me around rm?
No, I'd legitimately never heard the studio version before
This is the (much, much punkier) version I know
Re: Spritzy punkers
Posted: Thu February 20, 2020 2:00 pm
by E.H. Ruddock
Strat wrote:
theplatypus wrote:
Strat wrote:It bounces. It doesn’t thrash or propel.
Gonna have to disagree with you all idiots here and this is where I part ways from rm. good luck. Morons
Hold on a second, all this time I was talking about the Touring Bank 2000 version of "Leatherman" because that's the only version I've ever heard. I just listened to the studio version (for the first time ever!) and it has a completely different rhythm, feel, and aesthetic, and I agree with you that I would not call it punk at all
Are you pimping me here to keep me around rm?
Don't leave over a spritzy punker thread, strat.
Re: Spritzy punkers
Posted: Thu February 20, 2020 2:04 pm
by Anders
I always associate punk with 70s UK bands, and very few Pearl Jam songs sounds like that. But a song like Comatose probably wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for punk existing first.
Re: Spritzy punkers
Posted: Thu February 20, 2020 2:05 pm
by EJ
evenslow wrote:man, people are really having a lot of trouble with the whole "spritzy" part of this. you can't just throw out any fast punk song.
spritzy is bubbly, can't-sit-still, sunny, giggly, hyper, bouncy. aka not anything off of vitalogy. whipping is not spritzy for god's sake.
stip is probably right that mankind is patient zero but that feels weird with stone on vocals. it's really more of a post ST phenomenon to be honest. they seemed to double down on that specific type of song as an automatic part of their repertoire after the self-serious approach of that record.
the fixer absolutely needs to be on the official list.
I generally with all of this. But, U has to be included.
Re: Spritzy punkers
Posted: Thu February 20, 2020 2:06 pm
by Jorge
Anders wrote:I always associate punk with 70s UK bands, and very few Pearl Jam songs sounds like that. But a song like Comatose probably wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for punk existing first.
"Comatose" is 100% a punk song, one of the few Pearl Jam songs I would categorize as pure examples of that genre ("Spin the Black Circle" is another one), but it's not spritzy
Re: Spritzy punkers
Posted: Thu February 20, 2020 2:07 pm
by Anders
Ms Harmless wrote:I think it sounds very like The Clash
The Clash has some good stuff, but their good stuff mostly isn't punk imo. More rock or new wave.
Re: Spritzy punkers
Posted: Thu February 20, 2020 2:08 pm
by Bammer
Fuck me for ever clicking on this thread
Re: Spritzy punkers
Posted: Thu February 20, 2020 2:10 pm
by Ms Harmless
Anders wrote:
Ms Harmless wrote:I think it sounds very like The Clash
The Clash has some good stuff, but their good stuff mostly isn't punk imo. More rock or new wave.
as I said earlier, I think SBWM captures post-punk / new wave, which is why I mentioned The Clash, since they did both
Re: Spritzy punkers
Posted: Thu February 20, 2020 2:10 pm
by Anders
theplatypus wrote:
Anders wrote:I always associate punk with 70s UK bands, and very few Pearl Jam songs sounds like that. But a song like Comatose probably wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for punk existing first.
"Comatose" is 100% a punk song, one of the few Pearl Jam songs I would categorize as pure examples of that genre ("Spin the Black Circle" is another one), but it's not spritzy
No, not spritzy at all. Agree on Comatose, but feel STBC leans harder towards rock, but it does have that punk feel that didn't exist before NY Garage or UK Punk.
