Tam Box?

As I made the gradual transition from "music fan" to "record collector" my criteria for purchasing one item or another changed dramatically. Over time I became far more interested in buying music I had never heard (or even heard of) than music with which I was familiar. To apply this pattern when shopping for other things would likely make your friends very inquisitive. I know this from experience - I am guilty myself. One example would be when when my friend showed up in her brand new car - a "Kia". I was amazed. She was not poor, nor stupid. Yet when faced with buying a new car and given all the familiar choices (Toyota, Honda, Ford etc etc) it seemed she had actually sought out a mystery car maker. As much as I mercilessly made fun of her for this, I was slowly adopting the same approach to shopping for records.

I was seeking obscure punk records made between 1977 and 1983. You either have to seriously know your stuff or go with the information you have - which boils down to what you can discern from what you are holding in your grubby hands. And by the way, "seriously knowing your stuff" entails knowing the origin, appearance, pressing size and other details of literally thousands of records. In 2009 there are a lot of us who can do it. But in 1995 it was not like this for me. I learned to look at certain factors to make a decision.

1) Year made. The closer to 1977 the better. 1984 or later, beware.
2) Label. No major labels.
3) # of songs. The more the better. Short songs = punk rock.
4) No remixes, alternate versions or dubs
5) How "punk" it looks - especially if the band is pictured
6) Guitar, bass & drums only is best. Keyboards/horns - proceed with caution

Carefully observing these guidelines will save you a lot of money and space. It doesn't guarantee punk records since a lot of powerpop will slip in. Now, powerpop is a genre some punk collectors despise but since there are plenty of powerpop collectors out there, those records are still worth having to trade for better things. I got to the point where I could go through a pile of records that no one, including me, had heard of and pull out a bunch of decent records just by keeping these rules in mind. I realized how important it was to be vigilant about this. When you get lazy (and it happpens) you wind up with records you can't give away unless you can get some other idiot to buy the thing for the same reasons you picked it up. The word guideline is not being used carelessly. Despite all best efforts, sometimes you just get a dud. See below...

Case Study
I was in a record store in the East Village around 1999. I come across a total mystery. It is below (front and back covers)




OK so where do we stand with our rules?

1. Year made. I didn't scan the record but it was made in 1980. In NORWAY. 1980 in the US or the UK was not as special - but NORWAY for gosh sakes. Angry, drunk, freezing people make for great angst. A very big check mark for rule #1.

2. Label. "Strawberry". Not a major label - but a bad, sissy name. Hmmm.

3. # of songs. Two. The minimum. Not looking good.

4. Remixes etc. None. Little better.

5. How "punk" it looks. Off the charts. A drawing of an extended middle finger on the front. Singer in a punk-ish looking shirt and leopard print pants. Guitarist in the background in leather. Punks these days have a uniform. Back then they had no clue so the best approach was to look as offensively stupid as possible with whatever you could get from around your house or the local thrift shop. Great. And who in the world would put a drawing of the finger on the cover of their record unless they have foregone all hopes of commercial success. This record scored strongly in this category.

6. Instruments. Obvious red flag is the keyboard. No horns though.

The price was $3. I bought it and got it home. The record is horrific white-boy reggae. Turns out there was a mini-wave of white reggae in Scandinavia in the early 1980's. Who knew? I've been trying to trade it for 10 years. The joke is on me - everyone knows it's garbage. I was the one who didn't know it. Where did I go wrong? Here's a some things I didn't notice.

1. Stupid song titles - but not punk at all.
2. Typed letters - no band-member printing.
3. The keyboardist is listed first - bad bad bad.
4. 2 guitarists. Not a lot of punk bands needed a second guitarist. The Clash did. Black Flag had one for a bit. So did Minor Threat. But they never had a keyboardist. I should have known.

Live and learn.