What Is Punk?

[borntohula]

i think we need more discussion going on in this part of the forum. as satisfying as it is to see what you're all listening to, one song at a time, let's try to talk about music a little bit.

 

i'll start with a not-so-easy question: what is punk rock (to you)? "to you" is in parentheses because it's evident to most people, but some still manage to get upset whenever i don't agree with what they're saying.

 

anyway, is punk rock an ideal? a sound? a way of life? an attitude? a term for prison sex? all of these things? does it still exist, or did it only exist at a certain period of time? can a person be "punk" or is it only reserved for music? is it even just in regard to music?

 

for example, who is more punk rock?

 

sid vicious?

 

chuck d?

 

patty hearst?

 

john cage?

 

ani difranco?

 

bob dylan?

 

naomi klein?

 

someone else?

 

have i missed something?!

 

discuss!!

[Ravenous megin-sane]

Punk's not dead

It just deserves to die

When it becomes another stale cartoon

A close-minded, self-centered social club

Ideas don't matter, it's who you know

If the music's gotten boring

It's because of the people

Who want everyone to sound the same

Who drive bright people out

Of our so-called scene

'Til all that's left Is just a meaningless fad

Hardcore formulas are dogshit

Change and caring are what's real

Is this a state of mind

Or just another label

The joy and hope of an alternative

Have become its own cliche

A hairstyle's not a lifestyle

Imagine Sid Vicious at 35

Who needs a scene

Scared to love and to feel

Judging everythng

By loud fast rules appeal

Who played last night?

"I don't know, I forgot.

But diving off the stage Was a lot of fun."

[Chorus:]

So eager to please

Peer pressure decrees

So eager to please

Peer pressure decrees

 

Make the same old mistakes

Again and again,

Chickenshit conformist

Like your parents

What's ripped us apart even more than drugs

Are the thieves and the goddamn liars

Flipping people off when they share their stuff

When someone falls are there any friends?

Harder core than thou for a year or two

Then it's time to get a real job

Others stay home, it's no fun to go out

When the gigs are wrecked by gangs and thugs

When the thugs form bands, look who gets record deals

From New York metal labels looking to scam

Who sign the most racist queerbashing bands they can find

To make a buck revving kids up for war

Walk tall, act small

Only as tough as gang approval

Unity is bullshit

When it's under someone's fat boot

Where's the common cause

Too many factions

Safely sulk in their shells

Agree with us on everything

Or we won't help with anythng

That kind of attitude

Just makes a split grow wider

Guess who's laughing while the world explodes

When we're all crybabies

Who fight best among ouselves

 

[Chorus]

 

That farty old rock and roll attitude's back

"It's competition, man, we wanna break big."

Who needs friends when the money's good

That's right, the '70s are back.

Cock-rock metal's like a bad laxative

It just don't move me, ya know?

The music's OK when there's more ideas than solos

Do we rally need the attitude too?

Shedding thin skin too quickly

As a fan it disappoints me

Same old stupid sexist lyrics

Or is Satan all you can think of?

Crossover is just another word

For lack of ideas

Maybe what we need

Are more trolls under the bridge

Will the metalheads finally learn something-

Or will the punks throw away their education?

No one's ever the best

Once they believe their own press

"Maturing" don't mean rehashing

Mistakes of the past

 

[Chorus]

 

The more things change

The more they stay the same

We can't grow

When we won't criticize ourselves

The '60s weren't all failure

It's the '70s that stunk

As the clock ticks we dig the same hole

Music scenes ain't real life

They won't get rid of the bomb

Won't eliminate rape

Or bring down the banks

Any kind of real change

Takes more time and work

Than changing channels on a TV set

[Some Random]

A PUNK ROCK MANIFESTO - BY GREG GRAFFIN

 

I have never owned a record label, nor directed a successful merchandise company, so I don't pretend to be an expert on marketing. I have evolved through my craft as a songwriter, but others have labeled it and marketed it and made it neat for consumption.

 

Although I have made money from Punk, it is a modest amount when one considers the bounty that has been bestowed on the companies that promote Punk as some sort of a product to be ingested. It has always been my way to de-value the fashionable, light-hearted, impulsive traits that people associate with Punk, because Punk is more than that, so much more that those elements become trivial in the light of human experience that all punkers share.

 

Since it has been a part of me for over half of my life, I think the time has come to attempt a definition, and in the process defend, this persistent social phenomenon known as Punk. It is astounding that something with so much emotional and trans- cultural depth has gone without definition for so long, for the roots of Punk run deeper, and go back in history farther than imagined.

 

Even in the last two decades, it is difficult to find any analysis of the influential effect that Punk Rock had on Pop Music and youth culture. And rarer still are essays detailing the emotional and intellectual undercurrents that drive the more overt fashion statements that most people attribute to Punk. These are some of the wants that compelled me to write this. If my attempt offends the purists, collapses the secrecy of a closed society, promotes confidence in skeptical inquiry, provokes deeper thought, and decodes irony, then I have done my job and those who feel slighted might recognize the triviality of their position. For I have nothing to promote but my observations on a sub-culture that has grown to global proportions, and through visiting much of it, I have found threads of common thought everywhere.

 

Common thought processes are what determine the ideology that binds people together into a community. There is desire among Punks to be a community, but there needs to be some shape imparted on the foundations of the punk ideology, and where it comes from. The current Punk stereotype is scarred by mass-marketing and an unfortunate emphasis on style over substance.

 

But these ills don't destroy the Punk sentiment, they merely confound the education of the new generations of people who know they are punk, but don't know what it means. It is a long road to understand what it means. This essay is part of the process.

 

PUNKS ARE NOT BEASTS Punk is a reflection of what it means to be human. What separates us from other animals? Our ability to recognize ourselves and express our own genetic uniqueness. Ironically, the commonly held view, among the marketeers and publicity engines, stresses the "animalistic", "primitive" nature of punks and their music.

 

They assume that violence is a key ingredient in punk music, and this assumption is easily perpetuated because it is easy to market violence and news items about violence always get column space. This focus on violence misses a key element of what Punk is all about:

 

PUNK IS: the personal expression of uniqueness that comes from the experiences of growing up in touch with our human ability to reason and ask questions.

 

Violence is neither common in, nor unique to punk. When it does manifest itself it is due to things unrelated to the punk ideal. Consider for example the common story of a fight at a high school between a punk and a jock football player. The football player and his cohort do not accept or value the punk as a real person. Rather, they use him as a vitriol receptacle, daily taunting, provoking, and embarrassing him, which of course is no more than a reflection of their own insecurities. One day, the punk has had enough and he clobbers the football captain in the hallway. The teachers of course expell the punk and cite his poor hairstyle and shabby clothing as evidence that he is a violent, uncontrollable no-good. The community newspaper reads "Hallway Beating Re-affirms that Violence is a Way of Life Among Punk Rockers".

 

Spontaneous anger at not being accepted as a real person is not unique to punkers. This reaction is due to being human, and anybody would react in anger regardless of their sub- cultural, or social affiliation if they felt de- valued and useless. Sadly, there are plenty of examples of violence among punks. There are glaring examples of misguided people who call themselves punks too. But anger and violence are not punk traits, in fact, they have no place in the punk ideal. Anger and violence are not the glue that holds the punk community together.

 

IN UNIQUENESS IS THE PRESERVATION OF MANKIND Nature bestowed on us the genetic backbone of what punk is all about. There are roughly 80,000 genes in the human genome, and there are roughly 6 billion people carrying that genetic compliment. The chances of two people carrying the same genome are so small as to be almost beyond comprehension (the odds are essentially ? 80,000 times the number of possible people you can meet and mate with in a lifetime! A practical impossibility)

 

The genes we carry play a major role in determining our behavior and outlook on life. That is why we have the gift of uniqueness, because no one else has the same set of genes controlling their view of the world. Of course cultural factors play the other major role, and these can have a more homogenizing effect on behavior and world-view.

 

For example, an entire working-class town might have 15,000 residents who are raised with the same ideals, work at the same factories, go to the same schools, shop at the same stores, and like the same sports teams. As their children develop, there is a constant interaction of opposite forces between the social imprinting their culture imparts and the genetic expression of uniqueness.

 

Those who lose touch with their nature become society's robots, whereas those who denounce their social development become vagrant animals. Punk stands for a desire to walk the line in between these two extremes with masterful precision. Punks want to express their own unique nature, while at the same time want to embrace the communal aspects of their cookie-cutter upbringing. The social connection they have is based on a desire to understand each other's unique view of the world. Punk "scenes" are social places where those views are accepted, sometimes adopted, sometimes discarded, but always tolerated and respected.

 

PUNK IS: a movement that serves to refute social attitudes that have been perpetuated through willful ignorance of human nature.

 

Because it depends on tolerance and shuns denial, Punk is open to all humans. There is an elegant parallel between Punk's dependence on unique views and behaviors and our own natural genetic predisposition toward uniqueness.

 

THE BATTLE OF FEAR AND RATIONALITY

 

The compulsion to conform is a powerful side-effect of civilized life. We are all taught to respect the views of our elders, and later when we realize that they are just dogmatic opinions, we are taught not to make a commotion by asking difficult questions. Many just go along with the prevailing notions and never express their own views, which is analogous to a premature death of the individual. Our species is unique in the ability to recognize and express the self, and not exercising this biological function goes against the natural selection gradient that created it in the first place. This complacency combats a fear of failure. It is easy to assume that if everyone else is doing something, then there is no way to fail if you just go along with it. Cattle and flocks of geese can probably recognize this advantage. But the entire human race could fail because of this mentality. Thinking and acting in a direction against the current of popular opinion is critical to human advancement, and a potent manifestation of Punk. If an issue or phenomenon is found to be true only because other people say it is so, then it is a Punk's job to look for a better solution, or at least find an independent variable that confirms the held view (sometimes the popular view is just a reflection of human nature, Punks don't live in denial of this).

 

This ability to go against the grain was a major part of the greatest advances in human thinking throughout history. The entire Enlightenment period was characterized by ideas that shunned the dogma of the time, only to reveal truths in nature and human existence that all people can observe, and that are still with us today.

 

Galileo fought the church, the church won the battle, by putting him in jail for life, but ultimately lost the war; few people today believe that the sun orbits around the earth, and thus God didn't create the earth as the center of the universe. Francis Bacon insisted that human destiny is equal to understanding. If we deny this fundamental principle of what it means to be human, he reasoned, then we descend into the depths of mere barbarism.

 

Charles Darwin, wrote after the heyday of the Enlightenment, he nonetheless was directly influenced by its tradition, was trained as a theologian and yet still was driven to understand the underlying order that connected biological species he observed in his travels. His views threw into question many of the Bible's tenets, yet his reasoning was sound, and through a process of self-improvement (the struggle in his own mind to understand) he improved mankind by establishing a new benchmark of human knowledge.

 

The dogma of the church was further marginalized. The fear of repercussion from the church was overshadowed by the wave of understanding that his views created in people, and by the truth to his observations.

 

The modern-day Punk thought process, driven by this desire to understand, is a carbon-copy of the Enlightenment tradition. The fact that so many historical examples exist that reveal a will to destroy dogma leads to a powerful tenet: It is a natural trait of civilized humans to be original. The fact that uniqueness is so rare reveals that our nature is stifled by an equally potent opposing force: fear.

 

PUNK IS: a process of questioning and commitment to understanding that results in self-progress, and by extrapolation, could lead to social progress.

 

If enough people feel free, and are encouraged to use their skills of observation and reason, grand truths will emerge. These truths are acknowledged and accepted not because they were force-fed by some totalitarian entity, but because everyone has a similar experience when observing them. The fact that Punks can relate to one another on issues of prejudice comes from a shared experience of being treated poorly by people who don't want them around. Each has his/her own experience of being shunned, and each can relate to another's story of alienation without some kind of adherence to a code of behavior.

 

The truth of prejudice is derived from the experience they all share, not from a written formula or constitution they have to abide by. Punks learn from this experience that prejudice is wrong, it is a principle they live by; they didn't learn it from a textbook. Without striving to understand, and provoking the held beliefs, the truth remains shrouded behind custom, inactivity, and prescriptive ideology.

 

WHAT IS TRUTH?

 

Philosophers distinguish between capital "T" truth and truth with a small "t". Punks deny the former.

 

Truth with a capital "T" assumes that there is an order prescribed by some transcendental being. That is to say that truth comes ultimately from God, who had a plan for everything when he created the universe.

 

Little "t" truth is that which we figure out for ourselves, and which we all can agree upon due to similar experience and observations of the world. It is also known as objective truth, from within ourselves, revealed here on this earth; as opposed to big T truth, which comes from outside and is projected down to us, specifically for us to follow. Morality need not be thought of as a product only of big "T" truth. Objective truth lends itself just as readily to a moralistic, spiritual culture.

 

PUNK IS: a belief that this world is what we make of it, truth comes from our understanding of the way things are, not from the blind adherence to prescriptions about the way things should be.

 

Punk's dependence on objective truth comes from the shared experience of going against the grain. Anyone who has stood out in a crowd feels the truth of the experience. No one had to write a doctrine in order for the outcast to understand what it meant to be different. The truth was plain enough, and that truth could be understood and agreed upon by all those who shared a common experience.

 

WHAT IS FEAR?

 

The fears that drive people to conform have caused dismal periods in human history. The so-called Dark Ages, were tranquil and without upheaval, but also dismally quiet and pestilent, nary a contrasting view to be found. The pseudo-comfort and tranquility that the people of the Dark Ages experienced, by conforming to a rigidly enforced bureaucracy enforced by the king and church, was masked entirely by the misery they had to endure in their day to day life. Life is easy as a peasant, no direction, no purpose, just produce more goods and offspring for the benefit of the king. But using fear to control peasants (or modern-day blue-collar workers for that matter) is just a short-term foul exercise, because peasants have the same mental equipment as the royalty.

 

The deeply ingrained biological traits of self-recognition and the desire to express the self cannot be quashed for long. Eventually peasants realize that life without the practice of reason is as good as being a farm animal. Being controlled by fear is the same as being biologically inert, unable to take part in the human drama, merely wasting away. The fear that controls human behavior is learned. It is different from the immediate, reflexive, run-away-from-the- nasty-stimulus response that other creatures employ to stay alive. We have motor reflexes like these as well, but fear of failure, and fear of speaking out come from the limbic system.

 

The limbic system is a network of neurons in our brain that control our most deep-seated emotions. It connects two parts of the brain together: the midbrain, where sensory information is sent (i.e. sight and hearing stimuli) and the forebrain, where that information is processed. Although the forebrain has been around for at least 480 million years (it was present in the earliest vertebrates), it evolved special functions with the advent of humankind.

 

A specialized portion of the forebrain, called the cerebral cortex, is highly developed in humans. 95% of our cerebral cortex is responsible for associative mental activities like contemplation and planning. The other 5% is responsible for processing motor and sensory information.

 

By comparison, a mouse (also considered a higher vertebrate), has a cerebral cortex with only 5% of its neurons devoted to associative functions, while 95% are devoted to motor and sensory fuctions.

 

The highly developed limbic system is at the core of what it means to be human. We differ from other animals in the amount of time we spend planning, contemplating, and expressing ourselves. Our limbic system is very powerful. It can over-ride primitive emotions, and suppress deep desires. Anyone who has ever seen a sad movie with friends, and willfully held back tears because they didn't want their friends to see them crying, employed the power of their limbic system. They contemplated the repercussions of their friends reaction to crying, and shut off the emotional cascade that would have brought the tears.

 

In the same way that rationality is the product of the limbic system, fear is also centered in the same neurons of the limbic system. Fear is usually rational behavior, based on irrational thoughts, and it can freeze the processing power of the cerebral cortex. Denial and fear go hand in hand, and both are examples of how our limbic system can suppress obvious stimuli and promote behavior that is safe and conforming.

 

The limbic system is like any other organ in the sense that it can operate unchecked to produce detrimental results. Being in touch with our bodies leads to overall general health, and the limbic system needs constant attention in order to master it. To overcome fear, one needs to be in touch with their limbic system, and recognize when it is suppressing the obvious.

 

Etiquette and "being nice" are forms of limbic-system repression, necessary at times, but ultimately demeaning of human originality. Lying is the ultimate form of limbic-system repression. It is a denial of the obvious. Truth-tellers, those who are authentic and trustworthy, have learned to master their limbic system. They recognize the desire to lie, but rationalize the futility of advocating something that is not true. Liars, on the other hand, are slaves to their limbic system, out of touch with their most basic mental capacities. Their behavior is guarded and shifty because they let their flawed reasoning, to cover up the obvious, control their entire makeup. They eventually have to give in to the truth and concede defeat, but only after every possible avenue of deception and twisted logic has been advocated in the interest of hiding their fear.

 

Politicians, Clergymen, Business leaders, and Judges are masters of twisted logic and promotion of fear. They make good intellectual targets for Punkers because they don't respect people who have learned to master their limbic systems. And Punkers are not afraid to point out that which is obvious, even if it means their social status might be jeopardized.

 

PUNK IS: the constant struggle against fear of social repercussions.

 

THE PUNK MOVEMENT

 

I have tried to enumerate some of the factors that make Punk a movement, in the cultural sense. The typical stereotype of a feeble-minded ruffian vandalizing, destroying, stealing, fighting, or arguing in the name of some empty, short-lived cause is no more punk than the pretty-face-empty-head image of today's pop stars.

 

Because it is so easy for record companies to sell images of violence, sex, and self-importance, many bands have taken the bait and portrayed themselves as Punks, without realizing that they were actually perpetuating a stereotype of conformity that is wholly un-punk.

 

The "come join us" attitude that seeks to attract followers, usually results in a rabble of weak people who think that their power lies in the large numbers of like-minded clones they have compiled. There is no strength in numbers however, if the people are glued together by a short-sighted, self-serving, fear-induced mantra that promotes factions and exclusionary principles.

 

Strong ideologies don't require a mob, they persist through time, and never go away, because they are intimately connected to our biology. They are part of what it means to exist as Homo sapiens. Punk typifies that tradition. It is a movement of epic proportions, that transcends the immediacy of the here-and- now, because it is, was, and always will be there-and-forever, as long as humans walk the earth.

 

As we enter a new era in the voracious march of culture, Punks will have their day. The internet has allowed people to communicate directly once again. On the web, human behavior is interactive, like it was before the advent of mass-media.

 

People now focus on ideological discussions and lifestyle issues, as opposed to the classic 20th century behavior of closing oneself off from cohorts, and adhering to a network's, or commercial's prescriptive code of acceptable behavior. The lies, and mysteries of elitism will erode quickly as the global conversation that transpires daily on the web invades more people's lives.

 

The world population will be more receptive to alternative ideologies because they will be creating them. People will be less receptive to ideologies of out- dated institutions because the holes and flaws in their logic will be ever more amplified when they are broadcast instantly around the world as they become revealed.

 

The "Strength-In-Understanding", and "Knowledge-Is-Power" ethics that Punks maintain will become the norm. The rigidity, brutishness, and futility of secret agendas will be made obvious, paving the way to an appreciation of human uniqueness, and a new era of originality.

 

WHO IS PUNK?

 

Everyone has the potential to be punk. It is much harder for someone who comes from a placid, un-challenging, ignorant upbringing, because they don't see the value in questioning or provoking the institutions that gave them such tranquility. But such examples of carefree existence are rare in today's shrinking world.

 

Eternal questions still burn in the minds of most people. What it means to be human is becoming more clear every decade. Sometimes, people are trained to follow the safe path to an early grave by consuming and repeating the dogma of a fearful aristocracy.

 

On the other hand, the human spirit is hard to kill. Punk is a microcosm of the human spirit. Punks succeed with their minds, not their brute force. They advance society by their diversity, not their conformity. They motivate others by inclusion, not domination.

 

They are at the front lines of self-betterment and by extrapolation can improve the complexion of the human race. They adhere to unwritten universal principles of human emotion, obvious to anyone, and shun elitist codes of behavior, or secret agendas. They embody the hope of the future, and reveal the flaws of the past. Don't tell them what to do, they are already leading you.

 

PUNK IS: the personal expression of uniqueness that comes from the experiences of growing up in touch with our human ability to reason and ask questions.

 

PUNK IS: a movement that serves to refute social attitudes that have been perpetuated through willful ignorance of human nature.

 

PUNK IS: a process of questioning and commitment to understanding that results in self-progress, and through repetition, flowers into social evolution.

 

PUNK IS: a belief that this world is what we make of it, truth comes from our understanding of the way things are, not from the blind adherence to prescriptions about the way things should be.

 

PUNK IS: the constant struggle against fear of social repercussions.

 

 

edit: my longest post ever, and i copy and pasted it. har!

Edited March 20, 2008 by Some Random

[decomposinglight]

I'd say Sid is the most "textbook" punk, but there is so much about that genre that doesn't make sense. The Clash and the Sex Pistols can be punk, but then when we come to the 90s and 2000s, supposedly punk compilations like "Punk-o-Rama" include bands like the Weakerthans or Matchbook Romance. Is Pennywise punk? Dropkick Murphys? I just don't know.

 

Honestly, whatever it is, most of it is not to my liking, unless it has uber-intelligent lyrics.

[somnambulist]

Your mom is punk.

 

Seriously though, to me punk is the genre of music and the outlooks/views/behavior associated with it. Therefore, Sid Vicious.

[LisaCharly]

In my mind, punk is an attitude that one can enact social change by being confrontational and pushing people outside their safe ideas of social decency. In that case, punk has never really died. It's mutated into various formats, but according to that definition, Diamanda Galas and Mindless Self Indulgence are punk as the Dead Kennedys or the Clash. It's about purposely being indecent, impolite or unconventional to try and get people to re-examine their values.

 

A true punk would eschew traditional social values of propriety to try and make a point about politics or society, and to highlight a wrong. Now granted, a lot of punk music has been adopted by the record industry and turned into a product...but as long as it's still trying to shake things up by offending people or making them squirm, it still has traces of punk left.

 

Just my two cents, that is.

[marx marvelous]

Punk is action.

[MissEmily]

Punk is the ability to take a stand point, say "I DON'T CARE" to the naysayers and mean it.

 

When it comes to punk rock, if it's fast, gets to the point, wasn't produced by Disney and doesn't fuck around with guitar solos that are really only meant for determining the bigger man (really, all they need is a ruler), then it's punk rock. I really couldn't give to shits if they're declared as "sold out," if I love it, I love it and I very well may have a t-shirt declaring my love. You're just going to have to live with that.

 

So. There.

 

...I am so listening to the Clash today...and I'm going to wear my Ramones shirt... ;)

Edited March 22, 2008 by MissEmily

[marx marvelous]

How many NF$ to change her location to Narnia?

[Audio of Being]

Punk: Is the freedom of rebellion of all that is mainstream.

[MissEmily]

How many NF$ to change her location to Narnia?

I dunno. You'll have to ask Aslan or maybe Tumnus about the rent or housing values. Then we'll talk.

[marx marvelous]

I dunno. You'll have to ask Aslan or maybe Tumnus about the rent or housing values. Then we'll talk.

The market's shit, it won't be a problem.

[no yu begin wher i end]

Reading Greg Graffin's article, it seems that Punk is nothing more than a label people throw around that can potentially define anyone who railed against the status quo. In other words, it's just a generic term.

 

Martin Luther King Jr. could be a punk; Ghandi could be a punk; this may be a bit of a stretch, but Jesus Christ could've been a punk. Matt Good could be a punk. You see where I'm going with this. There's something a little bothersome about making a label then applying it across a broad spectrum of people and then claiming it as your own. I don't see the point in saying "he's punk" or "she's more punk than he is."

 

Talking about the musical genre, however, I don't know. The music could embody that spirit, but I don't think anyone would consider Matt Good or Neil Young, for example, to be punk singers, in which case you'd have to boil down the argument to the musical elements, which opens up a whole other can of worms.

[reckoner]

what is punk?

 

then: a lot of factors that were exclusive to a group of people who held similar beliefs of lower class culture being far superior to high culture. (among numerous other things that would take forever to type out)

 

now: a marketing gimmick to sell shit that's black to overpriviledged suburban kids.

 

as for the weakerthans being included on "Punk-o-Rama", weakerthans get punk credibility for samson being in Propaghandi. just like 50 gets street cred for being gangsta because he was shot.

[AnOceanPearl]

Fuck genre distinctions, music is music.

[Jarrod]

Simple Plan is punk.

[borntohula]

first off, i'd like to thank the contributions by jello and greg. i'm gonna try to respond to most of you, cause i think everyone's contribution so far has been pretty interesting. i'm also pretty shocked that most identified sid vicious as the "most punk" out of everyone pictured.

 

although i found graffin's pandering to nature as for our being "naturally" unique is a load of bullshit. not that i don't believe that we're all unique-- we all are in certain ways-- but if you have to look as closely as the human genome to see that we're all unique... it seems absurd at that point.

 

"It's about purposely being indecent, impolite or unconventional to try and get people to re-examine their values." i like your point, but was just wondering if there's something in politeness that you see which works against our ability to elicit change? if that's the case, then are canadian's less likely to be 'punk' because "we're more polite"?

 

""I DON'T CARE" to the naysayers" -- what do you mean by that? who are the naysayers? i thought punks were the ones to say "no" or "fuck you".

 

"of all that is mainstream" -- what's mainstream? what isn't? punk can't be mainstream? what is it about the "mainstream" that people think is an antithesis to being "punk" or being able to "make a difference"?

 

"Reading Greg Graffin's article, it seems that Punk is nothing more than a label people throw around that can potentially define anyone who railed against the status quo. In other words, it's just a generic term." -- i definitely see what you're saying here. do you think the term loses its meaning when it's applied to people who exist outside of that social "movement" from the 1970s? is there something wrong with it becoming synonymous with "revolutionary"?

 

i also agree that if you dismiss punk as a term applicable to other acts because of musical styles, then you do run into further problems of definition. for some reason, in any music text i've read, the stooges are cited as being "proto-punk" which i think is a completely ridiculous term. even more ridiculous than just calling them punk. so, they're not punk rock? to me, they embody what punk was moreso than a band like the sex pistols. i personally don't have a problem with the mass-labelling of things as "punk" aside from the fact that yes, it has been appropriated as a marketing term.

 

i agree it's silly to ask "who's more punk" but in my case i was just doing it to generate discussion. i don't think there's much value in saying that naomi klein is totally more punk than chuck d, but i asked it more to see who of those people actually represents punk rock to all of you.

 

"Fuck genre distinctions, music is music"

music itself is a distinction though. what's music? what isn't? (hence why i put john cage up there with all the rest of the "punk" pictures). i think genre distinctions are as important as they are silly because they let us actually talk about the music we listen to. "nu-metal" is a god-awful name, but at least it exists so i can specify the kind of music i don't like. i agree with you, but it's important to not be so dismissive of something without bothering to question it first.

 

ok so if the stooges aren't punk rock, and simple plan aren't, then when did punk rock start? when did it die? has it died? did "punk rock" as a musical style, scene, etc even exist?

[reckoner]

1) sid vicious was a puppet. he was the poster boy for punk. if you want to look at a real punk/musician combination, look at john lydon.

 

2) go pick up some texts in the popular culture field, particularly the work of simon frith or andy bennett. they're some excellent popular culture theorists.

 

3) "punk" was a subculture that existed prior to the music, the music solely commodified the ideals of punk.

 

4) i can't remember what i was watching, but lydon was discussing the results of the mainstream picking up on "punk", that was when all the leather and the studs and shit were introduced, to be sold to the populace.

 

essentially, whether you want to look at "punk" or "punk music" is what you need to think of in this scenerio. because there really is a difference.

 

and punk music never died, it did exist, it was usually out of the reach of mainstream. it still exists, but you won't hear it on much or on the warped tour.

Edited April 4, 2008 by reckoner

[Prometheon]

Honestly, this may make me sound like an idiot or an asshole, but to me punk is inarticulate idiots playing inarticulate music and spewing unveiled, inarticulate lyrics in an "effort" to bring an irrelevant (because it is lost amongst all of the sweat, piercings, and lack of articulation) message to their inarticulate fans.

 

Edit: To expand, I would say that if it sounds like a bunch of idiots are thrashing talentlessly on their respective instruments (using no more than 3 chords, and a relatively high tempo) and yelling about politics, anarchy, or empowerment, you're probably listening to "punk."

Edited April 4, 2008 by Prometheon

[LisaCharly]

first off, i'd like to thank the contributions by jello and greg. i'm gonna try to respond to most of you, cause i think everyone's contribution so far has been pretty interesting. i'm also pretty shocked that most identified sid vicious as the "most punk" out of everyone pictured.

 

although i found graffin's pandering to nature as for our being "naturally" unique is a load of bullshit. not that i don't believe that we're all unique-- we all are in certain ways-- but if you have to look as closely as the human genome to see that we're all unique... it seems absurd at that point.

 

"It's about purposely being indecent, impolite or unconventional to try and get people to re-examine their values." i like your point, but was just wondering if there's something in politeness that you see which works against our ability to elicit change? if that's the case, then are canadian's less likely to be 'punk' because "we're more polite"?

 

""I DON'T CARE" to the naysayers" -- what do you mean by that? who are the naysayers? i thought punks were the ones to say "no" or "fuck you".

 

"of all that is mainstream" -- what's mainstream? what isn't? punk can't be mainstream? what is it about the "mainstream" that people think is an antithesis to being "punk" or being able to "make a difference"?

 

"Reading Greg Graffin's article, it seems that Punk is nothing more than a label people throw around that can potentially define anyone who railed against the status quo. In other words, it's just a generic term." -- i definitely see what you're saying here. do you think the term loses its meaning when it's applied to people who exist outside of that social "movement" from the 1970s? is there something wrong with it becoming synonymous with "revolutionary"?

 

i also agree that if you dismiss punk as a term applicable to other acts because of musical styles, then you do run into further problems of definition. for some reason, in any music text i've read, the stooges are cited as being "proto-punk" which i think is a completely ridiculous term. even more ridiculous than just calling them punk. so, they're not punk rock? to me, they embody what punk was moreso than a band like the sex pistols. i personally don't have a problem with the mass-labelling of things as "punk" aside from the fact that yes, it has been appropriated as a marketing term.

 

i agree it's silly to ask "who's more punk" but in my case i was just doing it to generate discussion. i don't think there's much value in saying that naomi klein is totally more punk than chuck d, but i asked it more to see who of those people actually represents punk rock to all of you.

 

"Fuck genre distinctions, music is music"

music itself is a distinction though. what's music? what isn't? (hence why i put john cage up there with all the rest of the "punk" pictures). i think genre distinctions are as important as they are silly because they let us actually talk about the music we listen to. "nu-metal" is a god-awful name, but at least it exists so i can specify the kind of music i don't like. i agree with you, but it's important to not be so dismissive of something without bothering to question it first.

 

ok so if the stooges aren't punk rock, and simple plan aren't, then when did punk rock start? when did it die? has it died? did "punk rock" as a musical style, scene, etc even exist?

Re: politeness. I worded myself badly. My point was that punk historically, especially in its music, has embraced what was deemed by mainstream society to be crass, indecent, inappropriate or unusual, and adopted those traits to insist on social change. So maybe the word I was looking for was conformity?

 

Punk's often been rooted in being confrontational, and spitting in the face of social expectations is a way of doing that - be it through dress (piercings, bizarre hairstyles, DIY, studs, etcetera), language (profanity), sex (being explicit about STDs, oral sex, portraying sex as filthy and animalistic rather than sacred and loving), music (simple chord structures, short songs) or otherwise. As punk evolved it gained the political aspect and the confrontational aspects have been used to shock, draw attention, and force people to think about the pre-planned common lives we live.

 

That's what I was trying to say, sorry if I was unclear before.

[Prometheon]

and force people to think about the pre-planned common lives we live.

....and make us realize that they are much, much better than the idiotic alternative of being "punk."

 

Hahahaha sorry, I couldn't resist. I don't even hate punk (music) per se. It has its place, and I can recognize it as a legitimate genre.

 

I just hate the culture for the same reason I hate goths. Their "message" is one of total unsuperficiality, and yet most of the people who identify themselves as "punk" go through incredible efforts to make sure you can tell because of the colors of their hair and the amount of metal in their face. Make up your mind. Do appearances and labels matter or not?

 

Edit: And I udnerstand that the whole point is that they "don't care" what I think. Dress like a tool, and then act all proud when I stare. Congrats.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Prometheon

[LisaCharly]

Yeah, it's hard to be counterculture while being part of a culture. ;) I appreciate punk for the music and political sentiment, not so much for the pretentious dress codes that determine who is "punker" than thou.

[Seanathon]

....and make us realize that they are much, much better than the idiotic alternative of being "punk."

 

Hahahaha sorry, I couldn't resist. I don't even hate punk (music) per se. It has its place, and I can recognize it as a legitimate genre.

 

I just hate the culture for the same reason I hate goths. Their "message" is one of total unsuperficiality, and yet most of the people who identify themselves as "punk" go through incredible efforts to make sure you can tell because of the colors of their hair and the amount of metal in their face. Make up your mind. Do appearances and labels matter or not?

 

Edit: And I udnerstand that the whole point is that they "don't care" what I think. Dress like a tool, and then act all proud when I stare. Congrats.

I'm thinking Owen is on the same wavelength as me on this one. Maybe.

Being 'different'(or anti-establishment) just for the sake of being different, isn't punk to me.

 

Aside from the music genre, being 100% true to yourself and your beliefs no matter what is what I would consider punk.

[MissEmily]

""I DON'T CARE" to the naysayers" -- what do you mean by that? who are the naysayers? i thought punks were the ones to say "no" or "fuck you".

nay

Edited April 6, 2008 by MissEmily

[HoboFactory]

There really is no such thing as punk. It is a designation that is completely meaningless. The word seems to be applied arbitrarily, and often in ways that contradict one another. It's apparently got countless definitions, and no way to ever objectively decide as to which the "correct" one is.