Jump to content

Recommended Posts

as there is no such thing as objectivity.

a is non a.

 

you can't identify that objectivity doesn't exist without being objective.

 

 

you're denying the first axiom

 

 

 

 

Hobo, the word "punk" isn't a floating abstraction with no referent in reality. if that were the case, the word wouldn't exist, nor would this thread... if you want to know what "punk" means, isolate it's essential characteristic(s)

Edited by heyrabbit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

I think there is something wrong with punk being synonymous with revolutionary. What great social movement did the Sex Pistols or the Ramones instigate? It would be far more accurate to say that the punks are part of the revolutionary spirit rather than the revolutionaries embody the punk spirit, although I disagree strongly with that, I still want to be fair to those who do use the music as a productive means to express themselves and motivate others.

 

Nowadays, it seems that calling ones self "punk" is just an excuse to be an asshole. I work with a guy who went down to North Dakota and while there he urinated on the floor of the bathroom in his hotel, so he could tell people that he "pissed on America." More to the point, here in Winnipeg, they all seem to live in Tuxedo, Charleswood, and St. James (i.e. the better-off neighborhoods).

 

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.

 

My other problem with punk is that all the things you've said here, while true, do not define punk alone. R'n'B from the early 50's was hugely ostracized by the mainstream for exactly those same reasons. The same can be said for the bebop style of jazz in the 1940s. That music probably produced far more social change than punk has ever done.

 

I don't want anyone to think that from this I'm a punk hater. The Clash fucking kill. I think on the greatest thing about punk is that because it's so simple, anyone can do it, which is what music should be all about. No one should be excluded from taking part in making music. Whether or not I actually like the music being made is beside the point. They're indulging in their passion and they feel good about themselves, and nothing can denigrate that.

 

 

PS John Cage is the most punk. ;)

Edited by no yu begin wher i end
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is something wrong with punk being synonymous with revolutionary. What great social movement did the Sex Pistols or the Ramones instigate? It would be far more accurate to say that the punks are part of the revolutionary spirit rather than the revolutionaries embody the punk spirit, although I disagree strongly with that, I still want to be fair to those who do use the music as a productive means to express themselves and motivate others.

 

Nowadays, it seems that calling ones self "punk" is just an excuse to be an asshole. I work with a guy who went down to North Dakota and while there he urinated on the floor of the bathroom in his hotel, so he could tell people that he "pissed on America." More to the point, here in Winnipeg, they all seem to live in Tuxedo, Charleswood, and St. James (i.e. the better-off neighborhoods).

 

 

 

My other problem with punk is that all the things you've said here, while true, do not define punk alone. R'n'B from the early 50's was hugely ostracized by the mainstream for exactly those same reasons. The same can be said for the bebop style of jazz in the 1940s. That music probably produced far more social change than punk has ever done.

 

I don't want anyone to think that from this I'm a punk hater. The Clash fucking kill. I think on the greatest thing about punk is that because it's so simple, anyone can do it, which is what music should be all about. No one should be excluded from taking part in making music. Whether or not I actually like the music being made is beside the point. They're indulging in their passion and they feel good about themselves, and nothing can denigrate that.

 

 

PS John Cage is the most punk. ;)

i couldn't agree more with what you're saying. i think that the whole "revolutionary spirit" idea is what i was trying to get at myself. i admire the "simplicity" of punk as well, and i find it really interesting that it served as such a huge inspiration to so many people. i don't think that kind of thing can really happen again in popular music. i might be wrong though.

 

@ heyrabbit: "you can't identify that objectivity doesn't exist without being objective."

 

no, but i can come to the realization that our thoughts will always be influenced by our individual subject positions, which means that no one can ever truly be objective, no matter how many philosophical cartwheels you do.

 

i agree with hobo. there is no way to objectively decide a proper definition of punk, but i also think that that's besides the point. i think by now, the term has taken on many meanings, all of which apply in their own way to what "punk" is, and i don't think that undermines the more socially-invested aspects of punk whatsoever. even before the music was popular in the late 70s, the term "punk" referred to numerous things, be it a generic term for "trouble maker" or a more specific term for prison sex. this might prove to be a good time for me to remind people that my question was, "what is punk (to you)?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

i may be wrong (i'm sure you could discredit me on many different grounds), but i would agree and do strongly believe that MSI are as punk as the Clash, if not more, when taking social sorroundings/settings into account.

 

(MSI have taken the atari-inspired/derivative (nintendo ds) generation, and said "you ma'fuckaz will not keep me passive under the tide of mindless/souless waste that is sweeping up my contemporaries")

 

i don't feel that punk is neccassarily about angering (the action in itself) the cracker-ass dirtbags who have somehow emerged on top of the human race, in a directorial sense, nor is it being right or wrong, but about being honest, while calling bullshit on the human-elements/institutions/perspectives/experiences that we have picked up along the way, as if they were important in the first place. i don't think 'punk' is about pissing people off, but i think punk is about pissing off ignorant people.

 

it is, in my opinion, a literal embodiement of the quote "i never wanted to be different i just wanted to be me"

 

but having said that, these spineless fucking douchebag kids who have misinterpreted and brought about the wave of the "i'm punk because i'm misunderstood and holy crap do i love mcdonald's and west 49" generation. i am of the opinion punk was so horribly misinterpreted by the suburbs that they "took the wind out of it's sails," so to speak

 

 

 

 

punk is punching yourself in the face out of aggravation caused by HAVING to have an id and refusing to let the school issue you anything but a bloody-nose id

 

 

 

 

 

this may be a bit of a stretch, but Jesus Christ could've been a punk

 

i disagree with this, because it could be argued intensely/easily that jesus was a proponent of conformity, just not to the status quo, but to his own brand/schism of conformity

Edited by Dan #2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people think that "punk" is rebellious, and then they also say that it's about being who you are.

 

What if you're a really passive person, and you refuse to take action against the government/social norms, etc? You're not rebellious in the least, but you are "not changing your identity for anyone or any belief." Punk?

 

Edit: And if that is the case, it's pretty much impossible to identify people as punks, especially if we do away with the "identify them by their appearance" deal. Thus, if it's impossible to tell if someone's a punk without thouroughly examining their inner psychographic profile, what's the point of the term existing?

 

I think "punk" NEEDS to have a superficial, appearance-based definition. Which makes it stupid, IMO.

Edited by Prometheon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this may be a bit of a stretch, but Jesus Christ could've been a punk

 

i disagree with this, because it could be argued intensely/easily that jesus was a proponent of conformity, just not to the status quo, but to his own brand/schism of conformity

;) I'm an emo kid, non-conforming as can be/you'd be non-conforming too if you looked just like me :angry:

 

I know exactly what you're saying, which is why I said that it's "a bit of a stretch." But if you remove the aspects of divinity and whatnot from the man, then you still get a figure who challenged the cruelty and corruption of the political and religious leaders of the day (regardless of the modern day implications). This really isn't the place to get into a debate of that nature, but I still hope you could see the point I was trying to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really isn't the place to get into a debate of that nature, but I still hope you could see the point I was trying to make.

i see exactly what you mean, and i'm not saying jesus necessarily did a bad thing, but i'm saying jesus gave the earliest christians an 'option b,' in regards to contemporary life, as cruel as it was at the time. he didn't try to overthrow the cruel mofos, he said to his followers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a is non a.

 

you can't identify that objectivity doesn't exist without being objective.

 

 

you're denying the first axiom

 

 

 

 

Hobo, the word "punk" isn't a floating abstraction with no referent in reality. if that were the case, the word wouldn't exist, nor would this thread... if you want to know what "punk" means, isolate it's essential characteristic(s)

How does one isolate essential characteristics for something like punk? Like I said, many people attribute a large variety of attributes to what punk is, which often either contradict one another, or fail to establish why punk is unique or different. That's why I think the term itself can't really ever mean any one thing, and why nothing can ever truly be "objectively" punk. Since so many people have so many different definitions, who is to say that one's definition is more authoritative than another's?

 

Remember that debate as to whether or not Pluto is a planet? How did they conclude that it was not? By a consensus of various experts. Many ordinary people, for one reason or another, objected to that consensus, but at the end of the day, it was all about who really was the most authoritative source. With something like punk however, who can claim to be the authority qualified to determine what punk is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i may be wrong (i'm sure you could discredit me on many different grounds), but i would agree and do strongly believe that MSI are as punk as the Clash, if not more, when taking social sorroundings/settings into account.

 

(MSI have taken the atari-inspired/derivative (nintendo ds) generation, and said "you ma'fuckaz will not keep me passive under the tide of mindless/souless waste that is sweeping up my contemporaries")

 

I'm a huge dork for MSI. I think they're truly one of the "punkest" bands of this era, especially the Frankenstein Girls blah blah blah record. I'm actually writing my senior thesis on the way various punk bands throughout history have addressed sex, and spend some time talking about how that album fits the mold of 80's punk. Despite the band's claims that they hate politics and social convention and don't give a fuck, they're actually (perhaps despite themselves) making some very smart statements about society and modern issues.

 

i don't feel that punk is neccassarily about angering (the action in itself) the cracker-ass dirtbags who have somehow emerged on top of the human race, in a directorial sense, nor is it being right or wrong, but about being honest, while calling bullshit on the human-elements/institutions/perspectives/experiences that we have picked up along the way, as if they were important in the first place. i don't think 'punk' is about pissing people off, but i think punk is about pissing off ignorant people.

 

Perhaps punk is about doing away with arbitrary social conventions that do nothing but hold people back? The Dead Kennedys song "Halloween" kind of illustrates that point, with the song's protagonist being so terrified of keeping his reputation and social standing that he allows himself to be miserable ("so why don't you take your social regulations and shove them up your ass?").

 

Punk would, then, not be intentionally offensive but offend as a side effect. It's not that you meant to offend anybody by stating your opinion, but it just happened, and all that. I guess we agree on that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.