even sven got it right.
PUNK IS NOT MUSIC…PUNK IS NOT MUSIC
Punk is a philosophy, it is a lifestyle, Music is a part of it. Punk is also very much alive…
But what is this lifestyle or philosophy? Anarchism? Nihilism? <Simpsons>Be like the boy?</Simpsons>
So many bands claim or imply that they represent rebellion or disaffection that I find it hard to see those that do in the crowd of those that are trying hard to make a living from it. Why is punk, as a genre, still regarded as the ‘pure’ genre?
“Hardcore” is a genre. “Punk” is a way of doing things.
The Ramones were punk, The Buzzcocks were punk, ? and the Mysterions (“96 Tears”) were punk. Musicianship is the enemy, playing catchy, simple songs is punk.
I must say, people read way too much into this particular subject. It puzzles me. I listen to “punk” quite often in an attempt to stray from my deep love of ska… and by listening to punk I mean I listen to a wide variety of things… from The Clash and Sex Pistols, The Dead Kennedy’s, and then on down to The Vandals, The Ramones, Green Day, and The Living End. I wholeheartedly agree with <b>even sven</b>. Punk is defined by the punks that <i>listen</i> to the music, not the other way around. It has a wide range of styles, or “sub-categories” if you will. It cannot, and should not, be limited to what it started out as. Just because it has changed from what it originally stood for does not mean the word “punk” has lost it’s meaning. It just has evolved with the times in order to survive, as all things must do.
<b>Skamiel</b>, you also said it well (or should I say Jesus did?) Punk music is still here because punks are still here. They just aren’t the same as they were in 1977. Not many things are.
Catchy, simple tunes? Don’t lots of bands do that? Why are they not examples of musicianship?
I’m still not pinning down punk here. Is it an attitude? If so, what exactly, and if so how does it differ from other attitudes? Is is a musical style, and if so how does it differ from other musical styles?
I think maybe I’m trying too hard to label something that can’t be defined easily. I still really like even sven’s definition: punk is what punk rockers listen to. If punk fans like it, it’s punk. Circular but neat.
FWIW here’s what I thought punk meant to me: a musical style that didn’t exactly go for finesse: amateurish at its extremes, unconcerned with polished production. Ditto with lyrics: singing ability unimportant, passion the key. Lyrics always expressing extremes of emotion, usually negative, often musically ‘taboo’ (in terms of chart-friendliness at least).
How does that stand up?
Sorry, Kloudes, I missed yours while I was posting.
I think maybe that I’m getting a clue now. Punk is defined by those that see themselves as punk. That’s why I can’t define it. It’s evolved from what neutral observers originally thought was punk, which makes it even harder to define. It’s a broader church than it started out as, which also complicates things.
Thanks everyone for your responses. Very interesting.
Thats a lot of it. To me, the best discription of what punk is in the punk testament of the boomer bible. The chapter entitled “you”
The boomer bible is perhaps one of the greatest books ever written, and the punk testament is the greatest description of punk I have ever read.
http://www.boomerbible.com/Boomhome.html
And it goes on from there, and I wish I could reproduce the whole thing here, but it would step on a few copyright laws. GO BUY THIS BOOK. If nothing else, it is a seriously funny book, but it explains punk philosophy better than I could ever hope for.
Supposedly the first real punk song was MC5’s Kick Out the Jams. I think it was first performed in 1967.
I believe the whole punk scene was a backlash against the peace-and-love hippie generation that was entirely without any perspective since their belief was everything was good and could be happy. Since there was no middle ground, punk had to happen to wash out the sacchrine, patchoulli-scented taste of the sixties from our collective mouths whether we liked it or not.
Have to disagree. The real idea behind the “punk” lifestyle is nonconformity. Not anti-conformity, just non. If you don’t like what the mainstream is doing, don’t do it. If you do like it, there’s no reason why you can’t do it. Not being able to do something because it’s not punk is, itself, not punk. If you’re hanging with “punks” and they don’t accept you because you don’t wear “The Uniform” (studded leather, ripped and marker covered jeans, mohawk, etc) then they’re just kids leeching the look.
Good example: Everybody always said Blondie is a punk band (they were one of the CBGB originals, along with the Ramones). I always wondered how they got that label, until I really paid attention to what they did. They had huge hits in all different styles: Disco (Heart of Glass), Rock (Call Me), Reggae (The Tide Is High), Rap (several songs), etc. And that’s just their radio songs! They always went and did whatever they wanted to do, regardless of what everybody else around them was doing, and they were good at it. That’s punk.
Now the punk rock musical styles are a different story. There’s definitely a style. And I don’t have anything to say on it that hasn’t already been covered in the thread.
Two questions:
- Is Frank Zappa punk? Sure, all of his bands had ridiculously talented musicians, but if you listen to the original Mothers, the attitude is sort of punkish. First of all, they were sort of the antithesis of the hippie ethos, in that they were an UGLY band when everything was supposed to be “beautiful.” They also threw rotting vegetables and whipped cream into the audience at a time when other bands handed out flowers. And despite their musicianship, Zappa often demostrated his perverse love of pure noise (like the song “Weasels Ripped My Flesh”), three-chord songs (doo-wop and “Louie Louie”), and confronting “taboo” topics in a satirical fashion.
- Is skiffle punk? You know, the late '50s and early '60s British craze that involved starting your own band, sometimes with homemade instruments, and playing easy songs (e.g., “Does Your Chewing Gum Lose its Flavour on the Bedpost Overnight” as performed by Lonnie Donegan and his Skiffle Group)? Interestingly enough, the Beatles originally started as a sort of skiffle group. So perhaps (it’s a bit of a stretch) the Beatles could be considered a punk band.
Gah! No no no! You got it just backwards. Punk is a musical genre. Punk is also a philosophy/lifestyle. They are two seperate things. Very often, they overlap. Since they have the same name, people often fail to differentiate between them.
The music I listen to is in the VERY broad punk genre. That includes just about everything mentioned here. The Ramones, The Clash, all the way up to The Offspring and Blink 182. It’s all punk music. And that is not ever necessarily tied to any sort of culture. I’m an upper-middle class super-conformist. I am not punk. The music I listen to is punk. Just as one can listen to country without living on a ranch, or listen to rap without being even close to involved with the culture described in such music, one can listen to punk music and have nothing to do with the punk “scene.”
Punk music exists and is definitely alive (witness pop-punk successes Blink, Green Day, and [gag] Sum 41)
Punk as a scene, a culture also exists, though not as much as it used to. I see a real life genuine punk every now and then. Their existence or popularity isn’t at all related to punk music, however.
If there were no punks, there could still be punk music. And if there were no punk music, there could still be punks. Seperate things. Don’t get them mixed up just because of the name and overlap thing.
Joe_Cool, I hope that this is how things are in your neck o’ the woods. From personal experience with the punkest people I’ve met in Denver, Providence, and Boston, they ain’t gonna accept you as a real part of the scene if you admit that you have the desire to go to engineering school or that you like the music of Rush.
I totally agree about the kids leeching the look, however. I think that describes most of the major label “punk” bands currently operating. Yes, I would definitely class Blondie as punk before I would Sum 41.
Gah right back at ya. Punk music is music that evolved out of the punk scene. Many punks, such as myself a couple of decades ago, didnt really even listen to the music that much. I like punk music now probably more than I did back then. Mainly because of the memorys it brings back. I always liked the DK’s, and Bad brains though.
Now you can try and take that and twist that to apply to music that sounds like something punks might listen to, but thats not what punk is.
Back in my day, (man I feel old), we had people who listen to Rush, we had people who went to college, and we had people dressed like preppies. Mind you, if someone dressed like a yuppie, people would look at them a bit with suspicion at first, but only until they got to know them. They wouldnt treat them badly. YMMV
In high school, my two best friends had 26" of mohawk between them. One was a skater and wore a do-rag, one wore combat boots and sprayed his hair up every day. I wore mainly blue jeans and t-shirts and had a normal haircut (until I got brave, cut it short and went a bit spiky). We hung with several other kids of varying punkish look, one who was a jock, one who was heavily into miles davis and john coltrane, a couple thrashers, a skin and a couple stoners…The attitude that we were gonna do what we liked to do regardless of what other people said or thought about it is what bound us together, not the uniform. Hell, we were even friends with one of the nu-wave/gothy drama kids.
So yeah, I guess you could say we had a cool scene. Maybe I was just lucky.