are there still punks?

Alternately, no there are no longer any punks.

I now have images of legions of hip kids milling round a huge academic library occasionally talking about music amongst their idle chatter. Whilst they go about their business from his lofty perch on a second floor balcony a seemingly innocuous librarian looks on benevolently. He smiles to himself for little do they know who this man is...

THE ANSWER IS "NO"

i find it somewhat strange that "punk" as a fashion mode has been so persistent--go to the belmont/clark area of chicago and you will see them in droves.

(im very biased. i didn't get along with the punks in my high school, no matter how much i loved the stooges )

It is bizarre, though, seeing kids were weren't even born in `82 wearing Exploited t-shirts (and even the Exploited were third or fourth wavers themselves).

yawn

By 1977, it was already a uniform.

yawn

By 1977, it was already a uniform

True, which only underscores how staid said uniform is today.

so what? why can't they like the Exploited?

Did I say that they couldn't like the Exploited? I'm more just astounded that anyone listens to the Exploited anymore.

There are still plenty of punks but there isn't any punk any more.

Stew does have a miraculous way with words, and were I wearing a hat right now, I would take it off to him.

I'm astounded anyone did in the first place!

Never mind the hat, just slip out of those bondage trousers and come here, big boy.

So... yeah.

Oh, you mean the William Burroughs definition of "punk"? I'm sure they still exist too.

My favourite 'though was an extremely small T-shirt that said "Daddy, what's a Sex Pistol?".

It was almost enough to make me want to procreate, simply in order to dress some future little Stewart Jnr. in tiny little bondage trousers and DM's....

That was ALMOST.

Aja?

In some ways I want to be able to say say "Yeah, they're enjoying themselves and not really upsetting anyone - it's a bit of shame they can't think of something new and have to call what they're doing "punk" when it only bears the most superficial resemblance to punk, but what the fuck?".

At the same time 'though there's a bit of me that wants to jump up and down and start frothing at the mouth and screaming "what the fuck has this got to do with punk? Don't these little twats realise that trying to conform to some diluted and redundant image of something that's been dead for 25 years and has completely lost it's ability to shock anyone, instead of coming up with something of their own, is the absolute antithesisof punk?"

The public image belongs to me.

http://www.luckygoon.com/Graphics/Misc/ECLive78.JPG

Fine - but if so then why call themselves punks?

Lots of the kids I see dress different than the original punk "uniform"....it's more hoodies with patches and stuff and black baseball hats that they put spikes and studs on...it's a little more "homeless hip hop" or something....more tribally tattoos (lots of face tattoos)...It's not like they dress like Steve Jones or something.....even musically, the crust scene and stuff like that has as much to do with Slayer as it does Sex Pistols or the Clash (probably a lot more Slayer actually).

Fine - but if so then why call themselves punks?

Because they CAN, and it's THEIR punk, not yours.

xpost - Why? Punk works perfectly, a fairly generic reference to a youth-centered subculture with ties back to late-70s (mostly British) punk rock.

ILX in being blind to American Hardcore scene shocka!!

Hardcore?

heeeeeeeeeee

Yes, but we are very old now, and many are no longer visibly punk. Unless you count visibility (via recognizably coded hair and dress) as integral to being-punk, in which case I never really was, and you may discount this answer.

"They refer to themselves as punks because they don't spend a lot of time pining over the true meaning of punk. Leave that shit to the fogies, maaaaaan.
xpost - Why? Punk works perfectly, a fairly generic reference to a youth-centered subculture with ties back to late-70s (mostly British) punk rock."

That strikes me as a completely self-defeating argument: if they're not interested in what punk was about then why identify themselves as being punks? If it's really that random then why not call themselves something else like Parsnips or Geraniums or Microchips or Lizards or anything else for that matter?

If the term "punk" has indeed become "a fairly generic reference to a youth-centered subculture with ties back to late-70s (mostly British) punk rock." (and, sadly, I don't actually dispute that for a second) that can only because it's been diluted to the point of meaninglessness by it's continued association with all these people who've adopted the name without really having much interest in what it was all about! Plenty of modern music has ties back to late-70s (mostly British) punk rock - but it doesn't all call itself punk.

Of course the bottom line is that there's nothing you or I could do about it either way even if we wanted to.

Reeducation camps?

IIRC this had been quite successfully achieved by Crass and their ilk by about 1980.

Aaaah yes.

They could all be given tutorials in punk.

Except that unfortunately that in itself would of course be intrinsically un-punk.

Is it wrong for Ciara fans to say they listen to R&B? You seem to be assuming that punk rock always has to be what it was in 1977....so they can't win, right? Either they are "punks" that are just haplessly rehashing the sounds of 77 or they're not punks at all!

http://www.scratchonline.ca/submissions/1_sid_vicious.jpg

ok jon, whose?
...
i don't know much abt crass at all, but i see their logo all over these kind of kids, so yeah.

There's this thing called AllMusic.com...

I think I'll leave that one for the R&B fans but I suspect a lot of purists would say yes.

"You seem to be assuming that punk rock always has to be what it was in 1977....so they can't win, right?

No, I am asserting that punk died in 1979 and that any attempt to revive it is intrinsically and by definition contrary to just about everything punk ever meant.

"Either they are "punks" that are just haplessly rehashing the sounds of 77 or they're not punks at all!"

And since "haplessly rehashing the sounds of 77" is itself intrinsically and by definition un-punk....

Very good question: the answer to which is that punk was not just a fashion or a type of music - and one of the central concepts underlying punk was a belief that reviving the past rather than moving forward and creating your own scene was an exercise in pointless necrophilia.

But for the most part, the lasting influences consist of music and a bit of fashion and DIY shows/records/zines (which really wasn't borrowed so much from UK punk) and (most of all) having fun with people of the same age and tastes. There's no yearning for the good old days or fear of 'keeping it real.'

Punk was all about recontextualizing... You are so wrong.

Regurgitating, no.

And again, they're (mostly) not concerned with being 'punk' - they do what they do and it gets called punk. Youth culture is much more organic than you're giving them credit for.

Surely it can only be a mischaracterisation if you believe there IS some continuity from Punk as it meant in 1977 to punk as it means in 2004: which is precisely the opposite standpoint from that which Milo and Eisbar are taking?

I also suspect from your spelling of mischaracterization (sic) that we’re in danger of getting into a debate about US punk vs. UK punk, which is something else again!

Yes, I'm rather afraid it is now.

http://www.tombraider4u.com/pictures/punk-kitty.gif

I wouldn't trust the Crass reviewer.

Just read this here whole thread. I'm almost 39, started listening to shit like the Necros and Dead Kennedys at about age 15 - 1982 or so. Grew up going to hardcore shows and even then people were making the same arguments as Mr. Osborne above - oh, it's different now, these kids have no idea, blah blah. Now it's twenty years later, and I own a house. We have punk shows in the basement. We book everything from local 15-year-olds to 40-something dudes like the Detonators or Iowaska (ex-Amebix).

Let me make this clear:

There is a clear and continuous line of DIY culture that can be drawn through all of this. Many of these young kids are very smart and the music they play sounds nothing like the hardcore I used to listen to. I am proud to have them within the lineage of punk music. The heaviest influences these days, paradoxically, seem to be folk music and noise. As a lifelong musical omnivore, I view this as a very positive development. And what about these kids who listen to The Ex or Fugazi? Those bands are practically first-wave punk themselves, don't the kids have a right to dig them and be inspired?

Jesus, this blathering about how punk is this or that is such crap. It's a cultural template that people impose their own ideals and dreams upon. Lester Bangs put it best... it's all about some kids who want to be fried out of their skins by the most scalding propulsion imaginable, for a night they can pretend lasts for the rest of their lives.

Over and out.

Well there is at least something admirably punk-like in the sheer brazen pig-headed obstinacy of that belief!

Please don't get me wrong: I'd like to remind you that I did actually start off right at the beginning by saying "I'm kind of ambivalent about this...." and I genuinely think it's fantastic that so much of the lineage of punk is being perpetuated in the ways that you describe (in particular, the musical eclecticism that you describe is wholly admirable - and to my mind shows a much greater correlation with that particular aspect of "Punk V1.0" than was evidenced by most of it's original successors in title at the time!) - I just very firmly believe that both the legacy of "Punk V1.0" and the present and future of "Punk VX.whatever" would be far better served if they weren't confusing matters by sharing the same name - and since we don't have the option of going back in time and changing the name of "Punk V1.0"....

(Fuck! Why couldn't I have thought of that yesterday when it might have actually been funny?)

Just read this here whole thread. I'm almost 39, started listening to shit like the Necros and Dead Kennedys at about age 15 - 1982 or so. Grew up going to hardcore shows and even then people were making the same arguments as Mr. Osborne above - oh, it's different now, these kids have no idea, blah blah. Now it's twenty years later, and I own a house. We have punk shows in the basement. We book everything from local 15-year-olds to 40-something dudes like the Detonators or Iowaska (ex-Amebix).

Let me make this clear:

There is a clear and continuous line of DIY culture that can be drawn through all of this. Many of these young kids are very smart and the music they play sounds nothing like the hardcore I used to listen to. I am proud to have them within the lineage of punk music. The heaviest influences these days, paradoxically, seem to be folk music and noise. As a lifelong musical omnivore, I view this as a very positive development. And what about these kids who listen to The Ex or Fugazi? Those bands are practically first-wave punk themselves, don't the kids have a right to dig them and be inspired?

Jesus, this blathering about how punk is this or that is such crap. It's a cultural template that people impose their own ideals and dreams upon. Lester Bangs put it best... it's all about some kids who want to be fried out of their skins by the most scalding propulsion imaginable, for a night they can pretend lasts for the rest of their lives.

Over and out.

-- sleeve (sleev...), May 5th, 2005.

otm.

so you mean minor threat, black flag, bad brains, etc. dont count as punk?

"I also suspect from your spelling of mischaracterization (sic) that we’re in danger of getting into a debate about US punk vs. UK punk, which is something else again!"

i think thats a LARGE part of the issue actually.

Speaking both as a Limey and as an old (former? ex?) punk, it seems to me that it's not just the writers but the members of those youth culture themselves.

"so you mean minor threat, black flag, bad brains, etc. dont count as punk?"

Speaking both as a Limey and as an old (former? ex?) punk, it seems to me that "Hardcore" is a much beter name for them, don't you agree?

x-post 4vr|l roxx fuk all yuo h4t4z

Oh and before anyone starts: yes, you Septics invented it - but (as has frequently been the case) you largely failed realise what you'd got or to do anything particularly useful with it until us Limey's took it, rationalised it, repackaged it, and sold it back to you!

We done here?

Not if they're swaddling themsevles in the iconography of the Punk Rock that happened two decades before their birth it isn't.

Fair enough, but lots of that stuff itself was ripped off of WWII imagery from the British military. I'm talking more about specific band names. I.E. you didn't see the Vibrators walking around with Small Faces t-shirts on.

This could be its own thread. I think they were given a helluva hard time and were rather quick to distance themselves from it all....but that same thing could be said about droves of bands.

-- sleeve

HUGE ROUND OF APPLAUSE

You are now two lines into writing your first street punk anthem, but you don't really get it, do you?

Also -- they throw good parties.

Two lines into the worst fucking song ever? For the smallest group of the biggest dipshits on the planet? Great.

and relentless OTMFM by same.

There are vast legions of crusty punk kids in continental Europe.
As much as I despise them (the dirt and aimlessness, but especially the begging with dogs thing which I find totally unpunk) I suppose it's still better than if ""we"" lost them to the banking industry/insurance business/insert globally nefarious job here.
Oh and

Also -- they throw good parties.
-- A|ex P@reene
Fuck no they don't. You're disgusting. Maybe the rich US trendy-style punks do but I seriously doubt it.

This is so not about the UK, the US, or even music anymore AND IT SURE ISN'T ABOUT CLOTHES. Once a punk always an anarchist, it's one of those things.

And to be 100% perfect, this post should read :
sexpistols r the fucn creatrs of punk in mi eyes nd there aint no cunt what will tell me different
-- yazmin

I AM ALIVE

haha yep! hard times....palmer's bar...triple rock.....also. they have a wierd fascination with really tall bicycles.

blunt -- please note that European crust-punks /= American crust-punks. The ones I'm talking about often have jobs and run co-ops and fix bicycles and shit -- they don't beg. They do put those stupid fucking bandanas on their dogs, though.

Go to the May Day Parade, though! They show off their most dangerous/crazy bikes every year.

SO LETS CHANGE THIS

wahts' the deal with these dudes? i feel like they came on my radar circa the 1999 WTO riots in seattle -- a glimpse into this network of black clad anarchists living off the grid out of protest but still seemingly attempting to engage in a dialog with a society that they viewed participating in as some sort of sin. on the one hand their relentless co-oping and dedication to community seems admirable; on the other, it sometimes seems merely self serving, a way to coast thru life on the shoulders of your fellow crusties. what does 'punk', broadly conceived, have to do with this? can punk's stripping away of classic-rock excess be seen as analogous to crustie attempts to live 'off the grid,' free of the immoral detritus of modernity? and does (first wave)punk's implosion and what we have identified as crustie 'aimlessness' speak to a flaw in the sort of puritanism, a confusion of means with ends? conversely, does the ineffable spirit of DIY in early punk, present in music that might sound nothing like it, speak to the potentials of such a lifestyle or ethos as a springboard towards meaningful dialog with and change of society?

In order to yer questions:

1. We are many, and not all dudes.
2. That was a long sentence, but "punk" relates to the scene in that many folks listen to and identify with "peace punk" music, Crass etc. (see DIRT tour above). Also the folks at Profane Existance have made a dedicated, if at times drunken and horrifying, effort to infuse more modern punk with some of the Crass influence (to oversimplify in a most horrifying way).
3. Yes, but not all of those folks life "off the grid", many are urban scavengers.
4. Yes. Except for the vegans who have to eat processed food.
4. Key question. The balance between givers and takers is what anarchism seeks, in part, to address and perhaps redress. I refer you to the "Carnival Of Chaos" book, although it's out of print. Well, anyway, freeloading is indeed an issue. I have had houseguests who were parasites and others who were awesome. You just have to draw boundaries and be clear.
5. Yes yes yes oh yes it does.

I work next to a site where generations of "urban scavengers" have demonstrated their utter lack of respect for just about anything including themselves. Their dogs are cleaner than them. They scatter shit lightly all over the plaza, whereas their owners shit in bags which they throw into a pile on the opposite side of said plaza from where they live. Or attempt to rot faster than most. Or whatever it is they do.

Since most of them clearly could go back to mommy & daddy tomorrow, am I to understand that the latest anarchist-revolutionary technique is to borrow parts of the punk ethos and attire, and and set ourselves apart from society, forming little groups ? How is this relevant in more than a superficial, visually shocking sense and is that enough of a contribution to be considered more than plain disgusting lazy-ass freeloading ?

Do they inspire you to change the world for the better ? Are they providing an interesting model for proactive people who could choose to get involved in a socially constructive activity instead of working for MegaCorp A or B ?

But have you ever read Slug And Lettuce? This is a serious question, as per the original poster...

nope, no punks

"All it is is just another uniform now,....which, ultimately & ironically, was the very thing it arguably railed against."

yeah, I know the story. Same thing happened with mod. Weird that that is a retro look when originally its ethos was so anti retro, always trying to be a step ahead. The ethos of mod presumably switched into a different later youthcult that wouldn't label itself with a hasbeen timewarped label?

With punk though I thought it was about self expression but that does seem to have become ossified by '77 or possibly a little later when it fed and then fed off the Mad Max look.
I always think the idea of a 'Spirit of '77' movement capturing the height of punk is at least a year if not 2 late. Maybe that's the point the media and record labels got hold of it? I assume that most record label versions of 'the punk sound' were distortions/diffractions of band intentions, no matter how classic the lps concerned are viewed now.

I think a generic punk is as sad as a generic hippy would have seemed in '76 or whenever. But then I think a generic anything is not as good as an individualised one.

yer there still r punks..nd if u say ur a punk be 1 be a anarchist ns listn 2 the music

― sexpistol, Sunday, December 18, 2005 12:25 AM (5 years ago) Bookmark

underrated post

i am a punk

i am eating ravioli & listening to black flag

still here, still punk

I picked up a new issue of Profane Existence the other day, and while the music reviews were depressing (derivative, uninteresting, everything compared to other older bands) I was pleased to see a number of good, thoughtful columns by their writers. Some nice pieces on growing older and disaster preparedness. And hey, it's free now!

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/07/princewilliam.jpg

ska is dead t shirt! that was one of the first shows i ever went to

ha sleeve I just picked up a PE last week for the first time in forever

overheard at the all-day punk fest/benefit at the skatepark on Saturday:

"If this was 2002, they would be pepper-spraying all of us. Does this mean we won? Is it OK to be punk now?"