punks not dead! (montreal punk riot)

if rioting is "what was punk in 1978"; then it was also punk in 1778 and 1888 and 1988 and 2003 which - to me anyway - means it is and was about as mainstream as ever

My dog has a tail.
Cats have tails.
Therefore my dog must be a cat.

What was punk in 1978 has been melded into mainstream society and is now the antithesis of punk

there's kind of 2 ways to look at this and they're both true - on one hand punk changed mainstream culture on the other mainstream culture changed punk... but i don't think it's an all-or-nothing deal either way

I guess we don't want to get into "what is punk?" again .. Rioting is a group-hysteria activity - and group hysteria strikes me as being anti-punk. But it's perfectly in line with exclaiming "We're number one!" about something in which you took no part, except as a spectator.

No music can 'die', that is why it is so incredible:

Quote from Larkin writing about jazz: great music is a 'direct incitement to immortality'.

On the other hand, 'Yannick Ouimet' is the best name in history.

I like that the news story talks about cars being set "on ablaze."

Seconded. There appears to be nothing short of a revolution taking place.

You Fritz.

There were punks in 1978.
Some punks were involved in rioting.
Therefore everyone who has ever rioted must be punk.

Of course it doesn't help that there have been to all intents and purposes (at least) two entirely different versions of Punk, which (apart from sharing the name) actually bear only the most superficial of similarities to each other.

This is what leads to potential misunderstandings like this:

"Punk is a genre, like all others."

Well, one of them is; the other one most certainly wasn't.

You're years too late for that.

bah, i wasn't saying that... i was saying the punks who rioted after the exploited show was canceled were being punks

not that every riot ever was punk but that the urge to riot is sometimes punk whether it be storming the bastille or paris 68 or montreal 03

and that yeah punk is sometimes dumb n ugly and violent and pointless

I only know of one person who would claim that the Paris riots in '68 were "punk".... you are Malcolm McLaren and I claim my five pounds!

I do understand what you're saying now Fritz but the Paris riots were not "Punk".

Influenced by some of the same things as Punk ("the urge to riot" maybe?) yes and quite possibly influential on Punk - but that doesn't actually make them "Punk".

The Beatles, Chuck Berry, Marc Bolan, Can, Captain Beefheart, Chic, Jimmy Cliff, Eddie Cochran, Ornette Coleman, The Crystals, Miles Davis, Bo Diddley, Doctor Alimantado, Bob Dylan, Gloria Gaynor, Led Zeppelin, Love, Mott The Hoople, Junior Murvin, Lee "Scratch" Perry, Pink Floyd, Prince Far-I, Rolling Stones, The Ronettes, The Shangri-La's, Small Faces, Donna Summer, Sun Ra, Toots & The Maytals, Van Der Graaf Generator and The Who were all to some extent influenced by some of the same things as Punk and influential on Punk - but we're not going to start describing them as "Punk", are we?

revive

are there still punks?

any riots in Montreal lately?