Could Someone Explain What "Punk" Is?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
according to this it means having guitars and mascara:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/01/arts/music/01duff.html

asdfasdasd, Thursday, 1 September 2005 18:07 (twenty years ago)

Sounds about right.

The Ghost of Black Elegance (Dan Perry), Thursday, 1 September 2005 18:09 (twenty years ago)

Answer to original question: No.

k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 1 September 2005 18:10 (twenty years ago)

Confounded (Confounded), Thursday, 1 September 2005 18:29 (twenty years ago)

it's a feeling i get....when i look to the west.

M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Thursday, 1 September 2005 18:51 (twenty years ago)

http://www.kbtoys.com/g/toys/big/286204B.jpg

Punch Rock, Thursday, 1 September 2005 18:54 (twenty years ago)

http://www.halflifepunk.com/images/hl_shirt_vyv.jpg

k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 1 September 2005 18:56 (twenty years ago)

What makes a band indie?

k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 1 September 2005 19:00 (twenty years ago)

http://www.saturn-soft.net/Services/Ecard/cards/16_5.jpg

Huk-L (Huk-L), Thursday, 1 September 2005 19:00 (twenty years ago)

http://www.ttubyx.com/albums/punksvsprep/a_firework_Punk_and_a_real_punk.sized.jpg

latebloomer: not just indie rock but also rap, industrial and pop. (latebloomer), Thursday, 1 September 2005 19:09 (twenty years ago)

Confounded (Confounded), Thursday, 1 September 2005 19:22 (twenty years ago)

Confounded (Confounded), Thursday, 1 September 2005 19:24 (twenty years ago)

if you have to ask, lady...

hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 1 September 2005 19:29 (twenty years ago)

I think Stewart could explain it, but he seems to be off this week.

k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 1 September 2005 19:30 (twenty years ago)

Must say that Kelefa's critic's notebooks are breathtaking ... either they;re way way way way way on the money or they're just completely bizarre and left-field. Either way, the guy's got a fascinatingly out there noodle for this stuff.

Chris O., Thursday, 1 September 2005 19:34 (twenty years ago)

My understanding was this:
Way back in time, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the songs they had were Broadway and Tin Pan Alley, which meant they sang about love in a very naive romantic icky way- typically they rhymed "June" and "spoon" because "spooning" was some kind of old time making-out, the only kind they were alllowed to talk about or engage in when on a date. Then in the fifties, with the post-war affluence in the 50s, all hell broke loose with "rock and roll" which was primitive and more direct expression of the lower impulses, and therefore more exciting both musically and lyrically- the kids were greasers and were going steady and pinning each other then some. But people got tired of the three chord teenage rock and the four chord doowop so the Beatles played the Chuck Berry "Roll Over Beethoven" but then the Beatles turned around and stole the fancy chords from that very same Beethoven and his go-carting friend Mozart! This was the best music of all, known as "classical rock" and for a few years people weren't restricted to the three chord songs and everybody was experimenting with their music and their minds and their studios and feeding-back their guitars and "tuning in, turning on, dropping out". But after awhile the drugs didn't work anymore and instead of innovation then people started either playing the simple three chord blues-based (or "Bluez-based") songs for hours at a time at ear-crunching volume and "noodling" (because it was like overcooked noodles -a concisely-played song or solo is like pasta cooked al dente) or else they added too many chords from the Great Masters and played those for hours and noodeld over those too. Some people liked the old songs from the fifties and they wanted to bring back the short songs and different kind of subject matter than "hippie rebellion"- after all it was ten years later, and they didn't need to play the fancy noodling or the fancy chords so they would just buy- or steal- instruments and make a homemade flyer and paste it all over town and then they had a band and could play a gig!

Klondike Kleinenachtmusik (Ken L), Thursday, 1 September 2005 20:10 (twenty years ago)

Is it just me, or does that Billy Joel photo I posted sorta look like Alex in NYC? SORTA.

Huk-L (Huk-L), Thursday, 1 September 2005 20:12 (twenty years ago)

Is that what you posted, Huk? I can't see it, it's blocked for me.

k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 1 September 2005 20:17 (twenty years ago)

http://static.flickr.com/5/6100340_bb98d25b98_o.gif

Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Thursday, 1 September 2005 20:20 (twenty years ago)

Venga (Venga), Thursday, 1 September 2005 20:24 (twenty years ago)

http://www.bart666.com/files/msn-anal-sex.gif

Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Thursday, 1 September 2005 20:27 (twenty years ago)

Get Behind Celebrating Anal Sex Month.

Come on, Dom, get on back behind it.

Confounded (Confounded), Thursday, 1 September 2005 20:39 (twenty years ago)

Apparently it has something to do with community projects and people getting together for the great good and lots of nostalgia

dan. (dan.), Thursday, 1 September 2005 20:42 (twenty years ago)

Punk... is a hamhock in your cornflakes.

Oh wait.

k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 1 September 2005 20:47 (twenty years ago)

Well "punk" actually meant something once, when it was about having guitars and mascara and hating disco.

Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 1 September 2005 20:53 (twenty years ago)

It was never about hating disco. It was about hating fatuous arena rock.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 1 September 2005 21:13 (twenty years ago)

Michael Aron, Rolling Stone, 11/17/77

At a nearby table, Tina’s husband Chris Frantz (the
group’s drummer) and ex-Modern Lover Jerry Harrison
(keyboards and guitar) are explaining for the nth
time why Talking Heads are not a punk band.

"The big difference between us and punk groups is
that we like K.C. and the Sunshine Band and Funkadelic/
Parliament," says Frantz. "You ask Johnny Rotten if he
likes K.C. and the Sunshine Band and he’ll blow snot
in your face."

Confounded (Confounded), Thursday, 1 September 2005 21:20 (twenty years ago)

Lydon has gone on record a number of times saying he always liked disco (and if you can't hear that when you listen to PiL, then you should really go buy yourself a carton of eggs, go into a closet and suck on them).

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 1 September 2005 21:23 (twenty years ago)

Then again, that article also contains this line, "Byrne, 25, writes all the material: a kind of syncopated hard rock."

Confounded (Confounded), Thursday, 1 September 2005 21:24 (twenty years ago)

Sucking eggs in the closet: inarguably punk!

I don't listen to PiL.

Confounded (Confounded), Thursday, 1 September 2005 21:26 (twenty years ago)

what band is that, Drew?

amon (eman), Thursday, 1 September 2005 21:28 (twenty years ago)

I've gotten so much shit for this, this week - with its putative subject taking time out to gay-bash me on his boring Canadian politics weblog (note: I'm not gay, but whatevs) and setting off a little mini-blogwar Canadian-style (ie., not much of a war) - that I'll just indulge myself and post this whole article. It's my column from last weekend's Globe and Mail:

The short neocon trip between punk and Karl Rove

OVERTONES
By CARL WILSON
The Globe & Mail
Saturday, Aug. 27, 2005

The most intriguing aspect of Warren Kinsella's new book, Fury's Hour: A (Sort-Of) Punk Manifesto, barely makes an appearance between its covers. Which is both rather punk and very self-serving, if that's not the same thing.

It's a lively goulash of potted music history, analysis, semi-memoir and motivational speech. But the people who buy this book don't really need his mini-bio of the Ramones. They want an account of how this prominent late-1970s Calgary punk, a member of The Hot Nasties and proprietor of Blemish Records, ended up a notorious strategist in the Liberal regime of Jean Chrétien. Does he credit punk for the "attack dog" tactics that made him the Karl Rove of the Canadian middle of the road? [...]


Kinsella isn't dim enough to imagine he can dodge the issue completely. Instead, he flips us off: "Yes, I have become that which I once sought to destroy. . . . Piss off, as a punk might say, if you don't approve."

(All very bold, except that Kinsella later rips ex-Sex Pistol John Lydon a new one for having "become the embodiment of all that punk sought to change or, failing that, hoped to destroy." And all because Lydon wouldn't give him an interview.)

Kinsella needn't be so conflicted. He's now a member of another group that also could be called the Hot Nasties -- the North American power elite.

When Kinsella quotes Lydon barking, "If you get in my way, you're going to have a serious bad time," Canadian readers might recall the author's ex-boss's near-identical statement after manhandling a protester. (The throttling itself was more punk than the rationalization.) Even after leaving office, the Chrétien punks continued to show their middle fingers to the public at the Gomery inquiry.

If that seems a stretch, it's because most people, including Kinsella, tend to think of punk as a progressive youth movement. But really, punk is an ink blot -- you see in it what you want. From drunk racist frat boys to anarcho-feminist straight-edge vegan art geeks, all sorts of characters have claimed the mohawk and leather jacket (or vinyl jacket for the vegans) for their own.

Kinsella's shock over this, as in a well-reported chapter about Canadian punks' entanglements in both neo-Nazism and radical leftist bombings, seems risible coming from someone who's just spent 100 pages extolling punk's basis in generalized adolescent rage.

His own high-school crowd took up the cause after reading about the Pistols' supposed antics -- "throwing up on old ladies in airport waiting rooms . . . sounded pretty good to us." Hmm, how could that life-affirming impulse possibly go awry?

Kinsella misunderstands two things. The first is art. Specifically, punk as a late-late modernist art movement. When he responds to the Sex Pistols slogan "no future" by tut-tutting that there really is a future and punks should try to make it brighter (and vote Liberal?), he displays his tin ear for punk's Dadaist paradoxes.

He sneers at artist Andy Warhol's "hippie" (huh?) influence on the New York scene and on the Pistols' despised manager, Malcolm McLaren. Kinsella reviles the Warholian cynical hyper-boredom of early punk, but that attitude was what made it more than just sloppy heavy metal or folk singing on overdrive - its grand negation, flattening every sign and symbol into an interchangeable flux of disdain.

Deep down, the core of punk is the howl of the Freudian death drive, the gestural suicide of an exhausted youth culture - a thrilling annihilation that's repeated till its very emptiness is emptied. This inherent death wish is why the question "is punk dead?" is perpetual and unanswerable. As songwriter David Berman of the Silver Jews encapsulated it: "Punk rock died when the first punk said/ 'Punk's not dead, punk's not dead.' "

Of course, after that initial liberating shock, converts have to figure out what to do with life-after-punk-death. And that's where the contradictions come in.

Kinsella realizes punk was a purgative convulsion against the perceived decadence of the 1970s, but overlooks how closely that origin binds it to the neoconservative backlash that brought putative punk (and Liberal) foes Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Brian Mulroney to power. It's Kinsella's second big blind spot.

He enthuses over punk's do-it-yourself (DIY) ethic, for instance. But call it an entrepreneurial work ethic and you've got a neo-con sacred cow. (Vancouver punk Joey Shithead points this out, but Kinsella shrugs it off.) Punk also partook of Cold War apocalyptic fantasies parallel to those that would soon drive the mass revival of Christian fundamentalism -- "no future" meets the Rapture down on Death Drive.

Neo-cons hated the sixties, and punks hated hippies. In many ways punk anticipated the knee-jerk, know-nothing disdain for collective input and consequence that would become standard-issue conservative politics and culture - extreme individualism and atomized democracy.

How great a leap is it from barfing on old ladies to cutting their pension cheques?

Rush Limbaugh is punk, the Oxycontin-snorting, neo-con version of Henry Rollins. The blithely rude Paris Hilton is punk, kid sister to Courtney Love; much punk music now echoes her entitled, self-involved whine.

Punk-in-chief George W. Bush metaphorically gobs on the dead soldier's mother as he blasts past her in his motorcade. And Chrétien figuratively pelts Mr. Justice John Gomery with golf balls in a Kinsella-conceived bit of punk theatre.

Ashton Kutcher, MTV's idiot king of random cruelty, the pope of "can't you take a joke?", gives it its proper name: Our culture has been royally punked.

I'm not denying punk's salutary effects on many lives, including my own. But it's been too loyal an opposition, too close to emerging dominant values, for its own good.

The DIY model remains useful, but it just restates what countercultures always have done. And today, with far broader information within easier reach, white outsider youth culture is finally superseding punk.

By these fresher standards, Kinsella's "manifesto" is merely the nostalgia trip of a punk dinosaur and, oh yeah, total sellout.

carl w (carl w), Thursday, 1 September 2005 21:59 (twenty years ago)

don't worry, I just send Memories to confounded...

Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Thursday, 1 September 2005 22:31 (twenty years ago)

Punk is chitlins foo yung

k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 1 September 2005 22:51 (twenty years ago)

punk Pronunciation Key (pngk)
n.

1. Dry decayed wood, used as tinder.
2. Any of various substances that smolder when ignited, used to light fireworks.
3. Chinese incense.

Austin Still (Austin, Still), Thursday, 1 September 2005 23:40 (twenty years ago)

You don't need to be Eric Partridge to know there are a few definitions missing. Don ALlred to thread!

k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 1 September 2005 23:54 (twenty years ago)

mogwai are the punkest!

Jamey Lewis (Jameys Burning), Friday, 2 September 2005 00:15 (twenty years ago)

Punk, getting ready to roll.

k/l (Ken L), Friday, 2 September 2005 00:16 (twenty years ago)

Would it be safe to say that hating disco was the domain of prog and arena-rockers that got passed on to 'punk' in the '80s with the hardcore/metal audience blending?

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 2 September 2005 00:57 (twenty years ago)

Perhaps I'm being entirely revisionist, but it strikes me that Punk and Disco were parallel entities, jointly opposed to yawnsome mainstream arena crap, no? Both started off as fringe groups, and both were sumarily subsumed by the mainstream. But at first, they were almost allies agains the Bachman Turner Overdrives and the Grand Funk Railroads and the Debbie Boones of the day.

Also witness the punk/disco cross-polination of Post-Punk.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 2 September 2005 02:35 (twenty years ago)

xpost to answer question above, that band is The Mean Reds

There's a good bit in that Peter Shapiro "Turn the Beat Around" book about the links *and* chasms between disco and punk.

Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Friday, 2 September 2005 02:55 (twenty years ago)

Hi Carl!
Great review.

Huk-L (Huk-L), Friday, 2 September 2005 15:23 (twenty years ago)

http://www.shekfester.net/pics/joshindrag/twofer.jpg

Punch Rock, Friday, 2 September 2005 17:25 (twenty years ago)

thanking ya kindly, Huk-L.

carl w (carl w), Friday, 2 September 2005 17:39 (twenty years ago)

punk rock is doing you r own thing and not giving a fuck about what other people have to say about it.

sarah beck, Friday, 2 September 2005 19:48 (twenty years ago)

punk rock is doing you r own thing and not giving a fuck about what other people have to say about it.

Chairman Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot to thread!

Confounded (Confounded), Friday, 2 September 2005 19:54 (twenty years ago)

>> punk rock is doing you r own thing and not giving a fuck about what other people have to say about it.

This is about the only definition I've got any time for. So, Sarah Beck OTM.

Obviously it's a flawed ideology, and I don't take it particularly seriously.

Colonel Poo (Colonel Poo), Friday, 2 September 2005 20:30 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.