Punk = Change?

To mods and admins: In case this topic is irrelevant, feel free to do whatever you want with it.

The other day I was thinking about what makes Punk... be Punk. There's been discussions about this all over the planet and as far as I know there's no real concensus on the essence of punk.

Well as I said I was thinking about Punk and all of a sudden it ocurred to me one thing: Could Punk be about change? I mean think about it:

We all know how much of a loser John Lydon is these days yet in "The Fury and the Filth" he said something that I couldn't agree with more. The thing he seemed to love the most about punk was the individuality, and that he got pissed when punk became a "uniform", everyone wearing the same clothes, everyone looking the same, he pretty much hated it, and to be quite honest, I do as well.

Granted, maybe aesthetics aren't something people should be concerned with however, in the same documentary he (Lydon) alleged that he wore trash bags as shirts for protest against the government of the time for making people literally live in the garbage. There's also the US and Richard Hell (supposedly) being one of the first singers who wore ripped shirts and pins and a "messy" look overall.

So it wasn't about the image they were portraying... it was the message they showed to people, as Mc Luhan said, "The medium is the message" (is it wrong that I quote him here?) and as I understand it, these people used their bodies and appearance to say something, but to what end?.

I think that end is CHANGE.

I've been thinking and over thinking this and can't come up with a better reason for the existence of punk, for it's purpose. Punk is change. Punk is not status quo. When Punk conforms to the dominating culture and turns into a subproduct of it, it is no longer Punk. When the music no longer promotes change against dominating cultures and the status quo, when punk music becomes a subproduct of mainstream culture, it is no longer punk.

When punks (fans, musicians, artists, etc) allow mainstream media and culture to absorb its traits and say "oh that's ok we're cool with that" it is no longer PUNK and they're no longer punks themselves.

Now about the change... is this change for the better or worse? Do we know any punks that want change only for their benefit? Have they succeded? Could it be that the very first punkrockers wanted change for the betterment of people's lives in general? Should change for good be the aim of punks these days? I think yes, because real change means never the same as before, those who think change is reverting back to old order, goverment or ruling system (to name a few things) are not real punks either (so by this definition nazi punks wouldn't be punk at all since they don't want change, they just want the world to revert back to an old system as imposed by Hitler).

Now when the change comes, you'll wonder "what happens with punk?" "what about our image, aesthetics and way of living?" "Do we have to rebel agains this changed world?" My answer would be NO, since when the change comes the world would still need diversity, and since punk is change, there is nothing more diverse and creative than it, so in the face of a utopian, "perfect" world, Punks would still have a place in it, wearing the same ragged clothes, or making something completely new from it and finding new ways to live life as a whole.

So punks in essence, shouldn't be an army of people looking exactly the same, thinking exactly the same (just having enough common ground for them all producing change since one individual can't change the entire world by himself/herself) or acting the same (however they shouldn't act in a way that prevents change).

This is pretty much it, I'm just probably ranting incoherent crap but I just want to make sense of the meaning of punk, since it is hard for me to believe that it's just about nihilism and not giving a shit about fellow humans.

 

So I make good points, thanks, didn't think I was going anywhere with this...

I knew this kind of topic has been talked to death but still I couldn't help try to sort it once and for all, but it seems impossible.

And yeah aesthetically speaking all punks have ever worn belongs now to mainstream culture, so what I said might have no validity at all...

 

(Probably my last post here).

Not that anyone gives a shit (considering THE BROAD reception this topic got) But I think I can answer my own question now regarding what makes punk.

Yes, we can say punk is dead because it sold out.

We can say that punk is just a fashion for kids because it's been marketed by the likes of Hot Topic.

We can say that punk is now harmless since the mass media and the regular people don't get shocked at it and consider it just a "trend" or "phase" that won't do anything to change their status quo, hence they have become used to it and are no longer bothered by it.

However we can also say all this about... Ice Cream. It had many precursors in ancient times, and I'm pretty sure there were varieties and recipes lost in time, however this hasn't stopped corporations all over the world picking up the core idea of Ice Cream an put their own brands in it, their own flavors, their own prices, and set trends with it.

Now the question is... does Ice Cream stop being Ice Cream just because nowadays it has turned into a multi-billionaire industry?

NO.

And the same goes for punk. Just because mainstream media and the dominant cultures have stolen many of the things that make punk what it is (aesthetics, music, clothes, attitude) doesn't mean punk will die, doesn't mean its main idea (which to me is being the motor of positive change for the better of society as a whole) it's going to die, it doesn't mean that you can't wear a mohawk, pins as earrings or plaid pants.

Cause otherwise you could say then that Ice Cream died with the civilizations that invented it, and we are all just eating cheap imitations that will never come close to the autenthic flavor of some mountain snow kept on a Yakhchal with millenary grape juice poured on it.

 

Oh well I clarified my mind so I'll probably keep posting here, however all you have done is tell me that this topic has been talked to death without actually telling what you think of the things I've written or what was the consesus of the forum members the last time it was brought up.

 

Hello everyone,

First of all, I apologize punkmar77 but I just can't think of the keywords to look for those "past posts" about punk you talk about, if you'd be so kind to refer me to those I'd be most
grateful.

@vAsSiLy77

Thank you for your post, I always appreciate input from people who have more experience than I do in the matters I discuss, however I'd not agree about "dressing up" meaning nothing nor that punk can't change the world. Now I will say why.

But please before all, consider this: My words, judgements and ideas can be all considered
part of a hypothesis I'm trying to work on, which objective is to reveal the very essence of
what makes Punk be Punk. I don't know for how long will I keep developing this hypothesis
nor think that I'll be ever able to prove it (hence it might be argued that is just a waste
of time). However for as long as I'm driven to find its meaning, I will keep moving on with
it, even knowing that an answer will likely never be found.

First about the clothing, as I already said quoting McLuhan the medium is the message
(though I admit not to fully understand the concept myself), everything around us is telling
us something, most of the time without us even noticing but there is indeed a message there,
hence, the clothes you wear daily are saying something even if you nor the receptors realize
it.

This is why I think that punk aesthetic is a vital part of it. Now you'll be thinking "so
this guy is saying we should all dress similar? Wasn't he saying the opposite just a couple
posts ago?" Well if you think that then you'd be wrong. When I mean punk aesthetic I mean
something that shocks, outrages or provokes the status quo. You said yourself that the most
punk person you ever met wore a wedding dress found in the garbage while doing a war dance
in front of riot cops.

Guess what, THAT IS punk aesthetic too!! Because you see, that person picked a wedding
dress, took it out of its context (that being well, weddings) and placed it in one that was
completely different (a protest I suppose?) and probably did it (without being fully aware)
to provoke a reaction of the cops and the people around.

Just like Marcel Duchamp when he picked a toilet, took it out of its context and placed it
in front of an art board and its members. If that's not shocking and provocative then I
don't know what is.

Therefore the Punk aesthetic and way of dressing is not a uniform nor something without a
purpose, it is a medium which uses either unconventional elements or clothes/suits/dresses
modified and/or taken out of their context with the purpose to provoke the establishment and
the status quo. However I'd say there is a "rule" on this, which is kind of logical if you
think about it: this clothes/suits/dresses/unconventional elements cannot be made by major
brands nor corporations, or at least not made by those punks fight against. For example the
wedding dress that punk wore, had it been done by a major designer, would it have ended up
in the trash? And even if it was, did it have any value left after being dumped like
garbage?.

It can also be argued that most of us wear converse sneakers or the like and therefore we
couldn't be considered punk, but then the Accessibility factor comes into play and once we
consider it we realize that depending on where we live, there might not be any other
suitable choices to replace the questioned item. It'd be like vegans saying that vegetarians
don't really help animals because they still eat cheese, milk and eggs.

In other words, due to the nature of the world and its products we can't all be 100%
aesthetically Punk, however that doesn't mean that we can't collaborate by not giving in to
the mainstream fashion.

Now as for Punk not being able to change the world, it actually already did, as minimal as
it was. Let's think for a second, is the world exactly the same after punk showed up? would
most of the people in the planet be the same had punk never existed? As long as it changed
lives then yes punk changed the world, even if it was for a little time and then turned into
a mainstream product.

The problem with Punk changing the world has nothing to do with Punk itself: it's the people
who acted as its heralds, I will refer to this more deeply later but for now I'll just say
that Punk can change the world, it just needs to rest on the shoulders of commited, brave
human beings with strong wills that won't bend when the temptations of Capitalism and
Authority come knocking at their doors.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Human Factor.

I've said that the problem with Punk was the people who acted as his "heralds", people who (whether intentionally or not) talked, thought and behaved as if they were Punk itself. By people I mean the likes of Richard Hell, Patti Smith, Johnny Thunders, Legs McNeil, The Ramones, John Lydon, Penny Rimbaud, Steve Ignorant and... you get the idea.

What I'm going to say now you've probably heard it before or not, anyway here it is (pardon me for using caps but I wanted to give this statement some sort of importance):

NO ONE CAN CLAIM TO BE THE ESSENCE OF PUNK BECAUSE PUNK IS NOT A THING, IT'S AN IDEA. NO EVEN HIS ALLEGED CREATORS.

Now back to the issue:

Most of us know when, where and who "created" Punk and its consequences, what I'll propose here is that actually it wasn't people who created Punk, but rather, their subconscious did.

What do I mean with this? Simple, we'll probably never know why Hell started dressing the way he did (which was the basis for Rotten's look) if we asked him right now probably he himself wouldn't know what to answer either! I have a theory about this, the reason for him to become that "icon" was because his subconscious was taking control over his actions, relegating his consciousness to a comfy backseat most of the time, it was his subconscious which told him "rip your shirt off and put it together with safety pins" "write about getting drunk and not giving a fuck about society's conventions" and not his conscious mind as he and most people think.

Punk is raw, primal instinct, the raging proof that men and women were not born into this world to conform to a rigid set of rules and norms imposed by higher powers. When Punk started picking at the back of Hell and other's head, it was just a matter of time before they all released that opressed rebellion and lash out against society.

However there is one big wall that punk encountered before it could completely come out of the minds of its originators: The wall of the conscious mind.

Conscience was/is the enemy of Punk.

The most immediate levels of our mind get constantly bombarded, since we are born, with stuff that's supposed to make us submissive to the dominant culture, government and industries. The brain stores information about rules, laws, norms, proper behavior and customs that just get imprinted in our grey matter and it is really hard to let go of all that, why? Because we are human beings. None of us are perfect and therefore we can all be broken into submission towards the status quo.

This, I'm afraid, is what happened to almost all of the people I mentioned earlier. Yes they birthed Punk, but they were also human beings like us and therefore it is impossible to ask them for answers and to act accordingly to something they don't even consciously created! Let's look at the ages they were when Punk poured out of their minds: Hell was around 25 or 26 when he wrote "Blank Generation", Lydon was in his early 20s when the Pistols made "Anarchy in the UK". Granted, Patii Smith was older than them when "Horses" came out but as far as I've read she wasn't really an originator of Punk but rather picked it up as a vehicle for her poetry and other material, since before it her band just played rock. Legs McNeil was 18 when the first issue of Punk Magazine came out and he himself admitted the magazine was just an excuse to meet girls and his idols, The Dictators from NY.

So this is them, the creators of Punk. Most of them kids.

So I have a question for all of you, did you have a fucking clue of what you wanted to do with your life when you were their age? Did you have strong convictions? Did you NEVER felt tempted to just live a "normal" life? Were all of you a 100% consistent with your words and actions? Chances are you'll answer no to any or all of these questions.

And guess what... neither did they!! Can anyone explain to me how is it fucking possible that we could ask kids to be role models of anything at all? It's impossible! They barely knew what they were doing back in the day. All they knew is that they were piss, everything was fucked up and somebody was to blame.

Was it right to ask these kids to go fight the power and actually hope they come out victorious? Isn't it the same than asking an 18 or 20 year old boy/girl to go fight into a war hoping they come back in glory and in one piece?

They were just people, they didn't have to do anything other than what they did, that's when the inner conflict inside their minds and souls began, they knew they had to rebel, but their flesh was weak, their wills not mature enough, and their convictions trembled before the might of the prejudice, the social rejection, the need to make a living or die homeless in the streets. It was a war indeed. And they lost, but do not blame them, are you so sure if you had been in their same situation that you would have succeded? I'm not. I probably would have end up signing those juice contracts, or retired from the "punk life" to go to a suburb and live a nice, quiet life with the wife and kids, or just end up becoming an uneducated, drunk and drugged bomb of hate ready to explode at the first disgraced soul to dare give me a mean look.

Don't blame Lydon, don't blame Strummer, nor Hell, nor Ignorant nor Rimbaud nor any of them for falling, for "selling out". I don't.

After all, they were just human.

Are you not? Do you really think you're THAT better than them?.

But now comes the hopeful part. Remember when I said Punk was an idea?.

Well guess what, Punk can never die precisely because ideas can never die, no matter what happens with those who originated it.

The contribution they made to Punk is invaluable, however, given their human, flawed nature, it's impossible for any of them to be "the voice of punk" because... (pardon the caps again).

CLAIMING THAT THEY ARE THE ONE AND REAL VOICE OF PUNK IS LIKE SAYING THAT THE POPE IS INDEED THE VOICE OF GOD.

And as far as I know not many people believe that these days, right?.

I really understand why Strummer sold out, why Lydon did it even, they just needed money to make a living, survival was their main concern and I understand that, however that does not give them the right to any of them to say what's punk and what's not, to claim whether punk is alive or dead, to demand to be recognize as the essence of punk.

THEY NEVER WERE. THEY ARE NOT. THEY NEVER WILL BE. NO ONE CAN OWN AN IDEA NOR PUT A PRICE TAG ON IT.

So in other words, Punk is change, positive change, change towards a better society. I know this will piss off some people, but taking this into consideration, then it can be said that stuff like Nazi Punk or Horror Punk or Pop Punk aren't themselves actually Punk. Why? Because they don't produce any change whatsoever, in fact stuff like Nazi Punk is a return to old status quo, is going back to the "good 'ol ways".

So there it is... my hypothesi, hopefully someday somebody will find it useful. I'm no lord of the truth, in fact I don't even listen to much punk these days (and not sure if I will) and I don't claim to have it all figured out.

I'm just a 25 year old guy whose trying to make some sense out of this thing (or idea?) called Punk.

 

Did you actually read the stuff I wrote? I've never said that punk needs to change what I'm saying is that punk IS change, change towards a better world, at least that's what I think.

For punk to be such, it has to change in such a way it doesn't lose its essence, just as change itself never stops being change, what I mean is that the only constant in life is change, it is the only thing that doesn't change because if it did there'd be no longer change and a universe without change I think, would be impossible.

So if change can't stop being change and punk is change then punk can't stop being punk either.

How do we keep punk from turning into not-punk? Easy, you try to locate its essence, its main idea (this can't change couse otherwise it'd turn into another idea), some "rules" (as you know even anarchism has those) that help keep Punk from deforming like some inconsistent clay and end up crumbling and last but not least people with a strong will to live by the punk "code" and not sell out to corporations nor give into the mainstream.

About clothing, as I said before the medium is the message therefore punk aesthetic to be such HAS to rebel against the status quo, whether it's by wearing a dirty wedding dress or a plastic bag as a shirt or some badly sewn pants, it doesn't have to "look" outrageous to fight the status quo, the mere fact that it's not following society's rules make it rebelling enough.

So according to you DIY is for everyone right? I'd love it too if it were that way but sadly, nowadays DIY has in fact become the weapon of mainstream punk bands that use it for statements such as:

"We are as much punk as you people! Our first records were all DIY! We lived by the DIY code as much as you do now so you can't criticize us for signing to mayor labels!"

It is precisely because people allowed punk to be "for everyone and anyone" that it ended up being absorbed by the mainstream, his music and rebellious attitude as well, and therefore turned into a product ready for consumption by angry and angsty kids.

 

@Freakboi Ok I apologize for patronizing you, I thought that when you said change you meant "to fit the mainstream better".

Well everything I've been saying here so far has the purpose to give punk some sort of meaning, but when you talk about DIY, don't you realize you're referring to everything but the most important thing which is producing punk music by themselves? What good is there to sound DIY, look DIY and act DIY if you're not actually producing your sound through your own means? Perhaps you didn't notice you forgot to mention that or you meant it and I didn't notice...

And yes you're right, I'm sounding like some sort of fucking snob who wants to make an "elite" out of punk, but what I'm trying to say here is not that punk is just for a select few, but that it takes a special kind of comitted people who really love punk enough to abandon their preconceived ideas about society and what makes a human being "valuable" (getting a diploma from University, finding a job, marrying and having kids and a house at the suburbs... etc).

What I mean is that when you really love something, you must be prepared to make sacrifices for it. In the case of Punk I think that'd be power, fame, money and perhaps arrogance and over-inflated egos and maybe some other stuff.

I mean we all have loved someone right? And most of us have had to do something we didn't like for those someones right? To me the same goes for Punk, it can give you all that you need to feel whole as a person, but you also have to give something back.

And therefore, those who are mentally and emotionally prepared to love punk and give to it can be considered authentic punks, those who don't then well, they are not.

----------------------------

Since unlike you gobbledigooks and Vassily I don't have any experience at all with Punk I have no grounds for contradicting your input at all. However I can try to explain what you just said.

Yes, punk can be considered sort of a "mirror" which reflected what society wanted to keep hidden from plain sight... but then could you argue that was not positive?

About clothes, so you can tell me you never wore a punk aesthetic? that you have been wearing the same stuff most common people wear? that you look exactly the same as most of the human beings in this planet? That you didn't feel something inside when you finally saw yourself as punk? I've trying to say over and over now that punk isn't a uniform... that you can look however you like as long as it's creative, diversified and not conforming to anything the mainstream push us to wear or adopt.

To me in the end, we are all walking canvases and the aethetics we put in ourselves are the oils, so yeah to me it's pretty important and I think it was just as important to you and others whether you realized it back in the day or not... we are social animals after all and therefore we keep communicating whether we are conscious of it or not.

I'll continue later, gotta go now.