Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Punk = Change?

Discussion in 'Music, punk scene & subcultures' started by Burn1ng, May 2, 2011.

  1. Burn1ng

    Burn1ngExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    111

    0

    0

    Apr 24, 2011
     
    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.
     

  2. Mike Nobody

    Mike NobodyActive Member Forum Member


    45

    0

    0

    Apr 28, 2011
     United States
    PUNK IS DEAD
    http://youtu.be/xGjk1Y_j8QE

    PUNK IS NOT DEAD
    http://youtu.be/jEDojtvd32c

    PUNK IS UNDEAD
    [​IMG]
    Biker punk zombie by Narisa, on Flickr

    This is a topic that never seems to die.
    You make good points. I've heard them before, but still good points.
    One definition I liked before are, "Punks are hippies with teeth," which amounts to about the same thing. A spirit of nonconformity and rebellion, sometimes against prepackaged "faux rebellion" sold back to us by the mainstream.

    "Guys, you know the thing with the earring? It's over. It was meant to anger the squares. The squares are wearing them now! Unless you have a live baby dangling from your ear, it's just jewelry!" - George Carlin

    Different punks are punk for different reasons.
     
  3. Burn1ng

    Burn1ngExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    111

    0

    0

    Apr 24, 2011
     
    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...
     
  4. JesusCrust

    JesusCrustExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    1,085

    0

    0

    Apr 17, 2010
     
    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3755jm3wUo[/video]
     
  5. SOADcore

    SOADcoreExperienced Member Experienced member


    83

    0

    3

    Mar 29, 2011
     
    I love that song now. \m/
     
  6. Burn1ng

    Burn1ngExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    111

    0

    0

    Apr 24, 2011
     
    (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.
     
  7. Mike Nobody

    Mike NobodyActive Member Forum Member


    45

    0

    0

    Apr 28, 2011
     United States
  8. JesusCrust

    JesusCrustExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    1,085

    0

    0

    Apr 17, 2010
     

    How come?
     
  9. punkmar77

    punkmar77Administrator Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    5,518

    92

    638

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Don't take it personally, we have discussed this topic 'ad naseum'....if you search past topics (which you should always do anyway before posting a new topic) you'll see that we as a community have had some knock down drag out discussions over this many times.
     
  10. Burn1ng

    Burn1ngExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    111

    0

    0

    Apr 24, 2011
     
    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.
     
  11. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    0

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    Don't worry lad, my last visit on AP.n was some days ago, late at night too, so I wrote some things about Punk and changes over the times, stupid old computer got a breakdown because all of the aged wisdom I hacked into it - too late to start again...
    It's late again, so bit of a short version:
    I feel allright (the Damned), Punks sold out and I got my share of frustriation/after a time boredom from the sell-outs - Crass became a zombie story, Jonny still makes Rotten faces for the media, lots of my old mates turned themselves in or simply went mad and I honestly mourn them from time to time - but in the whole thing it doesn't matter to me:
    I'm still a punk, there's DIY, and lots of people who don't give a shit about pop career and money and the lobotomy that comes with it - I am me and I call myself a punk no matter how rotten John Lydon will get.
    I don't care (okay, I got caught in the "difficult" phase/age and never recovered from it, maybe it was those genes) - I just like my gear, boots and fucked up leather jacket, guess I always skipped the "shocking" effect most of my time.
    Important for me: I don't wanna live like the average citizen and I don't wanna look like them - it's lifestyle, aesthetix, the genes or whatever, I wanna look in a mirror and see me, not something else.
    Dressing up means nothing, there's the fashion punks for a proof and the greatest punk I ever met wore a wedding dress he had found in the garbage, doing his personal war dance facing a front of riot-cops:
    Vicious Sid would have died of shame for his childish faces.
    Punks in the head between the ears, wicked thing hard to get rid off, think I'm to old for it by now.
    Ice cream is definitely punk, thats why I feed my daughters with the stuff as often as possible - no, that's a lie, they are just addicted to it and drive me crazy to escord them to the Italian at the corner, 87 varieties and he still invents some more - again: I don't care about the corporations, not as long as there's the Italian.
    And if he ever gives up, I'll do my best to learn how to make the stuff myself - too bad that we won't get that extra scoop for free anymore.
    Agreed, but it's YOU who makes the difference, no matter if the Italian at the corner gives up or the industry steals my boots (I know they want to) - it's the idea between your ears and you can always do almost everything you want - and enjoy the consequences.
    To me, Punk will never change the world, no lifestyle will do that, maybe Punk is like a mirror to show the society it's own obscenity - it's an old idea, but I guess it doesn't matter, showing them their image only scares them - or not.
    I live in the cheap part of town, thank Punk lots of Immigrants and non-germans and again: I feel allright. Our neighbors don't give a shit about how weird we look, some of the younger ones copy some ot the hairstyle or other aspects of the punk image, whatever, no fucking average citizen in sight - what a nice view.

    It's later than before, time to finish this before the machine gets it's next set of fits, maybe I'll type a thing or two tomorrow after returning from work, 'till then:
    CHEER UP MATE - you were the reason for a late nite session, so don't let me down!
     
  12. Nihilist84

    Nihilist84Active Member Forum Member


    37

    0

    0

    Apr 14, 2011
     
    First Post Evr
    Just Thought Id give my opinion on wat is punk... well to me having been in the scene for 2yrs(im 18) now i think punk is a lifestyle and a way of thought and tho i wear the "Uniform" as some people say i dont think we all look the same for one not everyone has the same patches, the same bands on their jackets, or hairstyles thats all unique to the person who wears them.. me personally i dont have many patches of band names their mostly just things i think about i.e. fuck the pigs, support A.L.F, Fuck Nazi bastards, Capitalism is Murder etc. Recently though i have lost my hope for change it aint gona happen thers too many idiots and ignorant assholes hell bent on keeping the world as fukd up as it is forever or religious fanatics trying to cause armageddon cuz they "see the signs" their stupid little book prophesized. Now the only thing i have keeping me going is hoping the 2012 crap is real and we will all die :thumbsup:
    But ill still be here with my "Uniform" on geting drunk goin to gigs protesting cuz im proud to call myself a punk
     
  13. Burn1ng

    Burn1ngExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    111

    0

    0

    Apr 24, 2011
     
    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.
     
  14. The Freakboi

    The FreakboiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    124

    0

    1

    May 8, 2011
     
    In terms of the way I dress, I've never adopted a punk aesthetic, mainly because I don't have the attention span to make my own clothes and I'm not 15 so buying premade punk clothes at blue banana really isn't my thing.

    I do, however, like alot of punk clothing and respect anyone who makes/customises their own clothes. For me, punk's appeal, both as an aesthetic and a musical form was always more about DIY and an "anyone can do it" attitude than it ever was about rebelling against the status quo.

    As far as punk as an attitude is concerned, I don't think it really has become mainstream. The fashion world cottoned on to what they thought punk was about along time ago, but really that goes no further than the Sex Pistols being "the real deal" and how -SURPRISE!- people weren't too happy with the winter of discontent. The fact is that the media still doesn't like any attitude, movement or fad that is different or that they don't understand. Be it violent video games, Marilyn Manson, 4chan, Gangsta Rap or whatever else the kids latch onto. The media feel as though punk is no longer dangerous because they have turned the punk rock image into a corporate entity they understand, but as soon as anyone preaches anarchy, socialism or anything else that they feel threatens their existence, they are suddenly just as frightened. Because of that, I don't think punk really needs to change in order to be as effective.
     
  15. Burn1ng

    Burn1ngExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    111

    0

    0

    Apr 24, 2011
     
    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.
     
  16. The Freakboi

    The FreakboiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    124

    0

    1

    May 8, 2011
     
    Please don't patronise me, I'm trying very hard to keep this civil. Yes, I did read what you wrote but I made the natural assumption that if punk is change then our current perception of punk must also have to change.

    Surely, a punk band would need to maintain their DIY sound, look and accessibility in order to remain punk. Otherwise they would just be a band that used to be punk.

    So you believe in exclusivity within the punk subculture? If you are using "punk" as simply a shorthand for anarchopunk, then I would completely agree that certain rules regarding nonconformity to corporations and maintaining a certain level of rebelliousness towards the status quo would be essential to the movement. But if you are talking about punk as a whole, the music and the clothing existed purely to convey the message "you can do this too". By creating "nonconformist" exclusivity and what is essentially a form of inverted snobbery, punk would be adopting the elements prominent in prog-rock and many of these overblown and inaccessible bands that it was initially created as a backlash to.
     
  17. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    0

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    I think for me the important aspect of punk isn't really "rebellious", I tend to see it more like Vassily (we grew up together, so I know what happened while we got older): It's a mirror of the mainstream - or at least the part of the mainstream you are pushed into under your personal circumstances.
    Punk isn't just punk, there is a multitude of sub- and counterculture, lifestyles and whatever before that, Patti Smith and Richard Hell are allright with me, but what about Iggy Pop and the Stooges, The Iguanas before the stooges, The Fugs, the beatniks like Ed Sanders and Allen Ginsberg, listening to jazz and writing weird poetry - but the expression was very similiar to "punk". In germ-oney we had many different movements and groups before the wars, leaving the mainstream and sometimes trying something on their own, most of this groups never achieved a name/label in history and only prominent members aren't forgotten by now. And I completely forgot about the English...
    "Dressing up means nothing" - because it's the least part of the whole thing - too bad that it't the most visible and all the receptors use it to define and re-define - was Patty S. a punk or an existencialist poet, or a media hype - ask three people and two barely remember her name, or "Babel"...

    Too bad too that ol'pal Vassily broke his arm at work and won't be able to escape from hospital before the end of the week, some surgery was necessary with bolts and wires to fix the messed up bones... guess we'll have to watch something new: the punk plaster bandage, the local artists are already sharpening their tools...
     
  18. Burn1ng

    Burn1ngExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    111

    0

    0

    Apr 24, 2011
     
    @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.
     
  19. The Freakboi

    The FreakboiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    124

    0

    1

    May 8, 2011
     
    Okay, I will actually agree with you on that. I do actually agree that, in order to really be a part of the punkrock subculture, you would need to fit the bill, at least enough to understand it. I'm not going to lie to you, when I see some kid sitting outside blue banana or hot topic wearing pre-torn jeans designing "punk rock" posters on his iPad whilst rocking out to Periphery, I'm hardly going to buy that he's a punk. Also, though I don't necessarily mind when punk bands use major labels for distribution, I do take some issue with them recording songs with top quality gear only to make it sound "raw" in post. Its contrived and sort of insulting to real punk rock.

    Sometimes when I go to gigs and parties I wear quite alot of makeup, but generally I do dress fairly normally. Physical appearance is something I very rarely put any thought into. I've never woken up and thought about what to wear, when I buy clothes, I just like to be in and out of the shop as quickly as possible and I haven't actually brought a new t-shirt since 2007 (what can I say, I'm poor) Having said that, I do plan (if I ever get the money) to get a fair few tattoos which is definitely my way of self-customisation.

    My point is that, though I do consider myself to be a punk, that's pretty much limited to a combination of my creative mind, political views and music taste, not really the way I dress. But that's just me.
     
  20. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,299

    48

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    Punk won't change anything. Anarcho-punk will.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - Punk ChangeForumDate
Bombardement french punkMusic videos & Live showsFeb 13, 2020
HNORD french punk bandMusician Forum & Band PromotionJan 26, 2020
dc punk sceneMusic, punk scene & subculturesNov 30, 2019
P.O.T.S. punkMusic, punk scene & subculturesNov 4, 2019
Infective - Feelin’ Alive (Swiss Punk 2019)Music videos & Live showsOct 18, 2019