rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (03/31/84)
My own opinion: punk never really existed as a natural phenomenon A little history: Malcolm McLaren, manager of the extremely useless New York Dolls (take one look at the self-important David Johansen to see why), founded the punk "movement" or "style" in the following manner: 1. Seeing the "punk" scene in New York. This consisted of Richard Hell (then a member of Television, hardly a punk band in any sense), who wore torn shirts and safety pins, the Ramones (revitalized high-speed "fun" heavy metal by longhairs), Blondie and the Talking Heads (quirky but not punk). 2. Importing the style to England as a vehicle for selling the slow-moving S&M paraphernalia in his sex/clothing shop Seditionaries. "Hey, kids, this is punk, buy this leather gear and these 'punk' bracelets and be real cool..." 3. Forming and managing the Sex Pistols as a means of cashing in on the artifically induced punk "scene" and bilking as many record companies as possible in the great rock n' roll swindle. Oh, yeah. Many groups and artists cashed in on... I mean JOINED in the movement. Like Joe Strummer, ex-bar band singer of the wasted variety. Like Pete Shelley, ex-hippy-dippy psychedelic electric guitarist who formed what at first sounded like the British Ramones, the Buzzcocks. Like the Police, who said "let's dye our hair and play three chord songs". The only truly punk band I can think of from that whole era (that started as punk, played punk, and stayed punk) was X-Ray Spex, whose Germ-Free Adolescents is still a classic. Certainly not the Clash, the Sexpistols, the Buzzcocks, Generation X (which gave us the equally useless Billy Ego... I mean, Idol!), 999, ... Note that every band I've mentioned in this article (with the exception of the New York Drolls) are among my favorites, some among my VERY favorites. But none of them qualify as natural grown long term punk. All were either cash-ins, hangers-on, poseurs, or cretins. But many of them made some great music. It's just wrong to speak of a "punk movement" or anything on that order. Sure, there were people into the "scene", and people who produced what got referred to as "punk" music, but that was just coincidental, not causal. The (artificial) scene created the people, not the other way around. I'm just making trouble. I just think it's silly to refer to a punk era or a punk scene or a punk movement. It never existed!! It was all a figment of somebody's wild imagination, blown out of proportion by a gullible media industry, which provided the fuel for many people (poseurs and hangers-on though they were) to make some new and innovative music. And I'm extremely, extremely thankful for that. But if anything came out of the smoky clouded history of this era, it was the notion of making a new music (correction: new musics!) not controlled by the cocaine-filled minds of a lackadaisical music "industry". Alas, we are now provided with a "new order", where the music industry controls a segment called "new wave" that offers us Billy Idol, the Fixx, INXS, Missing Persons, A Schlock of Feagulls, Men at Work (sure, they're new wave, aren't they?), Men Without Hats, Men Without Work (a by-product of some political administration or other :-), Hats at Work, and (lo and behold) David Johansen (Hey, have some respect!!! He paid his dues! He started this whole scene so that you kids could blah blah blah...) Sound familiar?? One system is replaced by another. American punk, also known as hardcore, appears to be a "next" level of rebellion to the newer systems of industrial music. More on this later, if my asbestos holds up. -- Those responsible for sacking those people who have just been sacked, have been sacked. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
ab3@stat-l (Rsk the Wombat) (04/04/84)
I've been following this discussion with interest; I have
managed to learn a lot about this form of music.
However, my preliminary conclusion is that punk has nothing to offer
me...note that this is a personal observation, and is not meant in a derogatory
sense towards the music-form in general or those who like it.
From my point of view, punk is about violence and despair and hate
and rebellion-without-reason and bizarreness-for-bizarreness-sake. Granted,
various other forms of music (notably some forms of acid rock) fall into the
same categories from time to time, but none so consistently.
The comparison that springs to mind is with late 60's/early 70's San
Francisco sounds...but "We Should Be Together" and "Fixin' to Die" and
"Ohio" and "Carry On" all had a coherent message, with a positive sense
behind the anger...I don't see that in punk. From what I've listened to
and read about, most punkers have zero social sense, and wouldn't know how
to express love, loss, or grief if it hit them over the head.
I think I'll go listen to some John Prine...
--
"I am not now, nor have I ever been, a DP professional."
Rsk the Wombat
UUCP: { allegra, decvax, ihnp4, harpo, seismo, teklabs, ucbvax } !pur-ee!rsk
{ arizona, cornell, eagle, hplabs, ittvax lanl-a, ncrday } !purdue!rsk