Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Radio & Music >

Crap 'punk' nostalgia

13:09 / 02.06.02

(if you'll excuse me going a bit 'Bad Religion' for a few minutes..)

Almost as annoying as the current Queen's Jubilee crap is the accompanying "25th anniversary of punk" crap, wherein a few quite good angry bands and lots of shite angry bands are stripped of any point, energy or excitement they may once have had, turned into a parade of amusing fashion mistakes and sold in re-issued major label boxed sets at "bargain"* prices in HMV.. GGAAHH!! FUCK OFF!!

I hate the way this whole thing reinforces the notion that punk was this thing that started in 1976 and ended in 1979, existed entirely in London and New York and consisted of shouty 2-chord pub rock and Malcolm Mclaren and was systematically replaced by 'new wave' on the day Remain In Light was released.

Y'know, the whole attitude taken by the Q magazine dad-rock pontificators who seem to think the likes of The Damned and the fucking Adverts were really important and influential but have never given a thought to listening to the Dead Kennedys or Black Flag, nevermind Fugazi or Bikini Kill or Godspeed.. or Atari teenage Riot.. if I reeled off those names to my punk revivalist housemate he'd just look at me blankly and change the subject to Glen Matlock or something ... and there was me thinking the whole idea of punk was to look beyond the pre-packaged, institutionalised history of rock n' roll as presented by hoary old duffers, and seek out new, scary, challenging, raw noise...

I now declare 70s punk officially un-cool, and if I hear that fucking remix of God Save The Queen one more time I'll change sides and become a monarchist..

*today's conception of a bargain in the big music stores being about the-most-I'd-ever-possibly-pay-for-one-CD

Matthew Fluxington

13:19 / 02.06.02

Well, this is what always happens once people start hitting their 40s and start canonizing the popular music of their day. It's awful. I hate it. It's always homogenized, because underground movements always end up being represented by the most pop and accessable people attributed to any given movement, and you end up with grand statements like "80s US indie = Husker Du and R.E.M.", and that's just so far off and wrong. I hate the oversimplification of music history so much, I know exactly how you feel. I hate that all these lies and half-truths have been repeated so many times in so many different places that the whole world, even smart people, accept that it's true.

I hate the line that people always repeat "oh, music sucks right now, but this stuff all works in cycles and it's going to be great again in a few years, just like what happened with Nirvana". That's bullshit for so many reasons - first, anyone who really understands and appreciates music KNOWS that there is never any point when there isn't incredible ammounts of wonderful and interesting music being made. It's always happening, it doesn't just stop and start. Second, NO, the corporate stranglehold on labels, airwaves, adverts, and retail ensures that nothing will change, that pop cultural statis will stay for as long as these crooked systems exist. Get used to it and adapt, or start picketing.

I feel yr pain, Riz.

13:41 / 02.06.02

Yeah, maybe I care a bit too much about music, but I really feel like inflicting pain when I hear people vox-popped at festivals and stuff, saying things like "Where's all the great music today, eh? The Strokes are alright, but there's nothing to compare with the greats.."

MAYBE IF YOU COULD BE ARSED TO GET OFF YOUR BACKSIDE AND SEEK OUT SOME MUSIC THAT HASN'T BEEN DANGLED IN YOUR FUCKING FACE BY CLUELESS MEDIA AND MARKETING PEOPLE, YOU MIGHT FIND SOME OF THIS 'GREAT MUSIC' OF WHICH YOU SPEAK, YOU FUCKING RETROGRESSIVE RETARD!

Phew, I'm glad I got that off my chest..

Matthew Fluxington

17:51 / 02.06.02

Yeah. I can't stand how EVERYONE is so willing to accept the commonly accepted version of history. I hate how anytime I assert that I strongly believe that Pavement and Guided By Voices were the two best bands of the 90s, if not all time, people just look at me as if to say "well, what about Nirvana and the Beatles?". Ugh.

This is only going to get worse as time goes by, Riz. We've got to learn to live with it, or attempt to rewrite the canon. But what good does replacing one canon with another really serve?

A

05:47 / 03.06.02

I agree with pretty much everything you've said, gents.

The thing is, that if punk was just something that happened in London in the late 70's, then it was a complete failure, really. It made a lot of noise for a while, and then disappeared without really acheiving anything.

But, punk, as exemplified by Bad Brains, Minor Threat, Black Flag, Dead Kennedys etc.. (just to list some of the earlier bands) has largely been a success. It created a viable underground music scene where people didn't have to rely on money hungry weasels to hear music, or have their music heard.

07:28 / 03.06.02

i just read Lexicon Devil, the new book about darby crash, from the germs... i may start a thread about at some point, cuz it's SO FUCKING GOOD. that shit was so over the top insane cult leader drug taking closet gay openly psychotic experimental because they were crazy music it's unbelievable. it puts the whole concept of "punk" into such an amazing perspective when you realize why darby did what he did and how other people tried to run with his flaming ball. needless to say, i've been listening to their shit on almost nonstop rotation recently, and all y'all talkin about punk this and punk that should check the book -- it's written in the same high action, only interview style as please kill me and its got input from everyone from joan jett to genesis p-orridge -- it also suggest some ways on interpreting how the LA punk scene was a frighteningly different thing than NYC or London --

i didn't think i'm saying this to refute yr points, i'm just saying i've recently been knocked on my ass by this amazing late 70s punk band that i had forgotten about --

08:56 / 03.06.02

"I now declare 70s punk officially un-cool"

rizla - i don't think the idea of 70s punk was to be 'cool'. as someone who was actually around during the time, at its best it was an amazing and much needed burst of energy and creativity and re-politicisized music. it's hmv's job to package music any way they think will sell - fuck em! ignore them and get your stuff from independent music stores.

16:46 / 03.06.02

Just been listening to the 'The Toy Dolls' they were cool weren't they? Can they have a special pass or something? Just for their version of Nellie the Elephant or Yul Brynner was a Skinhead.
Oh go on

07:04 / 04.06.02

The nostalgia isn't what gets me with the music magazines, it's the complete ignorance of musical history; I mean to say that punk is 25 years old is out and out untrue (at least the US mags got it a bit closer when they did their 25 years of punk specials last year [claiming that the first Ramones album was the start of punk rock {which completely ignores the Dictators who released their album a year before, but even then punk had been around before}]). Punk has been used to describe music since the mid-sixties or so (sixties American garage was the first stuff to be called punk, or at least says Mark P., editor of Sniffin' Glue magazine when he was talking about punk -- something about how before the Ramones came to England the only stuff called punk was the sixties American garage rock), and in the late sixties to early seventies the term was used to describe the likes of the Stooges, the New York Dolls and Aerosmith (that's right, Aerosmith, a zine even asked Steven Tyler in about '73, if they were a punk band Steven asking back: "Prison bitches that can't wipe their own asses start bands?"). So, these guys working in the music industry should really check their shit about this stuff before talking about the 25th an. of punk rock (unless punk rock lies about it's age when asked, knowing full well it's in it's late thirties, but tells everyone it's 25 so it can get parts playing teenagers in sex comedies, then it's punk rock's own fault).
And Rizla, seventies punk rock will never be officially uncool, because, if not for any other reason, the Dead Boys kick fucking ass and are one of the coolest bands ever. Same goes for Richard Hell and the Vodoids.

12:42 / 04.06.02

Hey, sure, the actual music will always be cool, but it's become uncool within it's current context - you ought to see the student dunderheads who've decided to blast 'nevermind the bollocks' recently as a companion piece to their 'ironic' mohawks .. really gets my outsider hackles up.

And I completely take your point about Punk being older than it's given credit for - I seem to recall Lester Bangs was straightforwardly describing stuff as 'punk rock' in 1969.. of course, in spirit it's as old as the hills..

Matthew Fluxington

12:44 / 04.06.02

Forget the Dictators - I think a very reasonable case can be made for the Stooges and the MC5 being punk bands...

13:16 / 04.06.02

Hell yes.

The Kinks and the Troggs even.

20:04 / 04.06.02

Hey, sure, the actual music will always be cool, but it's become uncool within it's current context

this is the problem with taking "current context" too seriously. the current context for america as a whole has been brittany and rap rock for years, and nothing could be a better atom-smasher agaisnt that than black flag.

the less you worry about the 45 college students who surround you, the more clearly you'll hear the music. but then, you already know that. still... check out the germs book... i beg you!

Locust No longer

20:58 / 04.06.02

I've basically gotten used to this shit, but it still bothers me. Other than being into animal rights and anarchism I haven't had to defend anything more than punk rock. From the "punk is dead, you silly child" comments to the explosion of pop punk like Rancid and Greenday, I've heard it all. But punk music continues to push limits with current bands like Racebannon, Orchid, The Panthers, Yaphet Kotto, and Pretty Girls Make Graves. It's still amazing and inspiring, and no matter how many stupid fucking rock critics say '70s punk rock is the only time it was viable will change that. Oh well.... FUCK THE SEX PISTOLS ANYWAY!

21:38 / 04.06.02

The 'UK Play' channel has had about 12-odd hours on the history of punk over the last two nights (still on now!), and was thankfully quite broad in its definition.... Each episode dealt with an aspect like the first ones, the gothpunks, the americans, the west coast americans, grunge, hardcore, etc. etc.

Too many clips of Johnny Lydon talking about how 'the Pistols were the original and greatest compared to all the shit', but still fun to watch for a few hours

01:03 / 05.06.02

Everything gets repackaged and redefined eventually. A few years ago I remember listening to a radio show in which The Sex Pistols were lauded as the first ever punk band, but at the same time there was Pete Townshend in Rolling Stone or Spin or some such magazine I was leafing through, being called the "first punk guitarist" or somesuch. Imagine if you weren't old enough to remember either one: You'd label them both "punk," and be really confused when you started buying their music.

Look at it this way, at least it's surviving. At least it's getting introduced to a new audience. Sure, you'll laugh at how ignorant the new initiates are, but if they really dig the tunes, they'll learn their history, they'll catch on. I'd rather hang out with someone who got turned on to punk through some cobbled-together boxed set than someone who prefers whatever pop CRAP happens to be on the radio this week!

02:32 / 05.06.02

in some ways, it's not really the "new initiates" that are in the dark. i know a lot of people a bit older than me, who really lived through punk, who constantly have this oppositional "fuck hippies", i'm a nihilistic punk rocker thing. and from my younger point of view, the two movements were way more interconnected than these folks would have themselves believe. so sometimes, coming in after its over gives you a whole new place to take it.

03:43 / 05.06.02

Quite true!

14:55 / 05.06.02

I love bursting the bubbles of all the kids running around talking about how original and real the Sex Pistols were (holding them up as some kind of punk gods) by reminding them that they were put together by their manager to sell clothes.

Not that there's anything automatically wroung with that, but the look on these kids faces as they try and wrap their mind around that is just priceless.

Plus I've never been a big fan of the Sex Pistols.

Here's a question that I've put to a few people, that I'm going to throw out here:

I'm sure we've all heard the arguements about how a band can't be punk (at least in an American, post hardcore, kind of way) if they sign to a major label. But, I wonder, with the success of Nirvana, and now the "pop punk" thing, is this still a viable arguement? Was it ever? Can bands like Blink 182 and The Offspring, still refer to themselves as punk? What about groups like Bad Religion?

15:05 / 05.06.02

I don't think major label status automatically nullifies punk status. Unless the band in question makes use of anti-authoritarian / anti-corporate rhetoric .. in which case it's clearly hypocritical and lame.

But then, I don't regard Blink-182 / Offspring as punk. I sometimes kinda like them as pop groups, but punk's all about the energy and confrontational attitude etc. which they so do not have..

And, if you'll forgive my Beavis-talk, Bad Religion just suck so much ass they're not even worth talking about..

15:54 / 05.06.02

invisible al: Just been listening to the 'The Toy Dolls' they were cool weren't they?

Oh me, oh my, what can I do?
My girlfriend's dad is a vicar, boo-hoo
and he won't let me
be in love with you,
he's a vicar and there's nothing I can do.

My sister loved them, briefly. I still remember that song.

16:37 / 05.06.02

I'm going to be a contrary git and say bollocks to all this "x and y were punk first" business. The great thing about the Sex Pistols and all the bands which appear on the cheapo cash-in compilations (cheap comps are A Good Thing, btw) was that, for a brief time, they were on the telly and in the papers a lot and caused much jumping up and down and excitement. There is nothing more fantastic in pop and rock than when something even vaguely 'underground' connects with the mainstream . I suspect that vastly fewer people would have discovered the Stooges etc etc after the event if it hadn't been for that. I see no problem with defining 76/77 as the 'punk era' or whatever, and don't see how doing that prevents subsequent (or previous) bands being called punk at all. Most of us wouldn't even be using the bloody term punk if it hadn't been for McLaren and co (I can't stand the man, btw, but credit where due).

I'm mostly with you on the "people whinging about how it was so much better during the war" thing, but again, I wonder if what they're really missing is mainstream action? Certainly from a rock/punk point of view, you've had to dig much deeper (until very recently with the Strokes, Hives et al) to find the good stuff than you might have done back in the late 70s/early 80s, when fine bands like the Buzzcocks, PIL, Stranglers, Damned etc were never too far from the telly and might even get an appearance on TOTP.

06:44 / 06.06.02

In response to Suibhne's question on whether or not major label status renders a band not punk: Being on a major label has fuck all to do with how punk a band is; most all of the original bands that all the punk kids (who are the first to cry "sell out" when a band signs to a major) were on major labels (Sex Pistols, The Clash, the Ramones, New York Dolls, Dead Boys, the Damned, Stranglers, Naked Raygun, Misfits, FEAR and many more) at one point in there career (if not their whole careers). I have respect for the hardcore bands that put out 500 or so 7"s by themselves, but a band like Nirvana or Greenday is going to have much more of an impact in getting certain kids into punk rock whom otherwise not have ever been introduced to the music, and many of these kids will be beneficial to the scene in one way or another (many of them may be jagoffs, but punk rock has always had those). It's all about attitude anyways, and if a band is all about breaking down shit and stays that way despite being on a major label, it doesn't fucking matter that much.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

12:58 / 06.06.02

I realised punk was officially dead when last week I bought a Conflict CD with an mpeg video file on it...

Only joking. I actually had suspected it was dead previously, until I saw Conflict play last summer, just after Genoa... and they were fucking brilliant. And better than they were the time I saw 'em about 8 years ago. (o/t- Conflict- the best punk band ever to have a lead singer named Colin.)

(Although the part about the mpeg's true, though- haven't watched it yet, but am looking forward to it.)

And while you may get Lydon going on about how much he loves the Queen and stuff (ever the consummate businessman)- I think (personally) the Digital Hardcore label, which seems to be the closest thing to an old-stylee punk label like Crass, is still fucking great, and still doing it... (on a bunch of money "advanced" for an "unlistenable" album- Rock'n'Roll Swindle or what?)

And this is the point of the post where I shoot myself in the foot by saying that despite being on EMI for a while (though when they got dropped, Chumbawamba got signed... hmmm...) New Model Army, while more of a folk/rock band (I mean, they say "hoy" rather than "oi"), still do the do in punk terms.