BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Radio & Music >

Explaining punk to the punk impaired

  
 
Yagg
03:35 / 10.09.02
Ok, there may well have been a thread just like this before. If so, please point me in the right direction.

I am trying to explain "punk" to a friend who just doesn't get it. To him, if I say a band is "punk" or even "kinda punkISH" it simply means "They can't play their instruments, sing, or write songs."

I just can't seem to put the attitudes of punk into words. All I can come up with are words like "aggression" and "swagger." Things that just don't capture the sweat and the cursing and the heat and the post-show sweaty deafness.

"There's no crying in punk" is the only rule I can come up with. Who knows, if I'm having this much trouble explaining it, maybe I'M the one who doesn't get it!

A little help? Anybody?
 
 
autopilot disengaged
09:10 / 10.09.02
punk is the sound of anger trying and failing to articulate itself. but failing gloriously.
 
 
some guy
11:30 / 10.09.02
Punk has two meanings, though. Are you describing the punk ethos, or a precise type of music?

Ethos: Doing what you want even if the system claims you lack the tools (looks, musical ability) to do it. A disaffected teen liking ABBA is way more punk than a disaffected teen buying a DK record. I would argue that unless you're talking a very specific type of music, New Order started out as a punk band (seeing as how they couldn't play and couldn't sing).

Music: Three-chord rock with shouting instead of singing. Many bands that make punk music do not have a punk ethos.
 
 
tSuibhne
11:33 / 10.09.02
Um, really depends on what you mean by punk. The label has gotten spread pretty thin since it was first used to describe 60's garage. Personally, punk is less about a pure sound, and more about the idea of DIY, or at least circumventing the corporate media structure. And there are so many grays and comprimises in that idea, that it's more a scale, then an acctual definative statement.
 
 
Yagg
15:29 / 10.09.02
Thanks for all the responses.

"punk is the sound of anger trying and failing to articulate itself. but failing gloriously."

Yes! That's about what my definition would have been, were I able to articulate it better.

"Are you describing the punk ethos, or a precise type of music?"

That's kinda the problem. I think we're talking about a vibe, a whole way of life, even. But my friend wants precise musical parameters laid down. And I say you can't do that. If there were precision, it wouldn't be punk.

"And there are so many grays and comprimises in that idea, that it's more a scale, then an acctual definative statement."

Exactly. So maybe it's a Great Undefinable. I'd tend to say it needs to be felt rather than described. Drat. That gets you nowhere when dealing with the logical mind.
 
 
rizla mission
15:31 / 10.09.02
Play him 'Punk Rock' by Mogwai. Then 'History Lesson Pt.2' by the Minutemen. They put 'it' into words & music pretty well.
Then the Stooges, Dead Kennedys, Bikini Kill, Atari teenage Riot, Napalm Death, the Icarus Line, Teenage Jesus, Black Flag etc. etc. until he dies.
 
 
grant
16:23 / 10.09.02
Do
It
Yourself

or else THEY will do it TO YOU.
 
 
LDones
17:19 / 10.09.02
I would definitely say that Do-It-Yourself/Think-For-Yourself has a great deal to do with 'being punk.' And Laurence I think you're spot on with your Ethos description.

A lot of folks get their distinctions in a tizzy when you try to get too much deeper than that with a musical description. I can only think of bands as identifying ideas to make the point. For me and a lot of folks, musically and in attitude, the Ramones are the absolute essence of what punk is and was, and on kind of the opposite end of that, you've got The Sex Pistols, who a lot of people swear by as the musical zeitgeist identifier to end them all - either one's a pretty good explanation. Listening to Antonio Carlos Jobim records can be just as punk as shitting yourself in public and threatening to kill your mom. (Okay, mabe not..)

Greg Graffin, of Bad Religion, has an interesting essay on the subject, well worth a read, (He calls Magellan punk, among others) but it's aout the philosophy again, not the music, though I don't really know that it can be seperated. (No one can tell me Blink 182 is punk, even musically (without making me want to cry))

As for those 'musical parameters', tell your friend to relax, and then play The Misfits' 'Last Caress' at an ear-splitting fucking volume. That should make him feel it. I can't think of a better example.
 
 
LDones
17:22 / 10.09.02
Then again, the members of NOFX (and Kim Gordon of Sonic Youth if I'm not mistaken) have said punk is just starting a band with your friends when none of you know how to play and none of you care and then just fucking going. Which is kind of a good philosophical AND musical example, really. Sorry for the 2nd post.... :P
 
 
Murray Hamhandler
20:31 / 10.09.02
Take your friend to a Hot Topic. Explain that this is the hollowed and resin-coated shell of what punk once was. Then burn it down and explain that this is what punk is...

Or just play him some LiLiput.
 
 
Murray Hamhandler
20:34 / 10.09.02
Alpha's example above is a good explanation of my own personal conception of punk. That's what me and my friends have done. My own completely unprofessional approach to making music is to pretend that I've just dug the instrument up from out of the ground, that I've never seen it before, and that I now have to figure out how to make it work given these criteria. Which might explain my guitar has been beat to shit w/hammer blows...
 
 
tSuibhne
01:19 / 11.09.02
"I would definitely say that Do-It-Yourself/Think-For-Yourself has a great deal to do with 'being punk.'"

"For me and a lot of folks, musically and in attitude, the Ramones are the absolute essence of what punk is and was, and on kind of the opposite end of that, you've got The Sex Pistols, who a lot of people swear by as the musical zeitgeist identifier to end them all - either one's a pretty good explanation."

Of course, The Ramones and the Sex Pistols were two of the most image concious punk bands around, and both were on "majors." I doubt the purpose of the Sex Pistols needs to be brought up here. And two of the most telling quotes about the Ramones that I've heard are, "kids in Queens where not walking around looking like that" to paraphrase a friend of the band who I don't remember, and Debbie Harry's opinion that the Ramones were the greatest concept band ever.

And this isn't to take away from them (while I've never really understood the allure of the Sex Pistols, after '77, I do pay homage to the Ramones) It's just to point out that the question, "what is punk?" is a very tangled one. Trying to distil it down to a few words, or anything short of a disertation, is going to miss a lot. In the end, it depends on where you are now. (physically) Where you were when you got into punk. (physically) Exactly, when you got into punk. What kind of punk you first got into. And what kind of punk you're currently talking about.

I'm sure the fact that I was born and raised in Dischord country (Washington, DC), was introduced to punk through Minor Threat and The Misfits (before ever hearing the Pistols) and right before Jawbox and Shudder to Think signed to major labels (there was a huge fallout over this in DC. First rule of DC, you don't leave Dischord! At least not for a major) Deffinetly played a role in how I see punk. The fallout over Jawbox and Shudder was why I left punk for about 5-8 years. And I'm know the fact that I got brought back into punk by Calvin Johnson's brother (Calvin owns K Records in Olympia, WA and was/is a member of Beat Happening, Halo Benders, and Dub Narcotic Sound System) plays a role in how I see punk now.

Ask a 100 people what punk is, and you'll get a 100 answers. And yes, I've talked to a few younger punks (mostly emo kids) and they will defend the punkness of Blink. It's all greys now. Esspecially since Nirvana broke. For a whole generation now, there is no post-punk label for the punk bands that sign to majors. Signing to a major, for them, has no effect on how punk you are.
 
 
LDones
19:34 / 11.09.02
THis is always such an interesting discussion for me...

In the end, it depends on where you are now. (physically) Where you were when you got into punk. (physically) Exactly, when you got into punk. What kind of punk you first got into. And what kind of punk you're currently talking about.

I agree. Not having exactly 'been around' during 1976-1983, most of my punk appreciation is in retrospect, and The Misfits, Ramones, and Dead Kennedys were kind of my punk post-mortem introduction, it blossomed from there. The thing that I think is so quintessentially punk about the Ramones is this overwhelming sense I get that these guys were dipshits who looked and acted very weird and simply really wanted to fucking rock. And then did so. And inspired generations of same to do likewise. They were kind of first, there kicking ass before anybody else.
Reading about all of these kickass bands getting kickstarted by seeing the Ramones and thinking - FUCK, we can do that, we can start a band, we can ROCK - it's inspiring, it brings it all back to them for me - it makes me think that's what punk is, perhaps. But I'm positive that all of this is very colored by my own personal experience as a young'n, and vice versa.

I'm afraid I may be starting to turn this thread into 'Why I Love the Ramones', so I'll cease for the moment. Another thread another time for that. And the more I think about punk, the harder it becomes to put into words. The mention and memory of Minor Threat makes me think that maybe punk's just about that young, unrefined, undefinable and unrestrainable, irresistible and violent energy that surges out when people come together and make/do/become something against all odds or taste or social paradigm.
 
 
kagemaru
20:36 / 11.09.02
I normally assume that Punk is Rock'n'Roll, in the sense Chrissie Hynde of Pretenders meant when she said "Rock'n'Roll is about fuck you, not fuck me".
 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
20:47 / 11.09.02
Punk is the return to the roots of rock and roll after it was turned into a sprawling art form of 3 album long songs, stadium concerts with floating pigs and singers who thought it was cxool to make an audience wait 4 hours before they took the stage.

Punk was a return of music to the kids so that they could start making it without feeling like they had to write an Opera to be a rock musician.

Punk was music that was short, fast and shold make adults concerned about the people listening to it.

And dammit, punk is for people who want to name their kids Sheena because Joey Ramone made it a great name.
 
 
Domestiques
19:39 / 16.09.02
I think the ethic of punk is that what you do, you do for yourself and not with any pretense or image, and do it with equal measures and anger, bile and energy. Punk in 1972 is pretty much the same as punk 2002, its just played in looser shorter trousers, and with a smile.
 
 
Cop Killer
18:30 / 19.09.02
Punk is all about writing great songs and not being able to play them too well but still not giving a fuck and going up on stage and playing them anyways. Sometimes it doesn't work, sometimes they write a good song and completely fuck it up, and a lot of the time people simply forget to write good songs. It was the revival of real rock'n'roll, which is essentially American music, and we like our music like we like our cars; big, dumb and fast. And people think that the Ramones are morons or whatever, but it takes a lot of intelligence to be that stupid.
 
 
ceridwen
04:36 / 20.09.02
there is an effort to reconcile the idea of punk to the reality of how it feels. and the two kinda contradict each other on a level. just because you can't tell some one WHY bruises accross the front of yer thighs mean it was a good night at the club. and if bruises are the thing, what's the point of itellectualizing it all?

i've always thought that defining punk was unnecessary. first because the descriptions can be so widely used. if you ever settle on a set of adjectives, those words can describe an enormous amount of differing music.

and then because.. realy it's all about the music. not about fitting into something, just the expression of what IS.
 
 
rizla mission
13:45 / 20.09.02
And people think that the Ramones are morons or whatever,

People who think the Ramones are morons are clearly morons.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
20:21 / 24.02.05
Bump, tangent- Isn't it top stuff how, on Barbelith, everyone talks about bands that they like rather than chatting all the "But aren't a *real* punk band" line that you get off people down the pub on "alternative" night.

But to get back to explaining punk to someone who doesn't get it- take em to a gig. It's all very well saying "this band is ace! listen!", but the chances are they won't hear what you hear. Same with a gig, difference is thaey're listening to all the crowds opinion as well.Make sense, yeah?
 
 
Ganesh
10:55 / 25.02.05
Just sneer and tell him to go fuck himself.
 
 
at the scarwash
19:48 / 27.02.05
Play them 154 by Wire.
 
 
Locust No longer
03:43 / 28.02.05
The only way I can answer this is by relating some of my personal history.

First off, I started out in the (ahem) punk scene rather early (12 years old). This is probably because I recieved a Minor Threat album from my sister early on, and she listened to various punk bands like the great DOOM (UK) and Anti Cimex (SWE). I soon graduated to more DIY/underground things like Code 13; Scatha; Resist; Starved And Delirious; etc.. All of these bands were what most people would consider "crust/anarcho punk." Now, (I'm slightly drunk so...) I think these influences are important, however, the influence I recieved from the punks around my area with similar interests (but all broadly different and wonderful people) were far more important than the dogmatic spew that issued from these bands. I was lucky enough to become involved with punk before it was completely bought out and find that I still consider myself punk even though the majority of what I listen to isn't considered punk anymore (if anyone even knows me on this board anymore they know I listen to more avant garde/avant rock weirdness). None the less of all of this plays a great importance on how I view the world. And if anything, I consider myself more punk than I ever did when I had a mohawk and studded the shit out of my crappy black clothes and swore at the police. I think punk rock, as many before me on this thread have (more) elequently put, it's the spirit of rebellion, defiance and general distaste with the status quo that defines it. I listen to Peter Brotzmann and Charles Gayle and consider them to be as punk as Black Flag or Doom now because they challenge this ridiculous state of affairs better than anyone, even if they do play the unpunk saxophone. It's sad that the majority of what is considered punk is this drab, boring and culturally pilfering bullshit like Blink 182, Good Charlotte blah blah blah, because it doesn't foster any form of questioning, defiance or (il)logical rebellion. This, to me, is what punk is.

Punk has a wonderfully rich and vibrant history and it definitely means a certain kind of .... something that can't be claimed for every "different" or "counter cultural" movement (the same thing for hip hop or rave or whatever). It's its own animal. I know I condradict myself by calling free jazz, punk, but I find this same strain in involved in many counter cultural music movements (but free jazz ain't punk, I realize). Contradiction, reversion, hypocrisy is punk, however in my book. I have no idea if this makes any sense at all. But it's my drunken two cents.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
11:35 / 28.02.05
Problem with most of these definitions is that most of the greatest proponents of punk rock over the years don't fit them.

Lack of image? The Sex Pistols may be the most influential punk band of all time, but they were inextricably affiliated with a clothing shop, an inveterate self-publicist and narcissist and a fashion designer for most of the time they were in the spotlight, and kids were copying their clothes before they ever even heard any the Pistols play live.

Can't play? Tell that to Greg Ginn, Joe Strummer and East Bay Ray, amongst many others. From all accounts Ginn thought his biggest 'straight' rival was Eddie Van Halen, and Strummer was in an up-and-coming popular rock n' roll band before he had his Pistols experience and quit to form the Clash.

The Pistols and Ramones were on majors. Long hair, short hair, studs, leather, shirts and ties, smashing things up, staying perfectly still, loud rock n' roll vs screaming digital crescendos, apathetic nihilistic contempt for everything/everyone vs passionate wake-up calls to the working class... Even anger isn't a constant. Hell, if the DIY asthetic, complete lack of compromise in the face of the entire music industry and 'last gang in town' mentality is what you think of when you think of punk, then you've just described Marillion for the last ten years or so... :}
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:45 / 28.02.05
Well, yeah - punk at its best is a general inspiring spirit, at its worst it's a set of joyless doctrines...
 
 
_Boboss
12:01 / 28.02.05
just show them the first dirty harry movie. the baddy in that is funk as puck.
 
 
coweatman
16:49 / 02.03.05
playing aggressive, sincere, and honest music in a do it yourself fashion.
 
  
Add Your Reply