• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

I've discovered that I'm a punk

punk is not music.its a lifestyle.in the same way "hippy" is not a music..
punk is a statement more than anything,i know lots wont agree with me here, but thats how it is.the whole attitude thing was more about sticking 2 fingers up and the leaders and saying your wrong you dont know whats best for us kids..the music was just a way to get the message over...
 
Unfortunately this is what most people think of as punk. Just another straight-jacketed rigid category for lazy musicians who had no ideas of their own. Just what REAL punk came to do away with.

That's one way of understanding it. Punk was also a reaction to groups like Pink Floyd, Yes, Steely Dan, etc. whose music seemed inaccessible for and out of touch with the average working class teen in the 70s who saw no way out of his present circumstances of inheriting his dad's job as a painter, plumber, factory worker; who also had no other skills upon which to build an escape route; and by whom the previous decade's values of love and peace declining into over produced "albums", glitzy stage shows with expensive tickets, long drawn out songs that required training in jazz or classical theory to grasp, and the decadence of cocaine and satin pants were considered a massive failure, sell out, and betrayal of everything they saw as important from the 60s and early 70s - freedom, independence, rejection of authority. Unlike the teens from the late 60s-early 70s who were rejecting their parents' values, these guys were rejecting their parents' values as well as the values of the previous decade.

Debbie Harry was undoubtedly part of the CBGB scene, but punk? She doesn't sound punk, and didn't she also have a little problem with Cocaine and satin pants? Hmmm...

I don't disagree, and here's why: Let's not undervalue the people who followed the bands, who went to the shows - these *were* the real punks, these people made the bands worth something and made the bands part of the picture. These guys were also punk when they weren't picking fights at the local pub. If in the latter 70s they were sporting mohawks and safety pins, then that is what punk was. We also have to remember that the early original punk bands didn't call themselves punk, just like Led Zep and Sabbath never called themselves metal back in 1969-1971, they were just playing rock and roll in their own voice. It's the fans who came to see them who made the scene.

Interestingly, prior to all this, "punk" was slang for a prison boy toy, or the young partner of an older homosexual - so don't discount Malcolm Maclaren's role in creating what we today think of as punk... his intent was BDSM clothing and accessories turned into fashion and put on stage with a ready made audience. Think about that next time you strap on a dog collar, spiked wrist band, eye liner, and torn shirt and start feeling all macho. ;)

Henry Rollins - now *that* man is all about the attitude that we know of as punk. Stripped of all BS!!
 
punk is not music.its a lifestyle.in the same way "hippy" is not a music..
punk is a statement more than anything...

I grew up in the sixties and never heard of a musical genre called 'hippy'.

....And all music is a "statement",.....Rock n' Roll symbolized rebellion, revolution, and 'anti-establishment' in the 50's and 60's. 'Punk' revived that

attitude and included the original rock acts (who had lost their edge and significance) as their targets.

Parents didn't want their kids near it. Today, everyone's parents grew up with all forms of Rock Music, generally accept it, and are not threatened by it.

Anything related to Rock music nowadays, is the Establishment.
 
I grew up in the sixties and never heard of a musical genre called 'hippy'.

....And all music is a "statement",.....Rock n' Roll symbolized rebellion, revolution, and 'anti-establishment' in the 50's and 60's. 'Punk' revived that

attitude and included the original rock acts (who had lost their edge and significance) as their targets.

Parents didn't want their kids near it. Today, everyone's parents grew up with all forms of Rock Music, generally accept it, and are not threatened by it.

Anything related to Rock music nowadays, is the Establishment.

your right,punk was no different to rock n roll .the point was to make people notice.what i was getting at with the "hippy"
thing is that punk was about the in your face and look at me attitude and not music,just the way the flower power thing was love and harmony, the way the music industry is run these days is different,very little money is invested in bands the disposable acts and the fast buck is what matters.bands have to do it all themselves these days and maybe are better for it,thats more punk than the music they play..
 
Parents didn't want their kids near it. Today, everyone's parents grew up with all forms of Rock Music, generally accept it, and are not threatened by it.

Anything related to Rock music nowadays, is the Establishment.

Can't agree with that last statement... in the 50s and 60s, parents were indeed the establishment, and being rebellious prior to that was not the norm as it was during the 70s and 80s. These days, because they have grown up amongst rock and roll, parents are often just as anti-establishment as they were when they were kids. Kids these days don't so much rebel against their parents as they hide from them - online. IMHO...
 
Keep in mind that if you are 18 years old - punk is not your generations music. It's the music of your fathers or grandfathers generation. It would be the same if you grew your hair long, put on a tie dye t-shirt and play 60's era psychedelic acid rock or do the greaser look and play rockabilly.

Lol, that's exactly what I've been doing...

:hiding:

And I enjoy every second of it! Nothing wrong with that IMO.
 
Aaaannnnd, I will be unsubscribing from this thread now. "What constitutes a genre?" discussions are invariably the most idiotic, arrogant, self-centered threads on this board. Whether it is metal, punk, jazz, or hip-hop, everyone always thinks that they're right and everyone else is a moron.

Good day, sirs.

Probably the smartest thing said in the last couple pages.
 
sorry, but my idea of punk isn't suburban kids from los angeles who were born into rich families and who sing with fake english accents about how bored they are because they have everything. having said that, there are a handful of bands who do exactly that and i like them.

Nor mine.

If that is what you view punk as, you really are out of touch.

This isn't a slight, no one wants to be the 45 year old guy at punk shows, but don't act like you have any idea what is going on within a scene that you aren't familiar with anymore.

The video that wshines1892 posted isn't what I'm referring to either, that was awful.
 
Nor mine.

If that is what you view punk as, you really are out of touch.

This isn't a slight, no one wants to be the 45 year old guy at punk shows, but don't act like you have any idea what is going on within a scene that you aren't familiar with anymore.

I'd trust a 45 year old's perspective on 'Punk' who was actually part of the original scene than someone who'd just read accounts of it.
 
Being 44 and having lived the style: To us it was a life style and not a genre. It wasn't just about rebellion, a integral part was also doing things yourselves and keeping it simple. Punkmusic meant in the first place: bringing out you own records and booking your own concerts, and it doesn't have to be pretty. This was way more important than fast 3 chord songs and crappy distortion. To us lots of really different music styles did fit the punk label as long as they were DIY, non intelectual and counterculture. Please check out the EX, the best dutch punk band ever as an example, there's not much that links them with Greenday.