Green Day Rips off Full House

[Zint]

If I want to dance or drive fast or get high to Journey or The Sex Pistols there really is no difference.

Just not going to bother..

Punk did things that were unheard of at the time, sure, and we can all remember it fondly for that

YOU can remember it fondly??

You don't have to buy the record.

You don't have to sell it to me as punk.

People stealing music on the internet doesn't have to do with venues expecting to pay me and four other bands nothing for hard work and drink traffic they benefit from. It does have to do with a certain aspect of the Punk ethos that made money a non-concern. "You need money? Uh, Don't you love music?" Yes, but I'd also like it to be my job. This is a poisonous attitude that's going on today and musician is no longer a profession anymore because of it. Maybe I had to be there but I know parts of the Punk movement are causing damage today. This is beside the point though.

Dude...bars shafting bands is timeless.

[nunchuck]

Zint, while i could only wish that i was 'cool' enough to have lived through the late 70's and seen the scene 'play out' as you so put it, it appears im not. Damn me for merely being born around that time, guess this means i don't have an opinion.

For someone that claims to be not bitter, but in fact 'highly amused', you come across as a very angry person (in both your replies to myself and the other guy) are you a failed musician or were you a journalist that covered the punk scene in the late seventies, this would actually make a lot of sense. Perhaps you're the one that Sid kicked in that worked for the NME, i forget his name, PLEASE FORGIVE ME but im sure you know who i mean.

The only reason i brought up the touring for cents thing was because a few posts back you raised the excact same issue about the early punk bands, so what? they did it so no one else is allowed to cause it just won't be as cool?

And well....1989 is fairly far back now, a whole 20 years in fact, and if some kid who's just getting into them now decides to look up their first 2 albums and draw inspiration from the fact that they recorded them on an extremely low budget on a small independent label, i think thats pretty cool...your take on things seems to be, don't bother, its all been done.

So what excactly are you saying? no band is allowed to make punk influenced sounding music anymore? when did it die? 1979 with sid? can you give us a date?

Theres been an absolute ton of bands over the last 30 years or so that have made some fucking great PR sounding stuff, all over the world, to refuse to acknowledge them because the original scene faded way back when would be a crying fucking shame. And no, they dont play hockey arenas and win awards blah blah blah, although that wouldnt put me off liking a band if the music was good.

Now im sure your reply will once more centre around the fact on how you've seen and done it all but my opinion just happens to differ from yours, despite your experiences. I believe that a band should be able to be influenced and sound or look or act just how it wants, especially when its them out there playing the music.

[Guest deleted_19765]

Zint, while i could only wish that i was 'cool' enough to have lived through the late 70's and seen the scene 'play out' as you so put it, it appears im not. Damn me for merely being born around that time, guess this means i don't have an opinion.

For someone that claims to be not bitter, but in fact 'highly amused', you come across as a very angry person (in both your replies to myself and the other guy) are you a failed musician or were you a journalist that covered the punk scene in the late seventies, this would actually make a lot of sense. Perhaps you're the one that Sid kicked in that worked for the NME, i forget his name, PLEASE FORGIVE ME but im sure you know who i mean.

The only reason i brought up the touring for cents thing was because a few posts back you raised the excact same issue about the early punk bands, so what? they did it so no one else is allowed to cause it just won't be as cool?

And well....1989 is fairly far back now, a whole 20 years in fact, and if some kid who's just getting into them now decides to look up their first 2 albums and draw inspiration from the fact that they recorded them on an extremely low budget on a small independent label, i think thats pretty cool...your take on things seems to be, don't bother, its all been done.

So what excactly are you saying? no band is allowed to make punk influenced sounding music anymore? when did it die? 1979 with sid? can you give us a date?

Theres been an absolute ton of bands over the last 30 years or so that have made some fucking great PR sounding stuff, all over the world, to refuse to acknowledge them because the original scene faded way back when would be a crying fucking shame. And no, they dont play hockey arenas and win awards blah blah blah, although that wouldnt put me off liking a band if the music was good.

Now im sure your reply will once more centre around the fact on how you've seen and done it all but my opinion just happens to differ from yours, despite your experiences. I believe that a band should be able to be influenced and sound or look or act just how it wants, especially when its them out there playing the music.

This is about it. I'm "not going to bother" either at this point.

[Gordon Comstock]

Fuckin hell...

Come on over and hang out for a few beers some time.

I'll get the vinyl collection out (that I was putting together before some of your parents were even married).

I can play you damn near the entire "Green Day" catalogue by the original bands.

I had a right chuckle when I heard Green Day blow a wad of bubble gum in my face when they asked me if I knew the enemy.

In 1980, D.O.A. put out an album called Something Better Change.If it's not in your "punk collection"...your collection is incomplete.

Second song on the album is called

It' not sing songy bubble gum fun....but Joey Shithead did it up right,30 fuckin years ago.

There are only so many chords and so many combinations of sounds available, and there is an inheritance involved in the creation of all music. Anyone with a vinyl collection extensive as yours should know that by now.

And by the way, I don't think its worth condemning Green Day for making popular "bubble gum" music and selling millions after they worked their asses off for around two decades and kept Punk on people's minds pretty much single handedly for much of that time. I think D.O.A. would have been glad to sell as much.

green day arent punk. they are fuckin mainstream bubble gum bullshit. they pretty much always have been, too. 'dookie' wasnt bubble gum mainstream bullshit, it was just straight mainstream bullshit.

[dirtylenny]

Punk rock was a threat to the established order, it wasn't part of the established order, it was a reaction to it. The minute you become the established order, it ain't punk anymore.

Even to say Green Day is punk influenced is...a bit insulting because...i'm sorry but i just dont see it. What, "soundwise?" Have you heard any punk albums, how do Green Day sound anything like them? And also, you'll notice, none of em sound much the same, thats the whole point, thats what scared people about it, there was no precedent to what went down there back in the late 70s/early 80s. I mean really, what do the Dead Boys have in common with Bad Brains? Or what do Television have in common with The Sex Pistols? Or what do The Ramones have in common with James Chance and the Contortions? sound-wise, not very much, thats the whole fuckin point, its was indefinable in that sense.

And this whole line about Green Day singlehandedly holding the banner for punk for the past however many years is ridiculous. There's no banner to hold, its over, only the ideas remain and the ideas had nothing to do with replicating or immitating. All Green Day are is an embarassing post-script, a really late one at that. They made it so this beautiful, indefinable, creative entity has become this thing where....OK, before it was like EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!!! Punk, what is Punk, save us from this Punk...now its like, oh yeeeaahh, right, Punk, yeah, we get it, you're "angry" right? Yeah, we get it, spikey hair, yeah, mmmhmmmmm...its this insipid latching onto kinda irrelevant ornamental aspects and churning out this ridiculous samey kind of music under the label of Punk which is PRECISELY what Punk was against in the first place, that kind of stagnation, that kind of creative complacency.

Its Punk for kids who hang out in malls. The spikey hair in and of itself wasn't...the point, its just that that was what was needed AT THAT TIME. It offended people who i'm sure couldn't've given a decent explanation as to why or what they were offended about, thats the point, it challenged hypocrisy and weird predudice, the spikey hair in and of itself was incidental. Now to have spikey hair now, when its all cool and good and okay in the culture and use it as some kind of badge of how punk you are is fucking bullshit and utterly missing the fuckin point. It was all long hair so the punks hacked the shit off in reaction to what they thought was a uniform mentality. And now to have spikey hair when everybody else does and be like "oh, i'm punk" is REALLY missing the point.

Maybe i'm getting out of my pram a little on this but it bugs me, not only that, its insulting. Oh look, a punk band at the VMAs!!

i mean... can you imagine Darby Crash, Sid Vicious, Jello Biafra, Siouxsie Sioux at the VMAs?!?!

Its not about forgery, its not about inserting yourself into a lineage, its NOT about money, dollars, record sales, its a reaction to all that shit. Its about providing a true and sincere alternative not assimilating.

This watering down of punk, this dilluting has made it so, more and more weiner ass bands post Green Day are seriously going around calling themselves punk and getting away with it and THAT is why its insulting and why its wrong and why it shouldn't be. Cut to ten years later and you got fuckin Avril Levinge calling herself punk?!?!?!

Now, you guys, you detractors, you weren't there and nor was i...but don't you think its a little stomach turning for SOO much hardwork, effort, honesty, integrity to be pushed into something and then to see people basically using it for purposes that were the very antithesis of why you started the shit in the first place? I find it insulting and I weren't even there.

And the worst thing is kids are buying this shit...i don't mean the records, they can spend their money on arsenic for all i care, i'm talking about buying the notion that this is what punk is/is about. Avril whatsherface and Green Day and...whatever.

First you had the mainstream and the reaction to it, the OTHER option. Now you've got the mainstream in tons of different compartments with people masquerading punk as one of them which it IS NOT, CANNOT, WILL NOT be. It just can't happen that way, the whole point of punk wasn't like...to make ease of option, to make a little burrough in the mainstream, like a vegetarian option on the menu, it was about saying, hey, the whole fucking menu and the system backing it up and maintaining it stinks. It stinks to high heaven and we're gonna say so.

People died for this fuckin shit...it weren't no fucking joke.

Perhaps you're the one that Sid kicked in that worked for the NME, i forget his name, PLEASE FORGIVE ME but im sure you know who i mean

Nick Kent dear

Edited July 5, 2009 by dirtylenny

[Jumpin' Jack Flash]

Punk rock was a threat to the established order, it wasn't part of the established order, it was a reaction to it. The minute you become the established order, it ain't punk anymore.

Even to say Green Day is punk influenced is...a bit insulting because...i'm sorry but i just dont see it. What, "soundwise?" Have you heard any punk albums, how do Green Day sound anything like them? And also, you'll notice, none of em sound much the same, thats the whole point, thats what scared people about it, there was no precedent to what went down there back in the late 70s/early 80s. I mean really, what do the Dead Boys have in common with Bad Brains? Or what do Television have in common with The Sex Pistols? Or what do The Ramones have in common with James Chance and the Contortions? sound-wise, not very much, thats the whole fuckin point, its was indefinable in that sense.

And this whole line about Green Day singlehandedly holding the banner for punk for the past however many years is ridiculous. All Green Day are is an embarassing post-script, a really late one at that. They made it so this beautiful, indefinable, creative entity has become this thing where....OK, before it was like EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!!! Punk, what is Punk, save us from this Punk...now its like, oh yeeeaahh, right, Punk, yeah, we get it, you're "angry" right? Yeah, we get it, spikey hair, yeah, mmmhmmmmm...its this insipid latching onto kinda irrelevant ornamental aspects and churning out this ridiculous samey kind of music under the label of Punk which is PRECISELY what Punk was against in the first place. That kind of stagnation, that kind of creative complacency.

Its Punk for kids who hang out in malls. The spikey hair in and of itself wasn't...the point, its just that that was what was needed AT THAT TIME. It offended people who i'm sure couldn't've given a decent explanation as to why or what they were offended about, thats the point, it challenged hypocrisy, the spikey hair in and of itself was incidental. Now to have spikey hair now, when its all cool and good and okay in the culture and use it as some kind of badge of how punk you are is fucking bullshit and utterly missing the fuckin point.

Maybe i'm getting out of my pram a little on this but it bugs me, not only that, its insulting. Oh look, a punk band at the VMAs!!

i mean... can you imagine Darby Crash, Sid Vicious, Jello Biafra, Siouxsie Sioux at the VMAs?!?!

Its not about forgery, its not about inserting yourself into a lineage, its NOT about money, dollars, record sales, its a reaction to all that shit. Its about providing a true and sincere alternative not assimilating.

This watering down of punk, this dilluting has made it so, more and more weiner ass bands post Green Day are seriously going around calling themselves punk and getting away with it and THAT is why its insulting and why its wrong and why it shouldn't be. Cut to ten years later and you got fuckin Avril Levinge calling herself punk?!?!?!

Now, you guys, you detractors, you weren't there and nor was i...but don't you think its a little stomach turning for SOO much hardwork, effort, honesty, integrity to be pushed into something and then to see people basically using it for purposes that were the very antithesis of why you started the shit in the first place? I find it insulting and I weren't even there.

And the worst thing is kids are buying this shit...i don't mean the records, they can spend their money on arsenic for all i care, i'm talking about buying the notion that this is what punk is/is about. Avril whatsherface and Green Day and...whatever.

First you had the mainstream and the reaction to it, the OTHER option. Now you've got the mainstream in tons of different compartments with people masquerading punk as one of them which it IS NOT, CANNOT, WILL NOT be. It just can't happen that way, the whole point of punk wasn't like...to make ease of option, to make a little burrough in the mainstream, like a vegetarian option on the menu, it was about saying, hey, the whole fucking menu and the system backing it up and maintaining it stinks. It stinks to high heaven and we're gonna say so.

People died for this fuckin shit...it weren't no fucking joke.

I totally agree with this post. Especially the bold text.

[Tater Totts]

I agree with the above poster.

What I dont get is how punk started off as something which was going against what was out there before it, especially comercially and now almost all punk subgenres release comercial processed tosh

[Snake Eyes]

Why bother typing, when dirtylenny has said all that needs to be said.

However I will add that I enjoy listening to Green Day, some cool, catchy songs and though I don't think they are punk at all I don't think that substracts from the music itself.

[Jumpin' Jack Flash]

Yeah, I like Pre-AI Green Day, Dookie's a great album. Just not a Punk album. They don't need to be considered "Punk" for me to enjoy them.

[IndiannaRose]

I'm a fan of Green Day. I could care less how 'punk' they are/aren't. I like their songs and music. That's all I'm here for.

Edited July 5, 2009 by IndiannaRose

[dirtylenny]

I'm a fan of Green Day. I could care less how 'punk' they are/aren't. I like their songs and music. That's all I'm here for.

Which is fine, listen to whatever you want...its just punk and their claim to any part of it that i'm talking about.

[Guest deleted_19765]

Punk rock was a threat to the established order, it wasn't part of the established order, it was a reaction to it. The minute you become the established order, it ain't punk anymore.

Even to say Green Day is punk influenced is...a bit insulting because...i'm sorry but i just dont see it. What, "soundwise?" Have you heard any punk albums, how do Green Day sound anything like them? And also, you'll notice, none of em sound much the same, thats the whole point, thats what scared people about it, there was no precedent to what went down there back in the late 70s/early 80s. I mean really, what do the Dead Boys have in common with Bad Brains? Or what do Television have in common with The Sex Pistols? Or what do The Ramones have in common with James Chance and the Contortions? sound-wise, not very much, thats the whole fuckin point, its was indefinable in that sense.

And this whole line about Green Day singlehandedly holding the banner for punk for the past however many years is ridiculous. There's no banner to hold, its over, only the ideas remain and the ideas had nothing to do with replicating or immitating. All Green Day are is an embarassing post-script, a really late one at that. They made it so this beautiful, indefinable, creative entity has become this thing where....OK, before it was like EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!!! Punk, what is Punk, save us from this Punk...now its like, oh yeeeaahh, right, Punk, yeah, we get it, you're "angry" right? Yeah, we get it, spikey hair, yeah, mmmhmmmmm...its this insipid latching onto kinda irrelevant ornamental aspects and churning out this ridiculous samey kind of music under the label of Punk which is PRECISELY what Punk was against in the first place, that kind of stagnation, that kind of creative complacency.

Its Punk for kids who hang out in malls. The spikey hair in and of itself wasn't...the point, its just that that was what was needed AT THAT TIME. It offended people who i'm sure couldn't've given a decent explanation as to why or what they were offended about, thats the point, it challenged hypocrisy and weird predudice, the spikey hair in and of itself was incidental. Now to have spikey hair now, when its all cool and good and okay in the culture and use it as some kind of badge of how punk you are is fucking bullshit and utterly missing the fuckin point. It was all long hair so the punks hacked the shit off in reaction to what they thought was a uniform mentality. And now to have spikey hair when everybody else does and be like "oh, i'm punk" is REALLY missing the point.

Maybe i'm getting out of my pram a little on this but it bugs me, not only that, its insulting. Oh look, a punk band at the VMAs!!

i mean... can you imagine Darby Crash, Sid Vicious, Jello Biafra, Siouxsie Sioux at the VMAs?!?!

Its not about forgery, its not about inserting yourself into a lineage, its NOT about money, dollars, record sales, its a reaction to all that shit. Its about providing a true and sincere alternative not assimilating.

This watering down of punk, this dilluting has made it so, more and more weiner ass bands post Green Day are seriously going around calling themselves punk and getting away with it and THAT is why its insulting and why its wrong and why it shouldn't be. Cut to ten years later and you got fuckin Avril Levinge calling herself punk?!?!?!

Now, you guys, you detractors, you weren't there and nor was i...but don't you think its a little stomach turning for SOO much hardwork, effort, honesty, integrity to be pushed into something and then to see people basically using it for purposes that were the very antithesis of why you started the shit in the first place? I find it insulting and I weren't even there.

And the worst thing is kids are buying this shit...i don't mean the records, they can spend their money on arsenic for all i care, i'm talking about buying the notion that this is what punk is/is about. Avril whatsherface and Green Day and...whatever.

First you had the mainstream and the reaction to it, the OTHER option. Now you've got the mainstream in tons of different compartments with people masquerading punk as one of them which it IS NOT, CANNOT, WILL NOT be. It just can't happen that way, the whole point of punk wasn't like...to make ease of option, to make a little burrough in the mainstream, like a vegetarian option on the menu, it was about saying, hey, the whole fucking menu and the system backing it up and maintaining it stinks. It stinks to high heaven and we're gonna say so.

People died for this fuckin shit...it weren't no fucking joke.

Perhaps you're the one that Sid kicked in that worked for the NME, i forget his name, PLEASE FORGIVE ME but im sure you know who i mean

Nick Kent dear

Just like zint61's posts, this is very simply a denial of time. Time and its ability to deconstruct, reassemble, or do whatever else it happens to do. Of course "Punk" didn't have any sort of uniform sound at the start. Do any genres really make sense? Coming from an angle of mostly blues-less, simple, major chord guitar rock music, Green Day sounds like Punk, or at least the Punk most of us remember. Like I said before, its the same old story again and again. Punk was a moment of profound change at the time, but its not as if it was the only one ever. There is no genre that didn't start that way. Let's talk about Elvis' hips, potheaded Beboppers, Mozart with too many notes, you can't expect movements (or words that denote movements) to remain perfectly distilled in a period of less than ten years with no overlap or corruption. Punk is no exception. If you stop looking for justice in something as crooked and greed-driven as the music industry, you might be happier.

[dirtylenny]

Just like zint61's posts, this is very simply a denial of time. Time and its ability to deconstruct, reassemble, or do whatever else it happens to do.

No its not, its a simple statement that says you can only deconstruct something so far until its no longer the original article. Do something with it, make it your own but don't ride off of the work of others, its just not fair. Punk didn't even have to be Punk by that rationale, you could just call it rock n roll really, couldn't you? But it wasn't...cuz it had something else. Same applies for Green Day et al. Also, the guiding principles of punk, the ones laid out in the previous post, set it apart from other forms to some degree, this principle isn't that difficult to grasp. You can't have mainstream commercial punk, no amount of time or any of that shit can make that possible, anymore than the passage of time can somehow make it possible for the concept of a jewish nazi or something.

Coming from an angle of mostly blues-less, simple, major chord guitar rock music, Green Day sounds like Punk, or at least the Punk most of us remember.

Well unfortunately thats not what punk is about, no matter whoose memory says so.

Like I said before, its the same old story again and again. Punk was a moment of profound change at the time, but its not as if it was the only one ever.

Right but its the differences that set these movements apart and Punk had a few defining differences directly related to its place relative to the mainstream, relative to commerce/commercial success that made it what it was.

you can't expect movements (or words that denote movements) to remain perfectly distilled in a period of less than ten years with no overlap or corruption.

Right but certain things, by definition do not bear overlap when its contrary to their founding principles. There's tonsa overlap stylistically in Punk but there simply cannot be in regards to the ol' dollar because at THAT moment it stops being punk, it just doesn't work that way, i'm sorry but there it is.

If you stop looking for justice in something as crooked and greed-driven as the music industry, you might be happier.

I don't just look for justice, i expect it. "the worlds a twisted place" is not enough to explain away corruption and inequities. Otherwise whats the point in standing up for any cause ever i mean, its a fucked up world right? Call me an idealist bro and i'll call you a cynic (bet you're scared now, huh? )

You've almost touched upon the spirit of punk right there man, that there's the difference in attitude. Y'know, just accept it, its crooked, its greed driven, yeah its wrong but who has the energy to care, lets just learn to live with it and just be happy. Well excuse me but fuck that, if something is crooked and greed driven why should it just be accepted? This was the whole point, providing an alternative to that corruption and greed, looking for justice, demanding justice or setting yourself apart from the unjust is your duty as a human being, all of ours. It's the difference between bein righteous and being a heel man. I dunno, perhaps i'm being a bit self righteous here but...i dunno..

Edited July 6, 2009 by dirtylenny

[Guest deleted_19765]

All true, but words (arbitrary, flawed systems they are to begin with) are not the right place stage battles on. The next Punk will undeniably not come from Punk, Punk being as you claim over. Why worry about four letters then? Quite unpunk, I think, to maintain this fixation on a metanarrative and expect chastity from it.

I personally don't believe there is ideology in art. That has something to do with it. How can there be ideology when works of art are always up for interpretation, indeed, meaningless without multiple interpretations? Green Day is Punk and the antithesis of Punk, according to posters in this thread. Punk is something autonomous and special or simply a moment in Rock. This is evident in anything but for something closer to home, how about "Bodies"? Pro-life anthem, or attempt at shock? We can't really know (and neither does anything Johnny might have said matter as much as the song) so what is the difference? Long hair was dangerous was safe. Spiky hair was dangerous was safe. Punk can be one and many other things.

[Black Sabbath]

I'm a fan of Green Day. I could care less how 'punk' they are/aren't. I like their songs and music. That's all I'm here for.

I'm not a fan of Green Day, but I agree with this. It doesn't matter how strong a band or artist is with their genre of music, if you like them, then that's all that matters.

[dirtylenny]

To be honest with you i didn't really understand most of what you just said. Not saying it didn't make sense i just don't understand it. Metanarrative, i dunno what that means. But i'm gonna try based on my limited understanding here although i'm really not that clever to get some of that.

The next Punk will undeniably not come from Punk, Punk being as you claim over. Why worry about four letters then? Quite unpunk, I think, to maintain this fixation on a metanarrative and expect chastity from it.

Cuz it is what it is and there was a truth to it and that truth deserves a little airing, especially since there are so many misconceptions about it.

I personally don't believe there is ideology in art. That has something to do with it. How can there be ideology when works of art are always up for interpretation, indeed, meaningless without multiple interpretations?

Depends where you're coming from though. I mean, sure art is always up for interpretation but what if the person creating it has a specific purpose and they state that purpose? Sure you can steam on ahead try and dig out some esoteric thing that you feel it represents but then thats not something specific to art, you could do that endlessly, ad infinitum with anything in life from the things that come out of peoples mouths to the way they sit when they take a dump.

In fact, i've heard in places that the multiple interpretations thing is what has killed art to some degree because people can go out there and make something or create something or present something that has absolutely no point and purpose and use that old "its your job to interpret" thing which, on the one hand is really pretty cool cuz it just spawns creativity in the audience and makes it this endless thing where everybody takes home their own meaning but there are those who think that this is sorta thing, the idea that art is "meaningless without multiple interpretations" is destroying art because, since its accepted as a kind of standard for art its almost like...the idea that total freedom, freedom in every single concievably possible way is like the worst kind of oppression that could possibly exist i.e. certain constraints are necessary.

If there wasn't ideology in art, movements wouldn't exist. They have entire manifestos backing up and defining certain artistic movements. You could even go so far as to say, at least so far in human history, there's/has been an ideology behind every single artistic movement in human history, the ones i know of at any rate.

how about "Bodies"? Pro-life anthem, or attempt at shock? We can't really know (and neither does anything Johnny might have said matter as much as the song)

Sure we can know, like Mr. Rotten said "they're my words, i'm the one whoose using them, ASK ME WHAT I MEAN, don't tell me and if you don't like what i'm saying, so what, it is my right, it is my freedom of expression, without which we're nothing but slaves" and his explanation of the song goes something like "it isn't anti abortion, it isn't pro-abortion, its like, searching, trying to find an answer to it all, you can talk about morals but its immoral to bring a child into this world and not care about it". There you go, straight answer.

so what is the difference? Long hair was dangerous was safe. Spiky hair was dangerous was safe. Punk can be one and many other things.

There is a broad similarity but they occupy a different time and space in human history and therefore are specific to certain things. The devils in the detail. There's something creepy about this all seeing kinda approach, this birdseye view that kinda...generalises everything, to me it takes the soul out of...reality...out of life and out of history. In a broad sense, yes, there are similarities between punk and the hippy movement (dare i say it ) but asking what the difference is is like saying, y'know, vietnam, korea, iraq, WW1, WW2, The Boer War, whats the difference, they're all wars? But its not man, its not the same, those were different folks that died that effected different families and lives doing different shit and feeling different ways. This...trying to mould everything into this kind of generic tapestry where everything kinda gels together and is identical to me trivialises and almost belittles the reality of what is life and what human beings go through.

It seems almost contrary to the notion of what individuality is. This idea that if you approach things in a broader sense you kinda have a better understanding of the whole picture to me kinda...sucks the life out of it all.

Anyway, that said, i don't think i'm smart enough to be having this conversation with you man and i'm pretty sure i'm like...fucking up here in understanding what you mean in certain places, this post is just in response to what i gather you meant.

[Zint]

So is Oasis a British Invasion band?

[Guest deleted_19765]

Why does it matter if Oasis is a British Invasion band?

To be honest with you i didn't really understand most of what you just said. Not saying it didn't make sense i just don't understand it. Metanarrative, i dunno what that means. But i'm gonna try based on my limited understanding here although i'm really not that clever to get some of that.

The next Punk will undeniably not come from Punk, Punk being as you claim over. Why worry about four letters then? Quite unpunk, I think, to maintain this fixation on a metanarrative and expect chastity from it.

Cuz it is what it is and there was a truth to it and that truth deserves a little airing, especially since there are so many misconceptions about it.

I personally don't believe there is ideology in art. That has something to do with it. How can there be ideology when works of art are always up for interpretation, indeed, meaningless without multiple interpretations?

Depends where you're coming from though. I mean, sure art is always up for interpretation but what if the person creating it has a specific purpose and they state that purpose? Sure you can steam on ahead try and dig out some esoteric thing that you feel it represents but then thats not something specific to art, you could do that endlessly, ad infinitum with anything in life from the things that come out of peoples mouths to the way they sit when they take a dump.

In fact, i've heard in places that the multiple interpretations thing is what has killed art to some degree because people can go out there and make something or create something or present something that has absolutely no point and purpose and use that old "its your job to interpret" thing which, on the one hand is really pretty cool cuz it just spawns creativity in the audience and makes it this endless thing where everybody takes home their own meaning but there are those who think that this is sorta thing, the idea that art is "meaningless without multiple interpretations" is destroying art because, since its accepted as a kind of standard for art its almost like...the idea that total freedom, freedom in every single concievably possible way is like the worst kind of oppression that could possibly exist i.e. certain constraints are necessary.

If there wasn't ideology in art, movements wouldn't exist. They have entire manifestos backing up and defining certain artistic movements. You could even go so far as to say, at least so far in human history, there's/has been an ideology behind every single artistic movement in human history, the ones i know of at any rate.

how about "Bodies"? Pro-life anthem, or attempt at shock? We can't really know (and neither does anything Johnny might have said matter as much as the song)

Sure we can know, like Mr. Rotten said "they're my words, i'm the one whoose using them, ASK ME WHAT I MEAN, don't tell me and if you don't like what i'm saying, so what, it is my right, it is my freedom of expression, without which we're nothing but slaves" and his explanation of the song goes something like "it isn't anti abortion, it isn't pro-abortion, its like, searching, trying to find an answer to it all, you can talk about morals but its immoral to bring a child into this world and not care about it". There you go, straight answer.

so what is the difference? Long hair was dangerous was safe. Spiky hair was dangerous was safe. Punk can be one and many other things.

There is a broad similarity but they occupy a different time and space in human history and therefore are specific to certain things. The devils in the detail. There's something creepy about this all seeing kinda approach, this birdseye view that kinda...generalises everything, to me it takes the soul out of...reality...out of life and out of history. In a broad sense, yes, there are similarities between punk and the hippy movement (dare i say it ) but asking what the difference is is like saying, y'know, vietnam, korea, iraq, WW1, WW2, The Boer War, whats the difference, they're all wars? But its not man, its not the same, those were different folks that died that effected different families and lives doing different shit and feeling different ways. This...trying to mould everything into this kind of generic tapestry where everything kinda gels together and is identical to me trivialises and almost belittles the reality of what is life and what human beings go through.

It seems almost contrary to the notion of what individuality is. This idea that if you approach things in a broader sense you kinda have a better understanding of the whole picture to me kinda...sucks the life out of it all.

Anyway, that said, i don't think i'm smart enough to be having this conversation with you man and i'm pretty sure i'm like...fucking up here in understanding what you mean in certain places, this post is just in response to what i gather you meant.

I think you understand what I mean, more or less, I could have explained better myself. A metanarrative is any one explanation for everything, a bible, a be all-end all. Which seems to me what you would like Punk to be, although this is impossible.

What I'm trying to say is, Punk was, like you say, something very special and unique to certain individuals during a certain period. In this way, the word Punk is already an overgeneralization and once the word found its way to into popular consciousness, it was obviously appropriated in various ways and as you would have it misconstrued to represent what is most certainly not Punk (ie. Green Day.) From what I understand of the movement, existing under some pre-generalized umbrella term isn't really what its about anyway. I want to know why you should care (especially with the history of the movement and what it meant in mind) what happened to one stupid four letter word that attempted to reign it all in and make it generalizable?

Do you truly expect the spirit of that period and those few individuals to be encapsulated in a four letter word that the whole world should agree never to extend elsewhere? There are no endings, especially with words, and to most of us, Punk as it is referred to today does correlate strongly enough with the original movement to merit the designation "Punk." I don't think there are misconceptions about its origins and about the people you really care about, I think its just been extended in a way you don't approve of.

As long as different voices sing for different ears, interpretation will be an open area. This has had what could be described as negative effects, depending on your opinion on Duchamp and Dada and all of that. But its a principle that won't be changing. What does Johnny Rotten's explanation have to do with what's on the record? Very little to nothing at all, in my opinion (although its an unpopular one.) Art is nothing without us, the audience. And what's art without some mystery?

There may be ideology in artists, but I don't think there can be ideology in the art itself because it depends on a very particular sort of intercourse between whoever the audience and whoever the artist is. If there is ideology, then, it has to be fluid, depending not only on who the audience is but on what day, in what mood, where the experience occurs. How does this song make you feel today? Tomorrow? After fucking? On a train? This is why associations and feelings we pick up can make any work of art special. And its also why, in a very real way, songs can mean anything to us.

No way am I saying that everything is the same, or equal. I think there's a quality of possibility and fluidity to everything that can cause similar effects. What's out always becomes in. That doesn't mean all that's out throughout history is the same, or all that's in (identifying Rihanna with Patti Page makes some, but not total sense, just like Punks and Hippies.) I just mean that you can't expect some kind of perfect use of this one term, Punk.

[Zint]

Zint, while i could only wish that i was 'cool' enough to have lived through the late 70's and seen the scene 'play out' as you so put it, it appears im not.

Wasn't a matter of being cool enough to be there.

It was a matter of right place,right time.

Don't be envious...you can live it vicariously through Green Day.

Damn me for merely being born around that time, guess this means i don't have an opinion.

Oh you have an opinion.

It's just terribly inaccurate

you come across as a very angry person (in both your replies to myself and the other guy)

Says the guy who threw an insult in his first fuckin sentence addressed to me.

..heh

are you a failed musician or were you a journalist that covered the punk scene in the late seventies, this would actually make a lot of sense.

More insults...nice!

You're getting frustrated that this conversation isn't going your way aren't ya..

But to answer you.

I chose to participate within the parameters of my existence and I kept that perspective honest and real.

I believed in what the punk movement was offering me and I was more than content to be creative and expressive within the immediate communities.

I realized my limitations and I worked with my abilities and I felt damn good about the music and who I was as a person.

It wasn't an easy existence but it was fresh and innovative and I had no problem hanging my hat on that post.

The limitations on the scene were evident early on and it was clear that a "non conformity conformity" was taking hold and if you thought about it enough..it was clear that the whole thing was destined to implode.

It had to.

"You hope I had the time of my life"....fuckin right I did.

Some of the best days of my life...hands down (but far from the only ones).

To covet the hockey arenas with a mountain of pyro would have put my expectations on a different level...a "Journey" level per say.

And that was so far removed from who I was and what I believed in...it would have been a false existence and no amount of dollars could reward me for accepting it.

So...no...not a failed musician.

And no...I wasn't "covering" the punk scene as a journalist or anything else.

I was living it,along with the rest of the pariahs.

And well....1989 is fairly far back now, a whole 20 years in fact, and if some kid who's just getting into them now decides to look up their first 2 albums and draw inspiration from the fact that they recorded them on an extremely low budget on a small independent label, i think thats pretty cool...your take on things seems to be, don't bother, its all been done.

I would hope that some kid would rather hear the real deal,the bands that created the buzz and inspired Green Day to copy them...but to each his own.

You can listen to Black Flag's "Nervous Breakdown" or you can listen to Green Day's skim milk version "Basket Case".

If I was hearing both for the first time,I know which one I'd gravitate to.

So what excactly are you saying? no band is allowed to make punk influenced sounding music anymore?

Don't regress to the comments of a 15 year old (unless you are...to which I apologize for that comment).

I could give a rat's ass what Green Day is doing.

Hey...they do what they do well...but

Do not try to sell your convictions that "punk influenced sounding music" is punk.

when did it die? 1979 with sid? can you give us a date?

It died when the bands gave up.It died when there were no gigs to go to anymore because most everyone had moved on.

It died when all possible concepts,ideals,directions and angles had been explored and exhausted.

It died when everyone with a brain who really thought about it realized that it had to,was going and in fact DID play itself out.

It died when many hardcore musicians decided they were metal and followed down that path.

It died when musicians who were really and truly too good to stay within the constrictions of punk rock ventured on to new ideas.

What would become known as "grunge" was happening in 1986 well before the light shined on Nirvana,and there were some damn good bands setting that stage while Cobain was still shopping for plaid shirts at the Good Will...but that's another can of worms that hasn't opened around here...yet.

If you want me to pin an exact date on it...it would be an absurd notion to do so for any reason other than the hell of it,but I can get damn close.

I just gotta look something up first...I'll get back to ya.

Theres been an absolute ton of bands over the last 30 years or so that have made some fucking great PR sounding stuff, all over the world, to refuse to acknowledge them because the original scene faded way back when would be a crying fucking shame.

Yeah but the ones doing it 30 years ago were part of a cutting edge movement exploring new boundaries and ideas at the expense of being discredited by the music industry as a whole.

They explored art for art's sake.

The created what they wanted to create and ultimately created a sound that was unique and new and fresh and unheard of up to that point.

Bands copying that sound 20 years later doesn't mean shit...other than they like it.

Big fuckin difference.

Doesn't make them innovators...doesn't make them punk.

And no, they dont play hockey arenas and win awards blah blah blah, although that wouldnt put me off liking a band if the music was good.

It's not about the music being good (or not)...that's not the point.

I believe that a band should be able to be influenced and sound or look or act just how it wants, especially when its them out there playing the music.

Doesn't give you the right to claim they are something they are not.

That's the problem..

[Zint]

Just like zint61's posts, this is very simply a denial of time.

It strikes me as a recognition of time,more than a denial.

Time is pertinent to the essence of the punk movement.

Not the songs,not the sound...the movement.

The conscious decision to accept ostracism and derision as a an expression of self.

Punk was about the individual.

In fashion,in expression,in political and social views.

You were allowed and encouraged to express the unique individual.

The early...and I mean early scene was not relegated with standard uniform (ie: leather jackets and chains).

Somone might walk in a club one night decked out in world war one regalia and the next night walk in wearing a tutu.

Just because they felt like it.

Just to explore the shock value of it.To examine how fashion affected acceptance...even within these perameters.

I remember one guy showing up in a cowboy hat with a capgun in a holster hanging off his belt.

One guy wore a monk's cowl.

Our early scene played out in downtown lofts inhabited by artists,printers,eccentrics and well...nut cases.

These lofts served as a rehearsal place for a few of the first bands and also served as the setting for the first "public' performances.

I remember going to one gig and having to climb up the back of a toilet and hoist myself through a hole cut in a ceiling to access an attic with two by fours on the beams.

In the true street-level punk fashion,the early bands in town were launched outside of the established music-biz structures of the time,including licensed clubs,agents and managers.

Drain pipe jeans began to crop up amid the prevailing flairs and long hair.

Pot and psychedelics gave way to bennies and alcohol.

In our case,this was happening in a predominantly white collar university town with a high percentage of congregated millionaires.

University intellectuals and professors were part of the early scene.The professors moreso were interested in conversing and wanting to know why.They were intellectually awestruck and deeply taken aback and transfixed at the same time.It was,admittedly by them,the greatest cultural impact on society that they were able to witness first hand.

You see...no one had challenged perceived "anti-establishment" as yet.

No one had explored anti anti-establishment.

Fuck the hippies!...really??..fuck the hippies??

Who had it right,who had it wrong.

Were the punks the new hippies or were the hippies the first punks.

It was murky water and it the intellects were blowing gaskets with glee.

But on another level,the gutteral kids without a voice had just found a conduit for their pent up rage and it blew like an atom bomb.

Fuck Elvis Presley's hips...fuck Jefferson Airplane...fuck Pink Floyd...fuck you.

It was a brand new day,and I can tell you...most of the planet was pissed off about it and ready to crack some skulls.

New York's CBGB's scene and London England's punk explosion set off musical and cultural shock waves so powerful that they were felt even in remote secondary environments.

The DIY "anyone can do it" punk rock aesthetic made it possible for bands to form and audiences to gather seemingly overnight,and an intense,boozy,druggy,sexually-charged and sometimes violent atmsphere quickly developed the sure signs of a good music scent.

Time and its ability to deconstruct, reassemble, or do whatever else it happens to do.

How do you deconstruct something that's sole intent was to deconstruct?

How do you take it beyond that?

How do you accomplish that to a point where one can claim originality?

Is to "reassamble" that which was intended to deconstruct really to emulate?

Is emulation conducive to originality?

Isn't time reflective of change,moreso than feigned progress?

Punk was a moment of profound change at the time

exactly...

at the time

but its not as if it was the only one ever. There is no genre that didn't start that way. Let's talk about Elvis' hips, potheaded Beboppers, Mozart with too many notes, you can't expect movements (or words that denote movements) to remain perfectly distilled in a period of less than ten years with no overlap or corruption. Punk is no exception. If you stop looking for justice in something as crooked and greed-driven as the music industry, you might be happier.

Elvis's hips...it's over.

Beatnicks...it's over.

Hippies...it's over.

If a band came out today,dressed like Jefferson Airplane,recording songs that sound like Jefferson Airplane....

Made psychedelic videos for airplay and staged trippy concerts with gel screens backdrops...

Does that make them part of the hippie movement?

Does it allow them to lay any claim of association with the original hippie movement?

Or does that make them a band that likes Jefferson Airplane's music,drew influence from Jefferson Airplanes music and has chosen to recreate it sonically and visually 40 years later?

Is the rationale that they are exposing kids to the Woodstock generation and other hippie bands acceptable??

...or does a glaring truth become prevalent..that,after an inital excusable period of time of anointing the world with their take on the influences they are emulating...that it ultimately becomes redundant and...seemingly,for financial gain.

[nunchuck]

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy...................

I love BOTH Black Flag AND Green Day, wow, imagine that? is that allowed?!...........................

whos the real deal and who's not? WHAT IS THE REAL DEAL?

Some might say it was Crass, but unfortunately......they were fucking awful........

I would prefer to compare a song like "Basket Case"(at least musically) with something by The Buzzcocks? no?

Were they not infectiously poppy and melodic? no? were a lot of their early songs not about love and relationships?

were they on a independent? yes? OH SHIT, HANG ON, SO WERE GREEN DAY..............................

Damn a band for having ambition after slumming it for a few years hey? because of course, the pistols, clash (live at shea stadium anyone?) and the ramones weren't signed to a major were they?

BUT as you say, its just my opinion and im clearly not the authority.

Next you're gonna tell us about what's properly grunge and what's not, can't wait......

I look forward to your future opinions on Blues, Country, Classical, RnB and World peace.

(was shopping for plaid shirts in 1986 considered cool or uncool, beacuse if it was the latter then ill say 86 was the year of plaid for me, my man! )

[Guest deleted_19765]

Very simply, sound waves never die and you can't expect anything to simply end. Green Day's marketable version of Punk was inevitable and you don't have to buy their records. But they have the right to take their musical inheritance to the places they wish. They never asked for a piece of the original movement, only an ear for their take on it. To Green Day, the originals are influences, not peers. We all know that and none better than the band. Even their designation as Punk is more industry and consumer driven than a sought-after label on the band's part. You only have a problem if you subscribe to or see any use in genres, which are obviously of little use in characterizing the time and occurrences you have so vividly described. Unfortunately the umbrella term for it has survived and undergone various editions and extended uses. Punk travels like all words. I just don't think its anything worth fussing over.

I'm sure you could find old black men who heard Skip James and Charley Patton on plantations in 1930s Mississippi who were disgusted when this new electric guitar, drum pounding music from Chicago became known as Blues in the 1950s. How can Muddy Waters claim to be Blues with an electric guitar? I'm sure the regulars at Theresa's Lounge in Chicago felt the same way when Led Zeppelin came out and laid their claim to the extension of the tradition with this Blues Rock thing. But at the end of the day, most of it is going to be considered Blues in one form or another, whether its fair or not, and become collectivized in our minds. Its an inevitable process. But what matters more is not whether Robert Johnson and Muddy Waters and Stevie Ray Vaughan are all "Blues" or not, but the music those men created and the power it still has. No one can take that away, and if there's some magic missing from Green Day for you, then that should be enough whether or not they fit under some mostly useless four letter umbrella term. Its become very apparent that anything worth consumers' attention (which was a part of the original Punk movement, lest no one were there to hear it let alone argue about it on a message board thirty years later) becomes blown up and corrupted beyond recognition under some generalized term. How could you expect Punk to be so special as to escape this? I think you should treasure the spirit of the movement and the individuals who made it rather than worrying what became of one silly word and Green Day or whoever else happens to operate under it.

[Lithium]

Good post, Matt, I agree.

[dirtylenny]

I think you understand what I mean, more or less, I could have explained better myself. A metanarrative is any one explanation for everything, a bible, a be all-end all. Which seems to me what you would like Punk to be, although this is impossible.

Not everything, not remotely like everything, in fact you're closer to doing that with your seamless melding of everything altogether, i'm saying its a be all and end all explanation of one movement during a particular period of time that was meant, by its very nature to occupy a very small and concise space IN time...which it did. The fact that people wanna stretch it further into other bands/artists that, in action, defy some of the governing principles of it is kind of...a bit grating.

From what I understand of the movement, existing under some pre-generalized umbrella term isn't really what its about anyway. I want to know why you should care (especially with the history of the movement and what it meant in mind) what happened to one stupid four letter word that attempted to reign it all in and make it generalizable?

Firstly, i don't really consider myself to be punk or anything so my doing un-punk things is pretty understandable. And just because a label exists doesn't mean that it is sufficent. Its a noun, a name, i mean why call you Matthew? Does it encapsulate and address and do justice to every facet of your character intellect and the sum expierience of your life? No, it doesn't. I know the whole cute "away with names and labels" stance is a pretty popular one in some quarters but the fact is without names and labels we wouldn't have language. Maybe i'm still misunderstanding the question here. Of course there is something to be said for not slapping on a label to every slightest little atomic varying of one entity to the next but i think Punk as its come to be known has enough importance historically, musically and in every other way and enough difference to warrant at least an identity of its own, in the name of the people who strived for that shit, blood, guts, sweat and all. Its easy for me and you to sit here and wax intellectual and get all new millenium about it and be like "oh but its all the same if you look at it this or this or the other way" but quite frankly, tell that to the motherfuckers who sweated for it.

Hey, why have a different name for the holocaust, or the armenian genocide, or the ethnic cleansing in bosnia, its all genocide of a sort right? Fuck it, why give it a different? Of course, thats an extreme example but the principle applies, the principle of effectively devaluing certain efforts and entities and lives and creative works by lumping them all together, its just insulting. I don't like it anymore than people that go "Oh Elvis, he was the first punk, he was SOO punk, he upset the establishment" y'know there's some kinda truth in that but Elvis was not punk, that was HIS time and HIS life and HIS generation and it belongs there and within the parameters of where it began and ended. The same applies for people who try and devalue punk by...making it part of this lineage that began with Beethoven or Mozart and other renegade artists from fuck knows when. Sure there's a correlation but not enough to start robbing entire cross-sections of generations in history and just throwing them all in the same pile.

A lot of it just smacks of a bunch of new age kids that ain't got nothing of their own, no ideas of their own, latching onto some shit from way before to cover over the fact that they ain't got no fuckin ideas/identity of their own. Fucking make one, those guys did! And at least if you're gonna rob the bastards at least have the decency to then not subvert and distort and bastardise the sincerity of their principles by wiggling your butts on MTV and becoming part of the whole problem that the original motherfucker were rallying against.

I don't think there are misconceptions about its origins and about the people you really care about, I think its just been extended in a way you don't approve of.

The two things are almost identical, especially considering WHERE its been extended to UNLESS the extenders misconceptions are on purpose or they don't give a fuck where they take it in which case fuck them, which is pretty much what i've been getting at from the jump.

its a principle that won't be changing

Its also a principle (the whole interpretations are an open area) that has been taken as the only possible principle of the guiding principle of art which, when looked at with the right eyes, is all types of constrictive and screwed up. That exists but it ain't all that exists, there's another side too. Possibly many, so just crossing your legs, taking your shoes off and sitting in the middle of the open area of interpretation and WOW-ing at the possibilities strikes me as complacent and kind of...suffocating. How about taking an actual direction and going in it? Maybe thats what the fucking problem is nowadays, this whole "everything is open to interpretation" kinda leaves me with the idea that possibly, thats why none of it has any meaning anymore. People are too busy wrapped up in the comfort of THEIR interpretation. Now there's a danger of what i'm proposing becoming its own kind of constrictive (and possibly fascist) when taken to an extreme so there has to be this kinda middle ground in art otherwise...y'know...both poles are kinda...stifling?

Thats what i like about Punk, part of what i like about it, one of many things. It could be wild and weird and open to interpretation but at the same time, sometimes it was just flat out telling you shit. Shit to be understood, not shit for you to take home, smoke pot and emptily muse over...if it was like that it coulda never inspired people like it did.

What does Johnny Rotten's explanation have to do with what's on the record?

Its a direct reflection and explanation of it I would have thought? I mean...he was thinking it, he thought it up, he put it on paper...but YOU are gonna tell him what he ACTUALLY meant and thought? There's something verging on the fascist about that (its fascist day today, huh? )

Art is nothing without us, the audience.

Well its less than nothing without the artist. Artists (a great many or some at least) get their joy out of creating. An artist is always an artist, whether someones there or not to recieve and appreciate or dismiss their art. But an audience, by definition ceases to exist without art or whatever spectacle it is that they are taking part in so its sort of the other way around if you think about it. I'm not saying that art or the artist is above the audience but its certainly not a case of art being nothing without the audience. There have been artists before now that have lived and died without anybody appreciating their art or seeing or viewing it, that doesn't negate its existence though does it? Now delete the concept of art from the universe and human history...where does that leave the concept of an audience? Exactly, so its sort of a two way thing, certainly not a case of 'art is nothing without us, the audience'.

If there is ideology, then, it has to be fluid, depending not only on who the audience is but on what day, in what mood, where the experience occurs. How does this song make you feel today? Tomorrow? After fucking? On a train? This is why associations and feelings we pick up can make any work of art special. And its also why, in a very real way, songs can mean anything to us

Right, on one level...but just because deep down there are roots doesn't mean that the branches or the the trunk or the leaves should be ignored and not taken into account as a part of a tree. Same applies, i don't think you should totally forgo an artists intent and intentions in favor of the fact that you are allowed an interpretation. I mean you can if you want to but...that kind of attitude must make communication kinda difficult.

No way am I saying that everything is the same, or equal. I think there's a quality of possibility and fluidity to everything that can cause similar effects. What's out always becomes in. That doesn't mean all that's out throughout history is the same, or all that's in (identifying Rihanna with Patti Page makes some, but not total sense, just like Punks and Hippies.) I just mean that you can't expect some kind of perfect use of this one term, Punk.

I know you can't expect things to be perfect but at the same time i don't think you should accept things when they are fucked up man.

I don't think these principles that i'm expressing, specifically the ones in regard to Green Day are like...very difficult to understand, i think its a case in regards to some people of, "OKAY, i like Green Day but it plainly doesn't fit into the principles of this thing called punk, i shouldn't like em, i can't like em! But oooh i like em so much! OH! i got it!! i'll cook up a bullshit line of reasoning and see how far i can drag this shit hollow shit out! It'll be like i'm creating my own punk! Uh...i think i'll keep the same name too, why complicate things? OK, i feel better now, good and geared to go! YAY!! PUNK ROCK!!!"

because of course, the pistols, clash (live at shea stadium anyone?) and the ramones weren't signed to a major were they?

The Pistols signed to a major to effectively subvert the industry...i mean lets face it, they hardly made a mint from it, The Clash also yes, signed to a major and as soon as they got the lofty heights that it propels you to, they fell apart. It was partly because they were at Shea Stadium and their difficulty reconciling that with their roots that led to their collapse. Amongst other things. And The Ramones well, they never made no bones about wanting to be the biggest band in the world. But the point is these bands INSPIRED a bunch of kids to pick up guitars and go headlong into what made up the core of the movement and it was those kids that took on and consolidated certain principles that the first wave/generation inspired.

Edited July 7, 2009 by dirtylenny

[Guest deleted_19765]

I thought about leaving this one be, but what the hell.

I think you understand what I mean, more or less, I could have explained better myself. A metanarrative is any one explanation for everything, a bible, a be all-end all. Which seems to me what you would like Punk to be, although this is impossible.

Not everything, not remotely like everything, in fact you're closer to doing that with your seamless melding of everything altogether, i'm saying its a be all and end all explanation of one movement during a particular period of time that was meant, by its very nature to occupy a very small and concise space IN time...which it did. The fact that people wanna stretch it further into other bands/artists that, in action, defy some of the governing principles of it is kind of...a bit grating.

From what I understand of the movement, existing under some pre-generalized umbrella term isn't really what its about anyway. I want to know why you should care (especially with the history of the movement and what it meant in mind) what happened to one stupid four letter word that attempted to reign it all in and make it generalizable?

Firstly, i don't really consider myself to be punk or anything so my doing un-punk things is pretty understandable. And just because a label exists doesn't mean that it is sufficent. Its a noun, a name, i mean why call you Matthew? Does it encapsulate and address and do justice to every facet of your character intellect and the sum expierience of your life? No, it doesn't. I know the whole cute "away with names and labels" stance is a pretty popular one in some quarters but the fact is without names and labels we wouldn't have language. Maybe i'm still misunderstanding the question here. Of course there is something to be said for not slapping on a label to every slightest little atomic varying of one entity to the next but i think Punk as its come to be known has enough importance historically, musically and in every other way and enough difference to warrant at least an identity of its own, in the name of the people who strived for that shit, blood, guts, sweat and all. Its easy for me and you to sit here and wax intellectual and get all new millenium about it and be like "oh but its all the same if you look at it this or this or the other way" but quite frankly, tell that to the motherfuckers who sweated for it.

Hey, why have a different name for the holocaust, or the armenian genocide, or the ethnic cleansing in bosnia, its all genocide of a sort right? Fuck it, why give it a different? Of course, thats an extreme example but the principle applies, the principle of effectively devaluing certain efforts and entities and lives and creative works by lumping them all together, its just insulting. I don't like it anymore than people that go "Oh Elvis, he was the first punk, he was SOO punk, he upset the establishment" y'know there's some kinda truth in that but Elvis was not punk, that was HIS time and HIS life and HIS generation and it belongs there and within the parameters of where it began and ended. The same applies for people who try and devalue punk by...making it part of this lineage that began with Beethoven or Mozart and other renegade artists from fuck knows when. Sure there's a correlation but not enough to start robbing entire cross-sections of generations in history and just throwing them all in the same pile.

A lot of it just smacks of a bunch of new age kids that ain't got nothing of their own, no ideas of their own, latching onto some shit from way before to cover over the fact that they ain't got no fuckin ideas/identity of their own. Fucking make one, those guys did! And at least if you're gonna rob the bastards at least have the decency to then not subvert and distort and bastardise the sincerity of their principles by wiggling your butts on MTV and becoming part of the whole problem that the original motherfucker were rallying against.

I don't think there are misconceptions about its origins and about the people you really care about, I think its just been extended in a way you don't approve of.

The two things are almost identical, especially considering WHERE its been extended to UNLESS the extenders misconceptions are on purpose or they don't give a fuck where they take it in which case fuck them, which is pretty much what i've been getting at from the jump.

its a principle that won't be changing

Its also a principle (the whole interpretations are an open area) that has been taken as the only possible principle of the guiding principle of art which, when looked at with the right eyes, is all types of constrictive and screwed up. That exists but it ain't all that exists, there's another side too. Possibly many, so just crossing your legs, taking your shoes off and sitting in the middle of the open area of interpretation and WOW-ing at the possibilities strikes me as complacent and kind of...suffocating. How about taking an actual direction and going in it? Maybe thats what the fucking problem is nowadays, this whole "everything is open to interpretation" kinda leaves me with the idea that possibly, thats why none of it has any meaning anymore. People are too busy wrapped up in the comfort of THEIR interpretation. Now there's a danger of what i'm proposing becoming its own kind of constrictive (and possibly fascist) when taken to an extreme so there has to be this kinda middle ground in art otherwise...y'know...both poles are kinda...stifling?

Thats what i like about Punk, part of what i like about it, one of many things. It could be wild and weird and open to interpretation but at the same time, sometimes it was just flat out telling you shit. Shit to be understood, not shit for you to take home, smoke pot and emptily muse over...if it was like that it coulda never inspired people like it did.

What does Johnny Rotten's explanation have to do with what's on the record?

Its a direct reflection and explanation of it I would have thought? I mean...he was thinking it, he thought it up, he put it on paper...but YOU are gonna tell him what he ACTUALLY meant and thought? There's something verging on the fascist about that (its fascist day today, huh? )

Art is nothing without us, the audience.

Well its less than nothing without the artist. Artists (a great many or some at least) get their joy out of creating. An artist is always an artist, whether someones there or not to recieve and appreciate or dismiss their art. But an audience, by definition ceases to exist without art or whatever spectacle it is that they are taking part in so its sort of the other way around if you think about it. I'm not saying that art or the artist is above the audience but its certainly not a case of art being nothing without the audience. There have been artists before now that have lived and died without anybody appreciating their art or seeing or viewing it, that doesn't negate its existence though does it? Now delete the concept of art from the universe and human history...where does that leave the concept of an audience? Exactly, so its sort of a two way thing, certainly not a case of 'art is nothing without us, the audience'.

If there is ideology, then, it has to be fluid, depending not only on who the audience is but on what day, in what mood, where the experience occurs. How does this song make you feel today? Tomorrow? After fucking? On a train? This is why associations and feelings we pick up can make any work of art special. And its also why, in a very real way, songs can mean anything to us

Right, on one level...but just because deep down there are roots doesn't mean that the branches or the the trunk or the leaves should be ignored and not taken into account as a part of a tree. Same applies, i don't think you should totally forgo an artists intent and intentions in favor of the fact that you are allowed an interpretation. I mean you can if you want to but...that kind of attitude must make communication kinda difficult.

No way am I saying that everything is the same, or equal. I think there's a quality of possibility and fluidity to everything that can cause similar effects. What's out always becomes in. That doesn't mean all that's out throughout history is the same, or all that's in (identifying Rihanna with Patti Page makes some, but not total sense, just like Punks and Hippies.) I just mean that you can't expect some kind of perfect use of this one term, Punk.

I know you can't expect things to be perfect but at the same time i don't think you should accept things when they are fucked up man.

I don't think these principles that i'm expressing, specifically the ones in regard to Green Day are like...very difficult to understand, i think its a case in regards to some people of, "OKAY, i like Green Day but it plainly doesn't fit into the principles of this thing called punk, i shouldn't like em, i can't like em! But oooh i like em so much! OH! i got it!! i'll cook up a bullshit line of reasoning and see how far i can drag this shit hollow shit out! It'll be like i'm creating my own punk! Uh...i think i'll keep the same name too, why complicate things? OK, i feel better now, good and geared to go! YAY!! PUNK ROCK!!!"

because of course, the pistols, clash (live at shea stadium anyone?) and the ramones weren't signed to a major were they?

The Pistols signed to a major to effectively subvert the industry...i mean lets face it, they hardly made a mint from it, The Clash also yes, signed to a major and as soon as they got the lofty heights that it propels you to, they fell apart. It was partly because they were at Shea Stadium and their difficulty reconciling that with their roots that led to their collapse. Amongst other things. And The Ramones well, they never made no bones about wanting to be the biggest band in the world. But the point is these bands INSPIRED a bunch of kids to pick up guitars and go headlong into what made up the core of the movement and it was those kids that took on and consolidated certain principles that the first wave/generation inspired.

Are there clear governing principles on Punk? Like you said, The Ramones "never made no bones about wanting to be the biggest band in the world," there are aspects of the original Punk movement that are aligned with what you lionize but its not entirely uniform. Keeping your words in mind, Green Day might be achieving what The Ramones sought to do and continuing "Punk" (if we agree that it means something to The Ramones) better than anyone else. And just like the movement could not be encapsulated in a few years, the various aspects of it are evidenced in different places, by the true non-corporate, indie bands that attempt to do something dangerous and unique as well as those who want to inspire kids through maximum exposure, like Green Day, in this line of thought.

Punk is obviously a huge term at this point. Look at the genres on this page. The whole endeavor is utterly ridiculous of course. But Punk has apparently survived as an umbrella term and is now comprised of several directions. There is no confusion about what it originally meant or who created it anymore than there is confusion between Elvis and Metallica, and I don't point this out to claim that everything is the same, I can't say that enough times. I only mean that it should matter less to you what became of the word than it does, unless the word itself is all it was worth in the first place. Were those men and women really fighting for "Punk" itself? Four letters? From what I know about the movement it doesn't deserve one word to designate it all anymore than Green Day deserves the same word.

Of course we have to work between the poles on interpretation, but there's no arguing that it is open. This isn't the place to take direction, but obviously the only benefit of viewing interpretation as open is busting into new rooms, going all the way into a new direction, exploring everything that can be found to the utmost. That view doesn't tend towards the general and non-specific any more than a more closed view. And of course we need artists. Art is enjoyed in a dynamic process between artist and audience. You need a male and a female to make a baby, its a complementary relationship in the same way when we talk about Art, with variability on both sides (although this is a point very much not worth arguing about.)