Punks

[cgannon64]

If I see one more kid my age wearing a leather jacket with safety pins and "The Exploited" scrawled on the back...

What do you think of punk?

EDIT: Its a two-part poll, but that should be obvious.

 

[Double Barrel]

When rebellion can be bought at The Gap, it becomes nothing but commercial poop.

I think "anarchists" and "anti-capitalists" making money and selling their rebel anthems to Burger King are hilarious. What a bunch of poop-monsters, 'eh?

Now you've got idiot suburban teenagers dressing like inner city gang members. Do they realize how STUPID they look to the rest of us? Not to mention just plain artificle. Real individualistic, doofus'!!

 

[naervod]

I would consider myselfa punk, not in the fashion sense, but in terms of the music I listen to and my attitude to certain aspects of our government and culture. I think older punk is the best, and some new punk is cool, but now it seems like punk is becoming just a trend...

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

When I think of the word "punk" I don't think of the cliquish style people seem to associate it with, but rather I think of "thugs", who could be of any "clique" or style. The guy who steals a laptop computer for the fun of it is a "punk" and damn well better be feeling lucky, while the person that dresses all outlandishly, but is a "good" person, and is just making a fashion statement is not a punk in my opinion.

When I say someone is a "punk" I am most likely saying that they are slimy, or cowardly, or deserve a beating. Whereas when I see someone dressed up like some sort of an insect, I consider them to be confused about identity, but really having nothing to do with a "punkish" character, of which I tend to abhor.

 

[Archer 007]

Punks is just another stupid trend.

 

[Sims2789]

the punks at my school think they're tough just because they wear underarmor with saftery-pins on them, but most of them are really cowards. some of them are actually normal, but just dress diferently. thats just how they express themselves, so i'm fine with it.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Damn both of you beat me, I wanted to be the first to reply. I mostly agree with Double Barrel. What you seem to consider punk, has little to do with what is traditionally considered a punk. Although, I don't view "rebels" as punks, as it doesn't directly deal with their character. There can be rebel "punks" and conformist "punks".

 

[Matrix]

I'm not a punk, but they are cool.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by sims2789
the punks at my school think they're tough just because they wear underarmor with saftery-pins on them, but most of them are really cowards. some of them are actually normal, but just dress diferently. thats just how they express themselves, so i'm fine with it.

Precisely. The style is separate from the character description that is "punk".

 

[cgannon64]

Actually any form of punk fashion is hypocritical. How can you be nonconformist when you dress like everyone else?

When a major piece of punk fashion is manufactured by a major company (I'm thinking of those old Converses some punks wear) its really not cool any more...

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

The word "punk" does not relate to conformism/non-conformism, it was just more or less pinned their by those who felt that non-conformists were mostly punks.

 

[Loaf Warden]

In the context cgannon is using it, 'punk' is not a generic term like 'thug'. It has a definite meaning in rock and roll history, that is, one who follows the beliefs of the punk rockers and listens to, or plays, their music.

I've never liked punk, myself. But then, I don't much care for anarchy or personal violence. I regard the whole movement as childish and thoroughly unrealistic, like the earlier hippie movement.

But at least the hippies made great music. The punks couldn't even bother to do that.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Not to mention that the intentions of the hippies were mostly positive, even if they were somewhat misguided at times. The punk movement is mostly just boring, as it is people who know little about what they argue, yet "know it the loudest".

 

[Immortal]

"I was punk but not anymore"
"Punk was never cool and still isn't"

In high school I was kind of treading the line between "punk" and goth-punk depending on my mood. Today's Avril Lavigne/Simple Plan cookie-cutter angst music is NOT the punk music I listen to. Neither is good Charlotte, but I like the quote so I use it in my signature, I in-fact HATE Good Charlotte. Though i will say that Dropkick Murphys is an awesome band, as well as the mad caddies, but they aren't nearly as popular as the MTV punk acts out there Im talking about.

The stylized Quicksilver industries/Avril Lavigne "punk & skater half-pants and nylons on arms" is the bastard child of what "punk style" once was.

When I see some kid wearing studded leather and patchwork jeans, it gives me a laugh since I was, and still am that kid, somewhere down there. But to me, being a punk was never about politics, anger, or fashion. It was just about being yourself, bloddied in the pit or listening to Jello Biafra on a walkman. It wasn't about dressing to be cool or trendy, it was about being yourself, which is why I hate punk today.

The stuff I loved is still there, underneath the industry built teeny-bopper rock music I see on tv, but to find it you have to go to places like the multicultural centre in Calgary when it still had friday night shows that went for hours. Even then, the multi is closed down now from what I've been told by my old friends. To make way for a failed urban renewal project.

 

[sysyphus]

I don't look the part anymore, but have always been a punk.

I have no problem with teenagers today wearing Exploited shirts (or other punk paraphernalia), why should I oppose it? I'm glad that punk is still alive.

I mean, I was a teenager in the mid-80s, long after Sid took his final hit, and I won't have some **** tell me I'm any less punk simply because i was born 8 odd years later than him.

Note, that's not to say I qulaify the likes of of Avril Lavigne or Blink182 as punk.

 

[WildFire]

Punks are idiots who are sheep and follow the current trend because they are vulnerable to other people's remarks and have no self esteem.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by WildFire
Punks are idiots who are sheep and follow the current trend because they are vulnerable to other people's remarks and have no self esteem.

Many of them, yes. If they actually had something unique within them, they would not have to wear superficial slogans everywhere. It is funny when I go to some of them (I look about as regular as can be), and start spewing out some of my knowledge about historic goths and "sadists", and most of them look like they are about to vomit, as they know nothing about what they speak. Most are just superficial teenagers like everyone else, that have decided that chains "look cooler", than bonnets.(or whatever the hell kids wear these days). It is hilarious to play with their minds.

 

[aaminion00]

Ok, this is getting just plain stupid. Time to step in and defend the... err... good name of punk. First to adress the questions.

Are you a punk?

No. I listen mostly to punk rock (hell, I'm listening to the Sex Pistols right now), own the cd's, and consider it my favorite musical genre. I know a lot about it's origins, the various political stances, and a lot of my friends listen to it too. There are some people I know who do consider me a punk because of these things, but I don't. To me, punk nowadays implies some idiot 13 year old kid living in the suburbs dying his hair red and walking around in leather. I personally think that's stupid. There's a whole clique of people at my school who listen to the nu metal and punk, but besides for a few good people, none of them are my friends. Not to say they're my enemies, but I simply don't fit with that group even though I listen to the same music as they do. So I listen to punk rock... why should I go around wasting money on clothing. As cgannon said, it defeats the purpose of being unique that punk rock promoted. My personal philosophy is that the point of not giving a **** is not giving a **** about not giving a ****.

Is Punk Cool?

Yeah I think it's cool, but it all depends on what you make of it. I've seen a bunch of dumb defenitions of it, both written and acted out by ****ty bands that I think are the stupidest thing I've ever seen (look at noFX for example). Then there's the punk that fits my view of what it is and I like. In my opinion, punk is basically being yourself and standing up for what you believe in.

Now on to what the rest of you said.

Originally posted by Double Barrel

Now you've got idiot suburban teenagers dressing like inner city gang members. Do they realize how STUPID they look to the rest of us? Not to mention just plain artificle. Real individualistic, doofus'!!

I agree that what you describe is artificial, but since when was punk the genre that dressed up like inner city gang members. You're thinking of the "ghetto" stereotype, but either way, trying to look like you're from some rouch place when you live in the suburbs is not new, and it certainly isn't unique, or even exceptionally notable, to punk rock.

Originally posted by SobieskiII

When I think of the word "punk" I don't think of the cliquish style people seem to associate it with, but rather I think of "thugs", who could be of any "clique" or style. The guy who steals a laptop computer for the fun of it is a "punk" and damn well better be feeling lucky, while the person that dresses all outlandishly, but is a "good" person, and is just making a fashion statement is not a punk in my opinion.

No need to give us the dictionary defenition, that's just stupid. The poll and question is specifically talking about a musical genre and it's fans that have played a big part in rock and roll history, not about what people in the 1800's thought of it.

Originally posted by Archer_007

Punks is just another stupid trend.

Except that it's been around for a few decades now. Maybe in the long term, but when you look at how long it's been around and part of pop-culture compared to what one would normally consider trends, it's anything but.

Originally posted by Sobieski II

Damn both of you beat me, I wanted to be the first to reply. I mostly agree with Double Barrel. What you seem to consider punk, has little to do with what is traditionally considered a punk.

Perhaps because they're two different things

Originally posted by Loaf Warden


I've never liked punk, myself. But then, I don't much care for anarchy or personal violence.

This just narrows punk down to a few musicians, which is in my opinion wrong. As for anarchy, it has nothing to do with punk. Johnny Rotten only used anarchist because it rhymed with antichrist.

Originally posted by Loaf Warden


I regard the whole movement as childish and thoroughly unrealistic, like the earlier hippie movement.

What's so childish and unrealistic about Minor Threat or some of the Clash' political songs?

Originally posted by Loaf Warden


But at least the hippies made great music. The punks couldn't even bother to do that.

That all depends on your musical taste. Most agree that London Calling for example is one of the top 20 or so rock cd's of all time. Punk also helped influence countless artists and started a new trend in music that was opposite the aging pschadelic hippie garbage of the mid 70's.

Originally posted by Sobieski II


The punk movement is mostly just boring, as it is people who know little about what they argue, yet "know it the loudest".

And what DO "they" argue? There's no one ideology in punk rock. Liberalism, Conservativism, Totalitarianism, and various non-political ideologies have been present throughout the history of the sub-genre.

 

[Loaf Warden]

Originally posted by aaminion00
My personal philosophy is that the point of not giving a **** is not giving a **** about not giving a ****.

I love it. That's the best way to put it I've ever seen.

This just narrows punk down to a few musicians, which is in my opinion wrong. As for anarchy, it has nothing to do with punk. Johnny Rotten only used anarchist because it rhymed with antichrist.

I've always been given to understand that anarchy was a major tenet of punk philosophy, at least for the hard-core punks of the 70s.

What's so childish and unrealistic about Minor Threat or some of the Clash' political songs?

I'm not familiar with their works, so I couldn't tell you how I'd feel about their politics. I was mainly referring to ideas like anarchy when I said "childish and unrealistic". Again, think Johnny Rotten. Part of the problem with punk, for me, is that I've liked so little of what I've heard, there's been very little incentive for me to seek out more. I'll be the first to admit that Johnny Rotten is probably not the be-all and end-all of punk rock. But he's so much more high-profile than a lot of the others, that to a non-punker like me, he sort of takes over the perception and leads me to think of him when I hear the phrase 'punk rock'.

That all depends on your musical taste. Most agree that London Calling for example is one of the top 20 or so rock cd's of all time. Punk also helped influence countless artists and started a new trend in music that was opposite the aging pschadelic hippie garbage of the mid 70's.

Of course is depends on your musical taste. Any statement about the quality of any music is a matter of taste. Your own statement about hippie garbage was an expression of taste. I'm not talking about influence, I'm talking about my own opinion of the music. I like melody and harmony in my music, and the hippies (or some of them, anyway) were masters of that. All the punk I've heard has downplayed melody and harmony in favor of speed and aggression. Most (though not all) of the punk I've heard has been abrasive and atonal, and I personally don't care for that. It doesn't suit my taste.

 

[aaminion00]

Originally posted by Loaf Warden


I love it. That's the best way to put it I've ever seen.

Thank you!

Originally posted by Loaf Warden


I'm not familiar with their works, so I couldn't tell you how I'd feel about their politics. I was mainly referring to ideas like anarchy when I said "childish and unrealistic". Again, think Johnny Rotten. Part of the problem with punk, for me, is that I've liked so little of what I've heard, there's been very little incentive for me to seek out more. I'll be the first to admit that Johnny Rotten is probably not the be-all and end-all of punk rock. But he's so much more high-profile than a lot of the others, that to a non-punker like me, he sort of takes over the perception and leads me to think of him when I hear the phrase 'punk rock'.

Yeah I understand, but I think Minor Threat is a perfect example of how diverse opinions in punk rock can be. Minor Threat was one of the bands in the straight edge movement, which basically shouted a resounding no to alcohol and drugs, something seemingly unheard of from mainstream rock and roll. Here are the lyrics from the song of the same name:

"Straight Edge" - Minor Threat

I'm a person just like you
But I've got better things to do
Than sit around and **** my head
Hang out with the living dead
Snort white **** up my nose
Pass out at the shows
I don't even think about speed
That's something I just don't need

I've got the straight edge

I'm a person just like you
But I've got better things to do
Than sit around and smoke dope
'Cause I know I can cope
Laugh at the thought of eating ludes
Laugh at the thought of sniffing glue
Always gonna keep in touch
Never want to use a crutch

I've got the straight edge