[trepanne]

Pretty much. Malcom McLaren's svengali ambitions notwithstanding, commercialism ain't punk.

The real germ of punk rock was pretty close to "Fuck Thatcher's England and Reagan's America, and all they stand for".

Here's some actual punk rockers participating in the music industry...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm0t99WmSCM

[iamben]

Wouldn't that literally mean that as soon as you're successful/make money you're not a punk anymore? I guess you could give it away, but assuming you're not entirely pursuing the cash, what does it matter?

I mean Jello's done ok, right? And I don't think anyone would argue Ian MacKaye or Brett Gurewitz weren't punk and they've got old and made a fair amount of cash...

[dfxm12]

I'm not totally sure that follows. In reference to Malcom McLaren, he specifically put together a band, and named it the Sex Pistols and dressed them to market his clothing store (called Sex). The band was formed to sell the NY punk scene to London. Take from that what you may.

Outside of a music genre, punk existed as a counter culture for a number of people who couldn't fit in or thrive in the monocultralism of the late 70s-80s. Punk isn't about a level of money or success. It's about contributing to counter culture rather than the monoculture! When that monoculture ceased to exist, the counter culture that was punk slowly splintered and evolved as well (but I think that's another topic altogether).

Anyway, to relate this back to Green Day, shortly after leaving their indie record label, they changed their sound (so they were no longer punk as a genre - compare them and how they evolved to another Berkeley band like Fifteen) and played for the mainstream crowd (so they were no longer punk as a counter culture).

Now, to relate this to MRR, and possibly explain why people care about the "punk" label, Tim Yo's attitude around once punk bands going mainstream certainly wasn't the best, and he did a lot to put forward this "punker than thou" type of image/attitude that (I think) hurt the punk counter culture in the long run. Most people really didn't (or wouldn't) care, but Tim did and was popular as the tastemaker of punk.

[scott_s]

Fifteen! The album "Lucky" was a revelation to me.

[trepanne]

"Wouldn't that literally mean that as soon as you're successful/make money you're not a punk anymore?"

That school of thought was definitely well-represented in the punk scene, although I don't subscribe to it. There was a strong streak of self-destructiveness in punk.

The money itself isn't really the point, it's more like what you do to get it. Punk was about DIY, staying raw & real. Graduating from independent labels & playing for the scene into major labels, college radio, and playing for the masses is pretty much the opposite of that. That's when Green Day moved on from their roots.

I'm not hating on them; I'd very likely have done the same thing in their shoes. It's just not punk.

OTOH, DKs, Minor Threat, Bad Religion... their members continued to make their way singing that Sinatra song (although happily not ODing on smack). They're a good example of how to do it.

[iamben]

Haha, I think we're going to end up arguing the same point and I'd strongly guess that the whole scene has / had an much of an impact on your life as it has on mine...

I'm pretty much with you. I've got very little time for the punker than thou crowd, but I think it's a pretty interesting area to discuss. I mean, if you're doing something unpopular and it becomes popular and you keep doing it - are you not 'punk' anymore? Equally, if you're doing exactly what the hell you want without worrying about it being a commercial success or not, isn't that about as raw and real as it gets?

[trepanne]

"Equally, if you're doing exactly what the hell you want without worrying about it being a commercial success or not, isn't that about as raw and real as it gets?"

Punk had specific ideas about what qualified as raw/real, and it was a lot closer to "shock the bourgeousie" than to "raising capital to create web apps". We can't claim everything we like under the banner of punk, strictly speaking. If you're not within spitting distance of someone disrespecting an authority figure, how is it punk?

But sure, the core ideas underlying punk are far more universal than punk rock itself. I've known people who claim Jesus as a punk. There's an argument to be made!

Just to draw some semantic boundaries as I see it:

Meat Puppets I - straight punk Meat Puppets II - getting tired of the limitations of hardcore. Half punk, half not. Up On the Sun - not punk. Closer in spirit to R.W. Emerson than "Jesus Entering from the Rear".

Same guys, same attitude, kept it real, grew out of punk.

Modern Lovers - punk before punk was even a thing (like, say, the Undertones). Jonathan Richman - not punk. Same guy, pretty much the same attitude, grew out of punk.

In fact Jonathan's got a very charming bit about growing out of punk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_SYDA-jVPg

Fun to reminisce. Anyway, back to the 21st century and the bourgeouis concerns that occupy my sellout life (having failed to live fast and die young).

[disjhshava]

I saw Jello spinning recently at a fetish party at a gay bar. Punk enough for me.