|
|
|
|
|
by trepanne
2460 days ago
|
|
"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. |
|
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?