|
|
|
|
|
|
by iamben
2460 days ago
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
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).