101 reasons why punk sucks

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (190 of them)

However, grime.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:06 (6 years ago) Permalink

I mean the problem is that we can't let go of the idea that rebelling has something to do with the t-shirt you wear and the CDs you buy, that political resistance should come with fashion and sex-appeal. This was ALWAYS a capitalist idea, it just took a couple of decades for most people to realize it.

Meanwhile people are busy rebelling in all kinds of ways that have nothing to do with what body part they pierce.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

For example, the grime movement.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:09 (6 years ago) Permalink

i think the problem with our generation is there is no public forums to discuss our problems.

― artdamages, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:11 (6 years ago) Permalink

Do I post that we're too busy talking shit about it online to be OUT RIOTING or is that predictable?

― Scik Mouthy, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

Neil Fontaine, Terry Winters and The Mechanic to thread.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

If we take Punk as a category that gets filled in, it could be argued that the current mainstream embodiment of Punk is Emo. Is Emo a particularly rebellious form of music? Yes and no I suppose. It's rebellious because:

Parents don't understand it
There's a lot of self-loathing involved (self harm/anorexia)
The kids wear daft clothes

It's not rebellious because:

It hasn't really got a political agenda, unlike most other forms of Punk
At least they're beating themselves up and not the po-lice
The kids wear daft clothes, but this has to be the first time I've seen middle-class well brought up under 16s with lip-piercings, ear tubes, tattoos, expensive clothes and where their parents seem fine with all that.

― the next grozart, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

remember when the clash started that riot? they really changed things for the better. i think people weren't on the dole so much after that. or else more people were on the dole. which ever is good, i forget. they really changed the world though with their music.

― artdamages, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:16 (6 years ago) Permalink

Hate to disillusion you, but the Clash never started any riots.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:17 (6 years ago) Permalink

uhhhhhh White Riot, hello???

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:18 (6 years ago) Permalink

― artdamages, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:18 (6 years ago) Permalink

Who is artdamages and why is he trying to destroy this thread with the usual ILX-brand snarky sarcasm, which has thus far been absent?

― Scik Mouthy, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think you'll find "White Riot" was the title of a song, rather than a riot, as such.

Coxhill, Creme or Tolhurst?

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

It hasn't really got a political agenda, unlike most other forms of Punk

Yea I remember the ska punk aktion of 97 mannnnn

― JW, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:22 (6 years ago) Permalink

no the Clash actually had a riot in the studio when they recorded White Riot.

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

who the fuck cares who i am. i don't have to have name recognition to post on ILM.

you started a thread about how you hate an entire genre because it is the most establishment and capitalist of all genres. was i supposed to take that seriously and do a thousand word post about how i disagree?

― artdamages, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

most

who the fuck listened to ska-punk anyway. oh yeah, everyone who wasn't on ilx.

~~wasn't~~ isn't

― the next grozart, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

the clash seem to have had quite an effect on (now) middle aged british trade unionists.

― acrobat, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:26 (6 years ago) Permalink

i still think it's mean that the clash didn't invite the mekons to their riot

― ghost rider, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:28 (6 years ago) Permalink

when i was rioting in the streets where were you

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:28 (6 years ago) Permalink

when i was eating steak and kidney pie where where you

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:28 (6 years ago) Permalink

hey man there was no time to be considerate in 77

― pretzel walrus, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:29 (6 years ago) Permalink

everyone, just Stay Free okay?

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:29 (6 years ago) Permalink

who the fuck cares who i am. i don't have to have name recognition to post on ILM.

you started a thread about how you hate an entire genre because it is the most establishment and capitalist of all genres. was i supposed to take that seriously and do a thousand word post about how i disagree?

― Scik Mouthy, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:30 (6 years ago) Permalink

sly stone really jumped the gun on that one, i mean he musta been hanging around rioting by himself for like six years before the clash even got there.

― ghost rider, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:30 (6 years ago) Permalink

And then Atari Teenage Riot turned up and were all "Huh?"

― the next grozart, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

That's not what the thread's about if you've read any of it, and yes, I would much have preferred it if you had taken some time to put together some reasoned points rather than surfing in and acting like a total fucking prick in the midst of what has been a preety interesting discussion.

-- Scik Mouthy, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:30 (7 minutes ago)

ok well i most of the thread and wasn't surprised to find it interesting at all.

i think genres and movements in art all have life cycles and don't find it particularly surprising that punk and old punks would become the establishment cuz they are old. i also don't understand what you mean when you say punk is or became capitalist. what else would it be? wasn't punk pretty entrepreneurial from the start? etc.

― artdamages, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

see i can be literate. i tried.

― artdamages, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think Scik Mouthy's more annoyed with the fact that since Punk broke it's become this de facto aesthetic that has to be adhered to to be cool. I.e. DIY, anti-establishment, anti-intellectualism, pro-simplification, conservative sound is cool. Excessive production, intellectual lyrics, prog guitar solos, weird instruments etc aren't seen as cool.

― the next grozart, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:51 (6 years ago) Permalink

That's what I find interesting; the juxtaposition of punk being both entrepreneurial from the start, and also anti-establishment. Isn't the biggest and most insideous establishment, the most dehumanising one, capitalism? Obviously we're past overthrowing it (or are we just saying that because rebellion's been co-opted, as suggested?), but can and does punk work within it (Fugazi, Dischord, etcetera) and if it does, and is successful at that (where success = not just financial solvency and growth but the maintenance of some level of idealism within that), why is the mainstream media's projection of punk, and I'm thinking of comfortable British 40&50-something music journalists who would have considered themselves radical and revolutionary, etcetera, in their punk youths, now so content to write columns for The Times or bad lad-lit. or self-indulgent books about their relationship with Kylie Minogue? How is that punk? Do these people still self-identify as punks? They seem to. How is that possible?

I admit I watched The Edukators and read some Debord and had a weird dream prior to starting this thread!

I am not anti-punk (the thing about it being predictable and unimaginitive is a red-herring, and refers to the musical signifieds that "punk" has come to represent, not a lot of the actual music that stems outwards from that); I'm just intrigued by these hypocricies and developments and wanted to start a thread with a hook to get people in.

Double x-post.

― Scik Mouthy, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:52 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, grozart OTM. (Who are you, too? I lost track of everyone in nu-ILX.)

― Scik Mouthy, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

For all its revolution punk strikes me as the most capitalist of genres these days

you guys seem to be discussing british punk more than american, but i don't find this to be true today in america at all...most of the hardcore scene, at least here in minneapolis is really not looking to engage the mainstream at all...most "big" punk shows don't even happen in "proper" venues, it's mostly kids running house basement shows or weird art collective spaces...lots of times promoted through this bookstore called Arise! which sells leftie propaganda, etc etc...lots of CD-R, handmade artwork or still 7 inches...we have a non-profit store here called Extreme Noise that runs with all volunteer workers.

I have a lot to say about this, but I'm not sure I have time to write it out, and also I guess my viewpoint is way too Midwester and American for what you're talking about on this thread.

But, to be brief, punk means a lot to me, not because I'm still listening exclusively to like Dag Nasty or Circle Jerks records, but because it made me feel like making music was something accessible to me on a small, local level and that I didn't need to be a "professional" musician to do it. All of my friends (which is a lot) that play music here would agree, even if now they are doing techno music, or noise rock, or folk, or new wave, or weird math metal, etc etc.

I hate stupid crappy "street punk" junk as much as anyone, like shit like this:

http://www.angelcityoutcasts.com/

So...I guess I'm not going to be brief now, but I know a lot "first gen" older punk dudes here and they are by no means as stereotypically narrow in their tastes as this thread seems to claim...the older ones were already into Bowie and Alice Cooper etc etc before punk, and we often talk about weird obscuro 70s rock like Sir Lord Baltimore, Edgar Broughton, etc....they all seem to like reggae and synth pop and prog and (esp) krautrock and jazz and free jazz..

I guess I don't really know who people are talking about on this thread, because there's been some good discussion but none of it really rings true for me, at all. There are those knucklehead Social D worshipping dudes but they are a small, small crowd.

AND...there's also a ton of great stuff being made to day that does fall under the hard, fast, loud more trad punk or hardcore traditions.

people have brought up a ton of it on my Rolling Punk thread, which I'd encourage people to check out and see what's going on. It might surprise you.

― M@tt He1ges0n, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

OTM. i think we are talking about a mythical punk strawman and old punk in england neither of which i am familiar with.

<i>I think Scik Mouthy's more annoyed with the fact that since Punk broke it's become this de facto aesthetic that has to be adhered to to be cool. I.e. DIY, anti-establishment, anti-intellectualism, pro-simplification, conservative sound is cool</i>

my point still stands. this always happens w/everything.

<i>Excessive production, intellectual lyrics, prog guitar solos, weird instruments etc aren't seen as cool.</i>

yeah, but theres always been punks who thought this stuff was cool, too. didn't this all go down like the minute after punk happened?

sniffin glue--->alternative TV.

are sweeping generalizations are cool?

― artdamages, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:00 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think American and UK punk are totally different, but equally interesting. I think the geographical scale of the US means that things can exist on microcosmic levels, and that kind of local punk community thing you describe, people making their own music outside the business, is possible in a way it kind of isn't over here. It tries, but ultimately towns and cities are so small and so close and the country physically and population-wise so much smaller than the US that anything getting any kind of attention or making waves is suddenly national. Arctic Monkeys!

― Scik Mouthy, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:01 (6 years ago) Permalink

you guys didn't have a hardcore equivalent (unless you count 'ardkore i guess?). i will never understand british people.

― artdamages, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

Man, British music is so fucked up right now compared to the states it makes me sick. Matt's post makes me wonder what the fuck we're all doing lauding it over all the bullshit that comes out in the UK right now.

― the next grozart, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

or post punk. i guess that and hardcore officially ended around the same time. but yeah, different. (xpost)

― artdamages, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:04 (6 years ago) Permalink

hardcore exists in england nick! small scenes which have fuck all to do with 77 style mythologising.

― acrobat, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:04 (6 years ago) Permalink

Like I say, people have tried, but anything we have had has been filtered through from America, and our cultures and landscapes are so different it can't work in any comparable way.

Triple X.

― Scik Mouthy, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:04 (6 years ago) Permalink

Where, Paul?! I don't see them! I don't hear about them. Touches, yes, but not much.

It just struck me that a comparable might be something like the F-ire collective - Acoustic Ladyland, Polar Bear, Fulborn Teversham, etcetera.

― Scik Mouthy, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:06 (6 years ago) Permalink

uh also huge differences in perceptions and realities of enterpenurialism and capitalism in england and us (small biz=/capitalism or at least Capitalism or Late Capitalism or whatever). im really not into talking about it and being all serious and have to eat lunch now.

― artdamages, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:06 (6 years ago) Permalink

Well I'm about to leave work to go home, so there we go...

― Scik Mouthy, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

Nick: The Exploited, Discharge, GBH. We have metalcore nowadays instead. That's a good genre.

― Dom Passantino, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:09 (6 years ago) Permalink

most major towns have a DIY scene. i don't think you'd like the music but it's there. swygart knows people in leeds who are very into it all and yes it is very political, though it seems a bit libertarian for my tastes.

― acrobat, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

most

who the fuck listened to ska-punk anyway. oh yeah, everyone who wasn't on ilx.

wasn't isn't

-- the next grozart, Wednesday, April 18, 2007 11:25 AM (57 minutes ago)

Dear sir,

Please list forms of punk and their political agendas

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:34 (6 years ago) Permalink

That's what I find interesting; the juxtaposition of punk being both entrepreneurial from the start, and also anti-establishment.

don't forget capitalism itself was pretty anti-establishment. by 1977 that establishment had largely been subsumed, but its image, its standing, its illusion, still loomed large. the deferent society! this was not a facet of capitalism, but internalized trappings of the establishment...know your place.

punk was against all this

so was capitalism. the deferent society...is not good for business!

― frankie driscoll, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:41 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'm thinking of comfortable British 40&50-something music journalists who would have considered themselves radical and revolutionary, etcetera, in their punk youths, now so content to write columns for The Times or bad lad-lit. or self-indulgent books about their relationship with Kylie Minogue? How is that punk?

As a 40&50-something who self identified as a punk in 77 let me explain the above phenomenon. These people are arseholes. Within their strident self-aggrandizement they may include their life-style choices as part of their definition of punk.

You don't need to include writing a column for the Times as being part of your definition of punk, most people don't.

― Sandy Blair, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:42 (6 years ago) Permalink

who the fuck listened to ska-punk anyway. oh yeah, everyone who wasn't on ilx.

I listen to ska-punk. My wife and I had our first date at a Ska Is Dead show.

― Mordechai Shinefield, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:48 (6 years ago) Permalink

The problem in the UK is that the definitions of punk that I've exressed above, those things ARE seen as punk, and that kind of punk is now seen as establishment.

― Scik Mouthy, Thursday, 19 April 2007 08:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

people are using 'capitalism' to mean 'money economy'.

do you really feel punk is that 'present' nick? it seemed worse during britpop. i guess i've unplugged a bit but the kind of punk signifiers you get from razorlight or babyshambles or donny tourettes are so far removed from the late '70s it's unreal. in a way i think those bands make it *easier* to like actual punk records.

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 19 April 2007 08:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 90 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.