So, just a quickie, (a more detailed post on a more interesting/controversial topic later today or tomorrow), but on my way to work I saw a couple of young ladies walking down the road with very dramatic ‘punk’ haircuts and outfits discussing haircare. From what I could gather from my eaves droppings Punk 1 was giving advice on the unsettled nature of Punk 2′s hair, which was apparently fresh from the box (ie a new cut…in case my idiom confuses). Just to explain what I meant by Punk haircut and clothing, in this case it was lots of tight ripped denim and a swooshing blond asymmetrical cut with a pink ‘flash’ (perhaps it was more electroclash than punk but that’s just splitting hairs)
Anyway, this is all well and good and no problem, but it got me thinking how Punk means a hell of a lot of different things to different people. For a start, in the good old Elizabethan days it meant prostitute, and that’s about all it meant. Then all of a sudden (well…a coupla centuries later…but whats a couple o’ centuries between friends) ’77 comes along and the word suddenly means fans of a type of music, becomes associated with anarchy and pins in the ear and spitting and rebellion and all that jazz (although in fact, very little Jazz was involved). I always think of punk being more of an attitude thing (and as being one of the most influential types of music in the western world to ever evolve, I doubt that dance music would have the same shape if Punk had never come about, partly because of the ‘anyone can do the music thing’ and partly because of the underground mentality that came with it) than a fashion/identity thing, but then, part of it is that. A social statement is made by wearing the clothes. You become identified with a specific group, and the boldness of the rejection of mainstream cultural norms is very striking.
What struck me as odd about these two girls was that it made me think about how much she might have paid for that haircut (it looked very professionally done) and how much that fits in with the punk ethic. Is there even a punk ethic? I always think that there is, but a lot of the punk-types I know don’t necessarily fit into this ethic (the vegan anarchist who loves punk and jazz and nothing else is one of the notable exceptions). A lot just like the music (‘I just like the noise and the fact you can dance to it’) and love the underground-ness of the thing they love, but are still quite ‘commercial’ and ‘mainstream’ in their beliefs and lifestyle. I don’t think there’s anything necessarily wrong with this, I just find it quite interesting. Elements of the punk ‘ethic’ can be dropped at will, mainstream capitalist ideology is merged with the rebellious side and the ‘smash the state’ style attitude without any sense of irony. Part of this is because punk (like most underground music that you’re likely to have heard of) has been co-opted into the mainstream. The banality of the ‘pop-punk’ movement bears no resemblance to the aggression and energy that the early players on the scene had. The whole thing is full of contrasts.
As well as all this, many people will merely adopt the aesthetic, without even liking the music: ripped jeans and asymmetrical haircuts are popular among many different cultural groups. The aforementioned electroclash movement (punk attitude toward the electro musical schema) is just one of those types that could be mistaken easily for those earlier punks. Also, there are some ‘true’ punks out there who fight for anarchy, dress the right way, have the attitude, and in the case of the guy I’m thinking of, are lovely, lovely people.
Anyway, just a bit of a ramble to see what people thought. I’ve got more ideas on this but want to keep this short (I’ve got an album review of the new Squarepusher album to write for a friend’s website).
The ‘Baster’s final thought is to make sure everyone knows that my favourite punk band is the Talking Heads, and I won’t have anyone tell me they aren’t punk, cause they damn well are. (This post created using Pandora for music, awesome Jazz list running at the moment (mostly piano jazz) last track was Salt Peanuts by Phineas Newborn Jr Trio, and was awesome…I only mention it to demonstrate my eclectic tastes for those who might be impressed by boasting about pointless and irrelevant things).
Oh yeah, bless the punks and freaks and weirdos..they’re lovely, and they’re my kind of people
Oh,and PS, there’s an edit on a previous post that you should check out, I just updated it to point to another article by the same guy I’d pointed in the direction of in the original post…its kind of inspired by something I said to him previously and is the first time I’ve ever been name-checked in an essay that was as professionally written as this one…have a look at the update if you’re interested in the issues
But you forgot that long stretch of the 20th Century where punk meant a worthless, weak youth. Isn’t that where “Punk” came from, embracing the epithet?
Too true…I was going to mention that..but preferred to leap from 16th to twentieth century in one ignorant little bound. Figured someone would call me on it so it didn’t matter, thanks for being the one. Accuracy of reporting can go out of the window if I feel like I can get a good joke out of it..because I’m a bit of a knob like that. Yes. Thanks for reading though…I think it was actually quite a lazy post and feel like I should have addressed the whole thing a bit further (go more in depth into modern cultrual clans and how much they mean what we think they mean) but was sitting at work and couldn’t be arsed. Its an interesting topic though. Worthy of a bit of discussion…maybe I’ll continue later on.
just a consideration: mixed true, proper (in this case the “true” meaning of being Punk) with something else can let sprout something interesting, although not proper and spreaded by a misunderstanding. I know that this single interesting thing will be among others eaiser or stupid or meaningless, this is the price we have to pay. Bye
Hmm, I think I agree. The only thing I would say is that I don’t think there really is a ‘true’ or ‘proper’ type of punk. I mean, I do tend to be a bit subjectivist about a lot of things, I don’t like absolutism as I think that the world can’t be measured with black and white and straight lines. Everything’s a bit more woblbly than that. So this means that I don’t think that Punk is any specific thing (although I realise in the post it may have seemed like this wasn’t the case), just that what punk meant to people in 77 has shifted so much. Anyway, sorry if I’m contradicting myself a bit. Just trying to promote discussion.
HI
Hi Lori…erm…which lori are you?
Punk is to develop your own point of view and to be openminded to others , to work for your society and to help it change, punk is the will to change society through some agresion/misspleasure but most of all work.
So, you’ve got some of the more positive aspects of political punk attitude there, but how does that wrap up with the musical stagnancy of the genres calling themselves punk (and does that mean that the more politicised parts of the electro, or even the house music scene, are now more punk than punk).
I think my point is simply that the definition of punk is incredibly broad and generally different for everybody.
To be honest, your description could describe any genuinely motivated politically active person, ie it could even include any vaguely honest politician, or a grass roots fundamentalist Christian….are you saying that anybody who cares is a punk and anybody who doesn’t isn’t?
you over think too much.
Punk, to me, is nothing besides an attitude. I have a mohawk, a great deal of the music I listen to is punk-oriented (e.g., Iggy Pop, Wire, Husker Du, The Pixies, The Melvins, The Smiths, David Bowie, Bob Dylan, Talking Heads, Television, The Casualties, The Unseen, The Refused, Cryptopsy, Burzum, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Beethoven, Handel, etc.). But none of that MAKES ME punk; I MAKE IT punk. If the punk attitude is within anybody, they could very well listen to “Songs of the Whale” or goddamned polka–it makes no difference. Punk is the attitude that no one can say anything meaningful, so quit trying to put meaning into everything you say. It is to say “I can’t say anything and neither can you so shut the fuck up and listen!” Of course, in that statement lies the contradiction that it seems like a meaningful statement. But such contradictions are what constitute punk as a mentality–because such contradictions constitute life. Punk is the only thing to acknowledge that fact.
Hi kyle.
Nice thoughts. I think you’ve got some good thoughts there.
I would say that Punk isn’t the only thing that says what you say in the last few lines. The first thing that came to mind was post-modernism, which is a very interesting comparison to make.
The only reason I argue about punk’s meaning sometimes is that a close friend and housemate of mine consistently has a go at all the music I listen to because she is ‘punk’ and what I do isn’t ‘punk’. I’m quite happy to say you mentioned plenty of things I class as punk in your list (Miles Davis, Coltrane, Talking Heads, Burzum etc) that are exactly what she says make me not punk.
Anyway, I get the impression you think we’re in more of a disagreement than we are. I think I like in punk what you like in punk. It’s ability to be unique to each punk. But then, my problem is that I often think of it as a political rejection of the mainstream, that has been co-opted on many levels, and so now isn’t so tied up with that rejection.
There’s nothing wrong with that apart from the fact that I like things that reject the mainstream political status quo, because I think that system is fucked up. But it’s power to co-opt the rebellions against it is just one thing that scares me.
And that strength, interestingly enough, comes from the same post modern detachment of meaning and acceptance of contradictions.
Funny that.
Thanks again for visiting.
Oh no, I didn’t disagree with you at all. Everything you said made sense; I just wanted to add my two cents. Firstly, I’m glad to find another person who isn’t narrowed in by a single genre of music. You seem to have really good taste in music as well; Coltrane = God. Secondly, I find it just as refreshing that a punk such as yourself (do you even consider yourself that–I have my own reservations for such a title) also has an intellectual and philosophical bent.
Postmodernism does seem to be the nemesis of punk; it resists it, but there is no resisting postmodernism. To resist it by its very nature is to accept it. What will become of this punk thing called, I don’t know. But I don’t discount it just yet.
I guess I think I am punk, and I do punk, and I like Punk (and punking) but I’m not really a punk. But to appearances, I’m more likely to be called a hippy. I guess it just depends on what styles you use to challenge the status quo what people make of you. Which is my problem with the costume as tribal statement thing, it reinforces that co-option of rebellion. Very few people bother to ask me who I think I am, but then, the answer I’d give would be labyrinthine enough for it not to be worth it for them, so that’s fair enough.
I take pride in the wide range of taste in music. It makes for interesting DJ sets, bouncing between jazz, hip hop and noise (and everything else I can lay my hands on) is the most exciting thing for me. Pull it all together and contrast and compare.
This is an interesting question and I have to reply to it because it struck a chord. I grew up with Punk the first time round and I would consider myself through and through punk. I suppose to me it’s a number of things but the important ones are these:
1. Punk challenges preconceived ideas and the way people think. One way it does that is with the clothes and styles. If you wear a safety pin through your nose and have vertical hair it doesn’t make any difference to your intelligence or your worth as a person – just a big difference to the way other people view those things. It’s not their perogative to judge you by what you wear and your choice of clothing is a way of pointing out, with humour that they should be looking at the person inside your outfit, not the wrapping.
2. Punk is a little subversive and on the whole, punks don’t like pomposity, bigotry and inflexibility. So, to me, Monty Python is punk, Pete and Dud is punk, Little Britain is punk, Vic and Bob are punk. I suspect the reason punks and politicians don’t always mix well is that many politicians have a hugely inflated opinion of their importance and worth. Punks are cynical, perhaps – although I’d call it realistic – about the motives of those who govern us and seing through all the tripe they peddle to the truth beneath.
3. Punk is about being true to yourself, to others to your ideals. I think it is that search for the genuine in life that might cause the average punk to have such ecclectic taste in music. I love the music of Morcheeba, 60s Neil Diamond, Blondie, The Stranglers, Sham 69, the Beatles, Air, House of Love, The B52s, Beethoven, Mozart, Pergolesi, Arvo Part and Abba amongst others… you get the picture.
4. Most importantly, punk is a laugh. You can achieve a great deal with cheeky humour One of the punkest people I know is my dad. He’s never worn a mohican but he has humour and intelligence and he uses it, often to poke fun at the pompous. Punk is about bending the rules a little because one size doesn’t fit all.
Hmm… there you go, that’s my twopennorth anyway!
Cheers
MTM
I think I could have put that a lot more succinctly… like this.
To me, punk is doing things slightly differently to the way everyone else does. I have a form of dyslexia and I suppose I feel extra punk because I do everything differently from the normals, as standard.
Cheers (again)
MTM
The girl’s in all truth, were Probably straight scene or adopted an “Emo” style. TRUE punks, have vanished, it’s heart breaking. I am a TRUE punk girl, and i started dating a guy, who was everything but, i mean he called GreenDay punk. The culture is dwindling. but not dead. BRING PUNKS BACK! i say.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about trading forex futures.
Regards