So I just finished watching an excellent documentary entitled American Hardcore about the hardcore scene in the US during the early 1980's. It was excellent until the last 5 mins, when you have several of these bitter old fucks who complain about the state of punk rock today. "Those kids in their tour buses on MTV... that ain't punk" Now, my question to them is, "Who the fuck cares what you consider to be authentic or not?" Heaven forbid that anyone be successful at their musical endeavor. I mean there are a lot of acts that will term themselves punks that are nowhere near close to that (hello Avril, yes I am talking about you and your husband's band too) But really, who cares? Listen to what you like, what you enjoy, and stop giving a crap about the label that you want to place on it. Me, I don't like Avril, I don't like A Simple Plan, and I really don;t like Good Charlotte, but it doesn't matter. I am never going to go to their concerts, I am never going to buy their albums, so they can call themselves whatever the fuck they want to. I like music... a lot of different styles and genres. I like punk, hardcore, new wave, emo, pop, classical, classic rock, metal, grunge, jazz, doowop, swing, musical theatre, and hell, even a little country. When I don't like it, I don't buy it, or download it, or listen to it on the radio. I generally become ambivalent about it (with the exception of those that are just pure evil, like Mariah or Paris, or Celine... and then I have to at least acknowledge the fact that they were spawned from the mouth of Hell).
Music is forever evolving. I know people who swear up and down saying that Iron Butterfly were the first punk band... yes Iron Butterfly... Some might say the Doors were actually the originators... others will point to the Sex Pistols, or the Clash, or the Ramones. It doesn't really matter. The music changes and grows and adapts over time, and thank fuck it does, or we would all still be listening to the banging of rocks. Is punk dead? Some will say it died with Sid Vicious. Others will say that when Black Flag ended their career it was over. These folks in the documentary think it ended when they stopped playing, not all of the mind you, but the folks from the Cro-Mags seem to think so... because they were "authentic" hardcore... which was a derivative of punk rock, which is a derivative of metal, which is a derivative of acid rock, which is a derivative of RocknRoll, which is a derivative of blues and jazz and so on and so on. Who is to say that something they do is any more "authentic" than anything anyone else does? If you make it, if you write it and perform it, then it is authentic, at least to you. Is it necessary to be authentic to some concept of a scene, or style, or genre? I don't think so. And just to throw a kink into the works for these folks who believe it is over and dead, Joey Shithead from DOA has continued to make punk and hardcore albums, and DOA are releasing a new album this summer. So it can't really be dead, if one of the "originators" of the whole genre is still out there performing, can it? I saw DOA a few weeks ago, and yes, they look old and haggard, and yes, Rock N Roll has not exactly been kind to them, but they are still cranking it out for whole new generations of fans.
What about the politics behind the music? Did that all end with Reagan and Thatcher leaving office? I don't fucking think so. Bush is as bad for, or worse for the planet as Reagan ever had been. The statements that have been made musically against Reagan, Thatcher, Mulrooney, etc are certainly being echoed today against Bush, Blair/Downey, and Harper. The straight-edge scene still thrives (though I find that one a little creepy sometimes). The music has evolved into a million different forms, and now people don't have to mail-order all their shit. Now they can communicate it through the web, or even achieve radio-play. This is a good thing, not a bad one. The whole concept of "you didn't suffer as much as me, therefore the music you play is shite" is a pretty frigging ridiculous one. Does it really matter if punk is alive or dead? Can't it just be that there is good and bad music of every genre and that some people get lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time and get to actually eat and pay bills off of their talents? Do these bitter fucks only listen to music from 25 years ago? Have they not been able to listen to and explore some of the incredible ways in which music has evolved, or devolved, or whatever you want to call it?
I admit I have a penchant for the early punk stuff, I still love the early American hardcore, the early British punk and the great Canadian bands that made the circuit. This is the music of my youth after all, so I have a great tenderness for it, in the same way that the 80's nostalgia is big for so many people. I turned from prepubescent to an adolescent listening to this stuff, of course it resonates with me. It is a part of who I am, a part of where I came from, and a major part of the process of my very first self-aware identity creation. The music is the backdrop of my formative years. Do I think punk is dead? not really, no. There are great bands like Rise Against, Hifi Handgrenades and so on who are not mainstream but who are cranking out excellent albums. There are bands like the Foo Fighters and Green Day who are mainstream and who are making excellent music, music that I would still call punk. There are bands like Bad Religion, DOA and Strung Out who are still making music, still producing albums that are most definitely punk. So if punk is dead, what are they? Cheap imitators of those that came before them? I don't think so. They are making their music, their version of punk, and does it really matter worth a flying fuck if it is or isn't "authentic?"
Music is forever evolving. I know people who swear up and down saying that Iron Butterfly were the first punk band... yes Iron Butterfly... Some might say the Doors were actually the originators... others will point to the Sex Pistols, or the Clash, or the Ramones. It doesn't really matter. The music changes and grows and adapts over time, and thank fuck it does, or we would all still be listening to the banging of rocks. Is punk dead? Some will say it died with Sid Vicious. Others will say that when Black Flag ended their career it was over. These folks in the documentary think it ended when they stopped playing, not all of the mind you, but the folks from the Cro-Mags seem to think so... because they were "authentic" hardcore... which was a derivative of punk rock, which is a derivative of metal, which is a derivative of acid rock, which is a derivative of RocknRoll, which is a derivative of blues and jazz and so on and so on. Who is to say that something they do is any more "authentic" than anything anyone else does? If you make it, if you write it and perform it, then it is authentic, at least to you. Is it necessary to be authentic to some concept of a scene, or style, or genre? I don't think so. And just to throw a kink into the works for these folks who believe it is over and dead, Joey Shithead from DOA has continued to make punk and hardcore albums, and DOA are releasing a new album this summer. So it can't really be dead, if one of the "originators" of the whole genre is still out there performing, can it? I saw DOA a few weeks ago, and yes, they look old and haggard, and yes, Rock N Roll has not exactly been kind to them, but they are still cranking it out for whole new generations of fans.
What about the politics behind the music? Did that all end with Reagan and Thatcher leaving office? I don't fucking think so. Bush is as bad for, or worse for the planet as Reagan ever had been. The statements that have been made musically against Reagan, Thatcher, Mulrooney, etc are certainly being echoed today against Bush, Blair/Downey, and Harper. The straight-edge scene still thrives (though I find that one a little creepy sometimes). The music has evolved into a million different forms, and now people don't have to mail-order all their shit. Now they can communicate it through the web, or even achieve radio-play. This is a good thing, not a bad one. The whole concept of "you didn't suffer as much as me, therefore the music you play is shite" is a pretty frigging ridiculous one. Does it really matter if punk is alive or dead? Can't it just be that there is good and bad music of every genre and that some people get lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time and get to actually eat and pay bills off of their talents? Do these bitter fucks only listen to music from 25 years ago? Have they not been able to listen to and explore some of the incredible ways in which music has evolved, or devolved, or whatever you want to call it?
I admit I have a penchant for the early punk stuff, I still love the early American hardcore, the early British punk and the great Canadian bands that made the circuit. This is the music of my youth after all, so I have a great tenderness for it, in the same way that the 80's nostalgia is big for so many people. I turned from prepubescent to an adolescent listening to this stuff, of course it resonates with me. It is a part of who I am, a part of where I came from, and a major part of the process of my very first self-aware identity creation. The music is the backdrop of my formative years. Do I think punk is dead? not really, no. There are great bands like Rise Against, Hifi Handgrenades and so on who are not mainstream but who are cranking out excellent albums. There are bands like the Foo Fighters and Green Day who are mainstream and who are making excellent music, music that I would still call punk. There are bands like Bad Religion, DOA and Strung Out who are still making music, still producing albums that are most definitely punk. So if punk is dead, what are they? Cheap imitators of those that came before them? I don't think so. They are making their music, their version of punk, and does it really matter worth a flying fuck if it is or isn't "authentic?"