Oh great another punk debate. Well i'll give it a go but i can't guarantee everyone's going to agree but anyway punk means different things to different people. I've always perceived it as an attitude, a way of life and NOT an image. The attitude of punk to be more specific was about doing the unthinkable, to stuff tradition and stuff adult negativism and attitudes that supposedly "sucked". And to go out of the square and go beyond the role of what is supposed to be society's role for you. In punk rock the music it was music that lived outside of the mainstream, music for outcasts and about them, with messages shouting warnings, mockery and vilification at the comfy self-satisfied majority.
What punk is not as Prozaco pointed out is "those cut-off kilts with safety pins through 'em that you can buy at glassons". Why? because Punk is NOT an image, punk is intangible, its not concrete that you can pick up and show off too your friends. Also acting like a complete asshole does not make anyone punk either (Fred Durst, Avril Lavigne).
i don't think many poeple could cover it much better than that without going on too much.
i guess now a days theres punk, and punk style or something... one the true meaning like you've put it, and the other the copy of that style, inspired by punk things or something... i can't explain my self, sorry,
I understand your point, but I disagree. Not everyone with the attitude you described could be called punk. The hippie movement, for example, takes the same stance as you described, but it's most certainly not punk.
All lifestyles given a name require a frame of reference. Although punk is primarily a political stance, it ultimately encompasses an expected mode of dress, a genre of music, as well as the attitude you described.
Everything that we use to convey our belief structure to another person, be it for the purposes of relating to or separating from others, may be called an image. Thus the image is incorporated into the label, and is as important as the attitude.
Errr, so just to be really nitpicky, you're right that punk isn't *just* an image, but my point is that it necessarily incorporates a particular image.
//it ultimately encompasses an expected mode of dress
i disagree. what did i say before about punk being intangible? a dress is tangible and i could pick up one if i wanted to. dressing in black, heavy leather and eyeliner has nothing to do with a visual form of punk.
//be it for the purposes of relating to or separating from others, may be called an image.
then its not punk at all.
i never said punk was an image, image does not make punk çause if it does then Avril Lavigne can call herself "punk" to an extent. you can't see punk either.
//be it for the purposes of relating to or separating from others, may be called an image.
//then its not punk at all.
Why not? The original punks dressed a certain way in order to visually distinguish themselves from the Thatcherite society against which they were rebelling. Other movements - notably the Goths and the New Romantics - were borne of the punk movement, but separated themselves from punk because it became too rigid, both in attitude and in image.
//Why not? The original punks dressed a certain way in order to visually distinguish themselves from the Thatcherite society against which they were rebelling.
Well superheroes and heroines dress in costumes to hide their secret identities but is it the costumes that make the heroes? no! Superman still can fly at lightspeed with or without his red cape. Wonder Woman is a strong as Hercules whether shes wearing workclothes or not and Spider-man still has agility without his costume. Sure some punks had some way of being distinguish but if you ask me the certain way they dress is a liability. I could dress up like you Heather but i'd still be me and you could dress as me and still be you but at the end of the day it's the attitude that you heart and clothing or image shouldn't even be an issue.
//Other movements - notably the Goths and the New Romantics - were borne of the punk movement, but separated themselves from punk because it became too rigid, both in attitude and in image.
"goth" spawned from punk as did the whole late 90s plastic punk movement. Now too sure about the New Romantics.
//...Well superheroes and heroines dress in costumes to hide their secret identities but is it the costumes that make the heroes?
I really really like that analogy that you used there :-) 10/10 Insightfullness
Too me punk is about doing things for the right reasons - and those reasons are whichever ones you feel are right (I'm guessing I'm not making much sense here).
Now to get ready for my country bands practise (hehehe)
I think you're on auto-pilot - reacting against the stigma associated with 'image'. People immediately think that to judge someone by image is bad, but like I said in my original post, everyone projects an image in order to identify themselves. That's not a bad thing.
Probably the image is borne of the attitude, but I think the same attitude could manifest itself in different ways, so you cannot leave it entirely to attitude to determine a label. Of course, it's more difficult than just making a checklist to determine what kind of image is specifically 'punk'. It evolves and digresses, and even the political ideologies evolve with the changing political landscape. However, I think you can look at a photo of a band, listen to some of their music, and decide "yup, that's punk". This may be further confirmed or it may be refuted by their political stance and behaviour.
Obviously you don't need to listen to Avril Fluffy's political beliefs to establish she's not punk.
PLEASE NOTE: My point is NOT that punk is ALL image. It is just that punk is AS MUCH defined by image as it is by attitude.
//The attitude of punk to be more specific was about doing the unthinkable, to stuff tradition and stuff adult negativism and attitudes that supposedly "sucked".
Umm, I'd think I could go further and say that if you were to define 'punk' by attitude alone, Avril Lavigne *would* fit the description. It's the music and the skateboard-pop clothes that prove beyond doubt that she isn't punk.
You maybe right... I remember Punks used to be all for counterculture, but now it seems Punk might mean something different today... You get stuff like Pop Punk, Uplifting Punk and 'Wannabe Punk' etc etc so maybe somewhere along the lines the meaning changed....
there is no such thing as punk any more. punk was destroyed as soon as it began to be steriotyped. it was all about being different and crazy, not to mentionthe sex pistols. who says if someone has a mo-hawk and safety pins in their jacket is automatically a punk? maybe in the 60's but today it is someone who is dressing to fit someones thoughts of what a punk should look like. people nowadays would never do half of what punks did before it died. but we now have a spawn culture from the original punk era... i call it playground... people who dress up to look like a "punk" to gain an image for them selves.
what is wrong with the sex pistols as a band? It's fine to knock them now, and yes, they were the band that in the end may have caused punk to become more mainstream, but that doesn't mean they weren't a good band who did some good things. c'mon people.
Correct me if im wrong but weren't the Sex Pistols the "punk" band who were manufactured out of the fascination of some guys idea who worked in some store?
Punk for me means decentralisation and independence. It is about regaining control over your own thoughts and your own actions. This means that you have to fight against anyone who tries to say "punk is x" because by doing that they fix you and define you. and the moment that self-proclaimed punks start excluding people for not being punk, they make that excluded person more of a punk than they are. take the meat puppets. they did one album which conformed to the conventions of punk. Then they did a country album, which all the punks hated. they grew their hair long to piss off the style-nazis amongst the punks. and of course, it was their country stuff that endured.
1- Punk is NOT an image, punk is intangible- AchillesHeel
gotta agree with heather on this one- everything we do involves image- take clothes- we choose what to wear in the morning- as soon as we choose we have decided on what image we are to project to the outside world on that day- or as heather put it later on- & i only just noticed- but i just can't bare deleting my beautiful type
- everyone projects an image in order to identify themselves
2- Although punk is primarily a political stance- Heather
if you mean actively political- i totally disagree- passive maybe- as in they didn't care full stop
3- I could dress up like you Heather but i'd still be me and you could dress as me and still be you- AchillesHeel
¡cool!- ¿can i film it?- ¿why do you guys hate avril so much?- i dunno- kids these days- any way- in 72 lenny kaye whacked a compilation together called- nuggets- it's all lower mid-class punks- as in worthless snotty quotty skinny american whitey teen suburbanites- with cheap gear in their parents garages - playing their version of the brit invasion bands' version of the blues- so double bastardized- all of the tracks were singles released between 65 & 68- they never moved nationally- some barely registered locally- but lenny rememberd them all fondly- & he put them all together- on the back of the album he writes-
- the name that has unofficially been coined for them- "punk rock"- seems particularly fitting-
- that album spawned the entire nuggets series- & then the pebbles series- pebbles 1 & 2 are the torpedoe- like them better than lenny's nuggets- any way- in 76- i think- some uk journo used the term again for the scene that was appearing round the pistols- it was burchill or kent ¿possibly?- & there is the birth of what we now recognize as punk-
they had the filth & the fury on the other night- john lydon explains the safety pins- it was totally to do with being poor- if the arse of your pants comes away you safety pin it back together- to his dismay- all the sceney teenies started mimicking- the punks ruined it he says- kinda like that scene in life of brian when brian's trying to convince the masses that he is not the messiah- from his bedroom window- YOU ARE ALL DIFFERENT... YES... WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT-
the original punks didn't care or not care about politics- they just never thought about it- ¡they were teenage punks!- john was a bit sharper- like a naughty little boy- would say & sing things which he knew would make people kick in their tv screens
just checked ebay- they have copies of nuggets & pebbles 1 & 2 up for auction- hmm- ¿can i please add a so suck on that for old times sake?- o & by the way- there was/¿is? a uniform for punk- tshirt jeans & sneakers- or whatever is at hand, comfortable & doesn't smell too bad
An interesting little history ... seems to me that in the phrase "punk rock" the originator was probably using the word "punk" in its adjectival sense of something worthless or of poor quality rather than the noun sense which includes a young person or a hoodlum or thug. As with many words with multiple senses and definitions, some of which are archaic, the original meaning of the phrase has been forgotten and a new meaning has been spawned. The media probably have a part to play in this.
I don't intend to get into any discussions vis-a-vis the "Punk" movement and punk rock. I think that they are probably two separate things these days, if they were ever associated in any real sense.
//if you mean actively political- i totally disagree- passive maybe- as in they didn't care full stop
I was under the impression that the punk movement arose in the working class specifically as rebellion against the government's crippling right-wing policies. They set themselves up as anarchists - which is certainly actively anti-political. Ultimately I think the movement succeeded in simply giving people a way to vent their anger rather than actually going head-to-head with the government; in that sense I suppose you could consider it passively, rather than actively, political..
I think in general, punk is the voice of the proletariat who are fighting against their own diminished state in society. Because that state is created or encouraged by political policy, then punk can be viewed as a political (or anti-political) movement. The same might be said for other movements, I think - hip-hop, for example.
Ironically, I think that a punk movement could still be relevant musically, not necessarily due to government initiatives, but because of the politics of the music industry; definitely in NZ, don't know about other countries. It's peculiarly self-perpetuating - punk bands are generally ignored by the music industry, so they have a reason to remain punk. Does that make sense?
//¿why do you guys hate avril so much?-
Easy target. I don't mind her, what she does she does well, but she says some pretty dumb things sometimes.
//¿can i please add a so suck on that for old times sake?-
Ha! I laughed out loud when I read that. My workmates are staring...
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Technorati
Punk is about saying no, and asking ...
Punk is about saying no, and asking why. That is all that really needs to be said.
and hopefully being somewhat creative ...
and hopefully being somewhat creative along the way. That's why wennypise (et al) aren't in my collection heh.
punk is <B>not</b> those cut-off kilts ...
punk is not those cut-off kilts with safety pins through 'em that you can buy at glassons.
Nicely said! ha ha...
Nicely said!
ha ha
Or a tie *shudder*...
Or a tie
*shudder*
Or anything at all at glassons. eww...
Or anything at all at glassons. eww
whats wrong with glassons?...
whats wrong with glassons?
i agree - maybe to prevent the slappers ...
i agree - maybe to prevent the slappers from copying the true punks we may need to hurl firebomb molotovs in every glassons store.
Oh great another punk debate. Well ...
Oh great another punk debate. Well i'll give it a go but i can't guarantee everyone's going to agree but anyway punk means different things to different people. I've always perceived it as an attitude, a way of life and NOT an image. The attitude of punk to be more specific was about doing the unthinkable, to stuff tradition and stuff adult negativism and attitudes that supposedly "sucked". And to go out of the square and go beyond the role of what is supposed to be society's role for you. In punk rock the music it was music that lived outside of the mainstream, music for outcasts and about them, with messages shouting warnings, mockery and vilification at the comfy self-satisfied majority.
What punk is not as Prozaco pointed out is "those cut-off kilts with safety pins through 'em that you can buy at glassons". Why? because Punk is NOT an image, punk is intangible, its not concrete that you can pick up and show off too your friends. Also acting like a complete asshole does not make anyone punk either (Fred Durst, Avril Lavigne).
well said AchillesHeel!!...
well said AchillesHeel!!
i don't think many poeple could cover ...
i don't think many poeple could cover it much better than that without going on too much.
i guess now a days theres punk, and punk style or something... one the true meaning like you've put it, and the other the copy of that style, inspired by punk things or something... i can't explain my self, sorry,
//because Punk is NOT an image I ...
//because Punk is NOT an image
I understand your point, but I disagree. Not everyone with the attitude you described could be called punk. The hippie movement, for example, takes the same stance as you described, but it's most certainly not punk.
All lifestyles given a name require a frame of reference. Although punk is primarily a political stance, it ultimately encompasses an expected mode of dress, a genre of music, as well as the attitude you described.
Everything that we use to convey our belief structure to another person, be it for the purposes of relating to or separating from others, may be called an image. Thus the image is incorporated into the label, and is as important as the attitude.
Errr, so just to be really nitpicky, ...
Errr, so just to be really nitpicky, you're right that punk isn't *just* an image, but my point is that it necessarily incorporates a particular image.
<b>//it ultimately encompasses an ...
//it ultimately encompasses an expected mode of dress
i disagree. what did i say before about punk being intangible? a dress is tangible and i could pick up one if i wanted to. dressing in black, heavy leather and eyeliner has nothing to do with a visual form of punk.
//be it for the purposes of relating to or separating from others, may be called an image.
then its not punk at all.
//you're right that punk isn't *just* ...
//you're right that punk isn't *just* an image
i never said punk was an image, image does not make punk çause if it does then Avril Lavigne can call herself "punk" to an extent. you can't see punk either.
//be it for the purposes of relating to ...
//be it for the purposes of relating to or separating from others, may be called an image.
//then its not punk at all.
Why not? The original punks dressed a certain way in order to visually distinguish themselves from the Thatcherite society against which they were rebelling. Other movements - notably the Goths and the New Romantics - were borne of the punk movement, but separated themselves from punk because it became too rigid, both in attitude and in image.
<b>//Why not? The original punks ...
//Why not? The original punks dressed a certain way in order to visually distinguish themselves from the Thatcherite society against which they were rebelling.
Well superheroes and heroines dress in costumes to hide their secret identities but is it the costumes that make the heroes? no! Superman still can fly at lightspeed with or without his red cape. Wonder Woman is a strong as Hercules whether shes wearing workclothes or not and Spider-man still has agility without his costume. Sure some punks had some way of being distinguish but if you ask me the certain way they dress is a liability. I could dress up like you Heather but i'd still be me and you could dress as me and still be you but at the end of the day it's the attitude that you heart and clothing or image shouldn't even be an issue.
<b>//Other movements - notably the ...
//Other movements - notably the Goths and the New Romantics - were borne of the punk movement, but separated themselves from punk because it became too rigid, both in attitude and in image.
"goth" spawned from punk as did the whole late 90s plastic punk movement. Now too sure about the New Romantics.
//...Well superheroes and heroines ...
//...Well superheroes and heroines dress in costumes to hide their secret identities but is it the costumes that make the heroes?
I really really like that analogy that you used there :-) 10/10 Insightfullness
Too me punk is about doing things for the right reasons - and those reasons are whichever ones you feel are right (I'm guessing I'm not making much sense here).
Now to get ready for my country bands practise (hehehe)
I think you're on auto-pilot - ...
I think you're on auto-pilot - reacting against the stigma associated with 'image'. People immediately think that to judge someone by image is bad, but like I said in my original post, everyone projects an image in order to identify themselves. That's not a bad thing.
Probably the image is borne of the attitude, but I think the same attitude could manifest itself in different ways, so you cannot leave it entirely to attitude to determine a label. Of course, it's more difficult than just making a checklist to determine what kind of image is specifically 'punk'. It evolves and digresses, and even the political ideologies evolve with the changing political landscape. However, I think you can look at a photo of a band, listen to some of their music, and decide "yup, that's punk". This may be further confirmed or it may be refuted by their political stance and behaviour.
Obviously you don't need to listen to Avril Fluffy's political beliefs to establish she's not punk.
PLEASE NOTE: My point is NOT that punk is ALL image. It is just that punk is AS MUCH defined by image as it is by attitude.
//The attitude of punk to be more ...
//The attitude of punk to be more specific was about doing the unthinkable, to stuff tradition and stuff adult negativism and attitudes that supposedly "sucked".
Umm, I'd think I could go further and say that if you were to define 'punk' by attitude alone, Avril Lavigne *would* fit the description. It's the music and the skateboard-pop clothes that prove beyond doubt that she isn't punk.
Avril is a trendy asshole, what she ...
Avril is a trendy asshole, what she does is mindless and she is even mindless for thinking she can be associated with punk in any way.
//I really really like that analogy that you used there :-) 10/10 Insightfullness
cheers! i get 10 points!
AVRIL IS THE GREAT SATAN!!!!!...
AVRIL IS THE GREAT SATAN!!!!!
"not an image" is an image....
"not an image" is an image.
now define punk ass...
now define punk ass
punk ass = avril lavigne actually even ...
punk ass = avril lavigne
actually even that's being kind associating her with punk so lets just say
ass = avril lavigne
ha ha good one!...
ha ha good one!
tough crowd tonight...
tough crowd tonight
also the feelers are definatly punks...
also the feelers are definatly punks
not really. why do you say that?...
not really. why do you say that?
He means the old slang of the word punk ...
He means the old slang of the word punk
Punk - A young man who is the sexual partner of an older man
haha, suck to be a punkrocker......
haha, suck to be a punkrocker...
there's no such thing anymore. ...
there's no such thing anymore. everything's conformist.
some more than others....
some more than others.
You maybe right... I remember Punks ...
You maybe right... I remember Punks used to be all for counterculture, but now it seems Punk might mean something different today... You get stuff like Pop Punk, Uplifting Punk and 'Wannabe Punk' etc etc so maybe somewhere along the lines the meaning changed....
// 'Wannabe Punk' who would wanna ...
// 'Wannabe Punk'
who would wanna be the sexual partner of an older man >?:S
there is no such thing as punk any ...
there is no such thing as punk any more. punk was destroyed as soon as it began to be steriotyped. it was all about being different and crazy, not to mentionthe sex pistols. who says if someone has a mo-hawk and safety pins in their jacket is automatically a punk? maybe in the 60's but today it is someone who is dressing to fit someones thoughts of what a punk should look like. people nowadays would never do half of what punks did before it died. but we now have a spawn culture from the original punk era... i call it playground... people who dress up to look like a "punk" to gain an image for them selves.
i don't know if its just me but i ...
i don't know if its just me but i don't consider the Sex Pistols to be the epitome of punk. Infact i don't even think i would call them punk.
Punk is a style?...
Punk is a style?
//people who dress up to look like a ...
//people who dress up to look like a "punk" to gain an image for them selves.
more like people who get influenced by something they see on MTV and they pattern themselves after it.
//i don't know if its just me but i ...
//i don't know if its just me but i don't consider the Sex Pistols to be the epitome of punk. Infact i don't even think i would call them punk.
Well, I think you've fairly much negated every opinion you've voiced on this thread.
I'm not a punk rock know-it-all ...
I'm not a punk rock know-it-all heather.
what is wrong with the sex pistols as a ...
what is wrong with the sex pistols as a band? It's fine to knock them now, and yes, they were the band that in the end may have caused punk to become more mainstream, but that doesn't mean they weren't a good band who did some good things. c'mon people.
Correct me if im wrong but weren't the ...
Correct me if im wrong but weren't the Sex Pistols the "punk" band who were manufactured out of the fascination of some guys idea who worked in some store?
Punk for me means decentralisation and ...
Punk for me means decentralisation and independence. It is about regaining control over your own thoughts and your own actions. This means that you have to fight against anyone who tries to say "punk is x" because by doing that they fix you and define you. and the moment that self-proclaimed punks start excluding people for not being punk, they make that excluded person more of a punk than they are. take the meat puppets. they did one album which conformed to the conventions of punk. Then they did a country album, which all the punks hated. they grew their hair long to piss off the style-nazis amongst the punks. and of course, it was their country stuff that endured.
1- Punk is NOT an image, punk is ...
1- Punk is NOT an image, punk is intangible- AchillesHeel
gotta agree with heather on this one- everything we do involves image- take clothes- we choose what to wear in the morning- as soon as we choose we have decided on what image we are to project to the outside world on that day- or as heather put it later on- & i only just noticed- but i just can't bare deleting my beautiful type
- everyone projects an image in order to identify themselves
2- Although punk is primarily a political stance- Heather
if you mean actively political- i totally disagree- passive maybe- as in they didn't care full stop
3- I could dress up like you Heather but i'd still be me and you could dress as me and still be you- AchillesHeel
¡cool!- ¿can i film it?- ¿why do you guys hate avril so much?- i dunno- kids these days- any way- in 72 lenny kaye whacked a compilation together called- nuggets- it's all lower mid-class punks- as in worthless snotty quotty skinny american whitey teen suburbanites- with cheap gear in their parents garages - playing their version of the brit invasion bands' version of the blues- so double bastardized- all of the tracks were singles released between 65 & 68- they never moved nationally- some barely registered locally- but lenny rememberd them all fondly- & he put them all together- on the back of the album he writes-
- the name that has unofficially been coined for them- "punk rock"- seems particularly fitting-
- that album spawned the entire nuggets series- & then the pebbles series- pebbles 1 & 2 are the torpedoe- like them better than lenny's nuggets- any way- in 76- i think- some uk journo used the term again for the scene that was appearing round the pistols- it was burchill or kent ¿possibly?- & there is the birth of what we now recognize as punk-
they had the filth & the fury on the other night- john lydon explains the safety pins- it was totally to do with being poor- if the arse of your pants comes away you safety pin it back together- to his dismay- all the sceney teenies started mimicking- the punks ruined it he says- kinda like that scene in life of brian when brian's trying to convince the masses that he is not the messiah- from his bedroom window- YOU ARE ALL DIFFERENT... YES... WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT-
the original punks didn't care or not care about politics- they just never thought about it- ¡they were teenage punks!- john was a bit sharper- like a naughty little boy- would say & sing things which he knew would make people kick in their tv screens
just checked ebay- they have copies of nuggets & pebbles 1 & 2 up for auction- hmm- ¿can i please add a so suck on that for old times sake?- o & by the way- there was/¿is? a uniform for punk- tshirt jeans & sneakers- or whatever is at hand, comfortable & doesn't smell too bad
An interesting little history ... seems ...
An interesting little history ... seems to me that in the phrase "punk rock" the originator was probably using the word "punk" in its adjectival sense of something worthless or of poor quality rather than the noun sense which includes a young person or a hoodlum or thug. As with many words with multiple senses and definitions, some of which are archaic, the original meaning of the phrase has been forgotten and a new meaning has been spawned. The media probably have a part to play in this.
I don't intend to get into any discussions vis-a-vis the "Punk" movement and punk rock. I think that they are probably two separate things these days, if they were ever associated in any real sense.
//if you mean actively political- i ...
//if you mean actively political- i totally disagree- passive maybe- as in they didn't care full stop
I was under the impression that the punk movement arose in the working class specifically as rebellion against the government's crippling right-wing policies. They set themselves up as anarchists - which is certainly actively anti-political. Ultimately I think the movement succeeded in simply giving people a way to vent their anger rather than actually going head-to-head with the government; in that sense I suppose you could consider it passively, rather than actively, political..
I think in general, punk is the voice of the proletariat who are fighting against their own diminished state in society. Because that state is created or encouraged by political policy, then punk can be viewed as a political (or anti-political) movement. The same might be said for other movements, I think - hip-hop, for example.
Ironically, I think that a punk movement could still be relevant musically, not necessarily due to government initiatives, but because of the politics of the music industry; definitely in NZ, don't know about other countries. It's peculiarly self-perpetuating - punk bands are generally ignored by the music industry, so they have a reason to remain punk. Does that make sense?
//¿why do you guys hate avril so much?-
Easy target. I don't mind her, what she does she does well, but she says some pretty dumb things sometimes.
//¿can i please add a so suck on that for old times sake?-
Ha! I laughed out loud when I read that. My workmates are staring...
no- lenny used punk cos the music was ...
no- lenny used punk cos the music was made by punks
I enjoyed that history lesson......
I enjoyed that history lesson...