I find most of the genre pretty bankrupt and hypocritical in nature. It is -- probably, for the most part -- an organic hypocrisy and something not intentionally done and probably something that most would deny.
Punk was formed on the basis of being different. Or basically not being like everyone else. Particularly the cool, right-wing. It was also a rejection of idols and beauty or image. A cultural anarchy, so to speak.
As much as fans would've wanted punk to be considered a communist regime, it never happened because even within punk there are tiers of "coolness" whether they like it or not. If you weren't punk from the beginning, then you weren't punk and you couldn't join in later. It was a group left out to begin with who were more than willing to leave others out. Those rejects of the rejects just became goth, I guess.
Then there's the position of idols. Guys like Henry Rollins, Jello Biafra, Johnny Rotten and others have become idols. Hell, they write books, engage audiences in "speaking" tours and host TV shows. How is that punk?
Also, the whole idea of actually getting together to record and release an album seemed very un-punk. Just seems like the record industry (no matter how DIY) was still part of the machine.
Another thing, so did the state of California just elect fascists every time? You'd figure they'd get it right eventually. Or maybe folks who re-record "California Uber Alles" shouldn't be so picky.
Other than The Clash, it's hard to get engaged in punk. And that's why.
No comments:
Post a Comment