Music Banter - View Single Post

BastardofYoung · 09-30-2011, 11:23 PM

Personally I think we cannot just put a label on something on the basis of a personality trait. I also believe there is no such thing as a rebel who doesn't give a fook, the ones who don't give a fook are the ones who aren't walking around calling themselves rebels. I always thought walking around calling yourself a punk does not qualify you to be one anymore than walking around saying "praise the lord" makes you a preacher, ya know.

While I will say that I think MC5 were a predecessor to punk, and may have given a rise to the ethos of the scene later on, at the time of their release they were not punk. Once a style has been established and has taken on a definitive form, I believe it is easier to look back on what came before and apply that label to something that would have never been thought of like that before. That is where MC5 and even The Stooges fit in, laying the groundwork, but only given the title later on. It is an honorary title given to it in hindsight.

Once we start assigning labels on personality traits, especially one as vague as being rebellious and not caring.. We can start applying it to anything, Johnny Cash, Woody Guthrie, James Dean... and on and on... and now they have all become punks on a technicality, not be achievement or advancing the movement they are now associated with.

Protopunk is something that had some of the traits that Punk developed, but I would not classify them as being part of the Punk scene.

So now it becomes a debate about a Punk vs. a Punk Rocker.

09-30-2011, 11:23 PM	#42 (permalink)
BastardofYoung Buzz Killjoy Join Date: May 2011 Location: Canada Posts: 2,692	Personally I think we cannot just put a label on something on the basis of a personality trait. I also believe there is no such thing as a rebel who doesn't give a fook, the ones who don't give a fook are the ones who aren't walking around calling themselves rebels. I always thought walking around calling yourself a punk does not qualify you to be one anymore than walking around saying "praise the lord" makes you a preacher, ya know. While I will say that I think MC5 were a predecessor to punk, and may have given a rise to the ethos of the scene later on, at the time of their release they were not punk. Once a style has been established and has taken on a definitive form, I believe it is easier to look back on what came before and apply that label to something that would have never been thought of like that before. That is where MC5 and even The Stooges fit in, laying the groundwork, but only given the title later on. It is an honorary title given to it in hindsight. Once we start assigning labels on personality traits, especially one as vague as being rebellious and not caring.. We can start applying it to anything, Johnny Cash, Woody Guthrie, James Dean... and on and on... and now they have all become punks on a technicality, not be achievement or advancing the movement they are now associated with. Protopunk is something that had some of the traits that Punk developed, but I would not classify them as being part of the Punk scene. So now it becomes a debate about a Punk vs. a Punk Rocker. __________________ last.fm ‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.