GuD

I'm hoping it's not a waste of my time to put as much effort into this as I have and am about to continue to. At this point in an argument, under different circumstances, this normally would've been the time where I'd start feeling tempted to break something over the side of your ****ing head. LL, I'm gonna try and summarize the points you've brought up one by one and offer a rebuttal. If I misinterpret any of your arguments, let me know and I'll adjust my response accordingly. I've already made a couple responses earlier in this thread and am going to end up repeating myself (and others, really) a bit, I hope you take the time to actually read (I'm assuming you didn't) and respond to the points I make this time.

__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________

Punk music nowadays isn't real punk it's classic rock. Punk music nowadays is nostalgia and disingenuous- it's a "retro-act".

I don't entirely disagree with the first sentence- you could accurately call the Ramones "classic" punk in that they're long gone now but because of their contributions to the music world they are (generally) considered noteworthy or "classic" artists who manage to still sound good to the right pair of ears today, as does Zeppelin or Queen.

The second part, though, is absurd. If by "retro-act" you're likening modern punk bands to, say, a 50s themed diner, you are sorely mistaken. There are PLENTY of new punk bands today who write songs about things that are happening today and, in some cases sound completely different from punk bands from the "past", in some cases they do not (so what, art doesn't have to be completely innovative to be good), or they are somewhere between the two. You can refer to my previous post with the song videos if you need proof. I'm gonna paraphrase something I said in another post:

Part of artistic growth is recycling- looking back while pushing forward. That's not building what's already built. That's building on top of what's already built. It's turning a one floor single family home into a sky scraper.

Grunge sucked, was unmusical, and hardcore bands couldn't get gigs because of it.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this because it's a mostly subjective statement and because I wasn't a hardcore kid in Detroit circa 90s. As far as it being unmusical, well again that's subjective but if by that you mean it didn't value "musicianship" then you are clearly ignorant. Proof below:



Rap music only cares about money while punk bands originally wanted to "destroy music" to create something new. Rap music cannot tell a story. Thus, the two have nothing in common with each other.

A lot of commercial rap does indeed care a lot about money but there's still an element of craft to it's production. And there is a lot of underground rap that has more to say than 'yo yo yo bitches n hoes, shoot cops and sell drugs, nigganigganigga'. Rap can't tell a story? Bull****. Refer to the below videos if you need proof. Punk Music wanted to "destroy" all other music? Maybe some of them did when starting out, some of them were just doing what they could do without any pretense- see: The Ramones. Musically speaking, no, rap and punk don't have much if anything in common. However, they are both genres of music that spoke and continue to speak to the disenfranchised of society.





Dada is integral to all of 'real' punk rock, there is no real punk anymore without Dadaist influence. Punk Rock was meant to destroy the concept of hit records and glamor in music.

Dada undeniably did influence SOME punk bands from the 70s and punk bands today, namely Minutemen and Bauhaus. However, there were plenty of other punk bands without any "artsy-intellectual" pretensions- see: The Ramones, Descendents, Sham 69, EATER. I'm sure the same could be said of these bands in regards to "destroying" Rock and Roll and replacing it with something "new". Obviously these bands knew of each other and may have even discussed ideas -Descendents and Minutemen were both on the same label for a while- but they each made a name for themselves by sticking to what they started off doing.

Punk rock has a "reason to be alive", "needs to be taken to a new level", we need to either "Lead or follow"

Punk has a reason to be alive and that's why it is alive. It is being taken to a new level, that's called growth. What's funny is you also claimed bands who take punk to different and new levels aren't punk because they supposedly aren't "dada". You're talking about music as if it and other arts are the chiefs in command in a battlefield against The Man. If you really want to change the world, become a politician. If anything at all, artists would be lucky to be fodder in such a battle. We're that fat guy in Full Metal Jacket.

Punk rock has "...already been done. I've heard it before--long before. There has to be something else."

Punk Rock had also in a way been done before it was even called Punk Rock. Again, part of musical growth is looking back while pushing forward. If you're the type of person who needs their music to always be of-the-minute and are constantly looking for something completely new perhaps your listening habits are better suited to Top 40 or Pitchfork Media.

"Punk needs a new beginning but the West is a cultural wasteland and it can't happen here."

New York and London were cultural wastelands when Punk first blew up. Punk owes everything it is to the fact that it comes from cultural wastelands. In the age of Miley Cyrus' ass making international headlines, Jersey Shore, and the Tea Party... I think Punk is doing just fine. You're just out of touch.

__________________
I spit bullets in my feet
Every time I speak
So I write instead
And still people want me dead
~msc