Quote:
Originally Posted by zevokes
ok. i don't want to get into this debate, but would honestly just like to know what you think.
|
not really sure if you were referring to me with this comment but since the OP is apparently banned / deleted i'll just keep blabbing haha
first to Captain Caveman - my bad, i misunderstood you're original comment.
back to business. i most definitely stand behind my initial comment of 'if you have to ask, you'll never know'. Punk isn't something you learn, like any other aspect of relating to music (aside from technical specifics and theory) you either get it or you don't.
to say that Punk was all about the money at the start and to leave it at that is being incredibly ignorant. yes they wanted money, but not because they wanted to be rich, but because they wanted the rich to know what it was like to be poor.
punk is necessity.
it wasn't always called punk but the attitude that drove punk rock has always existed in those who saw it necessary to rock the boat and shake the system. with classic UK punk rock from the late 70s it was about shaking the system to reflect the social issues facing the working class at that time. all the social problems and the reforms that painted a bleak future for the working class, the disconnection between the ruling class and the plebs.
having the Sex Pistols following the Queen's path on a barge down the Thames while performing wasn't 'punk' so much as it was necessity. the modern world needed to step up and not just pay attention to the plight of the working class but needed to acknowledge that change was necessary, that the status quo was not good enough and that people would not willfully toe the line into that good night.
at the same time across the pond it was necessary for bands like the Ramones to stick it in the side of bloated arena rock. it was a necessary shake up for the music business to stop pandering to their now middle aged peers and start paying attention to another generation's needs.
to consider punk to be a fashion or a musical style isn't entirely wrong but it's like thinking that masturbation is the same as making love because you still end up having an orgasm. the saddest thing is that the punks who seem to get it are still trying to use the same methods as 30+ years ago to shake the system while those who don't are actually getting into the position where their shaking could make a substantial difference.
Zach de la Rocha is not a 'punk' per se but he most definitely embodies the attitude, RATM was a necessary band in the 90s to prompt a generation to take a more critical look at the society they lived in. that's what we're missing in the mainstream now, the attitude of not giving a crap either way about what you do and just doing it because it needs to be done.