PDA

View Full Version : Indie Music and Longevity



PassiveTheory
02-27-2008, 11:18 PM
I guess I have some of the elder statesmen of the board to thank for this topic, because, in taking note of how guys like Tom and Ron have seen virtually every fad and music genre under the sun emerge and subsequently burn away, I got to thinking about my own time period, the current music I'm listening to, and the future.

There are some aspects of the indie movement that set it apart from the various other movements before it that have come and gone, but the fact remains that it IS a movement, period, and movements tend to be stopped (except Metal... you can't kill the metal).

So my question is three-pronged; does indie music, in it's current form, have the same longevity of most musical movements of the last 20 years (insofar as 5-10 years tops?), will technology like myspace, the internet, podcasting, and the numerous other inventions that have improved recording and distribution help to keep the movement alive or kill it, and, if the movement does die, what 3-5 bands do you predict will survive the end of the movement (i.e. Pearl Jam, Silverchair surviving Grunge; Oasis surviving Britpop, etc.)???

bmack86
02-27-2008, 11:34 PM
Silverchair survived grunge?

PassiveTheory
02-27-2008, 11:36 PM
Sort of... They're still a band, right?

humanoid
02-27-2008, 11:45 PM
I think Silverchair came about in the later stages of grungekinda riding a wave that was already crashing....maybe post-grunge???

PassiveTheory
02-27-2008, 11:46 PM
Okay, sure, whatever. The other questions still remain unanswered.

Sushov23
02-27-2008, 11:46 PM
I see where you coming from.

humanoid
02-27-2008, 11:48 PM
Okay, sure, whatever. The other questions still remain unanswered.

I'm contemplating the question, it is rather involved....


PS, I wasn't trying to be a know it all or anything, just kinda guessing at what Bmack might have been thinking

PassiveTheory
02-28-2008, 12:07 AM
Eh, that's fine.

Here's what I think:

Indie music, in the form we come to recognize today (primarily indie rock), has existed since the 80s (debatable) in one form or another. But I do think that, in about a decade, the genre will have run it's course. The mainstream is becoming more and more indie by the year, in terms of popular music, and indie music's only saving grace is that the vestiges of the "alt. rock scene" (i.e. Hinder, Nickelback) continue to propagate the idea that Alt. rock is still relevant and progressive as a music form. However, 2007 is the first year (and I'm basing this info off of RS's researched figures, so take this under your own consideration) that, while the general music industry took a dive financially, indie distributors actually made a profit.

That being said, I think that once bands begin to sign over their rights to record companies in regards to touring, while those who resist will find themselves shut out of venues that would normally accommodate them and help their fanbase grow, that the indie scene will begin to fade away.

As for bands with longevity? These are the 5 current indie rock bands that would, more likely than not, survive:

- TV on the Radio ~ Yes, the band I pretty much find completely disinteresting WILL survive the possible downfall of indie. With backing by the likes of Bowie, I think these guys will survive for another 10-20 years as a group. Also, I don't think they've made their best record yet, which is probably another reason why they'll trudge on.

- Ben Gibbard ~ He's probably going to turn out to be the Morrissey of this decade. I really don't see Death Cab lasting another 2 albums, the next Postal Service record seems like it will never be completed, and he has enough talent and popularity to command a pop audience. Chris Walla is... kinda screwed.

- Jenny Lewis ~ This is all dependent on whether or not she continues to follow the dance/pop behavior of Under the Blacklight or her solo record. Since UtB is probably Rilo Kiley's end, I have a feeling it will be the later, and Jenny's career will fall into relative obscurity. Still, she's hot, SOOO... She has the highest chance of most of the indie chanteuses I can think of at 1 in the morning at surviving the "end of indie".

- Wilco ~ I really can't picture Jeff Tweedy doing anything else, frankly. I'd also add Ryan Adams to the list, but, c'mon, all the man EVER does is make music, so Tweedy it is.

- The Flaming Lips ~ They will headline their next Coachella performance, bank on it. Also, as long as Wayne Coyne continues to have fun doing what he's doing, I don't think there's a plausible reason for them to stop performing.

A look in the future:
- Interpol: Will record one more record before doing a farewell tour, the band will disperse. Carlos D will begin composing classical music and will open a nightclub in downtown NYC, Paul Banks will take up photography and play some sporadic acoustic sets in cafes around New York. The other two?... Join other bands, probably. 12 years from now, Interpol reunites to headline All Points West Festival 2020.

- The Shins: They have two more records to go, but their best work is far behind them. The next record will be a serious departure from their previous work, and the critical/commercial failure will send James Mercer into a tailspin. He'll keep it together for one more record, but then the group will split, Mercer will probably end up a hermit somewhere in Eastern Europe, while the other members of the band will try to unsuccessfully replicate the success of the Shins with one more record featuring a slew of guest singers. The band will then disperse permanently.

Your thoughts?

jazzz
02-28-2008, 01:29 AM
Eh, that's fine.

Here's what I think:

Indie music, in the form we come to recognize today (primarily indie rock), has existed since the 80s (debatable) in one form or another. But I do think that, in about a decade, the genre will have run it's course. The mainstream is becoming more and more indie by the year, in terms of popular music, and indie music's only saving grace is that the vestiges of the "alt. rock scene" (i.e. Hinder, Nickelback) continue to propagate the idea that Alt. rock is still relevant and progressive as a music form. However, 2007 is the first year (and I'm basing this info off of RS's researched figures, so take this under your own consideration) that, while the general music industry took a dive financially, indie distributors actually made a profit.

That being said, I think that once bands begin to sign over their rights to record companies in regards to touring, while those who resist will find themselves shut out of venues that would normally accommodate them and help their fanbase grow, that the indie scene will begin to fade away.

As for bands with longevity? These are the 5 current indie rock bands that would, more likely than not, survive:

- TV on the Radio ~ Yes, the band I pretty much find completely disinteresting WILL survive the possible downfall of indie. With backing by the likes of Bowie, I think these guys will survive for another 10-20 years as a group. Also, I don't think they've made their best record yet, which is probably another reason why they'll trudge on.

- Ben Gibbard ~ He's probably going to turn out to be the Morrissey of this decade. I really don't see Death Cab lasting another 2 albums, the next Postal Service record seems like it will never be completed, and he has enough talent and popularity to command a pop audience. Chris Walla is... kinda screwed.

- Jenny Lewis ~ This is all dependent on whether or not she continues to follow the dance/pop behavior of Under the Blacklight or her solo record. Since UtB is probably Rilo Kiley's end, I have a feeling it will be the later, and Jenny's career will fall into relative obscurity. Still, she's hot, SOOO... She has the highest chance of most of the indie chanteuses I can think of at 1 in the morning at surviving the "end of indie".

- Wilco ~ I really can't picture Jeff Tweedy doing anything else, frankly. I'd also add Ryan Adams to the list, but, c'mon, all the man EVER does is make music, so Tweedy it is.

- The Flaming Lips ~ They will headline their next Coachella performance, bank on it. Also, as long as Wayne Coyne continues to have fun doing what he's doing, I don't think there's a plausible reason for them to stop performing.

A look in the future:
- Interpol: Will record one more record before doing a farewell tour, the band will disperse. Carlos D will begin composing classical music and will open a nightclub in downtown NYC, Paul Banks will take up photography and play some sporadic acoustic sets in cafes around New York. The other two?... Join other bands, probably. 12 years from now, Interpol reunites to headline All Points West Festival 2020.

- The Shins: They have two more records to go, but their best work is far behind them. The next record will be a serious departure from their previous work, and the critical/commercial failure will send James Mercer into a tailspin. He'll keep it together for one more record, but then the group will split, Mercer will probably end up a hermit somewhere in Eastern Europe, while the other members of the band will try to unsuccessfully replicate the success of the Shins with one more record featuring a slew of guest singers. The band will then disperse permanently.

Your thoughts?

I love your your concerns.... but thing is it will always be there.. Interpol? Shins? are the new REM.... Underground will always be there... just like Psychic TV - Throbbing Gristle-Chrome-Chameleons UK- Section 25-Dungen-CAN-A Certain Ratio-ORB-Nick Cave- Serg Gainsbourg-Scott Walker-Burial- etc.. look hard we aint' going away!!!

vinylmartyr
02-28-2008, 05:15 AM
we called it college rock in the 80's.

gaypalmsprings
02-28-2008, 05:18 AM
PT - what is that avatar?

gaypalmsprings
02-28-2008, 05:22 AM
When I was in college in the 70s, the college radio station played indie-type music 24/7. They played all sorts of alternative music - I think they referred to it as "underground." Definately not commercial music.

Trailmix
02-28-2008, 06:21 AM
Indie is a broad term that really only seperates these bands from top 40 rock. Even the term indie is now a misnomer since many of the bands that fall under this category are on major labels. Same as the term alternative before. Now if you start to talk genres that is a different story i.e. the new electro trend or the post punk trend that is an area where we can discuss who will survive. I just do not view "indie" as a musical trend.

Bluesky
02-28-2008, 06:26 AM
Indie will never die now. But I guess it depends on what you classify as indie.

To me, it's an unsigned band (who wish to keep it that way) and produce their own music under their own label or, at the very most, a band signed to an independant label - something you'd find in someone's garage for example.

No, it can't die with the millions of ways bands can promote themselves and get their music out to the people without going through A & R guys.

Thank fuck.

However, once I started to think about who can survive it, I realised that all indie, proper indie, bands I know have had success with maybe 2 songs but have since disappeared as they either made enough money on the first one, it got too hard to manage themselves and went to a major label or they just gave up trying.

In the long term, mostly, I think indie will always be around but the success of a band will be short-lived.

PassiveTheory
02-28-2008, 10:35 AM
PT - what is that avatar?

Joker Kirby. It's a VG Cats thing.

hypervera
02-28-2008, 10:50 AM
i have a doubt here

indie is a type of music?

or

indie is a band that doesnt have a big record company (warner, epic, etc)?

thelastmejia
02-28-2008, 10:51 AM
you've brought up a lot of interesting thoughts. I have wondered over the last years the same thing, not to great lengths though. I agree with you that "indie rock" will have run its course in the next years as digital media rises. Especially with Mainstream music saying they need to get ready for Music 2.0

PassiveTheory
02-28-2008, 11:03 AM
I'm specifically inquiring about the indie genre of music (indie rock, indie folk, indie EDM, etc.).

Melanie.Dawn
02-28-2008, 11:16 AM
As much as I love indie music I don't think it has longevity. I always invision the future where I look back and scoff at myself for the rediculious noise I accept as music right now.

I am already doing that to some extent. But I love it. But I know it's not real. It's hipster garbage. I think it's even more evident with the shift towards more dance rock. Like, wtf? Dance Rock is shit... even though it seems catchy now... it's shit.

PS. plus, doesn't anyone else ever wonder if it's 'Indie' rock for a reason. Because even though it seems really awesome to you or I, really it sucks and no one else wants to hear it and that's why the bands are only have 1 song sucess and not getting signed to bigger labels. I mean, I love it... but I'm not going to pretend that since I like it, its automatically the best music in the world. Maybe it's all shit and we're the few who are too stupid to notice?

Blinken
02-28-2008, 11:26 AM
Do you include "indie" hip hop, or Underground as it is more commonly reffered to?

I just don't buy indie as a genre, it has always bugged me.

Trailmix
02-28-2008, 11:28 AM
I'm specifically inquiring about the indie genre of music (indie rock, indie folk, indie EDM, etc.).

Those are not genres in my opinion.

hypervera
02-28-2008, 11:52 AM
indie is like a status (not signed in a big record company) to me

Trailmix
02-28-2008, 11:53 AM
indie is like a status (not signed in a big record company) to me

Concur. Though it is being applied more and more to bands that have signed to a major such as Death Cab.

psychic friend
02-28-2008, 11:56 AM
OASIS IS NEXT DOOR RIGHT NOW I WANT TO GO STALK THEM

PassiveTheory
02-28-2008, 11:57 AM
Do you include "indie" hip hop, or Underground as it is more commonly reffered to?

I just don't buy indie as a genre, it has always bugged me.

Yeah, although, aside from Nas, I tend to associate most indie hip hop acts with the conscious rapper/hip-hop movement/genre, since, well, they tend to be socially conscious.

As for indie rock/indie folk/indie whatever not being genres... Well, does it make more sense to toss them under the "alternative" genres? Because, honestly, what is there an alternative TO these days?

miscorrections
02-28-2008, 11:57 AM
I'm specifically inquiring about the indie genre of music (indie rock, indie folk, indie EDM, etc.).

As long as there's rock, folk, EDM, and everything else there will be people doing them at all levels of fame and popularity and for all sorts of audiences.

Trailmix
02-28-2008, 12:00 PM
So my question is three-pronged; does indie music, in it's current form, have the same longevity of most musical movements of the last 20 years (insofar as 5-10 years tops?), will technology like myspace, the internet, podcasting, and the numerous other inventions that have improved recording and distribution help to keep the movement alive or kill it, and, if the movement does die, what 3-5 bands do you predict will survive the end of the movement (i.e. Pearl Jam, Silverchair surviving Grunge; Oasis surviving Britpop, etc.)???

All of these bands at one point were labeled "alternative" just as the bands you are labeling as "indie" It is not a true genre. When alternative became top 40 indie became a term to describe bands that do not fit mainstream music. Indie originally was as stated by a few a reference to not being on a major label i.e. independent. This wiki article does a decent job of clarifying the point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_rock

PassiveTheory
02-28-2008, 12:05 PM
As long as there's rock, folk, EDM, and everything else there will be people doing them at all levels of fame and popularity and for all sorts of audiences.

This is absolutely correct.

What I should have clarified is, do the current manifestations of the independant sound (the Arcade Fires, Spoons, Death Cabs, Deltron 3030s, CSSs of the world) have the kind of longevity that some of the predecessors (REM, Aesop Rock, Underworld) have clearly demonstrated? And if not (for the whole genre), then which bands, in your opinion, will survive and why?

summerkid
02-28-2008, 12:07 PM
like vinyl said it was called college rock in the 80s and really i think we are just seeing the beginning of the "indie" music age. Big bloated majors will go by the wayside with the ever declining music industry leaving small or indie labels as the only ones making profits which will allow artists more creativity.

Trailmix
02-28-2008, 12:08 PM
This is absolutely correct.

What I should have clarified is, do the current manifestations of the independant sound (the Arcade Fires, Spoons, Death Cabs, Deltron 3030s, CSSs of the world) have the kind of longevity that some of the predecessors (REM, Aesop Rock, Underworld) have clearly demonstrated? And if not (for the whole genre), then which bands, in your opinion, will survive and why?

Much better this I can discuss.

summerkid
02-28-2008, 12:09 PM
Arcade Fire will be around forever just pray they don't turn into U2.

miscorrections
02-28-2008, 12:10 PM
I don't think there is any one "independent sound," so I'm pretty sure the first question (will there be longevity) is moot. As long as music is around, every sort of sound will get recycled and tweaked. The second one is better, although I'm not sure anyone can predict which bands will be timeless. Which won't is far easier.

PassiveTheory
02-28-2008, 12:11 PM
The second one is better, although I'm not sure anyone can predict which bands will be timeless. Which won't is far easier.

Which ones wont, then?

miscorrections
02-28-2008, 12:12 PM
That's a question that varies by individual. It all comes down to what you like and what you'll be listening to in x number of years. I mean, yeah, there will be some bands with a general consensus but having that consensus is not important.

Trailmix
02-28-2008, 12:15 PM
I would loop all of the new electro bands into a genre of bands that will not be around (Chromeo, New Young Pony Club, etc...) I can not think of any acts that survived from the original electro sound of the 80's.

Melanie.Dawn
02-28-2008, 12:17 PM
I think a lot of you replying to this thread are missing the point and trying really hard to complicate things.

paulb
02-28-2008, 12:22 PM
I can see the Arcade Fire having a big and long career. The music they put out is quality and if they keep doing that, then they should be fine. Lets just hope they can keep all their band members together.

Blinken
02-28-2008, 12:34 PM
OASIS IS NEXT DOOR RIGHT NOW I WANT TO GO STALK THEM

That is awsome.
Hmmmmmm, is this a hint? possible add? or am i just really bored?

PotVsKtl
02-28-2008, 12:38 PM
Indie isn't about record labels, it's about intent. Most of the bands called indie today are not, in any way. They're making a buck on the current tard-dance trend and that's it. Will it survive? No. Will real independent music? Yes. But you'll all be gone.

Sonicifyouwantit
02-28-2008, 12:48 PM
indie is not a style of music, its simply means you are not signed to a major label. Thing is you named Interpol, Wilco, The Shins but they are major label acts. Kind of like Death Cab, they used to be indie but then they signed with a major. For the most part their core sound remained the same (they kept an independant nature by producing themselves and not breaking to the will of the label) but they ceased to be indie and now are a major act. I dont see how groups like this will go away since they emmulate past forms of music and bring their own creativity to the table...even if the actual bands break up there will be new bands to take their place. All in all if you like the music you listed I wouldnt fear man, it will always exist in one form or another.

PotVsKtl
02-28-2008, 12:57 PM
Wrong.

PassiveTheory
02-28-2008, 01:03 PM
indie is not a style of music, its simply means you are not signed to a major label. Thing is you named Interpol, Wilco, The Shins but they are major label acts. Kind of like Death Cab, they used to be indie but then they signed with a major.

Wrong...

Interpol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matador_Records)

And though the other three are signed to Warner record distributors, anything released through Sub Pop (DCfC, The Shins) still has a degree of "indie" attached to it.

But the rest of your argument is interesting.

gratytrainridesagain
02-28-2008, 01:14 PM
This is absolutely correct.

What I should have clarified is, do the current manifestations of the independant sound (the Arcade Fires, Spoons, Death Cabs, Deltron 3030s, CSSs of the world) have the kind of longevity that some of the predecessors (REM, Aesop Rock, Underworld) have clearly demonstrated? And if not (for the whole genre), then which bands, in your opinion, will survive and why?

Del has been around much longer than Aesop and has had more success i.e. first Gorillaz album

PassiveTheory
02-28-2008, 01:28 PM
...Will it help this discussion if I edit that so it's more correct for you?

gratytrainridesagain
02-28-2008, 01:41 PM
Considering you're talking about longevity and success it might

TomAz
02-28-2008, 01:48 PM
When I was in college in the 70s, the college radio station played indie-type music 24/7. They played all sorts of alternative music - I think they referred to it as "underground." Definately not commercial music.

e.g.,
The Residents
The Mothers of Invention
Hawkwind
Horslips
Eno
Big Star
Mahavishnu Orchestra

all this before the "new wave" bands hit starting in 76

mandelbaum
02-28-2008, 01:55 PM
Indie isn't about record labels, it's about intent. Most of the bands called indie today are not, in any way. They're making a buck on the current tard-dance trend and that's it. Will it survive? No. Will real independent music? Yes. But you'll all be gone.

Talking out of your ass...

shakermaker113
02-28-2008, 01:57 PM
I think the genre/fad talk is a load of junk, people will continue to make music and we have no idea where things will go.

these predictions of the future of particular bands, however, are a lot of fun! interpol reuniting for apw 2020. lol.

PotVsKtl
02-28-2008, 02:06 PM
Talking out of your ass...

You're going to be vomiting out of your ass when I get done delightfully punishing your intestinal tract. Anti-semite.

All That I Am
02-28-2008, 02:06 PM
My predicition is a lot of bands are gonna suck, some are gonna be ok and a few are going to be outstanding.

You can apply that to any genre you want.

thestripe
02-28-2008, 03:28 PM
So you are predicting that nothing will change.

goatparade
02-28-2008, 04:04 PM
Hopefully the Decemberists die off....soon

joppy-slow
02-28-2008, 04:46 PM
I guess I have some of the elder statesmen of the board to thank for this topic, because, in taking note of how guys like Tom and Ron have seen virtually every fad and music genre under the sun emerge and subsequently burn away, I got to thinking about my own time period, the current music I'm listening to, and the future.

There are some aspects of the indie movement that set it apart from the various other movements before it that have come and gone, but the fact remains that it IS a movement, period, and movements tend to be stopped (except Metal... you can't kill the metal).

So my question is three-pronged; does indie music, in it's current form, have the same longevity of most musical movements of the last 20 years (insofar as 5-10 years tops?), will technology like myspace, the internet, podcasting, and the numerous other inventions that have improved recording and distribution help to keep the movement alive or kill it, and, if the movement does die, what 3-5 bands do you predict will survive the end of the movement (i.e. Pearl Jam, Silverchair surviving Grunge; Oasis surviving Britpop, etc.)???

wow.. you read my mind. just a warning, this is going to be a long post.. lately I've been thinking this exact same thing..
here is my problem.
currently I can't appease my appetite with any new music.. I can't find any album that really holds my attention like the artists of yester year.
am I looking for music in the wrong places??? do i need to start listening to jazz, blues.. etc.. I can't remember the last time someone put out a stellar album, collection of songs..such as SP - Siamese Dream, U2's - Joshua Tree, are their any bands that will take the torch from Pink Floyd, The Clash, The Police, Led Zep, Coldplay, Radiohead, even the metal bands and pop bands from the 80's, and grunge artists of the 90's had shit that I find more enjoyable to listen to.. I can't find any new song writers that are like Jeff Buckley, Peter Murphy, Peter Gabriel, Bob Dylan, Matt Johnson (thethe), Prince, The Doves, Catherine Wheel..

bands like the national, band of horses, vampire weekend, spoon and my morning jacket are good, but they don't give me that connection..

I feel like some of the nostalgia has been lost in translation with the new direction music is heading.
Remember the days when you would get a tape, record, or cd and you would listen to the songs while looking at the cover art, reading the lyrics to songs and checking out the thankyou's, production credits etc... now you download a fucking mp4, which loses a lot of sound quality compared to a wave format, and it goes into your bank of 10,000 songs..

so my question is, are we just in a musical transition phase, or is my mind closing and shit is just as a amazing now, as it was 5, 10 and 15 years ago...????? thanks for your response..

PotVsKtl
02-28-2008, 04:51 PM
Well first you need to stop looking in the current indie scene. Although I would argue that It Still Moves is one of those classic albums.

chiapet
02-28-2008, 05:56 PM
I can not think of any acts that survived from the original electro sound of the 80's.

Who are you considering the "electro sound" of the 80s? Do you mean actual electro, or groups that were synth intensive?

Sonicifyouwantit
02-28-2008, 06:18 PM
Wrong...

Interpol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matador_Records)

And though the other three are signed to Warner record distributors, anything released through Sub Pop (DCfC, The Shins) still has a degree of "indie" attached to it.

But the rest of your argument is interesting.


either way I dont consider it to be a specific style of music...seems as long as you have indie labels you will have indie acts. Not to mention with so much downloading going on and major labels losing money I think you are going to get an influx of bands, small bands with a lot of talent self promoting and distributing. I guess Im saying a decentralization from the majors. They will not be going out of business anytime soon, but we'll just see more and more respectable DIY projects

jazzz
02-28-2008, 06:29 PM
wow.. you read my mind. just a warning, this is going to be a long post.. lately I've been thinking this exact same thing..
here is my problem.
currently I can't appease my appetite with any new music.. I can't find any album that really holds my attention like the artists of yester year.
am I looking for music in the wrong places??? do i need to start listening to jazz, blues.. etc.. I can't remember the last time someone put out a stellar album, collection of songs..such as SP - Siamese Dream, U2's - Joshua Tree, are their any bands that will take the torch from Pink Floyd, The Clash, The Police, Led Zep, Coldplay, Radiohead, even the metal bands and pop bands from the 80's, and grunge artists of the 90's had shit that I find more enjoyable to listen to.. I can't find any new song writers that are like Jeff Buckley, Peter Murphy, Peter Gabriel, Bob Dylan, Matt Johnson (thethe), Prince, The Doves, Catherine Wheel..

bands like the national, band of horses, vampire weekend, spoon and my morning jacket are good, but they don't give me that connection..

I feel like some of the nostalgia has been lost in translation with the new direction music is heading.
Remember the days when you would get a tape, record, or cd and you would listen to the songs while looking at the cover art, reading the lyrics to songs and checking out the thankyou's, production credits etc... now you download a fucking mp4, which loses a lot of sound quality compared to a wave format, and it goes into your bank of 10,000 songs..

so my question is, are we just in a musical transition phase, or is my mind closing and shit is just as a amazing now, as it was 5, 10 and 15 years ago...????? thanks for your response..

Matt Johnson is top!

Sonicifyouwantit
02-28-2008, 06:29 PM
like vinyl said it was called college rock in the 80s and really i think we are just seeing the beginning of the "indie" music age. Big bloated majors will go by the wayside with the ever declining music industry leaving small or indie labels as the only ones making profits which will allow artists more creativity.

yes, I pretty much think that is what we will see. Its just a natural transition with the world we live in where pretty much everything is accessable to people online.

breakjaw
02-28-2008, 11:44 PM
This is a good,discussion-provoking thread.
First of all,thanks for not lumping me in with the old guys like Tom & Ron,PT.
As far as longevity goes...
It was apparent to me in 1983 at the US Festival that U2 was going to be huge and be around forever.Then there are some acts like Green Day that I thought was just a great band I would like and that no-one else I knew would ever hear of.Like Subway Sect or Big Star.Like Mountain Goats or Asobi Seksu.You root for these bands because they are good,and some catch fire and some don't.
It is a different time now,and better for some bands,because they can get their music instantly heard by more than just the people within five miles of a good college radio station,but nobody is buying anything.And people are moving on to other stuff faster than they used to.When I was 13,I had 2 tapes,Imperial Bedroom by Elvis Costello and The Specials first album.I've got every note of those two things memorized,man.I don't know if that happens nowadays...

rage patton
02-28-2008, 11:50 PM
Damn breakjaw... you started off listenig to some great music. I wish Elvis Costello and The Specials were the first two bands I discovered.

Mr.Nipples
02-28-2008, 11:56 PM
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39444000/jpg/_39444816_annan_203.jpg

breakjaw
02-29-2008, 12:08 AM
Damn breakjaw... you started off listenig to some great music. I wish Elvis Costello and The Specials were the first two bands I discovered.
I was late to the party,though,this was in 1982/83.Before that,I only knew songs that I heard on the radio and liked,like Marty Balin's "Hearts" and "American Pie".Stuff like that.Tom was probably already into post-punk,and Ron had probably already seen his thousandth concert...

Boourns
02-29-2008, 12:11 AM
One example off the top of my head: Blonde Redhead. Blonde Redhead will definitely have longevity. Of course, their first album came out 15 years ago, so they already do. But will they still be around 15 years from now? If not, will there be a significant consensus of reverence? To answer the first question, I don't know; nobody does. As for the second question, that's more complicated. I guess they are bigger now than ever, but this is probably as big as they will ever get. So they have been around pretty long already and have had a varied career that at least some of us will always remember. But how many of us? Unfortunately, we know they'll never be U2, so in order for their legacy to extend beyond somewhat-underground people in the know like us, somewhat big bands 20 years from now would have to cite them as influential and such. Is that accurate?

PassiveTheory
02-29-2008, 12:42 AM
More or less yes, Boourns.

Boourns
02-29-2008, 01:02 AM
It is pretty obvious that a lot the current blogger tripe, especially the obnoxious electro acts, will be remembered and listened to by nobody in 5 years, of course.

Trailmix
02-29-2008, 04:37 AM
Who are you considering the "electro sound" of the 80s? Do you mean actual electro, or groups that were synth intensive?

Actual electro. There are a few synth heavy bands that made it.

disgustipated
02-29-2008, 06:35 AM
The Flaming Lips are NOT indie. They were making music before you were born, kid. Same goes for Wilco.

faxman75
02-29-2008, 06:45 AM
Concur. Though it is being applied more and more to bands that have signed to a major such as Death Cab.

Not even just death cab, look at most of the indie bands, The Flaming Lips, Wilco, these are just more bands signed to big labels. Go smaller what about MGMT? Yep, a major label. I mean, they almost all have major labels. I don't think Indie music can simply be bands without a major label unless everyone is claiming they like INdie music but don't really know what it is at this point.

faxman75
02-29-2008, 06:48 AM
The Flaming Lips are NOT indie. They were making music before you were born, kid. Same goes for Wilco.


So to you, indie has to do with how long a band has been playing together?

Color me confused. I guess to me indie is rock music that you won't hear on FM radio except in very rare instances. It's music that you tell your friends you are into when they never heard of a band you mention. Or, you just use the term "rock" which then becomes all encompassing.

TomAz
02-29-2008, 07:26 AM
The Flaming Lips are NOT indie. They were making music before you were born, kid. Same goes for Wilco.

not an intelligent statement

hypervera
02-29-2008, 08:04 AM
The Flaming Lips are NOT indie. They were making music before you were born, kid. Same goes for Wilco.

:thu

PotVsKtl
02-29-2008, 09:12 AM
What is the thumbs up for? What type of tortured logic is that? What the hell.

gratytrainridesagain
02-29-2008, 09:16 AM
Flaming Lips were actually signed to Waner Bros for a considerable amount of time so I wouldn't say they are indie in that sense.

PotVsKtl
02-29-2008, 09:51 AM
I should never have read or opened this thread.

Sonicifyouwantit
02-29-2008, 10:26 AM
What is the thumbs up for? What type of tortured logic is that? What the hell.

I take it as sarcasm

roberto73
02-29-2008, 11:14 AM
This whole discussion strikes me as pointless and irrelevant. More useless labels that don't mean a thing. Now if I only had an Al Bundy image saying, "Who gives a fuck?"

SFChrissy
02-29-2008, 11:23 AM
It goes back even farther than the 80's...Off the top of my head I recall Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis & Johny Cash not being mainstream nor what the general music listener would deem acceptable and definately not something the typical label signed...the beatles and the stones qualify as not being mainstream as well. And what 'bout the music being played at the underground juke joints in the south and metropolitan speak easies...also qualify as underground and "indie"...

as far as longevity...I believe it will continuously evolve as it has over the years!!! But of course there will always be the classic sell-out & wannabe!!!

gmoneyak
02-29-2008, 11:28 AM
PS. plus, doesn't anyone else ever wonder if it's 'Indie' rock for a reason. Because even though it seems really awesome to you or I, really it sucks and no one else wants to hear it and that's why the bands are only have 1 song sucess and not getting signed to bigger labels. I mean, I love it... but I'm not going to pretend that since I like it, its automatically the best music in the world. Maybe it's all shit and we're the few who are too stupid to notice?

You can't possibly believe this.

The masses are sheep, Nascar is the #1 TV sport in this country, Jerry Bruckheimer makes blockbusters, Britney Spears sells platinum. You got to be kidding me.. People are too lazy to discover things interesting or w/some depth and integrity in general. Most people want to be force-fed.

chiapet
02-29-2008, 11:34 AM
One example off the top of my head: Blonde Redhead. Blonde Redhead will definitely have longevity. Of course, their first album came out 15 years ago, so they already do. But will they still be around 15 years from now? If not, will there be a significant consensus of reverence?

Boourns, it's interesting that you mention Blonde Redhead, specifically, because I would have never ever expected them to become as widely popular and known as they are now. Not because they're not good (they were my absolute favorite group around the time of their 3rd & 4th releases), not because they aren't incredible live, they just seemed like another of those bands that was incredible yet whose sound would never have very wide appeal or make it into heavy radio rotation, so they would never stop being "indie" and would never fill large venues. Just my opinion. (And to me, their sound did change, and only subsequently did they become very popular).

I have to wonder how much changes in music distribution helped bands like Blonde Redhead, and especially the wide availability of free (albeit illegal) downloads. They are amongst the first mp3s I downloaded. I would have never heard them on radio where I was living.

SFChrissy
02-29-2008, 11:37 AM
You can't possibly believe this.

The masses are sheep, Nascar is the #1 TV sport in this country, Jerry Bruckheimer makes blockbusters, Britney Spears sells platinum. You got to be kidding me.. People are too lazy to discover things interesting or w/some depth and integrity in general. Most people want to be force-fed.

Yes and the fact that our likes and appreciations are more sophysticated and evolved than the rest of the masses...

gmoneyak
02-29-2008, 11:41 AM
You bet your ass.

hypervera
02-29-2008, 12:08 PM
What is the thumbs up for? What type of tortured logic is that? What the hell.

:thu means to me: i agree, or its ok

TomAz
02-29-2008, 01:38 PM
I should never have read or opened this thread.

This seems to be one of those threads where some people are posting their own hermetically sealed thoughts without reading anyone else's. It's not a conversation, its a tower of babel.

TomAz
02-29-2008, 01:38 PM
:thu means to me: i agree, or its ok

QED

summerkid
02-29-2008, 01:40 PM
This seems to be one of those threads where some people are posting their own hermetically sealed thoughts without reading anyone else's. It's not a conversation, its a tower of babel.

that being said..I think some people have made some interesting points.

TomAz
02-29-2008, 01:58 PM
It goes back even farther than the 80's...Off the top of my head I recall Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis & Johny Cash not being mainstream

http://www.bigozine3.com/cdcvrsB/images232/EPfans/EPfansFr.jpg

TomAz
02-29-2008, 02:00 PM
that being said..I think some people have made some interesting points.


This whole discussion strikes me as pointless and irrelevant. More useless labels that don't mean a thing. Now if I only had an Al Bundy image saying, "Who gives a fuck?"

this is all you really need to know.

summerkid
02-29-2008, 02:02 PM
man that picture makes me want to punch elvis in the face soooo bad.

Sonicifyouwantit
02-29-2008, 02:41 PM
man that picture makes me want to punch elvis in the face soooo bad.

I wont let you...Id love to wear that suit to a wedding or something very inappropriate...like an interview. haha

thelastgreatman
02-29-2008, 04:16 PM
Pretending "indie" music is a real genre is for fucking faggots.

Trick Loves The Kids
02-29-2008, 04:17 PM
takes one to know one lolol

thelastgreatman
02-29-2008, 04:18 PM
... well, yeah. You think I sucked all those cocks just for fun? I did it to be an authority, dammit.

Trick Loves The Kids
02-29-2008, 04:20 PM
lulz

I don't think indie is a genre but if someone tells me they like indie rock I generally have a pretty good idea of what they mean

thelastgreatman
02-29-2008, 04:22 PM
Here's the thing: indie rock seems to be the majority nowadays. It's not like rap/rock, or metal, or grunge, or fucking whatever are tearing up the rock charts. So how is it indie anymore? It's just rock music for the most part.

jazzz
02-29-2008, 04:41 PM
Back in the day "indie" meant independent. Bands that where not on a major label It was do it yourself. Now days people think of "indie" as a type of music. To me today the "indie" term means nothing.

thelastgreatman
02-29-2008, 04:47 PM
But even then "indie" is bullshit. Punk was indie long before indie. Of course punk sucked shit. Fuck it.

jazzz
02-29-2008, 04:54 PM
But even then "indie" is bullshit. Punk was indie long before indie. Of course punk sucked shit. Fuck it.

I'm just saying thats how the "indie" word was born and it was kind of a post-punk thing.

roberto73
02-29-2008, 05:08 PM
this is all you really need to know.

Tom, I'll take this to mean that because Summerkid finds the discussion interesting and I find it pointless, it proves the worthlessness of the thread. Any attempt to convince me otherwise will fall on deaf ears.

thelastgreatman
02-29-2008, 05:08 PM
Roberto, what is that in your avatar? God's light or fucking what?

roberto73
02-29-2008, 05:14 PM
Roberto, what is that in your avatar? God's light or fucking what?

God's light, or a pictorial representation of the way Suprefan sees himself. Take your pick.

Actually, it's the cover of one of Don Caballero's albums.

thelastgreatman
02-29-2008, 05:15 PM
Oh... right... Don Caballero... of course.


BTW, love the sig.

anti-square
02-29-2008, 05:19 PM
Pretending "indie" music is a real genre is for fucking faggots.

I agree, using the word "indie" is gay. Just listen to it. indie indie indie indie indie indie indie indie indie indie indie in diidneidnie. I feel so gay

thelastgreatman
02-29-2008, 05:20 PM
Like you needed any help.

roberto73
02-29-2008, 05:21 PM
Oh... right... Don Caballero... of course.


BTW, love the sig.

Are you a fan of Battles? Kinda similar stylistically, and their guitarist used to play for Don Caballero. It's worth checking out.

thelastgreatman
02-29-2008, 05:22 PM
Battles kinda suck demon cocks I'm pretty sure.

anti-square
02-29-2008, 05:23 PM
I remember you trying to make fun of people trying to get laid from the board. Fucking hypocrite. No I won't fuck you.

summerkid
02-29-2008, 05:24 PM
Battles kinda suck demon cocks I'm pretty sure.

is that a good thing or a bad thing?

thelastgreatman
02-29-2008, 05:25 PM
I remember you trying to make fun of people trying to get laid from the board. Fucking hypocrite. No I won't fuck you.

That's a lie and you know it. Everyone will fuck me.


is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It means they suck. Throw them in the bin of Animal Collective garbage.

summerkid
02-29-2008, 05:27 PM
no arguments here.

anti-square
02-29-2008, 05:29 PM
After your Battles comment, I do believe you want to get fucked. Quit baiting.

anti-square
02-29-2008, 05:29 PM
Both of you are assholes.

thelastgreatman
02-29-2008, 05:30 PM
It's not my fault you want to fuck me. Actually, it is--I'm fucking undeniable.

greghead
02-29-2008, 05:54 PM
But even then "indie" is bullshit. Punk was indie long before indie. Of course punk sucked shit. Fuck it.

I'll take Black Flag or the Clash or the Dead Milkmen over any EDM act any day of the week. And twice on Sunday.

breakjaw
03-01-2008, 12:23 AM
http://www.bigozine3.com/cdcvrsB/images232/EPfans/EPfansFr.jpg

That's so funny you posted that pic Tom,I used to have this boot:
http://www.elviscostello.info/disc/bootlegs/50efcbw.jpg

thelastgreatman
03-01-2008, 12:27 AM
I'll take Black Flag or the Clash or the Dead Milkmen over any EDM act any day of the week. And twice on Sunday.

Calling The Clash "punk" is like calling Radiohead "brit-rock."

The rest of those bands suck. But EDM sucks too, so your argument isn't very damning. There's like 5 EDM acts I'd pay to see on their own, ever, tops.

rage patton
03-01-2008, 12:30 AM
What is wrong with calling The Clash punk? What would you call them?

thelastgreatman
03-01-2008, 12:35 AM
They took punk in a direction no one ever had anymore and spanned a few genres. They were miles from the classic "punk" aethetic, but strongly influenced by it. Rather, they took punk and made it into The Clash--The Clash did not it into punk.

C'mon, they were blending ska, reggae, punk, rock... you can't just call Floyd "psychedlic" and you can't just call The Clash "punk."

rage patton
03-01-2008, 12:42 AM
The Clash basicaly defined the sound of punk. But not just the sound, their attitude and lyrics are what made them punk. Their music was eventually labeled "punk" because of what they were doing, wearing and saying.
They had no name for the genre they were creating. They were just making music. Pulling influences from artists that are genreally know for creating the pathway for punk, such as Television, Patti Smith, New York Dolls and Iggy Pop, and then making it their own.
From there came the Ramones, The Sex Pistols and what have you.

thelastgreatman
03-01-2008, 12:49 AM
People love arguing about punk endlessly. My point is that The Ramones, Sex Pistols, The Stooges, they all shared a much more similar and more clearly identifiable as "punk" sound than The Clash. I know The Clash was just as much in it in the beginning as all of them, but by London Calling you're looking at something that expanded beyond punk. They were The Only Band That Matters--punk was a fucking fashion statement.

breakjaw
03-01-2008, 12:49 AM
They took punk in a direction no one ever had anymore and spanned a few genres. They were miles from the classic "punk" aethetic, but strongly influenced by it. Rather, they took punk and made it into The Clash--The Clash did not it into punk.

C'mon, they were blending ska, reggae, punk, rock... you can't just call Floyd "psychedlic" and you can't just call The Clash "punk."
This is absolutely right on the money.
It's like calling the Beatles "Merseybeat" or Johnny Cash "Country".Some artists transcend their genres to such an extent that they become their own genre.

thelastgreatman
03-01-2008, 12:53 AM
This is absolutely right on the money.
It's like calling the Beatles "Merseybeat" or Johnny Cash "Country".Some artists transcend their genres to such an extent that they become their own genre.

Thank you.

Seriously, if you want proof of how The Clash can't be categorized as punk, name another punk band that really sounds like The Clash. Or any band, for that matter. Nobody got good at imitating them until a decade or so had passed, and then the people that grew up on The Clash managed to kinda bite their style. Otherwise they were too pioneering to be considered categorizable as "punk" IMO.

rage patton
03-01-2008, 12:57 AM
Have you listened to their first album, The Clash? That was a fuckin crusty, balls out album. The production on that album was nowhere near as good as the rest of their albums. And as I said, The Clash developed punk into what it was... then they took it a step further.
And punk is not a fucking fashion statement. To some people it maybe. Hell, to a lot of people it may be. But if that is what it is to them, then its not really "punk" at all. Punk was about what band like The Clash made it out to be. A statement in general. A big fuck you to the authorities. It let people know you don't have to take shit from the government. It let people know its ok to be gay, straight, bi, whatever. (Unless you are a Nazi skinhead.) Its let people know there was an alternative to what was going on. The fashion just came along with it. It let people on the outside know the movement they were a part of.
Sadly, most people don't think of it this way.

thelastgreatman
03-01-2008, 01:03 AM
The Clash was the only one of those bands with a legitimate "consciousness" aspect. The rest of it was just contrarian revolution. Anarchy is a fallacy, The Clash had something to say but the rest of it was about "being individuals" by wearing uniforms and having a clique. This is why The Clash shouldn't be lumped in as "punk." It does them a disservice.

Punk was no more substantive than disco, just skewed in the opposite direction. It didn't show people they didn't have to listen to authorities--the fucking hippies did 10 times the amount of true rebellion against the establishment than punk ever did. Punk was the reactionary shockwaves of that semi-legitimate rebellion's failure: revolution without focus or true ethos. Reactionary choosing of something new and different just to distinguish yourself and be edgy. The 70s equivalent of hipsters.

rage patton
03-01-2008, 01:10 AM
I agree with breakjaw and you that they "trancend" the genre of punk. But it cannot be denied that they pioneered punk, and with its taken back to the basics, what punk music is all about, then the Clash can be labeled as a punk band.
And punk bands tried to show people what they, as the band, beliebed. Obviously, some punk bands believed in different things. A lot of them didn't think Anarchy was a good idea at all. Others would die for it. Some hated Jews, a great majority did not. It was left up to the listener to interpret everything they were hearing. So I guess it is true punk didn't have a focus or true ethos. However, that is not what punk was about. They didn't want everyone to think the same thing and agree. They wanted people to think for themselves. They wanted people to be themselves. They wanted everyone to be unique and different and true to what they believe, no matter what anyone else believed.

thelastgreatman
03-01-2008, 01:11 AM
Rage, I'm having fun, but I gotta bail on this until tomorrow. Even then, we should probably drop it because every time punk comes up I get hated by several dozen people.



But seriously, that shit sucks. 'Cept for The Clash. Oh, and Rock The Casbah IS their best song. Sorry.


=)

rage patton
03-01-2008, 01:18 AM
Me too man, I got work in the morning.

And I am sure I will catch shit from a bunch of people in the morning from what I said too. But whatever, its just my opinions and beliefs.

Also, I think we did a good job turning the Justice/Fatboy slim thread into an argument about punk as well. ;)

thelastgreatman
03-01-2008, 01:20 AM
Sell that shit to the tourists. "Punk wanted people to think for themselves." Not really. Pushing anarchy, or white supremacy, or any agenda makes it less about individual thought than about collective illusions of individuality. Movements in general are never about "thinking for yourself," because such a movement would be saying nothing. Punk may have been more thought-provoking than disco, but it wasn't half as much so as the decade that had preceded it where there was a true counter-culture tied to the music but with applications far beyond mere art.

Hippies were idealistic to their doom, but they were legitimately stirring shit up, sometimes constructively, and more importantly they really were new and threatening to the status quo. Punk was just what happened when that movement had advanced past its point of collapse and left a vacuum of rebellion to be filled. It was doing whatever it could to find some look and sound that old people would be disturbed by.

PotVsKtl
03-01-2008, 04:39 AM
I settled this argument two pages ago.

PotVsKtl
03-01-2008, 04:51 AM
Sell that shit to the tourists. "Punk wanted people to think for themselves." Not really. Pushing anarchy, or white supremacy, or any agenda makes it less about individual thought than about collective illusions of individuality. Movements in general are never about "thinking for yourself," because such a movement would be saying nothing. Punk may have been more thought-provoking than disco, but it wasn't half as much so as the decade that had preceded it where there was a true counter-culture tied to the music but with applications far beyond mere art.

Hippies were idealistic to their doom, but they were legitimately stirring shit up, sometimes constructively, and more importantly they really were new and threatening to the status quo. Punk was just what happened when that movement had advanced past its point of collapse and left a vacuum of rebellion to be filled. It was doing whatever it could to find some look and sound that old people would be disturbed by.

Also, seriously? OK it's 5AM. Punk had less impact than Woodstock? Think carefully. Who is ripping off the Doors? Who is ripping off Wire? The punk aesthetic dominates popular music. It's hardly ever genuine, bit it's there. It's over for guitars.

greghead
03-01-2008, 04:57 AM
From there came the Ramones, The Sex Pistols and what have you.

Actually, the Ramones came before the Clash, in fact, the Clash formed because of the Ramones. It was their UK tour at the end of '76 that inspired all those spotty teenagers to start their own bands like the Damned, Cocksparrer, the Clash, Stiff Little Fingers, Sham 69, and unfortunately, the shitty Sex Pistols. 1977 is the year of British punk, but it all goes back to the shows the Ramones played at the end of '76 (along with television, iggy, patti smith, ny dolls) that inspired the Spirit of '77.

roberto73
03-01-2008, 05:09 AM
Have you listened to their first album, The Clash? That was a fuckin crusty, balls out album. The production on that album was nowhere near as good as the rest of their albums. And as I said, The Clash developed punk into what it was... then they took it a step further.
And punk is not a fucking fashion statement. To some people it maybe. Hell, to a lot of people it may be. But if that is what it is to them, then its not really "punk" at all. Punk was about what band like The Clash made it out to be. A statement in general. A big fuck you to the authorities. It let people know you don't have to take shit from the government. It let people know its ok to be gay, straight, bi, whatever. (Unless you are a Nazi skinhead.) Its let people know there was an alternative to what was going on. The fashion just came along with it. It let people on the outside know the movement they were a part of.
Sadly, most people don't think of it this way.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, Rage, but their first album, however much it sounds traditionally "punk," still helps prove Randy's point. "Police and Thieves," "(White Man) in Hammersmith Palais," "Jail Guitar Doors," "Hate and War" – none of those songs is as one-dimensional as the music usually lumped into the punk category. Even on Album One they were starting to experiment with blurring the lines between genres. I'm not aware of any other punk band to whom you could ascribe this characteristic, which probably means The Clash weren't punk.

thelastgreatman
03-01-2008, 08:49 AM
Also, seriously? OK it's 5AM. Punk had less impact than Woodstock? Think carefully. Who is ripping off the Doors? Who is ripping off Wire? The punk aesthetic dominates popular music. It's hardly ever genuine, bit it's there. It's over for guitars.

This is what boggles me. The reverence for the supposed grand influence of the punk movement. Sorry, I don't see it so much. Who is ripping off The Doors? Well, Scott Weiland generally, but limiting it to just The Doors is kinda narrowing a big fucking argument. C'mon, man, the entire genre of punk did not have the influence that 1969 alone did and does to this day.

But the argument you quoted was more of a philosophical point--the supposed punk "statement" is horseshit. Every place you want to point out how the punk movement of individuality, or rebellion, or whatever the fuck people claim it to be is somehow still a big impact today... well, it's probably an impact that pisses me off. People feeling the need to demonstrate their individuality are fucking cunts who know nothing of true uniqueness and never will. I don't go to art to have some twats show me what individuals they are by intentionally playing half-assed music and looking like weird shit. I go to art to try to relieve the knowledge that I'm an alien, not to see a monkey act like he knows what the fuck it is to be an alien.

rage patton
03-01-2008, 08:59 AM
I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, Rage, but their first album, however much it sounds traditionally "punk," still helps prove Randy's point. "Police and Thieves," "(White Man) in Hammersmith Palais," "Jail Guitar Doors," "Hate and War" – none of those songs is as one-dimensional as the music usually lumped into the punk category. Even on Album One they were starting to experiment with blurring the lines between genres. I'm not aware of any other punk band to whom you could ascribe this characteristic, which probably means The Clash weren't punk.

I agree that the Clashes flirtations with reggae/ska set them apart from the rest of the punk acts of the time. I also said I agree that The Clash seems to trascend genres. This still doesn't mean that they weren't a punk band at heart. Sure they had some songs that didn't fit the original "punk" label, but punk is all about not fitting into a label, right? And the punk also always had thier songs like White Riot. Also, the Clash can be labeled punk, not only for thier sound, but for thier attitude, approach and lyrics. I went over that earlier.

thelastgreatman
03-01-2008, 09:01 AM
Sure they had some songs that didn't fit the original "punk" label, but punk is all about not fitting into a label, right?

That's where you're going wrong--this is just another bullshit smokescreen. Punk is all about fitting into a label.

rage patton
03-01-2008, 09:01 AM
This is what boggles me. The reverence for the supposed grand influence of the punk movement. Sorry, I don't see it so much. Who is ripping off The Doors? Well, Scott Weiland generally, but limiting it to just The Doors is kinda narrowing a big fucking argument. C'mon, man, the entire genre of punk did not have the influence that 1969 alone did and does to this day.

But the argument you quoted was more of a philosophical point--the supposed punk "statement" is horseshit. Every place you want to point out how the punk movement of individuality, or rebellion, or whatever the fuck people claim it to be is somehow still a big impact today... well, it's probably an impact that pisses me off. People feeling the need to demonstrate their individuality are fucking cunts who know nothing of true uniqueness and never will. I don't go to art to have some twats show me what individuals they are by intentionally playing half-assed music and looking like weird shit. I go to art to try to relieve the knowledge that I'm an alien, not to see a monkey act like he knows what the fuck it is to be an alien.

The Stooges were ripping off the Doors.

And just because a movement pisses you off personally, doesn't mean its automatically dead or illegitamite. You personaly feel people who need to show their individuality are "fucking cunts" and I am sure a lot of people who identify with being a punk will you to be a fucking cunt. Don't let your personal biases skew how much of an impact punk actually made.

thelastgreatman
03-01-2008, 09:04 AM
Music is taste, taste is nothing but personal bias. Whatever punk influence there is in music I like is incredibly minimal. I honestly can't think of too many cases, if we're using current bands as the litmus test.

rage patton
03-01-2008, 09:09 AM
Music is taste, taste is nothing but personal bias. Whatever punk influence there is in music I like is incredibly minimal. I honestly can't think of too many cases, if we're using current bands as the litmus test.

As I said in the other thread where we were arguing about punk... I agree that there are not that many/if any current classic style punk bands that are influential. But bands in punks subgenres are popping up all over the place that are making good quality music.
I gotta get going to work now though. I will see how this develops when I get home...

thelastgreatman
03-01-2008, 09:10 AM
Name one quality band in a punk subgenre. And cram Gogol for the moment--I'm still not sold on those gypsy cunts.

greghead
03-01-2008, 10:51 AM
This is what boggles me. The reverence for the supposed grand influence of the punk movement. Sorry, I don't see it so much. Who is ripping off The Doors? Well, Scott Weiland generally, but limiting it to just The Doors is kinda narrowing a big fucking argument. C'mon, man, the entire genre of punk did not have the influence that 1969 alone did and does to this day.

But the argument you quoted was more of a philosophical point--the supposed punk "statement" is horseshit. Every place you want to point out how the punk movement of individuality, or rebellion, or whatever the fuck people claim it to be is somehow still a big impact today... well, it's probably an impact that pisses me off. People feeling the need to demonstrate their individuality are fucking cunts who know nothing of true uniqueness and never will. I don't go to art to have some twats show me what individuals they are by intentionally playing half-assed music and looking like weird shit. I go to art to try to relieve the knowledge that I'm an alien, not to see a monkey act like he knows what the fuck it is to be an alien.

1969!? The hippie movement was dead by 1969. Yeah yeah Woodstock, ok, I guess, but remember that Woodstock was a festival, not a cultural manifestation of the hippie ideals of peace, love, and dope. The real hippie rebellion happened from 1956-1966. After '66 the hippie movement became just another fashion trend to be bought and sold; a palsied caricature of itself. Why is it that suddenly everybody had long hair? Did they all just decide to grow their hair long, or was it an image they were trying to cop? The hippie movement is the ultimate culmination of 20th century American Modernism, as they were a group of relatively affluent, disaffected people raised on post-War plastic consumerism and abundance, who were searching for something real or authentic in their lives. And suddenly the hippie movement came along and offered them something different, but they just blindly consumed and modeled themselves after the musicians, writers, and intellectuals who were the real rebels. Those kids were primed and ready to consume anything. Fuck Altamont, the hippie movement was dead by 1968; the Chicago DNC was the nail in the coffin.

greghead
03-01-2008, 10:54 AM
Name one quality band in a punk subgenre. And cram Gogol for the moment--I'm still not sold on those gypsy cunts.

Check out the Vindictives "Hypno-Punko", it is the weirdest, most tripped out punk album ever made, and it's magnificent. Well, most of it.

rage patton
03-01-2008, 04:38 PM
Name one quality band in a punk subgenre. And cram Gogol for the moment--I'm still not sold on those gypsy cunts.

reggae/punk - The Aggrolites, The Slackers
rockabilly/psychobilly - Nekromantix, Rezurex, Tiger Army
celtic/punk - Dropkick Murphys, Flogging Molly

Just to name a few...

thelastgreatman
03-01-2008, 04:44 PM
1969!? The hippie movement was dead by 1969. Yeah yeah Woodstock, ok, I guess, but remember that Woodstock was a festival, not a cultural manifestation of the hippie ideals of peace, love, and dope. The real hippie rebellion happened from 1956-1966. After '66 the hippie movement became just another fashion trend to be bought and sold; a palsied caricature of itself. Why is it that suddenly everybody had long hair? Did they all just decide to grow their hair long, or was it an image they were trying to cop? The hippie movement is the ultimate culmination of 20th century American Modernism, as they were a group of relatively affluent, disaffected people raised on post-War plastic consumerism and abundance, who were searching for something real or authentic in their lives. And suddenly the hippie movement came along and offered them something different, but they just blindly consumed and modeled themselves after the musicians, writers, and intellectuals who were the real rebels. Those kids were primed and ready to consume anything. Fuck Altamont, the hippie movement was dead by 1968; the Chicago DNC was the nail in the coffin.

If the hippie movement was dead by 69 (and therefore the music no longer theirs to claim) then punk has SURELY been dead for a long fucking time. The "hippie" music movement didn't peak and commence dying until 69, along with all the idealism it represented. Notice, though, that the hippie movement and the music it represented had connections to ACTUAL EVENTS that mattered in the world. The philosophical/sociological/whatever aspects of the cultural revolution it represented worked in conjunction with the music, they fed off each other. Try tracing punk's relation to any significant event for me, anyone.

jazzz
03-01-2008, 06:17 PM
Thank God Punk happened cos' if it didn't the fucking Doobie Brothers would be headlining

greghead
03-01-2008, 08:34 PM
If the hippie movement was dead by 69 (and therefore the music no longer theirs to claim) then punk has SURELY been dead for a long fucking time. The "hippie" music movement didn't peak and commence dying until 69, along with all the idealism it represented. Notice, though, that the hippie movement and the music it represented had connections to ACTUAL EVENTS that mattered in the world. The philosophical/sociological/whatever aspects of the cultural revolution it represented worked in conjunction with the music, they fed off each other. Try tracing punk's relation to any significant event for me, anyone.

You're exactly right in your statements regarding the hippie cultural movement being tied to actual events. However, in England, the meteoric rise of punk can be related to the many social ills present in England at the time, including rampant unemployment, drug addiction, massive immigration from the Caribbean (hence, the reggae/ska influence on British punk), as well as economic turmoil under Margaret Thatcher and her use of neoliberalism as an economic ideology (for more info on neoliberalism, check out a book of the same name by David Harvey). Punk offered a break, though punkers had no interest in reforming society, but as you said in an earlier post, they were interested only in acting like retarded monkeys and making futile attempts to destroy social mores, and society itself, which they clearly failed in doing. However, they failed no worse than the hippies did in changing the world.

thelastgreatman
03-01-2008, 08:47 PM
Yeah, but the hippies (overly idealistic and optimistic--therefore misguided--though they were) were actually trying to achieve something, and you can't say that they didn't change ANYTHING. I mean it's hard to separate the hippie movement from developments in civil rights, for example, although I'm not remotely saying they get credit for civil rights. But they were actually involved in shit, not just jerking off to anarchy.

greghead
03-01-2008, 09:00 PM
Yeah, but the hippies (overly idealistic and optimistic--therefore misguided--though they were) were actually trying to achieve something, and you can't say that they didn't change ANYTHING. I mean it's hard to separate the hippie movement from developments in civil rights, for example, although I'm not remotely saying they get credit for civil rights. But they were actually involved in shit, not just jerking off to anarchy.

The hippies really did not have much bearing on civil rights, Johnson's "Great Society" legislation was passed before Dylan even plugged in. But you are correct, the hippies DID have a huge hand in the feminist movement, to name just one.

"Jerking off to anarchy", that's fucking priceless, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to steal that for my sig.

roberto73
03-01-2008, 09:01 PM
Revolution Rock is on KCET right now. Goddamn, The Clash were a great band.

jazzz
03-01-2008, 09:05 PM
Revolution Rock is on KCET right now. Goddamn, The Clash were a great band.

make sure to check out Mick Jones new band Carbon Silicon they are good

garrett222
03-01-2008, 09:07 PM
indie rock/pop music - any rock/pop music that is left of the center...

it used to mean independent..now it means left of center

greghead
03-01-2008, 09:10 PM
Revolution Rock is on KCET right now. Goddamn, The Clash were a great band.

I fucking love that track. The second verse always rocks my face.

thelastgreatman
03-01-2008, 09:14 PM
The hippies really did not have much bearing on civil rights, Johnson's "Great Society" legislation was passed before Dylan even plugged in. But you are correct, the hippies DID have a huge hand in the feminist movement, to name just one.

"Jerking off to anarchy", that's fucking priceless, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to steal that for my sig.

Why does Dylan plugging in make a hippie landmark? Great Society was enacted after The Times They Are A-Changin', if you want to play the Specious Reasoning Chronology Game.

greghead
03-01-2008, 09:44 PM
Why does Dylan plugging in make a hippie landmark? Great Society was enacted after The Times They Are A-Changin', if you want to play the Specious Reasoning Chronology Game.

No, no I used to Dylan plugging-in as a way to form a sort of timeline (1965). However, Dylan plugging-in does represent a hippie landmark, since it was this act that forever alterred rock and roll. Before Dylan, the vast majority of rock and roll consisted of some variation of love song, whereas the surrealist imagery and wordplay on Bringing It All Back Home and Highway 61 Revisited influenced the Beatles, the Beach Boys (whose Pet Sounds inspired Sgt. Pepper's), and basically every other major act. "The Times . . . " is not representative of hippie culture, it represents the folk movement, and not many of the folkies followed Dylan after he plugged in. However, enough folkies (the Byrds, the Dead, the Jefferson Airplane, the Mamas and the Papas to name a few) decided to leave the folkie coffeehouse scene and plug-in to play what Gram Parsons called "cosmic American music". It was these artists that created the base of the musical styles which would be associated with hippies.

Dylan and the Beats had a huge influence on the American civil rights movement of the early 1960s; the hippies did not, because that cultural fad had not yet come into existence.

thelastgreatman
03-01-2008, 10:00 PM
You entire case hinges on this distinct separation between the beat movement and the hippie culture that was much more prevalent as an evolution of the beatniks, but I don't think you can say that they're really mutually exclusive. You're telling me Kesey can only be associated with beatnik but not hippie? When exactly and what exactly are the turning points where hippie-dom came into being?

And are you seriously trying to claim that the civil rights movement was settled with the Great Society? Or that hippies didn't do a great deal of work to promote civil rights awareness--although we're really zeroing in on this one fact while overlooking other bigger and more easily provable supports for my side like Vietnam, sexual liberty, and actually organized general sticking it to the man. The organization (lack thereof) is what fails punk.

thelastgreatman
03-01-2008, 10:04 PM
Please don't insist on prolonging this argument just for the sake of debate. I see you like arguing with Jack too--this leads me to believe you're a chronic arguer, and I don't need another one of those when I already am one. Plus, I'm much, much better at it than you, I assure you. =)

Sonicifyouwantit
03-01-2008, 10:28 PM
Revolution Rock is on KCET right now. Goddamn, The Clash were a great band.

my favorite!

greghead
03-01-2008, 11:42 PM
And are you seriously trying to claim that the civil rights movement was settled with the Great Society? Or that hippies didn't do a great deal of work to promote civil rights awareness--although we're really zeroing in on this one fact while overlooking other bigger and more easily provable supports for my side like Vietnam, sexual liberty, and actually organized general sticking it to the man. The organization (lack thereof) is what fails punk.

Ok, after this I'll let it be. I'm actually not a chronic arguer, but I have a compulsive need to get the last word. Which I can see you do, as well. And I don't doubt you're better at arguing, from what I can see in your posts, you are highly intelligent and fairly well read. I have a master's degree ( continuting to Ph.D.) in American cultural history, specifically, the study of grassroot cultural movements in post-WWII America. So I apologize for the lengthy posts, but I have a lot to say on the subject.

All arguments and timeframes aside, I don't think the hippies really did all that much. You're arguing a very MC5-ish point of view, that if people got together, fucked in the streets, put theird minds together, and played loud rock and roll that society would be shaken to its very foundations, and great change would be accomplished. They didn't end the war in Vietnam (Nixon did, and he only did that when there was no other choice, popular opinion had little to do with it, if it did, then the war would have ended in '70). The civil rights leaders of of the late 1960s (minus Dr. King) actually resented the hippies, believing they were just another example of whites trying to co-opt a black movement. Hippies didn't stick it to the man, the man stuck it to the hippies (see: Chicago 1968, Kent State 1970, etc). If the hippies were so vital, why did the movement all but disappear in the early 70s? Why did they become so disillusioned with it? Take the Diggers or the Weatherman, did Ratso and the boys actually accomplish anything?

Did they raise awareness? Yes, of course, but people were more enamored by peace/love/dope than they were with actually carrying anything out. Raising awareness and changing the world are two wholly different things.

There is actually a wealth of literature on the topic, I recommend George Lipsitz as a starting point. But Randy, let me say that I am very, very impressed by your knowledge and arguments; it seems a lot of people on this board don't know shit and are merely talking out of their asses. Thanks for keeping it interesting.

And you're exactly right, the disorganization/apathy of punkers was their failing.

I concede. And thanks for the sig.

thelastgreatman
03-02-2008, 12:25 AM
Once again, I think the problem is in so narrowly defining what I summed up as the "hippie" movement. I mean if you want to get technical about it the yippies were exactly hippies either and they were more active in the social consciousness aspect (although still kinda shitheaded), and much of the classic hippie sect were really just drug-addled lazy unwashed fuckheads--much like hippies today. Their ethos was as faulty as communism and they had the convenient luxury of being able to rail against social ills despite largely being middle-class, white, and generally much less affected than the groups they threw their half-assed "sit-in" support behind.

All that being said, my point was just that compared to the punk movement there was much more substance and activity and focus to what the hippies were trying to do--trying in a silly, flowers-and-facepaint and music festivals will change the world way. I don't dispute that at all. I have reverence for that era and the various movements that took place--from hippies to yippies, Black Panthers, The Weathermen, fucking all of it--because it was an active revolution attempt. It was ultimately fairly fruitless, although I still don't think that you can properly gauge how much impact they can be said to have. For someone like me, the fact that they popularized hallucinogens is as significant an accomplishment as civil rights. Might sound silly, but it's true for me.

Punk was very contrarian, a response to the status quo without even a flimsy unreachable ethos. This is why I say it was even more a fashion statement movement than hippies, which is really saying something considering how feather-headed the peaceniks were.

Nonetheless, they DID get out their and make their viewpoints heard by having the balls to bring their silly protests to "the man," and they dealt with consequences. Kent State, for example. Punk never provoked the National Guard to shoot four mohawked assholes--the best they ever do is get arrested for mouthing off to cops 'cause they were trying to impress the ugly underage girls waiting in line to get inside and pogo.

And the other important factor I think you're not giving enough credit to is: to what degree was the movement responsible for the incredible boon to culture in just about every medium? Certainly the art that surrounded the movement was probably at least equally the cause of the movement as the movement was to the art, but as far as I'm concerned if hippies can be given some of the credit of the artistic golden age that surrounded their time then they DID evoke significant change.

Art + drugs + sexual liberation + the willingness to start some shit with authority > punk, and pretty much any other musical/cultural movement of this century.

rage patton
03-02-2008, 12:48 AM
Where is Tom and Ron? I want to know thier thoughts on this...

thelastgreatman
03-02-2008, 12:50 AM
I think Ron is a little offended at the characterization of his time as being ineffectual, which I feel bad about in a way, but fuck--it's the truth. I'm not sure that Tom is actually old enough to have been really cognizent during that period, for some reason I have the impression he matured during the 70s. But either way I expect him to groan at me.

rage patton
03-02-2008, 12:54 AM
Tom was around when punk started though and was into punk... so I would just like to see what he thinks of your critiques.

thelastgreatman
03-02-2008, 01:00 AM
Yeah, that's kinda why I'm hoping he just groans and leaves. He really loves that punk shit, he's not gonna be happy.

jazzz
03-02-2008, 04:05 AM
Ok, after this I'll let it be. I'm actually not a chronic arguer, but I have a compulsive need to get the last word. Which I can see you do, as well. And I don't doubt you're better at arguing, from what I can see in your posts, you are highly intelligent and fairly well read. I have a master's degree ( continuting to Ph.D.) in American cultural history, specifically, the study of grassroot cultural movements in post-WWII America. So I apologize for the lengthy posts, but I have a lot to say on the subject.

All arguments and timeframes aside, I don't think the hippies really did all that much. You're arguing a very MC5-ish point of view, that if people got together, fucked in the streets, put theird minds together, and played loud rock and roll that society would be shaken to its very foundations, and great change would be accomplished. They didn't end the war in Vietnam (Nixon did, and he only did that when there was no other choice, popular opinion had little to do with it, if it did, then the war would have ended in '70). The civil rights leaders of of the late 1960s (minus Dr. King) actually resented the hippies, believing they were just another example of whites trying to co-opt a black movement. Hippies didn't stick it to the man, the man stuck it to the hippies (see: Chicago 1968, Kent State 1970, etc). If the hippies were so vital, why did the movement all but disappear in the early 70s? Why did they become so disillusioned with it? Take the Diggers or the Weatherman, did Ratso and the boys actually accomplish anything?

Did they raise awareness? Yes, of course, but people were more enamored by peace/love/dope than they were with actually carrying anything out. Raising awareness and changing the world are two wholly different things.

There is actually a wealth of literature on the topic, I recommend George Lipsitz as a starting point. But Randy, let me say that I am very, very impressed by your knowledge and arguments; it seems a lot of people on this board don't know shit and are merely talking out of their asses. Thanks for keeping it interesting.

And you're exactly right, the disorganization/apathy of punkers was their failing.

I concede. And thanks for the sig.

I wasn't a hippie... I was a beatnik... and all the people who said that ran...

thelastgreatman
03-02-2008, 06:26 AM
What what is? Or are you being all world-weary concise on me, FOI?

Cheddar's Cousin
03-02-2008, 02:17 PM
Actually, the Ramones came before the Clash, in fact, the Clash formed because of the Ramones. It was their UK tour at the end of '76 that inspired all those spotty teenagers to start their own bands like the Damned, Cocksparrer, the Clash, Stiff Little Fingers, Sham 69, and unfortunately, the shitty Sex Pistols. 1977 is the year of British punk, but it all goes back to the shows the Ramones played at the end of '76 (along with television, iggy, patti smith, ny dolls) that inspired the Spirit of '77.


Thank you greghead. I was flipping my shit, and thought I was going to have to give a history lesson. The Ramones had already released 1 album, and had 2 more in the can before the Clash played their first show.

As for punk as a label...it has always been an attitude. Those who wear the "uniform" do not understand a thing about it. True punks would not judge someone by the patches on their cut.

As for good bands in a punk sub genre...The Dresden Dolls are kicking all ass with their punk cabaret. There are no boundaries.

PassiveTheory
03-02-2008, 02:47 PM
As for good bands in a punk sub genre...The Dresden Dolls are kicking all ass with their punk cabaret. There are no boundaries.

Brechtian Punk Cabaret... But you're 100% right, nonetheless.

mountmccabe
03-02-2008, 05:01 PM
I am not sure if arguing about the definition of "punk" is any more interesting than arguing about the definition of "indie."

mountmccabe
03-02-2008, 05:07 PM
wow.. you read my mind. just a warning, this is going to be a long post.. lately I've been thinking this exact same thing..
here is my problem.
currently I can't appease my appetite with any new music.. I can't find any album that really holds my attention like the artists of yester year.
am I looking for music in the wrong places??? do i need to start listening to jazz, blues.. etc.. I can't remember the last time someone put out a stellar album, collection of songs..such as SP - Siamese Dream, U2's - Joshua Tree, are their any bands that will take the torch from Pink Floyd, The Clash, The Police, Led Zep, Coldplay, Radiohead, even the metal bands and pop bands from the 80's, and grunge artists of the 90's had shit that I find more enjoyable to listen to.. I can't find any new song writers that are like Jeff Buckley, Peter Murphy, Peter Gabriel, Bob Dylan, Matt Johnson (thethe), Prince, The Doves, Catherine Wheel..

bands like the national, band of horses, vampire weekend, spoon and my morning jacket are good, but they don't give me that connection..

I feel like some of the nostalgia has been lost in translation with the new direction music is heading.
Remember the days when you would get a tape, record, or cd and you would listen to the songs while looking at the cover art, reading the lyrics to songs and checking out the thankyou's, production credits etc... now you download a fucking mp4, which loses a lot of sound quality compared to a wave format, and it goes into your bank of 10,000 songs..

so my question is, are we just in a musical transition phase, or is my mind closing and shit is just as a amazing now, as it was 5, 10 and 15 years ago...????? thanks for your response..

The music out there now is just as amazing now as it was 5, 10, 15, etc. years ago.

No one is forcing people to download more albums than they can digest.

No one is saying you can't pretend you're 12 and can't afford to buy as many records as you want and there isn't an internet to illegally download it.

I recently went through my tapes that I poured over, read all the liner notes and lyrics and listened to until they wore out as a kid... many of them are nothing special. But they were what I had so I made the most of them.

I can still enjoy them now - well, most of them - but I very rarely break out the nostalgia rock because there's so much else out there that's better.

rage patton
03-02-2008, 07:02 PM
Randy. I think I have you figured out.

You criticize punks for having a lack of ideology and you criticize hippies for being ineffective. However, the fact is both of them were taking a stand for something they believed in. Whatever it may be they believe in, they took a stand for it. They say something wasn’t right in the world or in society, and decided to do something about it. Whether they had they had the same ideologies or were effective or not, has nothing to do with it. At least they were taking a stand.
However you yourself, would rather blend in and not stand out. You would rather let the world play out itself because you are just an insignificant part of it. No matter what injustices are going on in society, in the government, or where ever. Taking a stand won’t make a difference. It doesn’t matter. Fuck it. So to cope, you just fill yourself with copious amount of drugs and forget about the world. By taking mass amounts of drugs, all the problems just go away or, at least, you don’t have to deal with them.

thelastgreatman
03-02-2008, 07:07 PM
Randy. I think I have you figured out.

You criticize punks for having a lack of ideology and you criticize hippies for being ineffective. However, the fact is both of them were taking a stand for something they believed in. Whatever it may be they believe in, they took a stand for it. They say something wasn’t right in the world or in society, and decided to do something about it. Whether they had they had the same ideologies or were effective or not, has nothing to do with it. At least they were taking a stand.
However you yourself, would rather blend in and not stand out. You would rather let the world play out itself because you are just an insignificant part of it. No matter what injustices are going on in society, in the government, or where ever. Taking a stand won’t make a difference. It doesn’t matter. Fuck it. So to cope, you just fill yourself with copious amount of drugs and forget about the world. By taking mass amounts of drugs, all the problems just go away or, at least, you don’t have to deal with them.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha...

Sorry dude, but you missed it entirely. I don't know how you got the differences between punk and hippies wrong either, cause I must have stated it perfectly clearly 10 times already, and I'm not doing it again.

As far as the psychoanalysis goes, you ended up at the opposite. I don't blend in because I'm insignificant. I have delusions of grandeur, for one (except they're not delusions--you'll all see). And I just don't feel the need to attract attention to myself in public because whenever engaged in social interaction I cannot prevent attention being drawn to me.

rage patton
03-02-2008, 07:12 PM
Well then, because of your delusions of grandeur and the constant attention on you, you get jelous when the attention is shifted off of you. Why then do you hate punks so much for feeling the need to dress differently then others? They obviously feel like if they dress "normally" they don't feel like they are being true to themselves. By dressing differently, its a way to get attraction drawn to them and to get their message out. Whether or not you agree with what they are doing/saying.

breakjaw
03-02-2008, 09:40 PM
The music out there now is just as amazing now as it was 5, 10, 15, etc. years ago.

No one is forcing people to download more albums than they can digest.

No one is saying you can't pretend you're 12 and can't afford to buy as many records as you want and there isn't an internet to illegally download it.

I recently went through my tapes that I poured over, read all the liner notes and lyrics and listened to until they wore out as a kid... many of them are nothing special. But they were what I had so I made the most of them.

I can still enjoy them now - well, most of them - but I very rarely break out the nostalgia rock because there's so much else out there that's better.




This is why John's my favorite,he breaks everything that's all too fucking convoluted down into a nice,simple,and concise way to view the entire argument.
I'm going back to when I was 12 now...

thelastgreatman
03-02-2008, 10:17 PM
Well then, because of your delusions of grandeur and the constant attention on you, you get jelous when the attention is shifted off of you. Why then do you hate punks so much for feeling the need to dress differently then others? They obviously feel like if they dress "normally" they don't feel like they are being true to themselves. By dressing differently, its a way to get attraction drawn to them and to get their message out. Whether or not you agree with what they are doing/saying.

Because they didn't have anything to say. It's just attention-seeking. It's enjoying people staring at you. It's people who think they're showing off their uniqueness by looking different, and if any of them actually knew what it was like to truly feel individuality in mind and spirit they would realize that it's not comfortable. Feeling like an alien isn't something you advertise, it isn't a label you wear proudly, and it definitely isn't something you go out of your way to make sure other people recognize in you.

Making a big effort to look special is something people who aren't special in ways that matter do. Wearing a costume is just trying to draw attention away from what you really are.

rage patton
03-02-2008, 10:28 PM
Because they didn't have anything to say. It's just attention-seeking. It's enjoying people staring at you. It's people who think they're showing off their uniqueness by looking different, and if any of them actually knew what it was like to truly feel individuality in mind and spirit they would realize that it's not comfortable. Feeling like an alien isn't something you advertise, it isn't a label you wear proudly, and it definitely isn't something you go out of your way to make sure other people recognize in you.

Making a big effort to look special is something people who aren't special in ways that matter do. Wearing a costume is just trying to draw attention away from what you really are.

But they did have something to say. You just think they had nothing to say. And why can't someone advertise their feeling by the way they dress? What would you suggest they do? Supress the way they feel and just dress normal? What if they feel like an alien to themselves by dressing normally. Perhaps it isn't a costume to them. Its their skin. You just percieve it as a costume because its normal to you. Maybe you are in fact the one wearing a costume.

thelastgreatman
03-02-2008, 10:31 PM
And maybe the color I see as brown you actually see as green, too. Oooooo... subjective reality...

It's not their fucking skin. They made a conscious effort to have a "look." And they DIDN'T FUCKING HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY. I have yet to see you illuminate me as to the significant message that punk represented. And even if they did represent something, they sure as fuck didn't actually do anything with these supposed convictions except fashion and pogoing. They didn't stand for anything but the equivalent of sticking your tongue out at your parents.

jazzz
03-02-2008, 10:41 PM
Punk sure was responsible for all kinds of great bands and making all the boring cock rock,yacht rock of the seventies look like dinosaurs

greghead
03-03-2008, 02:32 AM
Once again, I think the problem is in so narrowly defining what I summed up as the "hippie" movement. I mean if you want to get technical about it the yippies were exactly hippies either and they were more active in the social consciousness aspect (although still kinda shitheaded), and much of the classic hippie sect were really just drug-addled lazy unwashed fuckheads--much like hippies today. Their ethos was as faulty as communism and they had the convenient luxury of being able to rail against social ills despite largely being middle-class, white, and generally much less affected than the groups they threw their half-assed "sit-in" support behind.

All that being said, my point was just that compared to the punk movement there was much more substance and activity and focus to what the hippies were trying to do--trying in a silly, flowers-and-facepaint and music festivals will change the world way. I don't dispute that at all. I have reverence for that era and the various movements that took place--from hippies to yippies, Black Panthers, The Weathermen, fucking all of it--because it was an active revolution attempt. It was ultimately fairly fruitless, although I still don't think that you can properly gauge how much impact they can be said to have. For someone like me, the fact that they popularized hallucinogens is as significant an accomplishment as civil rights. Might sound silly, but it's true for me.

Punk was very contrarian, a response to the status quo without even a flimsy unreachable ethos. This is why I say it was even more a fashion statement movement than hippies, which is really saying something considering how feather-headed the peaceniks were.

Nonetheless, they DID get out their and make their viewpoints heard by having the balls to bring their silly protests to "the man," and they dealt with consequences. Kent State, for example. Punk never provoked the National Guard to shoot four mohawked assholes--the best they ever do is get arrested for mouthing off to cops 'cause they were trying to impress the ugly underage girls waiting in line to get inside and pogo.

And the other important factor I think you're not giving enough credit to is: to what degree was the movement responsible for the incredible boon to culture in just about every medium? Certainly the art that surrounded the movement was probably at least equally the cause of the movement as the movement was to the art, but as far as I'm concerned if hippies can be given some of the credit of the artistic golden age that surrounded their time then they DID evoke significant change.

Art + drugs + sexual liberation + the willingness to start some shit with authority > punk, and pretty much any other musical/cultural movement of this century.

Perfectly stated. I wholly agree with this statement. Art is the key, as well as the willingness to experiment with different ways of thinking and living. I wish we were discussing this in person. This whole conversation would have been over in under five minutes.