All right, let's take a stab at defining the word punk or at least lets talk about how it's changed (inspired by Rads detraction of The Black Keys)
I think a good place to start would be to musically compare its historical arc to other sub genres of non-classical music.

Other points of interest in discussion might be:

1. what is the sound of punk? is there a formula, or are there certain musical traits that have historically enabled bands to be labeled punk?

2. at the inception of rock and roll (let's pick musicians in the 50s, say Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, Elvis, and to a lesser extent Buddy Holly), there was definitely a convergence of many genres that was boiled down into lean and simple boogie woogie with a backbeat kind of thing. Over the course of the 60s, the diaspora of influences began, sub genres of rock were born, and the whole thing went divergent. You could draw similarities to other larger genres of pop music with sub genres, such as metal or country, or hip hop, in that there was a sonic convergence, and then variations on the theme. To me it seems like punk did not follow this arc, as so many bands labeled punk (was the term punk made up by journalists to describe a trend?) in the 70s were not of the ramones blue print. It also seems to me that many bands that were labeled punk then, would not be labeled punk now such as The Clash, Elvis Costello, The Police, Blondie etc... Punk seems to have not had a convergent beginning, but among fans and detractors alike, there appears to be a musical standard by which something can be comfortably labeled punk, or bashed as not punk enough.

2a. Grunge. What the hell does grunge mean? I think it means you were from seattle in 1991 and that's it. Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden (in 91) and Alice in Chains. All are labeled grunge. Is it just that they sounded angrier and more real than the hair metal and pop confections that most of America had been subjected to for the better part of the previous decade? I don't think these bands sound anything alike, and that this term was a journalistic attempt to lump the unknown together.

2b. What did early punk bands (and by the same token, some of those bands were labeled new wave shortly after) have in common? About as much as bands in the grunge scene? Less? More? It seems that the geographical epicenters were london and new york, followed quickly by the west coast and d.c. In NYC the epicenter seems to be CBGBs in terms of these bands sharing bills or having gigs in proximity.

Maybe early punk bands were just wierd misfit bands that weren't arena rock, disco, or funk, and so they gigged together.

3. Does punk have a uniform? (if you mention d.boon or mike watt, or flipper, then you have to participate in discussion of point 1 to determine if hardcore was indeed a subgenre of punk and how the minutemen or flipper fit into that "box" musically)

4. Why does point 3 irk you? Has the word punk taken on a definition larger than a genre of music?
Was it always a word that was bigger than a genre of music?

5. Is punk what you do, how you do it, or why you do it?

6.-nth. Add to your heart's content.

and then I want to tackle "Is Rock dead"?

first you have to tackle Ian MacKaye's "punk is dead. it died in the 70s" quote.

Come on paul, play along or don't. We can do it in the black keys thread if you prefer, where there's "the black keys are punk as fuck" camp vs. the "my mom is more punk than the black keys, you don't know what punk is, and I do cause i was there, but i'm not gonna tell you what it means" camp.

I think it's interesting that "punk" at it's inception included more stylistic diversity than maybe any previous genre, but then that splintered off into other genres, distilling punk into a somewhat singular sound.

I just want to say that I heard this for the first time recently



and thought it was great


I need more punk albums in my collection


so if anyone has any recs they'd like to share, lay them on me

well, Im not sure what is to be accomplished. I mean, books have been written about the topic.

I would say that 'punk' has many senses if not separate definitions- and that is partly where the problem arises. You basically run into the problem of categorization of ill-defined categories.

Your comment placed between questions 2 and 3 kinda point to that- the first 2 attempt a musical categorization, but then you move to a social categorization.

Of course you then have to add the commodification of punk and how that changed the definition as well (along with retrospectively how the 'players' actively manipulate what was supposedly the aim back then of their actions..true or not)

While punk has become relatively easily defined as a sound and an image: Green Day, Rancid, and whatnot, I think the real meaning of "punk" is more of an approach than an actual aesthetic. It's a DIY approach that spits in the face of what is popular and what is accepted by the masses.

If it were a simple aesthetic, then April Lavigne would be as punk as the Sex Pistols. But she's not. Hers is a calculated play to make the Billboard charts, wheras the Pistols, the Clash, The Ramones had a burning urge to shake things up. Yes, they wanted to take the world, but more importantly, they wanted to fuck with the world.

There was a definite gravitation toward revolution.

So, by that definition, Jerry Lee Lewis is punk.
Glenn Gould is punk.
The Beatles could be argued to be punks, in a certain roundabout way (although I think that the backing of such big money and theie pure pop appeal undermine that argument).

1. killing time
2. examining and re-evaluating my own definitions might offer a new perspective on bands i like or appreciate but don't like
3. why does this word get people's dander up? It's like the gold standard of cool to be labeled punk and have people agree that you are, in fact, punk. You might argue the same for the word metal, but there's a level of technical expertise or outright heaviness that is far less subjective. I think it's interesting that the whole thing is as nebulous as it is.

Not sure exactly what you're looking for, but based on the Minor Threat (i.e. hardcore) posting, I recommend these (to start):



Dead Kennedys - Fresh Fruit For Rotting Vegetables



Suicidal Tendencies - Suicidal Tendencies



Circle Jerks - Group Sex



Phil, that's a really loaded, but valid, question (especially with the subculture and subgenres that sprung out of the original punk movement). I'd like to take a shot at some of your questions, but I really don't have time and I don't think there is one right answer. If I have time this weekend, I'll contribute.

punk is indeed an approach, not a singular sound or aesthetic.

7 Seconds, Adolescents, Bad Brains, Richard Hell, Youth Of Today, The Clash, and even the Butthole Surfers do not sound alike or have a similar formula, but they shared the same approach to the music.

punk rock is something you do, punk is something you live.



(south - that one's a classic. i could rec a bunch of stuff, but really i don't think there's anything better than that collection).

"I always thought a punk was someone who took it up the ass,"
- William Burroughs.

some of my favorites...

7 seconds - walk together, rock together
adolescents - adolescents
agnostic front - victim in pain
amebix - power remains
angry samoans - back from samoa
bad brains - rock for light
bl'ast! - power of expression
black flag - damaged
butthole surfers - locust abortion technician
circle jerks - group sex
corrosion of conformity - animosity
d.i. - team goon
D.R.I. - dirty rotten lp
dag nasty - can i say
descendents - i don't want to grow up
g.b.h. - city babies revenge
gray matter - food for thought
judge - bringin it down
mdc - millions of dead cops
minor threat - everything
misfits - legacy of brutality
nausea - extinction
raw power - screams from the gutter
richard hell & the voidoids - blank generation
s.o.a. - no policy
scream - still screaming
shudder to think - funeral at the movies
soulside - hot bodi-gram
subhumans - worlds apart
the faith & void - split lp
ramones - ramones
uniform choice - sreaming for change
verbal assault - trial

I'd recommend to get the Operation Ivy cd were they collect all the songs, thats one of my favorites. I think that being punk is more an attitude then necessarily a sound. I also think that it's an easy word to use when you don't know what else to call a band.

According to everyone's recommendations, punk died in 1989....
Just an observation.

One of the better resources for insight and reviews of what's currently out there is Razorcake magazine.
Their website is pretty helpful as well:

http://razorcake.org/site/

Dead Kennedys - Fresh Fruit For Rotting Vegetables

have this, love it



Suicidal Tendencies - Suicidal Tendencies

yeah, I haven't heard this in awhile but remember it was good, need to repurchase. Is "I Saw Your Mommy" on this one? I forget.



Circle Jerks - Group Sex

Have this but can't get into it. Dunno. (shrugs)



I have/like these




also, I listened to this yesterday





and it made me want to crash my car and break shit

Rather than try to think about this in a big picture sense - because it's both uninteresting to me and a huge headache - I thought I'd just go through your points individually and see if I have any relevant thoughts.



I think this has been answered, and you more or less answered it yourself here:



It seemed to be more defined by what it was not -musically and philosophically - than what it was, musically. It was not prog. It was not arena rock/"bloated" classic rock. It wasn't laid-back California country/folk-rock.

But that's the original wave. Now I think it's a fairly narrow genre that's been largely defined by the American hardcore scene of the '80s and early '90s. The Minutemen considered themselves to be a punk band, but now they'd probably be lumped in more with "alternative" and post-punk because punk has come to mean something way more limited than it did originally, as far as musical genres are concerned.



Well originally I think "punk" just described the Ramones, right? Then the UK made it into a real trend?

Again it's the same sort of thing. Now "punk" is a pre-packaged subculture you can buy at the mall, but many still view the musical label of "punk" as one of inherent value, of authenticity, integrity, independence, and audacity. So to call something "punk" that others view as flaccid, overly commercial, polished, etc. is offensive to them if they still view "punk" as a designation of value. I think people sometimes get the same way with other concepts, like debating what is or is not "art", like designating something as "art" is to assign it some high cultural value which must be earned. Or like I've seen jazz aficionados scoff at something like Squarepusher's Music is Rotten One Note being labeled as jazz by people who "don't know any better".



If we're talking the original movement, not the Hot Topic variety, then no. With the original punk bands, I think it was more just a way of separating themselves from those other guys. Sometimes that meant wearing pseudo-bondage gear and sometimes it just meant having short hair and being really buttoned-down.



It wasn't always, but I think it became that way very quickly. And then it was very quickly commodified. I'm not irked by this.



I hate nifty little turns of phrase like the one bort posted - "punk rock is something you do, punk is something you live" - that are essentially meaningless. But that's where we are with this word, just like a lot of other "big" words. People invest an infinite amount of meaning and value into it, and while it may all make sense to them individually, you'd be hard-put to get them to all agree on what it really means.

I heard clint eastwood call a guy a punk...

If you haven't heard this one, do yourself a favor and grab it immediately:

Apparently this is Punk Rock.
http://pitchfork.com/news/38595-new-mia-born-free/

Oh man, that's pretty obnoxious.

that kind of reminds me of atari teenage riot but not as good.

Rites of Spring :: End on End

"While Rites of Spring strayed from hardcore's typically external concerns of the time -- namely, social and political dissent -- their musical attack was no less blistering, and in fact a good deal more challenging and nuanced than the average three-chord speed-blur.

…

Additionally, half of the band went on to join Fugazi, whose status as punk icons helped shed light on Rites of Spring's small but still-potent recorded legacy.Rites of Spring were formed in March 1984, with a lineup of lead vocalist/guitarist Guy Picciotto, guitarist Eddie Janney, bassist Mike Fellows, and drummer Brendan Canty. Canty had played in the local hardcore band Deadline from 1981-1982, while Janney was a seasoned veteran of the D.C. scene, having been a member of the Untouchables (1979-1981), the short-lived, Ian MacKaye-led Skewbald/Grand Union (1981), and the Faith (1981-1983), which some credit with laying the groundwork for the early emo sound. Breaking free from hardcore's stylistic straitjacket, their music was powered by melody, tuneful (if hoarse) singing, guitar solos, and compelling instrumental interplay."

this PDF was posted in the chicago reader's music blog last week: http://www.kompost.ru/files/file53145479.pdf. very amusing.


i think the term "punk rock" was originally said by someone from the fugs way back in the day, even though it certainly wasn't in reference to what we now think of as punk.

funny that nobody mentioned the connection (at least in time) with "progressive rock" in the 70s. all the bands from UK which were getting bigger like genesis, king crimson, yes, van der graaf generator, and all of these musicians were sort of an elite. they all went to some of these old and famous colleges. they wanted to create music in the idea of classical compositions so even if some of them started as more rough sounding rock bands with longer songs, they used more and more classical instruments, piano, other strings than guitar, flutes etc. however, they turned a lot of let's say working class kids down with that, they couldn't identify with this snobbish apeareance and style of prog bands.
I would say it was nothing but an anti-thing to the symphonic approach. so much about the beginning. later in the 80s or 90s this label "punk" changed into a fashion thing. I mean, a band like green day might have started as somethin you could call punk, but now they are just another hard rock band for teens.
let's say the idea of provoking the establishment vanished with "grunge" and TV.