MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

RSS

12 December 2006

"Punks in the original sense of the word , were the sort of people who were such hopeless losers that they couldn't even be convincing as outlaws; far from romanticizing that status, the Ramones glorified their own inadequacy....and yet they were genuinely sexy,too; in spite of everything they were cool." - Tom Carson
There've been endless debates on what is and isn't 'punk,' but this seems to be the best definition of the original meaning of the term as it applied to music. It definitely describes the Ramones, the Dictators, the Descendents, Kevin Smith's films, and a few other cultural totems. A lot of what has been described as 'punk' since (while not without interest) seems to be in an entirely different spirit, and I'm not sure where that spirit has gone. Maybe it died with Joey, Johnny and Dee Dee.

'my future's bleak
ain't it neat?'
posted by jonmc 12 December | 11:51
The jury, however, is still deliberating the coolness of Tom Carson.
posted by mischief 12 December | 11:56
He's a 70's fucking rock critic, he falls under his own definition of 'punk' by default. Paul Williams, Lester Bangs, Dave Marsh, Legs McNeil..those guys devoted their lives to scrawling about 45's. They were exactly what Carson described. (I proudly say that I am too)

Here's some Bros YouTubery that captures the spirit I'm talking about, to sweeten the pot.
posted by jonmc 12 December | 12:04
I fondly recall walking around the Penn State campus stoned out of my freaking mind with my portable 50-watt 8-track "boombox" (a few years before the term "boombox" had been coined) blasting the Ramones' It's Alive and the first two Sex Pistols singles. That was back when my hair was halfway down my back and I still had a 24-inch waist and wore 20-inch jeans and 2-inch platform shoes.
posted by mischief 12 December | 12:04
The Replacements, at least up until Tim were in that spirit as well, but it seems like even in countercultures this weird yuppie achiever impulse seems to creep in and change everything.
posted by jonmc 12 December | 12:07
Oh, I know who Tom Carson is; I've even read Gilligan's Wake. His criticism was much more at home in LA Weekly than Village Voice. Back then though, I focused more on Trouser Press and other British ilk.

I know of the Mats only in retrospect. During the early 80s, I was totally absorbed into west coast hardcore.

"this weird yuppie achiever impulse seems to creep in and change everything" - Yeah, and her name is Patti. heheh
posted by mischief 12 December | 12:17
Heh. Patti's OK. I'm more thinking of people like Henry Rollins and all those straight-edge and scenester types (Ian MacKaye, I'm looking in your direction) who started dragging in political zealotry and all these rules.

The Ramones, The Mats, The Dics, The Descendents, Kevin Smith and a few others said the same thing to me: "You're a fucked-up uncool shlemiel who likes lame shit and who's on a circuitous path to absolutely nowhere. and that's Ok. It's even cool"
posted by jonmc 12 December | 12:21
Self-deprecating is another word. I see punk as much more than something that's self-deprecating.

I dunno, this definition definitely encapsulates one aspect of punk, but what about the DIY/amatuer aspect, what about using anger as a fuel, what about the underdog champion, what about the sense of urgency, what about doing what you feel regardless of your critics, what about fun, etc? I don't think punk is really a definable thing.

And Ian wasn't dragging rules into things - people did that. If you listen to Minor Threat, there's really not much political about them, it's just personal stuff. The politics come in with his interviews, mostly. But there were alot of people who did a lot of talking for Ian. He never told anyone to stop drinking or fucking. And I don't see him as a scenester at all (whatever a scenester is).
posted by Hellbient 12 December | 12:38
I was never a big Minor Threat or Fugazi fan, but the people who seemed to be all about 'the rules' and achieving and stuff. While a lot of the hardcore bands were railing against corporations and meat, the Ramones and Dics were celebrating White Castle and meeting girls at 7-11, if you get my drift. While the hardcore crowd against popular culture, these guys embraced it.

what about the DIY/amatuer aspect, what about using anger as a fuel, what about the underdog champion, what about the sense of urgency, what about doing what you feel regardless of your critics, what about fun, etc?

Well, the bands I mentioned are all about the fun, and the other stuff is all well and good, but I'm just kind of wondering where this strain went. There's still a few practicioners (The Muffs, Supersuckers, Nashville Pussy) but even they're old news now.

In this book, Mark Jacobsen's profile of Legs McNeil gets closer to what I'm driving at than I am.
posted by jonmc 12 December | 12:55
"Original sense" seems to be the operative word between Carson/jonmc's definition and hellbient's. Carson kinda has the 60's garage proto-punk thing in mind, but hellbient has it better to my mind. The DIY/just-do-it thing is more what epitomizes punk to me than the hopeless loser thing.
posted by danostuporstar 12 December | 12:58
I think more than anything, it always must have an element of honesty. Honesty with yourself and honesty with the audience.

Yeah, I just caught the "original sense" bit on re-read, dano.
posted by Hellbient 12 December | 13:00
All about the fun? Well, there was hair metal, for a while, and then hip-hop. And there have always been joke and novelty acts. And dance music, in its many varied forms. For the most part, though, I think that music genres become more aspirational when the artists become more popular.

The yuppie achiever thing, though--I dunno. Who sold more t-shirts, The Ramones or Fugazi? Who got more MTV, and even radio, airplay, The Ramones or Fugazi? I'm not calling anybody a corporate sellout or whatever, but in hindsight it's pretty clear that The Ramones wanted to be rock stars more than Ian MacKaye ever did.
posted by box 12 December | 13:08
Who sold more t-shirts, The Ramones or Fugazi? Who got more MTV, and even radio, airplay, The Ramones or Fugazi? I'm not calling anybody a corporate sellout or whatever, but in hindsight it's pretty clear that The Ramones wanted to be rock stars more than Ian MacKaye ever did.

Well, I'm talking more about what they preached to their audience rather than how they made their living, box. The bands I mentioned never told thier audience to do anything other than get high and slam around. They weren't trying to start a revolution or make you be like them (you kind of either were already or you weren't)

I think that music genres become more aspirational when the artists become more popular.

Well, The Ramones no matter how popular they got (and 'Bonzo Goes To Bitburg' notwithstanding) never seemed to aspire to anything more than simple songs about inane subjects of life or death importance, god bless 'em.
posted by jonmc 12 December | 13:14
I love the Ramones. Love them. But towards the end even they got pretty tired.

Where's the strain? I'd argue it's out there, but just not as overt. I don't have examples at the moment, though. I think you can stretch your loser ideals so far before it becomes a schtick. I think even the Ramones would admit to becoming a money-making schtick after awhile. Johnny even says that in the documentary.

But the Replacements are a perfect example - at some point Westerberg said "well, we know how to play our instruments now, and I'm tired of writing songs about how great it is to be a drunk loser." Or something. It wouldn't have been very punk if they continued the course the were on. (For the record, I love the Replacements. Love them.)

I think alot of 70s reggae has that spirit you mention. "Sufferer's Heights" comes to mind - it's sorta "yeah the world's fucked up, but I'm just chilling here with a beer and a smoke." And yeah, there's something wonderful about that.
posted by Hellbient 12 December | 13:27
But the Replacements are a perfect example - at some point Westerberg said "well, we know how to play our instruments now, and I'm tired of writing songs about how great it is to be a drunk loser." Or something. It wouldn't have been very punk if they continued the course the were on.

Ironically, that moment was also the beginning of the end for them, especially after the ouster of Bobby Stinson, who was their last connection to that world.

I love the Ramones. Love them. But towards the end even they got pretty tired.

True enough. And the same has already started to happen to the Supersuckers and Nashville Pussy, cause (while they're always fun to hear) there's only so many of those type of songs you can write. So somebody new has to take up the mantle and make it sound fresh again. I'm waiting.
posted by jonmc 12 December | 13:32
There is an issue of dialectics here that is hampering the conversation, perhaps.


Here is the deal - as I see it, of course - non-politics is a kind of politics especially for certain kinds of culture. Politics has a lot of levels besides a lecture in song form about vegetarianism or whatever. I think the Ramones might have been saying at one level "I care about girls and white castle and bippity bop rock and roll because those are my politics, that's what society thinks I'm good for and I'm going to own that." Old Joey was political in his private life as well.

I wish politics was treated as something more organic and central to all aspects of life than its current poisoned soap opera position in the USA.

My own definition of punk -at a rawtha grandiose height - is a rejection of domination and regimentation. I'm much more interested in the path to that rejection than boxing up and packaging what is or isn't the punk ethos.

I'm not as big of a fan of Fugazi as I am of the Ramones (let's say, 'cause I like minor threat a bunch) but I appreciate what it means to say here is a way to live a life outside of feeding the machine. Some people hold rallies, other people opt out and turn away. Some people sniff glue and fuck in ratty-ass basements. It's a process of owning your disenfranchisement and turning it into power.

There is a lot of freedom in being doomed.
posted by Divine_Wino 12 December | 13:55
And the (main, American, as I understand it) original sense of the word was a young hobo who was being fucked by an older more dominant hobo in exchange for protection, more or less.
posted by Divine_Wino 12 December | 13:57
Well, I'm talking more about what they preached to their audience rather than how they made their living, box. The bands I mentioned never told thier audience to do anything other than get high and slam around.

Yeah, but I think that how they made their living and what they preached to their audience are more closely connected than that. I always thought that punk recognized that the-personal-is-political thing, and was rebelling against, among many other things, some millionaire in a yacht singing a song about how he's a cowboy rebel, or some forty-year-old man writing songs about teenage love.

A big part of the appeal of the Crass/Dischord/Kill Rock Stars/Righteous Babe/etc. business model, I think, is the way that it puts theory into practice (or, if you'd prefer, the way it makes people talk the talk and walk the walk). If punk's going to be about more than the music--if it's going to have social, and not just artistic significance; if it's going to provide a framework for viewing the world and, y'know, booking your own life--then I think the extramusical stuff must be considered.

On preview: good point, D_W, though the same thing happened a lot in prison. Hearing Wayne Kramer discuss how, thirty years ago, he didn't want to be known as 'punk,' though, makes this point better than I ever could.
posted by box 12 December | 14:02
Yeah, it migrated from the bums to the cons.
posted by Divine_Wino 12 December | 14:03
There is a lot of freedom in being doomed.

"My future's bleak/ain't it neat?"

"we are the members of the Master Race/got no style and we got no taste"

Here is the deal - as I see it, of course - non-politics is a kind of politics especially for certain kinds of culture.


I always thought that punk recognized that the-personal-is-political thing

See, I never bought into that. That's just imposing more rules on yourself in a world that already has too many of them.


Maybe. Joey's liberalism and Johnny's conservatism rarely showed up in their music, and the same could be said of all the other bands in the 'stoopid'* pantheon which stretches back to Alice Cooper and The Trashmen and beyond.

I just don't think Joey Ramone and Handsome Dick Manitoba were holding themselves out as heros or anti-heros, merely saying who they were, and if you identified, great. If not, that's cool too, but yer missing out.

A big part of the appeal of the Crass/Dischord/Kill Rock Stars/Righteous Babe/etc. business model, I think, is the way that it puts theory into practice (or, if you'd prefer, the way it makes people talk the talk and walk the walk). If punk's going to be about more than the music--if it's going to have social, and not just artistic significance; if it's going to provide a framework for viewing the world and, y'know, booking your own life--then I think the extramusical stuff must be considered.

Well, this is where they kinda lose me. If they can pull that off, more power to them, but it's never been about that to me and it also seems to imply that if you're not 'walking the walk'(and a lot of the time, that stuff is posturing more than anything else) to someone's satisfaction, you're not 'in the club.' And what I hear in the bands I mentioned is music for people who were kind of clubless by default.

Hearing Wayne Kramer

Odd thing about the MC5. A whole lot is made of their association with old loopy lefty John Sinclair (who had excellent musical taste compared to other activists, but was otherwise out of his mind) but beyond a basic leftward lean, they were political only in the 'dope, guns, and fucking in the streets' sense. It's easy to forget that their best songs were about fucking ('Teenage Lust') and rocking out ('Kick Out The Jams' which contains the important line 'let me be who I AM!' which is what sums it up for me).

*stoopid is my word for purposeful, intelligent dumbness.
posted by jonmc 12 December | 14:11
they were political only in the 'dope, guns, and fucking in the streets' sense.

Where we diverge Jon lad is the word "only" in that sentence. If you broaden your definition of politics and even "rules" then you have a lot more philosophical weaponry to play with. I've been more or less in the position of being involved in a lifelong guerrilla war against the universe at large. No gods and no masters, punk fucking rock.

'let me be who I AM!' is the most political statement I can think of.
posted by Divine_Wino 12 December | 14:19
'let me be who I AM!' is the most political statement I can think of.

what if what you am is a guy who dosen't give a fuck waht crusades anybody wants go on as long as it dosen't interfere with you and yours? (that's kind of how I define myself, and I've been criticized by many of all stripes for that outlook)

unrelated sidenote: I just went to the breakroom for coffee and one of my co-workers was peeling shrimp in the sink.

I'm also working on a Hall & Oates box set. Daryl Hall has prettier hair than most women.
posted by jonmc 12 December | 14:27
what if what you am is a guy who dosen't give a fuck waht crusades anybody wants go on as long as it dosen't interfere with you and yours?

Yes, that is a very political way of thinking Jon.
posted by Divine_Wino 12 December | 14:33
There is no such thing as "original punk" in terms of one sound, one song style, one state of mind. There never was. The New York scene was extremely varied back during the early and mid 70s. Tom Carson's quote is misguided in assuming that you can classify any one sound or group as original punk. You can't. Patti Smith is considered an original punk yet she didn't write songs about hamburgers or being a slacker.

If this quote is about one group, then I think it's close (though once the Ramones started selling records, everything changes). If it's about the music scene that helped develop the Ramones, then it misses the mark by a long shot. There is a context for everything and the Ramones are a product of their context and not the other way around.
posted by stynxno 12 December | 14:36
stynx: i don't think Carson was trying to say that all punk fell under that rubric, merely use the word to show what was important about the Ramones (and to a lesser extent the Dictators, Blondie and some of the other Bowery bands). This old rag from back in the day said a lot of what I'm trying to say better.
posted by jonmc 12 December | 14:40
sorry for the 8th grade quote, but...
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

That doomed attitude has been around, but it seemed to fully materialize with The Bomb. Then it was like "yeah, we're definitely doomed now." Much of music since has reflected that, and that spirit you speak of is contained within. And it's very political.

a guy who dosen't give a fuck waht crusades anybody wants go on as long as it dosen't interfere with you and yours?
A Libertarian?
posted by Hellbient 12 December | 14:44
And it's very political.

In an abstract sense, sure. But I'm talking about ideology and sloganeering and party lines and that kind of stuff which polluted a lot of punk and post punk, which the bands I've mentioned eschew for the most part.
posted by jonmc 12 December | 14:49
Eschew it all you want, but don't try to work your tastes into some definition of punk. Rebellion is definately punk.
posted by danostuporstar 12 December | 14:53
(Fuck my reading skillz lately!)
posted by danostuporstar 12 December | 14:57
What party did minor threat belong to? What party line did the DK's toe? What is "I wanna be sedated" if not a slogan?


Oh well, I suspect I'm yelling at the wall.
posted by Divine_Wino 12 December | 15:04
Mr. jonmc - tear down this wall!
posted by Hellbient 12 December | 15:09
Whatever punk is, I'm sure endless navel-gazing about what punk is isn't punk.
posted by Wolfdog 12 December | 15:12
I haven't listened to all that much Minor Threat of Fugazi (mainly since it's not really my bag musically), but they were real big on the whole straight edge/DIY/local thing, which is fine as far as it goes, but a lot of people I've met who were hardcore into that trip seemed to view you as 'the enemy,' if you weren't following along to their satisfaction was my impression.

I like a lot of the DK's stuff, but I heard some of the guy's spoken word and he came across as a bit of a windbag.

What is "I wanna be sedated" if not a slogan?

Yeah, but what that song essential says is 'the world's fucked up, there's nothing we can do about, let's get loaded in the meantime.' (if Joey is to be believed it's actually about being stuck in a London hotel room at Xmas watching TV).

Oh well, I suspect I'm yelling at the wall.

I'm not trying to convert anybody to anything or rain on anybody's parade. I'm just trying to articulate what I found interesting and truthful about Carson's statement. To wit: there are people who are fucked up and hapless to the point that tarditional avenues such as industry, politics, art and even crime are beyond them, sometimes these people are called punks. The Ramones and a few other bands articulate the feelings of such people wonderfully.

posted by jonmc 12 December | 15:17
Wolfdog's right - I'll start a new one - what is the definition of hip-hop?
posted by Hellbient 12 December | 15:20
tarditional

I like it.
posted by danostuporstar 12 December | 15:21
there are people who are fucked up and hapless to the point that tarditional avenues such as industry, politics, art and even crime are beyond them, sometimes these people are called punks. The Ramones and a few other bands articulate the feelings of such people wonderfully.

jon, you're leaving out the crucial step: not only did they articulate those feelings, they validated them. "We're a bunch of cretins and we revel in it. We started a band to extoll these virtues that everyone else sees as weaknesses; you can do the same, if you want." And that, my friend, is political as fuck. It's called empowerment of the disenfranchised.
posted by bmarkey 12 December | 16:21
Hip-hop in its early days was largely about recontextualizing, like reggae, or Cazal and Polo, and making something beautiful out of something undesirable/cast-off/underappreciated/ugly, like blues, or chitlins.

And also representing, getting respect, getting fame, having your name ring out, being heard, etc., in both the glam-rock/shock-rock/Sunset-Strip and the voice-to-the-voiceless folk/blues/punk/womyn's-music senses, and quite a few others.

Or, alternately, the conventional-wisdom definition is that hip-hop is a culture composed of breakdancing, mc'ing, dj'ing and graffiti.
posted by box 12 December | 16:28
It's called empowerment of the disenfranchised.

Dude, the Ramones wren't child laborers or political prisoners, they were just a bunch of fuckups. That's what I mean by apolitical, I guess.
posted by jonmc 12 December | 16:32
Fuckups who were also role models.
posted by bmarkey 12 December | 16:35
womyn's-music

box, in the name of all that is holy, please don't use that silly word 'womyn,' I beg of you.

Fuckups who were also role models.

Well, I was a fuckup before I was a Ramones fan, I just felt a little better since there were other fuckups out there. And they didn't encourage me to do anything, quite the opposite, they made me feel better about remaining the same. So it's more 'objects of identification' than role model, at least in my case.
posted by jonmc 12 December | 16:37
I just felt a little better since there were other fuckups out there.

Bingo!

"Cretin Hop" was an invitation to the dance for all the creeps and weirdos otherwise neglected by the music industry.

I don’t generally think in these terms, but it occurred to me today that punk rock was one of the few examples of Marxist revolution turning out right; the workers actually seized the means of production. It was a revolution of liberation, really. By the mid 70s, music had become the domain of the privileged “rock star”, the exalted being with powers and talents far beyond those of mere mortals. Punk called bullshit on that, and gave the average guy or gal the platform to express themselves. If you wanted to be a guitarist, you could. Talent would help, but it wasn’t 100% mandatory. When The Clash sang “no Elvis, Beatles or Rolling Stones”, it wasn’t so much an indictment of the individuals as it was of the star system. Power to the people, in other words – a concept sung about by one of those very Beatles, as a matter of fact.

And where The Clash were overtly political, I would argue that The Ramones, by virtue of their being among the first to open the door to the thousands that followed after, were covertly so. You personally may not have taken that inspiration away from them, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen for others.
posted by bmarkey 12 December | 16:49
Sure. But just about every interview I've ssen with the Ramones indicates that they basically formed a band because they had nothing better to do and are as baffled by their success as anybody. Covertly or not, I don't think they wanted to start a revolution, they're just glad not to be working at Sears.
posted by jonmc 12 December | 16:53
No, I don't think they set out to start a revolution. They just did it.
posted by bmarkey 12 December | 16:55
And they didn't encourage me to do anything
Maybe, but more than any other band I can think of, The Ramones encouraged thousands/millions of kids to start countless bands. Intentional or not. That's quite an accomplishment, or dare I say achievement. Oh my. How bout your fuckups now?

Methinks you have this antiquated notion that achieving = selling out = not punk = not cool = bad.
posted by Hellbient 12 December | 17:15
"Who got more MTV, and even radio, airplay, The Ramones or Fugazi?"

I couldn't even begin to make a reasonable guess. I stopped listening to the radio in '79, and although I lived in one of MTV's original test markets, I wrote off videos as no more than expensive, over-produced lip-synching.
posted by mischief 12 December | 17:18
"Well, I was a fuckup before I was a Ramones fan, I just felt a little better since there were other fuckups out there. And they didn't encourage me to do anything, quite the opposite, they made me feel better about remaining the same. So it's more 'objects of identification' than role model, at least in my case."
posted by jonmc 12 December

So, I did completely and fundamentally understand what incredibly little there was to be understood about the Ramones and their ilk in the first 90 seconds of the first video of theirs I ever saw. I was dead sure about it then, as they were clearly not musicians or wordsmiths despite their silly props, and I've successfully avoided all that crappy noise in the interim.

But it was 90 seconds of split attention utterly wasted, and to that extent, they got their microgram of fame from me. Punk wasn't and isn't even worth dismissing, any more than any other secret club for 8 year old boys ever has been. Mid-thirties folks trying to tack on some social relavance over the cold ashes of idiots long gone and best forgotten, are so lame, the 3 Stooges couldn't spoof 'em.

"Whatever punk is, I'm sure endless navel-gazing about what punk is isn't punk."
posted by Wolfdog 12 December

Exactly.
posted by paulsc 12 December | 20:01
Hi Paulsc, you fucking reacharound. Your favorite way of passing time in genial discussion sucks too.
posted by Divine_Wino 12 December | 20:10
So, I did completely and fundamentally understand what incredibly little there was to be understood about the Ramones and their ilk in the first 90 seconds of the first video of theirs I ever saw.

If you're attempting to understand music from video, you're wasting everyone's time. Go piss up a rope.
posted by bmarkey 12 December | 20:18
womyn's-music

box, in the name of all that is holy, please don't use that silly word 'womyn,' I beg of you.

Don't blame me, pal--that's what the genre is called. And, in the Dischord/DIY sense of the word, womyn's music is punk as fuck.
posted by box 12 December | 20:20
I like most angry old people actually, they're punk as fuck. I've changed my mind, Paulsc. If you want to come over and hang out a little you can be the lead singer of my band, we're called Lawrence Welk Cock and Ball Torture, we practice every Thursday and if you've got ID I've got enough cash for a couple 40's of mickeys.
posted by Divine_Wino 12 December | 20:41
Mid-thirties folks trying to tack on some social relavance over the cold ashes of idiots long gone and best forgotten, are so lame, the 3 Stooges couldn't spoof 'em

Well, since I'm a fan of theirs I imaginr you probably think the same of me, so go ahead and forget you ever met me. I'll live.
posted by jonmc 12 December | 20:46
"...we practice every Thursday and if you've got ID I've got enough cash for a couple 40's of mickeys."
posted by Divine_Wino 12 December

I'll dust off my accordian, DW, but how 'bout I pay homage to real punk attitude, and just phone in my part, when and if I think about it?
posted by paulsc 12 December | 21:43
High Five dude, you're really getting into it.
posted by Divine_Wino 12 December | 23:40
Pauly Shore comes to Odessa, TX || My first FPP!!

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN