|
Post by TheBeatpoet on Jan 26, 2004 0:18:13 GMT
of course punk isn't dead as an ideal. as long as indie labels still exist and people are trying shake things up, everything that was positive about punk will still exist. in my mind punk has very little do with the sonic aspects. i dont particularly like the sex pistols. did johnny rotten have even the slightest clue what anarchy actually means when he wrote that song? i have my doubts. well i have my doubts that he had the presence of mind to remember his name half the time! in my opinion any band that signs to a major label immediately gets disqualified from being punk. i dont care if all they do is play clash songs. it just isn't punk. The rate at which major labels constantly limit our perception of the music scene (through mediums such as mtv and top of the shits) is absolutely criminal! your not telling me that the guys who own the major labels aren't also heavily involved in things like the arms trade and medical drugs ectectect... they will have there fingers in all sorts of pies and all sorts of ways. By signing away about 90% of the profits from your record sales (thats if your lucky!) you are only helping rich (evil) people get richer. how could this behaviour be considered punk? support local independant music shops! look on the internet for bands that aren't getting played on mtv2! start here www.dischord.com
|
|
|
Post by craig on Jan 26, 2004 9:00:31 GMT
i love dischord:
gray matter q + not u rites of spring minor threat and fugazi...
|
|
|
Post by StereoFrown on Jan 26, 2004 15:19:59 GMT
I can see your point about the punk ideal being not dead. Doing it for the music, doing it for what you believe in: yes. I agree whole heartedly that the spirit lives on. However i feel the view that anyone signing to a major is instantly not 'punk' is a tad short sighted. Granted some bands do start sucking once on a major but not all. Some bands have come up through the independant scene, worked their arses off, toured endlessly, rleased shitty EP's, slept on floor and in van. These people, they get to majors and they still do the same thing albeit with a little more luxury. At The Drive-In got to a major, they didn't stop being 'punk'. You say you support independant music etc btu would you stop liking a band if they got onto a major label? If they got rewarded for the hard work they have done for years? I disagree with that, but some bands signing to majors do start sucking though. That is all. Rant over.
|
|
|
Post by StereoFrown on Jan 26, 2004 15:21:13 GMT
Bluetip were also on Dischord before splitting. They were cool. Must find their album and play it now! 'Don't punch your friend for being slow!'
|
|
|
Post by The Beat Poet on Jan 26, 2004 22:57:18 GMT
hey i didn't say that bands who sign to major labels start to suck immediately. I just say they get disqualified from being able to call themselves punk. as punk for my mind revolves around anti-capitalism. major labels are all about making the $$$$ also at the drive-in signed to grand royal which was an independant label which was owned by one of the beastie boys. the mars volta have licensed their album to universal. but im not sure if they have a contract with them that goes any further than that album.
also im only talking from my point of view as a muso. i would never think someone was a bad person because they have signed to a major. that is their choice and it isn't one that i would make.
|
|
|
Post by StereoFrown on Jan 27, 2004 16:48:22 GMT
GoGo Marxism (capitalism does indeed sucky sucky big time) And it Grand Royal may have been run by one of the Beastie Boys but it was still owned by Virgin Records. It was just his imprint, more independant than a proper major but still part of a major.
|
|
|
Post by The Beat poet on Jan 27, 2004 17:58:49 GMT
i suppose virgin counts as a major now. But it was once an indie label and they did sign the sex pistols. (which i believe was a band that was referenced at the beginning of this thread) Now they have V2 dont they. still not a proper indie label.
I have heard that one of the reasons atdi split is because omar and cedric didn't really care about getting signed to a major, whereas the others wanted to be fugazi so bad it nearly made them explode. which i dont blame them for. still doesn't stop sparta completely pailing in comparison to the mars volta. of course i have also heard the reasons omar and cedric have given.
|
|
|
Post by StereoFrown on Jan 27, 2004 18:32:10 GMT
The drugs and the death didn't help things in the atd-i camp either. Omar and Cedric were doing stuff like crack and shit while the other's were not. That had always been an issue within the band. And the death of that girl at the Big Day Out, while not during their set, it like bought tension to the surface, i.e. with the Fugazi wishes of some members, which ultimately probably led to their downfall. And dear god yes do Sparta pale in comparison to Mars Volta. But what makes you wonder is that Cedric and Omar quit drugs before forming the Mars Volta. How do they possibly become more fucked up and weird in a wonderful way by not doing drugs???
|
|
|
Post by The Beat Poet on Jan 27, 2004 22:59:58 GMT
i read in an interview with cedric that before atdi they used to do a similar thing to the mars volta.
i believe him. but thats cuz im niave and would like to think that those two are creative genuises.
of course other more cynical people would say he is just saying it to make himself look cool.
|
|
|
Post by StereoFrown on Jan 28, 2004 20:24:40 GMT
They were doing Mars Volta type shit before ATD-I!?!?! If that's true then woah! And i believe, for i am in awe in the gods of creative rock and afro's.
|
|
|
Post by peskykid on Jan 30, 2004 16:02:15 GMT
I don't know, am not sure, thats why i put 'who cares'? there's not really anyone around anymore like sex pistols or anyone, but then there's the argument as to whether what percentage of the word 'punk' is music based or fashion. I mean, Busted and Good Charlotte can dress as punk as they like, but they're still pop music. I think punk is more of a lifestyle thing now than music, unfortunately. When I think of 'punk' i think of rebellion and everything that the sex pistols stood for rather than a group of guys going round with a mohican singing about being on the streets. I mean woopee-f**king-doo, they might as be Puff diddy-daddy whatever, with a guitar, know what i mean? What I dont get is everyone says about how the Sex Pistols went on about anarchy and politics aswell as the Clash did yet Blink 182's new album and the Boxcar racer album was based around those things but they dont get recognition because they are seen as 'sell outs'. Infact alot of bands are aiming things at this now as in Finch etc but they will never been seen as punk because people just want to believe it can never be the same again.
|
|
|
Post by StereoFrown on Jan 30, 2004 17:47:07 GMT
So do you propose that in order to get a true sense of a band, a true sense of an album that we look only at said album and band out of context of everything else? I admit that if we just took an album as if it were the only one ever made then yes we would get a true sense of it, appreciate it sans labels and stigma. But this would also render progression and past irrelevant. If we ignore the other works around we would view every album as the best one ever, and while optimistic that is kinda depressingly conformist. Appreciation of a change may come in time, may not, depends if it is a real one or not.
|
|
|
Post by Sharpie on Jan 30, 2004 19:59:24 GMT
So do you propose that in order to get a true sense of a band, a true sense of an album that we look only at said album and band out of context of everything else? I admit that if we just took an album as if it were the only one ever made then yes we would get a true sense of it, appreciate it sans labels and stigma. But this would also render progression and past irrelevant. If we ignore the other works around we would view every album as the best one ever, and while optimistic that is kinda depressingly conformist. Appreciation of a change may come in time, may not, depends if it is a real one or not. god you're good...
|
|
|
Post by The Beat Poet on Jan 31, 2004 11:24:17 GMT
i dont think it has anything to do with people considering blink 182 sell outs. i think it has more to do with the fact that they are crap at being serious. personally i thought blink 182 were a good pop band. nothing more. quite funny guys. but of course even they realised that being quite funny isn't gonna get you remembered in years to come. they just aren't good enough musicians and aren't politically minded. so it sounds poor. they dont have any real heart in their music. they just dont care enough. i dont think the sex pistols were politically minded either really. i personally think johnny rotten is a fucking moron. he just wanted to piss people off, like a little child. In that era you have joy division coming seemingly out of nowhere, with a sound that seems to be from mars. Considering when they came about and from manchester. How the hell did they get that sound? ? its so unbelievable that you can create a sound that is so original. that to me is more punk than any political statement. its about moving forward.
|
|
|
Post by StereoFrown on Jan 31, 2004 13:17:26 GMT
*bows in acceptance of praise from mr. sharp*
Will we ever reach a conclusion on the 'is punk dead?': i doubt it, but it's amusing to say the least.
I agree that while Blink 182 may be terrible at being serious that progression can be a good thing. Yes, bands may create a niche for themselves but i think that if they choose to venture out into other areas then good on them. They are just doing what they want to. Look at Cave-In: they used to be a damn good metal-core band with die hard fans, then they evolved into this amazing 'space-rock' band. Their original fans hated them for this, (insert calls of 'sell out!' here), but it was what they as a band wanted, and while some disliked others loved. Plus Stephen Brodsky (sp?) wasn't the best of screamers. Gogo Gadget Band Evolution!
|
|