WHAT IS PUNK ? 

Well, what is? Most people (including myself) instantly think of noisy oiks with Mohawks and ripped clothes singing about sniffing glue and giving the royal family a bad name, but is that really what the definition of punk is?

O.K. So punk as a word then. Punk in the modern lexicon usually means someone of no worth, a waster, miscreant, or someone who wears a certain type of bondage gear. Maybe I pushed the last one.

Is being a punk a fashion statement, a musical statement, a culture statement, a political statement, or an individual statement? What is it to be punk, would be a better question.

Before the word was coined in the mid seventies within America (Check out the independent fanzine ‘Punk’), anyone who went against the supposed normal culture i.e. a counter-culturist would be considered a rebel, a communist (!), abnormal and so on. In the music culture of the 40’s the bebop movement was really a rebellion started by key revolutionary figures like Miles Davis, Charlie Bird and Dizzy Gillespie. These guys had a disdain towards most authorities in the music biz and went against what most of the public demanded. Without these figures in the culture of that point new musical ideas and even fashion and literature of that time would not have progressed. So is being punk an attitude? I think so.

Now consider the 50’s and the advent of Rock and Roll. The white, shiny plastic suburban feeling of Mid America (and even mono-colour Britain) was invaded by mad guys like Bill Haley and the Comets, Chuck Berry, Eddie Cochran. These guys were from another universe. Mad music? Check. Crazy outfits? Check. Started riots at shows? Check. Upset moral majority and authorities? Check. Now the kids at that point (as within all generations) were tired of the constraints of the older supposed wiser generation and strived for independence. The voice and vehicle for their ideals was found in the music and specifically the lyrics of these bands, how did the fashion of these kids change, their very image change? Just need to look at pictures of Marlon Brando or Eddie Cochran to see where they wanted to head. The mindset of a new generation was being formed.

By the time of the sixties the next generation looked back to the last one and practically gobbed on them since by then most of the pioneers had been sanitised by record companies, even their looks had been incorporated into a new fashion that could sell. So the British boom of R’n’B started the next rebellion. Pioneers? John Mayall, The Yardbirds, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles (to some extent!), Screaming Lord Sutch. Now the rub for the public at that point was that these white suburban kids were playing what most educated people considered Negro music. Black man’s music. It was by intent that these kids chose this music as it was rebellious to play this stuff. The majority of lyrics was steeped in the blues but altered to British (or indeed American slang) to appeal to the kids bopping away at some sweaty club. Now the problem with this music in the publics eye was it led to their kids to drugs, alcohol and sex which it did in many cases, but out of the rebellion came completely new mindsets that would shape not only the music of the future but the literature, fashion and even the language of the future. Think about this. Each successive generation begins a germ of a new idea and many times in the future it should be re-examined and if it lost its purpose, it should be torn down. Now that’s what happened with the late sixties and the beginning of the seventies more so than the previous generations.

Hey, would you call a hippy a punk? Ouch. Got to think about that one. A band like the grateful dead reared it’s tripped out head in the late sixties and so did The Mother’s of invention. There’s no doubt that these guys were pioneers in their own way but philosophically they were at opposite poles. Each rebelling against the previous culture by chopping up the music of the past as if it was insignificant and strove ahead with a new mindset that rebelled against their government figures and were determined to create their own community of like minded freaks. Now by freaks I mean people who don’t fit in to what most people considered the norm. Their clothes were not in fashion. Their political views weren’t in line with the majority. Their spiritual beliefs were a threat to the militarised zones around them. They even took drugs…..wow. How could these people even exist? These people had a voice and a direction which, once again was led by key figures like Jerry Garcia and Frank Zappa. Now Zappa was more politically minded than most bands at that time. Ok, so MC5 wanted to kick out the jams but Zappa was someone who refused to use music for the single use of escape. He wanted to change people’s minds. Now to me, that was punk underlined.

Now what about The Stooges, The Ramones, The Velvet Underground? This to me is probably the most exciting explosion of music that has happened to any generation. These guys were dangerous. No doubt. The seventies were rife with political strife on both sides of the pond and of course this was clearly reflected in the style of music that poured forth from angry and frustrated kids. Can you blame them? The majority of society just wanted to bury their heads in the sand and get on with working 9-5 but again the youth wanted a new start and these kinds of bands provided the way. The Velvet Underground is a perfect example of a punk attitude in all areas. There look was stark. Black wrap-round glasses, black leather, short cropped hair (ok, apart from John Cale!), lyrics that didn’t just talk about taboo subjects but really invited you into a new world of art, religion, avant-garde. You must remember that the band where in some way incorporative of Andy Warhol’s movement of using art to shock and this art included music, film and everything else his Factory (Warhol’s spiritual base where all the projects were conceived). The punk era was really defined at this point in time, especially in and around New York. The fruition of art, philosophy and music was a counter-culture that was having a real impact on faceless society and this was ably led by underground bands like MC5, Suicide, Devo, Richard Hell and the Voidoids, The Stooges, etc. To begin with the movement was a reaction against the long-winded, torturous bloated pomp-rock of the progressive bands at that moment that were impossible to hide from: E.L.O., E.L.P., Yes, Pink Floyd. These bands at the beginning were valid in the sense that they broke away from the norm of radio play lists and had an adventurous streak in them but by the time they became successful many of these bands forgot about the kids who looked up to them for answers. That’s where the Ramones come in. They really kicked and stomped over these bands-they brought music back to basics, taking everything that was not needed and started back at the beginning. Where the Ramones original? No, but they wanted to express their frustration and tell stories that the teenagers could relate to. This was not unlike folk music or traditional blues but the lyrical content was steeped in comic book humour. Their image was down to earth which suited their music like a leather glove. All movements need a central focus point and for these bands was CBGB’s in Manhattan.
What about Britain? Was there anything happening across the pond? Well the influence of the American bands at the point was so strong that a cultural explosion was ripe. Malcolm Mclaren was a key figure in bringing many of the American bands to Britain. No one can underestimate his influence. One of the key elements that he provided to the fledgling punk movement in Britain was the extreme fashion statement of bondage gear, ripped t-shirts, the safety pin look and so on. Even the name of his clothes shop was an eye opener: SEX. You’ve got to remember that the climate of London and indeed the rest of the U.K. was a boring Conservative malaise that was like a straight jacket for the youth. Mclaren was integral to forming the Sex Pistols previously known as The Strand. Now remember that just as Andy Warhol helped shape the image of The Velvet Underground, Mclaren indeed help shape the Pistols in to what was the equivalent of a British punk band of the American counterparts. One of the most controversial things that the Pistols did (apart from swearing on the Bill Grundy show) was to release the seminal single, God Save The Queen. It was a deliberate been a shock tactic designed to upset the ever conservative radio programmes and the rest nation. I worked. It even led to Virgin dropping them like a hot stone. Their very existence was inbuilt to destruct and the key trigger was Sid Vicious. He really represented the anarchistic side of punk. He couldn’t play and was partly responsible for the fall of the Pistols. There’s one thing though. In many peoples eyes he represented what a punk is. Underlined. Even his destructive lifestyle is romanticised in much of the music press and among the public. I personally find that he represents the opposite side of what The Clash wanted to achieve. Joe Strummer was such a key figure in the British punk movement that his premature death has left a vacuum in the music industry. After his band, The 101’ers folded it wasn’t long before the public heard of the Clash especially after they had supported the Sex Pistols. Now the record companies were certainly taking notice of the punk movement. Many people can argue that once a band that you love, especially a “punk” band sign to a major label they have sold out, lost their purpose and so on. I would have to disagree with this in relation to The Clash. Strummer had a very political slant to his lyrics. What better way to start a revolution of thought by signing to a giant like CBS and reach as many people as possible?

Now we move onto one of the strange eras of the 80’s and the 90’s. So many people have told me that the 80’s are a waste land for any music of taste and even the fashion of that time had no taste but in America you had figure heads like Jello Biafra, aka Eric Reed Boucher from the Dead Kennedy’s (now that is a punk name). His credentials are a list in do it yourself. He co-founded the record label Alternative Tentacles so he wouldn’t be under pressure from any major labels. Now what better way to work against the “moral majority” than to start your own record label and take part in political rants? This thought lord was truely an inspiration for the dregs of society who didn’t have a 9-5 job with beautiful kids and who felt left out by society. Considering that the Dead Kennedy’s had been touring since the 70’s they never seemed to buckle under the pressure from many of the political groups of the 80’s including the PMRC. Now one other band that stood out in the 80’s is the seminal Black Flag. They were formed in 1976 in California and during the 80’s were not afraid to buck the trend of what people saw as classic punk i.e. three chords played inhumanely fast. They incorporated minimalist guitar solos, jazz leanings, and multiple tempo changes and never had a record that sounded the same as the previous one. With a front man like Henry Rollins, outspoken vocalist with a confrontational approach with dealing with trouble makers at their gigs. Everyone now knows Rollins as a stand up artists and the lead singer with the Rollins band but at the time he was in Black Flag the band was notorious for rioting at gigs, starvation and their outspokenness. In Britain the new-wave movement was offering nothing to effect the climate of society. Many view the 80’ as frivolous and an age of selfishness. It was. The conservative grip on British society was off set by colourful but ultimately shallow bands like Wham, Adam and the Ants and classic bands like Buck Fizz. The TV. Programmes and dramas of the 80’s were constantly talking about nuclear Armageddon which really cheered every one up (spitting Image was truly an exception). Heavy metal was pounding teenager’s ear holes with hateful lyrics about the governments and the impending nukes heading our way (I loved it). What did many of these bands offer? Escapism was one of the main attractive qualities of these bands but the thrash movement led by seminal bands like Metallica and Slayer offered a bleak reality and forced you to examine the state of the world and your place in it. These bands started like most punk bands in that they traded demo tapes and started their own underground movement (specifically San Francisco) and wanted so much to trash the previous music statement of the past i.e. sleazy rock stars that perversely dressed up like woman and constantly sang about getting it on with anything that moved. Not exactly cutting edge. The thrash bands were certainly listening to punk bands like Discharge, Anti nowhere League and the Misfits so at this point a new cultural mix was taking place. Again the distinction of what it means to be punk was being blurred. The image and attitude of punk was being adopted by kids who were probably more interested in getting laid and waking up with a sore neck from a marathon session of head banging to.

Now by the time of the 90’s until now the alternative scene (another term for counter-culture again) was blossoming. The music at this point was really knee jerk reaction heavy metal’s ideals of long solos and over complex rhythms. Bands like Dinosaur Junior, Mudhoney, Sonic Youth all offered a punk ethos again of do it yourself and returning to a simplistic format of rock (ok, Sonic Youth are truly strange!). Nirvana weren’t just any other plaid uniformed band from Seattle; they had everything an alternative band needed to succeed-charismatic lead singer with severe physiological problems, brilliant drummer and robust bass player. And the songs? Brilliant. They did poke a finger in the eye of the jock bands around at that time-Limp Bizkit, Motley Crue and even though they were signed to a major label they did manage to usurp the old guard (check out the deranged Top of the Pops footage of Teenage Spirit). Unfortunately a lot of these bands really stood for nothing more than what the previous bands stood for: a nihilistic out look ie Alice in Chains. So where does that leave here and know?

Green Day, Blink 182, The Offspring, NOFX have been absorbed so much into the public consciousness that the term punk has been sanitised. Most of these bands in my own mind don’t offer the danger of the old guard and appear to be concerned solely with creating their own restrictive cultures. Many such bands put a restriction on creativity and self-expression accusing other bands of not being punk enough. Where is the creative spirits that would choose to stick the fingers up to the establishment? Does it solely lie in the hands of musicians alone?