I was out for a walk the other day, listening to some NoFX as I tried in vain to burn off a weekend meal or two. And their song "The Separation of Church and Skate" talked about how punk rock has become kind of mainstream, kind of safe.
One of requests in the song is to "stop singing songs about girls and love." This raises the question: what makes music "punk?" Does it have to have certain elements? For example, is a band like Rage Against the Machine punk? Their songs are political, and not about girls and love. However, Tom Morello's guitar riffs for Rage are more complicated than the stereotypical punk band.
Does it have to be about relatively simple chord progressions and songs about unrest with the establishment? Is that what punk is about? Does a punk have to wear the uniform or ripped clothes, lots of black, and, if possible, a mohawk? Can someone (like me) who wears sports T-shirts and jeans ever truly be considered a fan of punk music?
For me, it's been about enjoyment of the music. As I've written earlier, I don't enjoy bands who are busy exploring the duality of tonality and atonality - I like to keep my music to a few power chords, a good bass line, and some entertaining lyrics. That's all I need. If a band can satisfy my earholes, I am okay with it, regardless of genre.
I don't really understand why a band like NoFX has "punk credibility" and bands like Good Charlotte don't, at least with hardcore fans. There's no arbiter of punk, deciding what is or isn't punk enough, and casting bands into Punk Hell.
I am trying to figure out who Punk Satan would be...a Jonas Brother? George W. Bush? Bette Midler? I can't think of a good punchline. It's been a long day...
3 comments:
I hate to do this but I had to split my post into THREE (yes, three) posts because of how long-winded I am. I apologize.
I have a few opinions on this.
1. Situational Thoughts; NoFX is a band that goes with their immediate thoughts. I consider them to be extremely intelligent, but I feel that they are 100% open to writing vaguely, or (and I totally believe this) writing from a very impulsive and immediate viewpoint, because a lot of great punk rock (and rock in general) has been written like that - raw and very often a little ignorant.
I'm not using that as an excuse for the writing, but I look at the lyrics (which do mention how upset they are at how there less drugs around) and wonder about strongly they feel about every lyric.
Against Me! is one of the most rebellious and original punk bands of the last 15 years, and some of their lyrics ("We want a scene where...the beer is not the life of the party") are the opposite of these NoFX lyrics - and NoFX's record label has put out at least four of Against Me's albums. I don't think they are 100% behind each and every line of the song whatsoever. I think the song's message overall is 100% correct, and I'll explain that further.
2. Songwriting; I think punk rock bands like The Sex Pistols and The Ramones and Operation Ivy had certain elements to them. Certain percentages of topics of songs - punk rock is definitely about angst and rebellion and about a way to express your energy. It's always had to do with a sort of youthful ignorance that was difficult for outsiders to understand/balance with everything great that comes from the genre, but the truth is that The Ramones wrote "Blitzkreig Bop" AND "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend" - when you're looking for what makes youths angst-y, you're ALWAYS going to find love in there somewhere (NoFX wrote "We Got Two Jealous Agains" and "Whoops I OD'd" - both being about loveand relationships - the former moreso than the latter).
There is just a weird progression going on - Ramones, Op Ivy, NoFX/Rancid - out of this influence eventually came early pop-punk like Blink 182 and Green Day which were (differently) always partly about love, then out of THAT influence came stuff like Simple Plan and Good Charlotte - which are incredibly less offensive, and much more about relationships and hooks. This label of "pop-punk" (which definitely includes the words "punk") sounds so different than the punk of old that it can seem incredibly disconnected and manufactured. A lot of bands actively added in a lot more things that would make them accessible to a mainstream audience (poppy hooks, harmonies, songs about normal pop-music topics) and a lot of the stuff that made "punk rock" what it was (edge-y, rough, not perfect, wild, offensive). I understand that those kind of decisions seem "coincidentally" more toward the idea of being successful than about writing original music (especially while actively using the label "punk").
3. The Truth: As someone who writes most of the material for Providence's Best Punk Band (nominated and voted as winners two years in a row, by a very well-respected publication), which is also band that has played over 200 rowdy live shows, I feel like I can discuss "punk rock" with some knowledge; as a songwriter, I see the fakeness that comes with writing a bunch of poppy songs about a girl. I've written about 4 or 5 songs total about love in general, and their writings were so far spaced apart that the idea of writing a twelve-song pop-punk album with nine songs about girls, boggles me. So there's that.
BUT I consider myself and my band very influenced by punk rock, and the truth is that that's what we're closest to, genre-wise. I feel no shame writing about what I feel at any point in time, regardless of what it is; that's what true art is. At some point could it be about a broken heart for a long time? It's possible. And maybe that's what I'd write. So there's also that.
I don't expect everyone to play by my rules, and I don't think Fat Mike (of NoFX) does either. I think that's his opinion (at the point in time of the writing) because sometimes you can hear one of Good Charlotte's more awful pop songs (I like some of their stuff, but they have come out with some pretty cred-shattering singles), see a hard-working real punk band with real things to say struggling, and then watch a 10 year old girl with an Avril Lavigne shirt walk down the street - and all of that can hit you in a certain way where this type of song can come out of you. That's how I see this song. And I think a LOT of songs are written like that.
It rings true, as well - the song is about the stuff that we (me and S*D) deal with - we're a punk band dealing with shows in Boston that have to be OVER by 8 P.M., playing shows in malls where we have to take all the swears and obscenities out of our songs, first of all.
There's also a lot to say about the difference in the way music gets made - real punk rock is 100% up to the band and huge pop-punk bands have a lot of "influence" from people who may have more interest in money than art.
The last thing; your actual post.
Defining "punk rock" is like trying to find the curliest hair on Tom Wells' body - sure, what you're looking for is SOMWHERE, but honestly - Tom is very hairy!
No, seriously, punk rock is different to everyone. I think true fans can agree that there can be a lot of variation from band to band, but a constant through all of them is passion, energy, unity, and defiance.
I understand your Rage Against The Machine analogy, but "punk rock" is used very openly, and I bet you could find about a thousand articles about Rage that say they have a "punk rock" attitude, if not a music-type.
I don't think simple chord progressions, songs about government, or any type of clothing whatsoever dictate punk rock. I've written very complicated songs ("VBW Song" - and its what is definitely thought of as one of our most "punk" songs), I haven't really written about the government, and although I wear band t-shirts, I also wear button-up shirts, all kinds of pants/shorts, and never a leather/jean jacket with any patches of any sort.
I wrote a song a while back called "Ben Broke Edge" and I said
"F**k punk rockers with bulls**t for brains,
how do you hate in the name of having unity dealt?
You can hate me because I actually sing,
but I'll go my whole life without having studs on my belt."
and it was directly about kids who expect punk bands to sing crappily and scream all the time, and the need to dress the part.
That kind of stuff is fake and the opposite what punk rock is about. Punk rock has a lot to do with not judging someone by their race or gender or anything - how can they then turn around and judge someone for not wearing leather jackets or pink hair?
If someone honestly thinks that being a fan of a certain type of music is about a dress code, then they aren't a real fan of that music - especially if it's punk rock.
Being a fan for the music that comes out of a band is all you need. You don't have to be behind every single thing they do or say (like me with Leftover Crack - sure, I like to turn crosses upside-down and cook local policeman into stew, but I have no interest in their "rocksteady beats"), you don't have to pledge blind allegiance to them - if you like a good amount of what they do, and it's for the music, then you are a good fan. End of story.
As for Good Charlotte vs NoFX in terms of credibility - there is a difference when it comes to paying dues (blink 182 SHARING a tour van with the five-piece Dance Hall Crashers the entire time of the Warped Tour '93) and NOT paying dues (Simple Plan's FIRST CD was released on a major label - how in the hell does that even happen?!?!). A lot of new bands don't seem to have to pay any dues at all - they have big money in their corner. Boys Like Girls was advertised on every punk website I ever checked, BEFORE their first album came out - that's big money being put up for big advertising. That's not paying dues or earning fans by working hard and talking to them and playing shows. It's sitting at home while a record company pays for your face/song/album to be played on television shows and shown on the top of Myspace. It's an unfair advantage in a lot of cases and a lot of artists suffer greatly for that.
Not to deflate your argument, but that's just the truth. NoFX started in 1983 and toured nonstop, sleeping on floors, barely getting by for years and years. Eventually they got a good fanbase, started their own record label to release other punk rock artists' releases and have written (without a doubt) the exact music they've wanted to release for years and years and years.
I'm sure Good Charlotte did some rough shows, but they were opening for Lit (when "My Own Worst Enemy" was out) two years after they started. Since then, they have been poster children for the Hot Topic look, and had more of Jonas Brothers-type of fanbase (girls who scream because they're attracted to a band) than an Against Me type (people who believe in the art their experiencing). I'd also like to add in that the lyrical content in NoFX vs Good Charlotte might have a little bit of a difference in deepness of thought and real message.
I don't hate Good Charlotte by any means, but there's a very clear difference in credibility.
So yeah. Sorry this was so long. I've wrestled with a lot of this stuff for years. I write songs with melodies and harmonies and I sing high sometimes and we do complicated guitar stuff. Although it's not often, I have definitely written songs about girls - I like to play pretty stuff and sound good.
I also like to scream, play hard, go crazy, be in the crowd, talk to our fans, swear, be uncensored, and if we piss people off (and we certainly do), that's fine and/or great with me - I wholeheartedly believe in what I do.
I performed an enema on myself in public because I thought it would be a very entertaining part of our movie, so I did it (twice, because the tape messed up the first time) and got arrested.
Believe me, Brad, we are punk rock.
By the way, tonight let's stay in and watch Daisy of Love while my mom makes us cookies.
Post a Comment