Dear Dimo

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I've been looking around, and it has become plain as day that Punk is dead.  Dead dead.  Triceratops dead.  It has about as much to say as jazz, and jazz hasn't had anything to say since the 1940s.  What does Punk have to say, these days?  Even Green Day seems palatable next to current Punk.  In fact, with the exception of MSI, there IS no Punk (and MSI *is* punk, lower case p, even if they have made money off of it, and even if I can understand the lyrics, so shut up).

And I think this may be why you're having trouble with keeping momentum with your band.  You're playing music from the last century, while trying to pretend to be relevant.  There's nothing really hard about that concept.  If you want a band to stay together, you need people to be into it, and if you want them to be into it, it has to excite them.

And there's nothing really exciting about Punk anymore, just like there's nothing exciting about Rave (and the only thing that could ever be said about THAT is that it killed undanceable guitar misery), and there's certainly nothing exciting about the blues, anymore.

So maybe you have to, you know, do something new. 

Just something to chew on,
TGRR

[Cuddlefish]

Got lots to do, but a brief response:

You're not wrong. I've been thinking a lot about this these days. You see, the problem of saying 'punk is dead' is the misinformed idea that it was 'born' in the first place. Not to say that it arrived stillborn, it just always has been (for instance, I consider Beethoven to be more punk than most 'punk' bands). Punk is not so much of instructions for action as it is like the Tao (I can hear your teeth grinding right about now). Punk is not the music, or the ideology, or the trappings associated with an ideology. The best thing I could liken it to is Cain's idea of 'perfect nihilism.'

Despite this, the people that constituted punk culture mistook punk for the trappings associated with it. Two of those trappings were 'Anarchy' and 'Nihilism.' Both of which are vacuums (Anarchy is a power vacuum and nihilism is a belief vacuum), and like all vacuums, if you don't control it, any old thing that's lying around gets sucked in. Therefore, in place of the vacuum of anarchy, we get libertarianism. From the vacuum of nihilism, we get laissez faire complacency. What can be done? Nothing, really. The catma of 'anarchy' and 'nihilism' has been replaced with dogmatic strictures, and no 'new blood' would bother putting up with it. No new blood, no punk culture. What's left is a bunching of howling old men telling you that you need to pretend it's still 1977, or a bunch of ignorant kids that think punk is in the clothes or the music itself. So, yeah. In short, something new is required. Thing is, that's what my band is doing, but we don't get any kind of recognition because we're not libertarians and we don't give a shit about what 'appears' punk, or is fashionable. Where does that leave us? Dunno...

If I can come up with some more time, I can expand on some of this, but as of right now, I just got in and I need to self-medicate unwind. Then homework.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Got lots to do, but a brief response:

You're not wrong. I've been thinking a lot about this these days. You see, the problem of saying 'punk is dead' is the misinformed idea that it was 'born' in the first place. Not to say that it arrived stillborn, it just always has been (for instance, I consider Beethoven to be more punk than most 'punk' bands). Punk is not so much of instructions for action as it is like the Tao (I can hear your teeth grinding right about now). Punk is not the music, or the ideology, or the trappings associated with an ideology. The best thing I could liken it to is Cain's idea of 'perfect nihilism.'

Despite this, the people that constituted punk culture mistook punk for the trappings associated with it. Two of those trappings were 'Anarchy' and 'Nihilism.' Both of which are vacuums (Anarchy is a power vacuum and nihilism is a belief vacuum), and like all vacuums, if you don't control it, any old thing that's lying around gets sucked in. Therefore, in place of the vacuum of anarchy, we get libertarianism. From the vacuum of nihilism, we get laissez faire complacency. What can be done? Nothing, really. The catma of 'anarchy' and 'nihilism' has been replaced with dogmatic strictures, and no 'new blood' would bother putting up with it. No new blood, no punk culture. What's left is a bunching of howling old men telling you that you need to pretend it's still 1977, or a bunch of ignorant kids that think punk is in the clothes or the music itself. So, yeah. In short, something new is required. Thing is, that's what my band is doing, but we don't get any kind of recognition because we're not libertarians and we don't give a shit about what 'appears' punk, or is fashionable. Where does that leave us? Dunno...

If I can come up with some more time, I can expand on some of this, but as of right now, I just got in and I need to self-medicate unwind. Then homework.

Drunken homework is pretty punk. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I didn't know people were even still trying to pretend to make punk! Even the last most hardcore punk I know, a former Nervous Xtians bandmember who is also one of THE most delightfully eccentric people I know, has transitioned to more of a folkpop band lately. It's a really good band, too.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Punk will do what Punk has always done...IE, go into an abandoned warehouse and have sex.

Then there will be new Punk.  But, as you say, it isn't new if it looks like Sid and fucking Nancy.

[Cuddlefish]

Got lots to do, but a brief response:

You're not wrong. I've been thinking a lot about this these days. You see, the problem of saying 'punk is dead' is the misinformed idea that it was 'born' in the first place. Not to say that it arrived stillborn, it just always has been (for instance, I consider Beethoven to be more punk than most 'punk' bands). Punk is not so much of instructions for action as it is like the Tao (I can hear your teeth grinding right about now). Punk is not the music, or the ideology, or the trappings associated with an ideology. The best thing I could liken it to is Cain's idea of 'perfect nihilism.'

Despite this, the people that constituted punk culture mistook punk for the trappings associated with it. Two of those trappings were 'Anarchy' and 'Nihilism.' Both of which are vacuums (Anarchy is a power vacuum and nihilism is a belief vacuum), and like all vacuums, if you don't control it, any old thing that's lying around gets sucked in. Therefore, in place of the vacuum of anarchy, we get libertarianism. From the vacuum of nihilism, we get laissez faire complacency. What can be done? Nothing, really. The catma of 'anarchy' and 'nihilism' has been replaced with dogmatic strictures, and no 'new blood' would bother putting up with it. No new blood, no punk culture. What's left is a bunching of howling old men telling you that you need to pretend it's still 1977, or a bunch of ignorant kids that think punk is in the clothes or the music itself. So, yeah. In short, something new is required. Thing is, that's what my band is doing, but we don't get any kind of recognition because we're not libertarians and we don't give a shit about what 'appears' punk, or is fashionable. Where does that leave us? Dunno...

If I can come up with some more time, I can expand on some of this, but as of right now, I just got in and I need to self-medicate unwind. Then homework.

Drunken homework is pretty punk. 

I'd say 'I try,' but I don't. And that's the point, I think.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I didn't know people were even still trying to pretend to make punk! Even the last most hardcore punk I know, a former Nervous Xtians bandmember who is also one of THE most delightfully eccentric people I know, has transitioned to more of a folkpop band lately. It's a really good band, too.

Thing is, I'm thinking, the velocity of pop these days pretty much dooms Punk to either pop punk (MSI) or obscurity and death by overdose in some shithole in Lansing, MI.

When I was a teenager, it took a year for a new musical trend to go around the world.  Now it takes an hour on Youtube.  There's no time for anything to develop.

[Cuddlefish]

I didn't know people were even still trying to pretend to make punk! Even the last most hardcore punk I know, a former Nervous Xtians bandmember who is also one of THE most delightfully eccentric people I know, has transitioned to more of a folkpop band lately. It's a really good band, too.

This is related to the idea of 'genre-infusion.' Which, of course, is absolutely meaningless if you don't distinguish hard lines between genre, which is why I typically stay away from bands that try to fuse X and Y. I Feel that, as creative people, they're missing the point.  Not to say that your friends band is like this, it just made me think is all.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'd say 'I try,' but I don't. And that's the point, I think.

Go do your homework.  Then write the full response you mentioned.

TGRR,
Has only one friend left that's Punk enough to headbutt the ceiling.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I didn't know people were even still trying to pretend to make punk! Even the last most hardcore punk I know, a former Nervous Xtians bandmember who is also one of THE most delightfully eccentric people I know, has transitioned to more of a folkpop band lately. It's a really good band, too.

This is related to the idea of 'genre-infusion.' Which, of course, is absolutely meaningless if you don't distinguish hard lines between genre, which is why I typically stay away from bands that try to fuse X and Y. I Feel that, as creative people, they're missing the point.  Not to say that your friends band is like this, it just made me think is all.

Yeah, I can see that.  Why be creative, when you can grab a bit of A and mix it with B and call it new?

That's what killed classic rock, that's what killed rap, and that's more or less what killed country.

[Cuddlefish]

I didn't know people were even still trying to pretend to make punk! Even the last most hardcore punk I know, a former Nervous Xtians bandmember who is also one of THE most delightfully eccentric people I know, has transitioned to more of a folkpop band lately. It's a really good band, too.

This is related to the idea of 'genre-infusion.' Which, of course, is absolutely meaningless if you don't distinguish hard lines between genre, which is why I typically stay away from bands that try to fuse X and Y. I Feel that, as creative people, they're missing the point.  Not to say that your friends band is like this, it just made me think is all.

Yeah, I can see that.  Why be creative, when you can grab a bit of A and mix it with B and call it new?

That's what killed classic rock, that's what killed rap, and that's more or less what killed country.

'Fusion' should be a word that's used, a posteriori, in a critical evaluation of new music, not a word that's inked in, a priori, on the bands mission statement.

EDIT: Even if it is the artists original intention.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I didn't know people were even still trying to pretend to make punk! Even the last most hardcore punk I know, a former Nervous Xtians bandmember who is also one of THE most delightfully eccentric people I know, has transitioned to more of a folkpop band lately. It's a really good band, too.

This is related to the idea of 'genre-infusion.' Which, of course, is absolutely meaningless if you don't distinguish hard lines between genre, which is why I typically stay away from bands that try to fuse X and Y. I Feel that, as creative people, they're missing the point.  Not to say that your friends band is like this, it just made me think is all.

Yeah, I can see that.  Why be creative, when you can grab a bit of A and mix it with B and call it new?

That's what killed classic rock, that's what killed rap, and that's more or less what killed country.

'Fusion' should be a word that's used, a posteriori, in a critical evaluation of new music, not a word that's inked in, a priori, on the bands mission statement.

EDIT: Even if it is the artists original intention.

Punk will do what Punk has always done...IE, go into an abandoned warehouse and have sex.

Then there will be new Punk.  But, as you say, it isn't new if it looks like Sid and fucking Nancy.

[rong]

MSI? are you referring to Mindless Self Indulgence?  I'm pretty out of the loop on punk, so just asking for clarification.  I've heard one song by them and I absolutely loved it - I think it was called "tight" but I'm not sure.

I've been really turned on by a group called miRthkon lately.  I've come to learn that what they are doing has sort of been around since the 70's, but - it's new to me. 

I'm genuinely interested if anyone would consider them to be punk or not.  I think it is very not normal so therefore, maybe it is punk? But, I also kinda think maybe it is jazz, or prog-rock? 

I dunno.  They have a really good song about bananas.

Here is a link for anyone who might be interested:
miRthkon

Maybe punk died because it became defined by what it is instead of what it isn't?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

MSI? are you referring to Mindless Self Indulgence?  I'm pretty out of the loop on punk, so just asking for clarification.  I've heard one song by them and I absolutely loved it - I think it was called "tight" but I'm not sure.

Yes.  You need to listen to Shut Me Up.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You know what I'm doing, right now?

Reading this instead of finishing my homework which is right next to me.