What's so post about post-punk?

[Dr. Medulla]

This is bouncing off the Buzzcocks thread and me listening to the Magazine compilation, Maybe It's Right to Be Nervous Now while walking home from school.

I was thinking about how to explain the difference between punk and post-punk to a newcomer or a student. There are some bands we confidently label as post-punk—e.g., Magazine, Public Image Ltd., Wire (with the, um, possible exception of Pink Flag)—yet it's not hard to point to songs that sure sound like punk. "Shot By Both Sides" and "Public Image," for example, sometimes show up on punk compilations and don't sound all that out of place. So it's not like there's a clear and clean break. But before long, these groups are producing records that no way, no how sound "punk" (Secondhand Daylight, Metal Box, 154, etc etc etc.). My question is what are the key elements for that distinction. (I could consult Simon Reynolds' book, but my memory is he doesn't really get into that stuff. I'll probably be doing a re-read of that soon enough, tho.)

I basically accept the common intellectual distinction as first-wave punk being a reset of sorts, then it splits in two rough directions: harder, faster, and louder music that seems to seek an even more purer version of that punk reset; and music that asks what new directions things can go now, breaking more and more with the standard rock template. The difference between subsequent waves of punk and post-punk, then, is fundamentally one of attitude—is rock something to be purified or something to "get past"?—which gradually becomes apparent in the aesthetics. This isn't about a super firm division, I think, but rather a spectrum.

A few initial ideas about how that distinction is manifested (I'm not necessarily a firm believer here, just throwing out some ideas):

1) The lyrics and music becomes less immediate and energetic. Where punk is high energy and personal, with plenty of songs about first-person statements about how the singer feels or about calls to political/social action, post-punk was often more subdued and distant, less confrontational, and the lyrics more abstract and interpretive. When feelings come up, it's a lot more indistinct or tentative, alienated. Punk, for all its celebration of being marginalized and futility, is actually pretty optimistic. It assumes we all have a story to tell and shouldn't be held back. We all have power to do … something. Post-punk tends to be more skeptical, with doubt and failure recurring topics. There's less obvious political content, at least in the activist kind. Position and stances exist in the mind, but beyond that?

2) Where punk goes fast and loud and hard—pure rock sound—post-punk quickly embraced the idea of going slower and introducing more unconventional rhythms (funk, particularly) and weird futuristic sounds from synthesizers. The intent is to alien, different, suggesting a path away from the normal. If both punk and post-punk are about escaping from the mainstream, punk is an escape backwards to a more perfect rock sound, post-punk is an escape into an unknown future, even if that escape doesn't sound all that confident. It's less escaping to a Jetsons future and more to a Blade Runner kind. So there's a strange, unconfident search for something different without a belief that it'll be better.

3) Punk is celebrated for blurring the distinction between performer and audience. Anyone can do this, the audience is part of the overall experience. Post-punk doesn't recreate the rock god paradigm of stadium rock, but it does step back from punk's folkish quality of unity. Post-punk bands looked detached from, even bored with audiences. Less emotion on display, yet also often more cinematic influences—that is, there seems to be less spontaneity and more considered performance. Which also furthers the idea of deliberate alienation. Going somewhere else but who knows where and whether it'll be satisfying.

Okay, that's all I got to start with. Maybe I'm unconsciously cherry-picking to inform my early observations, and if so, please poke holes and offer something else.

[101Walterton]

Good points.
If punk was a revolution post punk is evolution.

[Kory]

I need to think on this before I reply. Very good points that are making me think of examples, connections to NY punk, etc. but my head hurts today and I can't seem to form a cogent sentence at the moment.

[Dr. Medulla]

Good points.
If punk was a revolution post punk is evolution.

I kinda like the phrasing if we treat revolution in the sense not as 180º (as it's usually used, especially in politics and war) but as 360º—trying to do a reset.

[gkbill]

Hello,

It's rather brief but was punk more expressive and post-punk more introspective? It's difficult to sum up post-punk in one sweeping statement . I think it's easier to address punk.

[Dr. Medulla]

Hello,

It's rather brief but was punk more expressive and post-punk more introspective? It's difficult to sum up post-punk in one sweeping statement . I think it's easier to address punk.

Or, perhaps, punk is easier to falsely generalize/stereotype as a monolith—angry, loud, rebellious!—whereas post-punk lacked a superficially common aesthetic. Put another way, for reasons I haven't thought about, punk encourages us to see what's shared in the "community," whereas post-punk doesn't (maybe it even encourages us to look at distinctions and divisions). Which is kinda funny, given punk's reputation for elevating individuality about the group, but the contradiction there has been discussed to death.

[BostonBeaneater]

Punk was kind of like yelling at the world whereas post-punk was moping that the world didn't listen.

[Dr. Medulla]

Punk was kind of like yelling at the world whereas post-punk was moping that the world didn't listen.

I wouldn't say moping. Perhaps there was a certain disaffectedness or cynicism that yelling doesn't accomplish anything or isn't all that interesting.

[Wolter]

I need to think on this before I reply. Very good points that are making me think of examples, connections to NY punk, etc. but my head hurts today and I can't seem to form a cogent sentence at the moment.

I’m fumbling towards something in NYC as well. Some of those bands seemed to bypass what we think of as punk now, and go straight to something much more post punk, but concurrent with punk.

But I don’t have a clear thesis about this. At least not yet. Maybe not ever.

[Dr. Medulla]

I need to think on this before I reply. Very good points that are making me think of examples, connections to NY punk, etc. but my head hurts today and I can't seem to form a cogent sentence at the moment.

I’m fumbling towards something in NYC as well. Some of those bands seemed to bypass what we think of as punk now, and go straight to something much more post punk, but concurrent with punk.

But I don’t have a clear thesis about this. At least not yet. Maybe not ever.

NY and even LA are weird in that in some respects they went to post-punk first before punk (the Ramones, Germs, and X notable exceptions). Talking Heads, Television, Suicide, Weirdos all seem more in line with post-punk sensibilities. No Wave is also a strong NY analog to post-punk, but it was hyper confrontational. But that really gets to my problem in coming up with an understanding of what post-punk means—its diversity challenges setting up boundaries, even tho we still understand that something called post-punk existed and feel fairly comfortable naming representative bands.

[Wolter]

I need to think on this before I reply. Very good points that are making me think of examples, connections to NY punk, etc. but my head hurts today and I can't seem to form a cogent sentence at the moment.

I’m fumbling towards something in NYC as well. Some of those bands seemed to bypass what we think of as punk now, and go straight to something much more post punk, but concurrent with punk.

But I don’t have a clear thesis about this. At least not yet. Maybe not ever.

NY and even LA are weird in that in some respects they went to post-punk first before punk (the Ramones, Germs, and X notable exceptions). Talking Heads, Television, Suicide, Weirdos all seem more in line with post-punk sensibilities. No Wave is also a strong NY analog to post-punk, but it was hyper confrontational. But that really gets to my problem in coming up with an understanding of what post-punk means—its diversity challenges setting up boundaries, even tho we still understand that something called post-punk existed and feel fairly comfortable naming representative bands.

It’s kind of wild.

The more I think about post-punk the harder it is to define, but I know it exists and I generally know what bands I consider post-punk. But those edges are so hard to define.

[Kory]

I need to think on this before I reply. Very good points that are making me think of examples, connections to NY punk, etc. but my head hurts today and I can't seem to form a cogent sentence at the moment.

I’m fumbling towards something in NYC as well. Some of those bands seemed to bypass what we think of as punk now, and go straight to something much more post punk, but concurrent with punk.

But I don’t have a clear thesis about this. At least not yet. Maybe not ever.

NY and even LA are weird in that in some respects they went to post-punk first before punk (the Ramones, Germs, and X notable exceptions). Talking Heads, Television, Suicide, Weirdos all seem more in line with post-punk sensibilities. No Wave is also a strong NY analog to post-punk, but it was hyper confrontational. But that really gets to my problem in coming up with an understanding of what post-punk means—its diversity challenges setting up boundaries, even tho we still understand that something called post-punk existed and feel fairly comfortable naming representative bands.

It’s kind of wild.

The more I think about post-punk the harder it is to define, but I know it exists and I generally know what bands I consider post-punk. But those edges are so hard to define.

It's like trying to remember a dream or look directly at an eye floater.

I also have this vague notion of including Subway Sect in there somewhere as the sort of anti-rock, anti-image, sort of disinterested and disconnected personality thing Doc was referencing above. Sort of a post-punk band in the midst of the original UK punk thing.

[gkbill]

I need to think on this before I reply. Very good points that are making me think of examples, connections to NY punk, etc. but my head hurts today and I can't seem to form a cogent sentence at the moment.

I’m fumbling towards something in NYC as well. Some of those bands seemed to bypass what we think of as punk now, and go straight to something much more post punk, but concurrent with punk.

But I don’t have a clear thesis about this. At least not yet. Maybe not ever.

NY and even LA are weird in that in some respects they went to post-punk first before punk (the Ramones, Germs, and X notable exceptions). Talking Heads, Television, Suicide, Weirdos all seem more in line with post-punk sensibilities. No Wave is also a strong NY analog to post-punk, but it was hyper confrontational. But that really gets to my problem in coming up with an understanding of what post-punk means—its diversity challenges setting up boundaries, even tho we still understand that something called post-punk existed and feel fairly comfortable naming representative bands.

Hello,

I think No Wave would have popped up regardless of punk. It's got an artsy bend to it. It no doubt benefited from punk and the publicity punk brought along. Awareness of No Wave was greater because of punk but it would have shown up regardless. No Wave was pretty fun in NYC.

[Dr. Medulla]

I also have this vague notion of including Subway Sect in there somewhere as the sort of anti-rock, anti-image, sort of disinterested and disconnected personality thing Doc was referencing above. Sort of a post-punk band in the midst of the original UK punk thing.

I have limited understanding of SS, but I've heard the same thing about them being out-of-step/ahead of the original UK punk scene. Pere Ubu and Devo are two more I just thought of that were post-punk before punk seemed a thing.

Maybe part of the problem is that "post" has that chronological quality to it and suggests punk has to precede it. If it had a different name that was divorced from punk entirely, perhaps we'd feel more confident about things.

[Dr. Medulla]

Hello,

I think No Wave would have popped up regardless of punk. It's got an artsy bend to it. It no doubt benefited from punk and the publicity punk brought along. Awareness of No Wave was greater because of punk but it would have shown up regardless. No Wave was pretty fun in NYC.

Hard to say. No Wave was certainly a reaction to environment, like punk, but it was also a reaction to NY punk and its supposed sell-out (all those CBGB bands getting snapped up by majors). Yet those No Wave groups claimed to hate rock music and looked to more experimental influences. But would a community have coalesced if punk hadn't inspired so many to come to NY in the first place? I dunno.

(In my rock class next term, I have a lecture on No Wave that I'm super excited to do because so few people know about that bizarre anti-scene.)