What's so post about post-punk?

[Kory]

The way that I always describe it to people who haven't heard of it, is "the energy and ideals of punk with the experimentation of prog," and then I go on to elaborate that these bands took the level playing field that punk sort of created, used some of its DIY and anti-establishment ideals and created something that wasn't quite so restrictive, or "year-zero" based. In other words, they took punk's "there are no rules" paradigm literally and seriously where the second wave of punk did not. I think they were inspired by punk, but not beholden to it. A great example would be Joy Division, who started as a result of being at the LFTH show, but went on to be basically the poster children of post-punk.

I remember reading Wilson Neate's 33 1/3 book on Pink Flag, where he argued against the album being punk but instead post-punk, but at the same time in spirit it seemed punk in spirit because of that resistance to rules and expectations. In that respect, post-punk/No Wave seized punk's spirit better than those groups who openly called themselves punk but fell into a rockish formalism. That gets into the question of whether punk is chiefly an attitude (if so, what is the attitude?) or an aesthetic (if so, what is the aesthetic?). Depending on how you want to play around with those definitions, then maybe post-punk becomes meaningful punk while the bulk of hardcore, Oi, etc is just superficiality. I'm not making that argument, mind you, as it then gets us into territory where "everything you think you know is false."

I think punk is definitely a mindset/attitude/lifestyle rather than a genre of any kind, and I think you're right to allow me to paraphrase you in saying that post-punk is what punk was supposed to have been before it very quickly became elitist and narrow.

I think we had a discussion some months back in which we debated what punk actually means, but I'm not sure what search terms I would use. I expect I would have said roughly the same things as I would now, though.

[Dr. Medulla]

Musically punk was sped up R&B and RnR. Post punk wasn't restricting itself to that narrow straight jacket by playing unorthodox rhythms and incorporating different sounds. The punk band's that survived caught on and also started playing with and expanding their sounds. While some went more pop.

Indeed, I was thinking more about it this weekend and mulling over the difference between straight ahead rock on amphetamines vs. an openness to experimenting with genre, particularly dub, krautrock, and funk.

Intellectually, tho, why does this happen? And in this order? (The order part is interesting to me because, as we've mentioned, it does seem to go in the opposite direction, or more concurrently, in the US.)

I think as an opposition to the glitz and glamour of Glam rock and the bloatead nature of stadium rock. Punk had to take music back to basics it had to be easy (easier) to play and be completely accessible with the D I.Y aesthetic and small clubs etc. Post punk brought back some of the experimental elements of prog and some aspects of Glam.

I feel it happened in this order simply because punk had to be the antithesis of the previous generation. Attitude playing as big a part initially as musical quality.

Yup, and that's kind of the standard interpretation. Punk as reset, then the question is what to do next. And it makes a lot of sense. The US experience, tho, suggests it could go in a different way. Devo, Television, Talking Heads, Screamers, Suicide—not what we think of for a punk aesthetic (maybe Screamers) but existing before or at the same time. So why didn't Magazine come before Buzzcocks, Public Image before the Pistols, etc? I don't have an answer. I'm curious whether there was something structurally different between the UK and US music biz that pushed the pieces in certain directions or is it cultural or even geographical.

[Dr. Medulla]

The way that I always describe it to people who haven't heard of it, is "the energy and ideals of punk with the experimentation of prog," and then I go on to elaborate that these bands took the level playing field that punk sort of created, used some of its DIY and anti-establishment ideals and created something that wasn't quite so restrictive, or "year-zero" based. In other words, they took punk's "there are no rules" paradigm literally and seriously where the second wave of punk did not. I think they were inspired by punk, but not beholden to it. A great example would be Joy Division, who started as a result of being at the LFTH show, but went on to be basically the poster children of post-punk.

I remember reading Wilson Neate's 33 1/3 book on Pink Flag, where he argued against the album being punk but instead post-punk, but at the same time in spirit it seemed punk in spirit because of that resistance to rules and expectations. In that respect, post-punk/No Wave seized punk's spirit better than those groups who openly called themselves punk but fell into a rockish formalism. That gets into the question of whether punk is chiefly an attitude (if so, what is the attitude?) or an aesthetic (if so, what is the aesthetic?). Depending on how you want to play around with those definitions, then maybe post-punk becomes meaningful punk while the bulk of hardcore, Oi, etc is just superficiality. I'm not making that argument, mind you, as it then gets us into territory where "everything you think you know is false."

I think punk is definitely a mindset/attitude/lifestyle rather than a genre of any kind, and I think you're right to allow me to paraphrase you in saying that post-punk is what punk was supposed to have been before it very quickly became elitist and narrow.

I think we had a discussion some months back in which we debated what punk actually means, but I'm not sure what search terms I would use. I expect I would have said roughly the same things as I would now, though.

I lean in that attitude direction, too, mainly because it opens up the idea of punk so much better to different arenas, and encourages us to think more expansively about these things. But I do hesitate, tho, because of what I said before—it risks inviting discounting the commonly accepted punk aesthetics as superficial—"not really punk"—if we decide the person/band aren't sufficiently unconventional or experimental or what have you. The idea that, I dunno, Dome were more truly punk than the UK Subs is rather daffy. Aesthetics should still count.

[Kory]

Musically punk was sped up R&B and RnR. Post punk wasn't restricting itself to that narrow straight jacket by playing unorthodox rhythms and incorporating different sounds. The punk band's that survived caught on and also started playing with and expanding their sounds. While some went more pop.

Indeed, I was thinking more about it this weekend and mulling over the difference between straight ahead rock on amphetamines vs. an openness to experimenting with genre, particularly dub, krautrock, and funk.

Intellectually, tho, why does this happen? And in this order? (The order part is interesting to me because, as we've mentioned, it does seem to go in the opposite direction, or more concurrently, in the US.)

I think as an opposition to the glitz and glamour of Glam rock and the bloatead nature of stadium rock. Punk had to take music back to basics it had to be easy (easier) to play and be completely accessible with the D I.Y aesthetic and small clubs etc. Post punk brought back some of the experimental elements of prog and some aspects of Glam.

I feel it happened in this order simply because punk had to be the antithesis of the previous generation. Attitude playing as big a part initially as musical quality.

Yup, and that's kind of the standard interpretation. Punk as reset, then the question is what to do next. And it makes a lot of sense. The US experience, tho, suggests it could go in a different way. Devo, Television, Talking Heads, Screamers, Suicide—not what we think of for a punk aesthetic (maybe Screamers) but existing before or at the same time. So why didn't Magazine come before Buzzcocks, Public Image before the Pistols, etc? I don't have an answer. I'm curious whether there was something structurally different between the UK and US music biz that pushed the pieces in certain directions or is it cultural or even geographical.

I think that's kind of what I was trying to get at earlier. If you consider that prog was mostly a UK thing and not an American one, then the Americans didn't really have anything to react against, and so American "pre-post-punk" could almost be considered their version of prog. This may be a stretch but I'm just batting it around.

[Kory]

The way that I always describe it to people who haven't heard of it, is "the energy and ideals of punk with the experimentation of prog," and then I go on to elaborate that these bands took the level playing field that punk sort of created, used some of its DIY and anti-establishment ideals and created something that wasn't quite so restrictive, or "year-zero" based. In other words, they took punk's "there are no rules" paradigm literally and seriously where the second wave of punk did not. I think they were inspired by punk, but not beholden to it. A great example would be Joy Division, who started as a result of being at the LFTH show, but went on to be basically the poster children of post-punk.

I remember reading Wilson Neate's 33 1/3 book on Pink Flag, where he argued against the album being punk but instead post-punk, but at the same time in spirit it seemed punk in spirit because of that resistance to rules and expectations. In that respect, post-punk/No Wave seized punk's spirit better than those groups who openly called themselves punk but fell into a rockish formalism. That gets into the question of whether punk is chiefly an attitude (if so, what is the attitude?) or an aesthetic (if so, what is the aesthetic?). Depending on how you want to play around with those definitions, then maybe post-punk becomes meaningful punk while the bulk of hardcore, Oi, etc is just superficiality. I'm not making that argument, mind you, as it then gets us into territory where "everything you think you know is false."

I think punk is definitely a mindset/attitude/lifestyle rather than a genre of any kind, and I think you're right to allow me to paraphrase you in saying that post-punk is what punk was supposed to have been before it very quickly became elitist and narrow.

I think we had a discussion some months back in which we debated what punk actually means, but I'm not sure what search terms I would use. I expect I would have said roughly the same things as I would now, though.

I lean in that attitude direction, too, mainly because it opens up the idea of punk so much better to different arenas, and encourages us to think more expansively about these things. But I do hesitate, tho, because of what I said before—it risks inviting discounting the commonly accepted punk aesthetics as superficial—"not really punk"—if we decide the person/band aren't sufficiently unconventional or experimental or what have you. The idea that, I dunno, Dome were more truly punk than the UK Subs is rather daffy. Aesthetics should still count.

I might make the argument though, that the Subs have the attitude that's necessary, even if their music is more straightlaced. Where I think you could say a band isn't sufficiently punk would be something like New Found Glory or Good Charlotte, or some other late 90s stuff. Music where the traditionally regarded aesthetic is there, but there's absolutely nothing punk, attitude/values-wise backing it up.

BTW, thanks for starting this thread, I'm really enjoying this conversation.

[Dr. Medulla]

Indeed, I was thinking more about it this weekend and mulling over the difference between straight ahead rock on amphetamines vs. an openness to experimenting with genre, particularly dub, krautrock, and funk.

Intellectually, tho, why does this happen? And in this order? (The order part is interesting to me because, as we've mentioned, it does seem to go in the opposite direction, or more concurrently, in the US.)

I think as an opposition to the glitz and glamour of Glam rock and the bloatead nature of stadium rock. Punk had to take music back to basics it had to be easy (easier) to play and be completely accessible with the D I.Y aesthetic and small clubs etc. Post punk brought back some of the experimental elements of prog and some aspects of Glam.

I feel it happened in this order simply because punk had to be the antithesis of the previous generation. Attitude playing as big a part initially as musical quality.

Yup, and that's kind of the standard interpretation. Punk as reset, then the question is what to do next. And it makes a lot of sense. The US experience, tho, suggests it could go in a different way. Devo, Television, Talking Heads, Screamers, Suicide—not what we think of for a punk aesthetic (maybe Screamers) but existing before or at the same time. So why didn't Magazine come before Buzzcocks, Public Image before the Pistols, etc? I don't have an answer. I'm curious whether there was something structurally different between the UK and US music biz that pushed the pieces in certain directions or is it cultural or even geographical.

I think that's kind of what I was trying to get at earlier. If you consider that prog was mostly a UK thing and not an American one, then the Americans didn't really have anything to react against, and so American "pre-post-punk" could almost be considered their version of prog. This may be a stretch but I'm just batting it around.

Perhaps America's embrace of heavy metal was the thing to reject? I dunno. Spitballin'.

[Marky Dread]

Musically punk was sped up R&B and RnR. Post punk wasn't restricting itself to that narrow straight jacket by playing unorthodox rhythms and incorporating different sounds. The punk band's that survived caught on and also started playing with and expanding their sounds. While some went more pop.

Indeed, I was thinking more about it this weekend and mulling over the difference between straight ahead rock on amphetamines vs. an openness to experimenting with genre, particularly dub, krautrock, and funk.

Intellectually, tho, why does this happen? And in this order? (The order part is interesting to me because, as we've mentioned, it does seem to go in the opposite direction, or more concurrently, in the US.)

I think as an opposition to the glitz and glamour of Glam rock and the bloatead nature of stadium rock. Punk had to take music back to basics it had to be easy (easier) to play and be completely accessible with the D I.Y aesthetic and small clubs etc. Post punk brought back some of the experimental elements of prog and some aspects of Glam.

I feel it happened in this order simply because punk had to be the antithesis of the previous generation. Attitude playing as big a part initially as musical quality.

Yup, and that's kind of the standard interpretation. Punk as reset, then the question is what to do next. And it makes a lot of sense. The US experience, tho, suggests it could go in a different way. Devo, Television, Talking Heads, Screamers, Suicide—not what we think of for a punk aesthetic (maybe Screamers) but existing before or at the same time. So why didn't Magazine come before Buzzcocks, Public Image before the Pistols, etc? I don't have an answer. I'm curious whether there was something structurally different between the UK and US music biz that pushed the pieces in certain directions or is it cultural or even geographical.

I think we have to look at the punk scene in the UK and how it followed the very brief pub rock scene. Band's like Kilburn and the High Roads, Dr. Feelgood, Eddie & The Hot Rods were the real UK band's running in tandem to Television, Talking Heads, and Devo. They are even further away from the sound than the UK punk band's.

Those early US band's Television etc being a huge influence on the post punk sound of the likes of Echo & The Bunnymen.

[Dr. Medulla]

The way that I always describe it to people who haven't heard of it, is "the energy and ideals of punk with the experimentation of prog," and then I go on to elaborate that these bands took the level playing field that punk sort of created, used some of its DIY and anti-establishment ideals and created something that wasn't quite so restrictive, or "year-zero" based. In other words, they took punk's "there are no rules" paradigm literally and seriously where the second wave of punk did not. I think they were inspired by punk, but not beholden to it. A great example would be Joy Division, who started as a result of being at the LFTH show, but went on to be basically the poster children of post-punk.

I remember reading Wilson Neate's 33 1/3 book on Pink Flag, where he argued against the album being punk but instead post-punk, but at the same time in spirit it seemed punk in spirit because of that resistance to rules and expectations. In that respect, post-punk/No Wave seized punk's spirit better than those groups who openly called themselves punk but fell into a rockish formalism. That gets into the question of whether punk is chiefly an attitude (if so, what is the attitude?) or an aesthetic (if so, what is the aesthetic?). Depending on how you want to play around with those definitions, then maybe post-punk becomes meaningful punk while the bulk of hardcore, Oi, etc is just superficiality. I'm not making that argument, mind you, as it then gets us into territory where "everything you think you know is false."

I think punk is definitely a mindset/attitude/lifestyle rather than a genre of any kind, and I think you're right to allow me to paraphrase you in saying that post-punk is what punk was supposed to have been before it very quickly became elitist and narrow.

I think we had a discussion some months back in which we debated what punk actually means, but I'm not sure what search terms I would use. I expect I would have said roughly the same things as I would now, though.

I lean in that attitude direction, too, mainly because it opens up the idea of punk so much better to different arenas, and encourages us to think more expansively about these things. But I do hesitate, tho, because of what I said before—it risks inviting discounting the commonly accepted punk aesthetics as superficial—"not really punk"—if we decide the person/band aren't sufficiently unconventional or experimental or what have you. The idea that, I dunno, Dome were more truly punk than the UK Subs is rather daffy. Aesthetics should still count.

I might make the argument though, that the Subs have the attitude that's necessary, even if their music is more straightlaced. Where I think you could say a band isn't sufficiently punk would be something like New Found Glory or Good Charlotte, or some other late 90s stuff. Music where the traditionally regarded aesthetic is there, but there's absolutely nothing punk, attitude/values-wise backing it up.

But wouldn't the music reflect the attitude? That's mostly all we can go off, so if a band sticks with a "punk sound" over and over, isn't that evidence that they lack the attitude and are formalist?

BTW, thanks for starting this thread, I'm really enjoying this conversation.

It's one of the things I love about the people here. We can play around with these things because we're not so strict with proper definitions and all that, but geeky enough to enjoy bullshitting about this stuff. And, alas, I haven't found a group of students who want to indulge my curiosities this way.

[Kory]

I remember reading Wilson Neate's 33 1/3 book on Pink Flag, where he argued against the album being punk but instead post-punk, but at the same time in spirit it seemed punk in spirit because of that resistance to rules and expectations. In that respect, post-punk/No Wave seized punk's spirit better than those groups who openly called themselves punk but fell into a rockish formalism. That gets into the question of whether punk is chiefly an attitude (if so, what is the attitude?) or an aesthetic (if so, what is the aesthetic?). Depending on how you want to play around with those definitions, then maybe post-punk becomes meaningful punk while the bulk of hardcore, Oi, etc is just superficiality. I'm not making that argument, mind you, as it then gets us into territory where "everything you think you know is false."

I think punk is definitely a mindset/attitude/lifestyle rather than a genre of any kind, and I think you're right to allow me to paraphrase you in saying that post-punk is what punk was supposed to have been before it very quickly became elitist and narrow.

I think we had a discussion some months back in which we debated what punk actually means, but I'm not sure what search terms I would use. I expect I would have said roughly the same things as I would now, though.

I lean in that attitude direction, too, mainly because it opens up the idea of punk so much better to different arenas, and encourages us to think more expansively about these things. But I do hesitate, tho, because of what I said before—it risks inviting discounting the commonly accepted punk aesthetics as superficial—"not really punk"—if we decide the person/band aren't sufficiently unconventional or experimental or what have you. The idea that, I dunno, Dome were more truly punk than the UK Subs is rather daffy. Aesthetics should still count.

I might make the argument though, that the Subs have the attitude that's necessary, even if their music is more straightlaced. Where I think you could say a band isn't sufficiently punk would be something like New Found Glory or Good Charlotte, or some other late 90s stuff. Music where the traditionally regarded aesthetic is there, but there's absolutely nothing punk, attitude/values-wise backing it up.

But wouldn't the music reflect the attitude? That's mostly all we can go off, so if a band sticks with a "punk sound" over and over, isn't that evidence that they lack the attitude and are formalist?

Yeah, I suppose I'm rethinking in response to your comment about aesthetics. I think in this case I'm of the mind that the attitude in question is more just anti-establishment, "anyone can do it," DIY stuff and so on. The real question is whether they stay in the style they do because that's all they consider to be punk, or if they do it simply because they like the style? I think it boils down to whether the straight-ahead punk style is considered to be essential, or if it's just a part of the tapestry. Like, would the Subs look down on somebody else as not punk for not doing the same thing as them (I don't know as much about their philosophy). In another way, do we still consider the Clash to be a punk band circa London Calling?

OR

If the idea is that punk was supposed to have no rules, but what it actually became is very rule-based, does what it became get to define it? Or should its ideal still be the thing striven for?

[Dr. Medulla]

Yeah, I suppose I'm rethinking in response to your comment about aesthetics. I think in this case I'm of the mind that the attitude in question is more just anti-establishment, "anyone can do it," DIY stuff and so on.

That plus, I think, the folk values of sincerity and a kind of organic knowledge rooted in experience. All of which encourages an openness to possibility without limitations of technical skills or commercial viability. Which seems pretty open-ended—too much so, maybe; isn't any artist who is sincere being a punk? Doesn't punk just become another name for art?—but I lean to a wider idea.

The real question is whether they stay in the style they do because that's all they consider to be punk, or if they do it simply because they like the style? I think it boils down to whether the straight-ahead punk style is considered to be essential, or if it's just a part of the tapestry. Like, would the Subs look down on somebody else as not punk for not doing the same thing as them (I don't know as much about their philosophy).

It shouldn't matter if the other band is being genuinely curious and honest in expressing themselves. But if the band thinks they should be pursuing a specific sound, that becomes problematic.

In another way, do we still consider the Clash to be a punk band circa London Calling?

That they were clearly following diverse and sincere interests on LC and especially S!, I'd say yes. That should give us pause, tho, about how much we attach to attitude. S! is a lot of things, but a punk album?

If the idea is that punk was supposed to have no rules, but what it actually became is very rule-based, does what it became get to define it? Or should its ideal still be the thing striven for?

Who does get to define whether something is punk? Some kind of rule has to be in operation. It seems like something that falls apart the closer you get to it.

[Kory]

Who does get to define whether something is punk? Some kind of rule has to be in operation. It seems like something that falls apart the closer you get to it.

I'm definitely seeing that the more I try to define it. Maybe that's the problem with the media giving an umbrella term to a bunch of loosely-affiliated bands that happened to play in the same English clubs in the late 70s.

[Dr. Medulla]

Who does get to define whether something is punk? Some kind of rule has to be in operation. It seems like something that falls apart the closer you get to it.

I'm definitely seeing that the more I try to define it. Maybe that's the problem with the media giving an umbrella term to a bunch of loosely-affiliated bands that happened to play in the same English clubs in the late 70s.

I don't know if I mentioned this before, but I'm hoping to get approval to teach a seminar on punk—music, fashion, politics, as wide a net as possible—and I'd love for someone to end up questioning whether punk really exists. But then I always want students who gravitate to weirdo positions because it's intellectually more adventurous.

[Kory]

Who does get to define whether something is punk? Some kind of rule has to be in operation. It seems like something that falls apart the closer you get to it.

I'm definitely seeing that the more I try to define it. Maybe that's the problem with the media giving an umbrella term to a bunch of loosely-affiliated bands that happened to play in the same English clubs in the late 70s.

I don't know if I mentioned this before, but I'm hoping to get approval to teach a seminar on punk—music, fashion, politics, as wide a net as possible—and I'd love for someone to end up questioning whether punk really exists. But then I always want students who gravitate to weirdo positions because it's intellectually more adventurous.

Do you think you would try to lead them there, or just hope that somebody arrives there on their own?

[Dr. Medulla]

Who does get to define whether something is punk? Some kind of rule has to be in operation. It seems like something that falls apart the closer you get to it.

I'm definitely seeing that the more I try to define it. Maybe that's the problem with the media giving an umbrella term to a bunch of loosely-affiliated bands that happened to play in the same English clubs in the late 70s.

I don't know if I mentioned this before, but I'm hoping to get approval to teach a seminar on punk—music, fashion, politics, as wide a net as possible—and I'd love for someone to end up questioning whether punk really exists. But then I always want students who gravitate to weirdo positions because it's intellectually more adventurous.

Do you think you would try to lead them there, or just hope that somebody arrives there on their own?

I would have to put a noose around a student's neck and beat them with a baseball covered in nails. The resistance to being imaginative is remarkable. It's like they fear arguing a flaky position will haunt them when they run for the Liberal leadership one day.

[gkbill]

Who does get to define whether something is punk? Some kind of rule has to be in operation. It seems like something that falls apart the closer you get to it.

I'm definitely seeing that the more I try to define it. Maybe that's the problem with the media giving an umbrella term to a bunch of loosely-affiliated bands that happened to play in the same English clubs in the late 70s.

I don't know if I mentioned this before, but I'm hoping to get approval to teach a seminar on punk—music, fashion, politics, as wide a net as possible—and I'd love for someone to end up questioning whether punk really exists. But then I always want students who gravitate to weirdo positions because it's intellectually more adventurous.

Do you think you would try to lead them there, or just hope that somebody arrives there on their own?

I would have to put a noose around a student's neck and beat them with a baseball covered in nails. The resistance to being imaginative is remarkable. It's like they fear arguing a flaky position will haunt them when they run for the Liberal leadership one day.

Hello,

I'm of the opinion punk doesn't exist anymore - it did exist but it was a product of the times. Looking back, I 'm very thankful I was lucky enough to be young at that time. I feel badly for kids today who don't get to experience that kind of movement. Their lives are so empty of true excitement and energy. Your proposed seminar may be punk as a social experience/movement. I'd be interested as to how someone would define the end (death) of punk - MTV?

Using the imagination requires too much effort for many students as discussed previously.