Define Punk

veryslowey wrote:

Punk ain't no religious cult
Punk means thinking for yourself
You ain't hardcore cos you spike your hair
When a jock still lives inside your head

haha, NAZI PUNKS F*CK OFF!

dregin wrote:

hah, I just saw a block of whiteness. Didnt even read what it said

huh? whatcha on about?

Ha! that's not in white, it's in black :P

Yeah, those jazz punks are dangerous fella's, I hear they do all mad sorts of things

Yeah, it's coming up fine for me.

scouser.tommy wrote:

Punk for me is not any kind of ideology, or any kind of opposition to ideology, for that matter. For me it's mostly a kind of sound, a genre of music; tending to have similar traits throughout - for better of for worse, I don't know. Fairly rhythm-guitar orientated, traditionally....up-tempo beats, overdriven guitars, gritty vocals, etc. As for the lyrics, they are usually somewhat 'dissatisfied' with something or other, aren't they? I think the one thing you can safely say about punk is that it is passionate. It's loud, crying out for something or against something; punk strives to be heard.
Heh, that's all I can say about it, anyway.

Yeah, nice overall view of the sound of punk music.

Cool, i see your point of view. So basically being punk means basically doing what you want to do.Cool. But we know that, that kind of punk is exising only in (proper) punk bands. And what we see in todays music is not punk although it may be punk-ish, it is the watered down commercial spin off of punk otherwise known as rubbish. which is also found in all genres of music, when a particular style of music is taken to the mainstream becomes profitable.
What i am struggling with is (correct me if i am wrong) but there is vast limitations to the musicians themselves specifically because they don't know that much about their instruments in terms of theory. Does the punk movement become static because of it?
As stated above the good bands are good bands, in all genres of music. But the whole movement in general, does it suffer from that type of problem or is it all about the attittude and belief and music is just the medium they chose to express it with. Would the punk movement still be as strong if the medium was art or architure?
Is it also fair to say that the punk movement does not want to be labelled punk, or in fact any label at all, as it appears that there is hostility towards it in the earlier pages?

Yes i suppose it does depend on the viewpoint of the listener. But then i would imagine that what makes punk interesting for eaxmple to yourself ie: the attitude and panache of the genre, more so then the theory side of it, is quite different from my side where i like to understand what i am doing when i'm playing a song (theoretically). I dont think it has much to do with what is selling in the main stream at the time. I do agree that simple songs are every bit a song as the most complicated pieces, but again its a defferent view point.

Does the punk movement itself find theory boring or unimaginative or is it a pre-requisite to dis-own theory

fish-head wrote:

Punk is D.I.Y, punk has no masters, punks are slaves to nothing, punk can do what the **** it likes. That's punk. Basically..

I do think that cuz we basically do nothing its kind of a way to express urself....thats what i think

♪♪punk_rocker♪&#9834 wrote:

black nails and funky hair, haha.

Would ya ever just kill yourself

OLP wrote:

Would ya ever just kill yourself

**** off.

ANarcho-Munk wrote:

What about skinheads?

Oh, how rude of me to leave them out:rolleyes:
I don't know. Let's change it to:
It's when you can wake up and go to school/work and not brush your teeth and breathe on people just to make them feel uncomfortable:p
And for the toothless people.....?