Tuesday April 23, 2013

Have ‘punk ideals’ become totally irrelevant for musicians?


Kurt Vile recently remarked, "In this day and age, 'punk ideals' are totally irrelevant" for musicians.  Do you agree or disagree?  And why? Talkhouse

Jenn Wasner

I think the need for dissent and ideas outside of the mainstream is just as great now as it ever was in the early heyday of the punk subculture. But I’d love to see the development of a new umbrella term for this ethos that is less genre-specific and less endemic of what is now a long bygone era. I think the “punk” tag can be alienating to some, especially to a youth likely hungry for a revolution of their own—one whose hallmarks and insignia haven’t been appropriated from their parents generation.

on 24-04-2013 13:36

Jonathan Meiburg

Which “punk ideals” does KV mean?  The haircuts and ripped shirts being struck in bronze at the Met?  California?  DC?  I was never that clear what punk was supposed to be.  On tour, I guess we usually call something ‘punk rock’ if it’s done of necessity, without a net, and (most importantly) with gusto, whether for the sake of the show, the tour, or even the band itself.  Like: jumping into a crowd that might not have reached the critical mass to hold you, fixing a snare drum with a shoestring (while the drummer keeps playing), singing through a stomach flu, driving all night because the van broke down, having another band member sing all the songs because you lost your voice, playing quietly in front of an audience that only wants it loud (or vice versa), beating a heckler at verbal judo, ad libbing from the heart, smashing your only instrument from sheer frustration or joy, asking for a place to stay from the stage.  Hard to see any of this being irrelevant.

on 29-04-2013 01:44