Argument to ponder

[Swampy]

I see 9 or 10 PLASTIC BAG BABY moments in the near future.

[Swampy]

In other news, CCR always sounds good, but when you blast one of their 45's really loud, it's even better...

[bradxxx]

i had one of their early LPs blasting a few hours back

[TJ Webelo]

i should also point out that this really stems from something i read not too long on this board regarding Hardcore. Someone said something along the lines of "talking about the latest hardcore album is the equivilent of talking about the latest doo wop album".

We allow the meaning of punk to change in part so we can celebrate its resilience and continuity with everything.  It's a fantasy that great records ride in on every day.

  That was the perfect answer. Great response.
Also, regarding my "apologizing", that was more or less arriving back to the thread and still not sure if my question actually made sense.

[TJ Webelo]

nothing about any of this crap makes any sens

Pffffftttttttttt

[rock zoo]

I wouldnt say punk is an archaic term. As long as shit around the world pisses people off enough to shout punk is still relevant. As long as kids still blast discharge while shotgunning beers punk is still relevant. Just because the term leaves you cold doesnt mean its not ?fixing? the lives of people around the world everyday.

[TJ Webelo]

I wouldnt say punk is an archaic term. As long as shit around the world pisses people off enough to shout punk is still relevant. As long as kids still blast discharge while shotgunning beers punk is still relevant. Just because the term leaves you cold doesnt mean its not ?fixing? the lives of people around the world everyday.

The term doesn't leave me cold at all.  i love the term in the sense that "punk" can be considered simply an updated  term for "rock'n'roll". You could say that "punk" redefined what makes a rock'n'roll band,  in that a rock'n'roll band that isn't a punk band, isn't really a rock'n'roll band at all. (which is why so many bands in retrospect, like the stooges, became considered "punk")

But at the same time, a part of me wonders why something new and interesting today is being defined by a word that was only new and fresh 30-40 years ago. Why is a term like "hardcore" considered outdated, while a term like "punk" continues on? ( Or did I just answer my own question in the first sentence.)

[rock zoo]

The age of punk has nothing to do with whether or not its an outdated term. Like i said before, it has to do with its urgency. Oh, and every rocknroll band is not a punk band thats like calling every  liberal an anarchist.

[nickg]

In other news, CCR always sounds good, but when you blast one of their 45's really loud, it's even better...

this is truth.

and i gotta say, ROCK 'N ROLL WILL NEVER DIE! LONG LIVE ROCK! KILL A PUNK FOR ROCK 'N ROLL!!

[Whet Bull]

nothing about any of this crap makes any sens

Here's a nude pic of Chloe Sevigny.

[bruce]

here's a pic of Chloe Sevigny wearing a cramps tshirt

[Whet Bull]

I see 9 or 10 PLASTIC BAG BABY moments in the near future.

If only. 

Shall I engage?

I'll engage.

I wouldnt say punk is an archaic term. As long as shit around the world pisses people off enough to shout punk is still relevant. As long as kids still blast discharge while shotgunning beers punk is still relevant. Just because the term leaves you cold doesnt mean its not ?fixing? the lives of people around the world everyday.

The term doesn't leave me cold at all.  i love the term in the sense that "punk" can be considered simply an updated  term for "rock'n'roll". You could say that "punk" redefined what makes a rock'n'roll band,  in that a rock'n'roll band that isn't a punk band, isn't really a rock'n'roll band at all. (which is why so many bands in retrospect, like the stooges, became considered "punk")

But at the same time, a part of me wonders why something new and interesting today is being defined by a word that was only new and fresh 30-40 years ago. Why is a term like "hardcore" considered outdated, while a term like "punk" continues on? ( Or did I just answer my own question in the first sentence.)

Dear TJ,

You strike me as a young man or woman between the ages of 15 and 20.  As a young person with an inquisitive mind, it is your right -- nay, your duty -- to question the dominant paradigm, etc.  The questions you ask, however, are muddled and ill-informed; they smack of adolescent drama queen self-involvement.  Do you smoked pot?  Have you ever asked yourself if what you consider to be reality, including me and everyone else on this board, is nothing but a dream, a product of your own febrile imagination?  This is, I submit, the question you should ask yourself, the one from which all others must follow, regardless of what ultimate answer you find. 

As for some of the smaller, more specific questions you have pondered in this thread, the one that stood out to me most was this one:

a part of me wonders why something new and interesting today is being defined by a word that was only new and fresh 30-40 years ago

If I may answer your question with another question, pray tell, which part of you, specifically, wonders this?  The brain?  The heart?  The anus?  And furthermore: What exactly have you heard lately that strikes you as "new and interesting" and that is also being defined (by whom?) as "punk"?  You mean, like, Ceremony? 

I would add that while "punk" opened doors for some of us early on, and while I have no doubt that shotgunning beers whilst listening to Discharge provides a relatively harmless release for the young, angry, and ignorant, for most people "punk" proves to be a pointless, unhealthy diversion on the road to a mediocre  middle-age riddled with regrets, poverty, and tedium.

Also: What do you think of the Red Hot Chili Peppers?  Tony Kiedis said a few years back that the Peppers can ride around town in limousines, eating caviar and drinking champagne, and they'd still be more punk than any young pretenders.  I would love to hear your opinion on this point.

Love,
Whet

[Whet Bull]

Here's a pic of Chloe out on a date with one of the guys from the Jersey Shore:

[Whet Bull]

...and here she is modeling a leather jacket embroidered with the Slits' logo (the British femme-reggae-punkers are a huge inspiration to this East Village denizen).

[Whet Bull]

A part of me admires Chloe's pubic hair and would like to nuzzle it.  She must be privy to some Hollywood Star Secret, or she uses a very nice conditioner on her beave.  How does a 40-year-old woman maintain such a beautifully soft tuft? 

Another part of me wishes she and Kim Gordon would form a two-woman human-centipede-style Moebius strip and tumble slowly away into the Connecticut / Massachusetts suburbs, where a fawn's kiss would project them into the heavens to become a new constellation shaped like a pair of tits and a bling-encrusted dollar sign.