PsFantasy.com Forums - View Single Post

Rei · Jun 29th, 2003, 09:07 AM

Makg, that's not the point of my post.

Just take for example a sub-category of Jazz music, ok? Jazz music is categorised in sub-genres, and many of these sub-genres are connected to the period and location of their birth. If you take one of these genres, for example the "Bebop" (which is, if I'm not wrong, a product of the 40's) and imitate it, creating new pieces of music with same style and rhythm and everything to make them sound like original old Bebop music, that won't make of them music that can be considered part of the genre in any case. History of music works like that. It's discographers who often find useful to recycle old terms to gain the attention of the audience.
Punk is a sub-sub-sub etc... product of Rock music, as it is Grunge. But would you call a bunch of kids in large trousers and jumpers grunge nowadays and ouside a certain area? No way! While probably discographers will do it, in a couple of years, or maybe in ten years. They will label these records saying "Grunge is alive!" to sell more. The recipe can be called in a certain way if you have all the ingredients. If you start changing ingredients, only taking care that the taste is similar, average people won't probably notice, but that is not the original recipe. Speaking of a type of music like Punk, if you start changing the era (which in the first place is what made punk be so alive and effective), the purposes, the spirit, and you only preserve the very simple guitar riffs, the fast-paced rhythm, and the haircut, that won't make of it punk music.

Just to make it clearer, Punk wasn't a product of discographers. When Punk started to emerge, it was genuinely upsetting and "obscene".
While now we have kids with their mommies who send them to the hairdresser to make them look better on group shots, or we have producers who pay make-up artists and buy them expensive clothes and accessories to make them look genuine. Which is completely against the idea of punk spirit. Avril Lavigne, who's incredibly being labeled as punk everywhere, is probably the sweetest and most "innocent" rockstar ever (take these words with some irony...). The point is that she looks and sounds a lot more like Hanson than like a punk musician. And what about Good Charlotte and similar bands? They speak in interviews saying they've been bullied at school so they wanted to be different blah blah blah... Here I find the premises to be wrong. To confirm this, they go around playing songs which are all but upsetting, revolutionary, powerful especially speaking of content. They express a sort of teenage-angst you can find anywhere, from cartoons to MTV, because it's pre-made, it's fake, it's refined by those who spend money on these bands and it has to sound good enough to make teenagers think "Hey, that is just like me! From now on I'm Punk!" so that Good Charlotte & Co. can sell more. Do you call them punk only because of their clothes or because of the global sound? If so, Madonna could decide to make a punk album tomorrow and you'll have to call her punk too. That's completely wrong IMO.

X vBulletin 3.8.10 Debug Information
Page Generation 0.62916 seconds Memory Usage 1,898KB Queries Executed 9 (?)
More Information
Template Usage: (1)SHOWTHREAD_SHOWPOST (1)ad_footer_end (1)ad_footer_start (1)ad_header_end (1)ad_header_logo (1)ad_navbar_below (1)footer (1)gobutton (1)header (1)headinclude (1)option (1)postbit_legacy (1)postbit_onlinestatus (1)postbit_reputation (1)postbit_wrapper (1)spacer_close (1)spacer_open Phrase Groups Available: global postbit reputationlevel showthread	Included Files: ./showpost.php ./global.php ./includes/init.php ./includes/class_core.php ./includes/config.php ./includes/functions.php ./includes/class_datastore.php ./includes/datastore/datastore_cache.php ./includes/class_hook.php ./includes/functions_cat_cfgeoblock.php ./includes/functions_cat_edittime.php ./includes/adminfunctions.php ./includes/functions_bigthree.php ./includes/class_postbit.php ./includes/class_bbcode.php ./includes/functions_reputation.php Hooks Called: init_startup cache_permissions fetch_postinfo_query fetch_postinfo fetch_threadinfo_query fetch_threadinfo fetch_foruminfo style_fetch cache_templates global_start parse_templates global_setup_complete showpost_start bbcode_fetch_tags bbcode_create postbit_factory showpost_post postbit_display_start fetch_musername reputation_image postbit_imicons bbcode_parse_start bbcode_parse_complete_precache bbcode_parse_complete postbit_display_complete showpost_complete
Messages:

Jun 29th, 2003, 09:07 AM	#34
Rei EVA 00 Pilot Joined: Jan 2002 Location: NERV Age: 41 Posts: 2,239	Makg, that's not the point of my post. Just take for example a sub-category of Jazz music, ok? Jazz music is categorised in sub-genres, and many of these sub-genres are connected to the period and location of their birth. If you take one of these genres, for example the "Bebop" (which is, if I'm not wrong, a product of the 40's) and imitate it, creating new pieces of music with same style and rhythm and everything to make them sound like original old Bebop music, that won't make of them music that can be considered part of the genre in any case. History of music works like that. It's discographers who often find useful to recycle old terms to gain the attention of the audience. Punk is a sub-sub-sub etc... product of Rock music, as it is Grunge. But would you call a bunch of kids in large trousers and jumpers grunge nowadays and ouside a certain area? No way! While probably discographers will do it, in a couple of years, or maybe in ten years. They will label these records saying "Grunge is alive!" to sell more. The recipe can be called in a certain way if you have all the ingredients. If you start changing ingredients, only taking care that the taste is similar, average people won't probably notice, but that is not the original recipe. Speaking of a type of music like Punk, if you start changing the era (which in the first place is what made punk be so alive and effective), the purposes, the spirit, and you only preserve the very simple guitar riffs, the fast-paced rhythm, and the haircut, that won't make of it punk music. Just to make it clearer, Punk wasn't a product of discographers. When Punk started to emerge, it was genuinely upsetting and "obscene". While now we have kids with their mommies who send them to the hairdresser to make them look better on group shots, or we have producers who pay make-up artists and buy them expensive clothes and accessories to make them look genuine. Which is completely against the idea of punk spirit. Avril Lavigne, who's incredibly being labeled as punk everywhere, is probably the sweetest and most "innocent" rockstar ever (take these words with some irony...). The point is that she looks and sounds a lot more like Hanson than like a punk musician. And what about Good Charlotte and similar bands? They speak in interviews saying they've been bullied at school so they wanted to be different blah blah blah... Here I find the premises to be wrong. To confirm this, they go around playing songs which are all but upsetting, revolutionary, powerful especially speaking of content. They express a sort of teenage-angst you can find anywhere, from cartoons to MTV, because it's pre-made, it's fake, it's refined by those who spend money on these bands and it has to sound good enough to make teenagers think "Hey, that is just like me! From now on I'm Punk!" so that Good Charlotte & Co. can sell more. Do you call them punk only because of their clothes or because of the global sound? If so, Madonna could decide to make a punk album tomorrow and you'll have to call her punk too. That's completely wrong IMO.