|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 12:20 pm
Nevermind this thread. It embarasses me biggrin
But I do love the overall point of SLC Punk.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 12:24 pm
A very interesting topic. I can see both points of view. Whatever works for you, man. I'm a graduate. cool
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 1:17 pm
punk, to me dosent mean i have to compromise my interests, and my own love for knoledge inorder to adhere to a need for no-authority. of course i hate certain situations in the education system (especially now that i am paying for it myself).
most punks i know are smart people, some make bad decisions, some dont see the need for knoledge, they just think that their own smarts can carry them the entire way. not that it wont for some but they compromise their own potential when they compromise their education because they are not interested in it.
but it all comes down to an individual life choice, i might not finish college, due to dissintrest and financial problems (but mostly lazyness). but i never want to stop educating myself, nothing is more powerful nor more important to me than knoledge.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 12:48 pm
I'm not even close to college (I'm in 7th Grade sad ), but I don't know if I'm going to college or not. If I do, I'm probably going to major in something like psychology or philosophy.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[SkIPpY-KnIVeS] Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:26 pm
Working within the system (while showing some sort of subordination, which most punks hate) is usually a more effective way of changing everything. Some try-hards and elitists would consider working within the system un-punk...but, when it comes down to it, it's more "punk" because you're actually doing what you say you wanna do...instead of sitting around and bitching.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:37 pm
one thing i have learned though out my many years of punkage (if you can call it that) is that punk isn't even punk.
everyone sees the hypocrisy of elitist punx. punk isn't about being something.
punk isnt about being punk to be exact. punk is about not being about. if you catch my drift. or at least not being a tool-bag.
punk is do what you want, do what you need to do, be who you need to be, act how you need to act. its not about being/doing/acting against the mainstream, or acting against anything authoritarian. its about finding a purer path for yourself, usually that means cleansing yourself of corporate, social and political nonsense. but to be honest it can mean anything.
the first punk rockers weren't interested in bringing down the system, at least the ones that i have seen interviews from. it all started because they were tired of Bull s**t music tarnishing the name of the rock and roll philosophy. so they dumbed it down, purified it into the simplest form possible, eliminated the bull s**t from their lives.
i think the greatest thing punk is, is anti-bull s**t. so dont get pulled into the bull s**t. especially not in the name of punk.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:41 pm
I understand the want for knowledge, I have the same want if it isn't a need, but school is fairly unrelated to knowledge. Some of the smartest people I've ever known were dropouts who educated themselves. In fact, I just got a new Frank Zappa record (not exactly punk but who cares, he's awesome) where, on the liner notes it says something along the lines of "dropout of school and go to the library and educate yourself if you have any guts..." I don't totally agree with him but in a way its true, you can learn much more from experience and self education then from being taught. I've never really seen college in my future, if I do attend it would probably be culinary school, part of the reason I've never seen college ahead was that I don't have the cash to go and part was that I don't really want to. I don't see much of a point, after spending many, many years arguing with almost every teacher I've had and learning jack s**t from school I figure self education is more worthwhile and also leads to a more enjoyable life. By the way the album was "Freak Out!", I had an old scratched copy on cd but records are so much more awesome.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:00 pm
The-Vampire-Mikhail one thing i have learned though out my many years of punkage (if you can call it that) is that punk isn't even punk. everyone sees the hypocrisy of elitist punx. punk isn't about being something. punk isnt about being punk to be exact. punk is about not being about. if you catch my drift. or at least not being a tool-bag. punk is do what you want, do what you need to do, be who you need to be, act how you need to act. its not about being/doing/acting against the mainstream, or acting against anything authoritarian. its about finding a purer path for yourself, usually that means cleansing yourself of corporate, social and political nonsense. but to be honest it can mean anything. the first punk rockers weren't interested in bringing down the system, at least the ones that i have seen interviews from. it all started because they were tired of Bull s**t music tarnishing the name of the rock and roll philosophy. so they dumbed it down, purified it into the simplest form possible, eliminated the bull s**t from their lives. i think the greatest thing punk is, is anti-bull s**t. so dont get pulled into the bull s**t. especially not in the name of punk. Which early punkers weren't interested in bringing down the system? Even back to pre-punk there were bands like MC5 but then it grew into an extremly anti-establishment style, especially with the early bands like The Damned, D.O.A., The Sex Pistols (who I personally dislike), The Clash, The Dead Boys, The Smiths, and the list goes on and on. Yeah, there were some apolitical punk bands like the Ramones, but for the most part they were leftists politically and very much against upholding society's expectations, and even the apolitical ones focused on going against the mainstream and breaking society's standards, even the most mainstream bands again, like the Ramones. So which punk bands have you seen that weren't interested in purposfully avoiding the mainstream, breaking standards and being extremly anti-conformist and probably anti-authoritarian if not being completly against the system.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:12 am
avoiding the system doesn't translate to being against the system, and i have heard interviews from NY dolls, Iggy, Ramones, Dead Kennedys, and the bad brains.
none of which started screaming out ANARCHY!!!!! not even Jello. sure they implied a dissatisfaction with the system but that doesn't mean they were completely against it. if they were completely against it they wouldn't have recorded their music, they wouldn't have paid a producer to sell them. sure non-conformist, anti-authoritarian, but that still doesn't mean bringing down the system, it means stripping one's self of the bullshit that authority drills into you, it means letting go of the inhibitions that lead one to conformity and complacency. I may be wrong, but don't think any of them really turned into a real revolutionary against the system. just against the music industry, and against the sense of identity.
i think it was more about disassociating themselves from the problems of contemporary western culture, and finding themselves at the same time. not taking a brick to the man's head. though definitely some of them would have liked too
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:00 pm
The-Vampire-Mikhail avoiding the system doesn't translate to being against the system, and i have heard interviews from NY dolls, Iggy, Ramones, Dead Kennedys, and the bad brains. none of which started screaming out ANARCHY!!!!! not even Jello. sure they implied a dissatisfaction with the system but that doesn't mean they were completely against it. if they were completely against it they wouldn't have recorded their music, they wouldn't have paid a producer to sell them. sure non-conformist, anti-authoritarian, but that still doesn't mean bringing down the system, it means stripping one's self of the bullshit that authority drills into you, it means letting go of the inhibitions that lead one to conformity and complacency. I may be wrong, but don't think any of them really turned into a real revolutionary against the system. just against the music industry, and against the sense of identity. i think it was more about disassociating themselves from the problems of contemporary western culture, and finding themselves at the same time. not taking a brick to the man's head. though definitely some of them would have liked too Anyone who blatantly screams 'ANARCHY!!!!!!!!1' is asking for trouble. Anarchy is a school of thought with hundreds of different ways of looking at it, different styles and different philosophers that went years before punk. Or bricks. The connection between Anarchy and punk was that it was en vogue at the time punk was coming around. I don't remember where I read this, but somebody from the early days described punk- even in the late eighties, when it was on MTV- as something for the intellectually curious. Something you looked into if everything else was getting a little monotomous (sp?). I like that idea better than shiteads in spikes screaming 'ANARCHY!!11one'
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:11 pm
Banshee666 The-Vampire-Mikhail avoiding the system doesn't translate to being against the system, and i have heard interviews from NY dolls, Iggy, Ramones, Dead Kennedys, and the bad brains. none of which started screaming out ANARCHY!!!!! not even Jello. sure they implied a dissatisfaction with the system but that doesn't mean they were completely against it. if they were completely against it they wouldn't have recorded their music, they wouldn't have paid a producer to sell them. sure non-conformist, anti-authoritarian, but that still doesn't mean bringing down the system, it means stripping one's self of the bullshit that authority drills into you, it means letting go of the inhibitions that lead one to conformity and complacency. I may be wrong, but don't think any of them really turned into a real revolutionary against the system. just against the music industry, and against the sense of identity. i think it was more about disassociating themselves from the problems of contemporary western culture, and finding themselves at the same time. not taking a brick to the man's head. though definitely some of them would have liked too Anyone who blatantly screams 'ANARCHY!!!!!!!!1' is asking for trouble. Anarchy is a school of thought with hundreds of different ways of looking at it, different styles and different philosophers that went years before punk. Or bricks. The connection between Anarchy and punk was that it was en vogue at the time punk was coming around. I don't remember where I read this, but somebody from the early days described punk- even in the late eighties, when it was on MTV- as something for the intellectually curious. Something you looked into if everything else was getting a little monotomous (sp?). I like that idea better than shiteads in spikes screaming 'ANARCHY!!11one' definitely, i agree whole heartedly. punk was a certain uninhibited and self-conceived notion of self expression. something to re-establish a real sense of expression rather than letting the modern music scene to follow by the gimmicks and trends of every other band was meandering off with. things like bands strumming away at guitars for 30 minuet solos when they couldn't hold a damn candle to Clapton or Hendrix. punk upon conception was in fact a movement against monotony and trend.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|