Welcome to Gaia! ::

1. Is punk dead?
a. If dead how did it die/who or what killed it?
b. If not dead how is it still living?
c. How do we continue with/without it?

2. What is/was punk?
a. is/was it a philosophy?
b. is/was it an aesthetic movement?
c. is/was it both?
i. can both the philosophies and aesthetic movements be seperated?

3. What do the above answers make us (identified as contemporary practicioners/listeners of punk)?

1. No, music is not like the people who created it, in the sense that when we go underground, we are more than likely dead. Punk as it is now, as fused it's self so thoroughly into mainstream culture that it became a dialectic of it's self. Since Blink-182 will tell you all day long that they are infact punk, but Crass would disagree. The entire culture it's self has become debatable. Since punk is now mainstream, isn't it so not punx to be punk?

2. It was definitely both. Since it was not only a philosophy, but it was also very heavily reliant on the fact that it was pure ******** Rock and Roll. You could have the same ideals, but be a lounge singer, and not be punk.

3. It's certainly different for all of us. I myself, come from a broken home, no cash, lived in a shitty neighborhood. But is that why those philosophies are appealing to me? I don't think you can predict what people have the same ideals. Because philosophies aren't attached to a set group of people. Anyone has the ability to appreciate punk, as well as it's values.

Excellent.

1. Is punk dead?

Depends on how you look at it (which ties into question number 2)...

2. What is/was punk?

I think it's a smelting of aesthetics, personal belief, and philosophy. People have been punk without throwing the label on top of it for years. What makes them indentifiable as punk is purely based in the opinionholder and which of these options (aesthetic or philosophy) holds more dear to their belief system. Which to me is what seems to cause all the "punks not dead" "oh yes it is", and "you're a poser", "no I'm not" debates.


In my opinion, punk isn't about your studded swag with the most obscure patches one can find (although, I love them so), your musical taste, or squatting and trainhopping. Punk is any one person who has the ability to think freely, form and base their opinions on well-thought out and researched inquisitions, and who aren't afraid to do what they care deeply about without fear of persecution or judgement.

Though, that's not to say every "free-thinking", self-proclaimed liberal are punks. I think when you base your rebellious decisions on the often un-informative opinions of others who seem to think they now the what-for on a subject, that makes you equally as un-porductive as the very cause you're trying to defend or compromise.

Which leads me to "The Death of Punk: a catch phrase or awful truth?"

"Punk" as it's 70-80s definition is dead. There will never be a more glorious force of movement in music until we re-invent our consumerist ways of thinking. "Punk" as a philosophy will never die, we will always have people who stand up for what they believe in and think is right or not right. "Punk" as an aesthetic? Well Hot Topic is the man that killed the cow. It will be diluting the aesthetic of punk until it's demise.

3. What do the above answers make us (identified as contemporary practicioners/listeners of punk)?

Form your own decisions, I don't judge my own writing.

1. it's deader than disco and irony killed it. in fact irony in the mid 90's and early millennia was so destructive it killed every earnest sentiment our generation had, to the point where you couldn't enjoy anything without it being a meta-ironic joke. socially this is the moment where society emerges with a clean slate, and there's some necessity to that, it's just shitty it had to happen in our generation.

2. in the grand scheme of things punk was a footnote in music. the ideas it was composed of, in the infinite ways it was interpreted, already existed. the music we got from that was fun while it lasted, but without becoming overly sentimental and verbose about it it didn't represent anything that it's predecessors didn't.

it was, for me as a kid, an empowered sense of minimalism which helped me out as a budding teenager. now, as a sort of adult, i can define it better to suit my larger world view. to such a degree, in fact, that my original philosophy seems entirely different.

the aesthetics, though. i mean who doesn't like to dress up? that's just a part of being a kid

3. a bunch of short-sighted chumps on a sunken vessel. every decade has them, the ones who refuse to move on with contemporary culture and, 20 years later, look like cavemen to the rest of society. there's a renewal of every movement, sure, but the descendants are just as flawed as the original. there was nothing pure about punk ideals, or new for that matter, but the adults who stick loyally in that camp are just afraid of growing up.

that's not to say you can't enjoy punk as an adult but there needs to be an evolved appreciation for it. otherwise you're just staking your claim as a person prematurely, and no one likes that ********. you become the disco stu of punk.

1. Is punk dead?
Almost.
a. If dead how did it die/who or what killed it?
Elitist cunts.
b. If not dead how is it still living?
Some still understand it, but most just seem to use it as a fashion statement. Like, they think they'll get a lot of p***y/d**k if they listen to punk music or something... i know very few that like it for the meaning.
c. How do we continue with/without it?
Action.

2. What is/was ********... it's a lot of things. It's rebellion, standing up for your rights, not taking s**t. Freedom.
a. is/was it a philosophy?
b. is/was it an aesthetic movement?
c. is/was it both?
i think so. i see it both ways, more as a philosophy, though. i've met people who don't dress it or really listen to the musical genre, but they had the perfect thoughts and actions to fit into the category. i've met more people who dressed it and didn't understand it, though...

3. What do the above answers make us (identified as contemporary practicioners/listeners of punk)?
i am having trouble answering these without sounding redundant. s**t.
Well, i guess it makes everyone themselves. For me, i feel that it makes me a creature that is both aesthetic and philosophical, and even if i decided tomorrow that i wanted to dress in mom jeans and flowery blouses and listen to Gordon Lightfoot from then on, i'd still feel that i fit into the category as far as my beliefs go.

i don't know. INSANITY!

1. yes. it died when the first person said "PuNkS nOt DeAd!!!" and when it became a social scene for only people who sew on patches with floss. but whatever, just live with the music knowing it never can be or will be like it was. or make something knew/ resurrect it. do what you want.

2. Its nothing its just whatever, ********. (a.) philosophy is for hippies! naw, in all seriousness i guess there was a sort of mind set created, however i think a key point of punk is that there shouldn't be a defined set of beliefs/ philosophy. (b.) it was i suppose. (i.) if you try really hard and with a little bit of pixie dust!

3. they don't make us s**t!