Research Entry 3: Was Punk's Prime in the Past? Is it still relevant?

The documentary that I have chosen to examine for this entry is the DOA Punk Documentary of 1980, directed by Lech Kowalski. DOA ontrasts with PunkAttitude in a few ways but is relevant to my blog for different reasons. Firstly, this doco was filmed during the Sex Pistols' tour, back in the late seventies, within the era of the Sex Pistols' reign over punk.It thus does not present a chronological progression of the way punk evolved as Punk: Attitude does, but instead focuses on the Sex Pistols as the ultimate punk band, and presents the cultural effects of punk, through examining the controversy that surrounded punk at the time with perspectives of non-punk members of society, including those of the Government. Although it does feature other bands' performances, such as those of The Clash, Iggy Pop, Sham 69, and more, the Sex Pistols are referenced the most, and Johnny Rotten's narration and punk comments are consistent throughout the film. This narration is the perfect tool to present the punk perspective, and create a punk image, for the viewer. His comments include his neglect of conventional ideas of employment, 'the idea of having a job or career has never occured to me', childhood 'you just can't be right to a parent in London being a punk', and negation of any aspirations 'most punks don't believe in heroes,' as well as other punks' comments who claim they don't have any friends. The punk in those days is hence constructed as an isolated person; one without friends, family, or career security; everything that in society's dominant view are contributing factors to personal happiness. So those who share society's conventional ideologies, may understand from this documentary, and feel empathy for, the punks who suffered in the 1970s, and hence possibly understand better punks today.

Of course, punk today is still alive and dominant, but in a different way. Back in the origins of punk Government and society was more conservatively-minded, and punk was alive in the underground clubs and in a certain class position in society. It and specifically the Sex Pistols were huge radicals in their political lyrics and behaviour. But as Ruth Adams argues in her article "Englishness of English Punk", a point can be made that the Sex Pistols 'pushed the pop envelope so far that they effectively denied following generations the opportunity to shock in any really society-rocking fashion'. (Adams 479). She quotes Robert Garnett who explains that punk passed ecause 'the space within which it operated was closed down...After the space within which it existed was closed down, things like 'Anarchy' simply couldn't be made anymore, and nothing like it, nothing with the same gravity, nothing so abject has been made since. (Adams 479). As argued in previous blogs, this reinforces the fact that punk is still relevant today, just simply in a different form. It is no longer a revolution taking over a country, but as a result of things such as the Internet, radio and media attention, it has expanded to today around the globe in different geographic and demographic places. To support Garnett's argument, things like Punk Voter and Bands Against Bush that were previously discussed were prevailing under Bush's power, when the Government of the USA was arguably in a worse state than it is now. Since these organiztations and punk followers achieved their goal, that was to prevent Bush from another successful election, perhaps things have died down, since the space, that is Bush's reign, within which punks were operating ceased. Punks are still being active; Punk Voter still today has criticisms of Obama and the government on their facebook page. However, no global concerts or attempts are apparent as they were under Bush's power anymore. But I would like to investigate the past punk days through the DOA Punk Documentary to compare to how punks are now.

After a very interesting introduction, including comparing punk to people in a church, babies crying and walls of knives, the documentary kicks off with interviews of punks in the 1970s, when the Sex Pistols were in the spotlight, and their high opinions of punk as the new revolution. As the filmmakers follow the Sex Pistols around on their tour, many entire performances of theirs are shown, with the lyrics typed on the screen for the viewer to read. Thus their political influence is not ignored, as political lyrics are plain to see, including those of their infamous single 'God Save the Queen', a satirical anti-national anthem and one of punks' classic political statements. This song was so politically incorrect at the time that it was like declaring war on their country. As Rotten claimed however, they wrote the song not because they hated England, but because they loved them, and were sick of seeing the English public mistreated. (Adams 474)'The lyrics, "God save the queen/She ain't no human being/And there's no future/In England's dreaming", were outrageous, but from the Sex Pistols, outrageously honest. This honesty had a result of political controversy, and as discussed in previous blogs, this legacy in punk has carried on.
There is also negative presentation of the police and the Government in the film, through the view of a victimized punk, in which a woman who is crying and lying on the ground, claiming the police 'threw her out' of the punk rave where she was enjoying herself. She cries that having a punk identity means 'you gotta constantly fight back', and reinforces the idea from Rotten's narration that punks have a hard, defensive life. This anti-government presentation parallels the Freedom Fighter of the Month, on the Rage Against the Machine website, mentioned in the last blog, where police attacked journalist who stood up for his political views. Thus this anti-government pattern has certainly continued into the present, and the perspectives that punks have on the subject may be similar to what they were when this film was made. From a marketing point of view, this is what the producers apparently wanted, as Augustus Pablo talking about the Sex Pistols, claims that 'there hasn't been a rock and roll group to hate for a long time...it's an anti-social group, it's something to be afraid of at the same time. It sells papers and programs'.
How the public and members of the government reacted to these political songs and punks in general is given as a perspective in this film. As punk performances are shown, they are often juxtaposed with views of educated interviewees, who because of their Queen's English are of an assumed high class, and they all seem to have the same view of punks: a very negative one. Some statements made by council member Bernard Brooke Partridge and 'anti-smut crusader' Mary Whitehouse follow: 'I am not afraid of punk, I am ashamed of it', 'It is difficult nowadays to become regarded as man instead of boy...I think an awful lot of people who enjoy punk would really like to be back in those days when they could see physical people hacking each other to death', and 'until they learn the Queen's English', their views and protests cannot be validated.

These interviewees are largely contrasted to the punks shown in the film in terms of class, through their difference in English language and especially through the mise-en-scene of the interview. Whenever the maker of the documentary is interviewing punks, it is a messy and dirty place, amongst a crowd of drugged young people with ragged clothes or in a room full of graffiti and smoke. The cinematography consists of fast paced cutting, between different shots of punks. This gives the messy, confused impression of what it may be like inside the punks' minds. But in interviewing the Government members and the like, the interview takes place in their office, in a calm, silent environment, whilst in their work clothes, often suits. This evident class contrast coincides with the classic subcultural theory of the Birmingham School, who placed punk, among other subcultures, as a result of working class resistance.

How punk was received in the religious domain at the time is not neglected in the film either. There is a scene in which Johnny Rotten's facial expression is on a close up, in slow motion looking around amongst the background noise of the crowd calling his name. Then it turns out that they are trying to convert him to a religion, trying to exorcise the 'devil' which is possessing him, claiming 'your last name doesn't have to be Rotten it can be beautiful!' After one man talks to the camera and says that 'sin is a disease', the film cuts directly to an image of Johnny's face, which has his crazy expression whilst performing. Another anti-religious statement is made by another punk band, in which the male vocalist is on stage screaming 'It's Friday the Thirteenth!' and is wearing a nun's dress. This is part of the punk movement ignoring conventional gender, and religous, rules. This, as well as the twelve-year-old punk who planned, for a performance, to create an exorcism scene in which she 'spits pea soup all over the place' and 'shoots whipped cream' into thte audience and band, amplifies the punk attitude once again by defying mainstream society's religious realm.

Because of the temporal context of this film, it is arguably able to give direct insight into the 'reality' of punk, what the scenes and people were really like. The punk image presenetd by Rotten's narration and punks' perspectives of a lonely, messed up person is especially apparent through the interview in the film featuring Nancy Spungen and Sid Vicious, the bassist of the Sex Pistols and his girlfriend. In the entire interview of the film, Sid is not able to stay awake, even when the interviewer asks him a question, because of the effect that the band and the drugs had on him. The usage and affect of drugs in punks continue to surface when Nancy takes off her top for no reason, conducts the rest of the interview in her bra, and Sid proposes the camera man for a pornographic movie with Nancy and Sid in exchange for one hundred pounds. It is shown at the end of the film when Nancy and Sid died, only a year before the documentary was released. If the viewer is aware of the story of their deaths, it is quite a powerful scene, denoting punk as one that affects one's behaviour and overall life, and evokes the viewer's empathy for them.

Considering when it was filmed, DOA did not of course relate punk to technology, or how a subculture that was so evolutionary in its own right may be affected by it nor did the film give any academic analysis of the punk movement. But what it does present is valuable on its own, as seeing what punk was then can be compared to how it exists in society today. In his article Playing Punk: Anti Heroes in the Media, Myke Bartlett, a teacher at an Australian school, draws paralells between the Sex Pistols and their rebellioin against authority to a famous student rebel who had a story on A Current Affair. The title 'Playing Punk' suggests that the role model, or anti-hero for rebels today is those descendent punks of the 1970s. The fact that he chose this example, of role models from another time and another country, represents how their message is still relevant in youth and rebellion today. The fact is that something such as punk, that creates such controversy in its time, has featured in society, it becomes integral to society and known in its history, and will inevitably be referenced, parodied and continued in other areas of culture, including the acadmic and popular culture realm. Thanks to technology punk has been given an outlet to continue its glory and spread the word into future generations. The way punk is now, that is, a global political phenonmenon, is testament to the power of the media and especially the Internet, enabling a subculture to move from its hometown and other participating countries, to a global scale, where every country will have a minority at least that exists in the subculture and follows it, and i think in some way or another, punk will continue its attitude and influence into the future.

Research Entry No.2: Punk Presently, in an era of Popular Culture

The aim of this blog is to show how punk is alive and using the media today, specifically how punk uses the Internet as a major media outlet for political action. In Moore's article Postmodernism and Punk Subculture, he discusses punk in the postmodern world, that is, a world where boundaries between high culture and low culture are blurred, where the 'condition' of postmodernity defined as a 'crisis of meaning caused by the commodification of everyday life'. This conflict with commodities is not a new one in punk, but the difference today is that the do-it-yourself attitude still heavily residing within the punk ideology, is now embraced by today's technologies. The Internet and self-owned music software for example, helps punks to 'seek authenticity and independence from the culture industry', allowing people to create their own independent record label, political journalism online, or the like, and renounce mainstream popularised and commercialised media culture. Communication of contemporary political and counter-commercial values is thus more accessible and easily dispersed on a wide scale with mediums such as the Internet. This is evident in punk blogs, or subculture blogs online, and all sorts of online-based punk information, but I will be looking specifically for websites, or even organizations, that try to encourage political activity, being anti-war, anti-consumer, or any other way anti-mainstream.

A few prominent websites are mentioned in Leonisa Ardizzone's article, Yelling and Listening, in which she presents her faith in youth power, and the way punk is a means for the youth in particular to be politically active and powerful. She presents punk rock bands and their lyrics as being influential over youth, as role models and even heroe-like figures, as they play benefits for children's rights or medical services for the poor. But mostly they are, specifically according to this article, against modern day politics, and are a voice for the youth, the marginalized, and those who are too afraid to speak out themselves. She gives examples of artists that actively promoted voter registration among youth, such as Bounty Killer, Rage Against the Machine, Propagandhi, and Anti-Flag. One of the prime examples of methods in which punk bands and their politics connect with their followers is through the Internet. For instance, the organization Punk Voter, founded by Mike Burkett of NOFX, she explains in 2004 organized a series of concerts called Rock Against Bush, campaigning for the youth vote (Ardizzone 55).The significant response to these concerts in terms of attendance and CD sales, illustrates that what may start on the Internet, that is Punk Voter, can become a largely active political protest that attracts a large capacity of modern day punk followers. Today, on their Facebook page, there are no campaigns that are quite as large a sclae, perhaps because Bush is no longer in power. However, there are still many political comments on today's society. Some of these include web articles about 'what's wrong with the news,', news articles on FAIR journalism addressing the problems of tax and average income in America, an article that explores the issue of fascism and how it is active in contemporary society, criticisms of Obama's rule, and links to a NOFX song, titled 'You're wrong', a social commentary on perspectives in society today.
I also found a few sites discussing PunkVoter and its influence. Two of these included a blog abou thow PunkVoter 'lies', http://www.punkvoterlies.blogspot.com/ and Wikipedia, albeit not always a completely reliable source, confirms this view. Whatever the opinion, the fact is that without the ability for Burkett to create a website that could have this much influence, in other words, without the use of the Internet, it would have been much harder for Burkett to create global awareness with his political opinions such as he has done.

Setting aside the lyrics in many of the punk rock bands' songs, on many punk bands' websites there is often featured a political charitable event, or dedication to a certain controversial topic, or anti-government statement. The Rage Against the Machine website for example features a 'Freedom Fighter of the Month'. This month it is dedicated to Brad Will, who by their writing, was a journalist, and because of his political opinions and effort to 'throw a corrupt dictator out of office', was murdered by police, and true to his journalistic nature, he managed to keep the camera rolling and document his own murder. Their anti-government message is her is clear and powerful. More information can be found at http://www.ratm.com/. Another website worth discovering is the Anti-Flag website, in which even their website title is bold: 'Anti-Flag: The People or the Gun', and it currently features an advertisement for their new t-shirt in which all money will be donated to a water sanitation charity for Sierra Leone in Africa. http://www.anti-flag.com/. These are just two examples of politically active content through punk, and the Internet's vital role to keeping it alive.

A site worth visting t oshow in depth of what artists are or were doing, most specifically when Bush was in power, is http://www.bushflash.com/farrell/04/04/far04014.html. An explanation of much Internet-based political activity is given on her website that supports Ardizzone's argument of music creating power.

What these websites demonstrate is that punk nowadays is still politically active. Thanks to the ease of sharing information through the Internet, the subcultural theory of 'scene' is no longer essential to being part of a subculture, as the physical is diminished on the web. In other words, as opposed to being part of the CBGB's scene of New york, or the underground clubs in London, as it was in the seventies and old punk days, punks are able to share their identity and political values easily today. With the use of the Internet punk fans are encouraged and enabled to talk politics online, on blogs, message boards, are able to connect with other bands and 'friend' them on myspace, bands or organizations that are in connection with their subculture. Basically, there is a non-physical domain where people can come together no matter where you are, and express your own political views, and become part of a global online community. It allows for independence from the major record conglomerates as anyone can download music software, create their own studio and become an independent record label owner, as mentioned before, and even use instruments online. It allows for independent journalism, among which punks or anybody can easily express their political views. All these factors work in favour of punk values, and as both article discuss, this exemplifies the power of music and the Internet as a medium for political activism, particularly in the youth.

Which brings me to the only real disagreement I have with Ardizzone's article in particular; the fact that she relies solely on the youth generation, which she defines as adolescents, to be the ones who are politically active and promoting power through the Internet. However, part of the advantages of the Internet is that this power can be afforded to a person of any age demographic, who has access the Internet. So I believe this 'youth culture' can in fact be widened as one will find that for example many punk band members that are being particularly active today, are often not in the youth age group, or even specifically cater to this market. This youth stereotype of adolescence pushing the boundaries of society and being delinquent in their own right is an old fashioned one, and being an adolescent does not necessarily make you punk, or a person with a punk attitude. However, this article has been very useful to show how active punk is these days. I simply want to add that glory of the Internet means ones of any age can be afforded this power.

Research Entry 1: A cultural comparison of a subculture

RESEARCH ENTRY, 4th May 2010-Punk and Attitude

For my first research entry in reference to my chosen punk subculture I have looked at the Don Letts documentary film Punk: Attitude. This documentary is useful for a non-punk person such as myself in determining what punk identity is or means, and what the cultural context was like when the punk movement originated. Chronologically, through interviewing members of the influential punk bands and more, the progression of punk is shown through the bands and their influences, to what punk might mean in society today. Someone who wants an in-depth historical and academic overview however, may require further research than this documentary. Still, the documentary helps to explain the media relationship to the punk subculture. In fact, the media itself coined the term 'punk' as a label for the subculture, and as Daniel Wojcik says in his book Punk and Neo-Tribal Body Art, 'demonized [punk]...stereotyped them as folk devils that threatened national morals and social order. (Wojcik 7). The fact that there are documentaries existing in mainstream media today about punk relays the fact that media was rather interested in the punk phenonemon, and has indeed changed the way of punk today.

The documentary presents many different perspectives from its interviewees on what 'punk' means. Among them are punk as being a fight against complacency, doing what you want and not caring about commerciality, a philiosophical way of thinking, or even being the 'real punks', as Steve Jones and Chrissie Hynde believe, through their uniting front against the government. Legs McNeil of Punk Magazine says that punk essentially started with Marlon Brando, the rebel without a cause, showcasing how it is the rebellious attitude of punk that is at its core.I would like to borrow a definition from Roger Sabin of punk for the purpose of this blog: 'punk was/is a subculture best characterised as being part youth rebellion, part artistic statement...[that] stood for identifiable attitudes, among them: an emphasis on negationism...a consciousness of class-based politics..and a belief in spontaneity and 'doing it yourself'. (Sabin 2-3).This definition can now be used to examine the documentary and the relevance of this definition today.

A strong aesthetic image is generally associated with the traditional punk stereotype. The documentary traces this dress and style back to a shop in London, 'Malcom and Vivian's dress shop'. Punk members back in the seventies would thus go discover style, and, as Chrissie Hynde says, punk would not be like, or look like, what it did if it wasn't for thier shop. It also explains the bricolage and homology aspects of punk, which are the looks that unify the subculture and make them identifiable, as punk members take aspects from 'mainstream' culture and appropriate them in a unique way. As mentioned in the documentary, often punk artists would need safety pins to hold their clothes together as their lower class status may have prevented them from buying new clothes. The irony is that this branched then out to fans and punk members who would often purposefully rip their clothes, so they could also use safety pins and there started forth a homology for the punk identity.

The documentary begins with presenting pre-punk bands that the documentary claims were the influence for the punk movement: The Stooges, The Velvet Underground, which included Lou Reed and Andy Warhol, MC5, and then onwards to The New York Dolls, who introduced glam rock, Suicide, and more. All these bands are given large tribute to the punk movement. As Jim Jarmusch of the documentary says, it is important for iconic artists to upset things. The Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, in the Birmingham School of the UK had theories of punks based class distinctions, as 'subcultural style was ritualistic deviation from the natural order' (Rogers: 17). As shown in the documentary, these artists certainly 'upset things', and deviate from the 'natural order', from Elvis's moving hips and sex appeal, to The Sex Pistols cursing on national television. Another example is as the documentary explains, when Malcom McClaron was working with the New York Dolls, he invented a good way to 'upset things', and showed their political rebellion by referencing communism in their performance by making things on stage red thus trying to 'irritate people'. As David Johansen from the New York Dolls mentions, communism in the United States at the time was like 'child molesting'; a horrible crime, and sadly, the Dolls had their career fall down after that. Perhaps it's the lower standards of censhorship these days, but nowadays even on national television shows, cursing is much more acceptable, and sex appeal and insinuations are often almost a requirement with popular culture artists these days. All of these exemplars illustrate that punks must think of other ways to stand out and make a statement these days, and i think it's harder in contemporary society.

Soon after the Dolls' fall out of the limelight, there opened up new opportunities when the club CBGB's, or Country and Bluegrass Blues, came about. They had a policy that bands must play original songs, and thus started the flow of artists debuting their music, often those that had been influenced by the Dolls and their predecessors, such as Television and notably The Ramones, neither of which, according to the documentary, were liked very much to begin with, before The Ramones' their short-lived and sped up songs became classic punk examples.

Back when punk started making a riot and was in its prime, it had a politically oppositional discourse running through it, as punks were in disagreement with the government's decisions, and the direction that society was heading. As an example given in the documentary, when MC5 wanted to create a parallell white party for the Black Panther party at the time. A very political statement is made with The Sex Pistols and their ironically titled song 'God Save the Queen', mocking mainstream government values. Are these political values of punk as prominent today? Several of the interviewees on the documentary convey the belief that punk isn't the same today, in its music sense at least, in that most bands now want to be part of the establishment, rather than against it. But punk may be alive in different outlets, such as art and films. Michael Moore's films for instance, are a punk type film. The media is also responsible for another outlet of punk as the interviewees say: the internet. It takes on this label because the internet has global music distribution, and hencefoth the record and music conglomerates lose power. Importantly, on the internet there is, more than ever, the do-it-yourself punk attitude, as self-promotion is much more accessible t with things like myspace band pages.

Also, subcultures inevitably end at some point, as they disperse or even go into the main stream of interest. For instance, the documentary exhibits Chrissie Hynde as a legendary punk rocker, being in some of the first 'punk' bands such as The Damned. But more recently since then, most people unaware of punk music would know her as the vocalist from The Pretenders, a band which has many commercial songs, popularised in mainstream media and played on commerical radio stations, with herself even appearing as a guest character on popular shows such as Friends. Andy Warhol is another example of somebody outside the hegemonic sites leaking in to popular culture. He is featured in the documentary as a prominent figure in the PR aspect of punk, managing the pioneering band The Velvet Underground, being image wise and knowing how to present punk. These days, art exhibitions are making a lot of revenue with exhibiting his art. These examples and many more, exemplify how subcultures, especially with the help of the media, eventually dissolve into different areas of culture, and sometimes even in the realm of popular culture.

I also found another documentary on youtube, 'History of Punk Rock-A Documentary by Stan Burdman' which is not very useful, but is amusing and interesting in that it mocks the mainstream punk documentary, and thus is another example punk branching out, as it uses the same techqniues as documentaries, but uses the style to mocks the mainstream media's punk label and stereotype. For instance, he presents Avril Lavigne as the ultimate punk, her rebellion against mainstream coming from he r'skaters' spelling of 'Sk8er' in her song 'Sk8er Boy'. According to him, her punk examples inspires artsts such as AJ from the Backstreet Boys, to be punk, who with his mixture of drug and video game addiction became a bad boy punk icon. This documentary thus illustrates the ever important punk attitude that is against the mainstream culture, as he takes elements of the punk stereotype such as drugs and rebellion, and with his own spin mocks the media's representation of punk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfD2MhvVgwc

Punk: Attitude, definately shows why the attitude part of punk was important, and what it could be today. It can be found in the uq SSH library, or on youtube for any non-uqnians. Some further knowledge of the cultural legacy of punk can be gained from the book Punk Rock: So What? by Roger Sabin.