Punk. Rant. This one makes my head hurt.

Define punk. Go on. Define it in any way. To any degree. Even when you start with where the whole thing starts and try to define the music, you hit a wall. Do you only count music that sounds like the bands that started the genre? Some people might, but by and large, most people accept a broader definition than that. Do you count music that maintains the main traits of punk (the stripped down approach, fast pace and aggressive vocals)? Because than a whole bunch of bands people traditionally identify as punk are all of a sudden not, the entire genre of crust for one example. So I'm having a hard time even figuring out what makes music punk or not. Especially when you look at examples that deviate musically, but share themes typical to punk. Is a country band that sings about beating down cops and smashing the state, are they punk?


Beyond the music, punk is often talked about as a subculture. It has all of the elements of one. Punks associate primarily with punks. In addition, and sadly in my opinion, there is a tendency within "punk" to ostracize the other. Which is a natural occurrence in any group, but it is a tragic one when the group is as ill-defined as punks are. When someone talks about an outfit or a habit as being punk, does that set a standard for others to follow? Occasionally, I see this as serving  a useful purpose. If a racist gets confronted at a show and that action is viewed as punk, it creates a helpful and positive norm or more within punk. This helps create environments where racism and bigotry are as unwelcome as they should be everywhere. I feel similarly about punk's association with DIY culture and anti-police sentiment. These also seem like developments that make sense in that they stem from the same discontent that created the genre, and then you have the other side of the coin.

For every positive thing that gets tagged to punk culture, I feel like it as a subculture has adopted a fatalistic stance that at times makes it seem like nothing more than a pretentious clique. Punk fashion, or whatever you want to call it, is an expressive art form, and many of my friends have created outfits that are both aesthetically pleasing and show off a good deal about not just what bands they like, but them themselves. This would be well and good if there wasn't such an emphasis among some scenes to enforce it as almost dress code. It also confuses me that while there is so often a fetishization of poverty within punk scenes, the fashion style taken on by so many punks (studs, vintage patches, leather jackets) is far from the cheapest option out there. 


Lastly, and I hope I'm getting to a point here, is that punk, like every subculture of a certain size, has its further subgroups, cliques and scenes. Also like most subcultures that are subdivided (and like every human), each subdivision has an inherent self-doubt. With that comes the strong belief that their subgroup is the best. That's why you get "raw punks" making fun of "activist punks", or "Spirit of 77 punks" looking down at "hardcore kids." Which is further complicated by the fact that each of us isn't as clean cut as these descriptions and definitions make us out to be. No one is one-dimensional enough, I hope, to fit into these flat boxes, these faulty descriptors. So I have to wonder, why the in-group mentality? Why the apprehension of the other? How can a loosely defined, often arbitrarily derived subculture lay judgement upon anything or anyone for deviating from it? Why can't we just admit that some pretty cool motherfuckers twenty five years ago made some badass music and some badass outfits and that that has affected each of us in a unique, and hopefully positive way?

Wow. That was a fucking ramble. Umm. Thoughts?