Came across an interesting article yesterday: CNN claiming that some pop artists are "the new punks".
For pete's sake, have a little dignity. Stupidity and weirdness do not make one "punk", they make one "stupid and weird".
Punk was about rebellion from the staid & placid society that we'd built; it was recognition of parts of society that we'd most like to forget, the people who were not rewarded by society. The songs were one part of it: you sang honest songs that were true as could be about what was happening. But there were punk writers, punk artists, and people who just lived their lives as punks. Punk was about shocking people with the truth, not only to get attention but to get those "normal" people out of the rut they were in.
Current "punk" artists, like the oft mentioned Sum 41, Offspring, etc. are pop artists with punk melodies used to gain attention and market share. But loud and stupid aren't punk, and their songs aren't about sharing truth and pain, but about annoyances and stupidities. Pain doesn't sell much these days; funny does.
And the article puts up as the "new punk" artists... Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, Michael Jackson (for chrissakes....) and Christina Aguilera.
Whitney is a washed-up artist who's also a drug addict, Mariah is a nut case, Michael Jackson is... well... a nut case of a different level than Mariah, or anyone else on the planet, and Christina Aguilera is a pop-star who's image wasn't competing against Britney Spears well, so they switched from good-girl-who-looks-bad-by-accident to bad-girl-who-looks-good-by-accident.
And if any one of them had had a personalized, deep felt song about their pain and anguish and honest feelings, I might even think they'd be punk. But their art is homogenized crap, each and every one.
Punk is dead; don't insult it by stomping on it's carcas and spitting in it's eye sockets comparing Whitney Houston to the Ramones.Posted by Ted Stevko at December 27, 2002 02:08 PM