And Now, Some Good News: A sign of hope at a punk-rock concert in Southern California.

Hey Folks...Please forgive, i posted this on the other page, but i felt the need to get it some more coverage. I don't know how the two pages interact at all, so please bear with me.

Listen folks, I've got to say, i'm a little disapointed.
First of all:
I'm 19 years old, I'm a huge fan of the Damned, the buzzcocks, the sex pistols, the clash, the ramones, all of the "old school" bands. They do have an appeal to todays youth, and if you can't see that, then perhaps it's time you have a talk with your own children, cousins, nieces, nephews, neighbors, students, whatever.
Second, and much more importantly, Mr. Miller's account is TOTALLY FALSE.
I was there, and the buzzcocks said no such thing.
They took the stage, they did not speak at ALL.
They began to play, and did not stop until they exited the stage. There was no booing.
I'm shocked and appalled that you would take this (Mr. Miller's) information that is admittably second hand and confused on it's face value. If you notice, the article has been removed, this is due to the falsities (sp?) portrayed with in.
Many of you claim to be either former/current punks yourself, or at least former/current fans of the music.
One of the ideals that is held so close to that music's very philisophical core is the non-acceptance of first hand information that could be incorrect and refusing to join in mindlessly with the crowd.
What's it like being on that same hateful bandwagon that you claimed those good for nothing teenage punks were on to begin with? Eh?
You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
-Hooligan from the web.

Yeah, the Daily Standard has removed the article and the Wall Street Journal's (not to mention the Buzzcocks') lawyers are getting ready for a battle royale with the Larry Miller. I think its funny that most of you didn't even question the article when you read this:

"By the way, the punk festival was reviewed by Robert Hilburn in the Los Angeles Times, Tuesday, September 17, front page of the Calendar Arts and Entertainment section. I'm looking at it now. No mention of any of this. Of course not. Not newsworthy. Not interesting. Not anything. "

Nothing was written about it because IT DIDN'T happen.

I was also at the show and can confirm that Buzzcocks said nothing from the beginning of the set to the end. They played the coolest set because they came on, played 14 of their best songs and walked off the stage with hardly a goodnight. The fans cheered and screamed for them. If the Buzzcocks have political thoughts of any kind they certainly did not share them with the public on September 14.

There was no booing, in fact there was no situation that was remotely similar to Millers remarks on the days events. There were a few jokes (from other bands, not the Buzzcocks) made at our president's expense, and I assure you, there was NO booing, only laughter and cheering... punks are STILL punks. Nothing about them has changed, its a shame so many on this forum were duped so easily.

Sorry, guys, but you have it all wrong. I was a hard-core punk back in the day, and the 80s punks (although they claimed to be apolitical) were probably more libertarian than anything else. (The punks were reacting, primarily, against the peace-loving hippies, or have you forgotten?) Do you not remember when Jello Biafra, the lead singer of The Dead Kennedy's (notice that name, by the way), ran as a Republican for mayor of Orange County? Do you not remember Lydon saying, "Liberalism is stupid?" In fact, none of my punk friends were liberals. It is the punks who have changed. But do not change history...

The punks today are different than they were in the past. Maybe that's because many of today's punks are straight-edgers, etc...

Suffice it to say, though, that anyone who would have given a "peace talk" at a show back in those days would have gotten his a$$ beaten!

While I agree that the early punk movement was a backlash to 60s liberalism I don't agree that it was exactly conservative. You are right that it was more libertarian than anything else. But in the case of many bands from the first two waves on both sides of the Atlantic (Clash, Wire, Dead Kennedys, Crass, Stiff Little Fingers) anti-war messages were not unussual at all at a show (in fact a great deal of their music were anti-war themed). If they weren't saying it they were singing it.

Even today Lydon and Jello still go around making all kinds of appearances, labeling republicans (and democrats) as fascists and promoting their own brands of politics. Jello Biafra was definately not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination and definately bordered on liberalism. I think running as a Republican had little to do with his platform (which was anti-corporation and supported huge law enforcement reforms)and was meant to be antagonistic to his opponents. Jello is a member of the Green Party now and ran for president during the last election. He only dropped out due to legal battles with the Dead Kennedys.

The problem with punk rock has always been that it has been devided into too many sub groups. This is more true today than it ever was. Thats how punk has changed. But in most cases, punks are still radicals (and I am not talking about the pop punk, radio-friendly garbage that plagues the media and malls of America. Thats not punk at all). Punks can never change things if they are so devided. Again, you have some good thoughts. I am just saying the anti-war sentiment was present in punk rock since the very begining.

Thanks for the post. I was just talking about how things used to be, and not how they are now. I knew that Biafra had been traveling around with Nader, which I, of course, found very disappointing. I've also seen Lydon on "Politically Incorrect" several times, and he was definitely not spouting the liberal spiel. (On one of them he said, "Liberalism becomes irrational," or something like that. And he also argued against the government making clubs put in handicap ramps, saying instead that the market should decide!). His short-lived television show, "Rotten TV," was excellent, I thought. In fact, I'm a big Lydon fan, always have been, and no doubt I probably always will be. Anyway, I do agree that the punks were actually more libertarian than anything else. And Lydon still sounds a bit that way, I think. (By the way, do you remember that Pistols song about abortion called, "Bodies?")

You may be right about the anti-war message. However, I speak only from my own experience in the punk scene, and I literally do not remember any prominence of the anti-war message, particularly at the shows. I suppose there was a bit of a "peace" motif that was incorporated from the early reggae influence, and also in some of the lyrics. Often, however, it was just peace as a mode of anti-nationalism. But there was definitely no such thing as "peace" simply for the sake of peace. At least not in the Atlanta scene. And there were certainly no lofty communitarian ideals. It was all about dissonance. The clubs involved lots of fights and broken bottles....

"Get Pissed...Destroy!"

The problem with punk rock has always been that it has been devided into too many sub groups. This is more true today than it ever was. Thats how punk has changed. But in most cases, punks are still radicals (and I am not talking about the pop punk, radio-friendly garbage that plagues the media and malls of America. Thats not punk at all). Punks can never change things if they are so devided. Again, you have some good thoughts. I am just saying the anti-war sentiment was present in punk rock since the very begining

There's always been a certain anarchic spirit to punk (pretty much regardless of the genre, even what I call "pop-punk" has some), and wars are something governments fight, so the forms are inevitably going to be followed. Pure "punk" was doomed by its very nature the moment it became popular. Money got involved, there was money to be made...and that was that.

That said....it saved rock and roll in the late 70s from a swamp of disco, schmaltz, and 10 minutes of the same chord called a "solo". And now, it's poppier offspring is doing it again. The only new rock and roll being made almost universally has punk overtones.

-Eric

This is no surprise. Punk rockers are generally more conservative than most others in the music industry. Here's what Johnny Ramone(PUNK ROCK GUITARIST OF THE RAMONES and REAGAN REPUBLICAN) has to say about punk rock and conservartism in an interview:

INTERVIEW WITH JOHHNY RAMONE

MARGARET: I wanted to ask you about your politics.

JOHNNY: Oh?

MARGARET: WeLL the reason I'm asking is a lot of my friends who are punk rock are right wing.

JOHNNY: They are? Okay.

MARGARET: It seemed like punk rock is a right wing phenomena, and I've heard you've caught slack for some of your opinions

JOHNNY: Right-wing opinions?

MARGARET: Yeah

JOHNNY: Oh, okay. I found it very strange, because here you have the hippie movement which is left-wing. Punks, you identify them if you go back to the fifties and sixities as a bunch of greasers who are more right-wing and anti-peace demonstrations and that kinda stuff. Then suddenly in the punk rock movement you start having these left-wing kids who are really hippies who have become punks but are still really hippies.

MARGARET: P.C. people. McLaren was a lefty.

JOHNNY: He was, you're right The other guys I don't get. Steve Jones doesn't seem to care one way or the other. He was just looking for girls.

KIM: Nothing wrong with that

JOHNNY: If that's all your life about, I guess there's something wrong with that. I don't know. Ramones fans always seem to be okay. They know I'm that way and I think a lot of the Ramones fans are sort of in agreement with me. Those are the only kids I have contact with. I don't talk to any of those punks on the street.

MARGARET: Wearing Crass shirts and begging for money

JOHNNY: Yeah, that's all hippies. Same thing as was going on in the late sixties. To me, I think punk should be right wing. That's how I see it The left wing is trying to destroy America by giving handouts to everyone and making everyone dependent on them. They only care about the voter base. They don't really care about anything else. They don't care about anyone. If they can get illegal aliens to become able to vote by motor registration, they will. They're illegal aliens! They don't even belong in the country, let alone voting. It's just to keep their base of voters. Is it best for America? It's not best for America.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.