Because that's what it is: a commodified version of "f*ck you mom and dad" rebellion with DIY window dressings. I grew up in punk culture (my house in college was a DIY punk club [1]) and at the core, that's all it is [2].
I don't know what punk was like anywhere in 2008. It wasn't (just) that in London in the 1970s, and there is non-commodified version of it that continues to exist in many places (or so it seems).
It's all commodified. Think about it: how do you know someone is a "punk?"
They look a certain way. They listen to certain music. Hang out in certain places. Behave in certain ways (e.g., 80s punks were all about "anarchy" and "damage").
At the end of the day, it's a "kit" or "package" that someone adopts and "wears" as a personality and belief system. They just tell themselves it isn't because they desperately want to feel unique and one-of-a-kind.
The only real punk is the first person to define the look. Like the SLC Punk clip I linked above explains: everybody after them is just a "trendy ass poser."
That's not right, and that's not what the post says either. There are strong elements of originality in later-wave punks too, across various media, up until the mid-80s. The first punks didn't even have mohawks or leather jackets, just to mention two of the most (in)famous elements associated with the word; punk looks, sounds, art, and practices, continued to evolve throughout the '70s.
A common milestone is typically considered to be when The Clash release (and tour) Sandinista! in 1980, veering towards a pop sound. The punk scene effectively starts to self-disintegrate at that point, increasingly unable to reconcile its minoritarian attitudes with its by-then-undeniable mainstream popularity. By the middle of the decade, in most of the world punk had become the formulaic subculture you describe, losing its experimental streak; but until then it had been a living and evolving organism.
right here in the comments for this post are several people explaining how the core of punk is a DIY ethos. i'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with that, but if that was correct, then (a) it wouldn't matter if i could tell that someone was a punk (b) punk at its core has no connection to a "kit"or "package" or "look" at all. someone even argues that using mastodon to help find cures for cancer (i may be paraphrasing a bit) is an example of punk in 2024.
you seem very attached to the idea that punk is nothing more than a style sub-culture. i don't know if that's true, but there seem to be quite a few people who think it is false.
What it is today, codified in the aesthetic and cultural mores that the mainstream labelled punk in the '70s. 60 years ago, it was something very different.
Because that's what it is: a commodified version of "f*ck you mom and dad" rebellion with DIY window dressings. I grew up in punk culture (my house in college was a DIY punk club [1]) and at the core, that's all it is [2].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuJ60dAHyc4
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YefQjTeaUDI
I don't know what punk was like anywhere in 2008. It wasn't (just) that in London in the 1970s, and there is non-commodified version of it that continues to exist in many places (or so it seems).
It's all commodified. Think about it: how do you know someone is a "punk?"
They look a certain way. They listen to certain music. Hang out in certain places. Behave in certain ways (e.g., 80s punks were all about "anarchy" and "damage").
At the end of the day, it's a "kit" or "package" that someone adopts and "wears" as a personality and belief system. They just tell themselves it isn't because they desperately want to feel unique and one-of-a-kind.
The only real punk is the first person to define the look. Like the SLC Punk clip I linked above explains: everybody after them is just a "trendy ass poser."
That's not right, and that's not what the post says either. There are strong elements of originality in later-wave punks too, across various media, up until the mid-80s. The first punks didn't even have mohawks or leather jackets, just to mention two of the most (in)famous elements associated with the word; punk looks, sounds, art, and practices, continued to evolve throughout the '70s.
A common milestone is typically considered to be when The Clash release (and tour) Sandinista! in 1980, veering towards a pop sound. The punk scene effectively starts to self-disintegrate at that point, increasingly unable to reconcile its minoritarian attitudes with its by-then-undeniable mainstream popularity. By the middle of the decade, in most of the world punk had become the formulaic subculture you describe, losing its experimental streak; but until then it had been a living and evolving organism.
> how do you know someone is a "punk?"
should I know?
right here in the comments for this post are several people explaining how the core of punk is a DIY ethos. i'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with that, but if that was correct, then (a) it wouldn't matter if i could tell that someone was a punk (b) punk at its core has no connection to a "kit"or "package" or "look" at all. someone even argues that using mastodon to help find cures for cancer (i may be paraphrasing a bit) is an example of punk in 2024.
you seem very attached to the idea that punk is nothing more than a style sub-culture. i don't know if that's true, but there seem to be quite a few people who think it is false.
What it is today, codified in the aesthetic and cultural mores that the mainstream labelled punk in the '70s. 60 years ago, it was something very different.
That's why it's dead.