Actually, not really. I will give bonus points to an artist/band that adds interesting performance or atmospheric elements, but the music is what should define the musician, not their visual aesthetics.
Punk is, to a degree, about deconstruction of a system. If ‘the system’ is built upon an appearance of aggression - angry ten foot tall brodozers and music about shooting anyone who looks at you funny - then the most punk thing to do is to dress up nice and talk about friendship, right? After all, “The Man” wants me to be an avatar of anger so, fuck him, let’s sing about flowers and shit.
But, they’re certainly not “punk rock”, that’s for sure.
Grounds Keeper Willy voice *
They’re mortal enemies, like punk rock fans and k-pop fans, or punk rock fans and rap fans, or punk rock fans and punk rock fans… DAMN PUNK ROCK FANS, RUINING THE PUNK ROCK FANDOM!!!
Not a pair of Doc Martens on a single one of ‘em. No leather. No spikes. No brightly dyed mohawks. No Anarchy “A”. Not even a fuckin’ skin’ead. Those are not punks. Those are posers.
Yeah, I don’t want to gatekeep music, but if it was trying to find some of the vinyl in a record store, I wouldn’t look under “punk.” I’d probably list go to T under alt rock.
They’re probably not worth that much. On a side not I looked up the band, as a fan of 70s British Punk, this band being “punk” flabbergasted me:
They look like they just came from Bible study lol
Punks…
Punks have more morals than Christians. When Nazis were trying to take over the punk scene they were quickly told to fuck off
Edit: spelling
Morals*
The best way to judge music is by looking at the clothing of the band members
Everyone I listen to looks like Nordic Rednecks and Joakim Broden.
I think we can agree that a band’s perception goes beyond the music.
Actually, not really. I will give bonus points to an artist/band that adds interesting performance or atmospheric elements, but the music is what should define the musician, not their visual aesthetics.
I share your opinion. But I think our problem is that the general public doesn’t.
I just listened to them. I don’t see how, in any decade, this gets called “punk”.
Punk is, to a degree, about deconstruction of a system. If ‘the system’ is built upon an appearance of aggression - angry ten foot tall brodozers and music about shooting anyone who looks at you funny - then the most punk thing to do is to dress up nice and talk about friendship, right? After all, “The Man” wants me to be an avatar of anger so, fuck him, let’s sing about flowers and shit.
But, they’re certainly not “punk rock”, that’s for sure.
Randos saying punk bands aren’t punk enough. A tale as old as time.
Grounds Keeper Willy voice * They’re mortal enemies, like punk rock fans and k-pop fans, or punk rock fans and rap fans, or punk rock fans and punk rock fans… DAMN PUNK ROCK FANS, RUINING THE PUNK ROCK FANDOM!!!
What did you hear? I just played a few tracks and it sounds like screamo to me.
I find “Punk” tends to be code for “our music sucks, but people will pretend to like it anyway, because counter culture or something”
Sounds like something a cop would say. You a cop?
Punk isn’t what it used to be…
Not a pair of Doc Martens on a single one of ‘em. No leather. No spikes. No brightly dyed mohawks. No Anarchy “A”. Not even a fuckin’ skin’ead. Those are not punks. Those are posers.
Yeah, I don’t want to gatekeep music, but if it was trying to find some of the vinyl in a record store, I wouldn’t look under “punk.” I’d probably list go to T under alt rock.
Screemo, at least the 30 seconds of the song I listened to.
Having not heard their music or ever heard of them, my first thought when seeing the photo was that they were trying to be “ironic” or something.