Setting the Scene- Should we try and define punk?

If there’s one thing that I have learned when writing about punk music over the last decade or so, it is that half the battle is settling on a consensus as to what punk actually IS. Exactly which bands/songs/albums can adopt the punk label is a matter of (sometimes quite fierce) debate and I know I have historically spent a fair amount of time arguing with people on the internet about this very thing. But does it really matter? Is it not just an exercise in futility, a Sisyphean task that ultimately stifles the genre rather than enhances it? I’m about to step into this contentious issue and give my perspective- that yes it does matter (to a certain extent) but there is a way we can maintain some consistency and meaning to the term ‘punk’ whilst still operating a broad church that has room for a lot of different interpretations.  

In many ways, defining punk for yourself and not giving a flying safety pin about whether you are in step with another’s idea of it is part of the anarchic, free-thinking spirit of the genre. Maybe putting parameters around punk is anti-punk in itself, an acquiescence to rules and order that we should be shaking off? I think to maintain the integrity of punk there does need to be SOME criteria that are to be satisfied but then we end up back at the start- what should those criteria be? And who decides?

To be too restrictive on what sits under the punk umbrella is to deny the diverse nature of the last 50 years of the subculture. Reserving the label only for one type of sound or one aesthetic means to close your eyes to its evolution and development and consistent reinvention. It is this ability to morph and grow that has kept it alive for so long. It doesn’t do justice to the various figures within punk to be putting up fences and quite frankly, it isn’t much fun. It may also mean a default to a certain handful of bands who are overwhelmingly white and male- meaning intersectionality and diversity become the first casualties of this approach.

Because of punk’s significance on a personal level, this is why people are staunchly protective of the legacy and quite tetchy about opening their door to a wider interpretation that might not align with their tastes and this is quite understandable. BUT….this can easily tip over into unhelpful elitism and exclusion where exclusivity and niche knowledge trumps community building and connection. Not very punk at all.

But, as alluded to above, there does need to be some fair benchmarks and categories that mean those who have worked hard and are passionate about the genre’s traditions and hallmarks get the recognition they deserve. It also means that when you are running a punk music website (like me!), you have some way of narrowing submissions down and keeping some sort of consistency!

So, for Punk Rock Philosophy purposes (and general life), I have my own 3-category system for judging whether something is ‘punk’ or not. This may sound a bit systematic but it actually means a broad church can exist whilst still isolating and honouring those things that are ‘punk’. No one has to satisfy all 3 categories but a strong case in one is a must and preferably at least one tick in another column. Hopefully it goes without saying that a) this is mainly a bit of tongue-in-cheek fun and b) this is certainly not me trying to dictate how you should define punk for yourself.  So, without further ado, here’s a guide to classifying punk- using the 3 ‘S’s.

Sound

The first ‘S’ is SOUND. This might be the obvious place to start with perhaps but even in this category there is a fair amount of wiggle room. Thinking back to the 1970s – widely accepted as a good starting point for our understanding of punk- it is a mix of eclectic sounds. Blondie did not sound like Crass; Sex Pistols do not sound like the Undertones; X Ray Spex do not sound like Stiff Little Fingers… yet these bands are all unequivocally accepted as punk bands. So, from its very inception, punk has sounded varied, incorporating elements of pub rock, reggae, pop, rock ‘n’ roll and beyond. There are commonalities that may straddle a lot of output such as a ‘rock’ sensibility, meaning overwhelmingly guitar-based; fast;  aggressive vocals; heavy sound; low fi production or an embrace of the amateur unpolished sound. But already we can see this wouldn’t fit every band even from the start. By the time The Clash get to ‘London Calling‘- considered one of the greatest punk albums of all time- they have a much more ‘produced’ and slick sound and no one could call Mick Jones or Topper Headon amateur musicians.

Folk punk is a subgenre that is normally acoustic-based and therefore may not tick as many of the ‘sound’ boxes above. But coming out of the folk movement and leveraging its place in counterculture, folk punk is part of the punk tradition and often borrows the politics or ‘alternative’ culture principles but to the ear, it is not an obvious part of the punk tradition.

Too much melody or ‘poppy’ sounds can be controversial in the punk world and for some people automatically exclude some bands from a possible punk moniker. But as above, pop has always been part of the genre. The Ramones were inspired by the harmonies of 60’s girl groups, Blondie embraced disco, Descendents are loved for their melodic songs…all resolutely punk bands. But if this doesn’t convince you to cut modern pop punk some slack, then maybe the next category will?

Scene

Here’s where things can become a bit make or break and it’s certainly quite subjective. The history of punk as a musical genre is a history of ‘scenes’- geographical places, groups of fans and musicians, people rallying round a new sound or activity (skateboarding, squatting, anarchist politics etc). So, one of the ways in which a band’s punk credentials can be considered is via their origins- the scene they started in can be where they embody certain punk values such as community, DIY, independence, solidarity etc. Punk has been celebrated for its resourcefulness and ability to spring up and thrive in pretty much any environment with very little in way of resources. Bedrooms, garages, backyards, skateparks, squats, rehearsal spaces, independent clubs and venues, collectives…all provided environments to allow bands to practice and hone their craft. In the last 20 or so years we can probably add online communities and independent ways of sharing music into that list.

Crass, Chumbawamba and anarcho-punk bands formed and grew through collectives/communes and political organising; US hardcore bands like Black Flag and Dead Kennedys were finding rehearsal spaces in abandoned areas of Hermosa Beach and San Francisco respectively; the riot grrrls were creating networks via zines…

And nowadays bands are mirroring all of those methods by coming up through local venues, putting out music themselves via BandCamp and social media or signing with small labels (or starting their own) and shoving their equipment in a van and hitting the road.  Modern oi punks Grade 2 started on the Isle of Wight, but in order to access gig opportunities off the island they would lug their equipment on National Express coaches or the London Tube. Knuckleheadz sprang out of a community gym collective in California. Pink Suits started as a dance duo in DIY queer spaces. Otoboke Beaver formed whilst members were at a rock music club at their University in Kyoto, Japan. There’s still more than enough grit, determination, creativity and spirit to rival that of any previous waves of punk scenes.

On that basis, I will go to bat for bands like Green Day and Blink 182 to be considered punk bands as they came up through the West Coast, DIY pipeline, playing at places like Gilman Street and playing bills with other punks bands. An artist like Avril Lavigne may well have songs that tick the ‘sound’ box (if you’re being generous) but its hard to argue she emerged through any kind of alternative scene, starting out as a country singer and having a ‘skate punk’ image more or less constructed by industry executives. Sorry Avril, there cannot be a tick in the ‘scene’ column from me. But what about the final category?

Sensibilities

This category can lead us down a complex road, but it is also more encompassing than it might otherwise appear. By sensibilities, I mean the values that the band espouse/embody which we can glean from their statements on certain issues, what other groups or sentiments they may express support for or the content of their lyrics. The obvious way of point-scoring for this category is some kind of focus or comment on political/social justice themes and this is an important part of punk’s legacy and one that is still very common amongst punk that lands in my inbox.

All waves of punk had certain over-arching or dominant themes that would come up frequently and infuse the era’s output- riot grrrl had issues relating to women’s rights and experiences; US hardcore regularly addressed the impacts of the Reagan Administration, bands in the 2010s tackled austerity and anti-Capitalism. And now I commonly see bands singing about toxic masculinity, economic inequality, refugee rights and push back against far right ideas. All big ticks in the ‘sensibility’ column.

But this political edge is not the only ‘sensibility’ that belongs in punk.

Sat just next to the above, is the less complex but still essentially cathartic, nihilistic, angry, ‘seek and destroy’ type of punk that doesn’t need a manifesto or an advancement of any particular ideology or position other than ‘don’t tell me what do’ or shock at any cost. This was a common thread in the New York scene from 1960s Andy Warhol/The Factory right through to the 1980s No Wave groups. Somewhat waning now in terms of debauched shock factors (are we more sensitive as a society or the opposite- difficult to shock?) there are still plenty of bands who sing about general defiance, freedom and being generally anti-authority (read our deep dive on that idea HERE).

If we just stop at the above, we will still have more than enough punk to listen to for the rest of our lives, but we’ll miss out on one of the other prevalent themes and more fun part of punk rock- the agony of growing up! The teens yearn for the wallowing and punk rock can be an effective, powerful and relatable soundtrack to the teenage experience. Revelling in the agony of getting older, having crushes and experiencing heartbreak, hating your parents/hometown/school etc are perfectly acceptable content for punk rock songs and have been part of band’s repertoires since the very beginning (we do have more on the relationship between punk and youth HERE). But one subgenre that leans heavily into this cache is pop punk. This is where bands from the Undertones to Sum 41 to The Linda Lindas all gain ‘sensibility’ points. And maybe even Lavigne can grab some points here too!

So that’s my system (using the word loosely) which I think honours the many different forms punk can take, the different subject matters it explores and the myriad of ways bands and artists keep punk alive! How do you define it? Do you define it at all or are you outraged I’ve tried to impose boundaries on an art form that has historically been opposed to such a thing? Would your favourite bands score points in each column?

Let me know!