"You may think you’re the punkest sonofabitch in the state, but you’ve probably never even seen a real punk in the wild."
-Field Guide To North American Hipsters
When I was in 9th grade, like many other kids my age, I considered myself to be a punk rocker, even though, looking back, I knew next to nothing about punk at the time. I followed the path that a lot of my friends took, listening to blink-182 while I was in middle school until I heard the Ramones and immediately rejected "pop-punk" in favor of "real" punk rock (even though the Ramones' music is basically just 50s bubblegum pop with distorted guitars, and even though I never really gave up listening to Green Day). I remember one time I was on the bus and an older punk kid saw the Ramones shirt I was wearing and asked me "Do you even know who the Ramones are?" I said something along the lines of "Yeah, they're a punk rock band." Not satisfied with my response, still continuing to size me up, he asked me "What's your favorite song by them?" I immediately named some random Ramones song (I don't remember which one), and, seeing that I wasn't completely full of shit, he left me alone. Right afterwards, one of my friends whispered to me "Dude, he thought you were a poseur."
For its entire history, punk has always had a fixation on the "authentic," and I can't even count the number of discussions I've had where people have debated whether or not a band is "real" punk rock. Scholar Allan Moore noted this in his article "Authenticity as Authentication," saying, "In its direct opposition to the growth of disco, [punk] was read as an authentic expression." Moore barely begins to scratch the surface of this idea in his article, so I would like to examine it a bit further, using arguments about "authenticity" that Moore makes elsewhere in his piece.
First of all, Moore notes that "authentic" music is defined "by its ability to articulate for its listeners a place of belonging, in opposition to mere entertainment or those belonging to hegemonic groupings." While this quote comes from much later in the article than his quote about punk, I feel that the two quotes basically go hand in hand. We've all heard the punk rock narrative before: a teenager feels rejected by mainstream society, but discovers punk and soon finds an accepting community. I admit that as an angsty teenager I thought of myself as living out this narrative, even though I'm incredibly privileged, and even though I've never been anything more than a peripheral member of the punk community at my school or in my city. But the fact is that punk is viewed as a "place of belonging" by many people; that's why one of the main criticisms of punk is that the "non-conformist" punk movement is in many ways insanely conformist. In relation to Moore's comment about "mere entertainment" or "hegemonic groupings," I've also been in lots of discussions where I've condemned people who shop at Hot Topic or listen to Good Charlotte, because they're not part of the punk community and don't actually care about punk rock, they just listen to it for "mere entertainment" and belong to "hegemonic groupings." By condemning "inauthentic" punk rock, punks authenticate their lifestyle and separate "real" punks who belong to the community from poseurs who appropriate the style.
Moore also mentions how music is often viewed as "authentic" if it is "essential" to a specific subculture. This quote also directly applies to punk rock, which is a musical form that both grew out of and created an enormous subculture. This is one reason why people are attracted to punk in the first place: listening to punk allows people to become part of a subculture. This again relates to the idea of "authentic" music conveying a sense of belonging. And if we are to argue that "authentic" music is essential to a subculture, then punk may be one of the most "authentic" forms of music around. The word "punk" refers not only to a type of music, but also to a type of identity.
In addition, Moore argues that music viewed as "authentic" conveys "private but common desires," feelings that are personal to people, but that are also common. Again, the sense of alienation that is expressed in punk is without a doubt a "private but common" feeling, which, along and in conjunction with the previous two factors, allows punk to be referred to as "authentic" music.
Is this why there is a difference between "real" punk and "pop punk?" If we are to use Moore's arguments, pop punk is not viewed as being "in opposition to mere entertainment" or especially "hegemonic groupings;" it is not as "essential" to a specific subculture if it is produced by major labels and marketed to people outside of a subculture; and although it does convey "private but common desires," this may not be enough to make up for the other two factors, if we are to talk about perceived authenticity in these terms. This factor could also be why most pop punk bands are still given a little credibility, and are still allowed to be called "punk," even though it's with a prefix.
When viewing punk rock through Moore's arguments about "authenticity," it can be made clearer why some punk bands are viewed as "authentic" and other bands are not. This is one factor that draws so many people to punk, and one reason why people get into arguments about what is "real" punk.
Jake:
I’ve been reading your often thought provoking music posts for a while and occasionally wanted to comment back, but never did. I started to write up a defense of Sgt. Peppers, but decided my whole argument devolved to (1) You don’t have to go hating on the Old Gods in order to like the New Gods, (2) your whole argument is a straw man because the Beatles themselves said they dropped the idea of a concept album so you are criticizing it for not being something it never was and finally (3) you weren’t there so you wouldn’t understand. That last point especially seemed either unfair or would take too long to explain, so I dropped it.
But I’m going to jump in on this one. Authentic punk? Please. Don’t they mean, elitist punk?
You talk about when a “teenager feels rejected by mainstream society, but discovers punk and soon finds an accepting community.” Well, that “accepting” community is just as rejectionist as any other clique. Can’t name a Ramones tune, or not wearing black, or leather, or spiky hair, then you aren’t one of “us” so fuck off. Tell me how this is different than being shunned because you’re not wearing North Face or Abercrombie or whatever is the pop fashion of the moment?
Not to pick on the punks, they weren’t any different than the other subculture groups of the day. I grew up across a period of time that saw the emergence of disco, reggae, punk, new wave, hard rock, what’s now called classic rock, grunge and a slew of other stuff. Each subculture embraced its own and shunned outsiders. Each had its own clothing uniform for easy identification.
By today’s hindsight, for example, disco may seem like it was mainstream, and it certainly did achieve a mainstream pop audience over time. But disco origins were much more counterculture, arising out of the underground gay nightclub scene, and then moved on to urban white nightclubs featuring promiscuous sex, nonstop drug use and a strict aesthetic allegiance to escapism that in its own way was just as “anti-establishment” as punk. And yes, there was “authentic” disco and there was pop knock-off disco and the true adherents knew which was which. They also knew who were “authentic” disco and who just threw on a polyester shirt and were poseurs.
My opinion, there’s way too much rejection of other people’s tastes when it comes to music. Like it? Then listen to it. Don’t like it? Don’t listen to it. How hard is that? Live and let live. Elitism in music is nothing new, of course, just ask the moldy figs.
So, I reject the very notion of authenticity in music as an overriding criterion that defines essential worth. If you applied the same strict standards to food, no one would ever order a pizza because it isn’t “real” and “authentic” pizza like it was originally invented. Who gives a shit! Make mine mushrooms and black olives.
You refer to Moore’s definition of "authentic" as music that has an "ability to articulate for its listeners a place of belonging, in opposition to mere entertainment or those belonging to hegemonic groupings."
But, isn’t a “place of belonging” in the eye and heart of the beholder? Imagine a young couple sharing a momentous day, maybe comforting each other through some pain, maybe sharing angst about the future, maybe having their first kiss, and late at night while snuggled into each other’s arms a Good Charlotte song comes on the radio. And they listen. And somehow those lyrics, that before seemed generic, now seem to speak just to them. That’s forever, a crystallized moment of time and sense and wonder, infused into a song that will never again be meaningless to them.
Who are you, or I, or anyone, to say that Good Charlotte is less than pure and authentic to those two people? The answer to that question is: a poseur.
Len Katzman
October 12, 2009 at 3:23 PMJust to make it absolutely clear, I was not at all intending for this post to be a glorification of punk. This was actually a piece I wrote for a class, and although I edited it before posting it here, I probably still didn't provide enough context. My intention for this post was to examine Allan Moore's arguments and use punk as an example, not to argue about what punk bands are "authentic." Personally, I think "authenticity" is a somewhat loaded concept, and the Moore piece that I cited in here is basically a criticism of the entire concept of "authenticity." Also, I wasn't making any claims in here about what I think is really authentic punk, although I did mention what I used to think was authentic during my punk phase. When I labeled bands as "authentic" in this piece, my intention was to label bands that the punk subculture generally views as authentic.
I completely agree that the punk movement is elitist, and as I discussed in my piece about canonization, elevating certain music to a higher status than other music is a tool of elitism. As I said before, I am not making a claim that punk actually is "authentic." I'm examining a piece that is highly critical of the concept of authenticity and using punk as an example of some points the author makes about how authenticity is perceived, and I also used some examples of views I held in the past to illustrate those points as well. Again, this piece was for a class, and I probably did not not provide enough context on the Moore article.
Jake
October 12, 2009 at 5:19 PM