If you are a copyright owner and believe that your copyrighted works have been used in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, here is our DMCA Notice.

« Static Static need our help | Main | Songs The A-Bones Taught Us Pt. 2 »

February 15, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c29169e2012877a60b66970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bunny & The Lakers:

Comments

roc

You're too negative toward punk without good knowledge of it. The synth and 10 minute song only make it more punk.

Jason Elbogen

No, sorry R, but while the 10 minute song does make the lp more 'punk' (adjective), it does NOT make the MUSIC on 'Numbers' fit neatly into the GENRE generally agreed to be 'Punk' (noun). And 'Numbers' sounds substantively different than, just for example, records from The Units and The Screamers: their 'synthpunk' easily fits along with other bands from the genre.

In other words: I totally agree that Bunny and the Lakers were 'punk' (adjective), in the sense that they were challenging conventions. But most of the 'Numbers' LP shows NO clear relation to the 60's garage bands whose short, sloppily-played three-chord songs laid the foundation to which [Mark E. Smith aside] the vast vast majority of later 'punk bands' slavishly followed.

roc

I'm sorry. I still believe punk music is music performed by punks that does not fit into neat categories. Never bought the definitions made up after it got stale.

Jason Elbogen

R--That's fine, I have no problem whatsoever with what you believe "punk music" to be; however, you seem unwilling to grant other people the same privilege. Every person has the right to maintain his or her own private definitions of "punk" or any other word--this is the way language works. But why would your circular and essentially meaningless definition of "punk music is played by punks" have a shred more validity than the idea of 'punk music' as I used it in the article (which inspired you to claim I did not have 'good knowledge of punk'). Well, I was using the term in the blog entry as it is generally understood by English-speaking people with at least a minimal awareness of the word (in pop-culture: think Sex Pistols, the Clash, Ramones). More musically-knowledgeable folks might include the 'protopunks'--everyone from well-known groups like The Stooges, Pere Ubu, and Velvet Underground to more obscure acts like Simply Saucer and Ron Warren Ganderton. Still others might include Penderecki and Stockhausen in their own personal definitions of 'punk' (Stockhausen even said outrageously provocative things after 9-11!!! Now, how freaking 'punk rock' is that!)

My point is you claimed I was "too negative toward punk without good knowledge of it," where the truth is that, unsurprisingly, my 'definition of punk' simply conflicts with your highly personalized one: a conflict that has not a whit to do with how many years I've studied the Ethnomusicology of Punk Rock nor how many rare Skrewdriver singles adorn my bathroom mirror.

habeeb

what a tease. where's the 10 minute album centerpiece?!?

The comments to this entry are closed.