The History of Punx
The following is a response to a friend's blog on myspace. I don't know how it works as a stand-alone entry, but I'm posting it anyway.
All punk rock history is revisionist history on some level. Certainly every attempt at building a narrative relies heavily on examining one short period and ignoring most of what came before, and nearly all of what came after. This is mostly because it is such an intensely subjective experience (which calls into question any claim of historical relevance). Most of the people who have anything to say about it were intensely involved for a period of 2-5 years, and then dropped out/away from it.
Contrasting my own experience with yours is illustrative. I'm just one or two "punk rock generations" younger than you are - 1987-1993 or so. Growing up in NY, I was unaware that anything had ever happened in the suburbs, and when I moved to Olympia it was as if punk had died completely, except when I went to visit San Francisco or Minneapolis. As far as I was (and am) concerned, there has never been a punk scene in Seattle, just a bunch of alterna-brats smoking pot and playing Led Zeppelin.
There are several reasons why "history" (meaning published books) has privileged the period 1975-1980/81 over our particular narratives:
1) There actually were more people involved during that period.
2) It was "new," at least it seemed new, and therefore the argument for relevance is stronger.
3) It was covered in the mainstream media, at least from 1976-1978 or so, and began to influence pop music for a time.
4) That's what (publishers think) people have heard about, so it's more likely to sell.
At my school, there is a PhD candidate working on punk history for her dissertation. Judging by the books she's requesting, it looks like she, also, will be privileging the early years. It's nice to see scholarly work done on the subject, but I wonder if she'll be able to add much to Greil Marcus.
All punk rock history is revisionist history on some level. Certainly every attempt at building a narrative relies heavily on examining one short period and ignoring most of what came before, and nearly all of what came after. This is mostly because it is such an intensely subjective experience (which calls into question any claim of historical relevance). Most of the people who have anything to say about it were intensely involved for a period of 2-5 years, and then dropped out/away from it.
Contrasting my own experience with yours is illustrative. I'm just one or two "punk rock generations" younger than you are - 1987-1993 or so. Growing up in NY, I was unaware that anything had ever happened in the suburbs, and when I moved to Olympia it was as if punk had died completely, except when I went to visit San Francisco or Minneapolis. As far as I was (and am) concerned, there has never been a punk scene in Seattle, just a bunch of alterna-brats smoking pot and playing Led Zeppelin.
There are several reasons why "history" (meaning published books) has privileged the period 1975-1980/81 over our particular narratives:
1) There actually were more people involved during that period.
2) It was "new," at least it seemed new, and therefore the argument for relevance is stronger.
3) It was covered in the mainstream media, at least from 1976-1978 or so, and began to influence pop music for a time.
4) That's what (publishers think) people have heard about, so it's more likely to sell.
At my school, there is a PhD candidate working on punk history for her dissertation. Judging by the books she's requesting, it looks like she, also, will be privileging the early years. It's nice to see scholarly work done on the subject, but I wonder if she'll be able to add much to Greil Marcus.