anarcho-punk rock n roll

10 MP3 Songs
ROCK: Punk, ROCK: Roots Rock



Details:
We are amongst a growing number of people who are using the traditional forms of art to chronicle the struggle that is life for the majority of the population. From Picasso to Joe Hill, art has been at the center of a people's awareness of their struggle. Far from being the source of consciousness and a total analysis, it acts rather as a point of inspiration and fuel for revolutionary modes and counter-power. We are not so bold as to suggest that we are by any means unique in this understanding or that we represent something new. No. We represent the oldest ideas in human history; the concepts of community and freedom.

We understand that no one band can change the world, but that doesn't mean that music can't change everything. A critical mass of various cultural expressions united on a few basic principles of justice and human dignity can become the most unstoppable force the world has ever seen and can change history. We are amongst many that share these same ideals. The revolution is not rock (it is not even "THE Revolution"), but rock can be revolutionary, and we intend to help make it so.

"This is irresistable, effortlessly catchy punk rock that spends as much time on melodies as manifestos." - Jordan Lane; Quiet Light Magazine

"...will make you want to lob a Molotov cocktail at the next cop car you see. As if you didnât already." - Therese Lanz; Nerve Magazine

"itâs impossible to resist these infectious tunes." - Barnaby Bennett; Beatroute Magazine

---

âPunkâ Conservativism

by Marek Vermin on May 5th, 2006

Despite what ideological affiliations someone might think are associated with punk, there is one thing that is common to all â a spirit of rebellion. But the one thing that separated punk rebellion from the rebellion of the first wave of rock n roll was that punk took a cue from the rebels of the 60s and punk rockers set their sights on the ruling elements of their own societies. Sure, punks questioned and thought (sometimes), but what it really all came down to was that they, like the rock n rollers of the â50s, were railing against a society that they felt was stale, boring, rigid and false.

This is true regardless of what ideology the punks purport to fall within, whether anarchism, socialism, liberalism or fascism. Thatâs right, Nazi punks fuck off! But even while they may be shithead fascists, at least theyâre still social outcasts and rebels.

Conservative âpunksâ, on the other hand, are system backers. Like the namesake suggests, conservatives are people who donât like social agitation in a direction that departs from the previous (or current) system. Conservativism always changes though. One generation of Conservatives wants to preserve the monarchies while the next wants to preserve the liberal free market. The general defining element is a massive fear of any form of social, political or economic progress or experimentation. Conservatives who call themselves punks are no different: they are afraid of real systemic change and any form of radicalism. As a result, they represent the opposite of a spirit of rebellion. They represent the status quo. Punk conservatives might think they are rebelling against what they see as âmindlessâ rebellion, but rebelling against rebellion just makes you a counter-rebel, not a rebel of your own right. It is always much easier to believe in the system that already exists and that there is not an alternative. The act of rebelling against those who would endeavour to challenge the system is merely an act of social entrenchment. Someone can go to any subculture and meaninglessly rebel against its cultural norms. I can get into hip-hop because I like Grandmaster Flash and then start rebelling against itâs rebellious components, but by doing so, all Iâm doing it countering itâs most meaningful components and making it another meaningless aesthetic - a fashion.

So, if the substance of punk is really rebellion, then conservativism and punk are antithetical to each other. The whole suggestion that someone can back the status-quo and still be punk, is essentially this: punk has no substance whatsoever. If you can be conservative and punk, then punk isnât about rebellion. Itâs just a fashion statement; a neat tattoo and three chords.

Dave Smalley, while no doubt meaning well, suggests that punk rock is about âseeing the problems in the world and fighting⦠to make it better.â This is not the case. Everyone does that. Fighting for what you believe isnât something that is unique to punk and punk could never provide an outlet for political transformation because it is just a subculture. A totally punk revolution (of any stripe) would be the worst kind ever, because it would be so narrow in scope that it couldnât account for the rest of humanity that was culturally isolated from it.

Dave Smalley then continues on some inane rant about how we need to avoid one world government and suggests that the US is being bullied by the UN (yeah, like how the UN stopped the US from invading Iraq and how the UN forced the US to abolish the death penalty and how the UN forced the US to stop providing arms to Israel and how the UN stopped the US invasion of Panama and how the UN stopped the US from arming terror squads in Nicaragua, etc. Wow. That one world government sure is so powerful to be pushing around the poor little United States like that). First off, what Mr. Smalley doesnât realize is that heâs spent so much time around republicans that he forgot that punk rock is most closely associated with the ideology of anarchism and that anarchists arenât in support of one-world government either. However, anarchists also donât tend to think that the US government is being bullied NOR is it benevolent in its actions. Even punks that arenât anarchists, if they still hold true to the spirit of rebellion that spawned their subculture, still question the system they grew up in (or came to live in). It wasnât just the anarcho-punks who thought Reagan and Thatcher were dipshits.

Cultural rebellion requires that it is always suspicious of authority. Otherwise it is meaningless. If conservativism can be punk, then punk is truly dead. But I donât believe that. I think, instead, that the punks calling themselves conservatives are just another group of rockers with more in common with the Partridge Family and the Charlie Daniels Band than the Sex Pistols or the MC5. Theyâve either lost the spirit of punk rock (or rock, even) or never had it in the first place. Sure, they might have grown up on, or at least been inspired by the music and culture of punk, but that doesnât mean anything. Mozart was incredibly reviled by conservatives in his time and now heâs beloved by all sorts of conservatives. Times have changed and the things that made punk a threat at one point no longer make it a threat anymore. Tattoos just arenât socially dangerous anymore. Neither is a mohawk. And it certainly isnât the music. The music is completely palatable and even the Dead Kennedys were approached by Levis Jeans to use âHoliday in Cambodiaâ for a pants commercial (for pants that might actually have been made in a third-world sweatshop). No, the aesthetic of punk rock is very non-threatening in todayâs day and age. The same thing happened to punk that happened to all of the genres of rebellious music before it â it become culturally appropriate and non-threatening. And so in come the conservatives, yesterdayâs sell-outs, to claim it back.

But punk was only defined as a type of fashion in mainstream revues. It was more than just the bands and bondage pants, it was about scrutinizing your own society and throwing its garbage back at it. It has always been about saying âfuck youâ to the man, regardless of how you defined âthe man.â

What is important isnât how one can fit their aesthetic into their beliefs, but whether or not one can carry the spirit of the culture with them as it changes. I see the spirit of rebellion everywhere I look. Kids are still suspicious of authority. They are still treated like criminals by adults and reacting against it by embracing their frustration and turning it into creative and destructive acts of rebellion. Punk rock still has meaning. Geezers like Dave Smalley or me might attempt to cling to our punk roots with all our might, just so we donât lose our identity, but unless we can carry that spirit of rebellion in our actions and words, we arenât really punk anymore â weâre just a bunch of washed-up has-beens.

So to all of the punks out there: keep rocking hard and questioning everything. Some day you may find you donât want to be a part of the spirit of punk anymore and you might want to join the Republican or Democratic Party (or Liberal and Conservative Party here in Canada). At that point, do the rest of us a favour and stop pretending youâre punk. Meanwhile, to everyone else who has the time and energy to kick at the door, even if you donât know why, keep making punk a threat! Fuck the aesthetic! Keep punk rock alive by fueling it with your frustration and keep it running on rebellion!