I have seen lots of posts here concerning the commercialization of punk rock and about how the Sex Pistols were a commercial band, yet they suffered lots of controversy. Am I the only one here that sees the controversy as part and parcel of their marketing? Bear in mind that there was no such thing as an independent record label in the mid seventies, so any band that wanted to get their music out to the masses had to play ball with the corporate record labels. I bet that one day a record exec sat down and said "How can we really cash in on this punk rock thing that all of these suburban kiddies seem to be spending their parent's hard-earned money on?" And now, twenty-five or so years later, we are talking about the results.
I personally don't appreciate the Pistols music, but there was lots going on in the scene at the time and what the Pistols did was rocket themselves AND punk rock into the limelight. Essentially, everyone made out; the Pistols and their label made some cash and the rest of the punk rock and hardcore punk rock bands gained some notoriety.
Now, just because punk rock is another commodity that is marketed by the recording industry, is somewhat ignorant to comment that punk is just another fashion. This is somewhat akin to saying that open source is just another fashion. Just because there are charlatans in the movement doesn't make the movement worthless. Conversely, to those that whine about punk rock bands selling out - if you had the choice between a career doing what you love or working a sting of minimum wage jobs so you have time to spend on your passion, what would you do?
Just my view, rdg
PS - it is widely accepted that the first punk band was the MC5. They formed in 1964 and came from Detroit, same as the Stooges, and were associated with the hippie White Panther Party who espoused "total assault on the culture by any means necessary, including rock & roll, dope, and fucking in the streets."
Slashdot Mirror
I have seen lots of posts here concerning the commercialization of punk rock and about how the Sex Pistols were a commercial band, yet they suffered lots of controversy. Am I the only one here that sees the controversy as part and parcel of their marketing? Bear in mind that there was no such thing as an independent record label in the mid seventies, so any band that wanted to get their music out to the masses had to play ball with the corporate record labels. I bet that one day a record exec sat down and said "How can we really cash in on this punk rock thing that all of these suburban kiddies seem to be spending their parent's hard-earned money on?" And now, twenty-five or so years later, we are talking about the results.
I personally don't appreciate the Pistols music, but there was lots going on in the scene at the time and what the Pistols did was rocket themselves AND punk rock into the limelight. Essentially, everyone made out; the Pistols and their label made some cash and the rest of the punk rock and hardcore punk rock bands gained some notoriety.
Now, just because punk rock is another commodity that is marketed by the recording industry, is somewhat ignorant to comment that punk is just another fashion. This is somewhat akin to saying that open source is just another fashion. Just because there are charlatans in the movement doesn't make the movement worthless. Conversely, to those that whine about punk rock bands selling out - if you had the choice between a career doing what you love or working a sting of minimum wage jobs so you have time to spend on your passion, what would you do?
Just my view,
rdg
PS - it is widely accepted that the first punk band was the MC5. They formed in 1964 and came from Detroit, same as the Stooges, and were associated with the hippie White Panther Party who espoused "total assault on the culture by any means necessary, including rock & roll, dope, and fucking in the streets."