It’s a stupid idea to weigh on this subject. That’s why I’m doing it. What is punk anyway?
Vice’s music-tumour-like-growth, Noisey, have just published an article about the British punk scene being alive and well: http://noisey.vice.com/blog/the-british-punk-scene-is-alive-and-well (If you want to linked into the text, you do it).
Well, it’s alive, but I hesitate to call it well. And the article’s opening perspective is fair enough – if, again, open to the criticism that it wasn’t exclusively a working class thing (such class purity is always a myth). But I struggle to find the bands they list below punk. Fine, yes, most of them do strum their guitars with a load of fuzz pedals stomped on, and the delivery is certainly given, generally, with more aplomb with most indie.
And yes, some of them are fine, fine bands. And, yes, I could name other UK punk bands well worth mentioning (Broker (http://broker.bandcamp.com/), Wonk Unit (http://wonk-unit.bandcamp.com/), (Slaves https://www.facebook.com/slaves?fref=ts), and so on). And yes, Good Throb are a good call, but most of the bands are, well, not punk.
What do I mean by punk?
They’re punk rock, perhaps. But, their punk rock isn’t punk.
They’re mostly rock bands, essentially, who are perhaps seperated from much of the rest of a music through a enduring (and rather fantastic) DIY scene. And yes, punk bands do occasionally surface in these circles. I have nothing against the bands, but I guess I’m upset by the use of the word that has meant a lot to me. This is Bob Dylan to me.
(The Minutemen were an American punk band)
Punk is angry, shouty, weird, out there, and it’s anything with that attitude.
Loud, fuzzy guitars aren’t necessarily punk. There, I said it.