TV Schedule

Rollins vs. Rotten

  2. embed code
  3. chapinyoung
  4. related topics
Henry Rollins doesn't agree with Johnny Rotten's assessment of modern punk. HenryRollins.com
chapinyoung

6 responses // Rollins vs. Rotten

  • Henry Rollins speaks the truth.
    weakmassive
  • This kind of argument is specious since it does not address the issue at hand: Whether or not modern punk sucks.

    Using categories and labels for music is not same as categorizing people because music is not a sentient entity. Because of this, his slippery slope argument here is impotent.

    As to the bands that "defy" categorization: they will eventually will have one. This scenario has been played out throughout the entire history of music. From the times of simple tribal beats of the multitude of clans in world to the bands that fill the roster of Alternative Rock and its many sub-genres, labels and categories for different styles of music are made and are generally agreed upon by the masses. That's how Rock N' Roll came about, and that's how new forms will be born.

    As for modern punk:


    It sucks ass.
    CCashman
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_3g4QPojMc
    In his meaner days
    I'm glad I've never been punched by Henry Rollins
    dcarney
  • http://www.tcpunk.com/mplsriot/mcpunks.htm
    Ah memories
    Ah memories
    Back in the '80s I got hit on my head by a "hardcore" punk (I was a "darksider") for not knowing Henry Rollins was in Black Flag.

    I think if there was more of that among these new "punks" they wouldn't annoy me so much. Well or if their music was good. Or if they even understood the meaning of the word integrity.

    I will never suffer poseurs lightly.
    Marlys
  • Henry hit the nail on the head here. I've usually disagreed with most of what Lydon says. There is still some good punk out there. Just like back in the day, you have to know where to look.
    YoungKREW
  • a lot of the original punk stuff was crap and you had to look a bit harder to find the good stuff. There was all that rubbish like Eater, and Generation X, and Chelsea. And just crap bands. And even Sex Pistols and The Clash were still just formulaic 4/4 rock and roll that were just sped up and had a bit more shouty vocals. Fair enough the Clash developed to include reggae influences and the like but I still think that there was a lot of boring rubbish in the early punk days.
    There was some good stuff however - Siouxsie and the Banshees, the Slits, X-Ray Spex, The Pop Group, Gang of Four, The Ramones, Richard Hell, Delta 5, The Au Pairs, The Raincoats, PiL, Lydia Lunch, Mars, DNA. The first wave of punk was pretty rubbish and only when you started getting the "post-punk" bands coming through from about 1978 did it get interesting in my opinion.

    And so back to Rollins' comments, you just have to look harder now to find the good more interesting music that could be called 'punk' (if you want to call it that) like Deerhoof, just as you did back in the 70s and 80s.
    Ben_Traffic_UK

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.