Bradley wrote:Hey I never said they weren't a good band.

The reason I pointed out the marshall logo is because I'm curious as the motivations behind it.

And what I meant by other bands is that.. they got into this music because "punk rock is freedom" etc etc.. yet they condemn a lot of the elements of this scene that most likely attracted them to it in the first place. I just think that's kind of hypocritical.

Maybe he wants to make it clear he does not get money from Marshall for promoting their amps? Knowing what they were trying to get across with their art, I can see where he'd not want an advertisement for a giant company on stage with them while they played.

I still don't understand what you mean with that whole hypocritical thing.
I've heard Ian go on and on about how much he loves Hendrix and The Cramps and all kinds of other bands that have nothing in common with their politics.
You think it's hypocritical of them not to celebrate drinking and drugging in their own art because a lot of punk rockers were into drinking and drugging back in the day? Huh?

Bradley wrote:And what I meant by other bands is that.. they got into this music because "punk rock is freedom" etc etc.. yet they condemn a lot of the elements of this scene that most likely attracted them to it in the first place. I just think that's kind of hypocritical.

Assuming this sentence is correct, which I think is not, there's a huge difference between being vocal on a negative opinion about something and supressing that same thing, maybe that difference is what some call freedom?

Marsupialized wrote:

Bradley wrote:Hey I never said they weren't a good band.

The reason I pointed out the marshall logo is because I'm curious as the motivations behind it.

And what I meant by other bands is that.. they got into this music because "punk rock is freedom" etc etc.. yet they condemn a lot of the elements of this scene that most likely attracted them to it in the first place. I just think that's kind of hypocritical.

Maybe he wants to make it clear he does not get money from Marshall for promoting their amps? Knowing what they were trying to get across with their art, I can see where he'd not want an advertisement for a giant company on stage with them while they played.

I still don't understand what you mean with that whole hypocritical thing.
I've heard Ian go on and on about how much he loves Hendrix and The Cramps and all kinds of other bands that have nothing in common with their politics.
You think it's hypocritical of them not to celebrate drinking and drugging in their own art because a lot of punk rockers were into drinking and drugging back in the day? Huh?

I don't think they have to 'celebrate' things like getting loaded, but they specifically condemn things that I believe were elements of why punk rock was interesting to begin with.

Not so much "you get to punch whoever you want and sniff glue!" but they just took it in such a structured, rule-abiding direction in a lot of ways that I can't really see that as anything 'freeing.' On that dvd they spend so much time making people who don't "get it" foolish that I just felt like it was unwarranted and brought a lot of pretense to the table, which was kind of a bummer.

Bradley wrote:I don't think they have to 'celebrate' things like getting loaded, but they specifically condemn things that I believe were elements of why punk rock was interesting to begin with.

You still haven't mentioned any of these things they condemned, unless not wanting to endorse Marshall is a denial of the original punk ethos.

Bradley wrote:I don't think they have to 'celebrate' things like getting loaded, but they specifically condemn things that I believe were elements of why punk rock was interesting to begin with.

Not so much "you get to punch whoever you want and sniff glue!" but they just took it in such a structured, rule-abiding direction in a lot of ways that I can't really see that as anything 'freeing.' On that dvd they spend so much time making people who don't "get it" foolish that I just felt like it was unwarranted and brought a lot of pretense to the table, which was kind of a bummer.

I dunno man, you have a weird way of seeing things I guess.
I watched that DVD and I they seemed like a pretty cool bunch of guys to me. Just because someone has strong ideas of how they want to live their life and present their art and uses strong words when talking about it doesn't mean they are 'preaching' to people telling them how they should live their life.
I see the band as an example of people doing things their own way, an alternate way, and succeeding wildly. Reading any more into it would be silly.
I don't agree with them 100 percent on their politics 100 percent of the time but that never made me feel like an outcast at their shows or made me angry or think less of them.
I just don't see them as being 'preachy' like a lot of people seem to, not one bit. I've never felt preached at by them one bit. They are expressing their ideas and opinions like every other band, nothing more.

Bernardo wrote:

Bradley wrote:I don't think they have to 'celebrate' things like getting loaded, but they specifically condemn things that I believe were elements of why punk rock was interesting to begin with.

You still haven't mentioned any of these things they condemned, unless not wanting to endorse Marshall is a denial of the original punk ethos.

Dude, I'm not going to give you a bullet-pointed breakdown, sorry. I stated my opinion, you don't agree, and here we are.

Been listening to Fugazi again for the first time in years this week - "In on the Killtaker", "Red Medicine" and "Steady Diet" - all top notch and musically varied. Forgot how much I loved "Sweet and Low".

Jesus Lizard by a fucking mile.

Marsupialized wrote:
I dunno man, you have a weird way of seeing things I guess.
I watched that DVD and I they seemed like a pretty cool bunch of guys to me. Just because someone has strong ideas of how they want to live their life and present their art and uses strong words when talking about it doesn't mean they are 'preaching' to people telling them how they should live their life.
I see the band as an example of people doing things their own way, an alternate way, and succeeding wildly. Reading any more into it would be silly.
I don't agree with them 100 percent on their politics 100 percent of the time but that never made me feel like an outcast at their shows or made me angry or think less of them.
I just don't see them as being 'preachy' like a lot of people seem to, not one bit. I've never felt preached at by them one bit. They are expressing their ideas and opinions like every other band, nothing more.

I think basically everything you said here is spot-on. Like I said, someone earlier in the thread said something about them being 'vaguely fascist' which I thought was interesting. Those things I mentioned, I felt, were consistent with what he was getting at (I hope).

Beyond that, yes they did things their own way and totally succeeded, which is rad, but I felt that, at times, it was at the sacrifice of other things. I suppose that's inevitable, but at the same time, it seems like a lot of people hold them in such high regard that they could do no wrong and no inconsistencies existed. This doesn't appear to be your particular platform though.

Bradley wrote:

Bernardo wrote:

Bradley wrote:I don't think they have to 'celebrate' things like getting loaded, but they specifically condemn things that I believe were elements of why punk rock was interesting to begin with.

You still haven't mentioned any of these things they condemned, unless not wanting to endorse Marshall is a denial of the original punk ethos.

Dude, I'm not going to give you a bullet-pointed breakdown, sorry. I stated my opinion, you don't agree, and here we are.

I gotta say, you didn't make much sense with the whole argument. I still don't understand what you meant.

Marsupialized wrote:

Bradley wrote:

Bernardo wrote:

Bradley wrote:I don't think they have to 'celebrate' things like getting loaded, but they specifically condemn things that I believe were elements of why punk rock was interesting to begin with.

You still haven't mentioned any of these things they condemned, unless not wanting to endorse Marshall is a denial of the original punk ethos.

Dude, I'm not going to give you a bullet-pointed breakdown, sorry. I stated my opinion, you don't agree, and here we are.

I gotta say, you didn't make much sense with the whole argument. I still don't understand what you meant.

Ok.. I remember a specific moment where ian pulls a kid up on stage, puts him in a headlock and says "i don't appreciate being spit on" and has the guy thrown out. Understandable, right?

Well, here's the thing. When that happened, I started wondering what ian was like when he was say, 15 or so, and went to punk shows, and why he went to punk shows. I'm not saying spitting on people is the epitome of punk ethos, nor getting stoned, or punching people, but where does it stop?

There's just a lot of small things that seemed to irk me a bit. I also thought about how extremely diy they are - and maybe you can shed some light on this - but did they pack up their own gear after their shows? That was something I was curious about, after they walked offstage at the end of one of their sets. If they did, awesome. If they had roadies.. what the fuck.