Bring that beat back... The shit ain't over... ================================ FINLEY BREEZE Issue #2 February 7, 1995 random mast-head designations: Sean Murphy ================================ In this issue: 1. PUNK - Steve Silverstein 2. Hardly Pulitzer... - Troy Ely 3. Green Day Digs Frozen Yogurt... - Dann Medinn 4. Shades of Punk - An Experiment - Rob Thornton 5. Lo-Fi - Jon Fine 6. Aging Punks Change World - Chris Campbell 7. Neo-platonic Wanderings - Sean Murphy 8. Notes on Punk - Douglas Wolk and the ever-popular "Coursing Through The Wires." But first... ---------- Editor's notes... Welcome to round two of Finley Breeze. Glad you could make it... for my part, I tried to get it out more or less on time. It's been a strange few weeks since #1 mailed, and maybe that's reflected in this issue. Thanks to all who took the time to read #1 and respond, whether to me or directly to the other writers... it does mean something to get that type of feedback. Anyway, believe it or not, there are topics already floating in my head for the next 2 issues. (Yes, that means I'm sorta committing myself to make it through Finley #4, regardless of whatever else may happen in the next couple months...) The topics are: #3: _Instinct vs. Theory_ How do you relate to and process music? Do you react to music based on instinct, or based on a learned theory that helps to sort it out? What's the place of theory and analysis in rock music? How do you "legitimize" rock for jazz and classical listeners? (lots of shit going on here... i see a rambler from hell springing off my keyboard...) #4: _Marketing the music_ I'm not just talking about big-label promotion-folks who can send out shit-tons of CD-singles and posters and t-shirts and sardines and Spam... How does marketing affect our perceptions? Does it matter how you hear about a band or a song? Can finding out in one forum make something more or less valid? And how do the "independent promoters" like Autotonic, and the independent distributors like Ajax and Parasol and Mordam, fit into the whole idea of promoting a product? (Again, thanks to Steve Silverstein for the roots of this topic.) (whew. too much to handle at once. pick any piece, or even something I forgot. just write it down and get it to me.) Issue #3 will come out around the end of February, #4 in mid-to-late March. Since I've got ideas for the topics, I'm pushing up the proposed schedule a little. [DISCLAIMER: Please note, however, that this is merely a proposed schedule. It does not confer to the reader any rights or privileges, and in no way is the editor of the publication obligated to abide by its terms, whether explicit or merely implied.] Anyway, this time around we're supposedly looking at PUNK. The range of articles and other mumblings touch on aspects of the emotional baggage attached to the word, but this zine is neither the beginning nor the end of the subject. Punk existed long before 1977, or 1969, or whenever some person did something that didn't conform. [Was Stravinsky punk? To read accounts of public reactions to the first performances of "Le Sacre du Printemps," you'd think the entire orchestra was naked and had fucking rainbow mohawks and ampallangs... What about Georges Seurat? Walter Gropius? James Joyce? Sonny Bono? the beat goes on...] Punk will exist tomorrow, and 10 years from now, and forever, although we might not recognize its particular manifestation at that point. Punk is not the "flavor of the month," despite what MTV would have you believe. But I've mumbled enough here, and we're not even close to my alleged article... Sean Murphy grumpy@access.digex.net P.S. After assembling this issue, I dug out and listened to my copy of _Never Mind The Bollocks..._. It's funny how the Sex Pistols can get slagged pretty frequently (and deservedly) but still be the touchstone or entry-point for punk. Funny how Mr. Lydon managed to redeem himself with the first 2 PiL records... --------------- I. PUNK Steve Silverstein OK. I inspired this topic, so I damn well better have something to say about it, right? Where did the idea come from? In part I have two friends who use the word punk a lot. One, Michael, uses it to describe things, usually musical that he doesn't like. They don't really have to be loud or aggressive, just not to his liking, for any reason. And yet he is friends with some bands that I'd certainly call punk (but obviously he wouldn't) and listens to some really loud stuff (Pussy Galore, Grifters) that I'd also call punk. Then there is Rachel, who uses the word "punk" to describe anything good. It could be musical, or political, or whatever. Everything right in the world is "punk". This contrast really struck me, as there is really no reason the word should inspire such strong and different views, or is there? Adding to all of the confusion is another friend of mine who is writing her senior (undergrad) thesis on punk. She seems to define it as a way of life, not a kind of music. What is the punk way of life? Steve Albini seems to include a dayjob freeing you from commercial pressures on your music, and yet the very bohemianism which is often associated with "punk" hardly matches this idea. Can "punk" be a definition for a lifestyle, or just an ugly hairstyle? A recent discussion which was on an E-mail list asked "Is Green Day punk?" Please don't answer that (at least not to me). But, if you said no to that, what about Screeching Weasel, on whose most recent album a member of Green Day plays? Or the Ramones (circa 1979) whom most people used to help define punk rock, but who inspired both of these lineups. Most people consider the Sex Pistols punk, but they were formed, essentially, by a publicist, Malcolm McLaren. Hardly punk there. Their best-known album was on a major label. Strike 2. And then there is the MC-5. I certainly consider them a pioneering punk band. But, in a recent interview, Wayne Kramer explained that lack of promotion from their (major) label helped lead to their breakup. Not at all punk, as I see it. And if punk didn't grow out of the MC-5 (and their major label brethren the Stooges) where did it come from? It could have come from some of the '60s garage stuff, but so did the Replacements. Maybe they're punk too, or are they not? Is what I listen to today punk? Pavement (as good a selection for an arbitrary example as any) certainly draw on early Wire and Fall stuff, which is probably punk to most people. So are Pavement punk? What would my friends think who use punk to mean, roughly, "good" and "bad"? What about their lifestyle, music or anything else you want to consider is or is not punk? What about the Softies? Are they influenced by punk? They have a very underground business aesthetic, but they're also not musically much like the Ramones or the Electric Eels or the MC-5, are they? On the door to their house, some friends have a picture which reads "Punk's not dead", with their names listed below it. Are they right? Is punk alive and well, and if so, where do you find it? A few years ago, Spin searched for the soul of rock, but seemed to find more its sole (or its heel maybe?). Why do people so cling to the word punk to characterize most everything? Should we just lay the word "punk" and the word "indie" to rest and not worry if they're alive or dead (the words, not anything that goes with them). --------------- II. Hardly Pulitzer...in fact, hardly fertilizer; Troy Ely Pseudo-Article: I'd really like to include a nice dissertation on this month's topic, but when it comes down to it, PUNK evokes images of safety pins and liberty spikes (in my mind). I think the term has stuck around as a way of classifying stuff that doesn't yet fit into one of the nice cubbyholes created by the great consumer god of record labeling. By the time that enough artists are classified as this month's definition of punk, a new category will emerge to describe them. They move on to category XYZ, and new bands fill the punk slot - just some silly thoughts. Rant: The Stereotypical "______" listener Venture outside "mainstream" music and eventually someone who doesn't will find out. Soon after, they will probably say: "You don't look like a person who listens to _______." It's easy to see how stereotypes related to 'all-encompassing' traits (race, religion, sex, etc) can exist when they exist based on *music* preference. Many times I've been told "you don't look like someone who listens to metal." Why ?!? Because I'm not a long-haired, earring-wearing, satan-worshipping leather-clad pot-smoker? What complete shit. Based on our editor's listening range, he obviously must be some sort of vapourous entity or a hideously unspeakable creature that is a combination of the characteristics associated with the rougly 2 trillion types of music that he listens to. Rant: FUCKING HOCKEY LOCKOUT !!! Oops...sorry...that's not music. [ed. note: Thank goodness the lockout's over... now we can get back to real wintertime pursuits instead of spending too much time on-line... -skm] --------------- III. greenday digs frozen yogurt & th kids love it! dann medin th first thing that goes to be said must be that trying to define any genre of music is about obnoxious and pretentious as telling somebody that something is obnoxious and pretentious. last year @ i.b.s. (a college radio seminar in nyc), i was at one of th jazz seminars, and this lucifer popped th question that promised th incompletion of any useful information exchange in that time slot when in th first 5 minutes he posed th question: "i just want to know, what exactly IS jazz?" this led to a dumb circle argument that made everybody frustrated and angry, and nothing was accomplished. thus, let us skip a similar initial question of th sort pertaining to punk rock. if anything, let us simply conclude that th term "punk rock" works best when used w/other friends as an adjective. i'm awfully tempted to go off on a total non-sequitur tangent and proclaim yoko ono as th founder of all tru punk functions, and babble and rant about th latent influence of bluegrass music and sniffing glue (simultaneously) on post baby boomer hippies. but i won't. because i'm punk rock. (see? tee hee!) quite informally and in all bluntness, i declare that stuffy cliques suck. i declare that paying more than $12 fr a cd sucks. i declare that paying more than $8 fr a show sucks. and egos, especially since they are rarely justified, especially suck. this applies to pretty much everything fr me. i dunno. lots of folks seem to be getting into running around and ranting and raving like some kind of mohawked paul revere, tossing copies of their zines and announcing that punk is dead, or something of that sort. since we already decided that we wouldn't do any of that definition crap in this essay (well, i decided), i'm not going to ask what exactly that kind of statement means; as musically, ethically, etc. hazardous as it may be, i'm just gonna lump trenchmouth, unwound, bikini kill, and bracket in th same category. and now i'm going to be consistantly inconsistant and change th subject. (i can, because i'm punk rock) i'm going to let you know about my theory: people that take life and music too seriously are wasting their high blood pressure. i can complain all i want about rancid, but i'm probably never gonna get to see them live in a small club ever again. so why complain? why be angry? sure it sucks, but there's good stuff about it too. fr every 50 or so lollapalooza or mtv suctioned greenday fans, maybe one of them will make a random selection of some band on lookout that he/she's never heard of before. i lived in watertown, ct: nowheresville for music. i didn't have anybody to get me into good shit, i had to totally go out of my way to find it. maybe that person will develop and grow, and before you know it - somebody else that can listen to unwound on an hourly basis while writing letters fr amnesty. eventually, this whole major label thing will pass. i mean, it's far from over, green day was probably th first (i don't really consider th offspring in th said punk genre, sorrie) of 3-4 bands that over th next year or two will break gold sales, sell millions, and have original fans going "if you told me that ----- was going to be like this 2 years ago i never would have believed you. shit." so if yr sensitive to th whole thing, brace yrself. it's inevitable at this point, th market is hungry. as far as signings go, yeah, i think that it sucks too. when jawbreaker recently added their name to th roster a few months ago, i hurt all over inside. but it don't give me th right to play king-of-all-th- right-decisions; maybe being able to quit a shit job so that you can pay th rent and concentrate on yr music isn't so shitty of an idea. it's not me, so i don't have a right to really say. plus, i do have th right to wear paisley whenever i want. especially because i'm punk rock. and the good? i've been senselessly rambling about common biffs and beefs and seem to have left out th part about music, and especially punk, making life often not only bearable, but pretty durn fun. it means a lot to me that there exists a network of people that i consider my friends who are, like me, toiling hours in creating zines, writing, putting on shows, and playing in bands because we love it. (not necessarily th toiling at times, tho) mtv is not going to give you pissed off dykes or non-model looking culture angst. i can't afford $25 to see a band i like, i can barely afford tuition. it's thru d.i.y. i-give-a-fuck organizations/activities like this that i can find a place to stay w/total strangers hundreds of miles away. i've already helped put around 8 travelling bands up fr th night, and w/th exception of a missing sleeping bag, have been happy and felt good to be doing so little that means so much to someone else. as long as people give a shit about what's going on in th world (kudos to dischord fr reusing most materials and sending info on th most environmentally safe papers along w/their cds), and continue putting in their own time and effort to a most likely profitless end (fr an unwitting love of telling th whole world to fuck off), i can't see this punk thing as being dead. besides, now that it's in to be punk, i have great new friends in harvard hats and they take me to keg parties where we look at women's breasts, watch football games, and listen to green day. fuck yeah. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxdann medin {dlm94001@uconnvm.uconn.edu}xoxox --------------- IV. Shades of Punk -- An Experiment Rob Thornton *Warning* -- This is a list of definitions that is in no way definitive. Hopefully,this will be entertaining and maybe even illuminating, but that's all you should expect from it. With this in mind, we procede.... Punk is, has been (or will be): The "garage rock" of the Sixties -- Actually, this is the first use of the word "punk" that I know of right off of the top of my head. The "Nuggets" compliations, which caught a lot of music from bands like the Count Five, the Seeds, the Standells, and other small high-energy low-tech bands from the early to mid 1960s, used the word "punk" to describe their sound. I don't know how it got pulled up and associated with the Sex Pistols or whether the usages are related.... Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary -- "a form of simple rock music, often with coarse lyrics, typically performed in a hostile, deliberately offensive way." An ideology -- Many people have hooked up a mighty boatload of propaganda and philosophizing to the punk bandwagon. An excellent example of this is Greil Marcus, a well-known rock critic who basically made the Sex Pistols the grand heirs to many esoteric artistic/philosophical movements like situationalism and dada in his book "Lipstick Traces: A Secret History of the 20th Century." Usually punks wield leftist rhetioric, possibly because the revolutionary cant appeals to those folks. It seems that many punks subscribe to some sort of socialism and the lefty academic fields that feed off of the political genres. For example, in a recent issue of Maximum Rock 'N Roll (which is one of the leading punk publications), one of the letters declaims that "hasn't biological essentialism always been the tool of the right wing?" while another says that "dismissing us as P.C. pushers is a neat attempt to delegitimize us and our politics...." Webster's No. 2 -- Òn. [etym uncertain] 1. a prostitute (Obs.) 2. (a) a catamite; (b) a male homosexual; (c) a young gangster or hoodlum; (d) any person , especially a youngster, regarded as inexperienced, insignificant, etc. [Slang].Ó "The ability to say and do whatever you fuckin' want" vs. "The right to tell everybody what they should fuckin' do" -- This is where punk gets to tie itself up in knots. At one end you've got the G.G. Allin wing, where the the spirit o' "The Wild One" is carried to astoundingly abusive extremes, and then you have the nice eco-punks, who will kindly tell you how you should talk and how you should act. Somehow, they magically manage to get along, probably because they both can unite and be disgusted at the mainstream. Webster's No. 4 -- "adj. poor or bad in quality. [Slang.]" A marketing tool -- Many people think that the commercialization of punk is already underway, but just you wait unitil the marketing people have gotten at it. Thanks to my job, I have access to many many magazines, including "Marketing News, the official publication of the American Marketing Association." In a recent front page article on upcoming marketing trends for 1995 they identified "punk rock" and "Newt Gingrich" as two of the prime candidates. Some "youth marketing" scum said that the success of Green Day and the Offspring signals the end of the "inner city" influence on suburban (read "white") kids. She added that the hordes of kids will soon be lured to punk because it represents "moshing and mischief," and that the marketing people will be slow to catch on for the first couple of months. So advertising may be clear of punk for now, but I have a strange feeling that the commercial which featured some kid saying that "a Subaru is like punk rock" is an omen. Just wait 'till "punks" start selling Fruit Roll-Ups(TM). Webster's No. 3 -- " [Am. Ind.] 1. decayed or dried fungus used for tinder. 2. Any substance that smolders when ignited, usually in the form of a stick used to set off fireworks, etc." The foundations of "indie rock" -- If you take a look, it's really obvious that punk laid the groundwork for today's "indie" scene. Punk laid down a web of small labels, zines, and clubs that could support itself, and this set an example for New Wave bands and all the others that wanted to go for it on their own. It also held a great deal of disdain for outsiders and was quite cliquish. Just add college radio, change the scene to represent evolving trends, and there you have "indie rock." Also, some other indicators show that "plus ca change, plus ca meme chose." Smash was a cutting edge punk zine on the West Coast during the First Wave of Punk. Then it became a record label, and after that it became a branch of a megacorp (Time Warner). Any similarities to Sub Pop are, of course, purely coincidental. --------------- V. Lo-fi (and other musical musings) Jon Fine The industry buzz machine is so desperate to name and place the Next Big Thing (now that they've "broken" Weezer and Veruca Salt) that they're scrambling for categories and sub-categories that hardly even fucking exist. Some genius on an AOL industry dirt folder opined that Japanese noise bands are the next big thing... while many others, of course, are referring to the Lo Fi Revolution. More than one mainstream media piece about the Lo Fi Revolution I've seen mention Liz Phair's "Exile"--_not_ the Girly Sound tapes that 50 people heard--as an exemplar of the Lo Fi Revolution, because, as we all know, "Exile" was recorded via a converted transistor radio speaker halfway down the hall. What I'm really trying to say is, they're all wrong. My unmarried 45-year old Aunt Helen is the next Big Thing, as soon as she learns to play an instrument and write some songs. The Helen Revolution...in '96 everyone's gonna be talking about it... ...ah, Christ. What was I talking about? Lo Fi strictly as an aesthetic conceit is, of course, ludicrous. Mistaking tape hiss in and of itself for authenticity is on a par with, I dunno, equating pogoing with punk rock. Once you're associating one or two superficial aspects with Actual Musical Content, obviously, your head's up your ass. But, just becuase John Darnielle chooses to record the Mountain Goats on a 4 track or a boombox does not lessen those songs, and to imply that he should drag his hypertense butt to a real-live recording studio for no other reason than that's the way it should be done is as doctrinaire and foolhardy as....well, assuming anything with tape hiss is honest, or good. Does the number of mikes they put on the kick drum really matter that much? If it does, you're probably going to end up ignoring a lot of interesting music, because a lot of artists making it can't afford to pay upwards of $75 an hour to make it conform to an FM radio programmer's notion of what sounds "good." [this probably could have and should have been a part of Telegraph #2, but i think it relates to punk, too... thanks to jf for letting me re-post it here. - skm] --------------- VI. AGING PUNKS CHANGE WORLD Chris Campbell There are a wide range of ideologies represented in this punk/indie world we exist in, but most have a strong sense of individuality and personal identity contained at their core. While our loyalty to particular bands may be fickle at times, we place great importance in an artist's commitment to his art, and in return for our attention we expect that he live up to unassailable standards. But what of our own lives? We channel-hop from one trend to the next, this week lauding Drag City, next week lauding Nuf Sed. Sooner or later, we need to get away from the juvenile distractions of this month's MRR letter war and move on more constructive things. With '21' becoming a distant memory, do we abandon our lifestyles and ideals, or do we look for new, inventive ways to express them? Most of us have been involved in our local music scene to some small extent: a t-shirt from your favorite local band, tuning into that one radio show every week, making flyers for a friend's band, even just going to see a band even though you know that the room will be virtually empty. But these all drain off of your scene more or less. Those of us who remain involved beyond our early twenties are perhaps best in the position to make a serious _contribution_ to the scene. Everyone wants to help out, but those of us who have moved on to regular day jobs without losing interest in challenging music and art are perhaps obligated to do what we can. What _can_ you do? Think about your natural skills; what facilities do you have access to, what knowledge have you accumulated? Starting your own label is certainly popular, but maybe that's not what your city needs, and maybe you'd be more valuable doing something else. If you're thinking about a zine, are you really as knowledgeable about music and writing as you think you are, or will you just be adding to the noise already out there? Think longer than 60 seconds about it -- think UNglamorous. Those of us active on the Internet are likely to be technically adept. If you're a hard-core computer person, how about setting up a free BBS to give Internet access to local musicians and artists? Is there a coffeehouse nearby that will let you set up a terminal in their business? Do you have lots of experience with tube amps or guitars? Set up a for-cost tune-up shop in a side room. Are you very good with audio electronics and other sound gear? Install a demo studio in your basement. Do you know a _lot_ about non-corporate music, besides a few years of feeding off the white indie-rock label trend mills? Talk to the local 'community' non- commercial radio station about starting a weekly show. or perhaps taking over one that someone else has tired of. Many of these ideas require serious capital and/or commitment, and that's exactly my point: if you still believe in the validity of the music, _and_ have moved on to the point of being comfortable with your life and your paycheck, maybe it's time to start giving back. Whether it's risking your own cash on a band's guarantee or renovating an old house to use as a hostel, look at what your city needs and does _not_ need, make some long term plans, and _act_. --------------- VII. Neoplatonic Wanderings. Sean Murphy I've made a couple of attempts at writing already, but it just wasn't working out. I tried to devise a scheme under which I could defend Weezer as a punk band, but certain elements of the argument just wouldn't hold. Writing that compelled me to recognize the distinction between punk and punk(tm), and I considered rambling about that. But that would just be preaching to the converted. If you're reading Finley, or the Indie-List, or any independent-minded mailing list, you already know the difference. No need for me to rant on that topic... All the same, I want to write. I want to relate what the nebulous term "punk" means to me. Maybe I got at it in the introduction to this issue... punk is a manifestation of something which could also loosely be called independence. It's a willingness to look at the world a little differently, which has sometimes (but certainly not exclusively) been captured in music. [warning - you are now entering a rampant gratuitous liberal arts bullshit zone. please grab shields, rain slickers, shovels, and other appropriate forms of protection at this time.] For some odd reason, I wound up thinking back to hazy lectures and pointless discussions of Plato, _The Republic_, last couple of chapters. (The ones where he's famous for saying "kill all the artists" or something along those lines. Of course that's not exactly what he says, but that's what people remember, along with his social planning experiments which involve taking children away from their parents once they exhibit signs of higher intelligence... and the notion that people are born into roles - commoners, guardians, and philosopher-kings...) Anyway, according to our dead Greek pal, there are three levels of existence. There's an ideal, a physical representation of that ideal, and then artwork about the physical representation. A drawing of a chair is not as real as a physical object that you or I call a chair, but neither one achieves the completion of the idea which is "chair." For Plato, the artist is therefore a bad person because he or she is taking humankind farther away from an ideal by creating at a third level of separation instead of simply contemplating and understanding the ideal, or at least making a functional representation of said ideal. (And _there's_ the reason for killing the artists, or at least taking away their scripts, paintbrushes, chisels, and keyboards. For present purposes, let's set aside the more progressive notion that art is closer to an ideal - that requires conscious abstraction, and neither the art world nor Plato were there yet...) [we have cleared the rampant bullshit zone. some form of musical content may follow. caution is still advised.] Punk is sorta the same way at times. There is the ideal of punk, which is undefinable in mere words. Then there are the physical objects used to represent punk, often in the form of music. Finally, there are the accoutrements used to convey the image of the music, such as spiked hair, piercings, tattoos, and studded dog collars. Or ripped flannel, backwards baseball hats, and beat-up Doc Martens. Or baggy pants, bandannas, and some really kickin' bass speakers. The images and pictures are removed from the music, but the music is also removed from the ideal. Just because a song has three chords and an up-tempo 4-4 beat, that does not make it punk. It may very well make that song something which approximates punk, and it may fit into a genre loosely known as punk-rock, but that song is not punk. Punk exists in the person who writes or plays the song. Both Bullet Lavolta and Pearl Jam have recorded versions of the Dead Boys' "Sonic Reducer." Which version, if any of the three, is a valid representation of punk? (This _is_ an open question... I make no claims about any version of the song as to punk-ness, though I could make a judgment on the musical merits of each version...) Everyone has their own vision. Punk is in everyone, from your grandparents to your 3 month old cousin to the bushmen of the Kalahari Desert who have never heard Green Day, the Ramones, the Stooges, or anything else that our culture has potentially called punk. Some people fear what punk represents (or the popular manifestations and accoutrements of punk) and suppress it. Others self destruct because they allow punk to absorb them and then prioritize the accoutrements before they understand the concept. Most people have a more moderate experience with punk, granting it a greater or lesser impact on their actions and thoughts. In any event, punk isn't going anywhere. Punk doesn't change. Our interpretations and recognition of punk inevitably changes over time, but the real essence is out there for each and every one of us to investigate, explore, and even adopt. --------------- VIII. NOTES ON PUNK Douglas Wolk The most immediately memorable aspect of punk is the sound of the music that started it. That's an important aspect of it, and still not the most important. Punk was not a cultural phenomenon. It's a way of dealing with the world that erupted most noticeably around the Sex Pistols' time, as a cultural phenomenon; it came into a world that was unready for it. (The Sex Pistols--has anyone noticed?--don't hold up, less than 20 years later, nearly 20 years later. Listen to their records, decontextualized, and they sound like an okay hard-rock band. "Bodies" is still, slightly, late at night, shocking. That's about it. Their visual look has been assimilated into the mainstream of life and into caricatures of extremes. They are museum pieces. What a nice museum.) Good punk artifacts are good art on their own: Wire's _Chairs Missing_ is still overwhelming in its craft. What's more important is that they point out to the person who sees them or hears them: You are free. You are a slave only as long as you believe the person who tells you so. The gates have never been locked; you have only to push them. If you like your culture, it's yours to enjoy. If you don't like it, make your own; that is your responsibility as someone who is free. (Nobody likes their culture. Nobody likes all of it, anyway.) The word from punk goes on: Making culture is not easy, but it's not impossible for anyone. Even you. You don't need a special gift that you don't have. All you need is the desire to make it, and the will to work hard at it, and you can. The clearest statement of that, something that instantly strikes the people who see it: the diagram in _Sniffin' Glue_ fanzine: "This is a chord. This is another chord. This is a third chord. Now start a band." See also the Desperate Bicycles, who learned to play instruments and wrote songs and recorded them and put them out themselves and left a permanent mark of what they had done all over the world BECAUSE THEY COULD. Just to prove that they could. The old woman, in a rocking chair, remembering that she once toured the world and slept on floors and starved in a van and got shows cancelled and got fucked over by distributors and blistered her fingers and broke strings and got up on a stage in a little club in London and played bass and sang and 500 people who understood screamed and cheered and danced until dawn: she is a happy old woman. You're going to be old for a long time. You might as well see to it that you're happy when you're old. Punk is not the sound of early punk, though that sound--taking pop songs and making everything in them scream--is the sound it needed to announce itself when it started, and it still sounds awfully good sometimes. What punk means to music (and especially to pop music) is to let people know that they have to make their _own_ music; that nearly every rule for music isn't really a rule but a stupid old convention, and therefore illusory, and to be used only on their whim; that music is full of possibilities, made of nothing but possibilities, aching to be realized. Punk is so full of possibilities that it's nearly choking, nearly blinded, gasping for air, spasming and orgasming. ================================= Coursing through the Wires... ================================= --- Steve Silverstein The 20 or so records/CDs that made my Winter Break a bit better (in alphabetic order): o Chisel, Sunburn 7" (Gern Blandsten, 1994) o Chrome Cranks LP (PCP/Matador, 1994) o Circle, Pint 7" (Bad Vugum, 1992) o Flying Saucer Attack, Distance CD (VHF, 1994) o The Folk Implosion, Take a Look Inside (Communion, 1994) o Great Plains, Dick Clark 7" (Shadowline, 1985) o Greenhorn, Liars' Song 7" (3 Beads of Sweat/Ajax, 1994) o Grifters, Queen of the Table Waters 7" (Sub Pop, 1994) o Guided By Voices/Belreve split 7" (Anyway, 1994) o The Halo Benders, Canned Oxygen 7" (Atlas, 1994) o Helium, Pat's Trick 7" (Matador, 1994) o The Raincoats, Moving CD (1984, DGC CD reissue 1993) o Red Crayola, The Parable of Arable Land/God Bless the Red Krayola... (1968/69, Decal CD reissue 1990) o Scrawl, He's Drunk LP (Rough Trade, 1989) o Seefeel, Fracture Tied 10" (Warp, 1994) o Skullflower, Carved into Roses CD (VHF, 1994) o Sleepyhead, Punk Rock City USA/Like A Girl, Jesus 7" (Slumberland, 1992) o small factory, For If You Cannot Fly CD (Vernon Yard, 1994) o Thomas Jefferson Slave Apartments, Negative Guest List 7" (Siltbreeze, 1994) o Ut, Griller LP (Blast First, 1989) o Von Ryan's Express, "At The Bus Stop" (from _A Bitter Pill to Swallow: A Providence Music Sampler_, Over The Counter, 1994) o Wingtip Sloat, Chewyfoot LP (VHF, 1994) The Scrawl I've had the longest, the Great Plains, Circle, and Seefeel are the newest to me (though some others are quite close). The Red Crayola was the oldest recording. I'd guess the Wingtip or Helium may be the newest, though it is a close call. +++++++++++++++ --- Troy Ely : o Company 91 - 3 CD set of free-form compositions made in France. Features John Zorn, Buckethead, Derek Bailey, and others playing in combinations of 2-6 people. o This is Spinal Tap (Criterion) - Hello Cleveland! Over an hour of extra and deleted footage, audio commentary by Rob Reiner and Tap, plus other cool stuff. o Root vegetables - yeah...parsnips, turnips, rutabagas, etc. Just good food. o Craw - S/T. After a year of searching, I found a used CD copy for $4 in Clemson, SC. Cool stuff....and unlike seemingly every other band, they haven't broken up. Speaking of Clemson, anyone heard from one3four lately? o Boss DR-5 - buy one.....now. ++++++++++ --- Rob Thornton *Books & Other Printed Stuff* o _American Mythologies_ by Marshall Blonsky (Oxford) o _Fisherman Of The Inland Sea_ by Ursula K. Le Guin (Harper Prism) o Spectre #27 & Starman #5 (both from D.C. Comics) o _When China Ruled The Seas_ by Louise Levanthes (Simon & Schuster) o _Let Us Now Praise Famous Men_, by James Agee & Walker Evans (H. Mifflin) o _Bhagavadghita_ (Dover Thrift Edition) *Music* o "The Question Is You" -- Fastbacks (Sub Pop) o "P Street Beach"/"Queen Bee" -- Razor 18 (popfactory) o "295"/"Phobic" -- Kepone (Alternative Tentacles) o "Dusty In Memphis" -- Dusty Springfield (Rhino/Atlantic) o "Prazision CD" -- Labradford (Kranky) o "Behind The Doors I Keep The Universe" -- The Dentists (EastWest) ++++++++++ --- Sean Murphy Not much new to report in the coursing department... but a few things have made the gray season bearable so far... o Eric Burdon and the Animals, "Sky Pilot" (MGM 7", 1968) o Lemon Pipers, "Green Tambourine" (Buddah 7", 1969?) o Eleventh Dream Day, "The Raft" (from _El Moodio_, Atlantic, 1993) o The Wipers, _Youth of America_ (Park Avenue, 1980) o finishing my damn law school applications (now it's just a waiting game 'til mid-April...) o King Crimson, _Starless and Bible Black_ (E.G., 1974) o Fine Day, "Soot" (Sunspot 7", 1992) o The Birthday Party, "The Friend Catcher" and "She's Hit" (reissued on _Hits_, 4AD, 1992) o Tone, "Mr. Authority" (from _Build_, Dischord/IPR, 1994) o Erik Satie, "Gymnopedies" (virtually any performance will do) o Oliver Nelson, "Stolen Moments" (from _Blues and the Abstract Truth_, Impulse, 1961) ================= In Closing... ================= One slight correction from FB#1: Regarding my remarks about milkshakes and the Tastee Diner, I'd like to say that I have enjoyed fine chocolate milkshakes at the Fairfax and Silver Spring Tastees. The Bethesda Tastee (which hardly looks like a diner from the outside) is the one lacking in a milkshake machine. (No info yet from the Laurel Tastee... maybe for a future issue...) Shoutouts this time around to: Tim Ross at UNC (hope the Grubbs interview worked out OK); anyone suffering from "melancholia" and extreme boredom (you're not alone, trust me...); people who wrote with responses about #1. If you liked this, why not pass it to a friend? OFFICIAL INFORMATION SECTION: DISCLAIMER: All material contained within is the responsibility of the original author, as identified by name and electronic address. If there is no clear attribution, then I probably wrote it, and you can bitch at me. This may be reproduced freely, but I'd ask that those doing the re-distribution give credit where it's due. QUESTIONS, complaints, comments, etc. about the publication as a whole are welcome. Submissions are even better. Subscriptions are cool, too. All should be directed to: grumpy@access.digex.net As I get a lot of random mail each day, please make it clear at the outset that you're writing about FB, not just for your health or to see if you can send mail from your net-site to mine. Finally, as the inheritor of the Telegraphic mission specifications, I'm also holding onto the Telegraph archives. All three are available from me if you want 'em.