Alex Rosamilia on 'punk rock' today

There seems to be little agreement on which genre TGA fit into. I hence picked up on the following statement by Alex Rosamilia which he made on WFXN in about April 2009:

"Being punk rock is nowadays more of an ethic or a sense of morals than it is a genre."

All you punk rockers out there, discuss.

then he said something like "a soul band only with more tattoos". ha. I think making bands/songs fit into a "genre" is overrated. Why do people have to do that, does it really matter? I wouldn't like or dislike a band just because of the genre it's said to be in. eh. I get what Alex is saying though, like it's a way of life, I can agree with that.

It does seem though that a genre of music is more about the hair cuts and the jeans than it is about the music.
I know that personally I could never be a punk rocker in the sense of it being an ethic and a way of life because my music taste spans across so many genres and I hate to pigeon hole myself or be sterotyped - 'emo' is word that keeps popping up that annoys the hell out of me.
The trend of clothes and the lifestyle playing the music rather than the actual person has become very popular recently and it is something that I don't agree with. That whole idea of a 'rockstar' is frankly disgusting to me. It died in the 80s and needs to stay there.

i always hate when people ask me about a band and want me to describe them as a genre. i totally agree that punk rock nowadays is more about an ethic than a musical style or a fashion style. the whole idea of punk as rebellion, well, its not really rebelling anymore to dress that same way 30 years later when its been raped and marked up and marketed to tweens by hot topic, so...its not really punk at all. if that makes any sense. i think its more "punk" to just do what you want, listen to what you want, play whatever music you want, without a thought to whether someone else wlll think its cool or punk or whatever.
by the way, i just posted a link to that interview in the interview section.

i'm not a punk, but about half of what i listen to is punk. but really, i'm not into like skate punk too much. what i'm into, i like to call "southern punk", like Gaslight, Social D, Against Me!, The Loved Ones, The Draft, Lucero (not really punk, but whatever). all those bands have a big Springsteen influence, some country influence, and aren't really punk when you break it down. the tempo and energy is there, but lyrically and musically they aren't really punk

people just hear the speed of the music, and maybe some yelling, and automatically throw it into the punk category. to me, SoS is mostly punk, but '59 is just a rock record, with a real throwback feel to it

I could not agree more! There are very few common sounds in my 4 favorite punk bands (Rancid, The Clash, Against Me! and TGA) but there is a common feeling between them all.

I think this also fits into my argument about Johnny Cash being the most punk man to ever live

If punk is about doing something different (in the sense of Cash) then I agree. In this sense Gaslight are 'punk' (not in the traditional music term) becasue they are hard to classify, if you get me?

e7c wrote:

I think this also fits into my argument about Johnny Cash being the most punk man to ever live

Dylan was pretty punk too

It's all an evolution. The punk bands of the 80's or 90's are really nothing like the ones of today.
In a way it is a good development because you get bands such as TGA who have really grown up on them and used all those influences to create a new branch of what can be considered punk, or soul, in the case The '59 Sound.
However on the other hand, you get the development of - as Alex R pointed out -it becoming an ethic rather than a genre.

yeah, The Ramones were just a pop/rock band really, except for how they dressed and their live shows, and The Clash were really just a classic rock band past '78 or so. The Sex Pistols seemed to be ultra-punk, but their simple songs were really just a throwback to the first rock 'n' roll bands. but in the early '80s, some legit punk bands started showing up

Jukebox Romeo wrote:

yeah, The Ramones were just a pop/rock band really, except for how they dressed and their live shows, and The Clash were really just a classic rock band past '78 or so. The Sex Pistols seemed to be ultra-punk, but their simple songs were really just a throwback to the first rock 'n' roll bands. but in the early '80s, some legit punk bands started showing up

I'd argue that the Ramones were a true punk band. It's true they played Beach Boys like pop and Chuck Berry like Rock and Roll, but in such a revolutionary fast and loud way that it was called punk.
But yeah, the definition of punk is very hard. Is it a sound, an ethic, a subculture, a lifestyle, an attitude, a fashion etc.

The Clash were very influenced by pubrock and British Invasion bands like The Kinks and The Who. On the other side, they had very punkish sounding songs like White Riot.
and The Sex Pistols... Well fuck them =P

Tom Petty is the true punk.

Jukebox Romeo wrote:

i'm not a punk, but about half of what i listen to is punk. but really, i'm not into like skate punk too much. what i'm into, i like to call "southern punk", like Gaslight, Social D, Against Me!, The Loved Ones, The Draft, Lucero (not really punk, but whatever). all those bands have a big Springsteen influence, some country influence, and aren't really punk when you break it down. the tempo and energy is there, but lyrically and musically they aren't really punk

people just hear the speed of the music, and maybe some yelling, and automatically throw it into the punk category. to me, SoS is mostly punk, but '59 is just a rock record, with a real throwback feel to it

With musical tastes like that I'd put you in charge of CD duties in any car I was riding in.

lol nice. i think a lot of people on here are into those bands