[…]Isn’t this just a version of internalized oppression, though? The next paragraph in this interview is a long, idiosyncratic account of punk history, which does make some good points in a lamentable way, followed by the statement “The entire history of post modern youth culture has been one long turn against punk, and people wonder why we have to try so hard to be popular.” I have some sympathy for his viewpoint, and agree about the reactionary turn, but isn’t the lesson of the Ramones - and “lame-punk like Green Day (who were actually good)” - that popular success is a flawed goal? Not that obscurity is a necessity, that punk bands can’t gain some recognition for themselves - but this is tantamount to seeking co-option. I have a theory that Fucked Up can be best described - just kidding, kinda - as “kitsch-punk” because they appeal to the kind of interest in punk and hardcore sounds that doesn’t really see them as inherently valuable, rooted in either an organic tradition or a coherent attitude, taking them off the shelf when necessary: with the result that they become awkward appendages bearing little relation to the original wholly-formed aesthetics. Where it does seem at home, however, is in a genre largely based on separation and distance from, and even contempt for, punk - indie.
Actually, no, I don’t agree that the lesson of the Ramones, Green Day, etc. was that popular success was a flawed goal. I may be misinterpreting you here (which would make sense considering that I’m not that sure of what a couple of your sentences mean—the pronoun “it” in the last sentence, what noun is it referring back to?), but the meaning I’m getting from your comments is that a punk band that becomes too successful can’t retain their integrity in the face of the mainstream’s spotlight. I gotta say, I really don’t believe that. I could get really in depth on this but a lot of what I’d end up saying is in the thing I wrote about David Comes To Life (it’s done, as is my entire Top 20 of 2011 writeup—I just have to find the time to get it all posted). For now, let me just say that I think that Fucked Up avoided the two cardinal sins of supposedly-DIY punk bands who end up betraying their roots—they didn’t sign to a major label (Matador once had major label ties but don’t anymore), and they didn’t become just another mainstream rock band, instead sticking to what I firmly believe is an organic evolution of their original sound. So as far as I can see, Fucked Up are in a unique position to represent the true spirit of punk rock to a mainstream culture that is actually aware of them without being co-opted by that mainstream. Of course, they’ve reached nowhere near as many people as Green Day and Nirvana did, but they have the ability to, assuming they don’t break up, and they can, at least at their current point, do it without buying into a system that I feel like would inherently co-opt their values. Of course, if they sign to Capitol for their next album (or, alternately, break up), that won’t happen, but right now the possibility seems to me to still be there.
Again, more to come.
I don’t really care about ‘integrity’ in this sense, and I mainly referred to it because it was brought up in the original quote. “It” refers to their kitschy sound - or what I hear as such - and that’s where I’d disagree with you on your second point (“an organic evolution of their original sound”). I just think Fucked Up are a boring band that perhaps hide behind issues of punk and bringing it to the mainstream, while definitely neglecting what makes that mainstream different from punk in the first place: generally, less interesting - and less creative in a certain rebellious sense - music.
