Photos from when Punk Mattered

[brennser]

stiff little fingers - "alternative ulster"  

killer song

[Bags]

Originally posted by Arlette:
  And Rhett,  here you go for egregious:
 
 adj. :  conspicuously bad or offensive

I don't think a person can be egregious, though.

[ggw]

Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
   

Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
  another girl another planet by the only ones is the best song on there.

yeah, that's a nice track .... it's definitely not as "punk rock" as a lot of the other ones, almost sounds like it's proto-smiths or something [/b]

It's power-pop.  And, really, what is early punk but loud and snotty power-pop?

[markie]

So Bags, you think at heart we are all kind and wonderful?
 
 Or you mean you think my sentence, " Rhett, would you consider yourself an egregious person?" As being poor English?

[markie]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  It's power-pop.  And, really, what is early punk but loud and snotty power-pop?

But the whole flashy guitar solo-ness of it all is rather anti-punk, dontcha think?

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by Bags:
  I don't think a person can be egregious, though.

I agree. I've never seen that adjective applied to a person, always to actions.

[markie]

It is stolen from  something very, very funny:
 
 ROSS IS INTERVIEWING PAULINE FOR THE EXERCISE.
 
 ROSS:
 And youâ??re interested in the trolley job?
 
 PAULINE:
 Er, that is right. Iâ??m very interested, yes. I feel that my ability to work well as part of a team, and yet to take individual responsibility, are important factors in a job of this nature.
 
 SHE WINKS AT THE REST OF THE GROUP, SHOWING OFF. MICKEY SMILES.
 
 ROSS:
 What work experience do you have?
 
 PAULINE:
 I left school early and started to workâ?¦
 
 ROSS:
 Oh, so you didnâ??t go to college?
 
 PAULINE:
 No, Iâ??ve had actual work experienceâ?¦
 
 ROSS:
 So you have no qualifications?
 
 PAULINE:
 Well if you donâ??t count twenty years in the employment serviceâ?¦
 
 ROSS:
 Well, no, no I donâ??t. Iâ??m talking about academic achievement â?? degrees, diplomasâ?¦
 
 PAULINE:
 Oh, come off it Ross! Shoving trolleys round Asda car park? A frigging monkey could do it!
 
 ROSS ROLLS HIS EYES AND PURSUES A NEW LINE OF QUESTIONING.
 
 ROSS:
 Would you say youâ??re a fairly egregious person?
 
 PAULINE:
 What?
 
 ITâ??S OBVIOUS SHE HAS NO IDEA WHAT THIS WORD MEANS.
 
 ROSS:
 Are you an egregious person? Do you have an egregious personality?
 
 PAULINE:
 Ermâ?¦yeah, yeah I do.
 
 ROSS:
 Alright, Iâ??m going to say some other words to you now, and I want you to reply wth the first thing that comes into your head, alright?
 
 PAULINE:
 Alright.
 
 ROSS:
 Home.
 
 PAULINE:
 Royston Vasey.
 
 ROSS:
 Family?
 
 PAULINE:
 Dead.
 
 ROSS:
 Friends.
 
 PAULINE:
 Pens.
 
 ROSS:
 No, friends!
 
 PAULINE:
 Pens! Theyâ??re the best friend you can have! Everything I know about people, I leant from pens. If they donâ??t work, you shake them. If they still donâ??t work â?? you chuck them away, bin them!
 
 ROSS:
 Reallyâ?¦Work.
 
 PAULINE:
 Everything. My work is everything to me.
 ROSS:
 Love.
 
 PAULINE:
 No. Somebody once, butâ?¦
 
 ROSS:
 And can I get your age, please, Pauline?
 
 PAULINE:
 I think thatâ??s a ladyâ??s prerogative!
 
 ROSS:
 I need to know how old you are for the recordsâ?¦
 
 PAULINE:
 Well letâ??s just say Iâ??m as old as my gumsâ?¦
 
 ROSS:
 How old are you?
 
 PAULINE GIVES IN.
 
 PAULINE:
 Forty eight!
 
 ROSS:
 Right, thanks for coming to see us today.
 
 PAULINE STANDS.
 
 PAULINE:
 Thank you very much, when do I start?
 
 ROSS:
 Oh, Iâ??m sorry, I canâ??t offer you this position.
 
 PAULINE:
 You what?
 
 ROSS:
 You failed the interview. You strike me as a bully. Youâ??re ill-mannered, ignorant and foul mouthed. Youâ??re not qualified for this job, and apart from anything elseâ?¦youâ??re too old, Miss. Sorry.
 
 PAULINE LOOKS CRUSHED.
 
 PAULINE:
 But I canâ?¦
 
 ROSS LOOKS AWAY, IGNORING HER. SHE SLOWLY GETS TO HER FEET, UNSTEADILY. THEN, REMEMBERING ITâ??S A ROLEPLAY, BRIGHTENS UP.
 
 Good! Thank you very much. I feel that Ross handled that situation very wellâ?¦can I have my things back?
 
 HE GIVES THEM TO HER.
 
 Yeah, although it did make me wonder how well heâ??d handle a situation more like thisâ?¦
 
 SHE TURNS AND SMACKS ROSS IN THE FACE WITH A BRUTAL STRIKE OF HER CLIPBOARD. ROSS WRITHES IN PAIN.
 
 Eh? Ooh, a bully am I? Foul fucking mouthed? Now, youâ??ll eat those wordsâ?¦
 
 SHE RIPS A SHEET OF PAPER OFF THE CLIPBOARD AND BEGINS STUFFING IT DOWN ROSSâ?? THROAT.
 
 Egregious! Egregious! Egregious! Are you listeningâ?¦?
 
 MICKEY GETS UP FROM HIS SEAT.
 
 MICKEY:
 Stop it, Pauline! Stop it, you nutter!
 
 PAULINE STOPS AND TURNS TO FACE MICKEY, WONDERING IF SHE REALLY IS MAD.
 
 PAULINE:
 Oh, Mickeyâ?¦what IS egregious?
 
 MICKEY THINKS BUT DOESNâ??T KNOW EITHER.

[Bags]

Originally posted by Etan de Balzac, Footie Ball Player:
  But really, who did punk really matter to in this country? I graduated from a class of 200 in 1985, and I can't remember anybody who was in the couple of grades ahead of me or behind me who were into punk at all.

Like alt country in the late 90s or art rock in the 70s, punk had a huge influence regardless of who and how many were listening to it in its "heyday."  However, its influence on the musical landscape today (and whether it mattered) I think is irrefutable, regardless of the lack of mohawks at your high school.
 
 An interesting aspect of this is the way that, today, "music of the 80s" is nearly always defined and reminisced as Soft Cell, The Cure, Adam Ant, Erasure, Dexy's Midnight Runners, Human League, etc.  Yet back in the day, NONE of those groups were on the radio except in major, major markets like NYC, Boston and L.A., and maybe 4 kids listened to that music in my high school in 1985 (I was considered quite the eccentric for listening to that stuff).  Today, you'd swear everyone had a stack full of Cure albums in 1985.

[bearman🐻]

I would agree...the Only Ones are more of a "power-pop" band in the same school of the Flamin' Groovies or the Nerves. Punk had more of the whole urban "whatchewlookin' at" kind of attitude, it was far less accomplished and more about a certain nihilistic spirit. Of course, when the Sex Pistols broke up, that pretty much screwed punk over because it wasn't viable...why should record labels invest in it if bands were just going to self-destruct? In its heyday, punk really only lasted a couple of years. Bands like the Damned and the Buzzcocks had to start altering their sound by adding keyboards or horns, and then it got watered down.
 
 I think Chrissie Hynde said that the problem with punk is that the minute you wanted to do it for a living and become a professional musician, you strayed from what punk originally was and of course then you become something else, something more accomplished. And that's very un-punk.

[Bags]

Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
  So Bags, you think at heart we are all kind and wonderful?
 
 Or you mean you think my sentence, " Rhett, would you consider yourself an egregious person?" As being poor English?

I don't think the adjective egregious can modify a person.  An act can be egregious (like an overstatement, and assessment, etc -- or an action can be egregious, like behavior, name-calling, etc.), but I don't think a person can be egregious.  
 
 God KNOWS we are not all kind and wonderful.  I can't remember if you are or not anymore.    :cool:

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

So basically you're saying punk matters now because Green Day sells 10 milion albums?
 
 I'll give you that punk mattered to the thousands of Americans that were listened to it.
 
 However, other than those thousands, it didn't really matter to anybody. Punk circa 1980 matters to many more people today than it did then. So it would be incorrect to say "punk back when it did matter" because to only small numbers of people did it matter.
 
 And even today, I'd wager that punk matters to nobody I know outside of this chatboard. Then again, my family and friend set lacks aging hipsters and 15 year olds. Sorry.

[markie]

I don't see why any adjective, technically at least, cannot be used to describe a person. Certainly using your definition: "conspicuously bad or offensive" The sentence works equally well.
 
 Rhett, would you consider yourself a conspicuously bad or offensive person?
 
 Rhett, would you consider yourself an egregious person?

[chaz]

Originally posted by Etan de Balzac, Footie Ball Player:
  So basically you're saying punk matters now because Green Day sells 10 milion albums?
 
 I'll give you that punk mattered to the thousands of Americans that were listened to it.
 
 However, other than those thousands, it didn't really matter to anybody. Punk circa 1980 matters to many more people today than it did then. So it would be incorrect to say "punk back when it did matter" because to only small numbers of people did it matter.
 
 And even today, I'd wager that punk matters to nobody I know outside of this chatboard. Then again, my family and friend set lacks aging hipsters and 15 year olds. Sorry.

Please refer back to the post where I called you a bile spewing shitbag.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but pussy boys who call themselves "Chaz" can never hurt me.
 
 

Originally posted by Chaz, Lover of all Beings:
   

Originally posted by Etan de Balzac, Footie Ball Player:
  So basically you're saying punk matters now because Green Day sells 10 milion albums?
 
 I'll give you that punk mattered to the thousands of Americans that were listened to it.
 
 However, other than those thousands, it didn't really matter to anybody. Punk circa 1980 matters to many more people today than it did then. So it would be incorrect to say "punk back when it did matter" because to only small numbers of people did it matter.
 
 And even today, I'd wager that punk matters to nobody I know outside of this chatboard. Then again, my family and friend set lacks aging hipsters and 15 year olds. Sorry.

Please refer back to the post where I called you a bile spewing shitbag. [/b]

[Bags]

Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
  I don't see why any adjective, technically at least, cannot be used to describe a person.

It's what separates the wheat from the chaff, grammatically speaking...