From the standpoint of interpretive sociology, as well as from the simple standpoint of a music fan, my blog will focus on music (mostly pop, rock, and experimental) and on other related aspects, including musicians, fans, musical events, and on music's place in the world. It will explore and celebrate originality, creativity, and other artistic virtues and will observe musical and cultural trends, patterns, and developments.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
On the film 1991: The Year that Punk Broke
I own a video copy of 1991: The Year Punk Broke, a rather fine concert documentary of (mostly) Sonic Youth and a variety of other bands (including Nirvana and Dinosaur Jr.) touring Europe. It remains in my video collection, and it's really good, particularly if you like the music, which I very much do.
I am curious, though, about the title. Did "punk" really "break" in 1991? I don't really think so. In fact, historically, Sonic Youth, the main band in 1991, came out of the No Wave scene in NY in the early 80s, which was arguably the most radical and experimental wing of post-punk. I would think that SY would not be trying to "break" something which had long been seen as no longer existent. Yet, by 1991, Sonic Youth, with their integrity still intact, would seem to be fully conscious of marketing, and wouldn't necessarily be bothered with wanting to argue about whether or not punk has *finally* caught on. I also don't that they, like Cobain, really wanted to see punk become a mass phenomenon.
In any case, the reference to punk "breaking" refers here, in part, to a quote by Thurston Moore, made at the very beginning of part 9 of this film. As hesays it, it seems, he does so with tongue firmly planted in cheek; it is unclear whether he believes that punk - whatever that might mean - has ever broken, or will ever do so. At least that's how I hear him.
And, as a commentator here noted, the reference to punk "breaking" was in reference to an inside joke during the tour, after the filmmaker and band caught Motley Crue covering "Anarchy in the UK" on tv. Dave, the commentator, notes that it was tounge-in-cheek, and has been misunderstood since the film's release in 1992. I would tend to agree.
Instead, I think what "broke" then was an almost retro hard rock, with punk, metal, 70s classic rock, and various other influences all parts of the mix – in fact, I’d argue that the whole "Seattle sound" phenomenon was as much derived from “Toys in the Attic” as it was from “Never Mind the Bollocks”; and while this music was hyped as "grunge," there soon was a backlash against this term, just as there was against the connected term, "Generation X,” just as much as there was the predictable emergence of pop grunge acts like Stone Temple Pilots and The Smashing Pumpkins
Incidentally, I also have 1/2 Japanese's excellent documentary, The Band That Would Be King, in my video collection, purchased around the same time that I picked this up. But that's for another post.
Here are some clips of 1991
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The title was in reference to an inside joke during the tour, after the filmmaker and band caught Motley Crue covering "Anarchy in the UK" on tv. It was tounge-in-cheek, and has been misunderstood since the film's release in 1992, when "Grunge" was bigger than Michael Jackson. In 1994, Green Day and The Offspring followed Nirvana's multi platinumb sucksess, and "Punk Breaking" was no longer an inside joke. That's the way of the world...
Dave, thanks for the insightful comment
Post a Comment