Stephanie Taylor
23/04/09
History of Punk Rock
To what extent is it possible to characterize punk rock as a political movement?/Why
was punk rock portrayed in such a negative light by the British media?
John Lydon, lead singer of the Sex Pistols, exclaimed: “Most bands did not get it, like
Generation X, the Damned. Awful. The Damned's finest achievement, because they were so jealous of
the Sex Pistols, was to get the first record released by a punk band—like that matters! Who cares who
had the first record? What are you doing this for? Punk was about self-esteem. Winning it back for
yourself. Not blowing off somebody else's steam.”1 Self-esteem is certainly a respectable goal; could
this have been the reason for media's fierce attack on the punk rock movement? Were there other
influences such as politics that demanded that kind of negative attention? In order to answer questions
posed such as why the British media portrayed punk rock so negatively, or whether or not punk rock
embodied a political movement, it is first important to understand the nature of the punk rock
movement.
The punk rock movement gained momentum and power through its non-hierarchical structure,
it's philosophy of anarchistic action, and it's tie to contemporary issues and politics. Peter Wicke
eloquently explains that “Unemployment always means social isolation, being shut out from other
people's normal everyday life, which for the punks led to a marked consciousness of the division
between 'us' and 'them', expressed in a form of self-presentation which made the contrast quite
visible.”2 By the bands conscious attempts to sing about issues that they cared about, and that were
relate-able to their audiences, they erased the traditional hierarchical division between the performer
and the audience. Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols explains:
'You don't sing about love to people on the dole. We're totally against apathy of any kind. We
have got to fight the entire super band system. Groups like The Who and the Stones are
revolting. They have nothing to offer the kids anymore...There will always be something to
fight—apathy's the main thing,' asserted Rotten. 'The Pistols are presenting one alternative to
apathy and if you don't like it, that's just too bad. Anarchy is self-rule and that's better than
anything else.' Rotten later observed, 'The Pistols projected that anger, that rockbottom
working-class hate.'3
The philosophy of self-rule also added to this non-hierarchical system. As Sabin argues:
Nothing is more un-punky than the belief in guarantees, than the ceding of moral autonomy.
Punk's freedoms are absolute, if only in this sense: no-one else's rules apply to you. You take
full responsibility for the consequences of your own rules, your own beliefs. You choose to
obey or disobey for your own reasons. You do not complain when the consequences come down
slantwise, or worse. (129)
This perspective is the key to the double-edged sword that punk rock presented. On a philosophical
stance, punks respected each other's anarchy in the pursuit of their own, so, for example, gender,
homosexuality, heterosexuality, masculinity, femininity, or race did not matter, as punks celebrated the
individual (the more controversial the better).4 In this way, the punk movement created a worthwhile
and progressive ideological stance on equality which led to its embrace of political causes as exhibited
in events such as Rock Against Racism. It is this structure that gave the punk rock movement its
incredible amount of power. Peter Wicke claims that: “What changed within the contexts developed by
the punks was the way the musicians saw themselves and therefore the ideology of rock. It was no
longer their individuality as musicians but their common ground with their audience which was overnourished.”5 Suddenly the band and the audience were on the same team against the world, and for the
first time in history angry middle class youth had a venue for their self-expression. However, the
destruction anarchy encourages is as relevant as it's revolutionary tendencies. When the Sex Pistols
performed “...simple, brutal rhythmic patterns with three guitars and drums, to whose accompaniment
1
2
3
4
5
Robb
Wicke, 145
Szatmary, 259
Sabin
Wicke, 148
the musicians screamed out their view of their situation in selected obscene street slang--”6 this became
“the embodiment of the new music cult...And it was accompanied by the violent barging of a 'dance'
style called the pogo, an indescribable tangling together, shoving, jostling, pushing and jumping. And
behind the whole thing only the incessant repetition of one message: NO FUTURE.”7 An integral part
of the punk rock movement was the expression of anger and hate by both the audience and the
performers, as well as the defiance of social norms, and this released itself in bizarre forms such as self
mutilation with safety pin piercings, cutting oneself with broken bottles, shouting obscenities to one
another, or 'gobbing,' the ritual of spitting at punk performers as a form of clapping. But, as Sabin
indicated, all of this was part of the anarchistic self rule that punk exonerated.
The nature of destruction and the motivation behind it became central in the punk movement.
Steve Connolly, known at the time as Roadent, worked for the Clash by carrying gear. His describes the
realization of a need to shift values that appeared in punk rock:
“I liked the Clash on stage, a lot of movement; the same with the Sex Pistols: everything it
stood for. The attitude was initially very individualistic: the Angry Brigade bombing Biba's
because of manufactured lifestyle. I thought it was about being creative with the way you
looked. There was a statement that “This is how I dress”, and that was aggressive. There was
this idea, look at this hippie advertising generation: Richard Branson, Habitat. The Society of
the Spectacle: it's true...I'd already read bits about anarchy and I realized that destruction could
be a creative urge. But that was the attraction, wasn't it, that you had to have a generation of
destruction before a generation of creation.'”8
If the youth were trapped in a structure of governmental control that led to the dire situation of
potentially unending unemployment in which they found themselves, what was better than starting
anew? Lennis Broe argues that: “[The Clash] ....would point the way towards the potential of lasting
rebellion aimed not just at overthrowing the rules of a form that was proving more and more
susceptible to co-optation but also at uniting that form with a consciousness that was about not finding
a place in the market but shattering the marketplace. Strummer, Jones and the Clash...came not to save
the world, but to destroy and then to rebuild it.”9 This idea is not new; it was previously expressed by
political theorists such as Karl Marx. Broe further explains:
“Marx...just beginning his career in activism and philosophy...wrote that the lack of an exact
idea of what the future ought to be “is precisely the advantage of the new trend: We do not
dogmatically anticipate the world, but only want to find the new world through critcism of the
old one.” Marx later crystallized this state of being in the now when he stated in The German
Ideology that “communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to
which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which
abolishes the present state of things.” Marx, at least the early Marx, remember, was not a
Marxist. Whoever suspected, though, that he was at heart a proto-punk?”10
The ideology of punk rock, then, recognizes a thoughtful solution to what seems to be a constantly
problematic society. Similarly, when Lydon remarks: “We want chaos to come,...life's not going to get
any better for kids on the dole until it gets worse first,”11 he is expressing the punk do-it-yourself
worldview; destruction is the best option. What was easy to miss when hearing Johnny Rotten yelling:
“I am an Antichrist. I am an Anarchist. I know what I want and I know how to get it. I want to
destroy—possible cause I want to be Anarchy,” in the Sex Pistols' Anarchy in the UK, was the hope of a
brighter future that the Clash seemed to embody. Savage declares:
6
7
8
9
10
11
Wicke, 137
Wicke, 137
Savage, 238-9
D'Ambrosio, 156 from Lennis Broe's essay Clash and Burn: The Politics of Punks Permanent Revolution
D'Ambrosio, 158 from Lennis Broe's essay Clash and Burn: The Politics of Punks Permanent Revolution
Savage, 231
“Punk began to develop a sociology of its own. The most visible examples of this process were
the Clash... The Sex Pistols uncompromisingly set themselves apart, while the Clash were
warmer and more of the people; if the Sex Pistols implicitly and then explicitly advocated the
destruction of all values, the Clash were more human, closer to the dialogue of social concern
and social realism—more in the world.”12
This example of the subtle variations between the Clash's hope for a future and the Sex Pistols focus on
the problems of the present remain remarkably different approaches to destruction, but herein lies
difficulties in deciphering punk ideology for the public, for all is centered on destruction of societal and
governmental structure, which became highly problematic very quickly.
One other important point in the politics that claimed a key role in punk rock is that of its stance
against racism. For punk to take the side of the underdog is expected, but what is more interesting is
that through taking this stance, punk created an even stronger unity of voice by recognizing the
discrimination shown to youth while attempting to fight against racial discrimination. Thus:
“...both theory and practice were molded not just by white working class consciousness but
also, and crucially, and most adamantly among all the punk groups, by Strummer and Jones's
lasting interest in black forms, particularly reggae and, in the deeper sense, by their interest in
uniting...not only black and white musical forms, but also black and white working-class
consciousness. Their radicalness came, as Dick Hebdige points out, in attempting to bridge this
chasm at a moment when commercial interests were starting to move in the opposite direction,
breaking down audiences into marketable segments. The Clash, the name itself giving voice to
Marx's historical dialectic of change through struggle, also became early commentators on
record industry commodification, inscribing their own struggles with their record company, the
corporate giant in the pre-conglomerate era, CBS, in their music.”13
This points out that not only were the Clash destroying the demarcation between black and white music
by experimenting with reggae, they were destroying structures that were beginning to separate the
music even more fully. Also, the realization that the working class had a consciousness and a voice
became apparent: punks, through the obvious examples of racial discrimination, were able to realize
youth's position as second-class citizens in society. Punk was finally able to draw lines with self
realization: “The Queen's Jubilee, celebrating, as Clash commentator David Quantick put it, “twentyfive years of grinding the proletariat's face into the dirt with an iron heel.” would be greeted by the
Clash's first album, a veritable compendium of the grief of working-class English youth.”14 Notably,
the Queen's Jubilee was also greeted with heavy handed police censorship of the Sex Pistols
performances of God Save The Queen. These skirmishes between the recently self-aware punk rock
movement and power structures would continue to surround the existence of punk rock.
While the youth were starting to catch on to their motivation for fighting like Roadent, those in
power either could not see, or did not try too see the value in the punk rock movement. Mary Harron
vaguely describes:
“There was something electrifying about the mythology which the Sex Pistols had brought with
them. They were chaotic. It was wild, whereas everything had been more proficient in New
York. There was a sense of chaos, and the New York scene was not about chaos. But the Sex
Pistols created a sense of, “What the fuck is happening?” It has politics...In England, there was
nightmare coming to life, it was overpowering and disturbing. Something had been given
permission to show itself, it was exploding out.”15
Especially Harron's comment that the punk rock scene “has politics” demonstrates the confusion felt by
12
13
14
15
Savage, 231
D'Ambrosio, 156-7 from Lennis Broe's essay Clash and Burn: The Politics of Punks Permanent Revolution
D'Ambrosio, 159 from Lennis Broe's essay Clash and Burn: The Politics of Punks Permanent Revolution
Savage, 240-1
the public. Clearly punk rock was saying something, and clearly it was an “overpowering and
disturbing” movement, but what did that entail for society? Savage declares:
“The 'movement' had now developed, within six months, into a complex, ironic phenomenon
containing a rich mixture of truth and hype. Most of those involved had always wanted to
engage with the mass media, indeed sought self-justification by so doing, and they now had
their wish. The movement's growth was accelerated by this free publicity, but it was a Faustian
contract.”16
For those first six months the public had not yet decided on how to react to punk rock. The catalyst for
the negativity directed at punk rock was the appearance of the Sex Pistols on the Bill Grundy Show.
Martin Cloonan announces: “The band's offence had been to break the conventions of television, to
swear at tea time.”17 From that point on the public could only see the violence demonstrated during
concerts, the defiance of social norms and the destructive tendencies of the youth; little or no attempt
was made to stand up for the punk rock youth. Cloonan, in his discussion of censorship in Banned!
Censorship of Popular Music in Britain: 1967-1992 mentions the extreme censorship placed on punk
rock specifically after the negative media distributed about the Sex Pistols on the Bill Grundy Show.
After appearing as if they would stand up for the band, EMI fired the Sex Pistols. Cloonan explains:
“By the time of punk censorship by labels was nothing new—but sacking a band because of
public misbehaviour brought a new dimension to the equation. The Sex Pistols were sacked
by EMI after their television swearing and an alleged incident involving them spitting and
vomiting at Heathrow—which they always denied. ...EMI chairman Sir John Read said that: ...
“EMI has always sought to behave within contemporary limits of good taste,...It is against this
present-day social background that EMI has to make value judgments about the content of
records in particular. EMI has on a number of occasions taken steps to ban individual records,
and similarly to ban record sleeves or posters or other promotional material which it believed to
be offensive...EMI should not set itself up as a public censor, but it does seek to encourages
restraint.” ...I have quoted this at length because it shows a company acting not by some eternal
moral code or abstract theory of taste, but by what they think the public will accept at a
particular time—again illuminating the link between censorship and contemporary mores.”18
Punk, as a movement specifically trying to subvert contemporary mores based on their dissatisfaction
with the current societal structure, was therefore denied a voice. Interestingly, it seemed to be the media
that set these social standards. Again Cloonan has an opinion: “Leslie Hill, EMI's MD, continually
cited press pressure as the reason for the termination (Vermorel 1978, p. 63), which came officially on
22 January...I case this as a case of censorship and a very important one. The band was then the most
exciting in the country and it was denied the chance to issue records. Anarchy in the UK was censored
just as it started to make its impact.”19 As Cloonan points out, the Sex Pistols were about to release
what was possibly one of the clearest examples of punk ideology, and their message was denied on
account of the media's fear of public opinion. Johnny Rotten adequately expressed: “They've given us
up through fear and business pressure. They've kicked us in the teeth. A record company is there to
market records—not dictate terms (M M 26/3/77).”20 Additionally stores such as W. H. Smith and
HMV and Boots refused to stock punk albums or display punk posters, while venues began to refuse
punk performers gigs.21 Even politicians encouraged the censorship of punk rock:
“When God Save The Queen was released Lambeth Central MP Marcus Lipton commented
that: 'If pop music is going to be used to destroy our established institutions it ought to be
16
17
18
19
20
21
Savage, 231
Cloonan, 174
Cloonan, 48-9
Cloonan, 50
Cloonan, 51
Cloonan
destroyed first.' (N M E 18/6/77) and so tied his colours firmly to the censorial mast. He raised
the spectre of faceless businessmen exploiting pop's audience, saying that: 'It's a pure deliberate
commercial exploitation by...managers' (Vermorel 1978, p.211) and used the racist beatist
critique by saying that punk bands: “...work up the kids into a state of frenzied excitement, just
like witch doctors in Central Africa ...you keep on banging the drums and that sort of thing, and
they start foaming at the mouth (ibid. Emphasis on original).”22
This kind of statement displays not only extremism of superficiality by generalizing stereotypes of
witch doctors, drummers, and punk rock fans, but portrays the threat felt by powerful people.
While, admittedly, the antagonism of those in power is unsurprising, as punk bands were
essentially fighting everything those in power had created, the power-play between the punk rock youth
and institutions raised important questions of dependence. If the powerful felt the need to bombard a
group of teenage art students with volleys of denials to assert their dominion, clearly the punk rock
movement presented a valid threat. The observation that: “Laing (1985 p. xiii) notes... 'One of the most
significant achievements of punk was its ability to lay bare the operations of power in the leisure
apparatus,”23 references the sudden visibility of the power structures, especially in record companies
and live venues, that punk, perhaps unwittingly, exposed through the abject denials the movement
faced. Cloonan emphasizes the point:
“Punk gigs were subjected to a degree of censorship unparalleled in British popular music
history...In mid-November 1976 a punk package tour featuring America's Ramones and Talking
Heads and The Sex Pistols was announced. The American acts soon withdrew, to be replaced by
The Clash and The Damned. This tour was the ill fated Anarchy in the UK tour of which only
four of the original eighteen dates were played. The reason for the cancellations was the Grundy
interview. Marsh (1977, pp. 112/3) writes that after this: “...something very close to a temporary
nationwide hysteria set in at the prospect of the Sex Pistols spreading their influence around the
country during their much publicised tour.” Post-Grundy punk was out of bounds for many
venues...Robson wrote that Manchester's Electric Circus was 'one of the few places in the north
west where live punk music is allowed at all'.”24
The fear that the Sex Pistols would threaten society by “spreading their influence” displays the amount
of influence already in circulation, as well as revealing a very real battle waging between youth and
older society, sets of values, and power. The issue of dependence remains unresolved. On one hand, the
punk movement survived, and deeply influenced society, thanks in part to help from independents:
“The independents have tended to have a more liberal stocking policy, not necessarily for
ideological reasons, but for commercial ones—they can not afford not to sell records. For
example, during punk the independents were of vital import in circumventing the majors' bans
on God Save The Queen (N M E 25/6/77). The cost of this more liberal stocking policy has
sometimes been an appearance in the censorial firing line. Mike Lloyd music in Newcastle
Under Lyme received a phone call in 1977 threatening to fire bomb the shop if they continued
to stock punk records (N M E 3/9/77). and London's Small Wonder was raided by police for
stocking the Sex Pistols' Bollocks album (Savage 1991, p. 424).”25
On the other, radio companies, record companies, television and other media remain as powerful an
influence as in the seventies.
The punk rock movement represented the realization and self-recognition of a new voice: that
of the generally educated working-class youth. The British media, along with everyone else in power,
portrayed punk rock in a negative light on account of the threat it presented to societal norms. As to the
22
23
24
25
Cloonan, 280
Cloonan, 175
Cloonan, 174-175
Cloonan, 71-72
extent punk rock can be classified as a political movement; that is dependent on the actions taken by
the youth wielding their newly developed strength as a voice in society.
Bibliography
Robb, John. Punk Rock: An Oral History. Ebury Press: Great Britian. 2005.
Sabin, Roger (ed.), Punk Rock: So What?: The Cultural Legacy of Punk. Routledge: London, 2009
Savage, Jon, England's Dreaming: Sex Pistols and Punk Rock. Faber and Faber: London, 1991.
Cloonan, Martin. Banned!: Censorship of Popular Music in Britain 1967-1992. Arenaeum Press:
England. 1996
D'Ambrosio, Antonio (ed.). Let Fury Have the Hour: The Punk Rock Politics of Joe Strummer. Nation
Books: New York. 2004
Wicke, Peter, Rock Music: Culture, Aesthetics, and Sociology, Cambridge University Press, New York,
1995.
Szatmary, David, A Time to Rock: A Social History of Rock'N'Roll, Schirmer books, New York, 1987.