Okay, I’ll try to refrain from commenting on the Colorforms, stereotypical punk/skin fashion sense evident here in order to address something I think is of more import: Why would a bunch of kids who look like they were born nowhere near 1977 wanna be the “next generation (of 77)”? My understanding of “punk” has always been to be yourself, to challenge the status quo and what has come before, so it seems to me that looking like punk stereotypes and sounding like so many other bands and singing about the same old tired, vague shit (“Lawless Streets,” “Violent Youth,” getting drunk, blah blah blah) that was pretty much run into the ground two decades ago is a far cry from a “punk and skin evolution.” Seems to me that acting like punk’s equivalent of the Republican Party (safe, longing for the “good ol’ days,” unwilling to accept change, and wholly obsolete) is more of a regression. Fuck the past, kids, ‘cause it’s deader than Rosie O’Donnell’s career. Instead of being the “new generation of 77,” you should be more concerned with being the new generation of 2007. Go out and find your own “punk” noise instead of trying to emulate long-dead media stereotypes. While you’re at it, please pick out specific targets for your ire. Even something as lame as a simplistic “Bush sucks” or “the Democrats are pansies” is a damn sight more “punk” than hollow faux-militancy that doesn’t take a stand on anything.
–jimmy (Charged)