[kj] Southern Death Cult

[Jpwhkj at aol.com]

I think a lot of people got into punk because it was the exciting thing of the time, and then discovered the politics. Ironically for me it was the other way around - a friend who was into a the next big thing several times a year said to me "you'll love this, it's really political" and lent me the 12" of Holiday In Cambodia.

I've still got it... luckily he didn't want it back 'cos he moved on to the next big thing all too soon!

I'm going to see the Joke tonight not out of nostalgia (though I can do nostalgia easily enough!) but because they still put on a great show. (Err, mostly.)  Not as great as 25 years ago, true, but still worth seeing.

Jamie




iPat <pmdavies at gmail.com> writes:

>well theres different ways I see my 'punk' (for the sake of conversation). First of all there was the 14/15 year old who in 76/77 saw the beginnings of something exciting, didnt have any politics really but was entering THAT stage that any parent with teenagers can appreciate.LOL. it was fun and discovery
>Then there became a more progressive political development and teenage angst around 79 - 85 probably being worn down by the miners strike, Falklands war and peace camp fall out
>Then there was the self development stage where it wasnt 'lead' by bands although influences remained.

>
>So yes it changed my life but if say i sat down with Greig, for example, we'd be speaking in different toungues when refferring to punk.
>
>the funny thing is is that my son is currently being a punk. Not with hairstyle and clone leather jacket but by being completely anarchick. It just falls down when he cant be arsed to sign on that he comes to me for money. : (
>
>so no, i didnt go to glasgow. I saw KJ on the 1st tour. Its never lived up to that experience and when i saw they were still living in the past i knew i wasnt going. I didnt miss it. Had they played the new album i d have gone, but times too special to waste on living in the past.
>
>my generation iPat
>
>On 5/2/06, Jpwhkj at aol.com <Jpwhkj at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> It ought to - but these days I have less faith in movements (or whatever
>> you want to call them) than I did then. (Also, I can't speak for punk *now*,
>> 'cos I'm not really up to date on it.) But looking back on the early- to
>> mid-eighties, I'd say that only the anarcho bands (and in fact only a
>> portion of them) really had a coherent set of ideas. Most of the rest of
>> punk was just about having a good time (nothing wrong with that, of course)
>> and being hard / irritating your parents / whatever.
>>
>> Which is not to say that there weren't sound people involved in all of the
>> strands of punk - and that most of those strands produced relatively
>> thoughtful music. But I think most punks lost their commitment to whatever
>> it was when they stopped listening to the records, cut their hair, and got
>> jobs...
>>
>> On the other hand, punk certainly changed *some* peoples' lives
>> irrevocably - opened their eyes to their potential, both political and
>> personal. And that's more than you can say for most youth cults.
>>
>> Generalisation Jamie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>