Comments on: The Big Punk Rock Lie (and/or Warren Kinsella)

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:35:46 +0000

Very nice site!

By: Bruce Mowat

Bruce Mowat — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:43:34 +0000

Punk rock, in the strict musical sense, is that form of rock music characterized by economical , sometimes corporal (i.e sparse-to-non-existent solos) song structures, and usually executed in a high-tempo with aggressive energy of some source behind it.

Any and all other sociological fal de rol is superfluous, and subjective at that. You have right-wing punks, you have left-wing punks - big deal.

My point is: like the rest of the rock music canon, punk has a different set of musical values than “Pop”. This has been pointed out by such writers as Carducci (Rock & The Pop Narcotic) Any commentary by pop writers is irrelevant at best, disingenuous at worst.

It’s been a while since I heard the Hot Nasties, so I can’t really comment on whether they were any good. I listen to recordings, not memoirs, though, and quite frankly I don’t see the point to Mr Kinsella’s book. From what I understand, he’s playing up the sociological aspects of the genre more than the actual music per se. This has been the main stumbling block of punk rock since 1977. Did the Electric Eels, or the Ramones worry about such matters when they were defining the genre? I think not….

BF Mowat

PS Eisiger Wind 45 (1980) by Lilliput still rules…ROS remind me of them. You should check into this Carl…

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:46:47 +0000

Hi Carl. I’m not an intellectual but I am a fan of your column. I just wanted to say thanks for the August 27 one. I like to see Warren called occasionally on obvious bullshit. In the little press-release feature the Globe ran on him the previous week, he dissed Joe Strummer and Iggy Pop for selling out, but the author didn’t bother to point out the irony therein. And I said to myself, “where is the guy to do the irony-pointing-out?”

I went to school with Warren in the mid-80s. His Ottawa house was decorated at one time with posters of himself. Sometimes you can lose the forest in the trees.

By: Justin

Justin — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:42:43 +0000

Carl,

I’m not at all surprised at Kinsella’s response to your article. This guy is VERY sensitive about his punk cred and HATES anyone criticizing it.

I called him on his support of John Tory during the last Toronto mayoral campaign and basically said Tory was a corporate tool and so was anyone who supported him and I told him he shold take his book and shove it right up his sell-out ass (ok well what I lacked in finesse I made-up for in PUNK belligerence). He FLIPPED OUT and instead of addressing any of my specific comments he kept asking me for my name. He called me a chicken-shit and demanded I tell him who I was.

I responded that I didn’t think my identity had any relevance to the issues at hand and then he said that I was so obsessed with him I must want to ‘go on a date’ with him.

Basically he was trying to get me with ‘you want me in a gay way’ which works in school playgrounds everywhere I’m sure but is somewhat ineffective when lobbed at an out adult gay man.

Anyway I called him a sell-out and here’s a direct quote from an email response I received from him:

“You sure are angry. Your stuff ranks with some of the hatemail I periodically get from neo-Nazis. Seriously.”

Anyway Carl you got him bad and he knows it - anyone who calls him on his bullshit is either a ‘prissy arsewipe’ or a ‘neo-nazi’.

Oh and where I come from ‘nancy-boy’ is a term of endearment. Wear it with pride.