Ask me anything
Whew! That is a very, very, very tough question. First of all, how do you qualify "best"? Is best where the band was really, really good, or is best where you personally had the best time?
I'll give you three of my top favs.
One of my top favs was in high school. David Lee Roth and Sammy Hagar were doing a joint tour where they both would play Van Halen songs. DLR was doing all VH and Sammy Hagar was doing VH and solo tunes. My pals and I went to see the show. Of course, we were (and still are) extremly pro-DLR and extremely anti-Van Hagar.
DLR came out first. This was the last tour where he had long hair and wore spandex and did a lot of karate moves on stage. DLR absolutely desroyed the stage. He did about 14 songs, all VH, and just kept doing hit after hit after hot, without any breaks in between. He did them all. he did "Hot for teacher." He did "Beautiful Girls." Of course he did "Jump" and did the jump(TM) off the drum riser at the end. Is was just a phenomenal rock show.
Then Sammy comes out, and let me tell you, he was looking a little... rough. He had a beach towel wrapped around himself. I think he wanted to look like a "beach party animal" (TM) but really just looked like a drunk slob. he took no less than three pauses doing the show to plug his tequila brand "Cabo Wabo"(TM) and even took two shots of it on stage. He then laid down for literally three songs and sang on his back. I don't know if he was drunk or just lazy, but the set was terrible. Anf by terrible, I mean awesome, because it was so hilarious. DLR destroyed it and Sammy was just sloppy. It was so great.
The second best show I've probably been to was probably Amebix in San Francisco. They suddenly reunited after being broken up for like 20 years and out of nowhere, basically said "Oh, yeah, we're playing San Francisco." My mind was blown because I figured that there would be no way that I could ever get to see Amebix. It so not a possibility that I never even considered it. Then, all of a sudden, there they were.
I went with a girl I was seeing at the time who was very much into the arts. The show was awesome because though she was very much not a crust punk girl, she was able to appreciate and enjoy Amebix for what they were. Second, Amebix fricking killed. I've got the only official Amebix live album fro their original run, "Make some fucking noise" and while that's a greta album, Amebix 2008 destroyed it. They were louder, faster, heavier, and just better in every way. It was an awesome show and Jello Biafra even showed up to sing Lardactyl. The Amebix reunion is proof alone that sometimes reunions are awesome and also that sometimes they blow the original run out of the water.
Probably the best show I've ever seen so far was the Rolling Stones in Hershey in 2005. I had just taken the LSAT's earlier that day and was feeling good. I went to panda express (which was a rare indulgence in my college days) and then went to my place and watched three whole episodes of Star Trek TNG. THEN, I drove to hershey and got a ticket off a scalper for like 1/3 the price. (At that tour, the scalpers had purchased like over 50% of the tickets, and finding that there isn't much of a markup on a $350 ticket, took a real bath on reselling tickets and lost a lot of money- it was awesome). The Rolling Stones came out and were absolutely phenomenal. Mick Jagger is without a doubt the greatest front man of all time. The Rolling stones are not THE ROLLING STONES because they are the rolling stones, but rather, the rolling stones are THE ROLLING STONES because they are the greatest rock band to ever play live and wrok like maniacs up on that stage. (I hope they are good this summer and don;t harm the legacy) The show was really awesome because they did a lot of semi-rare songs that are actually really, really good like "She's so cold" and an amazing cover of "Night time is the right time." Also, "Midnight rambler" was stretched out to like 15 minutes and blew my mind.
Then, after getting back to PSU, I stopped in at a friend's party and had a great time. (I did not drunk). THEN, on my way home at like 3am, I was pulled over just as I was parking my car out in one of PSU's vacant parking lots int he middle of a cow pasture. the police said that another police officer had seen me blow a stop sign. For some reason, maybe because I was tired, I gave the cop a lot of lip and demanded to speak to the cop that saw me run a stop sign. Really, they could have locked me up. BUT, just as things were getting tense, both police received a call on their walkie talkies saying they had to respond to a disturbance downtown. Having to leave immediately, the told me to "watch [myself]"and sped away, letting me off the hook. It was awesome.
PPS, I would have also added the Keith Morris/ Henry Rollins WM3 tour shows, but I think there might be a tour this summer that will be even better...
Writing "In the flat field."
The infinite horror that is Stargazy pie.
No. Usually, bands contact us and ask for us to post their music for streaming on our site.
It should go without saying that punknews never streams any band without first getting the band's consent.
Man, you gotta play this cool. You're already botching up this date and you haven't even asked her out yet.
First first of all, you do realize that you can do both, right? Like THE CLASSIC date is dinner AND a movie. What are you , some kind of cheapskate?
First second of all, unless you are in high school, movies do not make for good first dates. On first dates, you need to have a lot of positive interaction and a fair amount of talking. Movies are not conducive to that at all. You both just it there and watch something. You need to be impressing your girl. You don't want Patrick Stewart or Ryan Reynolds stealing your chances, bro! (In high school, this rule does not apply because chances are, you probably already know the person you are going on a date with fairly well and movies can be used as makeout spots.)
Second first of all, unless you are taking out a boring girl who has an expectation of what a date SHOULD be (usually dinner and a bar or something- boring) you need to come up with an original idea and fun thing to do that will make the girl have fun and show her that you like to have a good time. Some of the most fun dates I've ever had were at a low rent, rip-off Price is Right filming and at the Roller Disco. (Seriously, roller disco is awesome.) If you know a bunch about one area, a QUICK trip to museum can be pretty good, too. The colliery is that if you ARE really smooth, dinner and a trip to the bar can work. I am not smooth, so I need to rely on ancient dead egyptians, disco duck, and imitation bob barker to help me work my mojo.
Have fun mackin my home-dawg,
Yes, I spend a fair amount.
Other editors spend waaaaay more time then I do, even.
Totally rad, bro!
Let's drink some natty lites and just hang out! Just you and me, bro! Here, have another natty!
This is an excellent and multi-faceted question. If I am forced to pick between these two poles, I'd say that you are more correct with the former. But as both Jacques Costeau and Ron Jeremy said, "Let's dive deeper."
I wonder if the concept that punk used to be about uncool people finding a place is ovestated. If you look at photos of old Sex Pistols, Clash, Ramones, Buzzcocks, and Suicide concerts, all those people look pretty cool. Really, I think the original punk rockers, or original punk fans, might have been more like hipsters than we'd like to admit. They're not "jocks," but they are people who have certain societal norms to which they all agree is the proper way to conduct oneself and thereby a way to look "cool", at least in their own eyes. I'd bet that even bands like Crass, Subhumans, and Flux all head pretty insular communities, just like crust/anarcho punk has today.
But, if we look at photos of Black Flag shows, Misfits, Dead Kennedys, Bad Brains, Reagan Youth, you see more people that look like "outcasts." Also, notice, that the audience is much more predominantly male. I'd argue that punk, generally, was originally a place of hip, artistic people, and then in the states, eventually became a haven for uncool boys. I'd even go father that for the most part, ;late 70's early 80's punk was the domain of boys that didn't know how to communicate with girls. While the "cool guys" were out on dates, the awkward boys were going to punk concerts.
You might say, well, where are all the geeky girls in late 70's/early 80's punk? My guess is that because the area was so dominated with awkward boys flinging off energy and testosterone that it wasn't a pleasant place for most girls.
So, I'm not sure that punk was always the place of the "uncool kids" though in certain time places and periods it did seem that way.
But, more to your question, did punk make the mainstream more palatable or did the mainstream water down punk affects for its own use? If we look and see that guys like david Beckham wearing Crass, Fergie wearing Black Flag, Chris Brown wearing Cro-mags, and Miey Cyrus wearing motorhead, it definitely looks like the imagery, but not conceptual ideas, of punk have been taken by the mainstream for its own use. (I have no problem with becham, fergie, etc liking punk rock and wearing that imagery, but I'd bet if you asked them about the bands on their shirts, they wouldn't know thing one)
Generally speaking, What the mainstream does is take edgier ideas and water them down to make its own fashion and ideas new....er. The mainstream took the biker look from hells angels, watered it down, and made the leather jacket cool. The mainstream took the outrageous clothing choices of John waters and watered them down with Madonna, and later brittany and beyonce. So, it did with punk. You might see famous people wearing cro-mags, but I doubt that those people are zealously vegan and explore the concept of oneness. rather, they just like how the loo looks. I'd doubt that the world is anymore in line with the ideals of punk rock now than it was in 1976. If it is, I don;t think it's because punk has subverted the world, I think that the world is gradually becoming more "liberal" and in general, punk tends to be liberal.
Lastly, punk is less shocking because perhaps, conceptually, it hasn't grown too far beyond its originally starting point. The Sex Pistols were incredibly shocking for attacking the queen, so that was a novel, new, and dangerous concept. Now every punk band there is attacks a president. it might be a valid statement, but its not new and people have grown used to it, so its not shocking. Also, due to the dispersal of information and globalization, its harder to shock people these days because we are more aware of atrocities than ever. It's hard to be shocked by Jello Biafra putting penis pictures inside an album sleeve when people are shooting up schools, bombing parades, and holding people captive for 10 years.
So, why is punk less shocking these days? Because punk is less new than it used to be, people have co-opted the imagery, but not the general concept, and also, becuase the world itself seems to be more shocking (though maybe that's only because we know about more things now, were info about terrible things used to be less dispersed less).
Despite all that, punk is still pretty great. I'd just argue for the younger generations interested in punk to keep an open mind about music and not be so quick to determine that someone's music is not punk, and to not be so quick to berate or attack someone for thinking differently. Also, think for yourself. It is so easy to fall into a group's mindset. Take a moment, step back, and think about the party being attacked or assaulted, and see if you can;t see it from his or her perspective.
Again, I'll leave you with the words of Mr. Nick Blinko, not as an argument, but as something to ponder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8foeY9rNTTw&t=9m14s
p.s. LEARN YOUR PUNK HISTORY. THE RAMONES AND SEX PISTOLS WERE GREAT PEOPLES.
Right now, punknews does not allow html in the comments section. It has something to do with website abuse or conserving text for people that really need it or something. Every time I'm about to use a needless <b></b> tag, my mom was always like, "You know, children i Ethiopia would LOVE to be able to bold things, you know, but they can't because there's not enough bold to go around. Think about THAT."
I still am.
Ah yes, the timeless question. I answer considering the entire concepts of both franchises, and not necessarily as a movie to movie comparison.
First off, I am a huge Star Trek fan. Well, really, I'm only a huge TNG fan, though I do like DS9. Honestly, I think TOS is kind of dumb. I have never watched voyager or Enterprise. I like most of the movies, TOS, TNG, and the reboot included.
Star Trek is pretty cool because it features alien races that are often reflections of ourselves. Klingons are rage, Ferengi are greed, Vulcans are logic and pride, and so on. What is particularly interesting, is that they often show both the positive and negative traits of these attributes.
In Star Trek, people are more understanding and races are presented as having achieved utopia in many places, including Earth. Star Trek seems to suggest that if we really work towards a better future, then we can achieve it. In general, Star Trek is a show of positivity and understanding.
By contrast, Star Wars is of a much darker sort. The characters often act on greed and avarice, and quite frankly, have no motivation for doing so except that they are nasty people. Jabba the Hutt is presented as this horrible creature for enslaving people and killing them. But, Jabba is really a mirror of ourselves. Humans (and those d-bag federation people) like to think that hey are altruistic. But, if you are gardening, and you see a slug, what do you do? You kill it because it threatens your vegetable operation.
But, Jabba is just a GIANT SLUG that kills people for getting in the way of his operation. He does't consider the well being of those he harms because they are nothings too him, just as slugs (and indeed other people) are to us. JABBA IS THE HUMAN race. Gaze upon he wretched thing that you are, humans.
Likewise, unlike Star Trek, aside form Darth Vader, evil people often don't have redemption and often get away with their bad actions. Frankly, I think that's closer to life. Lastly, most heroes in star Trek are basically saints, never having selfish or hateful thoughts. But, the characters in SW, including luke, anakin, obi wan, Han, Chewie, Leia, and even Yoda, often deal with the fact that hatred, greed, anger, and despair are all a part of life that we all wrestle with it. Even the good guys face both sides of the coin, and the right answer is not always easy to discern, in opposition to Trek, were the good guys are usually always 100% good and have little internal conflict.
So, I have to give it to Star Wars. Plus, the space ships, monsters, and aliens in Star Wars are neater than Trek.
Han shot first,
Straight up. Sesame Street is a phenomenal show. It's one of the few children's shows that challenges them to come up to its level, instead of talking down or even below them. The kids might not understand everything that goes on in Sesame street, or the nuanced jokes, or the references to pop culture, but it does cause them to realize multiple things are going on at once and that not everything is spelled out, unlike other shows which frankly, I think are detrimental.
Plus, the characters are greta in that show and it is hella funny.
As for my favorite character, I'd have to go with either Elmo or the Cookie Monster, though I like the count, too (two... bwa ha hah aha... I crack myself up). I like Elmo because he encourages a sense of wonderment, adventure, and understanding. Also, he works as a stand in for the kids himself, as Elmo seems to basically be a five year old with a five year old questions.
But then, the cookie monster is also great. First he is the funniest character on the show. His crooked eyes alone crack me up. But, what I like about the cookie monster is that he's usually written as being fairly dumb, so it enables him to learn a valuable lesson. Plus, he is a living embodiment of frantic, wanton, chaotic fun, which I think all kids should be allowed to enjoy before systems such as school, jobs, peer groups, and people who just don't get it try to squash the concept of wackiness for the sake of wackiness or solidify the concept of conformity for the sake of conformity. So, Elmo is the man, but I gotta give it to my home-dawg, the CM for encouraging the youth to think independently, question authority, and getting mad grubby on some oatmeal raisins.
Damn! Tough question.
At first thought, you have to give it to science. Science is responsible for saving people's lives, making life easier, and basically creating society as we know it. I'm not a science-history professor, but I'm pretty sure that irrigation is the reason for all the things that we have. Without it, we'd still be living in caves and wearing skins. (Well, I still Do do that, but it's a personal choice.)
But, on the other hand, art is what makes life worth living. It allows us to communicate in a realm above language. It allows for the creation of complex and abstract thought. Also, art existed before science. Hence, art is responsible for science, as art was originally used for communication thus allowing the concept of science to be borne.
Also, art never killed anybody, but science has killed a TON of people.
Also, science allowed the creation of electronic acts such as The Bunny and the Bear, so science definitely loses.
PS Though, as terrible as it might be, the bunny and the bear is art without question...
PPS But, if art created science and science is what created the bunny and the bear, does that mean I have to say that art is less important than science, but science is built on top of art, but...
OH SHIT! I JUST INCEPTIONED MYSELF!
Yes, I do. Babies are wonderful. Babies are the few humans on earth that do not have outright malice for other human beings (along with Stevie Wonder, Jesus, and somewhat surprisingly, Tone-Loc).
Recently, there have been a lot of Anti-Baby rants on the internet, mainly based around the concept of "I don't want to see your baby posts on my facebook!"
Those people can go to hell. here's why:
1. Are you REALLY complaining that your facebook feed is too cluttered? Are you really WRITING an essay that your facebook feed is too cluttered? Isn't there something more productive that you could be doing with your time, like painting a picture, curing cancer, or sending me twelve bucks?
2. What kind of miserable sons of bitches don;t like babies? People that hate themselves, that's who. Babies represent untold promise, potential, wonderment, and just good old love. How can anyone hate that? Babies are cute, nice people to be around, and are always interested in what you are doing. They might shit their pants, but I'd rather hang out with someone that shits their pants than someone that feels it absolutely necessary to explain to me why not riding a bicycle is evil.
3. People complain that "oooh! the baby was crying in the restaurant or on the plane or down the block from me?" TOO BAD, DICKWEED. Suck it up. This world isn't constructed to be the most pleasant of all possibilities for you. Raising babies is hard and sometimes they cry. Enjoy the fact that that is your biggest worry and not that the Janjaweed are trying to machine gun you while you swim across a river, trying to escape racial genocide. (Sorry, I just a documentary... well, a trailer for a documentary)
4. People that don;t like babies are really just saying "I'm so self centered that all attention should be centered around me." Babies need attention, and thus, by their nature, absorb all attention within a 45 foot radius. (Midgets, function under similar physics, too). When these anti-baby people get mad about babies, it's because the world is showing them that in the grand scheme of things, they are nothing, eventually will die, and the world shall forget they ever existed.
As always, Nick Blinko, citing TS elliot, says it best.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOOFE9R5Rxk
So, really, your only chance at mortality, and betterment of the earth, is to baby it up. The more babies (with attentive parents) the better, I says.
Being that you are asking using a twitter syntax, have you tried... um... twitter?
Man, that's a ghoulish thing to ask. How do I want my possessions to be distributed after formspring shuts down? The closure of a website doesn't necessarily mandate that I contemplate my impending mortality.
Though, if Nick Blinko and Rudimentary Peni have taught me anything, it's always a good time to contemplate one's own impending mortality. So, my advice is this:
First, whatever it is that you want to do, start working on it today. I don't mean "today" is in pretty soon, but I mean TODAY, as in this very day. Go without sleep. Skip that episode of The Simpsons (SPOILER ALERT, its okay but not as good as the older stuff) Do't live vicariously through other people's achievements. The Grim Reaper will come knocking on your door before you know it and he will not wait a few weeks for you to wrap up that screenplay that you've been working on.
Second, in a more direct sense, go to that concert that you want to go to if you can. I'm not saying sell all your possessions to go see OM in Bangladesh or something, but if the only thing holding you back from going to a concert is "because you're sleepy" or because "you don't like the crowd" MAN UP (or woman up) junior. Go to that concert! Bad concerts don;t leave permanent scars and sometimes they are even enjoyable in their badness or comedically. (Ask me about Days of the New Sometime). BUT, good concerts will leave the impression of a lifetime. Ask me about GWAR, Amebix, Rolling Stones, Melvins, Jello, CD6, Morris/Rollins or OFF sometimes.
You'll be dead before you know it! Get to work!
Here are some parting words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej2CQdiXN0g
PS- Formspring is back, despite my words last week. So, if you want to ask us questions, you can still send us questions at formspring.
"so i see madball but who are the other three dudes?"