pcqgod wrote:I almost never buy any punk albums recorded after 1990. Well, I mean I'll buy scuzzy, sleazy stuff like the Sinisters and New Bomb Turks, but nothing that whiffs of mohawks and leather jackets with slogans written on them and "Oi oi oi" etc. I have no problem buying retro 60's garage, retro stoner rock, probably anything retro. But not punk rock. Which means that somewhere it somehow still means something to me, in that I feel that only stuff recorded during a certain time period has any authenticity, I suppose. Or maybe that stuff seemed so inauthentic the first time around that I won't have a 30-years-too-late revisiting of it. Whichever.
I have my own version of this, for sure. Some innate respect for the sanctity of organic seeming events and moments, and some deep distaste for the sort of "surface re-enactment" of ancient history. All things get absorbed
in some way - as they should - but the very notion of a person or people deliberately building a chintzy monument to an already extant monument that I can easily go see for myself...it seems like some massive affront to anyone who manages to bother with actual ideas.
There are exceptions for sure (the pastiche of the Rutles manages to work, and...there's some genuine personality and character behind something like High Llamas), but...basic minstrelsy is kind of "THAT'S what you came up with?"