Ethics of Rock N Roll

Given the events of our latest show @ Mac's Bar, I find there to be a serious concern with how bands should handle themselves in confrontational situations. Their behavior is presupposed by the image or attitude the band carries with them either consciously and subconsciously. However, there is also a responsibility towards paying patrons who wish to see the band. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the events of last night I will summarize it briefly

We played a show at Mac's Bar in Lansing. We were on last, so we stayed and watched the other bands played. Went up, shook their hands, had some beers, etc. We brought in a good number of people to the show, who also bought drinks and payed $5 at the door. During our set, we played an MC5 song, Kick Out The Jams. A Detroit Rock staple and song that meant a lot to us. The drunk Sound Manager came up to us in the middle of it and began gesturing that we were jerking off, or rather, ruining the song. We may have played it poorly, this is a definite possibility. None us knew he was the Sound Manager at this point, until we realized no one else was laughing. So I began to stab him in the chest with my guitar hoping to get him to back off. At this point he began to heckle us more, saying he didn't appreciate a band attacking him and then informed us his position at Mac's. Kevin tried to be polite and calm about it until the guy kept going and told us to get out or something along those lines. Kevin got mad and threw the mic down, walking off stage. I shared his disgust, so i followed suit telling him to suck my cock. We walked outside and decided to just end it, pack up, and leave. So we did. There where a number of verbal exchanges between the band, our fans, and Seth (the heckler) which resulted in us becoming more enraged. Ryan talked to the guys running the show that night, who said they liked us and would have us back. We shook hands again with all the other bands, apologized, and exchanged numbers. The management came out to apologize for Seth behavior. We kindly accepted it and left. Tim and Willie (fans and friends of ours) stayed back a few minutes after us and were harassed even more by Seth, who tried to get Willie to punch him.

We played an alright show, put our heart into, and overall it was a good night. However, given the situation, the question arises if we acted correctly. I personally feel we did what we had to. We showed that we don't put up with bullshitters, acted non-violently, and voiced our opinions. We hurt no one, broke nothing, and continued to express our gratitude to the venue and other bands. Afterwards, we sat and discussed our behavior. Half the band felt we should have just told the guy to fuck off, make fun of him, and keep playing. The other half (mostly just me) felt we did the right thing and stood up for ourselves. It was because Seth posed himself as a representative of the bar. This offended Kevin and I the most. We had called earlier that night to see when we should arrive and they treated us like we were pestering them. This is what, at least for me, pissed me off the most. I had already felt unwelcome to an establishment we were trying to support by bringing people into in exchange for a place to play. It turns out Seth was an employee but Mac's staff tried to dismiss it as if he was just some asshole and to not let it bother us. It was a unanimous feeling amongst the band and fans that he should be fired, and that it was irresponsible of the bar to let him do what he did.

I question if continuing to play and making a fool of the heckler instead was the "Higher Ground" as opposed to hitting him or walking off. The strongest power we have as an up and coming band is in the choices we make. These choices dictate our reputation and path we take. The power to say "no" or not to stand up for bullshit like this is a right I believe we should exercise at any point necessary. Since we were almost done with our set anyways, I don't feel too bad about walking off as far as ripping our audience off. We put a lot into the performance until the end and we accomplished what we set out to do. What I regret most is not tipping the bartender at the end of the night. She deserved it, she tended to us well and was an innocent party. However, as far as the way we handled ourselves, I believe showing, from the start, you are not a band to be pushed around is a priceless attribute. This lacks in a lot of bands.

Yes, a band is a business, but this is secondary to band as an expressive and creative group. We play music, making money is only a secondary goal and should not be the incentive of a band. What one does physically, emotionally, vocally, instrumentally, and reactively on stage is also a creative expression. We expressed ourselves. Period. The ethics and implications should be discussed only in defense or as a counter example to this. We were pissed, we reacted. If anything, this was an act of loyalty to what our band stands for. Kevin and I both believe Seth would not have stopped. If we hit him we would have been kicked out. Our reaction was honest, authentic, a little alcohol inspired, but mostly predicated upon our own convictions as musicians and human beings.

There were a great deal of lessons learned from this incident, and I believe it is a turning point for us as a band. I implore musicians to stand up for what they believe in. Don't let venues or hecklers hassle you. Respect your fans and your fellow musicians. If you're in a crowd and someone is disrespecting the band, stop them.

Jam Econo, Stay True

In Defense of Michigan

These days Michigan is taking a severe beating, and I mean this more than economically. A lot of my fellow Michiganders are turning their backs to their densely wooded, sporadically weathered homeland. Because of the economy, harsh winters, and decomposing cities a lot of people plan to/have already left the state for more temperate and prosperous pastures. They're seeking out a more suitable environment expecting to find the happiness that has long eluded them here in Michigan. Well there is an obvious problem here. For one, you can take the person out of Michigan, but not the Michigan out of the person. This goes for anyone, anywhere. There is another level to nature and nurture when considering one's environment, and Michigan provides a unique one wherever one may have been raised. However, my biggest criticism for people looking to leave the state is the belief that some other, physical place will provide happiness, which I believe to be false.

Michigan can be a bitch, I know, but it provides a variety that few other states have. From the industrial melting pot of Detroit to the almost uncivilized woods of the UP, we could be a nation in our own right. Although we are often categorized as "Midwestern" we have a culture and attitude that I have not seen in any of our neighboring states. Yes, we're rude, but we're interesting! We're diverse, we're segregated, we're integrated, we're open, and we're traditional. We have the Motor City, Cherry capital, Great Lakes, Edmund Fitzsgereald, Motown, Iggy Pop, Ted Nugent, P-Funk, Hard Lessons, White Stripes, Red Wings, Pistons, State, Michigan, CCS and we're the freakin' Mitten State for God's sake! We have a lot of culture here, from hunting to hipsters.

What of course makes me proud to be from Michigan is our music scene. From the high energy grit of The Stooges to the flat out shredding power of Ted Nugent, we are Detroit Rock City from border to border. We have a thriving music scene, legendary venues, and rock n'roll, funk, soul, jazz, and blues heroes to boot. There is a Michigan spirit that has spread all over the world. If you've ever listened to a Stooges, Nugent, MC5, Temptations, or Alice Cooper album, you're aware of the visceral power that Michigan natives possess. We invented Punk for Christ sake! All the English and New York guys were doing was listening to Stooges albums and bam! Punk rock! In my opinion, neither the Ramones nor the Sex Pistols even touch Iggy Pop's intensity or talent, and I believe many will agree. We are the bedrock for reinvention, we're a big enough state to do our own thing without concern for the outside world and yet still have a large impact.

My purpose for writing this is to try and get it in people's heads not to neglect their birthplace. We're all citizens of the world today and are more effected by what goes on throughout the world than ever before. However, because of this I believe we neglect what's closest to us, what's right outside our windows. This is a call to everyone who still gives a damn about Michigan, and even more to those who do not, to take pride in this state. Not in its institutions, government, economy, or any of that. Take pride in the people, the culture and the possibility of what it can be. I'm speaking in a great degree to musicians as well. Support local music, local businesses, local labels, local breweries, and local organizations. Don't dismiss it, pack up and leave just because there is work to be done. Letting this state burn to the ground is the most selfish and irresponsible thing one can do, it is denying your roots, denying a part of you.

There is a strength is Michiganders, a strength to overcome harsh conditions, changing landscapes, boredom, isolation, overcrowding, and any number of conditions that would drive Californians insane. We've given birth to a number of revolutionary ideas and individuals. We inspire the world without receiving the credit deserved. We take the world in the iron grip of our...mitten.

I stress, happiness cannot be found outside, it is something within you. You can only make yourself happy, stop blaming Michigan winters and the economy! We can make something new of ourselves, we can come back from this slump. All it takes is a little hope, effort, and change in perspective. I personally love the change of season, unpredictability of the weather, and variety of landscapes Michigan has to offer. I challenge you to find something worthwhile to say. I'm sure you'll find more that you expect.

Jam Econo, Stay True

The Revolution of Choice

When thinking over Anarchism, it occurred to me that there is a much more practical and less radically toned way to achieve personal and social change. This is along the same line as the last meditation on Anarchism, when I discussed it as an extension of Existentialism. To put the idea simply, it is revolution of choice and attitude. In a consumer society, beyond the manipulation of consent and coercion of advertising, we still maintain the right of purchasing power. This seems to be where our voice is heard loudest and choices remain abundant (though they are diminishing at an alarming rate). What I propose, which is in no way novel, is to exercise our right of purchasing by withholding our purchases from those we believe to be corrupt or dissatisfactory to our moral convictions. Again, this is nothing novel. It is essentially boycotting with a new name. This is in accordance with my formerly proposed definition of Anarchism and in an extension of one's autonomy and freedom of choice.

To achieve social change, one can begin not by rallying or collectivist protests, but by a simple individual protest. To set a standard by one's own actions and through one's own choices they are exercising a great individual strength. One always has the choice over their mind, what they accept and what they deny so long as the consciousness of choice is there. To form a lifestyle which is in line with the change one wishes to achieve is the most effective, simplest (it is easier to rally yourself than convince others) forms of retaliation and revolution possible. To simply not comply and to choose otherwise than what is laid before you is the first step of defiance. Using your lifestyle, purchases, livelihood, occupation, diet, and social preoccupations to boycott activities and businesses will surely set the bar and inspire others. Being a strong individual makes a strong community, and if done right, it would spawn a strong community of individuals rather than followers.

Again, I propose this as a new form of Anarchism, one that starts with one's own definition of self and begins to shape the immediate world around them through the choices they ironically are condemned to make (that is one cannot-not make a choice). There is a great deal of rhetoric and genuinely compelling Anarchist thought that proposes a much more radical means to achieve freedom. However, I believe they overlook the freedom one already has, and the power one has through their own will. Also, I believe the language and socialist ideology associated with Anarchism has grown tired and become the butt end of ridicule. It seems to me like the ranting of a 16 year old Rage Against the Machine fan and will not cut to the heart of today's apathetic rabble.

What is needed is a simplification of it all, and a tie to one's own existence. To use Anarchism as a means to everyday activity, everyday choices. It is not to spray painted on walls but to be propagated with one's check books and housing choices. To live frugally, to support locally, to endorse spontaneity, creativity, and simplicity in life. It is more pragmatic, less lofty.

Jam Econo, Be True

A Meditation on Anarchism

Since I have been delving deeper and deeper into punk ideology and the formerly discussed "jam econo" philosophy, I have begun to take a great interest in alternative forms of "DIY" culture. This has grown and grown until it crossed over into an interest in Anarchism, but approached from a different perspective than ever before. I have considered Anarchism many times before, combed it over, and both dismissed and praised it. At the mention of Anarchism, most people either sneer or laugh. I have been guilty of both of these sentiments, and understand how the idea can be understood as foolish and lofty. However, when considering it in a novel way (at least novel to me), I have found something less absurd and romantic, and more pragmatic. This came from the assumption that we are already living in an Anarchistic state, most people either are not aware of it, or do not understand Anarchism as such.

Let me first explain my definition of Anarchism before delving any deeper. What I mean by it is a reality where people are free to live as they desire, with freedom of choice and the autonomy to do so. This also implies that there is no justification for authority, only that which we allow others to hold over us. Now, I may be missing something, but this sounds a lot like how we live now, and how human beings have always lived. I must also add that my affinity and understanding of existentialism has played a role in coming to this conclusion. I think Sartre's proclaimation that we are "condemned to be free" will help to better understand where I am coming from. If you accept this premise, that we are condemned to freedom, that this is the human conundrum, and the reality of our existence than Anarchism as described above may make a bit more sense. If we are condemned to be free, restricted by nothing but out own will and consequences of its actions, than we are living as Anarchists.

We are all, as individuals, making choices that dictate the outcome of our lives. When we wake up, we make the choice to eat, get dressed, go to work/school, pay attention, etc. These are not imposed on us. Yes, there are consequences if we do not do any of these things, but that is not a mandate. It is a choice. Furthermore, our acceptance of authority follows suit. We choose to listen to our boss because we value our job (or paycheck) and risk loosing this if we do not follow his command. We have the freedom to find another job, steal money, not pay bills, etc, however we choose to accept the common means of livelihood. The same goes for school. We consent to sitting quietly while this human being dictates facts to us. We accept their authority because of their demeanor, knowledge, personality, state certification, or simply so we may receive our grade and move on. In short, we abide by roles, rules, and command by choice alone.

Now, one may claim that consequence is the main reason for following laws and social norms. This is coupled with fear and insecurity to create an obedience and stagnation that keep us in line with the rabble, with the common state of affairs, and gives us some pride in the end. However, I more so agree with the idea that we follow them because we have placed our value somewhere within these confines and must follow them to achieve it. For example, if one values social acceptance, then they would do well to keep in line with what most consider "normal" and abide by the social norms that dictate this. However, if one values autonomy and individualism, than following social norms means dick and new avenues are thus opened. Both are Anarchist, both choosing their path, both probably achieving their desired goals.

I find it more important what one values as a motivating factor over consequentialism. Value can overcome consequences if one feels their personal goals or values are maintained. I can still be an individual in jail regardless of the consequences of my actions. The actions I took may be wretched in the eyes of society, but that does not negate them.

Also, I also do not agree with Anarchism as a mode of violent or chaotic upheaval of government. Most people associate Anarchism with nihilism and chaos. Although some may choose to be violent and chaotic, this does not cover the totality of Anarchist action. In my view, we are already living in a chaotic universe, devoid of care or purpose for humanity. We are placing our own order within, thus negating the misconception of Anarchism propagating chaos. I do not believe Anarchism has to be anything grandiose or revolutionary, it already exists and playing out as we speak. We are governed only by our will and obvious physical and cognitive limitations. However, what I do feel is important to point out, to emphasize is the awareness of this freedom as a transformative effect on one's will. By this I mean, understanding chaos, understanding the nihilism of the universe opens up doors to one's will and offers more alternatives to live by. When one understands their freedom and their state of Anarchism more novel ways of living become available.

This is what I see occurring in punk rock culture. People beginning to understand their autonomy, and realizing there are more choices of lifestyle than formerly known. Punk also has an inherent detest toward authority, a questioning of authority that is essential when understanding Anarchism. This opens a floodgate for creative living, valuing, learning, and understand. Out of this comes "Jam Econo" and "DIY", it brings power back into the hands of individuals. One can simply begin to dismiss normal authority, laws, social norms, and mores and begin to create their own set of ideas, their own society. For instance, the group The Minutemen found their current state of rockdom to be unachievable for the working man, and began to reassess what was important about rock music and make it work so one may still hold down a job, pay rent, etc rather than living in the dream world of sex, drugs, and excess. Minor Threat found the state of their peers and their preoccupation with drinking to be detestable so they began to make their own set of values. The created "coolness" out of the "uncool". These two took former limitations and made them into commendable goals. They made choices based on personal values to create a novel way to make music and to make it even more relevant.

In addition, the simplified, frugal, and well reasoned lifestyles some punk bands began to adopt allowed them to become more autonomous, and to create a new way of viewing success and life in general. By acknowledging their freedom of of choice and denying arbitrary social limitations and expectations, by simply realizing their condemnation to Anarchism, they built a more meaningful and original mainframe for their lives. They also did so without stepping on anyone, killing anyone, bringing down any government, or causing any social upheaval. They simply made different choices, individual choices that led them down a new path. Small choices amounted to larger ones, and worked to break down more and more mental hinderances and control structures. They used the physical reality and structure (housing, roads, food) of the established order but accepted none of their mental constructs. Again, all that they did was make different choices.

This is what I find most significant about Anarchism, or rather the realization of it. That as individuals we can begin to recreate ourselves and our world. We are condemned to choice, but many of us do not see it. We keep making them, but rarely evaluate if they are even the choices we want to make. It is simply an expansion of consciousness and a willing of our own will. A meta-cognitive understanding of our existential predicament and assessment of what were we want to be within it. We must question all. Question authority, validate authority, validate who we are, what we value, who we look up to, what our lives mean to us.

I must also add that nowhere in this do I find justification for equality or egalitarianism. We are equal so far that we are free and squishy things on a revolving rock. There are no rights nor anything that demands we all deserve equal treatment. However, I do believe in he benefits of cooperation, respect, and loyalty but only when earned. One can follow or trust whomever they wish, but what is wise or who deserves this is a whole other issue. Don't let anyone tell you Anarchism should be associated with equality, or socialism, or any sort of leveling down of society. We are very diverse and all have vasty different outlooks, skills, aptitudes, physical capabilities and so on. To deny or try and get rid of this would be a shame and counterproductive to achieving anything most collectivists would view as "good" or productive. Herd mentality is a lack of understanding or realization of one's autonomy. I will also not be one to say what is better or worse for human beings to possess or do. I will only comment on what I personally view as commendable, positive, and worth praise.

Jam Econo, Stay True

Jammin' Econo

The concept of Jam Econo is one that I have believed in with strong conviction for a long time. It almost seems innate. This concept simply means to be frugal, and cut away all the fat from your life. The actual phrase itself was coined by a band named The Minutemen (whom you should all look into) and is a by this philosophy and means of business they ran their band. Even their songs where stripped down to under a minute to ensure that no effort or time be used on anything but the essentials. They didn't play fast, just efficiently I suppose.

Anyhow, I find this idea to be very powerful and effective depending on what one wishes to do with their time. I've always found that the more one spends they more they have to work, and the more they work the less time they have to do what they enjoy. It seemed self defeating because I noticed people would spend a great deal of time working and making money yet had very little time to use that money. Often they would just splurge it all on some stupid thing that, again, they would have little time to use. I realized this pretty early on and decided that this whole cycle was a huge waste of time, and I would rather just work less and spend less so I had time to do whatever I wanted.

During my middle teens, when I first began working, I adopted a yearly work schedule that I use to this day. That is, work in the summer and save up money, spend as little as possible, figure out what I could do without, and quit during the Fall. I chose this because I hate summer and would rather be busy with something other than laying around sweating. Also,I love the Fall and Winter and would rather spend it unemployed and enjoying myself. My parents found this to be foolish, and stood by the ethos that "you can never have enough money" and that I should keep working "just in case something happens". Things did happen that required money, but I somehow figured out a way to work through it without getting a job. I would always resume work in the late Winter/Spring and continue the pattern. This worked out beautifully because I was able to enjoy a lot of my own time and spend it as I saw fit, and also give me a goal while working. It always sucked going back to work, but I also always made the adjustment and got through it.

Now, the assumption I always had to deal with was that I am lazy. Now, laziness is an ambiguous term that is widely used, but never spoken to mean the same thing. Laziness to me is the inability for one to motivate themselves. What people often meant however, was "one who does 'nothing' or does not constantly busy themselves". I found neither of these fitting to my outlook. It took a great deal of motivation to get one's self back to work, and not to spend money on stupid shit. The latter definition does not fit as well because I never did "nothing", I was constantly thinking, planning, reading, writing, learning, growing, experiencing, etc. The issue is that my parents/society do not value the same things I do. They value something tangible, like money and products. I value the intangible, such as thoughts, personal growth, and creativity. Laziness was an easy phrase to throw on it to make me feel guilty, and it worked.

I was plagued with guilt for my lifestyle, for enjoying sitting around doing "nothing" and felt like a weirdo because I didn't crave all the glitz and glamor of hard work and stupid shit to buy. Obviously, without good reason. This is what I despised most. I didn't know why I felt so guilty, I knew what I was doing wasn't anything contemptible, and it worked! I've always justified the guilt by throwing some distant point in the future when I would have to "get serious" and drop these silly ways of frugality and idleness. However, I later discovered otherwise.

There has always been a group of people who shared my sentiment. The detest for consumerism, materialism, "progress", busybodies, and guilt-slingers. They are referred to as slackers, idlers, ramblers, flauniers, hippies, beatniks, philosophers, punk rockers, squatters, lay-abouts, bums, and deadbeats. These were, in reality, musicians, poets, writers, promoters, performers, philosophers, activists, free-thinkers, naturalists, environmentalists, socialists, comedians, critics, and various other individuals who decide to occupy their time with, well, whatever they find to be important. These are people who value the same intangible things as I do, and find them to be vastly more important than, say, a big screen television, fancy cloths, or frivolous status symbols. To us, status means dick.

Here is where I began to find a large, yet disbursed community of thinkers like myself. I began to have hope and finally shed the guilt. See, what the busybodies of the world do not see is this huge mirror in front of them called "self evaluation". They tend to ignore it and continue on their path of whatever it is they find to be important in these material and status items. Some don't know there is an alternative, some do not care, most haven't even considered changing. I noticed early on all the stress, anxiety, and all around headaches having a lot of stuff can cause. My parents started off frugal, scraping buy, working hard to get ahead. And we were happy. Then, they got ahead, got a bigger house, nicer car, name brand foods, gazebo, all the ritz a middle class family could want. They worked hard for it, mostly in spite of their siblings and parents. They're happy now, but were happy then, and had a lot less to loose. Now they have more worries, more headaches, more risks, more everything, except more happiness. And they still preach the same old ethos. Well, I love my parents and am grateful for all they have given me. BUT, I also see their shortcomings. I found out about jamming econo. About living without, being content. The antithesis of this American living.

Now we're in a recession and people are beginning to see the faults of their spending, how hollow it all is, and are finding "cheaper alternatives". This will pass, as soon as the economy starts booming. There are more TV's, Playstations, and Ipods to be bought. Now with Green Technology too! Ooooo! The problem is they haven't found that intangible stuff yet. Its there inside of them, but they won't look in the mirror to find it. This recession showed them a glimpse of the fact "wow, maybe I don't need Colgate toothpaste, this off brand stuff works fine" or "wow, going to the library saves me a lot of money on DVD's/Books/etc."

The point is, that there is an alternative way to live. It takes a lot of work, and a lot of criticism from both within and without. Living simply means evaluating what you really need, what's really important to you, and cutting away all the fat. Cloths can be the fat, activities can be the fat, friends can be the fat, diet can be the fat, your whole lifestyle can be the fat. Its about trimming your life down to the bone so you have more room to grow and more time to do it with. You don't have to live like a beggar, you can have a house, car, TV all that jazz. But be reasonable with it. Ignore the Joneses, ignore expectations on you, ignore all the ads trying to sell you a lifestyle. Jamming Econo is a way to keep your life quiet so when you want to be heard, when you want to be loud, it'll be noticeable. Its like writing a song, the softer the verse the more powerful the choruses will be. There are tons of resources out there. Look up the Dudespaper, the Idler magazine, Thearou, Nietzsche, Tom Hodgkinson, The Minutemen, punk rock, Ian Mackaye, Black Flag, Hippies, read Marx, the Yippies, the Transcendentalists, Emerson, The Beatniks, Samuel Johnson, Sartre, Epicurus, Gandhi, the Luddites, Zen buddhism, Alan Watts, and anyone who believes less is truly more. It is often with a tinge of self irony and humor.

Make more time for yourself, for your life, listen to your mind and you won't believe the freedom you find.

Jam Econo, Be True

Letter to Rep Haveman

Dear Representative Haveman,

I am writing out of concern for your proposed legislation on limiting the Bridge Card, and more specifically its effect on college students. I am currently attending Central Michigan University, and although I do not have a Bridge Card I do know a number of students who do. This card is a godsend to students, because it helps lower the already absurd amount of finances and debt necessary to attend a major university by eliminating food expenses from student's budgets. Although I do share your sentiment on the misuse of this card by those who may not need it or by those who use the card to "buy alcohol and tobacco", I must point out that the number of people who use this card for its intended purposes greatly outweighs the abusers. I know this because there is a limitation built into the program that forbids holders from purchasing anything besides groceries. This means that there is no real threat of misuse by college students, since they are unable to use their card for alcohol and tobacco. Also, there is no way one could buy illegal drugs or lottery tickets with the card. Most drug dealers do not own a credit card system, and as stated above, only groceries are allowed. One cannot even purchase fast food on the Bridge Card Program, let alone pot or lotto tickets.

I urge you to reconsider the limitation on who may or may not be eligible for this privilege, especially in our economic state. Students who are dependents should not be barred from this financial assistance because although they may receive some benefit from their parents, this does not mean they are fully dependent on them. For example, I am a dependent under my parents and receive medical benefits under their name, which was already difficult due to my father's self-employment. However, I am paying my own way through school, and taking on a large amount of debt to do so. My parents are unable to pay for my tuition and living expenses, and if I claim myself as independent I would lose health care, if I claim myself a dependent I would lose the opportunity to receive a Bridge Card.

The logic of this legislation is contradictory. It does not make sense for its intended purposes and will hurt already struggling college students. It is misinformed and destructive to a demographic of Michigan tax-paying citizens who may need this program to get them through an already difficult and frugal time. If anything, I would propose a bill to expand the use of the card to more college majors, or for an alternative program geared towards college students. This would solve the fears of misuse, even though this possibility already does not exist. I strongly urge you to reconsider your convictions. This legislation is based on misconceptions, misinformation, and a general ignorance of college students.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Kristopher Harrison

Punk Rock and My Personal Evolution

I feel the more I learn about punk music, particularly that of the early-mid 80's in America, the more I begin to understand where I want to go and how I want to live. Looking at the band Black Flag, which I used to look up to as the epitome of "punk" music because of its intensity and rawness I now begin to contempt. Not for the formerly stated rawness and intensity, but more so for Henry Rollin's part in the band. I respect Henry Rollins for his work ethic and intense performance, as well as opinions on things. I used to think of him as a very strong person. On the flip side, Ian Mackaye, whom I also respect a great deal, used to rub me the wrong way because of his preaching and "buzz killing" attributes. For example, he stops playing if people are are speaking too loud, getting too rowdy etc. This, on the one hand, is respectable because of his ability to control a situation that would otherwise become a contemptible experience for concert goers, and that it brings a different form of control to an already alternative form of performing music.

Anyways, the dichotomy of these two figures in punk, who are ironically best friends and have been for years, represents more a dichotomy of ideas and their place in my outlook on music/life. Henry Rollins is a more disturbed person, often pitying himself and delving deep into his own troubled past. He uses music as an outlet for this, as a sort of psychological cleansing (which Black Flag guitarist Gregg Ginn describes their music to be essentially). Ian Mackaye, however, commands a mastery over himself and uses well thought out ideas and ethos to dictate his life. He emits a more "positive" archetype of a punk rocker. He also work to help his community, and though an international "punk icon", i guess you could call him, he focuses on his roots in Washington D.C. and continually works from a "simplified" mindset. That is, he's pragmatically efficient to the point where it exudes spirituality, though not at all in the normal sense. Rollins and Mackaye both have a strong work ethic, though they operate from on very different motivational catalysts. Rollins keeps himself busy with his work to forget his troubled past, or to avoid depression. This is at least the attitude he gives off in interviews and spoken word performances. Mackaye on the other hand works because of his own personal conviction, a desire for alternative lifestyles, and genuine love for passion for honest music and the community in which it thrives. Here is where I begin to see my own dilemma.

Understanding the differences between the two, which I believe are more heavily based on each individual's motivation, helps me to evaluate certain attitudes and values I have had in the past and am beginning to adopt now. Before going any further,, I must separate my personality and life arbitrarily in order to assess some sort of personal evolution. "Old Kris" is the cynical, unbearably angry self/attitude I carried not more than a year ago. In this mindset I hated everything and everyone, again in an abstract sense. I had many people I loved and admired, but I had an intense dissatisfaction and anger towards all of humanity and existence. I felt the only hope for my, or any other life would be annihilation. In addition, I walked high on a pedestal of elitism and preachiness. I suffered from the problem of Nihilism, that life had no meaning, no purpose, and nothing was better than anything else. Again, I believed this in an abstract sense; i.e I still enjoyed Coke over Pepsi. Here, I was unable to cope with not being told or given a standard or set of ideas and beliefs to dictate my life. No God, no laws, no standards, no bedrock to rest any of my assumptions. I was seeking an end for life. Here is where I see Rollins. I immersed myself in Philosophy and contempt, he immersed himself in music/writing. Both are great creative outlets when not a purpose unto itself. This is like building a house on quicksand, although there is activity and something to be shown for one's labor, it is in vain.

I can blame this attitude on a number of different people or life events, but I know it was only myself, and only my own mind that was weighing me down: and their was a tremendous weight. This reflected in my music, my friends, my inability to commit to anything, my indecision, and my whimsical thinking. I was looking for escapes in everything. It was not until I began to stop blaming others and accept the fact that there is no one or nothing to turn to. I found solace in music still, as well as Philosophy (Nietzsche mostly), but I began to understand what the real problem was. I was not accepting my existence as an end unto itself. This is a very liberating and empowering realization. It implies that one is always accomplishing their purpose, if they so choose to name it as such. For me, this is it. This is positive existentialism, atheism, Punk rock, spiritualism, whatever. This was my bedrock. After this I began to care less and less about my identity, about philosophy as I had thought of it before (as a dick size comparing contest) and began to understand what it meant to lie life "authentically". Here is where I begin to understand Mackaye's side of things. Mackaye must have some understanding of this, either conscious or unconscious, because he stands firmly on his own two feet. He takes hold of his life, does not feel pity for himself (to my knowledge) and works to improve what he can. He is a positive self-willer. One who is able to use his life as an experiment, and work to find a better way of living for himself. Again, I do not so much like Mackaye because of him as a person, I disagree with him on many of his beliefs and conviction, but I do support the idea he represents. He represents action to me. Will power, a form of existing that allows one to be a true individual in such a herd-centered world. He jams econo, he plays with his heart, he speaks his mind, and he stands by his convictions. This is what I have discovered. It is a confidence not in an objective way of living that a religion or "movement" would provide, but a way of assessing YOUR life and living it YOUR way. It is well known too that Mackaye sparked the whole "Straight Edge" thing unintentional. It was more so fed off of his own personal example by either those who were/are direction less and were looking for their savior, or others who just thought it was a good idea.

This is the power I have found. Although I am not as strong or settled on my convictions or beliefs as Mackaye, there is a cognitive change that has occurred. An existential outlook that allows me to live my own life. To embrace nihilism rather than deny it, or whimper in its shadow. This has allowed me to revalue a great deal of things that I had formerly believed in, but on a much more authentic level. I love punk not for its brand, nor its nostalgia, but for its model. It carried the torch of self reliance that has been passed since at least the Socratic days. Thinking for yourself, living vitally, being innovative and creative, simple living, questioning authority, and philosophizing are all tenants of this. It is not restricted to punk, nor rock, nor music, or art or anything. It is a model of living that allows one, empowers one, to live their own lives. Nietzsche lived it, Socrates lived it, Iggy Pop lives it, Ian and Rollins live it, and we can all live it.

Now time to preach.

I see in my own problem a problem a lot of people have, more so for atheists, but also anybody who is looking to live a more honest life. I do not have idols. Contrary to what you may get from my Mackaye/Rollins example, I do not idolize or worship them in any way. They are just examples of other musicians/artists/businessmen who live in a way I find to be acceptable. I also do not place myself in pigeon holes anymore, nor try to play out roles. This is what distresses me. People are constantly trying to place themselves into molds. They are the "funny fat guy", the "intellectual coffee shop occupant", or the "angry Metalhead". Its all bullshit, and its all doomed to make one unhappy. You are a much better human being than you suppose, and probably much more interesting you remain yourself rather than limiting your personality to some prefabricated idea so people will like you. If people find you vulgar, fuck them. If they find you eccentric, marvel in it. Don't be afraid to be a weirdo or outcast. Be comfortable with being by yourself. Have strong relationships, and never wish away where you are in life. I do not speak this from a mountain down to you "lowly commoners". I am speaking as a fellow human being, from my own experience. Its your choice to listen. Hell, its all your choice.

I'll finish by pointing out also that I do not respect Henry Rollins any less, he is a wonderful person who has used his pain to do great things for the world.I could write just as flattering an essay on him. That is for another time, and another issue.

Jam Econo, Stay True