I went to a punk show last night with a few buddies, who apparently are connoisseurs, and caught the last two bands. The first band was loud as all fuck, but it was major enjoyment. They did a song called "Tina" by Quincy Punx with quite the catchy chorus ("Oh Tina if you really love me, you'll let me eat your brain") and another one about having sex in horror movies. Awesome.

The second band was the one that I had gone to see and... well, the drummer was awesome and the bass player, of course, was great and had fantastic showmanship. They did songs with the same kind of subject matter with some catchy hooks but for some reason, it was just not as good. It sounded like... noise. Just a lot of loud noise.

I think the main issue was the singer. Drunk and rowdy, he just kind of hollered into the mic. That sounds like punk, right? Yeah. But he was way less awesome than the first dude. Far sloppier and much less punchy and just kind of stupid. Even my Punk Connoisseur Buddies were put off by him. That's weird to me because I've heard plenty of punk bands that these dudes love, and most of the singers sound just like him. What's the difference?

I guess I feel like the whole genre is subjective. I mean, if Iggy fucken Pop emptied his beer all over me, it would be fucking rock, but this drunk douchebag did (yeah, he fucking did) and it was just bad form and pissed everyone off and I ended up standing outside for the majority of the show in the spirit of sheer protest. What's the difference???

Isn't the spirit of punk rock an enormous FUCK OFF directed at everyone? If so, why does the delivery matter? Does it really boil down to actual musical abilities and cohesiveness, like any other genre? Do you really have to bring it musically, lyrically, and theatrically, and pull it all off like you don't give a fuck about any of those things? It just seems like the most complicated, abstract genre ever.

I don't think I'll ever understand it.