Punk rock has never really had much patience with musical virtuosity. Actually, it'd be more accurate to say that for most of its history, punk has been actively hostile to virtuosity.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Punk was more based on social change than on music, so it didn't bother me too much. It wasn't really a musical threat.
Punk was defined by an attitude rather than a musical style.
A lot of punk rock is not going to be in the mainstream. It's below the radar. The beauty of it is that you're not supposed to always know. It's subterranean.
I think that clearly it has an influence, to be coming of age during the punk rock era, to come from a difficult and sporadically violent background, to have been in and out of such chaos, I think it actually helps. But I don't know for sure.
Punk was a protest against work and against boredom. It was a sign of life, a rant, a scream, a rejection of bourgeois morals. But have things improved since then? Arguably, they've got worse.
The thing about punk is that there are purists. Once you start going outside of that, they don't think what you're doing is punk rock.
Punk music is rebellious.
'Punk rock' is a word used by dilettantes and heartless manipulators about music that takes up the energies, the bodies, the hearts, the souls, the time and the minds of young men who give everything they have to it.
Punk is not just the sound, the music. Punk is a lifestyle.
People perceive punk rock in the sense of Sid Vicious, all strung-out, crazy and insane.
No opposing quotes found.