^^ it sort of did, it mutated into post-punk --> no wave -- > industrial --> noise. but that's about as far as you can go, short of using the performance itself to smash through aesthetic boundaries, such as the audience/performer distinction.
Quote:
Punk to me, and this will sound appropriately ignorant to fans of the genre, is sort of like rock and roll without the skill or mass relate-ability.
Punk speaks to a small audience of people who don't like to follow the norm even when it is the best path.
|
i think punk is much more relatable than most forms of music simply because it doesn't constrict itself to a simple aesthetic form, which would isolate it, but instead attaches itself to freedom and rebellion. by this definition, punk very quickly ceased to be punk and became popular music, but as i pointed out the idea of punk (or the idea of dada) kept evolving until it hit a brick wall (and was then synthesized back into popular music, yay for contemporary music with nowhere left to go!).
also, when you say "don't like to follow the norm even though it's the best path..."
think of disco as the yellow brick road. shiny, glistening, easy to walk on, predictable, etc. punk is like taking the path that goes through a swamp. sure, it stinks, it's sludgy, hard to get through, but it's an experience, it's something real, and if you rid yourself of your preconceptions you will learn to enjoy it. is one path better than the other? they just appeal to different folks...