Dubtep=the new punk. Discuss

metalboxproducts · Post by **metalboxproducts** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:24 pm

baz wrote:DIY as opposed to what? has this not always been the case with bedroom producers making underground dance music?

Yeah totelly. I should have rephrased it perhaps.

sick boy · Post by **sick boy** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:25 pm

The things that defined punk were that it was:
a) underground and in retaliation to mainstream culture
b) wishing to be almost entirely independent
c) overtly political and social in its communication

Grime could be seen to have a punk ethic to it on some of these grounds, namely the independent and political nature that it embodies. However, the political nature is obviously from a different angle, as many grime artists are concerned with commercial success.

Also, whereas the music IS by all accounts a reaction to its commercial predecessor of 2 step, I don't think many of the artists really made it this way out of disgust for its poppier grand dad. It is more an alternative to rap, poppy garage etc. than a unified front against it.

Dubstep is definetely not punk. It is mostly independently carried, but has very little political edge, and far more of a social and spiritual one (what with all this "mediatating on bass weight" ideology).

What I think Dubstep is, is a very interesting, very social counterpoint culture to the more aggressive, political nature of grime.

I am a firm believer in the harmony between grime and dubstep. I feel that together they both perfectly represent a social/political culture that many people living in urban centres are a part of.

alex bk-bk · Post by **alex bk-bk** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:47 pm

sounds like a load of bollocks to me, sorry

mos dan · Post by **mos dan** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:54 pm

Sick Boy wrote:The things that defined punk were that it was:
a) underground and in retaliation to mainstream culture
b) wishing to be almost entirely independent
c) overtly political and social in its communication

Grime could be seen to have a punk ethic to it on some of these grounds, namely the independent and political nature that it embodies. However, the political nature is obviously from a different angle, as many grime artists are concerned with commercial success.

Also, whereas the music IS by all accounts a reaction to its commercial predecessor of 2 step, I don't think many of the artists really made it this way out of disgust for its poppier grand dad. It is more an alternative to rap, poppy garage etc. than a unified front against it.

Dubstep is definetely not punk. It is mostly independently carried, but has very little political edge, and far more of a social and spiritual one (what with all this "mediatating on bass weight" ideology).

What I think Dubstep is, is a very interesting, very social counterpoint culture to the more aggressive, political nature of grime.

I am a firm believer in the harmony between grime and dubstep. I feel that together they both perfectly represent a social/political culture that many people living in urban centres are a part of.

respect for bothering to tackle the question i guess, but this is so full of holes i barely know where to start.

deck-o · Post by **deck-o** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:23 am

If it was influenced by Punk??
I think is all about this: "If you dont like the news... go out and make some!"

struggle · Post by **struggle** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:06 am

the first time i heard a dubstep mix (digital mystikz essential mix) reminded me of the excitement i felt the first time i was exposed to punk rock. also felt the same way the first time i heard acid house. really the only parallels for me.

pompende · Post by **pompende** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:16 am

now, now. lets all lok back to the Sunday Times article and remember that it was burnt-out punk rockers who wanted to relax at the end of the night that revitalized sales of dub reggae and thank you orbitz and thank you punk rockers and thank you Colombia Records for putting out the muzak remix cd in 2009 although it is such a big thing about race

wil blaze · Post by **wil blaze** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:08 pm

baz wrote:DIY as opposed to what? has this not always been the case with bedroom producers making underground dance music?

innit... this is standard not just for underground dance music but for many other underground sounds as well... i live with a few members of experimental rock bands who are just as much on the diy thing as us lot.

punk was punk and that's that... i'm sick of people trying to find a modern equivalent... dubstep is dubstep and that's that

peace

wil blaze · Post by **wil blaze** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:15 pm

thc wrote:stupid thread.
dont insult dubstep like this.

stupid thread yeah kinda
insulting? i think not.

punk was a heavy movement and is due all respect, so comparing dubstep with punk should be a complement if anything (stupid comparisom though it may be)

peace

alex bk-bk · Post by **alex bk-bk** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:28 pm

punk is all things to all people

"______ is the new punk" is the kind of pointless statement broadsheet supplements are particularly fond of.

come on

thc · Post by **thc** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:44 pm

Wil Blaze wrote:
thc wrote:stupid thread.
dont insult dubstep like this.
stupid thread yeah kinda
insulting? i think not.

punk was a heavy movement and is due all respect, so comparing dubstep with punk should be a complement if anything (stupid comparisom though it may be)

peace

I appreciate the DIYness, rebeliousness, and sometimes politically driven lyrics of Punk. But musically, it's not that impressive. Using the same few chords all the time, yelling, etc. There's a lot more that goes into the production of Dubstep than Punk. So to equate the two is an insult.

alex bk-bk · Post by **alex bk-bk** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:54 pm

matter of taste, and nowadays, history really

think youre taking this a bit literally there, thc.

rachel · Post by **rachel** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:54 pm

thc wrote:
Wil Blaze wrote:
thc wrote:stupid thread.
dont insult dubstep like this.
stupid thread yeah kinda
insulting? i think not.

punk was a heavy movement and is due all respect, so comparing dubstep with punk should be a complement if anything (stupid comparisom though it may be)

peace
I appreciate the DIYness, rebeliousness, and sometimes politically driven lyrics of Punk. But musically, it's not that impressive. Using the same few chords all the time, yelling, etc. There's a lot more that goes into the production of Dubstep than Punk. So to equate the two is an insult.

thread=pointless comparison, but comparing production values of punk (70s) and dubstep (now) is a bit dumb too. particularly given that the whole point of punk was 3 chords and yelling. in hindsight with everything that's gone on after punk is musically lightweight, but trust if i was 18 in 1977 (and prog rock was the only alternative) i'd have been gobbing along with the rest of them.

bare broadsheet supplement though. anyone got a no for the sunday times??

superisk · Post by **superisk** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:00 pm

Anyone for scrabble?

rachel · Post by **rachel** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:05 pm

Superisk wrote:Anyone for scrabble?

charmed, i'm sure...

rickdias · Post by **rickdias** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:06 pm

Superisk wrote:Anyone for scrabble?

yea, erm...

PNEUMONOULTRAMICROSCOPICSILICOVOLCANOCONIOSIS

triple word score!!! yay

thc · Post by **thc** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:14 pm

rachel wrote:thread=pointless comparison, but comparing production values of punk (70s) and dubstep (now) is a bit dumb too

it's not like punk was just in the 70s. It has continued on since then. Also, it doesnt matter what technology was availible then and now. There was a lot of amazing music made in the 70's and on. With Punk production though, they just weren't/aren't putting a lot into it, imo.

superisk · Post by **superisk** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:16 pm

rickdias wrote:
Superisk wrote:Anyone for scrabble?
yea, erm...

PNEUMONOULTRAMICROSCOPICSILICOVOLCANOCONIOSIS

triple word score!!! yay

Balls!

rachel · Post by **rachel** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:24 pm

thc wrote:
rachel wrote:thread=pointless comparison, but comparing production values of punk (70s) and dubstep (now) is a bit dumb too
it's not like punk was just in the 70s. It has continued on since then. Also, it doesnt matter what technology was availible then and now. There was a lot of amazing music made in the 70's and on. With Punk production though, they just weren't/aren't putting a lot into it, imo.

which was the point.

mos dan · Post by **mos dan** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:33 pm

thc wrote:
rachel wrote:thread=pointless comparison, but comparing production values of punk (70s) and dubstep (now) is a bit dumb too
it's not like punk was just in the 70s. It has continued on since then. Also, it doesnt matter what technology was availible then and now. There was a lot of amazing music made in the 70's and on. With Punk production though, they just weren't/aren't putting a lot into it, imo.

yeah, lazy bastards, couldn't they be bothered to record in a decent studio and polish their sound properly? why didn't they make an effort like elo or jean michelle jarre or pink floyd?

if you don't like punk fair enough but jesus talk about missing the point.

why doesn't it surprise me one bit that some dubstep heads have this attitude? the waste dubstep that's out there atm is waste because it's passion-less, meandering drivel, taking production values over feeling every time.

alex: "______ is the new punk" IS the kind of pointless statement broadsheet supplements like, sure, but only as an isolated soundbite. it's not a pointless faux-trendy soundbite if you actually bother to discuss WHY.

Dubtep=the new punk. Discuss

Who is online