The Philosophy of Punk: More Than Noise

Rating:
Summary: accurate depiction of what punk rock is and what it is about
Review: a well written depiction of what punk rock is and what the punk rock scene is. if you are interested in punk rock and want to learn about it's history, philosophies or anything else that has to do with punk rock, then READ THIS BOOK!!!

Rating:
Summary: Insightful
Review: An insightful account of the major discourses running through and holding together the punk rock subculture. O'Hara is obviously an active proponent of the scene, as his voice is intelligent yet empassioned. This does lend itself to a glaring lack of objectivity and some overgeneralizations, however, which may fuel his relegation of punk's more insidious views - i.e., racism, sexism, etc. - to an extreme minority status within the scene. Regardless, it is an excellent primer for the initiated, the unitiated, or anyone in between seeking the pulse of this vibrant, much maligned entity.

Rating:
Summary: Philosophy of bunk
Review: As a vegan, eco-minded, anti-sexist/anti-homophobic punk, I'm guessing I'm supposed to like this, but I don't. This is not THE philosophy of punk; hell, I'm not sure such a definitive thing even exists. It's one man's badly argued, inarticulate take on punk rock. Which is fine in itself, but when he makes bizarre, wide-ranging assertions about what it is, who punks are, and the history of punk, and then has the guts to make it sound like a punk catechism, he's in way over his head.

Punk rock to Craig O'hara appears to be a perfect and finished system of thought, or rather leftist protest punk does. Any other part of punk culture isn't real; it's all either facists or fasion victims. Whole chapters are devoted to the 'scourges' of the Straight Edge and skinhead scenes, which he basicly writes off by providing bone-headed quotes from Vegan Reich and Agnostic Front, respectively. Since I know skinheads who don't listen to Agnostic Front, LOTS of sXe kids who don't listen to Vegan Reich, and members of both scenes who are peaceful, cool guys, I have to wonder what he's getting at.

Similarly, statements such as "when it comes to choosing a political ideology....punks are primarily anarchists" are beyond puzzling. Where does he get this? It certainly doesn't jive with my observations. Nor do statements like "punks...respect a woman's right to choose" and "punks...regard organized religion...as anti-individual, and just plain dumb". I know pro-life punks, religious punks, plenty of non-anarchist punks. I know racist, meat-eating, sexist, litering, violent, conformist, and homophobic punks, but to read thsi book you'd think these things were all oxymorons.

Music gets a short shrift too; Craig mentions a few gigs and bands purely for political perspective, and gives less than a page to punk rock's (pre-political) origins. How a supposedly definitive book on Punk leaves out PUNK ROCK, I have no idea. Iggy Pop doesn't even get mentioned once, and any pre-CRASS bands will maybe get a sentence in the beginning. Though probably not.

I would claim this should have stayed as a thesis paper, but that would be too generous. Even as a paper, it's deficiencies in coherence, flow, and objectivity would limit it's usefulness. Acedemic types will cringe; old punks will cringe; young impressionable punks will get a lot of slanted misinformation; the occasional leftist punk who doesn't mind a bit of intellectual dishonesty will eat it up.

The extra star is for the collected flyers and gig photos, and for pity. It's basicly a one star deal.

Rating:
Summary: Comedy
Review: At times this book reads like Marxist literature written by a high school senior for high school freshmen. At times it shows the absolute humor of a group of over hormoned, under-educated authority adverse teens trying to legitmize their hodge podge philosophy. The idea that any of their ideas is original is particulary comical. It amazes me that the author doesn't recognize the some of the punk ideas as Christian and some as(gasp) Republican. I found absolutely no original ideas in the punk movement. The ideas of individual responsibility go back thousands of years. I hope the author studied Emerson and the Federalist party in American history. The author is, apparently, a punk trying to add philosophical meaning to a realtively empty movement that really is no different than the many many teen movements that litter history before them. I find the blatant distortion and omission of facts, the highly selective use of facts, and the repeated application of the most cynical interpretation of historical events as humorous. I think the author (and all Punks) ought to wait until they at least take a course or two in history before they claim so much. I recommend they find some historians and economists help them refine their philosophy rather than follow the catch phrases of punk bands. This book is excellent in exposing the weak reasoning of a group of angry youths trying to apply meaning to their lives. They may well intentioned and their goals sometimes noble, but their understanding of history, economics, and socialogy is pitifully weak. I consider this book a laughable attempt of a punk trying to reveal the good side of the punk movement. It is notobjective journalism.

Rating:
Summary: punk bible
Review: i am a teenager who has just recently joined the punk scene. this book showed me what i had always believed- that punk was about more than just music and fashion. there really is a moral attitude towards others and towards the planet that truly defines punk. many of the threories and ideas in this book nearly blew me away. this author is so intelligent and gives a lot of personal imput into it that makes it really interesting to read. a must for anyone just entering the scene!

Rating:
Summary: Flimsy
Review: I certainly appreciate the intentions of this book, and wish that everything in it were true. However, the punk "movement" (if it can be called such a thing) is not nearly as disciplined or organized as this book makes it appear. As someone who believes in at least many of the platitudes displayed in _Philosophy of Punk_, I have to say that, though I wish it were different, the punk scene often does not live up to the image the O'Hara creates for it. The book is wildly enthusiastic, hardly ever questioning the scene's commitment to a leftist utopian vision. O'Hara seems to have either missed or omitted the fact that punk can have a distinctive reactionary element as well, that it is often dominated by males, that it can be quite hostile to homosexuals and that many individuals involved with it are downright ignorant. That's not to say that punk rock hasn't done great things for me personally or that it isn't a generally positive force in the world, but O'Hara clearly overestimates the movement's importance and clarity. Additionally, the book lacks any real academic credentials. O'Hara cites a handful of the more well known zines in order to underline some of his points, but has no real scientific tools to measure the feelings or beliefs of the punk scene, other than his highly personal (and thus, biased) experience in the scene himself. In large part because of this, the book lacks a real sense of introspection and seems to harbor no doubts about the righteousness of the scene. In my opinion, self-criticism is very punk, and it's complete absence makes the book hardly anything more than propaganda.

Rating:
Summary: Flimsy
Review: I certainly appreciate the intentions of this book, and wish that everything in it were true. However, the punk "movement" (if it can be called such a thing) is not nearly as disciplined or organized as this book makes it appear. As someone who believes in at least many of the platitudes displayed in _Philosophy of Punk_, I have to say that, though I wish it were different, the punk scene often does not live up to the image the O'Hara creates for it. The book is wildly enthusiastic, hardly ever questioning the scene's commitment to a leftist utopian vision. O'Hara seems to have either missed or omitted the fact that punk can have a distinctive reactionary element as well, that it is often dominated by males, that it can be quite hostile to homosexuals and that many individuals involved with it are downright ignorant. That's not to say that punk rock hasn't done great things for me personally or that it isn't a generally positive force in the world, but O'Hara clearly overestimates the movement's importance and clarity. Additionally, the book lacks any real academic credentials. O'Hara cites a handful of the more well known zines in order to underline some of his points, but has no real scientific tools to measure the feelings or beliefs of the punk scene, other than his highly personal (and thus, biased) experience in the scene himself. In large part because of this, the book lacks a real sense of introspection and seems to harbor no doubts about the righteousness of the scene. In my opinion, self-criticism is very punk, and it's complete absence makes the book hardly anything more than propaganda.

Rating:
Summary: CRAIG O'HARA GET OUT OF PUNX!
Review: I think that the title of this review, which is derived from a song by Tom and Bootboys, (Which is incredibly hilarious, by the way) is quite appropriate for the horrid trash that is this book and its author. This man displays that not only does he know nothing about punk, which is blatantly obvious considering he tried to give it a set philosophy, but he's to ignorant, as Louie Anderson is to fat.
Let's get one thing straight, punk does not, should not, and never will have a philosophy. Punk is about forming opinions for yourself, not basing all of your views on some stupid propaganda book by some no-talent ass clown.
The guy actually thinks the Sex Pistols are a punk band, when they were no more than a mere first wave boy band with a badass image and guitars.
He obviously has a lot of respect for Crass, whom, in my opinion are one of the most overrated punk bands ever known to man, and caused a large population of the ever arrogant anarcho punks to spring up across the world.
Overall, this guy is just a guy with a large vocabulary and little reasoning skills who wants everyone to agree with him. Obviously, Craig spent a little too much time reading about punk than he did experiencing it. Gee, commercialism sure is punk rock!

Rating:
Summary: Here Come The Rich Kids 1..2..3...
Review: I was a teen who was fascinated with punk rock.
Later I was a college kid who did research on punk rock.
I became a magazine writer and wrote articles on the subject of punk rock.
Now I'm a 27 year old high school History teacher in Harlem, New York.
Whatever experience I had taught me that "punk rockers" are usualy spoiled rich white yanks who never have to worry where there next bottle of green hair dye is comming from. My students wonder why white kids are drawn to the punk movement. At my urging they researched it and even went to some shows. Their conclusion was that punk rock fans are "wannabes" and "pussies" who try to act like something they are not. You don't need to be born in Vienna to figure that one out.
I have never been totaly convinced of the merits of punk rock fans, except that they are simply the victims of mass marketing.
Sid Vicious stole a leather jacket, which is how black leather became a punk acoutrement. According to John Lydon, no British punk had the money for a leather jacket. Thanks to Sid's shoplifting spree, punk became a new form of snobbery.
New movements in art and music are usualy founded by the underdog. Elvis looked, sounded, and was low-class, but he realy could sing. His style was ripped off and copied to no end. Rap and hi-hop began on America's streets, but it's been copied by rich suburban white kids. I wonder what the next wannabe-rip-off will be.
Perhaps you develope an angry punky attitude when you have everything you need, everything you don't need, and not enough misery to complain about.
In the meantime, let's switch on MTV. Yo, this stuff is whack, man!

Rating:
Summary: Loose arguments, poor writing.
Review: In essence, Craig Ohara does nothing but reaffirm the obvious thought found in the punk rock movement. Because punk associates itself with 'no authority', its definition is almost impossible. Ohara is ONE type of punk. He espouses a method of writing that does not engage those whom he critiques, he just simply writes them off. His arguments for anti-authoritian anarcho-thought are groundless philosophically. Never arguing why tradition and authority are bad, Ohara leaves the reader wondering how he can consider himself an academic? I cannot recommend this book to any serious thinker attempting to construct a slight notion of punk. Regardless of Ohara's thought, it seems obvious that there is hegemony amongst punks who choose to be sectarian. The 'non-conformist' attitude of punk could be debated, but isn't in this book. Ohara often saves himself by ignoring relevant objections to his views by, first, noting the objections, then moving on to more of his own compartmentalized rhetoric of punk.