faerie-daydream

[faerie-daydream]

Using relevant data, investigate and evaluate how punk music lyrics have changed over time to convey political ideologies and identities.

An essay I wrote for my English language coursework two years ago where some of the songs have now become kind of relevant

The punk scene exploded in the mid 70’s, with influences from 1960’s ‘garage rock’ along with a need to rebel against the expectations of society. Bands such as The Clash and Sex Pistols drew attention to themselves by unapologetically expressing their controversial political views, they provoked thought in people, encouraging people to explore their individuality and question authority. I chose to investigate this topic because although the word ‘punk’ means something different to everyone, there are common connotations that are universal across the scene. I am personally quite involved in the Punk scene so I get to witness modern day punk first hand; therefore, I can see any changes in the language or general culture over the last fifty years; the diversifications and the ways in which it has stayed the same.

I am going to be investigating how much the language used in the punk scene has been affected by the politics of the time. Has it changed that much over the years, and if so why? What drew the members of this scene to using such language? I expect that during this research I will find lots of politically themed lexis during times of more republican and conservative government. I think I will also find some taboo lexis, as coming from a working class majority, the punk scene has often been heavily influenced by drugs, and taboo lexis was traditionally language more typically used by working class citizens. It will also be interesting to look at grammatical structures such as imperatives, pronoun usage and modals to see if the lyrics aim to involve the audience.

To gather the data for my investigation, I picked out songs I already knew, and took some suggestions from other people I know who listen to this genre of music. To help with the political and social contexts, I asked family members who were around at the time of the release of the song.

Musicians in the early days of the punk scene used their songs as a way to educate people about contemporary politics. Because information wasn’t as readily available as it is today, they used their music as a platform to make it available. ‘Know your rights’ by The Clash, starts off with “this is a public service announcement” this phrase denotes important information due to its earliest use being in World War 2 as a way of informing the general public of important events. This pragmatically suggests that the band are like another government, or in a position of power, as usually it is these people making Public Service Announcements. This is followed up by a juxtaposed prepositional phrase “with guitar”. The addition of that phrase is putting emphasis on how popular music can be beneficial to the public, and how bands have a level of influence. Also by using the 2nd person possessive determiner ‘your’, they are addressing the listener personally. Both of these techniques create a sense of synthetic personalisation, where the band puts the audience in the position of active participants in political discourse, which is opposed to mainstream politics.

At the time of release in 1982, the U.K. Had a higher unemployment than there had been since the 1930’s, reaching 14% unemployment by September. The IRA were in a strong position because of hunger strikes the year before, leading to the deaths of 10 people. In this song, The Clash mostly use monosyllabic lexis, because the purpose was to educate the lower class citizens, and they were generally less educated, and wouldn’t trust the typical Latinate lexis associated with the formal register of mainstream political discourse. However, there is no use of taboo lexis in this song, because sometimes the lack of taboo is more powerful. They are trying to out across an informed opinion at the same time as informing people, so they want to sound educated, and taboo lexis was seen as the language of lesser educated people. By not including taboo lexis, the band ensure that their song will be played on the radio, reaching a wider audience – with less chance of being censored, they are making it easier for the young people who make up their target audience to discover. The imperative phrase “know your rights” is used frequently, and always followed up by “all three of them” and this juxtaposition gives the sentence more negative and critical meaning. The bald on record style of this phrase is an openly positive face threatening act towards the government and people in power. In the next verse, the band name the first right. This first right is a human right ‘right to life’, and again they have used very simple Germanic lexis, and are accommodating for their audience of working class citizens as well as differentiating themselves from political registers. The syntax choice in this sentence makes it a passive phrase, highlighting that the addressee is in the position of a helpless victim. The next ‘right’ mentioned is “the right to food money”. This listing of abstract nouns suggests that these two things are equivalent. This song was released not long after child benefits were introduced in the UK in 1970, because families would get money from the government to help feed themselves. The implications of this are altered in the next line; “investigation, humiliation” are what you have to experience in order to access this right. At the end, they use some ambiguous imagery “cross your fingers”. This phrase can have connotations of lying and also of hope. As this verse is a comment on benefits, and there is a stereotype attached to working class citizens who get benefits lying in order to ‘live off the government’. On the other hand, there are people who really do need the support, and so in this context would “cross their fingers” in hope that they get some financial aid to feed their family.

The third ‘right’ is “the right to free speech [unless you’re] dumb enough to try it”. This phrasing has some irony, as by writing these lyrics, and using them to criticize the government so openly, the band is practising their own freedom of speech. There is some underlying pragmatic irony used in the word ‘dumb’ as the originally, this referred to a person who was silent and unable to speak. In the last verse, they say “it has been suggested in some quarters that this is not enough”. By using the indeterminate pronoun ‘it’, the sentence is passive, and the person actually making the suggestion has been left out, creating a sense of mystery. The use of the adjective ‘some’ implies the people with this opinion are a minority.

Contemporaries of The Clash, Stiff Little Fingers brought out their song ‘Suspect device’ in 1979. The song title itself had strong political connotations as the band are from Northern Ireland and at the time of release, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) were still a prominent part of the politics. ‘Suspect Device’ was a euphemism used by police officers in reference to the bombs exploding more and more often in both Ireland and England as a result of ‘the Troubles’. The band then uses the phrase ‘suspect device’ in the second line, and say it has “left two thousand dead”. Over time, 1800 civilians have been killed by the IRA, so the band have used a dysphemism in putting a figure on the number of people dead to shock the audience into seeing the extent of the damage done during the conflict, and by not using a noun, specifying two thousand ‘people’ dead, there is emphasis put on the number.

Later in the song, the band use 3rd person pronouns to refer to the opposing side, however, don’t make it clear whose side (if any) they’re on. In the chorus, there is some use of colloquialism: “suss” was slang for ‘street smarts’ and could also have connotations of a law that was in place in the late 70’s until the early 80’s that gave police officers the right to arrest someone if they thought they looked suspicious. What with the dress sense and refusal to conform, there is a likelihood people who identified with the punk community would have been singled out with this law. In the first line, the lexical verb ‘planted’, is used and is a typical collocation with ‘bomb’. However, the meaning here is ambiguous as it has more than one possible meaning. They say inflammable material is “planted in my head”; this underlying metaphor suggests that ideas and thoughts can be just as dangerous as a bomb.

Throughout the song, pronouns and possessive determiners are used to create an ‘us vs them’ discourse. “They put up a wall…make sure we get fuck all”, this puts the government in a position of almost ownership, insinuating they can do as they please and make sure ‘we’, the citizens, get nothing from them, the government. By using a semantic field of a card game, the band are metaphorically implying the government is cheating them and “dealing them to the bottom”. In the second verse “they make us feel indebted for saving us from hell” is implying that life in Northern Ireland at the time was ‘hell’, and the British government are trying to put it right. However, from some points of view, the British government are the ones responsible for this ‘hell’. In the next line, a mild dysphemism is used, as during this time, more taboo lexis would most likely have them banned from the radio. As with The Clash, this song is meant to inform the listeners of the issues, and highlight another, less mainstream point of view, so radio play would have been essential.

In the next verse, they address the audience directly, with an imperative sentence “question everything you’re told” this is mild, and possibly unintended irony, as by questioning everything they’re told, the audience should be questioning the song and lyrics themselves. This could also be a reference to the typical punk nihilistic idea, and the rejection of fitting in that the punk scene promotes, encouraging the audience to think for themselves. Interestingly, during the last verse, they change the pronoun from 3rd person to 1st person, by saying ‘don’t believe us’, further encouraging independent thought. Using the phrase “we’re a suspect device if we do what we’re told” is further building this independent thought, as they are saying that if we try too hard to conform and fit it, we’ll eventually end up exploding. It is then implied that this is a purposeful act on the government’s part – they are building up these ideologies, trying to push people into becoming angry enough to fight. There is then a football related metaphor ‘score an own goal’, and this fits with the violence implied, as football fans have a reputation for violence, especially in the 70’s and 80’s. The closing line in the song is “we’re gonna blow up in their face”. The image used here fits with the semantic field of bombing that runs through the whole song, but could also be a metaphor suggesting that strategies put in place by the government are likely to backfire.

In 2001, the American people elected another Republican president, and this caused a re-sparking of angry political punk music. In ‘American Idiot’ by Green Day, they open the song with a negative face threatening act aimed at the government, and president himself: “don’t wanna be an American idiot”. The term ‘American idiot’ is allusion to George Bush Jr, who was the president at the time. In the first verse, there is a semantic field of media related panic. They are implying that the media stirs up anxiety (‘hysteria’) in a way that goes unnoticed by most of the American population – it is ‘subliminal’ to the ‘idiots’. “Mind-fuck” is an example of compound neologism to express an idea of emotional and mental manipulation. The verse as a whole is also commenting on how the population of America will believe anything they’re told on TV, and the use taboo lexis is to add to the feeling of severity and frustration at the population of their country.

In the next verse, they use the nouns “faggot” and “redneck”; these are an example of juxtaposing imagery. The liberal ‘faggot’ and conservative ‘redneck’ are opposite ends of the political spectrum, however both nouns are dysphemism, offensive terms used by the opposing side as an insult. There are underlying implications here that at the time, the US debates were very polarized, and the protagonist here can’t identify with either side, because the extremism on both sides are as bad as the other. However, the use of the slur against gay people hints that the protagonist is leaning more towards the ‘left-wing’ liberal view, labelling himself the ‘faggot’. It is also a reference to the band themselves, as all three members are openly bisexual. In the next two lines, the nouns ‘propaganda’ and ‘paranoia’, are used together, implying that propaganda causes paranoia. In the chorus they use a pun “alien nation” as it sounds like ‘alienation’, and that is what the protagonist is experiencing. The world ‘alien’ refers to a person or thing that doesn’t belong, or doesn’t originate in the country or place it is currently. In this instance, it is implying that the citizens of America are ‘aliens’ because the country has become a stranger to its own people. They use the word ‘dreams’ later in the chorus, though the implied meaning is ambiguous. It isn’t clear if ‘dreams’ is meant to be a verb or a noun, this adds to the sense of being alienated and distanced: does the protagonist know how it is meant? The term “television dreams” used with the previous line “everything isn’t meant to be okay” almost juxtapose each other, as in TV drama and advertising, life is often portrayed in an unrealistically positive manner. However, if a person switches the channel and looks at the news, they are faced with the harsh reality that the happy ending goal people strive for is rarely, if ever achievable. Also, the mention of the ambiguous noun phrase or clause “television dreams” alludes to the ‘American dream’, a very powerful inspirational ideology, which is being presented as reduced to an illusionary failure.

Moving forwards 12 years to 2013, a small band from Northern California – Emily’s Army – released a song called ‘Bad Cop’. The title of the song hints at the political problems the band are commenting on. The monosyllabic lexis used are one half of a common collocation ‘good cop, bad cop’, and by leaving off the ‘good cop’ part, it is implied that there is no longer a ‘good cop’ to counter the ‘bad cop’. In total in 2010-2011, 470 people were killed by law enforcement officers in the United States, giving the song its context. They use an oxymoron ‘police brutality and battery’ in the pre-chorus to outline this at face value. The brutality and battery parts are taboo topics, as this is a subject people usually tend to avoid. In the first verse, they talk about how the police man pulls out his gun instead of his stun gun, and they hint that it is an accident, but then follow up by pointing out the “stun gun is yellow, and his pistol is black.” The subtext here is saying that the officer knew exactly what he was doing. The use of the conjunction ‘but’ throws doubt over the first two lines – presumably the policeman’s explanation as to why he shot a person instead of stunning them. The parallel grammatical structure of a copular verb and colour adjective highlights this obvious contrast, implying it wasn’t an accident.

By using the abstract noun “police” as a modifier for the phrase “brutality and battery” creates powerful imagery, as stereotypically the word “police” has connotations of safety and protection, so the contrast of the phrase and the word is implying that the word is starting to undergo a semantic change, as people are associating the word “police” with violence and the things they’re meant to protect against. At the end of this verse, they use a common idiomatic expression that usually means to ‘finish something in a notable way’. However, in the context used here, it is also referencing the phrase to ‘top someone off’ – a common euphemism for killing someone, reinforcing the horror of a police officer doing these things. The shift to first person pronouns in the next verse is trying to give a voice to the thoughts of this sort of police officer. The word ‘mindset’ – used in the next verse has positive connotations, as a mindset implies having a beneficial approach to doing things. However the word ‘mentality’ has negative connotations, suggesting a detrimental approach to a situation, despite the two words being synonymous and carrying the same denotation. The juxtaposition used in the next line of ‘one hand on his gun’ and ‘one hand in his pants’ – here used as a euphemism implying masturbation – alludes to the common metaphor of a weapon symbolising a penis, and the penis as a weapon, and suggests the officer is getting an emotional response from the violence that is similar to sexual excitement.

While the language used in the punk music scene has changed since the 70’s due to the different political contexts, and its spreading to the USA, and although the purpose has changed somewhat, the overall intention hasn’t. The purpose of these kinds of songs has changed somewhat since the early stages. The Clash used their music as a way to inform people of political issues in a world where the information was not as readily available, whereas the more modern political punk music is trying to put things in a simple, factual form, because their listeners have almost too much access to information and it can get overwhelming. There is a semantic field of fighting against injustice and war across all four songs I have investigated, and there are common themes of the cultural encouragement to ‘think for yourself’.

The songs I have looked at and the culture associated with punk music overall is encouraging people to go against the grain of society and embrace their individuality. The common boldness when it comes to criticizing those in power is a part of what draws people to the punk culture, and throughout the years, bands have expressed their anger and distaste with the government and current political affairs in an open manner, all with the intention of shocking the listener enough to help make a change.

However, despite the similarities, the language used has changed over time. In the earlier days of the punk music scene, less taboo lexis were used in songs, as these would result in radio ban and the band wouldn’t be able to spread the information. In later years, swear words have become less of a taboo and wouldn’t shock people as much, so they can be used in songs and the message of the song wouldn’t become overshadowed by the use of taboo lexis. Although the critical nature of the lyrics used in punk songs hasn’t change too much, the ability to openly criticize people in power has increased the number of songs that directly criticize political figures. The generally more accepting state of the society we live in today has meant the punk culture has become less of an underground scene, it has opened the songwriters up to a wider audience, getting more mainstream media attention. Overall, despite the language changes in the songs over time, the semantics and overall messages have stayed relatively similar.

However, the sample, if typical for classic punk and more up-to-date American punk, is fairly small. So, it would be interesting to collect a lager sample from a wider range of performers to see whether these tentative conclusions would still apply; perhaps using some female fronted, or all female punk bands to see how the message they are trying to display differs.