What do you think?
Rate this book
Философия панка: Больше чем шум!
Одной из целей перевода этой книги на русский язык было стремление разрушить некоторые стереотипы в отношении панка, сложившиеся в постсоветском пространстве. `Философия панка: больше, чем шум` дает яркое представление о том, чем является современное панк-движение (в частности, в США), развивающееся в соответствии с принципом DIY (Do It Yourself) - Сделай сам! Этот принцип может быть определен применительно к панку следующим образом: `делать все самостоятельно, не завися ни от каких крупных коммерческих организаций, все своими силами, делать альтернативную этим коммерческим организациям собственную музыкальную сцену со всеми вытекающими отсюда последствиями: клубами, дистрибьюциями, журналами, книгами, всем, чем угодно`, и шире - как `самовыражение человека независимо от каких-то установок свыше`.
Эту книгу будут читать люди, уже достаточно давно знакомые с идеями современного мирового панк/хардкор движения, люди, только начинающие входить в этот `волшебный мир`, и люди, не имеющие никакого понятия о том, чем является DIY панк.
Эту книгу будут читать люди, уже достаточно давно знакомые с идеями современного мирового панк/хардкор движения, люди, только начинающие входить в этот `волшебный мир`, и люди, не имеющие никакого понятия о том, чем является DIY панк.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
14 people are currently reading
769 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
April 10, 2008
This book could have been much better. The author, who was in the punk rock scene in D.C. since the eighties, certainly brought a good deal of first-hand knowledge to the subject, but his writing skills are poorly developed. The book was originally published as photocopied pages that were staple bound, and it was eventually published by AK Press, a major radical publisher. The writing is not really publishable, in my opinion, however.
Of course, in keeping with the punk rock tradition, the book does not rely on academic or mainstream sources, and that is a potential strength if it demonstrates that a book can coherently present a social phenomenon this complex without recourse to anything but alternative, collective, autonomous institutions. Bayard uses letters published in zines as his primary sources, which is a great idea. Unfortunately instead of drawing convincing conclusions from the research, he contributes little more than the preachy letters he quotes.
He wanted to write a book for people unfamiliar with the punk-rock subculture, but I think he could have written a better memoir without the explicit intention of educating the public.
Of course, in keeping with the punk rock tradition, the book does not rely on academic or mainstream sources, and that is a potential strength if it demonstrates that a book can coherently present a social phenomenon this complex without recourse to anything but alternative, collective, autonomous institutions. Bayard uses letters published in zines as his primary sources, which is a great idea. Unfortunately instead of drawing convincing conclusions from the research, he contributes little more than the preachy letters he quotes.
He wanted to write a book for people unfamiliar with the punk-rock subculture, but I think he could have written a better memoir without the explicit intention of educating the public.
August 12, 2010
In The Philosophy of Punk, Craig O'Hara draws from numerous punk bands and writings by punks to outline a general philosophy of punk aesthetic, ethics, and activism. He is clear to articulate that he is discussing a certain "brand" (my word) of punk rock: not generic, more consumption-oriented punk, but rather the more "authentic" punk of the late 70s and early 80s. This punk, he argues, was importantly about "tak[ing:] on responsibility" (39). While punk music involves rage, anti-authority views, and anti-conformity (27-28), O'Hara argues that punk ethics was (and is) one of responsibility.
He blames mass media for misrepresenting (and misrecognizing) punk as violent, negative, and a trend, as well as too simply equating punks with skinheads. Instead, O'Hara urges that in order to understand punk, one must go to the "primary sources" (61). I fully agree with his reading of media representation, and in the scope of his book, it makes sense, but this could have more analytical force if he didn't rely on the idea that there is somehow a way to accurately represent oneself.
O'Hara's discussion takes force as he describes punk's anarchist ethics—and how this is related to responsibility. Anarchy isn't a matter of checking out because "personal anarchy is elitist, unanarchistic, and counter revolutionary" (87). Those who ascribe to personal anarchy, but have "resign[ed:] himself to the fact that other people are not capable of ruling themselves" might still be participating and spreading ideas, but have given up on the ideals of anarchy (87). To O'Hara, anarchy is admitting responsibility: not simply "no laws," but "no need for laws" (97).
O'Hara's last few chapters deal with sexism, homophobia, environmentalism, vegetarianism, and Straight-Edge, and are pretty good discussions, though quickly sped through. For the purpose of the book, though, I thought they were developed enough—though I think the book was a bit too celebratory of anti-sexism and the inclusion of women in the punk movement, if only because a lot of punk can be masculinist and not very inviting to women. O'Hara is claiming to discuss a specific group of punks ("authentic" punks), but at times, seems to idealize them. Perhaps this is because he is trying to outline a philosophy (instead of, say, an anthropology/sociology/rhetoric) and is trying to discuss the ideals and beliefs of punks.
He blames mass media for misrepresenting (and misrecognizing) punk as violent, negative, and a trend, as well as too simply equating punks with skinheads. Instead, O'Hara urges that in order to understand punk, one must go to the "primary sources" (61). I fully agree with his reading of media representation, and in the scope of his book, it makes sense, but this could have more analytical force if he didn't rely on the idea that there is somehow a way to accurately represent oneself.
O'Hara's discussion takes force as he describes punk's anarchist ethics—and how this is related to responsibility. Anarchy isn't a matter of checking out because "personal anarchy is elitist, unanarchistic, and counter revolutionary" (87). Those who ascribe to personal anarchy, but have "resign[ed:] himself to the fact that other people are not capable of ruling themselves" might still be participating and spreading ideas, but have given up on the ideals of anarchy (87). To O'Hara, anarchy is admitting responsibility: not simply "no laws," but "no need for laws" (97).
O'Hara's last few chapters deal with sexism, homophobia, environmentalism, vegetarianism, and Straight-Edge, and are pretty good discussions, though quickly sped through. For the purpose of the book, though, I thought they were developed enough—though I think the book was a bit too celebratory of anti-sexism and the inclusion of women in the punk movement, if only because a lot of punk can be masculinist and not very inviting to women. O'Hara is claiming to discuss a specific group of punks ("authentic" punks), but at times, seems to idealize them. Perhaps this is because he is trying to outline a philosophy (instead of, say, an anthropology/sociology/rhetoric) and is trying to discuss the ideals and beliefs of punks.
April 15, 2013
Disclaimer: This review is only examining one chapter of the book regarding skinheads.
Until I read that it was a self-published title reprinted by a leftist publisher, I was struggling to understand how it got published with such shoddy references and research. Anyone who grew up in the punk scene in the 1980s understood the political leanings of some of the larger fanzines and the bias towards skinheads (especially MRR). The reliance on fanzines and the opinions of the author does not create an accurate picture of the skinhead subculture. I had to bite my tongue when I read his assertion that skinheads bands stop associating with the punk scene and started playing ska music and returning to the original skinhead style. SERIOUSLY???
These were just a few other observations that were face palm moments for me:
"main skinhead association with punk was to ruin shows with vandalism and violence"
"skinheads were generally more conformist, violent and politically apathetic than punks"
Where are these broad statements verified? This is a prime example of the problems with DIY publishing.
Again just to reiterate, I reviewed this chapter after it was referenced in a book review on here.
Students: please don't rely on this book for learning or writing about skinheads. There are so many other sources that can be used which have a variety of unbiased sources referenced.
Until I read that it was a self-published title reprinted by a leftist publisher, I was struggling to understand how it got published with such shoddy references and research. Anyone who grew up in the punk scene in the 1980s understood the political leanings of some of the larger fanzines and the bias towards skinheads (especially MRR). The reliance on fanzines and the opinions of the author does not create an accurate picture of the skinhead subculture. I had to bite my tongue when I read his assertion that skinheads bands stop associating with the punk scene and started playing ska music and returning to the original skinhead style. SERIOUSLY???
These were just a few other observations that were face palm moments for me:
"main skinhead association with punk was to ruin shows with vandalism and violence"
"skinheads were generally more conformist, violent and politically apathetic than punks"
Where are these broad statements verified? This is a prime example of the problems with DIY publishing.
Again just to reiterate, I reviewed this chapter after it was referenced in a book review on here.
Students: please don't rely on this book for learning or writing about skinheads. There are so many other sources that can be used which have a variety of unbiased sources referenced.
August 31, 2010
I feel somewhat bad ripping on this, because it is an interesting topic, and it was initially a photocopied, self-published labor of love, not a professionally edited and produced book. But the writing was just painfully bad throughout. The author also makes a lot of tendentious statements about how "no real punk believes x" that irked. Again, maybe I'm applying overly academic/professionalized standards to a work that wasn't intended as such. But overall it was just an irritating read.
February 11, 2015
The worst book about punk ever written.
March 6, 2009
Punk rock is more than a music style. It's a subculture, community, fashion, and philosophy. I've always felt a kindred spirit with punks, but never actually knew much about them. They seemed to stand for the same things I believed in, albeit noticeably more radical. So it was good to read a book that spelled it all out.
Insofar as punk rock, a totally disorganized movement, can be considered to have a philosophy, this book describes its elements: anarchism, radical feminism, eco-terrorism, animal rights, freedom, and independence from corporate influence. This book explains the loose relationship between skinheads and punk, and how the media's portrayal of punk rock influences the community. It also discusses an interesting sub-movement within punk rock, called Straight Edge, which rejected drugs and alchohol, claiming that these are forms of tyranny.
This book seemed a bit amateurish, which I suppose was true to the punk philosophy of being anti-commercial. It read like a college freshman's philosophy assignment. The pictures had terrible lighting and many were skewed. But the author did the job he set out to do: explain the philosophy of punk culture, and the various factions within that culture.
Insofar as punk rock, a totally disorganized movement, can be considered to have a philosophy, this book describes its elements: anarchism, radical feminism, eco-terrorism, animal rights, freedom, and independence from corporate influence. This book explains the loose relationship between skinheads and punk, and how the media's portrayal of punk rock influences the community. It also discusses an interesting sub-movement within punk rock, called Straight Edge, which rejected drugs and alchohol, claiming that these are forms of tyranny.
This book seemed a bit amateurish, which I suppose was true to the punk philosophy of being anti-commercial. It read like a college freshman's philosophy assignment. The pictures had terrible lighting and many were skewed. But the author did the job he set out to do: explain the philosophy of punk culture, and the various factions within that culture.
March 11, 2008
I "found punk" when I was about thirteen, or over twenty years ago. As a result, I've found myself reading a truckload of books on the subject, some fairly lame, some fairly insightful.
Craig O'Hara's The Philosophy Of Punk is one of the good ones. Covering all sorts of punk related topics from activism to racism to the Do It Yourself method of life, O'Hara does a fine job of examining where punk's been and where it's at now. Where it's going is anybody's guess. His task, to qualify and quantify punk, is not easy but he's done a nice job. With the massive influx of "mainstream" culture, punk as a philosophy is both tighter than ever and more or less useless, depending on how you look at it. The Philosophy Of Punk looks at the media misrepresentation of punk and says all that needs to be said about the nonbelievers who have been part of the "scene" since day one, the infiltrators who are there for the party and the noise. It also roundly applauds those who's actions deserve it. Short, concise and well thought out, not to mention informative.
Craig O'Hara's The Philosophy Of Punk is one of the good ones. Covering all sorts of punk related topics from activism to racism to the Do It Yourself method of life, O'Hara does a fine job of examining where punk's been and where it's at now. Where it's going is anybody's guess. His task, to qualify and quantify punk, is not easy but he's done a nice job. With the massive influx of "mainstream" culture, punk as a philosophy is both tighter than ever and more or less useless, depending on how you look at it. The Philosophy Of Punk looks at the media misrepresentation of punk and says all that needs to be said about the nonbelievers who have been part of the "scene" since day one, the infiltrators who are there for the party and the noise. It also roundly applauds those who's actions deserve it. Short, concise and well thought out, not to mention informative.
March 6, 2014
All in all, this was an interesting read. I think the fact that it started as a zine-style photo copied booklet speaks to the quality of information the book has on punk culture.
Like most other "this is what punk is" writings that I've read, I feel like it gets a little preachy at times, but I still believe that if you consider the book as a sum of its parts, it's a really great read with an important message. Yes, you have to wade through some straight edge and vegan talk, and deal with a whole lot of "smash the state" mentality, but if you keep in mind that those are a sub-set of a larger scene that really stands for something, you realize the importance of a book like this.
It's not necessarily a must-read, but for punk fans who love the ongoing discourse on "what is punk" this is a great book to read (with a great references section for further reading).
Like most other "this is what punk is" writings that I've read, I feel like it gets a little preachy at times, but I still believe that if you consider the book as a sum of its parts, it's a really great read with an important message. Yes, you have to wade through some straight edge and vegan talk, and deal with a whole lot of "smash the state" mentality, but if you keep in mind that those are a sub-set of a larger scene that really stands for something, you realize the importance of a book like this.
It's not necessarily a must-read, but for punk fans who love the ongoing discourse on "what is punk" this is a great book to read (with a great references section for further reading).
January 10, 2012
Less proselytizing and more punk please. This book might be more useful to an outsider of politically-oriented diy/punk/(whatever social milieu you want to apply) but I felt like I was reading a primer.
April 7, 2008
Duh sbenernya sudah cukup lama sekali baca buku ini, potocopian pula hehehehehe...
It's always fun to see n' know something 'different' and it really happen...
It's always fun to see n' know something 'different' and it really happen...
September 15, 2008
Perhaps too short a book for the topic and "Of Political Punk" might be more accurate. It is a good introduction to political punk, if a little rosy glasses and all that.
October 25, 2017
I find it useful as an introduction to punk movement and all futher and smaller streams. And also for link on largest zines and band names by ideological trends.
Apart from that, it's written (sometimes very funny) in amateur way and shows very personal percertion, so that can't be taken really seriously.
Apart from that, it's written (sometimes very funny) in amateur way and shows very personal percertion, so that can't be taken really seriously.
January 16, 2018
good but short...... a nd his sources were of questionable value
February 9, 2019
Political views are inconsistent. Good for understanding the punk culture in US and the UK.
August 26, 2019
This book is totally cute.
April 7, 2022
Geiles Buch über die Szene und ihre Philosophie. Definitiv lesenswert.
August 23, 2019
This book is definitely great.
August 12, 2012
I suppose I 'found' punk when I was 14 or so, mostly through bands like NOFX and Ant-Flag. I grew up in a political household, and found the political aspect of punk appealing (though the fast and often jarring melodies were also appealing). As such, I search for books that would give me more information on the subject and, being 14, didn't really know how to look beyond some larger websites, as my friends were getting into it just like me. This is a book I had found online and ordered shortly after. At the time I thought it was amazing, it was easy to read and showcased some of punk's major points of interest in digestible chapters with plenty of pictures, zine quotes, and band names for me to go look up later. Not to say that I then picked and chose which aspects I liked and didn't like, but the varying opinions included as well as the history gave me an understanding of what exactly it was about punk that I did find interesting. It moved from being just political, but an introduction to the radical-left with a DIY attitude as well as the possibility of introspection. This was something I could get into!
10 years later I find myself still a big fan of the book, but its flaws are quite obvious now. At the time I would have given it a perfect rating for sure, but now I feel that what I liked about it is also an acting hindrance. The chapters are a little too short to fully develop the topics, partly because space is needed for one to speak so broadly. It also does little to examine how punk has been performed at the same time in different spaces, though it does detail space over time. The differences between scenes would have been a great addition and perhaps give first time readers a better idea of how punk changes and evolves depending on who and how is performing with it.
I want to give this book a 5 star rating for the part it played in my life, but I know it should be at a lower level because it no longer plays the same part. There are books that have stuck with me throughout my life, whereas this is one that I look back fondly on. It is more than worth a read, and first time readers, even those with punk cred out the pores, will find something new or interesting in it.
10 years later I find myself still a big fan of the book, but its flaws are quite obvious now. At the time I would have given it a perfect rating for sure, but now I feel that what I liked about it is also an acting hindrance. The chapters are a little too short to fully develop the topics, partly because space is needed for one to speak so broadly. It also does little to examine how punk has been performed at the same time in different spaces, though it does detail space over time. The differences between scenes would have been a great addition and perhaps give first time readers a better idea of how punk changes and evolves depending on who and how is performing with it.
I want to give this book a 5 star rating for the part it played in my life, but I know it should be at a lower level because it no longer plays the same part. There are books that have stuck with me throughout my life, whereas this is one that I look back fondly on. It is more than worth a read, and first time readers, even those with punk cred out the pores, will find something new or interesting in it.
March 11, 2016
Make no mistake, this book is written in nearly textbook style. The author makes a big point of this in the Intro & Preface. He is also very clear that this is not a history of punk music, but a collection of thoughts and ideas to represent "The Philosophy of Punk."
It is a difficult read if you're not used to reading and attempting to enjoy a textbook. O'Hara does a reasonable job at touching upon many of the major factors, ideas, opinions and philosophies of punk music (religion, vegitarianism, sexism, etc).
However, I found this book to be much more opinion oriented than that which I would consider a "textbook." Using only a few sources and continuing to use the same sources throughout the book does offer some first hand examples of what makes punks tick. But the real problem is that it feels like just "some" first hand examples. Allowing himself to use "anonymous" writers and quoting lyrics from punk songs hardly seems enough to truly philosophize one of the most important music and personal styles in history.
I think this book would have been better off had O'Hara taken more time to back up the punkers opinions and quotes with more factual evidence. The lack of which contributes to making this textbook feel more like a boring column.
It is a difficult read if you're not used to reading and attempting to enjoy a textbook. O'Hara does a reasonable job at touching upon many of the major factors, ideas, opinions and philosophies of punk music (religion, vegitarianism, sexism, etc).
However, I found this book to be much more opinion oriented than that which I would consider a "textbook." Using only a few sources and continuing to use the same sources throughout the book does offer some first hand examples of what makes punks tick. But the real problem is that it feels like just "some" first hand examples. Allowing himself to use "anonymous" writers and quoting lyrics from punk songs hardly seems enough to truly philosophize one of the most important music and personal styles in history.
I think this book would have been better off had O'Hara taken more time to back up the punkers opinions and quotes with more factual evidence. The lack of which contributes to making this textbook feel more like a boring column.
December 13, 2015
The Philosophy of Punk aims to write punk's philosophy on the basis of the writings in punk zines. It is very US-centric, although there is due diligence to UK punk, particularly of the second wave (in particular CRASS).
The picture that Craig O'Hara paints of "punk philosophy" is largely the picture he wants to see, i.e. an egalitarian,tolerant, DIY type of anarchism free of capitalism, homophobia, racism, and sexism. He finds this mostly by exaggerating the importance of the writings that support these sentiments and downplaying the importance of other sentiments -- or, simply externalizing them by saying they are part of the skinhead or Straight Edge subculture.
In the end, the book is more a pamphlet than a study, a selection rather than a reflection of the writings. The author sees much more than there is, or at the very least overemphasizes the importance of that particular philosophy in the broader punk movement. The tone didn't help either. It is at times annoying and immature, the voice of a 17-year old belligerent adolescent rather than an, I assume, 30-something adult who clearly sees himself as intelligent.
The picture that Craig O'Hara paints of "punk philosophy" is largely the picture he wants to see, i.e. an egalitarian,tolerant, DIY type of anarchism free of capitalism, homophobia, racism, and sexism. He finds this mostly by exaggerating the importance of the writings that support these sentiments and downplaying the importance of other sentiments -- or, simply externalizing them by saying they are part of the skinhead or Straight Edge subculture.
In the end, the book is more a pamphlet than a study, a selection rather than a reflection of the writings. The author sees much more than there is, or at the very least overemphasizes the importance of that particular philosophy in the broader punk movement. The tone didn't help either. It is at times annoying and immature, the voice of a 17-year old belligerent adolescent rather than an, I assume, 30-something adult who clearly sees himself as intelligent.
April 16, 2013
The punk era was an era of self-reliance and defiance against the status quo. This book would be a great book to teach about American and British history and art as well as a guide for students to think about their choices. Students could learn to differentiate between the public perception and the intended cause of the punk era. This book goes through the history of punk and its origins. It looks at the different types of punks and each groups viewpoints. This book would be targeted to students that are in the 6th grade and older because there are some mature concepts within the book and that age limit allow them the best chance to understand and use what they learned. This book gave an outside looking in perspective on society because punks were perceived as outcasts who were trouble makers.
September 8, 2021
This book could have been much better. The author, who was in the punk rock scene in D.C. since the eighties, certainly brought a good deal of first-hand knowledge to the subject, but his writing skills are poorly developed. Of course, the book does not rely on academic or mainstream sources in keeping with the punk rock tradition. That is a potential strength if it demonstrates that a book can coherently present a complex social phenomenon without recourse to anything, the alternative, collective, autonomous institutions. Bayard uses letters published in zines as his primary sources, which is a great idea. Unfortunately, instead of drawing convincing conclusions from the research, he contributes little more than the preachy letters he quotes.
February 13, 2008
This is a pretty good overview of punk rock.
Apparently, they taught a course from this book at Stanford for a few semesters. It gives you a history as well as some of the psychology behind modern punk. I read it in a few sittings and loaned it out since then several times as well.
runs all the way from the start 1967 to the summer of '77 to glam to hardcore to modern pop punk, crust and anarcho punk to emo and indie touching on all sub-cultures in between.
It won't help you understand your rebellious youngster but it will give you something to talk to them about.
Apparently, they taught a course from this book at Stanford for a few semesters. It gives you a history as well as some of the psychology behind modern punk. I read it in a few sittings and loaned it out since then several times as well.
runs all the way from the start 1967 to the summer of '77 to glam to hardcore to modern pop punk, crust and anarcho punk to emo and indie touching on all sub-cultures in between.
It won't help you understand your rebellious youngster but it will give you something to talk to them about.
May 27, 2021
Not so much a philosophy of punk, than a collection of ideologies. There's a large bias here either way. O'Hara's prose and presentation is firmly in the zine style which may put some people off, though his sources that he cites are also other punk zines which I thought was a smart decision that added some continuity to the book. Plenty of fantastic photographs of 1980s American punk/hard-core bands too.
[Edit 27/05/2021] Spotify playlist of bands both photographed and mentioned here:
[Edit 27/05/2021] Spotify playlist of bands both photographed and mentioned here:
October 14, 2015
Let me be clear in my rating, this book is a great start to understanding the history & culture. It is not the be all, end all explanation. I love that other reviewers are all angsty, because there are so many factors to be considered, and let's be honest, punks get jacked up over what seems phony, and what cannot fully describe a complex issue, and certainly culture. So, if you need a place to start, even if it looks iffy, it is a start.
March 7, 2007
This reads more like a quick history of punk than digging through the philosophical and social underpinnings of punk and the associated music. Nevertheless, it was an informative read and it did offer some insights into the movement(s) in the sixties and seventies up to the advent of hardcore.
Mmm... hardcore.
Mmm... hardcore.
Read
March 31, 2008I bought this from a table at an Ill Scarlett show benefiting World Vision. Overall, it was a very interesting look at the history of punk, as well as its place both in the larger culture, as well as in history. While there are some parts of what O'Hara discusses that I disagree with (anarchism, for example), it's an undoubtedly important part of punk history and culture.
February 12, 2014
As a goth with shades of punk, I found this book a very interesting read. O'Hara make s a good overview of the music as well as the ideals and motivations many punks share and embrace. Punk is not simply music or a state of dress but a philosophy and way of life, and this book tries to make that clear to it's readers.
January 29, 2008
It helps define punk, not as it is defined today (thank god). Fo rthose who are truly interested in understanding what it is and not wanting to take what they see in popular media as the truth. A very good quick informative read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.