While I love capturing these moments of time to share with the world, I can't help but feel a twinge of sadness that these and many other vibrant, productive communities all eventually get swallowed up by the mainstream.

What are these groups called today? Where are the mini-Renaissances that play a massive role in generating culture? Will these happen less and less as everyone is exposed to the global stream of information?

Internet definitely has changed subculture dynamic, in a way I'd call narrower and deeper. On one hand internet has allowed subcultures of all sorts to flourish by allowing like-minded people to connect beyond geographical (and also social) boundaries and form their own communities. The flipside being that as more of the interaction happens online in those communities it also spreads less outside, even more to meatspace. Another aspect is that because internet allows everyone to find their own separate sub-culture and community, there are less such stark generation-defining sub-cultures happening. There is sort of filter bubble effect going on.

I feel like this is one of those things where if you knew about it it would already be dead. It only works when its a small community of like minded individuals, once it goes mainstream its ruined or at least transformed.

The lifecycle of social networks. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Music is no longer a social movement. Back in the day being a fan of the Clash went far beyond music you were joining a social/political movement, something you believed in. Katy Perry might sing a catchy tune but its all about her personal ego, Joe Strummer say himself as a Che Guevara, a revolutionary socialist leader, a lot more than just a singer of hit songs. Songs became hits because they gave you a vision you could believe and participate in.

> Music is no longer a social movement.

Look harder, I'd say. See Bar25 in Berlin and the sound that is heard there (Katermukke label, etc.). Or Berghain and it's sound (Ostguton label, etc.). Hell yeah music and "social/political movement" are still as linked as ever. There's still a whole "roots" reggae/dub scene world wide that would besides social/political also come with an embedded spiritual and/or religious movement. Revolutionary hip-hip, like Dead Prez or Immortal, is still strong. In Europe there's still Freetekno. I could go on.

Hell no revolutionary vibes from K. Perry! But it's still there.

> Songs became hits because they gave you a vision you could believe and participate in.

Yes. It's not advertised. They do not hit the charts anymore. So what. Shun the charts. We've got soundcloud, they've got ad-ridden radio and MTV.

> Music is no longer a social movement. Back in the day being a fan of the Clash went far beyond music you were joining a social/political movement, something you believed in. Katy Perry might sing a catchy tune but its all about her personal ego

I don't think the Clash ever had the kind of mainstream success that someone like Katy Perry has. A more appropriate analogue for "back in the day" would be like Andy Gibb or someone.

Awesome to see a Zero Books published book here! Also, be sure to check out "Kill All Normies: Online culture wars from 4chan and Tumblr to Trump and the alt-right", another excellent book recently published on Zero Books.

I always thought punk was a bit shit, it didn't seem to have any musical merit to me so although it was my era I ignored it.

I struggle to see why, a generation later, people look back at it with anything but disdain.

>I struggle to see why, a generation later, people look back at it with anything but disdain.

Because your frame of reference of musical merit is at best subjective and at worst, built upon nothing but raw prejudice.

Attacking that fact is what punk did. That's a freedom, and some people insist on freedom in art.

I hear the same thing from the art world, if you don't understand this art then it's because you are too ignorant. I think it's bullshit there as well.

>if you don't understand this art then it's because you are too ignorant

Maybe I’m not being clear. I’m not saying anything about ignorance. I am instead saying that some people demand freedom in their art and it necessarily follows that such persons expect their aesthetic standards to be challenged. Indeed, such persons usually enjoy or at least appreciate it when a challenge to their aesthetic appears.

Others, for whom aesthetic freedom is not an animating principle, do not make that demand, preferring instead to stake out a familiar set of aesthetic expectations and forms.

Avoiding challenge and preferring familiar forms and expectations is a very popular choice - it requires far less engagement with art because most questions about importance of the art are already answered for the adherent. This easier path is always available for persons who are more comfortable belonging than they are beholding.

I'd probably rather re-read Please Kill Me: An Oral History of Punk by Legs McNeil

Why? Was it so good that no other book on the same subject is worth reading? If so I'll have to check it out haha

There's also a website; pleasekillme.com which is tangentially related. At least the authors seem to be involved with the site to a large (but not exclusive) degree.