… or is it a sign of the apocalypse? That’s what some of our commenters think! Below Ryan Little‘spost from earlier this week, “The Best New Punk Band in D.C. Hasn’t Hit Puberty,” Gene writes:
Here’s how it’ll play out….
– Right now, they’re cute – a curiosity (a novelty act, despite the author’s assertions to the contrary). There is a cabal of heavy-handed adults/parents in the background that are really running the show, living their unfulfilled childhood fantasies through their offspring.
– In a few years, if they’re still at it, they may even learn to play their instruments (which, sadly speaking, would be imcompatible with much of the basic pretense of punk – as would songwriting – but…).
– If they’re still around by the time the eldest is 18, they’ll be struggling to perpetuate the “we’re so young and extraordinary” brand that got them what ever success they might enjoy at that time, and…
– In 10 years no one will remember these kids…
I only hope the experience doesn’t screw them up for the rest of their lives.
The fact is, at 10 or 12 years of age, they don’t have the life experiences necessary to be a punk musician. They’re only an oddity – naive’ kids playing at being musicians, nothing more.
If y’all want to swoon and gape and throw money at them and further encourage their handlers, knock yourselves out…
But, if you think for a second that I’m the ill-informed one in this debate, you’re fooling yourself…
I like Nick‘s take:
I don’t care what kind of music these guys are, the whole show sounded like saturday morning cartoons overdriven to hell, completely free of that awful pop-punk sound that’s taken over the country. Plus, the singer pretended to have an ian curtis-type seizure on stage. They’re more than OK in my book!
The debate is nearing 30 comments!