Plugged In vs. Unplugged (Part 1)

I've recently read articles profiling early punk rockers David Byrne and Patti Smith. I came away with the same general impressions from both articles 1) If they had come around a few years earlier or later than they did they wouldn't be regarded as punk rockers and 2) For being aging punk rockers, they are both pretty "plugged in."

What do I mean by "plugged in"? My definition of "plugged in" is "having an intense interest and curiosity about life, society, and cultures." A cultural polyglot, if you will. The more I think about it (and research it), most of the survivors from the American punk generation fit into this category. The New York Dolls' David Johannsen would certainly qualify. I went to the website of X's John Doe, and found him ruminating on bugs:

This morning I found a 4" praying mantis on the railing, carried it around for several minutes showing DJ & Exene. What a marvel-alien thing they are, w/ dozens of shades of green, a cross-hatched pattern on their back & that crazy way they swivel their heads. There are a few things I like about the south.

This is a perfect example of what it means to be "plugged in." John Doe is 52 years old and he still marvels at the "crazy way they swivel their heads." His interest in and awareness of geographic uniqueness is also indicative of someone who is "plugged in."

What makes first generation punks the type of people who become "plugged in"? Every documentary or essay on the history of rock treats the punk movement as a crucial reaction to and rejection of the bloated, cynical, greedy, corporate structure rock 'n' roll had supposedly evolved into by the mid to late 70s. I've heard the term "rock's mid-life crisis" as a referent for this phenomena. But I think to refer to punk (particularly American punk) as a reaction to corporate rock is to sell it short. To use words like "rejection" and "reaction" suggests a negative motivation behind the movement. What if the punk's supposed rejection of mainstream conformity was concomitant to a larger spirit of affirmation--of accepting and exploring what the world truly had to offer?

I would like to contrast this spirit of being "plugged in" to the realm of metal. I am certainly not the first person to set up punk and metal as binary opposites. But I can't help but compare the spirit of inquiry present in the first generation punks with the seemingly deadened sensibilities of first generation metalheads. Ozzy Osbourne is, of course, the poster child for what I would call "unplugged"--a state of being in which the self is distanced from the world around it. The reality show "Tommy Lee Goes to College" is also an interesting case study. The show is a variation of the archetypal "fish out of water" formula--with the Motley Crue drummer out of his element in a rural educational institution. Why do we like to see Ozzy and Tommy Lee in reality shows? Why do we find these scenarios funny? I think the humor comes from the tension that comes into play when the "unplugged" individual is forced to interact with an outside environment they don't have the ability to assimilate to. We laugh at the novelty of the strategies that they employ, but we also cathartically recognize ourselves. It can be awfully hard to find the outlet sometimes.

Coming next week: how electric vs. acoustic music figures into the discussion