My So-Called Punk: Green Day, Fall Out Boy, The Distillers, Bad Religion---How Neo-Punk Stage-Dived into the Mainstream

by Matt Diehl

When it began, punk was an underground revolution that raged against the mainstream; now punk is the mainstream. Tracing the origins of Grammy-winning icons Green Day and the triumphant resurgence of neo-punk legends Bad Religion through MTV's embrace of pop-punk bands like Yellowcard, music journalist Matt Diehl explores the history of new punk, exposing how this once cult sound became a blockbuster commercial phenomenon. Diehl follows the history and controversy behind neo-punk―from the Offspring's move from a respected indie label to a major, to multi-platinum bands Good Charlotte and Simple Plan's unrepentant commercial success, through the survival of genre iconoclasts the Distillers and the rise of "emo" superstars like Fall Out Boy.
My So-Called Punk picks up where bestselling authors Legs McNeil and Jon Savage left off, conveying how punk went from the Sex Pistol's "Anarchy in the U.K." to anarchy in the O.C. via the Warped Tour. Defining the sound of today's punk, telling the stories behind the bands that have brought it to the masses and discussing the volatile tension between the culture's old and new factions, My So-Called Punk is the go-to book for a new generation of punk rock fans.

Genres: Music, Nonfiction, Punk

272 pages, Paperback

First published April 17, 2007

Reviews

[bibliogrrl · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book completely sucks. But I can't stop reading it.

I'm going to try to stop editing this review, and let awful dogs lie. It's just... bad. It is badly written, badly edited, riddled with inconsistencies, bad information... UGH. In this internet age, there is no reason for the book to be so full of this many factual errors.

I'll stop now. I need to finish reading this awful book.

****

so, I'm reading this book NOW, and it is SERIOUSLY PISSING ME OFF. I kind of had the feeling it would.

Andy Greenwald's Nothing Feels Good made me giggle a bit (I mean come on, it's EMO), but he had most of the history right.

But lumping in bands like The Smoking Popes, Avail, Hot Water Music, Down By Law and AFI (who I don't like all that much, mind you, but have been in the scene FOREVER and totally paid their dues) with the current crop of mall punk and basically comparing them to Blink-182?

I don't think so.

Also? Dude is from CHICAGO and doesn't write about the scene here AT ALL; he totally glosses over it, in favor of the coasts, and actually focuses on California.

I have the feeling I'll be throwing this book at some point, but I had that feeling going in. More ranting to come as I read more.

*edited to add*

GAH - Now he's getting bands cities of origins wrong. Yes, piddly and picky, BUT KNOW YOUR HISTORY IF YOU ARE WRITING IT.

**edited again to add**

AND NOW HE IS COMPARING RITES OF SPRING AND JAWBREAKER TO SAVES THE DAY and THURSDAY.

I might need a shiv.

Someone might just get hurt. And I think my roommate might be wondering why I'm in my room, alone, yelling.

[Viv · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was a huge disappointment on re-reading. Its full of typos and factual errors. They did a chapter on gender, race and class in punk and spent it talking about The Clash and Green Day *yawn*. The chapters either generously paraphrased books that were probably better or they relied on the same 5 interviews. I wanted to like this book. I really really did. "neo punk" (worst term ever btw) was the punk that I discovered first and I still have a fondness for and I was excited to read a book about aspects of punk that I experienced as opposed to another book about the Clash/Ramones/Sex Pistols establishment.

Also, holy shit do members of the Dropkick Murphys say some problematic shit.

[John · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm about halfway through, but I'm thinking the title should have been revised to be:
"I have a HUGE hard on for Brody Dalle, so I wrote a book about how nifty she is. P.S. I hope she notices me" The amount of time he's spent going over her and the Distillers got old by the second chapter. Also there has been some poor editing, he's misnamed songs and attributed a song by the Offspring to Social Distortion.

It's an interesting take on the subject, but not a particularly good one.

At the end - his fascination with Brody Dalle never relents and it drags the book down. I'm not sure what the point was in an entire chapter dedicated to SuicideGirls.com. Overall a painfully dull read and that's why it took me so long to complete. I'd avoid it and look to Michael Azerrad if you're looking for someone who can document bands properly.

[Samantha Puc · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm giving up on this awful, awful book. I'm loathe to even give it one star - it's badly researched, badly organized, and badly written. I've counted hundreds of easy typos that even a spellchecker on Word would have caught and found several factual errors. Diehl's argument seems to be that punk is no longer really punk, and he would know because he's always been punk. He puts down nearly every band he talks about, save for the Distillers and maybe Rancid. This book is just bad. I'm a little shocked that its average rating on Goodreads is almost three stars, because it doesn't seem to serve a purpose beyond emphasizing how desperately Diehl wants to prove that he knows more about punk than people who play punk music - which he very clearly does not. Abandoning without regret. Pissed that I spent money on this crap.

[Paolo Jose · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was 15 years old, when I first heard “Basket Case” – the carrier single from Green Day’s breakthrough album, Dookie – blaring from the car radio in antiseptic Singapore. Since then, I’ve been more or less engaged with punk rock in varying degrees – as a listener, a gig organizer, a zinester, and a natural smart-ass with an opinion about everything. And like so many others with a few notches in our spiked belts, I’m a little ambivalent towards many things associated with punk, circa 2008. Granted, certain possibilities excite me – for example, the use of social networking tools like Facebook to build transnational punk solidarity. Others leave me somewhat disturbed (like the increasingly casual acceptance of a sexist ‘bros-before-hos’ mentality within ‘the scene’). Most of it just bores me to tears – the histrionic pretty-boy singers, the recycled melodies, and humorless posturing. So I was understandably anxious, when I saw a new book titled My So-Called Punk, promising a concise study of the factors explaining How Neo-Punk Stage-Dived into the Mainstream (as per its subtitle).

Its author, Matt Diehl, has a background in freelance journalism. And it shows, big time. Other than the introduction and the last chapter, it’s possible to read the whole book out of sequence, and it still makes sense. It’s less an organized quest for the “soul of punk” (Diehl’s phrase, not mine) than a kind of guided package tour of modern-day punk culture, in the context of the hyper-wired, post-MTV global marketplace. So each chapter reads more like an extended magazine article, dealing with a specific theme related to punk, with an obvious figurehead to illustrate that particular subject area. For example, when Diehl analyzes gender, sexuality, and desire, he focuses on the “alt porn” website Suicide Girls, with its pierced and hair-dyed models paying lip service to feminism, through an in-house brand of sexual empowerment. Similarly, the Vans Warped Tour and Epitaph Records represent differing business models in the evolving nature of punk commerce, while the Distillers (and front-woman Brody Dalle in particular) exemplify the highs and pitfalls of reaching celebrity status.

This approach works fine, if you’re busy, or you’re reading the book in bite-sized chunks, like I did. But taken as a whole, it can be kinda repetitive, especially when Diehl chooses to repeat key facts, or reintroduce a person who was mentioned in an earlier section. It doesn’t help that Diehl’s writing lacks clever wordplay or memorable phrasing (especially in comparison to Andy Greenwald, who penned Nothing Feels Good, a similarly-themed book about the contemporary emo scene).

Now, I can overlook a writing style that didn’t entertain me. It’s a matter of personal taste, really – it might not appeal to my own preferences, but others may like it, just the way it is. Diehl’s prose is definitely casual and straightforward enough to get his points across, while remaining authoritative enough to read like a legitimate history. There’s a sufficient mix of personal side comments, storytelling, and intellectual observations to make My So-Called Punk a worthwhile read.

My real issue with the book has to do with Diehl’s treatment of the subject matter. As a descriptive term, “punk” commonly refers to one the following things:

(a) A broad mode of cultural production, involving do-it-yourself sensibilities and the use of independent media;

(b) Identification with a particular subculture or community, with aesthetics opposed to bourgeois propriety and/or the (generalized) Powers That Be, or;

(c) Some combination of both.

Now, Diehl would like to believe that punk is all of the above; he clearly embraces the laissez-faire permissiveness of liberal democracy. So he neatly lumps any self-identified misfit, outcast, or iconoclast under the banner. In fact, the book ends with the words, “Meet the new punk. Chances are it looks a lot like… you.”

As a result of this feel-good inclusiveness, Diehl’s overview of what it means to be punk circa 2007 includes a number of contradictory examples, all unified by their connection with the p-word. We meet emo kids who gush about Fall Out Boy on their MySpace profiles, defying the boundaries of small-town geography. We encounter old hands and three-chord workhorses like the Bouncing Souls and Pennywise, who emerged as promising Next Big Things, in the wake of Dookie’s mid-90s success, now viewed as potential also-rans in a scene that’s more competitive and market-like than ever before. And of course, there’s Green Day themselves, who picked up a Grammy for a quasi-rock opera that criticized the “redneck agenda” and the “subliminal mindfuck America”. But then Diehl throws readers a curveball, by suggesting that perhaps it’s the more experimental, poly-ethnic groups like Bloc Party and TV on the Radio who may be the most genuinely punk of all. Of course, since it’s ALL punk to him, and punk = freedom and diversity, he doesn’t feel the need to account for the differences between these various factions.

By refusing to commit to a standard definition, Diehl forces the readers to figure out which aspect of punk he’s referring to, at a given moment. This works fine if you’re somebody who has first-hand involvement with punk (or at least an active, long-standing fascination with it). However, for the book’s implied target audience – the kids weaned on Blink-182, and Jackass, and punk idols who date billionaire heiresses – the nuances of Diehl’s commentary may not be as immediately obvious.

Of course, the underlying message is that punk is something worth revitalizing, in the first place. But without a substantial way to qualify punk, the book fails as a call to arms. Indeed, cynics would argue that punk is just a kind of “false consciousness” – a loud, noisy pseudo-movement that inadvertently functions like a minor league for the corporate behemoths that it supposedly opposes. The only real way to bring about lasting change would be to just disregard the mainstream altogether, leaving one free to set his/her own cultural terms – less Michael Moore agit-prop, more Steve Jobs visionary pragmatism. But then others (like me) would say that’s exactly what makes something punk, to begin with.

[Jd · Rating 2 out of 5]

So I'm in borders one day killing time and I see this book on an end cap. Just for kicks i opened it to a random page and voila! There is this letter written by Tony Brummel to the heads of all these major labels telling them how much more successful Hawthorne Heights is than all of their bands just because they had a better ratio of radio spins to album sales. I thought the letter was hilarious to say the least and I basically read this book based on that alone. All in all it was kind of a boring read and the dude who wrote this seems to have a huge crush on that girl who sings for the Distillers (there are literally five chapters about her).

[Allison · Rating 1 out of 5]

I saw this at the library so I had to check it out. The author is completely obsessed with Brody Dalle of the Distillers and while the idea that there is even anything that could still be considered punk these days is laughable, he gives a decent history of bands like Rancid, Green Day, Bad Religion and some other "neo-punk" bands. I hate all of these bands so it was probably a goofy idea to check this book out but his insight boiled down into a large excuse to do his Master's thesis on the reasons why he thinks Brody Dalle is hot and to overstate the importance of her music on Suicide Girls and "punk". Terrible.

[Mike · Rating 1 out of 5]

LAME LAME LAME

worst book about punk/hardocore EVER.

[Anthony Sunby · Rating 3 out of 5]

Meh…growing up in punk starting in the mid-80’s I like a lot of the first wave “new-school” punk, so I thought this would be fun little read…it was, but I feel like there were situations and such that seemed to be repeated. Coulda been written better, but it was interesting…but where’s the CHICAGO representation at?!? I also got this book cause dude is from here, so I expected more Chicago references, ESPECIALLY SINCE A HUGE EARLY 90’s pop punk explosion happened here!!…but barely any mention…bummer.
One other thing is, I feel like he wrote mostly about the bigger-major-label-cookie-cutter bands and not the real underground punks who didn’t get big and kept us kids entertained while maintaining their ideals of keeping punk rock for the outcasts…
But, I’d say pick it up if you’re curious, or if you’re a kid who is into that mainstream stuff…

[gretagoose · Rating 4 out of 5]

I learned a lot about punk history from this! However, the title is confusing to me. I don't really understand what the book as a whole is getting at-I think the author is trying to answer/tackle some question/problem. However, I don't know what the question is and I don't think it was ever answered. An enjoyable read, though! Can't believe I got this at Christmas and it took me until now to finish it.

[Rob · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was bought off the discount shelf at HMV, and it shows.

The premise suffers from the author's view of any band formed after 1981 as "neo-punk" and a bewildering insistence that the Distillers are the apotheosis of that genre/movement/taxonomic classification. Written in 2006, and determined to stay there, this did not age well.

[Donna Kay · Rating 1 out of 5]

I had high hopes for this book, that were soon lost. It took everything in me to finish this book.
It does really go in to what the punk scene is about. Let alone where it has been or where it's going.
If you want to read a love letter to Brody Dalle look no further. It honestly focuses mainly on Matt Diehl's fascination with her.

[Honor · Rating 1 out of 5]

an okay read for an afternoon, but man did this age poorly. you can honestly find better and more lasting scholarship on the culture and values of 90s-2000s pop punk/emo on livejournal forums and tumblr, and i’m not exaggerating.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

A mostly interesting read, but definitely a little outdated. Dude was definitely convinced the Distillers were about to take over the world.

[Bill · Rating 3 out of 5]

Oh man, I wanted to loooove this book. I wanted to get all those warm fuzzy feelings I get when I hear people talking about the punk that I grew up on and how it fostered a new generation of bands.

But all I can say is that someone like Matt Diehl should know better than writing a book like this. He's got a good pedigree and by and large knows what he's talking about, but man does that get overshadowed by a LOT of inconsistencies and an obsession with Brody Dalle. Now I'm not a punk elitist and I don't really care about what people lump into punk, pop punk, mall punk, neo-punk, etc etc. But some of the info in the book was flat-out wrong. And did I mention that he's obsessed with Brody Dalle? Because he sure does.

In short, there are a lot of books that do what this book does, but better. I won't say it's a waste of your time to read it, but this is probably only recommended to folks (like yours truly) who want to get all the angles on the modern punk movement. Other than that, pick any of the other four or five modern punk/pop punk/emo case study books.

[Kay · Rating 3 out of 5]

you know when you first meet a person, and you're utterly infatuated? when they can do no wrong, and they're the coolest, most fascinating person you've ever met? yeah, that's how this book was for me. it was totally: woah, a book about semi-current punk music (a genre i'm attached too), and i actually know some of the bands the author's talking about. awesome!and then (to carry the analogy) you learn that the person is actually a prep, or secretly a republican, or really likes britney spears - you know, something devastatingly awful and uncool? same thing happened here - a couple style errors, unedited repetition, unedited infatuation, and failure to deliver on what the title promises. i really should stop hoping that books about popular music will be good.

[Anthony Crutcher · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is a look into punk and pop punks place and transformation in the music world in the mid 90s. This novel is an interesting look into the behind the scenes of what happened during the nineties in punk rock. The author knows many of the artists who were involved since he was a music journalist at the time and a enthusiast himself. Although the author didn't play in a band involved himself he was there and therefore has his own insight as well as the facts and the interviews. I learned from this book that telling a history does not have to be so impersonal. In this book the author spends whole chapters telling the story of musicians involved with the history's personal stories. I feel like this added another aspect to the novel and got a lot more information out as well.

[Ashley · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is an interesting look into the world of punk rock in the 1990's and 2000's. Most of the punk books are about early punk, think 1970's and 1980's, so it was good to see more recent years represented. However, it was largely based upon a false premise that Brody Dalle and the Distillers were going to save punk rock. Personally, I don't agree with that, but the book was published in 2004 so maybe I would feel differently if I had read it at that time.

[Gerry LaFemina · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have a fairly extensive library of books on punk, and this one is poorly written--filled with redundancies--and becomes at times a fan's affair with Brodie Dalle of the Distillers. I like the Distillers, but Diehl dedicates way too much time in this book to his belief that she will be the salvation of punk (umm, nope didn't turn out that way) and to his fandom for the band so that he loses all journalistic objectiveness. I just started flipping pages after awhile...

[Ed Wagemann]

Why Everything You Think You Know About Punk Is Completely Wrong:
http://generation-add.blogspot.com/20...

[Kate · Rating 3 out of 5]

One take on 90's punk. I thought there was too much emphasis on The Distillers. I never got into them. Likely because I am from the opposite coast and they never played the Moose club in my hometown.

I also wouldn't call Bad Religion "neo" punk. Second wave, maybe.

Several bands mentioned in the book aren't punk at all - to me. But isn't that the question: What's punk?

Fast read, recommended for people who are too young to remember 1994.

[Andrew · Rating 1 out of 5]

Dont read this for punk history!!!! This book could have been a lot shorter. It felt like he had a handful of points and just kept making them in anyway he could. It seemed at times he would ramble and just say what came to mind. Plus it seems like he's in love with Brodie Dalle and thinks way too highly of her band.

[John Marr · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pretty mediocre look at mall punk from someone who sounds like he should know better. Pretty funny, though, the way he drools over one would-be punk diva that never quite became the voice of her (or any) generation

[Leah Fitzgerald · Rating 2 out of 5]

Weirdly repetitive. Obviously has a giant boner for Brody Dalle. Didn't really give me any insight on Bad Religion or any bands that were actually interesting. Some interesting tidbits in it here and there, though.

[Sarah · Rating 2 out of 5]

The topic looked interesting when I found this book at Half Price Books, but it just wasn't very well written at all.

[Amy Kinard · Rating 1 out of 5]

This seemed to be more about Brody Dalle and the Distillers than anything else. Quite honestly, it was pretty boring and not worth the read.

[Agatha Donkar Lund · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solidly between an oral history and a think piece. Needed more Pete Wentz but was otherwise deeply engaging.

Plus Diehl is a Carl, so I'm predisposed to like his stuff.

[Matt · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5/5

MH

2007 Read