dan jones is a perfect example of why blogs rule. i see dan pretty regular (not enough); and i think i know where he comes from on a lot of big-ticket dude issues. that said, that doesn’t mean i’m not psyched to hear him write, or dig on his print persona. the man is always interesting – and not in that “damning with faint praise” way that you’d use to describe a good friends’ edie brickell-ish album.
here’s a rad interview, par example.
and then here’s the effing moneyshot, dan’s half-review of my man clinton heylin’s babylon’s burning, which i will need to read so soon as i want to need reading punk books again, which’ll probably be soon but would be sooner if they’d just give andrew earles a contract to do a flip your wig book.
i like hearing dan riff on punk because like me i think, he’s halfway befuddled to find himself still ruminating on something like “punk,” but also still having flabergasting amounts of fun with the tv party et al.
so read the fancy dan blog and then ponder this yes/no question, augmenting it or not augmenting it with sentences of pro/con testimony:
in your opinion, do questions like “what’s punk in 2007?” or “is punk dead?” have anything to do with the music’s being “dangerous” or not? extra credit: “dangerous” = what?