on 3/19/03 7:52 AM, Kurt Gottschalk at ecstasymule@hotmail.com wrote:

the xerox revolution was followed by the home computer revolution. desktop publishing made it possible to look more pro. sure, the taped-and-photocopied pages of punk zines fit with and helped to define the aesthetic they were covering, but they also were working with what they had. and while paper costs have gone up, much of the other costs associated with print publishing have gone down. so i wouldn't take glossiness, necessarily, as a mainstreaming factor. if you look around, there are punk zines now that are glossy and have nice (if often indecipherable) lay out.

I couldn't agree more, but we've really lost something in the process of gaining a smoother look (even if the content hasn't be nice-ified). The music and the lack of graphics tools more expensive than an exacto knife not only typified punk rock, but also defined the aesthetic to the point that the major label punk album covers sought to achieve the same look of urban cheapness. Look at the first Clash cover, Never Mind The Bollocks, ad infinitum. And probably the best thing about punk rock was that people in the audience could have that impact on the bands. You're right that glossiness is not an automatic mainstreaming factor. But I would say it decreases the point-of-purchase impression of a breakaway culture that punk rock actually achieved in nearly every facet of itself. -- skip h http://www.skipheller.com