Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

What I am enjoying about this Forum is the openness in discussing all types of music, some of which might not fit comfortably into any genre.

I am not sure of the popularity of John Wiese with regard to his Soft Punk. Certainly from what I have been able to learn of punk music, Wiese's claim to soft punk may be a stretch. If one simply accepts his work to be what it is, then he may well be right when characterizing his music as being punk related.

You can find a sampling of his music here.

While I am still trying to appreciate the finer points of his music, I have come to the conclusion that he is soft punk because he says so and that is fine. But, what do you think?

Frankly, my first thought was, "is it something wrong with my player? Or my ears?"
That's not something i would love to have in my collection & play every day. But that could be a good remedy from drunk neighbours who don't behave.
Soft punk? Well, let it be soft punk. I, for one, don't mind, if he wants to call it so, so be it.

Frankly, my first thought was, "is it something wrong with my player? Or my ears?"

Sheena: A great comment. It reminds me what my parents' generation had to say about The Beatles "yeah yeah yeah." Each new generation faces the status quo of the previous one. It will be interesting to see if the music if Wiese is embraced by any generation including his own.

We become comfortable with waht we know and often do not adapt readily to that which is new.

Peter, your comment makes me wanna ask, "am i really that old?!" BTW, Mr Wiese is about a year older than me...
On a serious note, i think there will be audience for his music, as well as for any other kind of music. It's just a matter of time... and promotion. BTW, could it be that when he described his music as "soft punk", he actually meant "cyberpunk", not the genre of music we know as punk rock?

BTW, could it be that when he described his music as "soft punk", he actually meant "cyberpunk", not the genre of music we know as punk rock?

Sheena. You may well be right. I hope to encounter more of his music so that I can understand his approach more completely.

Sometimes definitions are important, even in punk music, so that we can understand that which is before us. I confess that I struggle with making sense out of what he refers to as music. I am more inclined to refer to it as an art form or perhaps random electronics.

That it has us taking about something that we don't understand may be good practice for the brain, but it is hard on the head.

"Software" + "cyberpunk" = "Soft punk"?
I don't yet have any ideas as to how to take this, or define. The only thing i am sure of is that his brain works in a way that's much different from mine. Does he want to say something by those sounds or is he simply having fun? I dunno.

I think he has well and truly crossed the frontier between "music" and "noise". Sounds like a cross between the static between stations on your radio and someone being beaten to death with an iphone.

Evan: One cannot but help notice that his music is reminiscent of 60 cycle hum. I cannot help but feel somewhat manipulated by the pink Marshall stacks on the front of the CD cover and the term "soft punk." Who was it that said there was "one born every minute?" I am at the same time intrigued and wonder what statement he is trying to make. Perhaps he will join us with an explanation.

antipodean wrote:Sounds like a cross between the static between stations on your radio and someone being beaten to death with an iphone.

Couldn't have put it better!

admin wrote:Evan: One cannot but help notice that his music is reminiscent of 60 cycle hum. I cannot help but feel somewhat manipulated by the pink Marshall stacks on the front of the CD cover and the term "soft punk." Who was it that said there was "one born every minute?" I am at the same time intrigued and wonder what statement he is trying to make. Perhaps he will join us with an explanation.

I'd love to hear an explanation - it may be enlightening, or it may be extremely (but unintentionally) amusing.

The only genre I can think of that comes close to this is the "Industrial Rock" on King Crimson's "Three of a Perfect Pair", specifically the track "Industry", although this used conventional instruments to generate the noise and had a reference to melody.

Yep, it would be great to hear an explanation. I used to say, "if music needs some further explanation, it's probably not that much worth listening to", but i'm always ready to change that impression. We cannot know everything, even how to take or feel some particular form of art, and it's always great to learn something.

There are others who do similar things, but it really doesn't make sense. I've seen people who do industrial music and claim that it is punk, and also people who make commercial electronic music and claim that it is punk, and even very commercial remixes of punk songs. And of course they don't have much of a punk following either.

On the other hand there are bands which play acoustic music and claim that it is punk. As long as that doesn't have something of the original punk sound I don't think it can be labeled as punk. If they do all D.I.Y. shows press their own music, perhaps even consider themselves anarchists it still does not make the music punk.

It's like making a sort of industrial music by banging on metal objects and calling it Heavy Metal. A music style has to be generally recognized by others as such to be widely accepted as such.

I think it portrays a previously undiscovered event horizon in the 90's realm of electronica more than it resembles punk. Perhaps he just has a punk attitude, but that alone is not where it's at.