Rethinking Punk Recording and Production: Elitism, Liveness and the DIY Myth

Punk discourse is heavily predicated on DIY aesthetics and, where the production of punk is concerned, the recreation of liveness embodied in cheap, often quickly produced studio recordings (Laing, 1978; Dunn, 2012). Additionally, punk recordings are often positioned as key to the establishment of global networks (Moran, 2010) and at the nexus of the production and dissemination of punk ideologies (Cross, 2010). However, this tendency to define punk in its wider context of DIY cultural production not only results in a dissemination and reception-focused discourse, but also overlooks the realities of the technological, processual and workplace means involved in some of the genre’s most recognisable texts.

Based on a chapter to be published in The Oxford Handbook of Punk Rock (Arnold & Mackay, 2020) this paper critiques the notion of DIY in the production of punk and instead sets out: the strong connections between early punk of the late 1960s and early 1970s and classical music-focused recordists; the associated processual intentions based on the capturing of live performance; elite recording studios; and, highly realised technological capacity. Building on previous work on the tech-processual construction of punk aesthetics (Bennett, 2015, 2017), this chapter aims to shift the focus of punk production away from broader discussions surrounding the dissemination of ideological values and towards the sites and personnel key to the production of punk. The work of previously overlooked recordists including Oliver DiCicco, Bill Price, Craig Leon, John Loder, Glenn Lockett and Butch Vig are of particular focus. Finally, this paper elucidates the contradictions and tensions in punk production: the retention of liveness as a core punk recording aesthetic is at odds with its aspiration to constructionist rock music production standards and as such, the resulting sonic aesthetics of punk often undermine the genre’s DIY ideology.