Q&A w/L.A. Punk Brendan Mullen

For those of us who weren't living in L.A. in the late 70s/early 80s, Brendan Mullen might not be the most familiar of names, but he's definitely an important figure in that region's musical history. Mullen not only helped give the beginnings of the punk scene there a place to make noise, he also helped chronicle its oral history with We Got the Neutron Bomb: The Untold Story of L.A. Punk. The 2001 book, which he co-authored with Marc Spitz, is an excellent Please Kill Me-style collection of memories from band members (from X, the Germs, the Screamers, Black Flag, the Go-Go's, etc.), photographers, scenesters and Mullen himself, who owned a Hollywood nightclub/rehearsal space called the Masque, one of the first big haunts for the local punk crowd. Mullen has been a passionate supporter of L.A. underground music from the beginning, his interests spawning a second book called Lexicon Devil: The Fast Times and Short Life of Darby Crash and the Germs that came out in the spring. I talked with Mullen recently about the roots, legacy and future of this thing we call punk.

I don't honestly know. I wouldn't say it was a "resurgent" interest, I think it's interest coming up for the first time ever. For more than 25 years, New York and London media took all the cred for creating the culture and ruthlessly revised all the great West Coastin' proto-punk contributions out of the picture all these years, and now there's a whole new generation who've just figured out the music has some serious roots?and not all of it created by New York and London as has hitherto been rammed down everybody's throat. The rock press in London, especially NME and Melody Maker, wouldn't give any L.A. punk band the time of day during the late 70s except to trash it. "Inauthentic," "Irrelevant" "Absolutely not to be taken seriously" are some of the snotty backhanders I remember that stung the most, so now it's our turn to be out in the sun, I guess.

When you hear about older punk communities, often people say, "Oh, that will never happen again. Now it's all been done already so there's nothing left to do." Do you subscribe to that philosophy?

I tend to believe it could never happen again in the same way since "innocence" and "naivete" were part of the old punk package and mass media eliminated that from youth pop culture a long time ago. Part of it is the negative, downside of the Internet, too, which is both a blessing and a curse. If a new regional scene started somewhere, or one was brewing, it would be a Gap commercial within six months instead of 20 years. You can bet the farm some bright young thing within the movement will sell all the marketing secrets to some asinine multinational conglomerate, just like they did in the 60s when the major record labels hired "resident freaks" to give themselves instant cred, and just as they did in the 80s with all those dopey "alterna-nation" shoegazing intern geeks they hired to cash in on all the benefits the radical L.A. punk scene left in its wake. I'm sure they're trying to hire "emo" kids right now, or whatever. Unless it was quickly diffused, a new "punk scene" would simply be seen as an "opportunity" for people to have "careers."

What were some of the social and economic factors that lead to L.A. becoming such a haven for pre-punk acts?

Cheap living in L.A. Pre-Reagan, one week's work paid your rent. Now it's three weeks work to cover it. Ironically, because the record industry completely ignored the L.A. punk scene in its backyard, it was allowed to grow and develop at its own pace with no hype. Thank God they left us alone till it was too late, but somehow they managed to fuck it up anyway. This gave our scene time to become colorful, creative and incredibly diverse. In the beginning, pre-hardcore punk was open to any interpretation or spin anybody wanted to put on it.

Now that a certain element of the "punk esthetic" has hit the mainstream, what's happening to the idea of punk in general?

On the negative side: Any kid can now download all the music for free and kit themselves out as a punker at the mall for 250 bucks or less without having to partake in any particular "lifestyle" or be committed to any specific political goals. And of course this chafes against many of the first generation of punkers since they see kids getting off lightly. They see kids going voila!?instant Internet punk-o-rama without having to be really committed. But what I say to my aging punk fogey peers is this: What smart punker kid with half a brain would want to live much of the lifestyle we lived? For what? Maybe they are bright enough to perceive they'd get nothing out of it if they did.

The war was won already. Punk culture changed the world already?without the aid of mass media?and now mass media finally got in on it, although awfully late in the game, and there are many, many people?many more than you'd think?who have become multimillionaires from punk rock. It was a natural evolution, unfortunately, in a capitalist-consumer society. Look at the alternative to what might have happened to punk without the recent mass marketing and the Internet: complete extinction?

You could say, on the other hand, why on earth would the older punks not want the next generation to experience the benefits they created? Because we want to clutch on to everything all for ourselves? Bad idea. Now today's kids have got punk rock at their disposal, at least as an outlet for creativity, and so hopefully they'll be able to figure out the next stage of its evolution. Kids always do. It's their show now, to make something cool out of it again.

Compared to the other bands you covered in Neutron Bomb, what was it about Darby Crash and the Germs that made you want to write a separate book on him/that band?

Two reasons: fascinating Southern Californian sociology and music. Darby was an archetype, a symbol and an icon to many radically alienated kids. To me he was a poster boy for the first generation of "latch-key kids." Then there's the (G.I.) album?which I'll maintain till I die is a classic recording in every way. [The record] not only captures the time we're talking about in every way, but it also displays some definite pop songwriting skills?regardless of what many may say about the Germs, who were fun to watch, but who basically sucked live and they knew it. However, in the studio, the Germs were a whole different thing, if you listen to them carefully. Drugs can help.

Books like yours seems to be about the culture of the time, which is generating a big interest from people. Is there also a big interest in the music? Or do you see this as being more about the anthropology than the music? For example, you're not hearing X or Screamers bootlegs or the Germs on the radio. Is there some kind of disconnect where the cultural significance outweighs the music?

You have a good point. I wanted to get it all in there. I wanted it to be about both, especially the music?always my prime drive in nearly everything I do?but I also badly needed it to be seen as a serious work of anthro research because the West Coast proto-punk culture had been excluded from being allowed to exist for so long. I badly needed to set up the tone of the teen sociology of the time, which in turn created this culture, which gradually began to create its own music. But I'm happy that some of the music is getting a second chance to be heard. And there are many, many people out there who care deeply about it, those who don't need a whole movement behind them to listen to or play punk rock.