to work through your logic further:

“punk in both its london and new york (and west coast and dc, etc) incarnations comprises a different movement (or set of movements) from house, techno, electro, or their descendants, in spite of some degree of mutual appreciation and influence. your baffling complaint that i would make a distinction between culturally (not to mention geographically) different scenes smacks of sophistry.”
even at the level of a highly-localized, (supposedly) boundary-oriented image of cultural form, such as a specific city’s punk scene, the relationship between punk and and dance music goes beyond mutual appreciation and influence. cabaret voltaire, their involvement with the sheffield punk scene, and collaboration with marshall jefferson on groovy, laidback and nasty is probably one of the better known examples in defense of my “sophistry” that punk and dance music cannot be distinguished from each other so simply.

“further, “you don’t need to know how to ‘play’ an instrument to make punk” is one of the most boring rock critic platitudes.”
regardless of how often critics spirit this in defense of rock, thereby devaluing it somewhat as cliche, to dismiss the sentiment outright as platitude comes off as a tad arrogant. seefeel had a who-gives-a-fuck, punk ethos about their guitar playing, recontextualized it within ambient techno, and came up with the non-boring quique.

“punk usually displays rather traditional musical trappings of pop and rock, requiring its practitioners to own an instrument and know how to play chords, nearly always while in a band. for me, that’s not a contradiction; in fact it’s why i love punk.”
i could say dance music usually displays rather traditional music trappings of a 4/4 beat, requiring its practitioners to own drums/a drum machine and know how to sequence a kit of sounds, nearly always in a studio, but both you and i know that’s hardly the point.

punk in both its london and new york (and west coast and dc, etc) incarnations comprises a different movement (or set of movements) from house, techno, electro, or their descendants, in spite of some degree of mutual appreciation and influence. your baffling complaint that i would make a distinction between culturally (not to mention geographically) different scenes smacks of sophistry. further, “you don’t need to know how to ‘play’ an instrument to make punk” is one of the most boring rock critic platitudes. punk usually displays rather traditional musical trappings of pop and rock, requiring its practitioners to own an instrument and know how to play chords, nearly always while in a band. for me, that’s not a contradiction; in fact it’s why i love punk.

the conclusion you came to yourself–that i’m insinuating love what you feel and disco nihilist’s approach is more valid than one which uses digital means of production and distribution–is absolutely not a position i hold. perhaps i disagree with tom and mike about this. that’s fine. regardless, i found this release a compelling aesthetic exercise that made a statement about particular aspects of dance music and its history (like primer does about sci-fi, also using outdated, bare-bones techniques to come up with something brilliantly contemporary). equally importantly, i think it’s great dance music. i will be playing this record in my own sets.

i concede that “putting punk to shame” was an overstatement, but it was meant to be. it’s a partly performative position, almost a thought experiment, one worth conducting in light of both the stink of capital that has plagued certain kinds of dance music since the nineties (progressive house, anyone?) and the common prejudice that rock, especially punk, is inherently rebellious critique while dance is mindless hedonism. my mistake framing my argument in terms of difference rather than congruity. i don’t, however, think that merited your dismissive tone and ad hominem accusation of “partisanship.”

“Not in a band? Just put on some records.”
you can make punk music by yourself; you don’t need a band.

“Can’t play an instrument? Buy a sequencer.”
you don’t need to know how to “play” an instrument to make punk. that’s the whole point.

“Can’t get signed? Start your own label.”
because people who made punk didn’t self-release vinyl, cassettes, CDRs, zines…

the desperate bicycles’ idea behind DIY was “it was easy, it was cheap – go and do it.” in 2009, putting out your tracks as digital releases is just as DIY in the original sense as a vinyl enthusiast putting out a guy’s exclusively-analogue music exclusively on vinyl, if not more so. As they say, the medium is the tedium.

I don’t think anyone is questioning pipecock’s passion for music, and he should be congratulated for starting his own label. But your insinuation that his model, which is largely informed by a certain aesthetic, is more valid an approach to DIY than say Irdial’s, is reductive and partisan.