"Pop-Punk" [Archive]

RevMARKSman

18th January 2007, 01:21

I've listened to many tunes that I liked and were labeled as "pop-punk" by radio stations, etc.

I even looked at the Wiki article, and all the artists they listed sounded like rock or just pop. Has anyone else found the "pop-punk" genre kind of arbitrary? I'm proposing that people stop recognizing it as a legitimate genre, with a few guidelines to determine where music fits.

Short version: If it's shitty, it's pop. Give it to the 9-14 year olds with crushes on Britney Spears and whoever else is popular. If it sounds ok, it's rock or punk, depending on whether it fits.

Long version:

If it fits at least 2 of these requirements, it's pop:
1. Nasal, rather high-pitched vocals
2. Cheesy sound effects. You know what I mean...sort of like at the beginning of the Killers' Somebody Told Me.
3. The main subject matter is an angsty teenage breakup.

If less than 3, it's rock or punk.

Am I missing something or is the "pop-punk" label only for young rock bands that have achieved commercial success?

Invader Zim

18th January 2007, 01:31

Firstly you assume, incorrectly, that all pop music is shitty - which it most certainly is not.

Secondly you three point 'system' is dire and I can think of several bands who are hardly 'pop' of any form which score two if not three points.

Am I missing something or is the "pop-punk" label only for young rock bands that have achieved commercial success?

What like the offspring (in their 40's), greenday (in their mid 30's) Blink 182 & Angels vs Airwaves & +44 (30's), etc? Not very young all these guys, yet perhaps the best examples of pop-punk.

And why, in a thread about pop-punk/rock thread did you come out with the Killers, who are best describable as an indie/altrock/synth-rock band, who have achieved some popularity? (another example of a band whom most of their members are in their 30's or very close to getting there)

Purple

18th January 2007, 01:34

The problem I have with a lot of "pop-punk" is that they are soley created by a series of lyricists, studio managers, and corporate whores. Their voices are usually heavily manipulated in the studio, and their live singing is rarely decent. Their music usually contains catchy choruses and very "clean" instrument sounds, with no room for experimentation. Plus, most of them have other people decide what to wear and who to date.

My feeling towards what seperates pop-punk from ordinary punk or rock is the raw edges and the sincerity behind the songs. Rock and bands such as Velvet Revolver, Rise Against, Foo Fighters, Dropkick Murphys, Nine Inch Nails, and so one has a certain seriousness and skill that makes them appear a bit more superior than the common person.

Edelweiss

18th January 2007, 01:47

I don't think the label is that arbitrary. I think the label "pop-punk" applies for a more melodic, less noisy, cleaner form of punk rock, which is musically attracting more people than the dirty, snotty classic punk rock which is just unbearable noise for most people, especially when it comes to completely un-melodic punk forms like hardcore, grindcore, crustcore etc. I would classify most NOFX songs for example pop-punk, or the first Propgandhi album, both bands are political, and aren't fitting into your classification of pop-punk at all. But of course also billboard bands like Green Day the Offspring, Sum 41 or Blink 182 are mostly pop-punk.

Dr. Rosenpenis

18th January 2007, 02:31

As far as I'm concerned, pop punk is new-wave
=D

Dr. Rosenpenis

18th January 2007, 02:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 10:34 pm
The problem I have with a lot of "pop-punk" is that they are solely created by a series of lyricists, studio managers, and corporate whores. Their voices are usually heavily manipulated in the studio, and their live singing is rarely decent. Their music usually contains catchy choruses and very "clean" instrument sounds, with no room for experimentation. Plus, most of them have other people decide what to wear and who to date.

My feeling towards what separates pop-punk from ordinary punk or rock is the raw edges and the sincerity behind the songs. Rock and bands such as Velvet Revolver, Rise Against, Foo Fighters, Dropkick Murphys, Nine Inch Nails, and so one has a certain seriousness and skill that makes them appear a bit more superior than the common person.
Dropkick Murphys are actually generally and rightfully categorized as crappy hardcore punk

Malte's definition pretty much sums it up

Think of musical genres in the context of musical or cultural movements... which is how they actually happened. It makes far more sense than trying to dissect each song. This leads to scrutinization over rhythms, beats, time signatures, even melodic-ness, vocal stylings, instrumentation, and other such ridiculous "defining features" of musical genres.

Oiron

19th January 2007, 18:44

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 18, 2007 02:33 am
Dropkick Murphys are actually generally and rightfully categorized as crappy hardcore punk

Never mind the 'crappy' part, but I've usually seen the DKM categorized as streetpunk and Celtic punk ;)

Regarding pop-punk -
The problem with categorizations like that is, they are rarely relevant. The tendency in music, just like in literature, is overstepping the boundaries of genre and all that... When you try to cover all the elements in the music of a certain band or artist or whatever, you usually get labels like 'pop-folk post punk revival' or something :rolleyes: :lol: Every band could be a genre of their own, pretty much. So, when bands are labeled, they usually get labeled more according to their audience then to the music itself.

I like Malte's definition well enough - that's what people probably should call pop punk (elements of pop + elements of punk in the music, eh?). California punk would fit somewhere in there, probably, together with Derry punk of the seventies, a lot of early Cock Sparrer songs... and whatnot. It's pretty broad.

I usually stick to calling all of that 'melodious punk', if I have to call it anything ;)

Now, what's usually referred to as pop punk is, as I see it, basically pop music, but the preformers have adopted punk styling (or what they think is punk styling). <_<

Honggweilo

19th January 2007, 18:59

every form of punk that goes commercial goes shitty, but pop-punk, melodic or new-wave sounding punk rock isnt always bad. If a band changes its style of music or addapts to mainstream culture and media just for the revenue, they are not in it for the music or the message, and therefore isnt artistic. Like with every kind of music, when culture becomes commercialized and its just a way to get rich, its crap. This also mean the bands are always political correct in the eyes of the establishment, or pretend to be rebelious with pacifist or nihilist messaging.

Like Malte says, commercialized bands like Blink 182, Greenday, Good Charlotte, and (for the dutchies here) Di-rect would also be categorized as crappy pop-punk. The Offspring is still good music, but still commercialized from a politcal point of view.

i think leftover crack has a good definition of commercialized pop-punk is;
"who needs politics when punk is fashion"

mrfancycrackers

22nd January 2007, 18:33

Pop punk is a real genre, bands like Dillinger Four, the Briefs, Toys That Kill, etc... I think it's probably a good rule to eschew any genre categorization by major record labels.

OneBrickOneVoice

23rd January 2007, 06:03

Dropkick Murphys are actually generally and rightfully categorized as crappy hardcore punk

No actually more like Oi! Punk, listen to Worker's song and then tell me they are crappy.

23rd January 2007, 07:14

Pop-punk is a complete contradiction, as the punk mentality is anti-pop culture. These bands aren't punk at all; they're pop, plain and simple.

Dr. Rosenpenis

23rd January 2007, 08:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:03 am

Dropkick Murphys are actually generally and rightfully categorized as crappy hardcore punk

No actually more like Oi! Punk, listen to Worker's song and then tell me they are crappy.
Yeah, they're crappy.

mrfancycrackers

23rd January 2007, 20:56

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 23, 2007 07:14 am
Pop-punk is a complete contradiction, as the punk mentality is anti-pop culture. These bands aren't punk at all; they're pop, plain and simple.
The bands being discussed certainly are not punk. However, pop-punk is not a contradiction, as it is a real genre. Again, Dillinger Four, the Briefs, the Lawrence Arms, etc, etc...

Cyanide Suicide

23rd January 2007, 22:05

My definition of pop-punk is a group of musicians that have a punk attitude/energy/lifestyle, yet their music is poppish. As in, more melodic, higher more polished vocals, etc.

I think a prime example of pop-punk would be Green Day's first two albums on Lookout! Records before they sold out and became "about the money."

socialistpunk

17th June 2007, 22:02

So would pop-punk desribe what green day and maybe some of the newer bands that claim to be punk but are just a PC version of punk without all the political and non-politicle elements to punk

IcarusAngel

17th June 2007, 22:50

No, it has nothing to do with just "newer bands." Pop-punk has always been around. Even the Ramones could be considered pop-punk or just rock (and often is by music critics). They were on a major label and were pretty much apolitical. Certainly if NOFX is considered pop-punk (who actually have a very diverse sound and started out as more of a hardcore punk band), then Ramones were pop-punk. Lots of apolitical bands back then could also be considered pop-punk.

I agree with Cyanide Suicide's definition: " My definition of pop-punk is a group of musicians that have a punk attitude/energy/lifestyle, yet their music is poppish. "

Some kinds of pop-punk:

1. Dirty, non-major label apolitical pop-punk (guttermouth, Agent Orange, Vandals, Angry Samoans). I mostly don't like this kind of punk.

2. OK, non-major label mostly apolitical pop-punk. Perhaps you've heard of Unwritten Law, Lagwagon, Descendents (awesome band), Snuff (excellent band), Rancid, etc.

3. Political pop-punk: Pennywise, NOFX (although they're more diverse, but they were mentioned), Anti-Flag, DKM, and so on.

4. major label pop-punk (may or may not be political): Greenday, Offspring, Against Me!, Goldfinger, etc.

Again this goes way back, Snuff, Sub-Society, etc. are old bands.

I consider pop-punk a part of punk, just like skater punk, hardcore punk, thrashpunk, etc. All this is still around, DRI for example, 7 seconds, boy sets fire, hatebreed etc. fit into categories that aren't pop-punk.

The only punk i don't consider punk is the "proto-punk" stuff like Sonic Youth, Gang of Four etc. BS. I like some of it (Sonic Youth is OK), but "proto" is after.

Play a Wire record next to an Unwritten law album and any idiot who knows anything about music could tell you which one "sounds" more punk.

gilhyle

17th June 2007, 23:07

The lineage from the Beach Boys to the Ramones, to X Ray Specs, the Undertones and on to Sum 41 and to Green Day is an honourable, powerful, real tradition. The recent representatives are the weakest, but that is cos the whole punk tradition today is so weak, derivative, second rate.....but still fun live at its best.

Its not pop-punk that is a non-genre, its punk that is (almost) dead. Thatas the problem: living punk - great punk pop songs, derivative, repetitive punk leads to boring punk pop.

Don't Change Your Name

17th June 2007, 23:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:50 pm
The only punk i don't consider punk is the "proto-punk" stuff like Sonic Youth, Gang of Four etc. BS. I like some of it (Sonic Youth is OK), but "proto" is after.
That's not "proto-punk", that's "post-punk"

IcarusAngel

17th June 2007, 23:15

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+June 17, 2007 10:07 pm--> (El Infiltr(A)do @ June 17, 2007 10:07 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 06:50 pm
The only punk i don't consider punk is the "proto-punk" stuff like Sonic Youth, Gang of Four etc. BS. I like some of it (Sonic Youth is OK), but "proto" is after.
That's not "proto-punk", that's "post-punk" [/b]
Right. My mistake. I actually like a lot of the proto-punk bands (MC5, Velvet Underground, to name a few; good politics and stuff), but i'm not such a fan of the art-rock and post-punk.

Invader Zim

18th June 2007, 00:21

Originally posted by IcarusAngel+June 17, 2007 11:15 pm--> (IcarusAngel @ June 17, 2007 11:15 pm)
Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 17, 2007 10:07 pm

[email protected] 17, 2007 06:50 pm
The only punk i don't consider punk is the "proto-punk" stuff like Sonic Youth, Gang of Four etc. BS. I like some of it (Sonic Youth is OK), but "proto" is after.
That's not "proto-punk", that's "post-punk"
Right. My mistake. I actually like a lot of the proto-punk bands (MC5, Velvet Underground, to name a few; good politics and stuff), but i'm not such a fan of the art-rock and post-punk. [/b]
I hate the term proto-punk. It is utterly stupid, bands who had nothing to do with punk, such as velvet underground get cited because they were different and were perhaps an influence on some punk bands. But in reality they were the art rock band along with Pink Floyd, but you say you don't like art rock. The term proto-punk is so utterly meaningless...

I also think your first three points depicting examples of pop-punk are utterly wrong. Bands like snuff can hardly be described as pop-punk, shit yes, pop-punk no. I've seen them live a few times they are consistantly shocking.

IcarusAngel

18th June 2007, 01:04

The term protopunk applies to those bands because they had rock songs that could easily be considered punk -- esp. the stooges, MC5, etc.. Protopunk is used in that context. I've never heard of Velvet Underground being described as "the" art rock band and it's well known early punk bands (like the sex pistols) mocked Pink Floyd and that kind of music.

The examples I cited are of punk bands that are commonly considered pop-punk by most music critics and by punks themselves and they often even consider themselves pop-punk. If you break down pop-punk into political/apolitical/major label/non-major label I don't see how you could disagree with those examples.

I don't give much credibility to somebody who describes Blink 182, Angels vs. Airwaves ([SIC, should be Angels & Airwaves]), +44 as being "pop-punk" bands when they are considered poor even by the worst pop-punk standards. The latter two are usually described as rock bands in the first place, not pop-punk.

praxis1966

18th June 2007, 07:22

Well, personally I don't think that the term pop-punk as I've used it/heard it used really has as much to do with a band's sound as much as it does with the band's status and fans. I've really only heard the term pop-punk applied to bands that have crossed over and gotten mainstream appeal and the celebrity status that goes along with it.

Truth be told, while musically Rancid and Green Day may have alot in common, I would never place them in the same genre because of the difference in noteriety and fan base. Green Day, Sum 41, The Offspring, and bands like them are pop-punk. Rancid, Op Ivey, The Vandals, NOFX, et al would be more appropriately be called skate punk.

Oh, and Dr. Rosenpenis, don't ever confuse DKM with pop-punk. They, along with bands like Blood or Whiskey, Flogging Molly, The Mahones, and The MacGuillicuttys are called Celtic punk or paddy punk; whichever you prefer. And please, stay out of discussions on punk. You listen to arena rock for fuck's sake, which is exactly what punk was rebelling against in the first place.

Angry Young Man

18th June 2007, 13:08

I always took pop-punk to be a style that follows punk rock musical conventions but is more cheery. Bands like Captain Everything.

Hey at least it hasn't been overturned by a bunch of bed-wetting brats with tight jeans and stupid hair who think that Fall Out Boy are emo. Kinda helps to be emotional hardcore if you have some aggression.
Or emotion.

Invader Zim

18th June 2007, 17:33

I've never heard of Velvet Underground being described as "the" art rock band

Well you have now, why do you suppose that Andy Warhol loved them so much? Did you know that Pink Floyds (another archetypal art rock band especially in the eary period) manager and many others considered that when Sid was front man Floyd were the 'British' Velvet Underground?

and it's well known early punk bands (like the sex pistols) mocked Pink Floyd and that kind of music.

Yeah, we all know that when the Sex Pistols were manufactored it was because Johnny Rotton was wearing a Pink Floyd T-Shirt to which he had added "I hate".

I don't give much credibility to somebody who describes Blink 182, Angels vs. Airwaves ([SIC, should be Angels & Airwaves]), +44 as being "pop-punk" bands when they are considered poor even by the worst pop-punk standards.

From a guy who proclaims to dislike art rock but likes among the most seminal and influencial art-rock bands I really think that is rich. It is obvious that you know very little about this subject.

Angry Young Man

18th June 2007, 18:40

Weren't the Floyd equally resentful of the division between fans and band as everyone else? Hence the Wall.

I was watching this program, and all the art-rock bands looked really cool. Then there was Genesis. <_< A giant daisy wtf?!

Dressing up as a martian is ok. Dressing as a woman is ok. LSD influenced live shows are ok. Dressing up as a Bill and Ben character?

IcarusAngel

18th June 2007, 19:49

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 18, 2007 04:33 pm
Well you have now, why do you suppose that Andy Warhol loved them so much? Did you know that Pink Floyds (another archetypal art rock band especially in the eary period) manager and many others considered that when Sid was front man Floyd were the 'British' Velvet Underground?

Find me a music critic that has written this.

Yeah, we all know that when the Sex Pistols were manufactored it was because Johnny Rotton was wearing a Pink Floyd T-Shirt to which he had added "I hate".

Mclaren had already been looking to put a band together, so he had tried to manufacture them before hand. He wanted a singer with the right *attitude* and so he chose Rotten because of that shirt.

However, the claim that Sex Pistols were completely manufactured is a myth, or at least in so much as many other punk bands put together by a manager. Rotten still wrote all the lyrics and the group as a whole composed the music.

From a guy who proclaims to dislike art rock but likes among the most seminal and influencial art-rock bands I really think that is rich. It is obvious that you know very little about this subject.

It's possible to like early influences of a certain form of music but not like what it developed into. I do like Velvet Underground - they were a major label band and they had many songs that were just plain rock and roll (sweet jane, rock n roll, etc. are played on the "classic rock," not art rock, station here all the time). It wasn't all art rock. I don't like what art rock became. It's much the same way that many people like older punk/hardcore but don't care for the new stuff.

What this has to do with punk I don't know, but it's clear you're not very familiar with good pop-punk. And again, it should be noted yoru "classifications" of pop-punk are way off.

You're also fasely assuming that I'm not familiar with the type of good pop-punk/rock you described, i.e. Blink 182 and +44 . But in fact I'm all too familiar with it. For example, here's some more music you might like:

Yellowcard - Lights and Sounds
My Chemical Romance - Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge
Hoobastank - Hoobastank
Eve 6 - Eleventeen
Avril Lavigne - Sk8er boi

gnerally the same kind of bands as Angels & Airwaves. Enjoy your pop-'punk" and pink floyd.
I think I'm going to stick to punk/hardcore/thrash, and some real pop-punk, the kind I described.

IcarusAngel

18th June 2007, 20:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:22 am
Well, personally I don't think that the term pop-punk as I've used it/heard it used really has as much to do with a band's sound as much as it does with the band's status and fans. I've really only heard the term pop-punk applied to bands that have crossed over and gotten mainstream appeal and the celebrity status that goes along with it.

Truth be told, while musically Rancid and Green Day may have alot in common, I would never place them in the same genre because of the difference in noteriety and fan base. Green Day, Sum 41, The Offspring, and bands like them are pop-punk. Rancid, Op Ivey, The Vandals, NOFX, et al would be more appropriately be called skate punk.

Oh, and Dr. Rosenpenis, don't ever confuse DKM with pop-punk. They, along with bands like Blood or Whiskey, Flogging Molly, The Mahones, and The MacGuillicuttys are called Celtic punk or paddy punk; whichever you prefer. And please, stay out of discussions on punk. You listen to arena rock for fuck's sake, which is exactly what punk was rebelling against in the first place.
Yeah but even if you think pop-punk is when a band goes more "mainstream" and tries to apply to a more general public it still always has been a round. I still define it by the more "catchy" "poppy" sounding punk that could almost be pop-rock.

I put rancid in there because I've heard their song "Ruby Soho" so much on the radio I generally have negative connotations of the band because of it, but still, ...And out come the wolves is a good album. anyway:

Vandals = pop punk (anybody who's heard "I have a date," Ape Shall Never Kill Ape, euro-barge, etc. could hardly claim they weren't trying to sound pop-punk). Their songs are even more catchy than what I hear on the radio sometimes:
If the government could read my mind, they'd know I'm thinking of yoooouuuu..

Op ivy = ska, not pop punk (like Streetlight Manifesto, voodoo glow skulls, bouncing souls, etc.)
NOFX = a combination of skate punk, ska punk, etc. Almost all of their albums since punk in drublic have a variety of sounds, but like Vandals there is definitely some pop-punk in there.

RevMARKSman

18th June 2007, 22:25

My Chemical Romance - Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge
Hoobastank - Hoobastank
Eve 6 - Eleventeen
Avril Lavigne - Sk8er boi

gnerally the same kind of bands as Angels & Airwaves.

:blink: What. The. Hell.

See, I have actually listened to Angels and Airwaves and have also had the misfortune to listen to a few songs on that album, and let me tell you - they are not the same kind of music.

i.e. Blink 182 and +44 .
And since when has +44 been good at anything besides harmonizing their vocals?

Invader Zim

18th June 2007, 22:54

Find me a music critic that has written this.

Is not my word as fan and owner of all the albums by both bands not enough?

If not then watch this documentory, which hardly makes any great revelations to all but the most ignorant, but as you don't seem to think that Velvet underground are Art rock, I guess that includes you: -

http://www.tv-links.co.uk/link.do/1/3472/5280/33037/50085

What this has to do with punk I don't know, but it's clear you're not very familiar with good pop-punk.

I know and have albums by most of the bands you have mentioned.

You're also fasely assuming that I'm not familiar with the type of good pop-punk/rock you described, i.e. Blink 182 and +44 . But in fact I'm all too familiar with it. For example, here's some more music you might like:

Yellowcard - Lights and Sounds
My Chemical Romance - Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge
Hoobastank - Hoobastank
Eve 6 - Eleventeen
Avril Lavigne - Sk8er boi

You make the assumption that because I identify bands such as Blink 182 as pop-punk that i like them? You couldn't be more wrong. To give you a clue about where my tastes in terms of punk lie, two of my favorite punk bands are Sham 69 and Cock Sparrer. I don't enjoy acts like Avril Lavigne, etc. But I also do not consider bands like Snuff, terrible though they are, to be pop-punk.

IcarusAngel

18th June 2007, 23:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 09:25 pm

My Chemical Romance - Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge
Hoobastank - Hoobastank
Eve 6 - Eleventeen
Avril Lavigne - Sk8er boi

gnerally the same kind of bands as Angels & Airwaves.

:blink: What. The. Hell.

See, I have actually listened to Angels and Airwaves and have also had the misfortune to listen to a few songs on that album, and let me tell you - they are not the same kind of music.

i.e. Blink 182 and +44 .
And since when has +44 been good at anything besides harmonizing their vocals?
Angels & Airwaves do have a lot of similarities to Avril Lavigne (esp. her new stuff) and in fact she herself was probably influenced by Blink 182 etc.

It seems you're pretty clueless when it comes to punk.

We have one guy (Invader Zim) who bashes bands like Rage Against the Machine and so on, all while listening to far shittier bands and claiming Blink 182 and Angels & Airwaves are pop-punk etc. (they're alternative).

And then we have an idiot (i.e., you) claiming that pop-punk is for whiny
"9-14 year olds" who have "crushes on Britney Spears."

According to you pop-punk is "shitty" even though it includes bands such as the Ramones, the Buzzcocks (two very influential bands, the Ramones possibly being the most influential punk-band ever), NOFX (the punk Rolling Stones), Millencolin, Lagwagon and nearly every other band on Epitaph and Nitro records, etc.

Ramonesmania: Punk-Light? Evolved or ass-backwards?

JH: What is now called "punk-pop" or "pop-punk" is basically an evolution of what we used to call "power pop." There were a few power pop bands at CBGBs in the old days: The Marbles, Milk 'N' Cookies, The Poppees... Even the Ramones were considered power pop by some people. Their sound was definitely based on pop and they even played ballads, unlike most punk bands today.

http://www.ramonesmania.com/ramones-interviews.html

So basically, according to you, Ramones, Lagwagon etc. are for 14 year olds, whereas My Chemical Romance, Angels & Airwaves et al. are for intelligent revolutionaries like you.

Koo-koo.

You shouldn't be commenting on punk rock, you're beyond clueless.

Don't Change Your Name

18th June 2007, 23:13

Originally posted by Invader Zim+June 18, 2007 01:33 pm--> (Invader Zim @ June 18, 2007 01:33 pm)
I've never heard of Velvet Underground being described as "the" art rock band

Well you have now, why do you suppose that Andy Warhol loved them so much? Did you know that Pink Floyds (another archetypal art rock band especially in the eary period) manager and many others considered that when Sid was front man Floyd were the 'British' Velvet Underground? [/b]
I have seen the Velvet Underground being called "art rock" many times before, and nobody can deny that they have more in common with Pink Floyd or Can than with other so called "proto-punk" bands like MC5 or with punk itself.

In fact, there's no reason whatsoever to consider the VU to be "proto-punk": anyone who picks up one of their albums and expect them to sound in a way that could be described as "proto-punk" will be completely dissapointed.

IcarusAngel
I actually like a lot of the proto-punk bands (MC5, Velvet Underground, to name a few; good politics and stuff), but i'm not such a fan of the art-rock and post-punk.

Well, the VU's "good politics" (whatever those were) are irrelevant now that Lou Reed played in the White House in front of Bill Clinton and Vaclav Havel. How "punkish" of him...

IcarusAngel

18th June 2007, 23:18

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 18, 2007 09:54 pm

Find me a music critic that has written this.

Is not my word as fan and owner of all the albums by both bands not enough?

If not then watch this documentory, which hardly makes any great revelations to all but the most ignorant, but as you don't seem to think that Velvet underground are Art rock, I guess that includes you: -

http://www.tv-links.co.uk/link.do/1/3472/5280/33037/50085

I never said they definitely weren't art rock - I said they could be classified under many different genres, including not just art rock but "classic rock" etc. I can't watch the documentary as I'm on a Unix machine right now and I don't have the appropriate media player.

You make the assumption that because I identify bands such as Blink 182 as pop-punk that i like them?

You said that they were the best examples of pop-punk which leads me to believe you like them, even though Unwritten Law's self-titled album is seen as one of the best pop-punk albums of the 1990s and the other two bands are classified as alternative rock.

You couldn't be more wrong. To give you a clue about where my tastes in terms of punk lie, two of my favorite punk bands are Sham 69 and Cock Sparrer. I don't enjoy acts like Avril Lavigne, etc. But I also do not consider bands like Snuff, terrible though they are, to be pop-punk.

Well, I'm a big fan of Sham 69. I'd say that they were even more punk than sex pistols and other big bands even though they were more Oi! punk.

I don't hate pop-punk, in fact, I like it, but it's just a fact that most critics, and even most fans, do not consider Angels & Airwaves or sum-41 good examples of pop punk (it should be noted that both of those bands do not consider themselves punk as well).

Invader Zim

18th June 2007, 23:23

We have one guy (Invader Zim) who bashes bands like Rage Against the Machine and so on, all while listening to far shittier bands and claiming Blink 182 and Angels & Airwaves are pop-punk etc. (they're alternative).

I recently formatted my OS hard drive, and sinse my re-install my most played songs are by bands like Belle and Sebastian, Sigur Rós, Engineers, Porcupine Tree and Iasos. Probably not the kind of bands your mistaken assumptions would suggest.

I never said they definitely weren't art rock

Well the definitely are Art Rock, one of the bands for whom the term was spawned.

IcarusAngel

18th June 2007, 23:29

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+June 18, 2007 10:13 pm--> (El Infiltr(A)do @ June 18, 2007 10:13 pm)
I have seen the Velvet Underground being called "art rock" many times before...[/b]

Perhaps you have an example then of where they are called the most influential art rock band of all time.

If you asked me to find a music critic to find somebody who called either the ramones or the Sex pistols "The" punk band (there's some debate), I could find you an article in two minutes.

El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 18, 2007 10:13 pm
In fact, there's no reason whatsoever to consider the VU to be "proto-punk":

Yes but music critics and fans alike do consider them "proto-punk".

Well, the VU's "good politics" (whatever those were) are irrelevant now that Lou Reed played in the White House in front of Bill Clinton and Vaclav Havel. How "punkish" of him...

At this point you should also be classified as "clueless." Even John Lydon has performed for the royal family and many punk bands in the United States were pretty much Democrats. Anarchy was actually never a requirement for punk and most punk bands in the United States did not call for an any anarchist revolution.

Many of the bands who performed at the Rock Against Reagan tour were, for example, were democratic.

So far this is what I've heard from you guys:

"the punk mentality is anti-pop culture" (False, many punk bands were openly pro pop-culture)

"You listen to arena rock for fuck's sake, which is exactly what punk was rebelling against in the first place." (False, many punk bands played big arenas. The DIY bands like SS Decontrol and so on didn't because they simply were too small to do so.)

"You can't perform for a political party and be punk." (False, it's well known that in the US and Britain many punk bands supported either the Labour Party or the Democratic party, and a few here or there were even republicans. Jimmy Pursey even recorded a song condemning tony blair for selling out labor party principles and going along with blair etc.)

You guys don't have the best track record here for any knowledge of punk history.

Invader Zim

18th June 2007, 23:35

Perhaps you have an example then of where they are called the most influential art rock band of all time.

You don't need an example of a music critic saying it, its obvious. Just look at the masses of bands who were influenced by the VU. Brian Eno (of another really famous art/glam rock band Roxy Music) has been attributed as claiming that few people bought VU's records but everyone who did went out and formed a band. that is of course a paraphrase, but if you google it or something similar I bet you will find it.

Edit, I ve actually done it for you: -

http://www.rockhall.com/inductee/the-velvet-underground

Obviously the inclusion of "the" is my own emphasis, but the influence of Floyd and the VU cannot be stressed enough. These two bands were the founders of Art Rock and two of the biggest influences on all the acts it as a genre spawned.

IcarusAngel

18th June 2007, 23:42

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 18, 2007 10:35 pm

Perhaps you have an example then of where they are called the most influential art rock band of all time.

You don't need an example of a music critic saying it, its obvious. Just look at the masses of bands who were influenced by the VU. Brian Eno (of another really famous art/glam rock band Roxy Music) has been attributed as claiming that few people bought VU's records but everyone who did went out and formed a band. that is of course a paraphrase, but if you google it or something similar I bet you will find it.

Edit, I ve actually done it for you: -

http://www.rockhall.com/inductee/the-velvet-underground
That says they were the most influential ROCK band of all time.

Rock != art rock where I come from. And it doesn't even say "the rock band" it says "one of."

You said they were "the art-rock band," but "art rock" isn't even in that article. You made a BS statement and were called on it. Get over it.

Invader Zim

18th June 2007, 23:55

Originally posted by IcarusAngel+June 18, 2007 11:42 pm--> (IcarusAngel @ June 18, 2007 11:42 pm)
Invader [email protected] 18, 2007 10:35 pm

Perhaps you have an example then of where they are called the most influential art rock band of all time.

You don't need an example of a music critic saying it, its obvious. Just look at the masses of bands who were influenced by the VU. Brian Eno (of another really famous art/glam rock band Roxy Music) has been attributed as claiming that few people bought VU's records but everyone who did went out and formed a band. that is of course a paraphrase, but if you google it or something similar I bet you will find it.

Edit, I ve actually done it for you: -

http://www.rockhall.com/inductee/the-velvet-underground
That says they were the most influential ROCK band of all time.

Rock != art rock where I come from. And it doesn't even say "the rock band" it says "one of."

You said they were "the art-rock band," but "art rock" isn't even in that article. You made a BS statement and were called on it. Get over it. [/b]
Well, as Rock music is all inclusive as far as this discussion goes, that means that the influence of VU goes beyond the modest halls of art rock and has influence upon the vast expance of genres within rock music as a whole. The only other art rock band which has been any where near as influencial as the VU are Pink Floyd, and as i noted earlier they were considered by some as the British VU.

As I said in the edit of my previous post, my addition of "the" is my own emphasis of their imporatance, the tim which they arrived on the scene and the developments which they pioneered (especially in visual aspects). Anyone who knew a little about the subject would have understood and accepted it and moved on. You have made it obvious that your musical knowledge is restricted to punk and punk alone.

You haven't called me on anything, you have mearly played a sematic and highly pedantic point of little relevence to the major theme, which only goes to highlight your ignorance, because very arguably VU are the seminal art rock band, comparable to the likes of Sabbeth, Kraftwork, Jimi Hendrix and the Smiths.

You see that is the thing, everyone who knows jack shit about art rock knows that VU were the most important band because they influenced all the other important bands; including Floyd.

Don't Change Your Name

19th June 2007, 00:32

Originally posted by IcarusAngel+June 18, 2007 07:29 pm--> (IcarusAngel @ June 18, 2007 07:29 pm) Perhaps you have an example then of where they are called the most influential art rock band of all time.[/b]
This will require "authorities", which are not relevant and I distrust them and I don't see why we need "rock critics" when we can do such criticism ourselves; in second place this will take plenty of time (more than this post); and thirdly, it's obvious that artists such as Roxy Music, Can, Pavement, The Jesus & Mary Chain, Yo La Tengo, Nick Cave are influenced by the Velvet Underground, and while some of those bands were influential on punk rock, nobody will consider the VU any more "proto-punk" than, say, The Beach Boys. If you consider them "proto-punk" you must also consider avantgarde and garage rock as "proto-punk", for instance (yet "proto-punk" is usually treated as a "style" from the late 60's- early 70's). Also, many artists who are not frequently considered "proto-punk" have influenced punk's artists.

What I'm saying is that this band isn't really more "proto-punk" than most other rock bands from the same area, and I don't care what historians or rock critics say, I can listen and think for myself.

You might not consider George Starostin an "authority" but he has a point when he says here (http://starling.rinet.ru/music/velvets.htm):

Originally posted by George [email protected]
here is one myth, I think, in desperate need of rebuttal: for many, the Velvets are one of the greatest influences for punk rock, if not THE first punk rock band in existence. Velvet Underground have nothing to do with punk rock. Out of four studio albums they released, two had nothing to do with punk rock at all, and the other two did have their moments of 'white noise' and feedback and musical chaos, but so what? Feedback and musical chaos weren't invented by the Velvets - the Who did it earlier, and Hendrix did it better. It's obvious that the band is being treated as 'punkish' only because of its attitude - you know, dirty, protesting, nihilist, etc., etc. Musically, they aren't any more 'punkish' than, say, the Beatles, for instance.

If you asked me to find a music critic to find somebody who called either the ramones or the Sex pistols "The" punk band (there's some debate), I could find you an article in two minutes.

Yes but music critics and fans alike do consider them "proto-punk".

Again, I don't care what music critics think, especially those who get paid to write. When the VU is called "proto-punk" by such people, they're repeating a phony misleading myth, unless you want to call songs like "Who Loves The Sun", "I'll Be Your Mirror" or "Black Angel's Death Song" as examples of proto-punk.

At this point you should also be classified as "clueless." Even John Lydon has performed for the royal family and many punk bands in the United States were pretty much Democrats. Anarchy was actually never a requirement for punk and most punk bands in the United States did not call for an any anarchist revolution.

That wasn't my point. To quote you:

you
I actually like a lot of the proto-punk bands (MC5, Velvet Underground, to name a few; good politics and stuff)

(emphasis added)

The VU don't really have any obvious "politics"; if anything they wrote songs about whips and heroin, but that's not really a "political" position. You have just implied that in a way you like their "politics", whatever those are. Since Lou Reed has no problems in playing in front of such people, then I assume you don't really have many problems with them either.

On the other hand, punk is often related to "revolutionary" politics and to rejecting "mainstream" society's ideas, no matter how hypocrital punk rockers might be. Saying that the VU are "proto-punk" is because of their "attitude", then you can call almost anyone in rock music (and even early rock 'n' roll) like that.

What's left, then? If it's not the "politics", or the "attitude", or the sound (which the VU didn't really have, while for example ELO's "Poker" sounds closer to The Clash than any song by the VU, and just becuase some "punk" sounds "noisy" it means nothing), or the influence (Chuck Berry, the Rolling Stones and the Stooges sound closer to "punk" than them and their influence is obvious) then what makes them "proto-punk"?

"the punk mentality is anti-pop culture" (False, many punk bands were openly pro pop-culture)

Are you talking about "pop music"?

You guys don't have the best track record here for any knowledge of punk history.

I know about rock history, not "punk history", because I don't really care that much such stupid confrontations as "prog vs. punk" and so on.

Phew, that was a long post.

tambourine_man

19th June 2007, 01:14

i have read this debate, and i'm sorry but invader zim your argument has no substance.

(invader zim)

I hate the term proto-punk. It is utterly stupid, bands who had nothing to do with punk, such as velvet underground get cited because they were different and were perhaps an influence on some punk bands. But in reality they were the art rock band along with Pink Floyd, but you say you don't like art rock. The term proto-punk is so utterly meaningless...

sure, you could categorize a bunch of "avant garde" bands all as "art rock." but the fact is that the velvets' experimentation was of a completely different kind than that of a band like pink floyd. so to generalize all of their musical experimentations as "art rock" so as to imply some kind of symmetry or continuity in their musical output is really meaningless.

(invader zim)

I've never heard of Velvet Underground being described as "the" art rock band

Well you have now, why do you suppose that Andy Warhol loved them so much?

it's funny you would bring this up, considering your argument. but since you asked.
warhol was the pioneer of pop art: simple, manufactured, mass produced, kitschy, anti-intellectual, familiar. pop art was largely a reaction against the intellectual excesses of abstract expressionism and its detached irrelevance to the daily lives of ordinary people. warhol's pop art was supposed to be the art of the masses - images that regular people could relate to without having to think too much, immediate gratification through images, art as images without the pretense of some deeper meaning. which is exactly what the velvets' three-chord, musically elementary, feedback-laden protopunk (and of course the later nihilistic punk rock of the sex pistols etc )was in relation to the contemplative impressionism inwardness and musical & harmonic complexity of progressive, "art" rock (pink floyd).

and thats really the essence of this argument.
you have bands like geneis, yes, and post-barrett pink floyd putting out intellectual - and by that, i mean, musically complex, difficult to play, meandering - music, often lyrically obscure and thought provoking, which was, many times, definitely on the cutting edge and pushed the boundaries of popular music. and on the other hand - the opposite hand - youve got the velvet underground (and its 70s punk rock spawn) whose signature tune "heroin" is two guitar chords, a steady bass drum, a droning atonal electric viola, lou reed's mumbling junkie drawl, no bass guitar, and who, in terms of lyricism, preferred to sing straight, no poetic metaphors, about weird sex and hard drugs and violence, or else nothing at all, and, of course, broke the boundaries of popular music in the process.

so yeah in conclusion, you could call both the velvets and pink floyd "art rock," just like you could call both the art of warhol and the art jackson pollock "experimental," but its meaningless, especially since the velvet underground quite clearly laid the foundations for what was to become punk rock, so "protopunk" would be much more fitting.

(el infiltrado)

I have seen the Velvet Underground being called "art rock" many times before, and nobody can deny that they have more in common with Pink Floyd or Can than with other so called "proto-punk" bands like MC5 or with punk itself.

:blink:
could you please back this up with specific evidence? like, citations of specific musical tendencies, trends, patterns, etc in their signature works... or something. actually it's such a ridiculous baseless statement i dont even really know where youd start, and i only say this cause ive listened quite a bit to each of those bands.

Invader Zim

19th June 2007, 17:53

but the fact is that the velvets' experimentation was of a completely different kind than that of a band like pink floyd.

Have you ever heard or more to the point seen any of Floyd early work and VU's early work? Judging by your commentary I think it prudent to assume not. Both made massive use of art and imagary using various lighting and colour effects (particularly Floyd, while the VU did a lot with film) in order to visual artistic effect with music while producing music which was light years away from the rock of the mainstream. I suggest you watch something like waiting for the man and interstellar overdrive to actually understand the link which commented upon at the time and which has been pointed out incessently sinse.

so yeah in conclusion, you could call both the velvets and pink floyd "art rock," just like you could call both the art of warhol and the art jackson pollock "experimental," but its meaningless, especially since the velvet underground quite clearly laid the foundations for what was to become punk rock, so "protopunk" would be much more fitting.

Which bring me back to my argument, practically any influencial band who pushed the boat out in the 60's, if not earlier could be described as 'proto-punk'. The Who, the Stones, Hendrix, the Kinks hell even the Beatles, further compounding how worthless the term is. Unlike art-rock when applied to VU, because of their imagary and totally pioneering sound and content and the simple fact of the matter is, Art Rock is where the critics place both Floyd and VU. It is not my argument that Vu are not "proto-punk", but that it is a stupid term and that VU most certainly are art-rock. The simple fact it that, in the case of the latter, it is a simple fact and anyone who disagrees is just ignorant.

could you please back this up with specific evidence?

Well, try listening to some Iggy and the Stooges and then VU and early Floyd. I think stuff like All Tomorrows' Parties has a lot more in common with early floyds music than it does Iggy and the Stooges and I certainly think the VU's work using film and lighting had a hell of a lot more in common with Floyd than it did with Iggy and the Stooges.

Sickle of Justice

20th June 2007, 00:05

the idea of "pop punk" is an interesting one. a lot of people would say it's an oxymoron, like "anarcho-capitalism", but i think it's possible. pop-punk is kinda simialar to "melodic hardcore". Real pop punk is generally characterized by a combination of *****y punk songs and humourous or mocking pop/rock songs, as made famous by NoFX, or by bands that used to be hardcore punk, but have softened quite a bit, and have a wider audience than other hXc bands (such as Rise Against or Anti-Flag). i think a lot of bands who are actually pop/rock are termed pop/punk simply because of they're apearance, because they claim to be punk, or have punk influences, but a poppy sound. (bands like Greenday are often influenced by older punk rock groups, such as the Clash or Ramones, who despite originally being considered punk, have been accepted into mainstream society, because they're old.)

Dr. Rosenpenis

20th June 2007, 02:26

I can hear a clear connection between The Velvet Underground and Television, for instance. VU may have been not as hard and fast as The Stooges, but they definitely had some distinctive punk characteristics, arguably more than the Stooges.

tambourine_man

20th June 2007, 05:23

(invader zim)

Have you ever heard or more to the point seen any of Floyd early work and VU's early work? Judging by your commentary I think it prudent to assume not. Both made massive use of art and imagary using various lighting and colour effects (particularly Floyd, while the VU did a lot with film) in order to visual artistic effect with music while producing music which was light years away from the rock of the mainstream. I suggest you watch something like waiting for the man and interstellar overdrive to actually understand the link which commented upon at the time and which has been pointed out incessently sinse.

ive heard virtually everything by the velvet underground. i havnt heard as much pink floyd. i assume by "early floyd" youre referring to piper at the gates? i could definitely agree that there are similarities in musical output and method between the velvet underground and pink floyd with syd barrett. but you were referring to pink floyd without specifically mentioning that condition, and, generally, when people think of pink floyd they think of 'dark side of the moon' or 'wish you were here' etc, which is a definite, unfortunate, stylistic departure from 'piper.'

(invader zim)

Which bring me back to my argument, practically any influencial band who pushed the boat out in the 60's, if not earlier could be described as 'proto-punk'. The Who, the Stones, Hendrix, the Kinks hell even the Beatles, further compounding how worthless the term is. Unlike art-rock when applied to VU, because of their imagary and totally pioneering sound and content and the simple fact of the matter is, Art Rock is where the critics place both Floyd and VU. It is not my argument that Vu are not "proto-punk", but that it is a stupid term and that VU most certainly are art-rock. The simple fact it that, in the case of the latter, it is a simple fact and anyone who disagrees is just ignorant.

well sure, i could find some examples of work by the who and by the kinks, less so with the beatles, and hardly any by the stones or hendrix, that might generally qualify as protopunk. the point is that the degree to which the velvet underground laid the foundations for punk rock (i.e. white light/white heat) is pronounced enough to qualify them as a "proto punk" band. of course any genre categorizations are going to rely on arbitrary distinctions, and "protpunk" and "art rock" are no different. incidentally, i dont think youve even defined "art rock" but instead refer to vague criteria like "pioneering sound content" and the use of "imagery" and visual effects , i think it would be helpful if you could provide a concrete definition.

(invader zim)

Well, try listening to some Iggy and the Stooges and then VU and early Floyd. I think stuff like All Tomorrows' Parties has a lot more in common with early floyds music than it does Iggy and the Stooges and I certainly think the VU's work using film and lighting had a hell of a lot more in common with Floyd than it did with Iggy and the Stooges.

i think you are completely wrong. lyrically, the velvet underground is far more similar to iggy and the stooges than to (even early) pink floyd (i.e. "i wanna be your dog" ... " venus in furs"). musically, i think its really obvious that the velvet underground has more in common with the stooges than pink floyd. considering their liberal use of guitar fuzz, limited guitar chord use, simplicity in general, etc. it's not really a coincidence afterall that john cale produced the stooges' debut album shortly after his departure from the VU. the velvet underground's visual show was mostly, if not all, the work of andy warhol, not the band itself. sterling morrison even joked that the reason he wore sunglasses on stage was cause the lights and colors hurt his eyes. but anyway, who says that the stooges had no "pioneering imagery"?, iggy's violent, sexual onstage persona was a novel visual show in itself, as much as any film or light show, and served the exact same aesthetic purpose - to enhance the emotion and quality of the music.

NewEast

20th June 2007, 15:36

Bloody poseur nonsense.

Pop punk is doing to punk what gangsta crap did to hip hop. What do we need with all fuckwits like Avril Lavigne cashing in on our scene?

praxis1966

21st June 2007, 04:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:02 pm
Op ivy = ska, not pop punk (like Streetlight Manifesto, voodoo glow skulls, bouncing souls, etc.)
NOFX = a combination of skate punk, ska punk, etc. Almost all of their albums since punk in drublic have a variety of sounds, but like Vandals there is definitely some pop-punk in there.
Well, basically I think we're in agreement except some very minor points. The fact is, though, I hesitate to label NOFX pop-punk since (and if for no better reason) I've never seen a video of theirs on 120 Minutes, never heard them on the radio (except that once on Berkeley's college station), and I don't believe they've ever gone platinum with any of their albums.

To my mind, pop is short for popular so you therefore can't have a discussion about a band in that vein without talking about record sales, notoriety, and airplay, even if you are talking about pop-punk. As I said, though, stylistically they do have similarities to some of the more major/mainstream pop-punk bands.

As far as Op Ivey goes, well, you could be right. But then again, you'd have to classify The Clash as ska as well if you were using those same criteria, wouldn't you? Oh, and for the record, I was saying Op Ivey were skate punk.

IcarusAngel

29th June 2007, 21:08

Interesting information tambourine_man. Saved.

I see the connection between VU and punk along the same lines, certainly more than beach boys etc.

IcarusAngel

29th June 2007, 21:21

Originally posted by praxis1966+June 21, 2007 03:42 am--> (praxis1966 @ June 21, 2007 03:42 am)
[email protected] 18, 2007 01:02 pm
Op ivy = ska, not pop punk (like Streetlight Manifesto, voodoo glow skulls, bouncing souls, etc.)
NOFX = a combination of skate punk, ska punk, etc. Almost all of their albums since punk in drublic have a variety of sounds, but like Vandals there is definitely some pop-punk in there.
Well, basically I think we're in agreement except some very minor points. The fact is, though, I hesitate to label NOFX pop-punk since (and if for no better reason) I've never seen a video of theirs on 120 Minutes, never heard them on the radio (except that once on Berkeley's college station), and I don't believe they've ever gone platinum with any of their albums.[/b]

NOFX are played on LA radio stations and on the radio all the time. Along with "Suffer" and "Smash" "punk in drublic" is one of Epitaph's highest selling records. They're also in Tony Hawk's Pro-Skater and Underground, Dance Dance Revolution, NHL 07, etc.

outlaw

4th July 2007, 23:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:50 pm
4. major label pop-punk (may or may not be political): Greenday, Offspring, Against Me!, Goldfinger, etc.
I wouldn't classify Against Me! as pop-punk. They're more of a blend of punk rock and folk. I will admit that their latter albums(including New Wave, which comes out next week) are more pop-sounding than say Reinventing Axl Rose, the Crime EP, The Disco Before the Breakdown, and the demo stuff, but they aren't really a pop-punk band.

Bad Grrrl Agro

6th July 2007, 06:40

"Don't sell me down the river with a backstreet boy with a mohawk."

-al barr, DKM

Palmares

7th July 2007, 18:51

The term pop-punk is not an oxymoron, because punk can mean two things here - the ideology of punk, or the sound of punk rock. Pop-punk is related to the latter.

Never Give In

8th July 2007, 08:25

Pop-Punk is like Libertarian Fascism. How could you take two almost opposites and fuse them into something that isn't a complete mess? Pop-Punk is fictional and it's just regular Pop music only it's got a guitar riff instead of those DJ'ish beats, like the Killers song you mentioned.

Klartsomfan

16th July 2007, 23:00

Originally posted by Oiron+January 19, 2007 06:44 pm--> (Oiron @ January 19, 2007 06:44 pm)
Dr. [email protected] 18, 2007 02:33 am
Dropkick Murphys are actually generally and rightfully categorized as crappy hardcore punk

Never mind the 'crappy' part, but I've usually seen the DKM categorized as streetpunk and Celtic punk ;)

[/b]
:huh: i dont really see it as Dropkick Murphys are street they are Oi! mixed with a little street as far as im concerned :P

praxis1966

17th July 2007, 00:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:21 pm
NOFX are played on LA radio stations and on the radio all the time. Along with "Suffer" and "Smash" "punk in drublic" is one of Epitaph's highest selling records. They're also in Tony Hawk's Pro-Skater and Underground, Dance Dance Revolution, NHL 07, etc.
Maybe, but I've heard alot of other stuff on video game soundtracks that in no way could be considered mainstream. Take LCD Soundsystem, for instance. They're on the soundtrack for FIFA '06, but I've never heard them anyplace else (save when I went to Coachella). But the rest of what you're saying doesn't apply to us mortals who live out here in the real world; that is to say, outside of one of the 3 biggest cities in the country (NYC, Chicago, or LA).

You have to remember that there's like 60 bigillion people living in your town, so there's an audience to support radio stations specializing in just about every genre. At least that's what I would assume, since the only time I've ever been to LA was spent trying to get the fuck away from it.

Ultra-Violence

17th July 2007, 02:00

wtf is PC punk?

The Grey Blur

17th July 2007, 02:56

There are some awesome pop punk bands; Jawbreaker, NoFX, Screeching Weasel.

Sickle of Justice

17th July 2007, 03:07

the main questions are

A: what is pop?
B: what is punk?
and, in a logical progression, c: what is pop-punk?

POP: i think of pop as being popular. the meaning of the term changes with the times. Pop music tends to be mostly a lowest common denomonator style of music, being inclusive of as many demographics as possible, so as to draw in a larger number of consumers. The subjects of of pop songs are generic: love, breakups, occasionally a fairly centeralist political song. a pop music fan is usually not affected to much by his/her music, simply loving it as music, nothing more. This is prolly pretty biased, seeing as i HATE almost all pop music, but i'm telling it as i see it.

PUNK: Punk, as many have inferred, is a sort of polar opposite to pop. It's most consistant trait throughout it's existance has been that some people LOVE it to the point where it becomes almost like a religion, encompassing every aspect of their livestyle, [people (including myself) don't just listen to punk, the behave punk (whether this means straigt edge, hardcore stoner, chaos punk, whatev) they beleive punk (usually left anarchism), they eat punk (in many cases, vegan) live in punk houses and squats, and, less importantly but more recognizably, they dress punk.] or hate it. in earlier days, punks would frequently get beat up for the way they looked.

Wheras pop seeks to draw in everyone, punk culture rarely makes consessions to attract mor fans, and if anything, avoids contact with the mainstream like the plague

Pop punk?

Pop punk is poppy music played by punks. it keeps some or all of the punk ideas and appearance, but the music apeals to a wider audience.

Good charlotte, simple plan etc is not pop punk. it's what's called "complete shit".

AnarchJim

17th July 2007, 03:09

After watching a Punk Rock Documentry on pre-punk, punk and post punk (including both Hard Core and Grundge as coming from punk) that was intilled F*** Authority I found that alot of the Punk Band from the late 80's & 90's are more generally Hard Core Punk (i.e. The Dead Kennedys and Black Flag) or more tenting towars Rock Punk (Rancid and Ten Foot Pole).

As for the most recent genre I've seen to mix with punk, being pop punk, I feel Punk was made to rebel against society and the normal conformist ways. and Pop Punk though rebelling in their own way by going against Punk Rock itself is conforming to the Pop genre as to find their way into the charts and putting their messages onto the back burner.

Selling out? I don't know nor do I care, I spend my time worrying about the things that are important to me and the music I follow (Punk Rock) so i don't care whether or not they get into the charts, perhaps it might bring punk back into the lime light but major record labels are still refusing to pick up some of the great bands like NOFX or Bad Religion for their left wing views and out right anger to the system.

IcarusAngel

17th July 2007, 06:27

Originally posted by praxis1966+July 16, 2007 11:35 pm--> (praxis1966 @ July 16, 2007 11:35 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2007 02:21 pm
NOFX are played on LA radio stations and on the radio all the time. Along with "Suffer" and "Smash" "punk in drublic" is one of Epitaph's highest selling records. They're also in Tony Hawk's Pro-Skater and Underground, Dance Dance Revolution, NHL 07, etc.
Maybe, but I've heard alot of other stuff on video game soundtracks that in no way could be considered mainstream. Take LCD Soundsystem, for instance. They're on the soundtrack for FIFA '06, but I've never heard them anyplace else (save when I went to Coachella). But the rest of what you're saying doesn't apply to us mortals who live out here in the real world; that is to say, outside of one of the 3 biggest cities in the country (NYC, Chicago, or LA).

You have to remember that there's like 60 bigillion people living in your town, so there's an audience to support radio stations specializing in just about every genre. At least that's what I would assume, since the only time I've ever been to LA was spent trying to get the fuck away from it.[/b]

I don't live in LA, I live in Salt Lake, so I guess I'm just another mortal out here in the real world. I just know that NOFX are played on mainstream radio there quite a bit which is why I mentioned them.

They are played here, in the most conservative state in the nation, on occasion on the rock station "X96." Anti-Flag are also played. You can go to x96 and search for some pop-punk names like nofx and see they are played.

http://www.x96.com/12605TIME/features/xpanded.asp

One of the fools at that radio station even claims NOFX are one of his favorite bands even though NOFX put down radio DJs in some of their songs. They mostly play stuff from "punk in drublic" and their new stuff.

Should be noted I'm not putting NOFX down and I don't think they're actually _that_ poppish. Just a little bit. I've seen NOFX perform live more than any other punk band, big venue (seen them at warped a few times, including last year) or small venue, and have met fat mike a few times and talked to him over email.

The most fun I've had seeing a band perform at warped though was definitely the unseen this year:

http://home.comcast.net/~oldtimehardcore/markunseen.png

They just kicked ass and I was up in front so when he threw out the mic a few times during "what are you gonna do" etc. my friends and I were one of the few to scream "when they tell you what to do" and sing the lyrics; one of the best shows ever actually. Most of the bands at warped suck (yellowcard etc.) but pennywise, bad religion, unseen were there, so it was worth it. Unseen is generally what I consider a good punk band: fast, clearly punk sounding, hardcore, definitely not-pop, mildly leftist, and still haven't "sold out yet. Their newest album is also pretty good.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/61OYhRoy0RL._AA240_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Internal-Salvation-Unseen/dp/B000RGSORS/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-7246468-8397762?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1184649138&sr=8-1)

Good band. "So this is freedom?" or "anger and the truth" (they played live in fear at warped, which also kicks ass) are probably their best albums.

IcarusAngel

17th July 2007, 06:47

Originally posted by AnarchJim+July 17, 2007 02:09 am--> (AnarchJim @ July 17, 2007 02:09 am)After watching a Punk Rock Documentry on pre-punk, punk and post punk (including both Hard Core and Grundge as coming from punk) that was intilled F*** Authority I found that alot of the Punk Band from the late 80's & 90's are more generally Hard Core Punk (i.e. The Dead Kennedys and Black Flag) or more tenting towars Rock Punk (Rancid and Ten Foot Pole).[/b]

Have you heard more modern hardcore punk like Blood for Blood, Terror, Earth Crisis, Born Against (Marxist influenced hardcore), etc.? They make Dead Kennedys, Reagan Youth et al. look relatively tame and more like tradition punk by comparison. Black Flag is the only exception. There's a lot of softer punk out there (like ten foot ple) but hardcore is still as fast and as loud as ever.

Also, is the documentary American hardcore:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_KAYRQfxbc...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_KAYRQfxbc&mode=related&search=)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZYF7zAjOmE...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZYF7zAjOmE&mode=related&search=)

Kinda sounds like it but I don't remember them going over "grunge" etc.

My problem with it is they kind of gloss over many of the great hardcore bands...

Still, it's cool they show Springa (second video) in his heyday in SS Decontrol (society system decontrol). They were one of the first DIY bands (before Minor Threat) and definitely influential in straight-edge and hardcore in general, and their lyrics were straight and to the point. It's too bad they ended up as a crappy metal band and a burn out. Keith Morris also seems like a burnout in that video lol. I've always liked Rollins as the lead singer of Black Flag.

The anti-Reagan stuff in there is cool too. They kind a lot of imagery and stuff from some of my favorite older punk bands (mdc, dri, et.c) but they instead focus on bands who were far less influential.

[email protected] 17, 2007 02:09 am
Selling out? I don't know nor do I care, I spend my time worrying about the things that are important to me and the music I follow (Punk Rock) so i don't care whether or not they get into the charts, perhaps it might bring punk back into the lime light but major record labels are still refusing to pick up some of the great bands like NOFX or Bad Religion for their left wing views and out right anger to the system.

Uhh... Bad Religion signed onto Atlantic records in the 90s which is one of the reasons Gurewitz left the band, re-released some of their older stuff on Atlantic, and also the album "Stranger than fiction," but were accused of selling out. Long story short they reunited with Gurewitz and released their last two albums (and maybe a few before it) on Epitaph.

NOFX have always been anti-mainstream and simply refuse to go major label.