NationStates Jolt Archive

And more importantly, why? I was listening to the Offspring when I was like, 2 years old, and now all the sudden, my friends do. I was listening to Queen and AcDc, and when they play it at ballgames, then the dumbass jocks know it. That pisses me off, and I need to take a piss.

And more importantly, why? I was listening to the Offspring when I was like, 2 years old, and now all the sudden, my friends do. I was listening to Queen and AcDc, and when they play it at ballgames, then the dumbass jocks know it. That pisses me off, and I need to take a piss.

Damn kids. :p

Punk went mainstream in like 1980 when new wave started being popular. New wave was just record lables trying to housetrain punk rock with synthesisers and drum machines..

When God Save The Queen by the Sex Pistols went #1.

Of course, their music was hardly "mainstream", though it did have mainstream appeal with the ~20-year-olds.

Now The Offspring are one of the originators of the "Radio Punk" crap, which is actually pretty recent. It's almost light enough to be classified as easy listening.

Well, seriously, if it was the 90s, no-one would listen to Panic! At the Disco, but they do now...

Well, seriously, if it was the 90s, no-one would listen to Panic! At the Disco, but they do now...

Old guy here, but do you mean the Smiths' tune "Panic"?

Punk went mainstream in like 1980 when new wave started being popular. New wave was just record lables trying to housetrain punk rock with synthesisers and drum machines..

But it wasn't topping the charts that often.

I agree with Monkeypimp, 1980. Because people got tired of listening to the same old, tired thing.

Old guy here, but do you mean the Smiths' tune "Panic"?

No, it's a band who came out of the closet as I say, just recently, and everyone loves them, but they shouldn't.

No, it's a band who came out of the closet as I say, just recently, and everyone loves them, but they shouldn't.

Ah, 'k, just goes to show how not hip I am. ;)

I agree with Monkeypimp, 1980. Because people got tired of listening to the same old, tired thing.
I'll go witth this, because that's about when I started to hear it and I was a middle-class kid living in a NorCal suburb and didn't really have a notion of 'underground music' except a fluck encounter with early hip-hop.

And more importantly, why? I was listening to the Offspring when I was like, 2 years old, and now all the sudden, my friends do. I was listening to Queen and AcDc, and when they play it at ballgames, then the dumbass jocks know it. That pisses me off, and I need to take a piss.
You can't form memories at the age of 2.
And if you were two when the Offspring came into existence, then there were plenty of people who were listening to Queen and ACDC long before you ever existed.

Punk's been mainstream since the Ramones, Sex Pistols and Clash got popular... the late 70s.

Of course in addition to the crappy mainstream side of punk there's the underground of punk where bands like Kill The Man Who Questions live. ;)

You can't form memories at the age of 2.

Uh-huh.

You can't form memories at the age of 2.

Oh, please. I have memories of a condominium I lived in when I was two years old. Very clear memories.

My dad also has memories from when he was two years old, as do my two brothers and one sister.

it went mainstream when everyone tried to be it, ie dress punk, act punk etc.. mid/late 70's i'd say

Everything thats good/origional becomes mainstream... BOO!!

Punk's been mainstream since the Ramones, Sex Pistols and Clash got popular... the late 70s.

Quoted for troof.

Although that doesn't lessen the greatness of those bands. :cool:

Uh-huh.

I'd say my best defense ever.

I'd say my best defense ever.

Indeed. Ever think of going into law? ;)

And more importantly, why? I was listening to the Offspring when I was like, 2 years old, and now all the sudden, my friends do. I was listening to Queen and AcDc, and when they play it at ballgames, then the dumbass jocks know it. That pisses me off, and I need to take a piss.
Erm... Queen and AcDc were widely known before the ball games. Sooner of later the jocks would "discover" them. You want something really obscure? Try Brian Eno or Esquivel, some lounge or psychodelic music, or progressive rock. Maybe Tangerine Dreams or something like that. Oh, oh! Try Il Banco del Mutuo Socorso! Not really obscure, but almost a certain guarantee that none of your friends will know what you're talking about.

Maybe the final nail was Billy Idol, what the mainstream thought of punk.

Maybe the final nail was Billy Idol, what the mainstream thought of punk.

Not a bad call. "He's got spiked hair, wears leather, and looks disgusted with everything. He must be punk!" :rolleyes:

He was punk when he was with Generation X, but his solo stuff was candy-coated for the pop audience.

Indeed. Ever think of going into law? ;)

Oh yes, in fact, I'm in law school right now. I'm planning to use that as my trademark defense.

Farmer John: I didn't see no truck go by!
Lawyer Tom: Uh-huh.
Farmer John: Oh, yeah! I remembers that now!

Since when have Queen and AC/DC been punk?

<snip>
Punk went mainstream in 1989 when the Ramones recorded the song Pet Sematary for the Steven King movie of the same name. The song was played on EmptyV.

Oh yes, in fact, I'm in law school right now. I'm planning to use that as my trademark defense.

Farmer John: I didn't see no truck go by!
Lawyer Tom: Uh-huh.
Farmer John: Oh, yeah! I remembers that now!

Let me know when you get out of school. I'll rertain you as my personal attorney. :D

Since when have Queen and AC/DC been punk?

Cuz I said so.

[QUOTE=Evil Satanic OzMonkeys]<snip>[QUOTE]
Punk went mainstream in 1989 when the Ramones recorded the song Pet Sematary for the Steven King movie of the same name. The song was played on EmptyV.

Well before that.

Cuz I said so.

One more of my treasures.

[QUOTE=Drunk commies deleted][QUOTE=Evil Satanic OzMonkeys]<snip>

Well before that.
So when was it then?

Cuz I said so.

Well, you're wrong. :p

Meh! Why are all of these quotes saying me??? Meh!!!

Well, you're wrong. :p

That's my second best defense! How dare you penetrate that!!!

Well, you're wrong. :p
I think that lawyers should use the "Rabbit Season/Duck Season" technique.

Meh? Triple bump, meh, I must go now...

It was bands like Blink 182, The Offspring, and Fall Out Boy that made it more mainstream now-a-days. Although if you look hard you can still find underground groups releasing really good punk albums. I just hate listening to the radio these days.

Old punk FTW!:D

I think that lawyers should use the "Rabbit Season/Duck Season" technique.

That's bloody brilliant! :D

So when was it then?

Sift through the tread. A lot more legit, and earlier, times have been thrown out.

Sift through the tread. A lot more legit, and earlier, times have been thrown out.
Bah, old punk sucks.

Bah, old punk sucks.

Yeah, newer stuff like Blink 182 (not even punk) is much better. :rolleyes:

Yeah, newer stuff like Blink 182 (not even punk) is much better. :rolleyes:
Got that right. That sucks too. Pennywise and Strike Anywhere is where it's at.

Got that right. That sucks too. Pennywise and Strike Anywhere is where it's at.

Dude, you have "Punknews" in your sig. That site has some of the most bogus news stories ever. It'd be great, but the editors are fucking revisionist pricks.

Dude, you have "Punknews" in your sig. That site has some of the most bogus news stories ever. It'd be great, but the editors are fucking revisionist pricks.
Meh, I only go there for tourschedules anyway.

Yeah, newer stuff like Blink 182 (not even punk) is much better. :rolleyes:

Perhaps not Blink, who are both fairly old, and disbanded and ceased to be punk after Chesire Cat (and reference to the fact on Dude Ranch) but Propagandhi are truely incredible.

I dunno but The Misfits, and Discharge, are the two best punk bands ever,

And Billy Idols not that bad, Rebel Yell and White Wedding are cool songs

Meh, I only go there for tourschedules anyway.

Oh, well then, my bad. :p

If you ever read the article on the Sex Pistols' 2002 gig in LA, you'll see what I mean. The editor who did that one was a total jerkoff (and Steve Jones' reaction to seeing him backstage was classic, and it fit).

Got that right. That sucks too. Pennywise and Strike Anywhere is where it's at.

Go back even further. Try bands like Agent Orange, Black Flag, and Suicidal Tendencies. You could go even further back to...oh, I dunno...the Stooges perhaps?

I dunno but The Misfits, and Discharge, are the two best punk bands ever,

And Billy Idols not that bad, Rebel Yell and White Wedding are cool songs

Yeah, Billy Idol's done some good stuff, but I think we can all agree that his solo work is in the Pop area (even he himself would likely agree).

Go back even further. Try bands like Agent Orange, Black Flag, and Suicidal Tendencies. You could go even further back to...oh, I dunno...the Stooges perhaps?

Ugh... You forgot Husker Du...

Ugh... You forgot Husker Du...

I don't consider Husker Du to be punk. They were "alternative," when that term actually meant something.

Go back even further. Try bands like Agent Orange, Black Flag, and Suicidal Tendencies. You could go even further back to...oh, I dunno...the Stooges perhaps?
Those are okay I guess, but it's got nothing on stuff from today. (not the mainstream crap)

And more importantly, why? I was listening to the Offspring when I was like, 2 years old, and now all the sudden, my friends do.

you know, i was just saying to my friend, i says, "when i think of an underground punk band that nobody had heard of, i always think immediately of the offspring. they've only been making chart topping songs since 1994."

Those are okay I guess, but it's got nothing on stuff from today. (not the mainstream crap)

Sweet jeebus... :rolleyes:

Yeah, Billy Idol's done some good stuff, but I think we can all agree that his solo work is in the Pop area (even he himself would likely agree).


Yeah, fair statement

Old guy here, but do you mean the Smiths' tune "Panic"?

as i understand it, the name is in fact a reference to that. but that might just be a thirdhand wishful thinking rumor.

Punk never went mainstream, it mutated into new wave in the 80's. The only BIG Punk banmds that are mainstream is Green Day really. Theres this new breed of 'pop-punks' thoiugh.

I don't consider Husker Du to be punk. They were "alternative," when that term actually meant something.

Yeah, I guess you're right. I mean, you really couldn't classify them as anything, so the "Alternative" label pretty much sticks. And "First of the Last Calls" is brilliant.

as i understand it, the name is in fact a reference to that. but that might just be a thirdhand wishful thinking rumor.

I would guess (and it's just a guess), that you're right.

Sweet jeebus... :rolleyes:

Ugh, that got me rolling my eyes, too. I doubt he's ever heard of the Rich Kids, a band who could out-play any modern Punk Rock band with ease (there's live footage of them on Youtube... Killer stuff).

It's always been based on mainstream music but with different lyrics. It's not as though punk rockers were playing African-based music gamelan ensembles or something. They have always played a form of rock.

Uh, the Ramones were pretty mainstream...

But as for "punk" music today, you need to get a clue, because there is no "punk" rock today. It died probably before you were born.

Uh, the Ramones were pretty mainstream...

But as for "punk" music today, you need to get a clue, because there is no "punk" rock today. It died probably before you were born.
You don't listen to much underground stuff do you

You don't listen to much underground stuff do you

Yes, I do. And its not punk.

Listen to the US Bombs, Exploited, Buzzcocks, 999, Angelic Upstarts, etc... and tell me bands that call themselves "punk" sound the same and contain the same message.

I listen to most of those abdns, along with less known bads like Heading East, Two Door Down, Freshhead, P&Q's and Wasting Time. And they are punk, there sound is very similar to the Clash (If they've got skill) or the Pistols if they havn't.

Persoanlly I've always thought of Punk more of an Ethos than a genre. can you compare The Stranglers and The Sex Pistols? No. Musically there very diffrent. Can you compare there message and ethos, yes and there very similar.

I listen to most of those abdns, along with less known bads like Heading East, Two Door Down, Freshhead, P&Q's and Wasting Time. And they are punk, there sound is very similar to the Clash (If they've got skill) or the Pistols if they havn't.

Persoanlly I've always thought of Punk more of an Ethos than a genre. can you compare The Stranglers and The Sex Pistols? No. Musically there very diffrent. Can you compare there message and ethos, yes and there very similar.

Music genres dont depend on the ethos it depends on the sound/form. And punk is music. Not a lifestyle, not a way of thought, but music.

Music genres dont depend on the ethos it depends on the sound/form. And punk is music. Not a lifestyle, not a way of thought, but music.
That where I'd disagree. What links, for example, Kiser Cheifs, Killers, Artic Monkeys and Franz Ferdinand. They sound compeltly diffrent musically yet are all 'indie' bands. it the ethos of them, not there style.

And more importantly, why? I was listening to the Offspring when I was like, 2 years old, and now all the sudden, my friends do. I was listening to Queen and AcDc, and when they play it at ballgames, then the dumbass jocks know it. That pisses me off, and I need to take a piss.

Queen and AC/DC are 2 of the greatests bands of all times... they've been mainstream since they've came out... i've been listening to both of them since i was a kid... i play football... when i hear some of their songs, i get hyped up. and we're not dumbasses, i actually have a 3.7 gpa and already have a scholarship offer to play for michigan. Yes there are some athletes that are dumb as a rock.. but they're people who do what they do to get by.. which is what every1 does.

on an off note... all punk sucks. it always has, and it always will
punk:sniper: punk:mp5:

on an off note... all punk sucks. it always has, and it always will
Surely you don't mean the Stooges or Siouxie and the Banshees, do you?

It was bands like Blink 182, The Offspring, and Fall Out Boy that made it more mainstream now-a-days. Although if you look hard you can still find underground groups releasing really good punk albums. I just hate listening to the radio these days.


Those three bands are better classified as either emo or just plain gay, although I have heard them be referred to as "pop punk" which I consider to be an entirely different thing than punk. As for your last sentence, I completely agree. In fact, it was the shitiness of pop/rock stations (such as K rock if you live near NYC) that turned me on to classic rock stations (like Q 104.3) where I could be assured not to hear any musical bullshit.

Those three bands are better classified as either emo or just plain gay, although I have heard them be referred to as "pop punk" which I consider to be an entirely different thing than punk. As for your last sentence, I completely agree. In fact, it was the shitiness of pop/rock stations (such as K rock if you live near NYC) that turned me on to classic rock stations (like Q 104.3) where I could be assured not to hear any musical bullshit.

You listen to classic rock to avoid bullshit? The 70s were all about bullshit.

I should also point out that none of those bands are in anyway related to emo.

Blink 182 and Offspring are both connected to early 90s pop punk, Blink becoming a poppy alt-rock band later on. Fall Out Boy is just poppy alternative, again in no way related to emo.

And more importantly, why? I was listening to the Offspring when I was like, 2 years old, and now all the sudden, my friends do. I was listening to Queen and AcDc, and when they play it at ballgames, then the dumbass jocks know it. That pisses me off, and I need to take a piss.
I thought were talking about punk music? The bands you mentioned are rock (rock/rap in the case of the Offspring).

Who cares if it’s mainstream. It shouldn’t affect your opinion of it. If you like it, you like it, and who are you to tell other people that they “shouldn’t like” certain types of music. If someone enjoys the sound, they enjoy the sound, period.

The horrible truth to punk is that it destroys itself through success. There isn't another genre out there with the same "success by obscurity" conundrum.

Which punk wave are we talking about? First? Hardcore? Skate/Pop? Post-Hardcore (which is really emo, not punk)?

First Sold Out when the Pistols made it big and all the kids had to have their God Save the Queen albums.

Hardcore was sold by the Skate/Pop crap, which sold out when Skate broke out into the mainstream.

Post-Hardcore never sold out, because it was never punk to start with.

And now the massive "indy" community is going to eat Punk alive and turn what remains on the streets into mindless crap.

OP/T: It didn't, pop with punk elements and synthesizer "music" did.

Who cares if it’s mainstream. It shouldn’t affect your opinion of it. If you like it, you like it, and who are you to tell other people that they “shouldn’t like” certain types of music. If someone enjoys the sound, they enjoy the sound, period.

Kid, you're confusing punk for something solely about music. It never was, never will be, and if you were expecting pop, you came to the wrong thread. Punk was a subculture, a means of rebellion, and a way to think for yourself. If you want to talk about other music that way, you should feel free to, but Punk is a special case.

Kid, you're confusing punk for something solely about music. It never was, never will be, and if you were expecting pop, you came to the wrong thread. Punk was a subculture, a means of rebellion, and a way to think for yourself. If you want to talk about other music that way, you should feel free to, but Punk is a special case.
Music is music.
Yours isn’t special.
Elitists. Pfft.

For that matter, you know how you think for yoursef? By following your own groove, not some subculture's standards. I guess punk used to be the old emo because they say that same kind of shit..

Music is music.
Yours isn’t special.
Elitists. Pfft.

For that matter, you know how you think for yoursef? By following your own groove, not some subculture's standards. I guess punk used to be the old emo because they say that same kind of shit..
It makes me giggle how most of these non-conformists groups are just a bunch of kids trying to fit in somewhere that would, on the surface of it, appear to be outside mainstream society.

Punk sold out when it entered into music.

also please keep in mind punk never started with music.

Which punk wave are we talking about? First? Hardcore? Skate/Pop? Post-Hardcore (which is really emo, not punk)?

First Sold Out when the Pistols made it big and all the kids had to have their God Save the Queen albums.

Hardcore was sold by the Skate/Pop crap, which sold out when Skate broke out into the mainstream.

Post-Hardcore never sold out, because it was never punk to start with.

And now the massive "indy" community is going to eat Punk alive and turn what remains on the streets into mindless crap.

Post-Hardcore is certainly as punk as any other genre, Orchid are emo, and are more devoted to DIY then most punk bands. Emo, and other post-hardcore developed almost as far in the underground of punk as possible. Other then some break-out successes, of course, like Sunny Day Real Estate and At The Drive-In, who are both based far more in indie rock then hardcore and post-hardcore then most emo.

It was a matter of time before indie rock went mainstream, around 1990 indie rock and alternative were completely overlaping terms, as grunge and grunge influenced rock became more and more mainstream, the softer, and still underground stopped using alternative to refer to itself. Ten years later it's finding that a name change couldn't save it from attention. Now of course while the media salivates over the poppy bands they come up with in emulation of these styles, it continues to exist underground. Emo and skate-punk and indie rock and hardcore ect. all continue to exist and thrive underground, unaffected by the noise going on around. Let's face it, Bucketful Of Teeth doesn't give a shit how many CDs The Used and My Chemical Romance sold.

It's always been based on mainstream music but with different lyrics. It's not as though punk rockers were playing African-based music gamelan ensembles or something. They have always played a form of rock.

Go listen to Einsturzende Neubauten or The Ex* and get back to me on that one.


* For example: http://freeteam.nl/ex/audio/hidegen.mp3 - hardly a rock track, but indisputably a punk one.

Music is music.
Yours isn’t special.
Elitists. Pfft.

For that matter, you know how you think for yoursef? By following your own groove, not some subculture's standards. I guess punk used to be the old emo because they say that same kind of shit..

So do you want to show me another musical movement that produced it's own albums when producing your own albums was musical suicide? Do you want to show me another musical movement that was based not upon music, but upon the idea that you should think for yourself? Emo wants to think that it is Punk, but emo is just pop done by particularly morbid "art"ists. That kind of pretension was not invented by Emo, emo just stole it.

Punk was about thinking for yourself. A dumbass may try to invent a system in which it was really just another pop moveemnt, but they'd have to be dellusional. Yes, punkers became as violent and conformists as Mainstreamers in short order (which killed the scene and drove punkers to play to the mainstream out of a need to avoid the violence of the hardcore scene.

You're trying to cast it as "music", but music is just a symptom. Don't talk through your hat.

First Sold Out when the Pistols made it big and all the kids had to have their God Save the Queen albums.

Well, for starters, they never sold out, as making it big was their goal (and the best means of conveying their message, as John said). And... God Save The Queen "albums"? Oh dear.

Oh dear.

Go listen to Einsturzende Neubauten or The Ex* and get back to me on that one.


* For example: http://freeteam.nl/ex/audio/hidegen.mp3 - hardly a rock track, but indisputably a punk one.

He should also check out Public Image Limited --- their Flowers of Romance, especially.

He should also check out Public Image Limited --- their Flowers of Romance, especially.

More rock influenced though: even if they are primarily constructed with deconstructing it. I guess the real noise bands and the current anti-folk crop would be other examples of music which are indisputibly punk, but not operating according to the principles of rock.

It makes me giggle how most of these non-conformists groups are just a bunch of kids trying to fit in somewhere that would, on the surface of it, appear to be outside mainstream society.

Conformity through non-conformity. Gotta love it. ;)

So do you want to show me another musical movement that produced it's own albums when producing your own albums was musical suicide?

One of the great myths of punk in the seventies was that it was the first kind of music which produced its own LPs without help drom the majors: we need only look back to the psychedelic and prog scenes for examples which belie the myth. Similarly a great many folk, blues, cajun, jazz and prog records were all similarly self released or put out by tiny labels. Punk merely emphasised that there was a ready market for the self-produced efforts.

More rock influenced though: even if they are primarily constructed with deconstructing it. I guess the real noise bands and the current anti-folk crop would be other examples of music which are indisputibly punk, but not operating according to the principles of rock.

I guess so, but PIL still had many Punk Rock sensibilities.

Real punk music never went mainstream. ;)

And more importantly, why? I was listening to the Offspring when I was like, 2 years old, and now all the sudden, my friends do. I was listening to Queen and AcDc, and when they play it at ballgames, then the dumbass jocks know it. That pisses me off, and I need to take a piss.
Sorry, but when did Queen or ACDC become punk?
Was there a memo sent round?
Why wasn't I told about this?
Why aren't you listening to me??!!

I personally can't even stand punk. It's not very sophisticated music in all honesty (the article on it in wikipedia even admits this) and the fact that many punk musicians share similar political views to mine is not enough for me. Yes, that makes me a terrible anarchist, but if it comes down to it, I will probably choose my music over my politics. I really don't see the point in fighting for a society where musical sophistication is frowned upon.

I personally can't even stand punk. It's not very sophisticated music in all honesty (the article on it in wikipedia even admits this) and the fact that many punk musicians share similar political views to mine is not enough for me. Yes, that makes me a terrible anarchist, but if it comes down to it, I will probably choose my music over my politics. I really don't see the point in fighting for a society where musical sophistication is frowned upon.

You still have your fricking head up your ass.

The point of Rock 'n' Roll (most forms of it, anyway) is about having fun, not how sophisticated the musical structures are. Musical complexity and sophistication in Rock 'n' Roll aren't "frowned upon", either. Most bands are just out there to have a good time, and Rock 'n' Roll is where it's at.

Having a good time is what it's always been about, even for the most complicated Prog and Metal bands. If you still fail to see that music doesn't always have to be about sheer complexity and "sophistication", than you're lost.

Even Mozart was all about having fun with his music. You seem to never take that into account.

Real punk music never went mainstream. ;)

Aye, but the mainstream went punk.

You still have your fricking head up your ass.

The point of Rock 'n' Roll (most forms of it, anyway) is about having fun, not how sophisticated the musical structures are. Musical complexity and sophistication in Rock 'n' Roll aren't "frowned upon", either. Most bands are just out there to have a good time, and Rock 'n' Roll is where it's at.

Having a good time is what it's always been about, even for the most complicated Prog and Metal bands. If you still fail to see that music doesn't always have to be about sheer complexity and "sophistication", than you're lost.

Even Mozart was all about having fun with his music. You seem to never take that into account.

I'm well aware of that and that's the problem. There are times when short term pleasure has to be sacrificed for long term goals. That's why we have physicians, scientists, carpenters, and so forth. The way I see it, high quality should be demanded in all things, even lower quality would suffice. Just because simplistic music isn't fatal the way medical malpractice is doesn't mean we can get away with eschewing virtuosity and sophistication.

I will fight for a world without genocide and poverty. I will support equal opportunity and oppose exploitation without hesitation. However, I will not fight for a society where artistic quality is a thing of the past. I have no problem with fun. I do have a problem with "artists" who reject hard work because they're just in it for hedonistic reasons and not because they are committed to mastering their art.

If that sounds harsh or élitist, I apologize, but I am starting to tire of anarchist culture. Even though I agree with most its their politics, I can tell we start from very different premises and philosophical views. For me, fun simply isn't the highest good. Personal responsibility, self-mastery, and commitment to quality rank much higher.

I'm well aware of that and that's the problem.

It's not a fucking problem. It's not like Rock musicians hate music (John Lydon listens to Beethoven!).

There are times when short term pleasure has to be sacrificed for long term goals.

Oh boy, this is starting to sound bad...

That's why we have physicians, scientists, carpenters, and so forth. The way I see it, high quality should be demanded in all things, even lower quality would suffice. Just because simplistic music isn't fatal the way medical malpractice is doesn't mean we can get away with eschewing virtuosity and sophistication.

Comparing Rock 'n' Roll to medical malpractice, are we? And just because Rock musicians play less complicated music than classical, or neoclassical musicians, doesn't mean they're not extremely skilled with their instruments. Breakaway solo albums show this, not to mention Prog Rock albums and concept albums.

I will fight for a world without genocide and poverty. I will support equal opportunity and oppose exploitation without hesitation. However, I will not fight for a society where artistic quality is a thing of the past. I have no problem with fun. I do have a problem with "artists" who reject hard work because they're just in it for hedonistic reasons and not because they are committed to mastering their art.

Oh, Rock musicians aren't committed to mastering their art, eh? Not difficult, is it? Go ahead and write me a six-chord, four-minute Rock song with a reasonably-long solo. Impress the shit out of me (though I doubt you could even so much as attempt such a feat at this point in time).

If that sounds harsh or élitist, I apologize, but I am starting to tire of anarchist culture. Even though I agree with most its their politics, I can tell we start from very different premises and philosophical views. For me, fun simply isn't the highest good. Personal responsibility, self-mastery, and commitment to quality rank much higher.

What's good for some isn't good for all. I'd hate to live in a world where the likes of you had any power whatsoever. Ball-and-chain, no thank you.

I personally can't even stand punk. It's not very sophisticated music in all honesty (the article on it in wikipedia even admits this) and the fact that many punk musicians share similar political views to mine is not enough for me. Yes, that makes me a terrible anarchist, but if it comes down to it, I will probably choose my music over my politics. I really don't see the point in fighting for a society where musical sophistication is frowned upon.


Punk /can/ be sophisticated if it needs to be.

And it doesn't really matter, making deliberatly primitive music represents a kind of sophistication of its own

Comparing Rock 'n' Roll to medical malpractice, are we? And just because Rock musicians play less complicated music than classical, or neoclassical musicians, doesn't mean they're not extremely skilled with their instruments. Breakaway solo albums show this, not to mention Prog Rock albums and concept albums.

But why can't they do better? The existence of more complicated genres of music shows that it is possible (surely relative simplicity isn't an inherent aspect of rock?). They don't have to go the extra mile and push the level of sophistication to the limit and I wouldn't force them to. However, at the same time, I can choose not to take someone seriously if I feel they don't take their work seriously enough. I am not obligated to abstain from value judgments.

What's good for some isn't good for all. I'd hate to live in a world where the likes of you had any power whatsoever. Ball-and-chain, no thank you.

Fine, I don't really seek power so it isn't a problem. You aren't obligated to agree with me at all. However, I'd hate to live in a world where no one strives for better quality because they're just in it for the fun.

But why can't they do better? The existence of more complicated genres of music shows that it is possible (surely relative simplicity isn't an inherent aspect of rock?). They don't have to go the extra mile and push the level of sophistication to the limit and I wouldn't force them to. However, at the same time, I can choose not to take someone seriously if I feel they don't take their work seriously enough. I am not obligated to abstain from value judgments.



Fine, I don't really seek power so it isn't a problem. You aren't obligated to agree with me at all. However, I'd hate to live in a world where no one strives for better quality because they're just in it for the fun.

You still think that Rock musicians don't take their work seriously? And I'm not talking about shitty Pop-Rock bands who've been manufactured by record labels, either.

Guys like Chuck Berry, Geddy Lee, and Pete Townsend would be seriously pissed off if they read what you've posted here. John Lydon would probably hit you.

Most people would probably say when Nirvana's Nevermind went #1, but I suppose it's debatable whether that album was punk or something better than punk.

However, I will not fight for a society where artistic quality is a thing of the past. How strange, I wouldn't fight for a world where art is something that people think requires several years of schooling. While I can appreciate such art, to me that seems to be anathema to the purpose of art, which is to get a message of some kind across. Art that is simply appealing to the naked eye (or ear) is incomplete to me.

1984

iw oudln't say that Punk Musicans wern't skilled, Look at the Stranglers, the Stoogers, Iggy Pop, The Clash and the Jam. TSome of there songs are incredably skilful. In fact rock is far more skillful than almost any other genre of Modern Music.

Look at the solos in November Rain the drumming on Jesus of Surburbia the Keyboard on No more heros or the bass line on Torture me. Look at heavy metal, Rammlestein Mutter is one of the most complex and difficult albums to play-I'm a grade 5 peinist and I cna't even consider how to plaay some of those keys.

Rock makes complexity sound simple. Classical makes simple sound complex.

Well, for starters, they never sold out, as making it big was their goal (and the best means of conveying their message, as John said). And... God Save The Queen "albums"? Oh dear.

Oh dear.

Single, my bad.

It was the title of that Single, wasn't it?

And I said it sold punk out, not the Pistols.

But why can't they do better? The existence of more complicated genres of music shows that it is possible (surely relative simplicity isn't an inherent aspect of rock?). They don't have to go the extra mile and push the level of sophistication to the limit and I wouldn't force them to. However, at the same time, I can choose not to take someone seriously if I feel they don't take their work seriously enough. I am not obligated to abstain from value judgments.

Indeed you are not, but you are once again equated increased complexity with increased value in music, however if we look at the world of orchestral music and the classical tradition this does not always seem to be the case - Beethoven's Ninth is not one of the most complex pieces, yet it is one which people find to have great value. Are you arguing that it would be improved by added complexity?

Fine, I don't really seek power so it isn't a problem. You aren't obligated to agree with me at all. However, I'd hate to live in a world where no one strives for better quality because they're just in it for the fun.


What is the point of music, if not to be enjoyable?

Music can be simple and boring, like alot of pop music, or simple and memorable like AC/DC or Celtic Frost.

Music can be complex and Boring like (imo) Dream Theater

Or Complex and Awesome like Evergrey, Nicolo Paganini, Cynic, Borknagar, King Crimson etc

So do you want to show me another musical movement that produced it's own albums when producing your own albums was musical suicide? Do you want to show me another musical movement that was based not upon music, but upon the idea that you should think for yourself? Emo wants to think that it is Punk, but emo is just pop done by particularly morbid "art"ists. That kind of pretension was not invented by Emo, emo just stole it.

Punk was about thinking for yourself. A dumbass may try to invent a system in which it was really just another pop moveemnt, but they'd have to be dellusional. Yes, punkers became as violent and conformists as Mainstreamers in short order (which killed the scene and drove punkers to play to the mainstream out of a need to avoid the violence of the hardcore scene.

You're trying to cast it as "music", but music is just a symptom. Don't talk through your hat.

Emo is a type of hardcore, it is punk.

Mainstream empty-vee emo has about as much in common with emo as Simple Plan has to do with punk rock. Emo isn't pop in anyway, mainstream pop that gets called emo is still pop, and not emo. :)

Emo is a type of hardcore, it is punk.

Mainstream empty-vee emo has about as much in common with emo as Simple Plan has to do with punk rock. Emo isn't pop in anyway, mainstream pop that gets called emo is still pop, and not emo. :)

Moderately revisionist. Pop-emo has it's roots in the underground Emo that formed after Hardcore started to lose popularity in the mid to late 80's. Yes, it's had bad alt-rock and pop added to the musical form, and much of the political force that bands like Fugazi brought to the table has been neutered (what do you expect from pop), but it does have roots in Emocore.

Yes, it's Post-hardcore technically, but it often does form in semi-underground "scenes" and gets gobbled up by record exacs, and it does have it's roots in Emocore. Sometimes you have to accept that terminology itself has been stolen from you, and that your statements are made more effective by speaking the words people know, and not the words that are technically correct.

What is the point of music, if not to be enjoyable?

The point is to be art. There are plenty of pieces, in classical music, that are not at all joyful, such as funeral marches. The point in those cases is not to bring joy, but to convey sorrow. Granted, one can enjoy them in a looser sense, the way someone would "enjoy" a tragedy.

Indeed you are not, but you are once again equated increased complexity with increased value in music, however if we look at the world of orchestral music and the classical tradition this does not always seem to be the case - Beethoven's Ninth is not one of the most complex pieces, yet it is one which people find to have great value. Are you arguing that it would be improved by added complexity?

Complexity is really the wrong word. A better way to describe it is making use of a wide palette of musical tools effectively. In the case of his 9th, Beethoven makes use of a symphonic orchestra well (which demands staggering skill) and even adds to the palette with the addition of singers to the ensemble. A "simple" piece, by contrast, might be one in which a relatively small number of chords are used, rhythms are straightfoward, the ensemble is small, etc.

How strange, I wouldn't fight for a world where art is something that people think requires several years of schooling. While I can appreciate such art, to me that seems to be anathema to the purpose of art, which is to get a message of some kind across. Art that is simply appealing to the naked eye (or ear) is incomplete to me.

The purpose of art is itself, not simply to further the goals and agenda of the artist. It's about personal expression, and if your personality begins and ends with your political agenda, you may have a problem. Art also requires skill like any other important activity and years of schooling can be helpful there. No one is born a mature artist; even Mozart started out composing short minuets and similar pieces before he tackled symphonies and operas.

In truth, I don't have a problem with popular music in itself. What I do take issue with is that many people don't really appreciate the full possibilities of music because they stick to popular songs. I would never demand that they give up popular music, but I do think it would be good for them to give classical music a chance. It would certainy be good for someone used to three minute songs for rock bands to hear what a 30 minute piece for orchestra sounds like.

The alliance between anarchism and punk concerns me because I fear it could easily lead to a future where the option to go to school and learn composition, orchestration, counterpoint, etc. no longer exists because no one cares about any of that anymore. If this seems unlikely, keep in mind that the animosity between classical and popular goes both ways; Chuck Berry once wrote a song titled "Roll over Beethoven" while Miles Davis dismissed classical as "dead shit", for example.

The point is to be art. There are plenty of pieces, in classical music, that are not at all joyful, such as funeral marches. The point in those cases is not to bring joy, but to convey sorrow. Granted, one can enjoy them in a looser sense, the way someone would "enjoy" a tragedy.

I would put to you that art which is not enjoyable in some way is art that is not justified. Classical art can often provoke an intellectual enjoyment that much of modern art can, but massively lacks the untouched unrestrained energy that is characterised in Punk, Metal, and Hard Rock. Even modern minimalism in both painting and in music has it's value, because it strives to be aethetically pleasing, without attempting to create a deeper sense of being. While this is pretty useless in the opinion of many artists, minimalism does capture a snapshot of pleasing imagery, which is valueble to people.

I think that to frame the debate, I have to ask this question first. What is art, and why do we create it?

The alliance between anarchism and punk concerns me because I fear it could easily lead to a future where the option to go to school and learn composition, orchestration, counterpoint, etc. no longer exists because no one cares about any of that anymore. If this seems unlikely, keep in mind that the animosity between classical and popular goes both ways; Chuck Berry once wrote a song titled "Roll over Beethoven" while Miles Davis dismissed classical as "dead shit", for example.

The existance of an alliance between anarchism and a schooling system calls to mind more trouble from my perspective. :p

Seriously though. I'm too pragmatic for true anarchism, but I'm a classically trained violist who writes some classical music (albeit simplistic, for no reason other than a need for practice) and has played guitar and sang in punk bands. Ironically, there is now an odd combination of progressive (a form you would probably actually find enjoyable, if you could lower yourself to accept that music which isn't created with a massive orchestra has value) and punk. While this music does not compete with the complexity of some composers (most of the modernists). I woud also suggest that before you declare a war against rock that you should go listen to some progressive/neo-classical metal. There are bands that have a keyboardist playing a harpsicord in many songs, bands that play deeply complex, massively challenging music. You would discover that the "difference" between Rock and Classical is smaller than you think.

And more importantly, why? I was listening to the Offspring when I was like, 2 years old, and now all the sudden, my friends do. I was listening to Queen and AcDc, and when they play it at ballgames, then the dumbass jocks know it. That pisses me off, and I need to take a piss.

Perhaps when the boy-band known as the "sex-pistols" was formed.

Music can be complex and Boring like (imo) Dream Theater

Yep.

The point is to be art. There are plenty of pieces, in classical music, that are not at all joyful, such as funeral marches. The point in those cases is not to bring joy, but to convey sorrow. Granted, one can enjoy them in a looser sense, the way someone would "enjoy" a tragedy.

I agree with that point, but this isn't exclusive to classical music.

(hm, actually, would you be able to suggest some sorrowful/doomy classical pieces at all for me to check out?)


The purpose of art is itself, not simply to further the goals and agenda of the artist. It's about personal expression, and if your personality begins and ends with your political agenda, you may have a problem.

Yep.

Art also requires skill like any other important activity and years of schooling can be helpful there. No one is born a mature artist; even Mozart started out composing short minuets and similar pieces before he tackled symphonies and operas.

Naturally; but this highlights a problem of classical music - it's inaccessible to most people from a creative standpoint. Most people who want to express themselves through music haven't had years of schooling. If the creation of music was only within the reach of a very privileged minority, I think that would be an especially sad situation.

I don't think that the lack of these years of schooling is a limitation on someones ability to express themselves, though. If a kid wants to throw together a three-chord punk band, good, whatever - as long as it's from the heart, what does it matter? One of the big appeals of simplistic rock music (and I dispute that all rock music is simplistic by definition) is the "hey, I could do that!" factor. Art should be accessible. Anyone should be able to express themselves. Those priveliged ivory tower musicians might look on in disdain at people who listen to and play rock music, but I think they should wake up and smell the fruit - music by definition doesn't have to be technical to carry emotion or feeling....or for that matter artistic value.

Just for the hell of it, i'll raise the example of my guitar teacher, who taught me that - he knows his music theory back to front and upside down. He also plays in a punk band, because that's how he feels he expresses himself best. There's nothing wrong with that.

In truth, I don't have a problem with popular music in itself. What I do take issue with is that many people don't really appreciate the full possibilities of music because they stick to popular songs. I would never demand that they give up popular music, but I do think it would be good for them to give classical music a chance. It would certainy be good for someone used to three minute songs for rock bands to hear what a 30 minute piece for orchestra sounds like.

The problem with this though, is that not all musicians of contemporary "popular" styles follow the '3 minute hit single' model. I have heard heavy metal songs that are longer than an hour, and seen blues jams live that have lasted for almost as long. Even so, their artistic value is not really intrinsically any greater or lesser than songs of a much shorter length.

(hm, actually, would you be able to suggest some sorrowful/doomy classical pieces at all for me to check out?)

I'm sure others will be better, but there are many different versions of Dies Irae that would qualify. The best imo, being Verdi.

Though it has beena while since I have really listened to Classical music, and I was never good with names anyway.

It's about personal expression, and if your personality begins and ends with your political agenda, you may have a problem

Such as Beethoven?

(hm, actually, would you be able to suggest some sorrowful/doomy classical pieces at all for me to check out?)

Górecki's Third Symphony. Heartbreaking in its desolation and tender raw emotion.

(hm, actually, would you be able to suggest some sorrowful/doomy classical pieces at all for me to check out?)


A peice that should be relatively easy for you to find would be the second movement of Dvorak's New World Symphony.

I agree with that point, but this isn't exclusive to classical music.

(hm, actually, would you be able to suggest some sorrowful/doomy classical pieces at all for me to check out?)


Toccata et fugue by J.S. Bach

Extraordinarily powerful, and very dark.

The purpose of art is itself, not simply to further the goals and agenda of the artist. It's about personal expression, and if your personality begins and ends with your political agenda, you may have a problem. I agree, but this is different that creating art not out of personal expression, but simply to create something that looks or sounds pretty.

Art also requires skill like any other important activity and years of schooling can be helpful there. No one is born a mature artist; even Mozart started out composing short minuets and similar pieces before he tackled symphonies and operas.

In truth, I don't have a problem with popular music in itself. What I do take issue with is that many people don't really appreciate the full possibilities of music because they stick to popular songs. I would never demand that they give up popular music, but I do think it would be good for them to give classical music a chance. It would certainy be good for someone used to three minute songs for rock bands to hear what a 30 minute piece for orchestra sounds like.I'd answer this, but Kanabia did so as well or better than I could have.

The alliance between anarchism and punk concerns me because I fear it could easily lead to a future where the option to go to school and learn composition, orchestration, counterpoint, etc. no longer exists because no one cares about any of that anymore. If this seems unlikely, keep in mind that the animosity between classical and popular goes both ways; Chuck Berry once wrote a song titled "Roll over Beethoven" while Miles Davis dismissed classical as "dead shit", for example.I can see why this may concern you, but I don't see it happening, for the simple fact that if there came a time where the vast majority of music was simplisitic, people would value complex music because it's different. I think the reason that Chuck Berry and Miles Davis said what they did because most music before them was complex, therefore they were creating something different.