NationStates Jolt Archive

There was a pretty lively debate going in the "Good Bands" thread about Pop Punk, and wether or not it was a real genre. Personally I think that by the nature of Punk music it can't be Pop. Any bands that are labeled as Pop Punk should just be called Pop IMO.

I just listen to prog.:p

Personally I think that by the nature of Punk music it can't be Pop. Any bands that are labeled as Pop Punk should just be called Pop IMO.

Punk is a means or method of production and operating as a band or artist. Pop is a style of musical content. No contradiction.

I dunno. What do you mean by pop punk? Punk that's popular or californian influenced crap? I dunno if those two are actually mutually exclusive though.

Good Charlotte and their ilk are not punk.

There was a pretty lively debate going in the "Good Bands" thread about Pop Punk, and wether or not it was a real genre. Personally I think that by the nature of Punk music it can't be Pop. Any bands that are labeled as Pop Punk should just be called Pop IMO.


I find the term "Shite" gets the idea across equally well.

Trilby63;12140986']I dunno. What do you mean by pop punk?

Shall we take Screeching Weasel as an example? Or is that just going to trigger shrugs and murmurs of 'who?'

Trilby63;12140986']I dunno. What do you mean by pop punk? Punk that's popular or californian influenced crap? I dunno if those two are actually mutually exclusive though.

Good Charlotte and their ilk are not punk.

I don't mean Punk that is popular, but music that is classified as "Pop Punk." Think Blink 182, Good Charlotte, etc.

Metal has many many sub genre's, punk should have the same. Good Charlotte sounds nothing like the Misfits, Black Flag, ect.

I think the term "pop-punk" is used to describe two different thinks-

1)pop bands who attempt to maintain a punk image (busted, good charlotte, etc)

2)punk bands who have a lighter sound, which some people think is pop-influenced (Green Day, Offspring, Blink)

So yes, pop punk exists, and it's two different things at the same time.

It's Green Day's fault, they are the ones that expanded the punk genre. Green Day started this Punk- lite back when they softened their imaged with the release of Dookie. Then Rancid softened their image, and Bad Religion (sp) followed.

Damn you Green Day ::Shakes Fist:: Damn you to hell.

I find the term "Shite" gets the idea across equally well.
Seconded.

It's Green Day's fault, they are the ones that expanded the punk genre.

Descendents? The Dickies? Screeching Weasel? The Queers? The Ramones? The Undertones? Ah - all influenced by the music of Green Day. Stupid me.

"Punk to me means freedom, doing your own shit, and not worrying about conforming." -Kurt Cobain

I call it power pop, because the bands concerned usually entirely use powerchords.

I call it power pop, because the bands concerned usually entirely use powerchords.

Pity the term is already taken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_pop), ain't it?

Descendents? The Dickies? Screeching Weasel? The Queers? The Ramones? The Undertones? Ah - all influenced by the music of Green Day. Stupid me.


High Fidelity references should follow this post. Since I don't remember the exact lines I'll just say how shit that film is and how poor an actor John Cusack is.

Descendents? The Dickies? Screeching Weasel? The Queers? The Ramones? The Undertones? Ah - all influenced by the music of Green Day. Stupid me.

how can the ramones be influenced by green day?

how can the ramones be influenced by green day?

It's called sarcasm mate.

how can the ramones be influenced by green day?

That was my point. They weren't.


Although they could have been - they didn't split up until '96, and Greenday had already released three or four LP's by then

It's called sarcasm mate.

:rolleyes:

Descendents? The Dickies? Screeching Weasel? The Queers? The Ramones? The Undertones? Ah - all influenced by the music of Green Day. Stupid me.

Yes it's true. Green Day has a secret time travel machine they use to ruin music through the ages.

Yes it's true. Green Day has a secret time travel machine they use to ruin music through the ages.

it's not much of a secret either - they just disguised it as the bathroom on their tour bus. don't flush without checking the dials first.

"Punk to me means freedom, doing your own shit, and not worrying about conforming." -Kurt Cobain

Stupid conformists, why can't they be like the rest of us nonconformists? Gosh.

The concept of the pop music machine, which is to say, the whole of the pop industry is in such total contrast with the punk ethos that music which is both pop and punk is, in it's nature, a contradiction, and therefore only one of the two.

That's not to say that you can't have punk with a lightening of guitar usage and a more pretty sound. After all, there have been bands who have done that from the start. It also isn't to say that you can't have pop bands who have fast, lound guitars in the "style" of punk (which punk though? Perhaps someone can tell me how the style of The Sex Pistols and the style of, say, Chumbawamba, can be seen as the same style). All it says is that a band is either pop or punk, and not both.

Green Day, for example, were a punk band when they started, with a "poppish" sound. Over the years, they slowly abandoned the punk ethos and they are now a pop band with punk musical influences.

"Punk to me means freedom, doing your own shit, and not worrying about conforming." -Kurt Cobain

And I would credit Cobain with having as much to do with the Punk ethos as, say, Madonna. Come back to me quoting someone with any real authority on the subject and then we can talk.

The concept of the pop music machine, which is to say, the whole of the pop industry is in such total contrast with the punk ethos that music which is both pop and punk is, in it's nature, a contradiction, and therefore only one of the two.

That's not to say that you can't have punk with a lightening of guitar usage and a more pretty sound. After all, there have been bands who have done that from the start. It also isn't to say that you can't have pop bands who have fast, lound guitars in the "style" of punk (which punk though? Perhaps someone can tell me how the style of The Sex Pistols and the style of, say, Chumbawamba, can be seen as the same style). All it says is that a band is either pop or punk, and not both.

Green Day, for example, were a punk band when they started, with a "poppish" sound. Over the years, they slowly abandoned the punk ethos and they are now a pop band with punk musical influences.



And I would credit Cobain with having as much to do with the Punk ethos as, say, Madonna. Come back to me quoting someone with any real authority on the subject and then we can talk.

Why don't you believe that Cobain had anything to do with punk?
He didn't made punk music, that's true, but wasn't he punk?

Why don't you believe that Cobain had anything to do with punk?
He didn't made punk music, that's true, but wasn't he punk?

I have no idea, I didn't know him and I don't know anyone who knew him well enough to judge his personal philosophy. All I can judge is what he did with his 15 minutes of fame, and I assure that I am underwhelmed with his use of them.

I have no idea, I didn't know him and I don't know anyone who knew him well enough to judge his personal philosophy. All I can judge is what he did with his 15 minutes of fame, and I assure that I am underwhelmed with his use of them.

What could he have done more?
I'm just wondering, because you're underwhelmed with his use of his 15 minutes of fame, so what should he have done (better), or not done?

What could he have done more?
I'm just wondering, because you're underwhelmed with his use of his 15 minutes of fame, so what should he have done (better), or not done?

Not left his kid to grow up without a father probably comes pretty high on my list.

Punk is a means or method of production and operating as a band or artist. Pop is a style of musical content. No contradiction.

Valid point.


And I would credit Cobain with having as much to do with the Punk ethos as, say, Madonna. Come back to me quoting someone with any real authority on the subject and then we can talk.

You're evidently either ignorant or dismissive of his roots, then. Your personal opinions on the man aside, it's pretty hard to listen to Nirvana's Bleach and In Utero albums in particular and claim that they are not at all related to the punk ethos.

I'm not certain.

Punk is a means or method of production and operating as a band or artist. Pop is a style of musical content. No contradiction.I think the issue is whether or not the style of musical content that is pop can ever coexist with the means or method of production and operation that is punk. I'm leaning towards no.

I think the issue is whether or not the style of musical content that is pop can ever coexist with the means or method of production and operation that is punk. I'm leaning towards no.

Some new-wave artists from the 80's might qualify. The B-52's first album is perhaps an example.

Maybe - and this is a long shot - Joy Division? They're not exactly pop, but not exactly punk either, and a hell of a lot closer to what we can think of as "pop" than their punkier contemporaries were.

A far cry from what is nowadays considered "pop punk" in any regard, so I guess it's irrelevant.

I'm not certain.

I think the issue is whether or not the style of musical content that is pop can ever coexist with the means or method of production and operation that is punk. I'm leaning towards no.

Go dig out a copy of mid period Poison Girls stuff and get back to me on that one. I'm thinking most specifically of the Where's The Pleasure? LP.

How about we knock out a working definition of generic 'pop' music as a musical form of content?

- vocals taking predominance in the mix, kick and bass somewhere slightly below that to provide rhythm and melody, guitar sitting comfortably below them.
- recorded and mixed by someone who has professional level skills
- a tendency towards three/three and a half minute songs
- moderately fast tempo
- catchy, hook laden tunes: the kind of thing you can go away humming
- a genrally cheerful feel to the music

Sure, it doesn't cover all pop music, but is good enough to catch a representative slice of a particular kind of pop

The question is why do you think a punk ethos is incompatible with that list?

In my opinion it is possible to produce any kind of music with a punk means of operation and production: be it gamelan, orchestral, drum and bass or just generic garage rock.

Some new-wave artists from the 80's might qualify. The B-52's first album is perhaps an example.

Rezillos?

Rezillos?

Thanks to wikipedia (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Rezillos_-_Top_Of_The_Pops_excerpt.ogg). Yes, i'd say so.

Thanks to wikipedia (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Rezillos_-_Top_Of_The_Pops_excerpt.ogg). Yes, i'd say so.

Ooooh. Gap in your knowledge right there. Go and beg/borrow/steal a copy of Can't Stand The Rezillos from some place.

Ooooh. Gap in your knowledge right there. Go and beg/borrow/steal a copy of Can't Stand The Rezillos from some place.

Hehe. I'll add it to the list.

I have about 100 albums pending on it now, I think... :p

The question is why do you think a punk ethos is incompatible with that list?I think your list is incomplete; namely that pop music is done primarily for the purpose of selling records.

In my opinion it is possible to produce any kind of music with a punk means of operation and production: be it gamelan, orchestral, drum and bass or just generic garage rock.Is deliberately trying to sell records part of the punk means of operation and production?

Hehe. I'll add it to the list.

I have about 100 albums pending on it now, I think... :pIs that all? :p

Add Trouble's Simple Mind Condition, their new album. It comes out (here) Feb. 20th. (A most excellent day, if I do say so, myself.)

I think your list is incomplete; namely that pop music is done primarily for the purpose of selling records.

Any release other than one which is given away free or planned as a tax write-off is done primarily for the purpose of selling records (even releases spurred mostly by vanity).

Any release other than one which is given away free or planned as a tax write-off is done primarily for the purpose of selling records (even releases spurred mostless by vanity).Ah, I see; we have differing viewpoints on this, so it makes sense that we would have differing viewpoints on pop punk. I would disagree; simply because someone wants to make a living making music does not mean that their primary reason for making music is to make a living; it could simply be a nice fringe benefit.

Is that all? :p

Add Trouble's Simple Mind Condition, their new album. It comes out (here) Feb. 20th. (A most excellent day, if I do say so, myself.)

Well, there's explicitly around 100 albums written down on the list (usually only one per artist), but there's certainly a lot more that i'd pick up if I managed to stumble across them and could afford it.

Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to go record shopping for about a month now, since I have to travel some distance to get to all of the good places. Oh well.

And cool. I'll keep an eye out for it. I heard an album you might like today, as well, if you haven't already heard it (I've been recommended it a lot of times, but put it off 'till just now) - the self-titled debut of the band Jesu.

Ah, I see; we have differing viewpoints on this, so it makes sense that we would have differing viewpoints on pop punk. I would disagree; simply because someone wants to make a living making music does not mean that their primary reason for making music is to make a living; it could simply be a nice fringe benefit.

Okay. Shall we look at CRASS records, BLUUURG or Dischord? What was the primary purpose of these record labels?

Well, there's explicitly around 100 albums written down on the list (usually only one per artist), but there's certainly a lot more that i'd pick up if I managed to stumble across them and could afford it.Ah, I see. I like to write them down on a list, that way I feel vindicated when I cross them off. Usually I have on the list "Something By" this or that band, so I end up writing the same thing again at the bottom of the list...lol.

Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to go record shopping for about a month now, since I have to travel some distance to get to all of the good places. Oh well.That sucks. It had been a while for me, too, but a couple days ago I received some CDs from cmdistro that I had ordered when they were selling them at 20% off.

And cool. I'll keep an eye out for it. I heard an album you might like today, as well, if you haven't already heard it (I've been recommended it a lot of times, but put it off 'till just now) - the self-titled debut of the band Jesu.I have it already ;) I do like it. I got it mostly because Justin Broadrick was also the main person behind Godflesh, and I love Godflesh. But they broke up, shortly before they were to tour here. :(

Okay. Shall we look at CRASS records, BLUUURG or Dischord? What was the primary purpose of these record labels?To put out and distribute the records of the artists on them.
(Bear in mind that the owner of a record label will have a different mentality than a musician, even if the two are the same person.)

I'd consider pop punk to be a subgenre of punk. It's not straight up punk, but it's got the same roots, really. It's basically a bunch of big record companies trying to tap the punk market.

To put out and distribute the records of the artists on them.
(Bear in mind that the owner of a record label will have a different mentality than a musician, even if the two are the same person.)

So all these labels put out 'pop' records by your definition, yes?

Ah, I see. I like to write them down on a list, that way I feel vindicated when I cross them off. Usually I have on the list "Something By" this or that band, so I end up writing the same thing again at the bottom of the list...lol.

Heheh. More or less what I do, although more often than not my list is in my head anyway since I know what i'm looking for.

That sucks. It had been a while for me, too, but a couple days ago I received some CDs from cmdistro that I had ordered when they were selling them at 20% off.

My workplace actually is offering me 20% off music through a related company, but even with the discount, I can get them cheaper anyway...so I haven't bothered, even though they do have a pretty good selection.

I have it already ;) I do like it. I got it mostly because Justin Broadrick was also the main person behind Godflesh, and I love Godflesh. But they broke up, shortly before they were to tour here. :(

Hehe. Thought you might have - seems everyone knew about them before I did. I need to get into Godflesh as well, though, since I enjoy industrial-ish stuff....I just don't have much of it.

I would say:

"First off you have to decide that if the term "pop-punk" exists, there must be a shedload of other genres, all that exist but aren't being disputed here (hardcore punk, ska punk, pop punk, street punk etc). Which means you have to find definitions for the whole damn lot and for the idea of "punk" as a whole (anti-mainstream or other?). I can't be arsed to make definitions that others are just going to argue with (I should use the term "debate" there).

However, I do somehow manage ignore my own thoughts and break punk down if need be. I seem to define "pop-punk" as punk influenced bands with a lot softer sound and usually have an excessive backlog of songs about girls. I'd put Descendents, The Dickies, Vandals in here etc. I can't bear to associate Good Charlotte with the idea of punk at all, but that's my own personal prejudice. :p
Although, I would also put bands that don't have songs primarily about girls in here (The Explosion are the only band I can think of off the top of my head here) but still keep the softer sound."

But I'd soon realise that I can't be bothered to care and just stick The Instigators on. :p

Although, I would also put bands that don't have songs primarily about girls in here (The Explosion are the only band I can think of off the top of my head here) but still keep the softer sound."

Snuff?

But I'd soon realise that I can't be bothered to care and just stick The Instigators on. :p

Ain't heard that name in a while. Quite possibly the best punk band to ever come out of Denby Dale.

So all these labels put out 'pop' records by your definition, yes?No. Ian MacKaye the music maker is different than Ian MacKaye the record label owner; it is solely Ian MacKaye the music maker's motivation that matters. Presumably his main goal was to make music, with money being a fringe benefit, as opposed to making money, with music being a fringe benefit.

My workplace actually is offering me 20% off music through a related company, but even with the discount, I can get them cheaper anyway...so I haven't bothered, even though they do have a pretty good selection.Wow, that's awesome. Is that a constant thing, or just temporary? Either way, you should take advantage of it.

Hehe. Thought you might have - seems everyone knew about them before I did. I need to get into Godflesh as well, though, since I enjoy industrial-ish stuff....I just don't have much of it.It's industrial-ish, but it's also (usually) slow, so it might appeal to your doomhead personality, as well. :)

Presumably his main goal was to make music, with money being a fringe benefit, as opposed to making money, with music being a fringe benefit.

It is entirely possible to make music without releasing records.

It is entirely possible to make music without releasing records.Certainly; one could also play in a jazz band and do this to make a living from it. I'm not certain that one could do so with a punk band.

Certainly; one could also play in a jazz band and do this to make a living from it. I'm not certain that one could do so with a punk band.

Likewise there are many pop musicians who make a living without releasing records (taking wedding bands for example).

Likewise there are many pop musicians who make a living without releasing records (taking wedding bands for example).In which case their motivation would likely be primarily to make a living, as opposed to primarily being motivated by making music.
The lines can be blurry in some cases, but in others it's obvious.

In which case their motivation would likely be primarily to make a living, as opposed to primarily being motivated by making music.

On what basis do you make that assumption?

Anyhow: the point remains, you therefore agree that it is possible to produce pop music without releasing records, and thus the intention behind releasing records cannot be the sole determinant of whether they are pop or not.

On what basis do you make that assumption?I can't imagine someone who is passionate about playing music wanting to play pop music.

Anyhow: the point remains, you therefore agree that it is possible to produce pop music without releasing records, and thus the intention behind releasing records cannot be the sole determinant of whether they are pop or not.I'm not certain, and this is where my hesitance comes in. It could be argued that the sole defining factor of pop music is to make money, without regard to what the music sounds like, and it just so happens that the music that usually makes money has a certain sound, which is labeled 'pop'.

I can't imagine someone who is passionate about playing music wanting to play pop music.

You can't imagine that Elton John, Phil Spector or Brian Wilson are passionate about music?

You can't imagine that Elton John, Phil Spector or Brian Wilson are passionate about music?Not more so than they are about making money, no.

I'm not certain, and this is where my hesitance comes in. It could be argued that the sole defining factor of pop music is to make money, without regard to what the music sounds like, and it just so happens that the music that usually makes money has a certain sound, which is labeled 'pop'.

So Slayer, the Sex Pistols and the Prodigy are more pop than The Bay City Rollers?

So Slayer, the Sex Pistols and the Prodigy are more pop than The Bay City Rollers?By that definition, if they're more concerned with making money and the Bay City Rollers are less so, then yes. I'm willing to bet that the first three are more concerned with making music than money, though.

Not more so than they are about making money, no.

I consider that an imaginative failure on your part.

I consider that an imaginative failure on your part.You don't honestly think that the vision of Brian Wilson, et al matches up exactly with the vision of the record label, do you? Or at least, do you think it would match up exactly with the vision of the record label even if no money were involved?

You don't honestly think that the vision of Brian Wilson, et al matches up exactly with the vision of the record label, do you?

I don't think the vision of Brian Wilson, Phil Spector, or for that matter the late Joe Meek, matches up to anything. I believe 'touched by the hand of God' is the euphemistically polite way of putting it.

Okay. Shall we look at CRASS records, BLUUURG or Dischord? What was the primary purpose of these record labels?

Adressing Dischord, since my knowledge of CRASS or BLUUURG is minimal. Dischord's goal was never to make money off of it's records. It always existed to allow musicians a chance to get their music heard, and a chance to record their music. In fact, Ian Mackaye said that he was often more concerned with keeping an archive of DC's music than he was with selling records.

To try and argue that labels who, up until Punk broke (and, tbh, I mean that both ways), struggled to break even so that they could release the next album, and rarely even had the money to pay artists for their CD releases existed to make money... Well, that seems to be, at best, unlikely.

And once again, I don't give a fuck about the pop sound, I care about the pop ethos. You cannot hold the pop ethos, which is to say the sell-more-records, sterile, messageless, uncreative, and unchallenging musical form, and hold the punk ethos. You can have poppy-sounding punk and "punk"-sounding pop (although, how one can give punk one sound to rest upon is beyond me), but you cannot have both at the same time. That creates shit bands like Fall Out Boy, Yellowcard, or Greed Day who claim the name of punk falsely by using "Pop" as a prefix.

There was a pretty lively debate going in the "Good Bands" thread about Pop Punk, and wether or not it was a real genre. Personally I think that by the nature of Punk music it can't be Pop. Any bands that are labeled as Pop Punk should just be called Pop IMO.

Why even talk about it, imo it's possibly the worst type of music around.

"Pop punk is mixing already crappy pop, with annoying power chords and cheesy singing, how could it be anyworse?

To try and argue that labels who, up until Punk broke (and, tbh, I mean that both ways), struggled to break even so that they could release the next album, and rarely even had the money to pay artists for their CD releases existed to make money... Well, that seems to be, at best, unlikely.

I never said anything about making money in that context - I was saying that unless a band is giving away their records for free or doing it as a tax right off when they release a record their primary motivation in so doing is to sell records. Different thing.

I never said anything about making money in that context - I was saying that unless a band is giving away their records for free or doing it as a tax right off when they release a record their primary motivation in so doing is to sell records. Different thing.

And? The pop mindset isn't just creating music that you are going to sell, it's creating music with how it will sell being your primary concern. That's what you aren't getting.

And? The pop mindset isn't just creating music that you are going to sell, it's creating music with how it will sell being your primary concern. That's what you aren't getting.

No. No. I follow your argument, but disagree with it.

Can we agree that Brian Wilson is a 'pop' artist?

I'll take it that we can.

Is his primary concern how well his music will sell?

I don't think so.

No. No. I follow your argument, but disagree with it.

Can we agree that Brian Wilson is a 'pop' artist?

I'll take it that we can.

Is his primary concern how well his music will sell?

I don't think so.

That's nice.

I do.

That's nice.

I do.

So you believe that all pop musicians are primarily motivated by accumulation of wealth?

So you believe that all pop musicians are primarily motivated by accumulation of wealth?

Yes. Essentially. I beleive that they place money-making above doing anything of use with their music, and that they create tame sham-art of little to no artistic merit.

Yes. Essentially. I beleive that they place money-making above doing anything of use with their music, and that they create tame sham-art of little to no artistic merit.

Did the KLF create pop music?

I hate most punk already, so pop punk just makes it worse. For the record, the following punk bands are not band IMO.

The Ramones
The Clash
MC5 (KICK OUT THE JAMS MOTHERF**KERS)
The Stooges
Green Day (Don't care what anyone says, they're an awesome band)

And even though Green Day did start pop punk, they are leagues above the others in the genre.

Did the KLF create pop music?

The only thing I know of with the Initials KLF is the driving school where I learned to drive, and I'm going to assume you weren't talking about that. :p

There was a pretty lively debate going in the "Good Bands" thread about Pop Punk, and wether or not it was a real genre. Personally I think that by the nature of Punk music it can't be Pop. Any bands that are labeled as Pop Punk should just be called Pop IMO.

By "lively debate" he means me arguing against 6 guys. =/ (in favor of pop-punks existence of course)

And even though Green Day did start pop punk...


Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Well, if you're going to attribute the creation of a contrived genre to a band, I suppose you might as well pick one of the shittiest ones out there...

The only thing I know of with the Initials KLF is the driving school where I learned to drive, and I'm going to assume you weren't talking about that. :p

Hey, it ain't as if they (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_KLF) did anything of note. Like burning £1,000,000. No.

Hey, it ain't as if they (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_KLF) did anything of note. Like burning £1,000,000. No.

Meh. I'm ambivalent. They certainly aren't a pop band in the traditional sense. It's not like I'm claiming that there are only two genres in the world, all I'm saying is that Pop music, with it's ethos of clean, easily accessible, mass produced, unchallenging music with little to no artistic quality has nothing to do with punk. The KLF seem to be a red herring from my perspective.

Well, if you're going to attribute the creation of a contrived genre to a band, I suppose you might as well pick one of the shittiest ones out there...

Green Day is not shit.

Green Day is not shit.

I beg to differ. Greed Day is one of the prime examples of a band who really will sell anything out for attention and money.

I beg to differ. Greed Day is one of the prime examples of a band who really will sell anything out for attention and money.

Not at all. There albums are awesome. Granted, American Idiot could have been better, but they have amazing songs that no one has heard. And they aren't sell outs. They let their music speak. And for some reason, people hate them. Oh well. This same thing happened when Dookie came out. If all goes well, all the haters will like them for three more albums, then turn on them on the next album.

In the end though, music is all about a person's tastes, so Green Day rocks and no one can tell me different.

I've said my thoughts. I'm done.

Not at all. There albums are awesome. Granted, American Idiot could have been better, but they have amazing songs that no one has heard. And they aren't sell outs. They let their music speak. And for some reason, people hate them. Oh well. This same thing happened when Dookie came out. If all goes well, all the haters will like them for three more albums, then turn on them on the next album.

Meh. Don't give a fuck about how "Awesome" they sound. They sold out the moment they went to a major label shit-factory. They compounded those actions with their pop-styled lyrics on their latest albums, and their corruption of a perfectly good song by a Punk band with U2 for their New Orleans publicity stunt.

It's not like I'm claiming that there are only two genres in the world, all I'm saying is that Pop music, with it's ethos of clean, easily accessible, mass produced, unchallenging music with little to no artistic quality has nothing to do with punk.


...and I'm saying that there exists a style of musical content which we call 'pop', and that there exists a means of production of music which we call 'punk'. One can use that method of production to make a great many different kinds of music, and one of those is a kind which is heavily influenced by bubblegum pop of the sixties.

Meh. Don't give a fuck about how "Awesome" they sound. They sold out the moment they went to a major label shit-factory. They compounded those actions with their pop-styled lyrics on their latest albums, and their corruption of a perfectly good song by a Punk band with U2 for their New Orleans publicity stunt.

When people start calling bands sell outs, they overlook the music.

"I sold out when I started selling my music on any label" -Maynard James Keenan.

But whatever. I have better things to do then argue over music. I can do that at home.

...and I'm saying that there exists a style of musical content which we call 'pop', and that there exists a means of production of music which we call 'punk'. One can use that method of production to make a great many different kinds of music, and one of those is a kind which is heavily influenced by bubblegum pop of the sixties.

And I'm not talking about musical style. I'm talking about ideologies. I don't give a fuck about musical style.

When people start calling bands sell outs, they overlook the music.

When you only buy on the synthetic nature of how things sound, and not what the artist is doing, you are engaging in belittiling and diminishing art and turning it into a product to be pagaged and sold in factories. You may as well let a computer make your music.

I beg to differ. Greed Day is one of the prime examples of a band who really will sell anything out for attention and money.

How long before they become whores, in the literal sense, do you think?

Meh. Don't give a fuck about how "Awesome" they sound. They sold out the moment they went to a major label shit-factory. They compounded those actions with their pop-styled lyrics on their latest albums, and their corruption of a perfectly good song by a Punk band with U2 for their New Orleans publicity stunt.

Oh god. You can't possibly mean that they covered "Don't Want To Know If You Are Lonely" with U2...

...I'm seriously hoping that isn't true...

And I'm not talking about musical style. I'm talking about ideologies. I don't give a fuck about musical style.



When you only buy on the synthetic nature of how things sound, and not what the artist is doing, you are engaging in belittiling and diminishing art and turning it into a product to be pagaged and sold in factories. You may as well let a computer make your music.

So you care about the music, you care about what the band does? Interesting...

It's music dude. It's supposed to sound good, and to give a message. What the band does when it's not making music means nothing until they stop making music. And if computers could make music as good as some bands, I'd listen to it. But they can't so I don't have to worry about that.

So you care about the music, you care about what the band does? Interesting...

It's music dude. It's supposed to sound good, and to give a message. What the band does when it's not making music means nothing until they stop making music. And if computers could make music as good as some bands, I'd listen to it. But they can't so I don't have to worry about that.

You missed the point. It's what the artists are doing because of their music.

One can make music with very bright, sparkly, "Poppy" melodies, yet still be real artists with integrity and honesty (look at Husker Du). But, most of the time, bands that make the transition to a brighter sound also act like they should be cuddled and adored by the masses... As if they're somehow higher beings all of a sudden.

Like Green Day.

Oh god. You can't possibly mean that they covered "Don't Want To Know If You Are Lonely" with U2...

...I'm seriously hoping that isn't true...

No. Don't worry. You don't have to declare jihad against Green Day yet.

It was "The Saints are coming" by The Skids. Slightly earlier than Husker Du, and kinda New Wave-ish towards the end, but a fun, kinda poppy-sounding quartet. You'd like them.

No. Don't worry. You don't have to declare jihad against Green Day yet.

It was "The Saints are coming" by The Skids. Slightly earlier than Husker Du, and kinda New Wave-ish towards the end, but a fun, kinda poppy-sounding quartet. You'd like them.

Sounds good. Shit, if I like them enough, I will be declaring Jihad against Green Day, because those bastards fucking ruin everything they cover.

So you care about the music, you care about what the band does? Interesting...

It's music dude. It's supposed to sound good, and to give a message. What the band does when it's not making music means nothing until they stop making music. And if computers could make music as good as some bands, I'd listen to it. But they can't so I don't have to worry about that.

I care about the message and the way the band uses their music. That's not to say I don't care about the music, just that that takes a back seat to not being a bunch of sell outs. And, frankly, pop music is just mass produced, easily consumed nonsense.

Music just isn't expensive enough any more. People think it's just a form of entertainment. It isn't, it's art.

I care about the message and the way the band uses their music. That's not to say I don't care about the music, just that that takes a back seat to not being a bunch of sell outs. And, frankly, pop music is just mass produced, easily consumed nonsense.

Music just isn't expensive enough any more. People think it's just a form of entertainment. It isn't, it's art.

Oddly enough, my original copy of Zen Arcade has the price printed on the gatefold: $12.98.

I guess SST really wanted to show everyone that they weren't out to make an assload of cash.

Sounds good. Shit, if I like them enough, I will be declaring Jihad against Green Day, because those bastards fucking ruin everything they cover.

Well they ruined it somehting awful.

Pop, punk, same thing. It's all popular, popularist music in song format. Blah blah blah, singer, drummer, guitars. Blah blah blah, lyrics, refrain. Blah blah blah!

Oddly enough, my original copy of Zen Arcade has the price printed on the gatefold: $12.98.

I guess SST really wanted to show everyone that they weren't out to make an assload of cash.

Dischord charged less for releases, though. :P

Although, in part that's because Dischord had access to cheaper recording facilities.

Well they ruined it somehting awful.

I would imagine, judging by their cover of "Holidays In The Sun", which lasted all of 45 seconds.

It was even more embarrassing than when The Damned covered "Anarchy In The U.K."... Except Dave pretty much admitted that they ruined it, whereas BJ Armstrong gloated about how they played so much better than the Pistols did when they got back together in '96.

Then again, irony is always funny.

I would imagine, judging by their cover of "Holidays In The Sun", which lasted all of 45 seconds.

Did they play only one verse or something?

And it's hard to beat the Never Mind the Bollocks recording of Holidays where Rotten goes crazy at the end. It's an absolutely amazing performance.

And I'm not talking about musical style. I'm talking about ideologies. I don't give a fuck about musical style.

So why are you engaged in a debate about a musical style (pop punk)?

So why are you engaged in a debate about a musical style (pop punk)?

Because I'm concerned that what it has come to mean is a pop mentality with a punk sound. Since that seems to be the case, it is best to draw the line firmly and take the name of punk away from those who are not punks. Essentially, the name, which once reffered to brighter sounding punk bands, can be eliminated, or completely redefined, but at the moment it refers to a great deal of music undeserving of the punk label.

Did they play only one verse or something?

And it's hard to beat the Never Mind the Bollocks recording of Holidays where Rotten goes crazy at the end. It's an absolutely amazing performance.

Yeah, it was just one verse. The drumline was totally off, Armstrong killed the riff (i think he just did powerchords, unlike Steve's original), and the bass was off, too.

It was horrible.