Punk Options

[satch]

Just wondering I am an old school punk guy been into since I was 13 saw Social Distortion at a backyard party got in for 2 bucks lol...so here is my question...


I know times have changed what do you all consider Punk??

Thanks!

[*My Cinderella.*]

What confuses me most is how the song: Hey there Delilah - Plain White Tees is punk rock.

[NoSex]

What confuses me most is how the song: Hey there Delilah - Plain White Tees is punk rock.

Well, I think it's, to a degree, meaningless to talk about how something isn't punk rock or is. The genre is rather broad. Not to mention, punk rock has many sub-genres including pop-punk which would still, technically, be a punk sound. But, I think in the sense of punk rock, it becomes meaningless because of the fact that if we were to adopt the general classic punk mentality and philosophy, we couldn't, at the same time, imagine that the punk sound must conform and be limited to a single homogeneous essence.

Although there is, of course, classic punk, hardcore punk, and other forms which more closely resemble the original sound and atmosphere of the earliest punk movement, that isn't to suggest that the sound should not evolve. In fact, I would hope that it would.

Although I am a huge fan of classic punk, I believe an issue with the mentality and philosophies that follow the genre is that they almost scoff at and hold contempt for musical evolution. I think the punk sound should be more versatile, yet still retain some classic elements. I mean, there is a limit. Some things are clearly not punk rock, in any sense. But, it shouldn't be a chore to disect what is or isn't.

[*WHIMSICAL 0NE*]

Well, I think it's, to a degree, meaningless to talk about how something isn't punk rock or is. The genre is rather broad. Not to mention, punk rock has many sub-genres including pop-punk which would still, technically, be a punk sound. But, I think in the sense of punk rock, it becomes meaningless because of the fact that if we were to adopt the general classic punk mentality and philosophy, we couldn't, at the same time, imagine that the punk sound must conform and be limited to a single homogeneous essence.

Although there is, of course, classic punk, hardcore punk, and other forms which more closely resemble the original sound and atmosphere of the earliest punk movement, that isn't to suggest that the sound should not evolve. In fact, I would hope that it would.

Although I am a huge fan of classic punk, I believe an issue with the mentality and philosophies that follow the genre is that they almost scoff at and hold contempt for musical evolution. I think the punk sound should be more versatile, yet still retain some classic elements. I mean, there is a limit. Some things are clearly not punk rock, in any sense. But, it shouldn't be a chore to disect what is or isn't.

I think that about sums everything up. Haha.
Very well put.

[satch]

I think that about sums everything up. Haha.
Very well put.

No it does not sum it up....... tell me who the germs were....tell me who DK are tell me when the movement started...who was really the start of the punk movement????

[NoSex]

No it does not sum it up....... tell me who the germs were....tell me who DK are tell me when the movement started...who was really the start of the punk movement????

Huh? Are you asking me?
Or, what?

I am a huge fan of The Germs. My favorite band is the Dead Kennedys. The start of the movement goes far beyond 1975, and even the 70's themselves. Transitional and strong influential bodies can be found many years before. But, no one can be sure exactly when the movement began, but we can look at historical landmarks. More naive though, is your question, "Who really started the punk movement." I'm not sure anyone could truly answere this question objectively. But beyond that, who cares.

No single person, or band for that matter, truly started the movement. The musical movement itself had strong influence from the 60's onward, and the number of staple bands which defined the sound is rather large. But, to ask even further, who started the ideological movement of punk rock, is absurdly more naive. Rebellion, DIY, anti-establishment, and individuality had all long predated whatever anyone could imagine as the earliest true punk sound. I just don't exactly understand what you are trying to get at.

To clear things up Blink 182, Sum 41, and bands like this are NOT Pop-Punk. They are not punk at all. If you don't agree you have no idea what you are talking about.

Hmmm, I would actually have to say that I don't agree entirely.
And, at the same time, I would like to note that just because I do not agree does not mean that I do not know what I'm talking about, and even if it did, you have yet to demonstrate such.

Pop-punk has been around just as long as Punk has been around, for the most part. Pop-punk is merely the juxtaposition of a popular musical element or sound with that of the classic or more raw punk sound. This comes from playing power chords in more friendly progressions and arrangements. This comes from more tamed vocal styles. It may become less abrasive and less agressive, but it still plays much like classic punk. And, since it's main influences are punk rock itself, and popular music, it does easily evolve. It conforms to a popular sound, but desperately holds onto a punk essence. Sometimes it works, sometimes not (most of the time not), but just because the genre has seen commercial success does not mean it is not a pop-punk sound.

Shit, the Ramones were pop-punk. I love the Ramones. The Adicts, The Descendents, The Buzzcocks, The Dickies.