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!

you mean like which bands are punk? or..?

Well lets say both bands and people you know...do you think you have to have some wild hair cut or what not?? and stuff like that...

Mohawk influenced = not punk

Looking the look part does not make someone punk.

Punk rock, specifically, is just a musical genre. Mainly categorized by it's use of chords, fast tempo, common progressions, raw instrumental style, and speech-singing aggresive vocals. Beyond this we can find common grounds within lyrical content inside the genre. Highly individualistic, anti-authoritarian, freedom striving, rebellious, abrasive, and free thinking.

The ideology surrounding the original punk rock music demands an attitude which fits common musical methods, and more strongly a stress on the lyrical contents. But, it doesn't really matter. Taken the contents of the lyrics to be honest, we should not hold a punk ideology in the first place, for a punk ideology would go against itself in the sense that it would become non-individualistic, and inherently authoritative. So, we must deny an ideology, given that it holds within itself those strict punk sentiments. Not to say, that these are qualities that must always remain empty from such a system, but within punk, it appears that they should.

In the end, the counter-culture movement within punk was a waste. But, even still, it was never, and should never be about, hair cuts, leather jackets, and denim jeans.

Here something else I would like to say....most punkers I know and hang with like Rock-A-Billy music as well. Now if you look at the two kinds ( for those who do not know Rock-A-Billy Stray cats and the Blasters are two big names) they are differnt but hold this to be same the rebel type. So what came about then, Cow Punk, psychobilly and stuff like that. I am just an old fart that has been into Punk for many years and with these days I do not get the new " Punk"

So when kids wear shirts that say DK on them do they know whatit really means or do they think it stands for Donkey Kong??? do they really know who the Misfits are?? Do they know that the Misfits today are not what they were years ago??? do they realy know about the Germs? do they know that the sanger today is not the real one that started the band?

My thing is this, music played a HUGE role in my life, and it seems that it is more of a fad today then a life style. I do not have a mohawk or did I ever, I do not wear spikes or did I ever...you do not have to dress like that to be a punk take a look at the old bands like Circle Jerks those guys looked like nerds but are hard core punks. Look at DK back in the day when Jello was still singing the bassist looked like a nerd big glasses and what not..

Wow I am rambling

omg, Nate. You freaking own like.. every topic you post in.
I agre with you though.

Punk Rock died when the Sex Pistols formed.

I know I'm kind of interjecting here, but since Nate owned the topic, as Kara pointed out, I'm just going to say it. The Misfits today are a complete joke. I mean, THEY HAVE MISFITS SLEEPING BAGS AND SHOES NOW. COME ON. Well.. same could be said for the Sex Pistols. Sort of.

I know a lot of people make a lifestyle of a certian music genre. Nowadays, people say "Hip hop isn't just a type of music it's a lifestyle". But are people who do that limiting themselves? Like, oh I can't listen to them because I am a punk and they're not punk. Or are they just reflecting the music that they enjoy and showing that what you listen to does effect you, such as the way you talk?

Do your research it's always been like that.

^^ yeah I know. But people where I live always have an issue with that. Like if you listen to metal you can't be a metalhead and if you listen to punk you can't dress punk. Music reflects on your lifestyle.

I hate to say it, but instead of writing a huge post or discussing this further than it needs to go, I'm just going to refer you to a movie. Go see the film SLC Punk. It's a delightfully introspective little dramedy about a few Anarcho-Punks trying to make ends meet wherever they can in good old Salt Lake City. Fantastic soundtrack, hilarious, still surprisingly thought-provoking. Great coming-to-age story.

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.

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

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.

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????

NFG is punk... :-) Well.. pop punk..

Nirvana is.. um

There is alot.

Hahaha

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.



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.

Ramones weren't Pop-Punk. Only people who say that are people who judge Punk on accents. Sure they had clean vocals but they sounded nothing like Buzzcocks. Ask John, Jello, hell even ask Hilly Kristal and you will get the same reply about this and my last post.

Why should they have to sound like Buzzcocks?
As the Buzzcocks were relating their sound within an entirely different musical scene, it would make sense that if both bands were deriving from two different popular sounds, they would sound different. But, to tell me that the Ramones were not heavily influenced, and directly so, by pop music from the 1950's into the early 70's, I would have to disagree.

Refer to Rockaway Beach, Here Today Gone Tomorrow, R-A-M-O-N-E-S!, Blitzgrieg Bop, I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend, California Sun, Merry Christmas.

For that matter, take just about any love song.
I never meant to suggest that a clearer vocal styling meant a pop-punk sound. What I was looking at with the Ramones was the very obvious 1950's-60's boy band feel. Their simple progressions, drum patterns, and sing-a-long styles only, for me at least, emphasize that correlation to 60's pop rock stars.

However, I will concede the point that the Ramones as a pop-punk band is still a weaker case than say The Offspring, or Blink 182, or even The Dickies. But, this discussion of Pop-punk really began with Blink 182 and Sum 41. So, if you don't mind me asking, what exactly about them makes them so not pop-punk?

good movie.


As for the topic, i never understood why people try to put the genre in this little box, wrap it up, tie a bow on top of it, and say this is (insert genre here), and if you don't fit in this box, then you're not (insert genre here).

for that reason exactly is why i stopped trying to define the genres that i'm into. music is always moving progressively forawrd and its hard to tell what fits into any genre anymore.

what happened to just liking music and not trying to define it?

Actually, if you were to consider this a bona fide definition of "pop punk," they would fit into this category.

Also, I'd caution you to not conclude that one does not know what they're talking about if they don't agree with you.

I'm guessing none of you know who John or Jello is. Research them, read their interviews, watch the countless Punk Rock dvds. Punk Influenced Rock, that's all I have to say.

^ You're funny.

Don't get all elitist on me. I know exactly who Jello is. I was actually alive when Dead Kennedys was formed.

Punk influences rock influences punk influences rock. I've seen it happen many times over the years.

If you have come up with a perfect formula, by all means, write a book and get yourself a Pulizter already.

*Sigh* Wikipedia readers.

Again with the funny.

Can you say, 30 years old? You're what? 18? 19?

Wikipedia reader my old ass.

My time responding to you is over since you so obviously need to get over yourself.

Nice talking to you.

As if we didn't know who Jello Biafra was!
I've heard some crazy things in some Jello interviews, but the least of that would be him praising the new commerical success (think mid 90's) of the Offspring, and condemning, at the same time, the San Francisco 'underground' punk scene. In fact, I'm just not exactly sure what your point is anymore? You really have yet to make an actual argument, or even a decent rebuttle. All you have done was insult our intelligence, and somehow assume that we are not a knowledgable party. That's not an argument, that's arrogance.

But, if you actually want to have a discussion, let's get back to it. Why exactly isn't Blink 182 or Sum 41 pop-punk?