|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:05 pm
The bands inability to be classified as anything else?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:01 pm
falsethreats MegaTherion777 falsethreats The problem with people who are into punk music today is that some tend to like certain bands and trash others without regard to whether or not a band's music sounds great, etc. Popularization of punk music in the mainstream world has spawned an elitist view on the music, which has led people to use terms like "real punk" and "fake punk". Furthermore, these days, many punk rockers seem to put image into high priority, and would shape their opinions based on what others think about certain bands for the sake of image. The above-mentioned elitist feeling, for example, would make one dislike Green Day, just because others look at it as being a sellout band; not because one thinks Green Day's music sounds terrible. What's worse is that this negative view on Green Day contributes to the formation of one's opinion that Green Day isn't a punk band at all. well "sell out" is a subjective term. i don't consider greenday punk because greenday doesn't fit with my definition of punk. its not because they're popular (if a band becomes popular, it seems that people think they've automatically sold out). hell, the sex pistols have influenced a bunch of people (one of the definitons of popularity is how many people a band has influenced) and i still consider them punk. anyway, back to my view of good and bad music..."good" is whatever *YOU* are in the mood for, bad is whatever you aren't. you can't define good music. you can define bad music as music made by artists who have a complete lack of talent - but talent is subjective. some would say the ramones had no talent. some would say they did have talent. so you can't really define bad music either, other than it's what you don't like, what you aren't in the mood for. example: i used to hate the sex pistols, back when all i listened to was thrash metal. then someone got me into early hardcore punk, which had a huge influence on the thrash bands. from hardcore punk i got into earlier punk, until i found myself listening to the ramones, the clash - and yes, even the pistols. so good and bad is really just what you are in the mood for - what you are capable of appreciating at a specific moment in time. "good" and "bad" has nothing to do with talent - dream theater is more musically talented than the ramones, but i prefer the ramones to those prog-metal wankers. What defines a punk rock band? well some say that punk can't be defined... personally, i think punk is more of a "******** the world, i'm gonna do what i enjoy and i don't give a damn what anyone says" attitude. so music with this attitude is one of the ways i define punk. i also think that punk relies more on the feeling and message of the song, rather than relying on technical skill, although having technical skill does not mean a band isn't punk. as a guitarists, i look at it like this: punk is about having FUN with the music and not about trying to become the biggest and best band out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:46 pm
MegaTherion777 falsethreats MegaTherion777 falsethreats The problem with people who are into punk music today is that some tend to like certain bands and trash others without regard to whether or not a band's music sounds great, etc. Popularization of punk music in the mainstream world has spawned an elitist view on the music, which has led people to use terms like "real punk" and "fake punk". Furthermore, these days, many punk rockers seem to put image into high priority, and would shape their opinions based on what others think about certain bands for the sake of image. The above-mentioned elitist feeling, for example, would make one dislike Green Day, just because others look at it as being a sellout band; not because one thinks Green Day's music sounds terrible. What's worse is that this negative view on Green Day contributes to the formation of one's opinion that Green Day isn't a punk band at all. well "sell out" is a subjective term. i don't consider greenday punk because greenday doesn't fit with my definition of punk. its not because they're popular (if a band becomes popular, it seems that people think they've automatically sold out). hell, the sex pistols have influenced a bunch of people (one of the definitons of popularity is how many people a band has influenced) and i still consider them punk. anyway, back to my view of good and bad music..."good" is whatever *YOU* are in the mood for, bad is whatever you aren't. you can't define good music. you can define bad music as music made by artists who have a complete lack of talent - but talent is subjective. some would say the ramones had no talent. some would say they did have talent. so you can't really define bad music either, other than it's what you don't like, what you aren't in the mood for. example: i used to hate the sex pistols, back when all i listened to was thrash metal. then someone got me into early hardcore punk, which had a huge influence on the thrash bands. from hardcore punk i got into earlier punk, until i found myself listening to the ramones, the clash - and yes, even the pistols. so good and bad is really just what you are in the mood for - what you are capable of appreciating at a specific moment in time. "good" and "bad" has nothing to do with talent - dream theater is more musically talented than the ramones, but i prefer the ramones to those prog-metal wankers. What defines a punk rock band? well some say that punk can't be defined... personally, i think punk is more of a "******** the world, i'm gonna do what i enjoy and i don't give a damn what anyone says" attitude. so music with this attitude is one of the ways i define punk. i also think that punk relies more on the feeling and message of the song, rather than relying on technical skill, although having technical skill does not mean a band isn't punk. as a guitarists, i look at it like this: punk is about having FUN with the music and not about trying to become the biggest and best band out there. To counterargue your post: I don't believe that punk music can be defined by one, two, or all of the definitions you've listed. First, you have the DIY or EMI definition of punk. Second, you have emotion and message. Third, you have playing in a band for the fun of it and not trying to make it to the top. All these factors may seem valid, however not all punk rock bands are defined by these factors. First of all, although Misfits was a genuine punk band in its early days, today the band is nothing less than popular and mainstream. Not only in America, but they're also huge in Japan (with Balzac). Jerry Only may originally have played in the Misfits for the fun of it, but now it appears he's become more of a businessman. Second, you know as well as I do that there are so many punk songs out there that lack a message or feeling. For example, "I Don't Care" by Black Flag doesn't seem to have any meaning but stupid nihilism. Also, does it makes sense that the Adolescents would actually still feel the same about their older songs when they play them today? Those songs were written when they were still rebelious teens, but they've adults and it's highly unlikely that they would feel the same way for more than 25 years. Although Anti-Flag claims that they're staying the same despite their signing to a major label, their shows' ticket prices have skyrocketed to as much as $85. Third, not all bands uphold the same DIY attitude. Bad Religion certainly didn't when they left Epitaph records to make money. Examples of bands that pretty much abandoned DIY include the Ramones, Rancid, and NoFX. There's no absolute and single definiton for punk music that apply to all punk rock bands. Punk is diverse and undefined in this way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:10 am
well, i didnt mean to imply that my definition of punk was THE definition. that's just what i think of when i think "punk." and i didn't say it had to have a message, i just said that if there is a message, it's more important than the band's technical ability.
i don't really look at punk as "this" or "that." i look at it as music that is fun to listen to, and the requirements of "fun," in my opinion, were listed at least in part in my previous post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:53 pm
MegaTherion777 well, i didnt mean to imply that my definition of punk was THE definition. that's just what i think of when i think "punk." and i didn't say it had to have a message, i just said that if there is a message, it's more important than the band's technical ability. i don't really look at punk as "this" or "that." i look at it as music that is fun to listen to, and the requirements of "fun," in my opinion, were listed at least in part in my previous post. I'm not implying that you're saying it's THE definition of punk. I'm saying that when you think of how you define punk, you ought to consider all punk bands and not just a selected chunk of them. My earlier question was "What defines a punk band?" My question refers to all punk bands out there. They all should have a primary characteristic and each genre's or style's characteristics as well. But what is that primary characteristic? Only a handful of punk bands have meaningful lyrics and powerful emotions. Only a handful of punk bands do it for fun. Only a handful of punk bands stay DIY. Only a handful of punk bands have primitive musical skills. Only a handful of punk bands have an image. Only a handful of punk bands do it for the money. Etc, etc, etc, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:40 pm
falsethreats MegaTherion777 well, i didnt mean to imply that my definition of punk was THE definition. that's just what i think of when i think "punk." and i didn't say it had to have a message, i just said that if there is a message, it's more important than the band's technical ability. i don't really look at punk as "this" or "that." i look at it as music that is fun to listen to, and the requirements of "fun," in my opinion, were listed at least in part in my previous post. I'm not implying that you're saying it's THE definition of punk. I'm saying that when you think of how you define punk, you ought to consider all punk bands and not just a selected chunk of them. My earlier question was "What defines a punk band?" My question refers to all punk bands out there. They all should have a primary characteristic and each genre's or style's characteristics as well. But what is that primary characteristic? Only a handful of punk bands have meaningful lyrics and powerful emotions. Only a handful of punk bands do it for fun. Only a handful of punk bands stay DIY. Only a handful of punk bands have primitive musical skills. Only a handful of punk bands have an image. Only a handful of punk bands do it for the money. Etc, etc, etc, etc. right. like i said...what i consider punk is music i have fun listening to. it helps if the band is in it for fun, but they don't have to be. it's good, high energy rock, for the most part. of course, i have fun when i listen to other genres too, but it's...different. like with heavy metal - it's fun in a different way. punk is higher energy, makes me want to move, and a lot of my favorite punk bands are humorous, though humor may not be the main song element. certainly punk doesn't have to be funny, but my point is that the high energy rock makes it fun to listen to and the funniness helps. heavy metal is fun in a different way. it doesn't make me want to move, and it usually isn't humorous. but the songs often tell stories that are interesting to follow, and the musical ability of the guitar players is very good, making it fun to listen to, but in a different way. so for me, punk is high energy rock 'n' roll that i can have fun listening to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:15 am
MegaTherion777 falsethreats MegaTherion777 well, i didnt mean to imply that my definition of punk was THE definition. that's just what i think of when i think "punk." and i didn't say it had to have a message, i just said that if there is a message, it's more important than the band's technical ability. i don't really look at punk as "this" or "that." i look at it as music that is fun to listen to, and the requirements of "fun," in my opinion, were listed at least in part in my previous post. I'm not implying that you're saying it's THE definition of punk. I'm saying that when you think of how you define punk, you ought to consider all punk bands and not just a selected chunk of them. My earlier question was "What defines a punk band?" My question refers to all punk bands out there. They all should have a primary characteristic and each genre's or style's characteristics as well. But what is that primary characteristic? Only a handful of punk bands have meaningful lyrics and powerful emotions. Only a handful of punk bands do it for fun. Only a handful of punk bands stay DIY. Only a handful of punk bands have primitive musical skills. Only a handful of punk bands have an image. Only a handful of punk bands do it for the money. Etc, etc, etc, etc. right. like i said...what i consider punk is music i have fun listening to. it helps if the band is in it for fun, but they don't have to be. it's good, high energy rock, for the most part. of course, i have fun when i listen to other genres too, but it's...different. like with heavy metal - it's fun in a different way. punk is higher energy, makes me want to move, and a lot of my favorite punk bands are humorous, though humor may not be the main song element. certainly punk doesn't have to be funny, but my point is that the high energy rock makes it fun to listen to and the funniness helps. heavy metal is fun in a different way. it doesn't make me want to move, and it usually isn't humorous. but the songs often tell stories that are interesting to follow, and the musical ability of the guitar players is very good, making it fun to listen to, but in a different way. so for me, punk is high energy rock 'n' roll that i can have fun listening to. The question I'm trying to ask here is, "What does Green Day lack that all other punk bands have?" Certainly you placed Green Day in the non-punk category, but for what reason? They sound like many punk bands I know. It's not about what you think is punk, it's about how you determine your definition of punk. I already know what you think is punk, so there's no point in being redundant. The thing in mind is how you determine what punk means to you. Do you consider all bands that are considered punk? Do you only consider the Dead Kennedys and Sex Pistols and exclude Green Day? What do these excluded bands lack that most punk bands have?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:30 am
they lack balls.
"do you have the time to listen to me whine about nothing and everything all at once" - what the ******** is that?
sorry, that's the metalhead in me coming out...
greenday just doesnt seem very unique or original to me, and i just don't find myself enjoying their music. like you said - they sound like a lot of the bands already out there
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:24 pm
MegaTherion777 they lack balls. "do you have the time to listen to me whine about nothing and everything all at once" - what the ******** is that? sorry, that's the metalhead in me coming out... greenday just doesnt seem very unique or original to me, and i just don't find myself enjoying their music. like you said - they sound like a lot of the bands already out there Not all punk bands are original though. Also, how do you know they lack balls? I think not: http://youtube.com/watch?v=DC_ruCJj4AA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:24 pm
"not all punk bands are original" - well, unless it is specifically a cover band or covering a song, if a band is unoriginal, i'm not going to have as much respect for it as i would a band that does things that are original.
as for the video - my monitor's a piece of crap so i couldn't really see what was going on - the colors on it are all messed up. did he jump off stage and beat the s**t outta some heckler? 'cause if he did, good for him. i may not respect greenday as a punk band, but any a*****e who goes to a show just because he wants to give a band crap deserves to have his teeth knocked out.
as for the "not having balls" thing - i was referring to the whiny song lyrics. like i said before - i don't want to listen to someone whine about their life when i listen to music; i want to have a good time. yeah, i know billie joe's got problems, but when he's up onstage, that is not the time to try and work them out. he is there to entertain the audience, not to work through his personal issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
