Best Ever Albums

Re: Pop Punk. Generic?

eyal91 — Tue, 3 May 2016 12:37:21 GMT

Author: eyal91

Posted: 05/03/2016 16:37

benpaco wrote:

Alright, not going to comment on why I hate nickleback cuz I've beaten that horse enough, but don't do that to him. Covers really only work if at least most of the band are into it. We've tried doing TSSF covers but since just about only Juiceman here on the site knows them, it goes ... eh at best. Bad at worst. Same problem when we tried a Foxing song - most of us just sat around confused. Pick something you all like, and if your tastes in music are too polar opposite ... well, that might not be great for a band

lol I'm not going to push him to play a song he don't like. I actually also think that they have some really bad songs, and I guess that someday I'll show him some songs that he might like in sort of "Well, they can really suck sometimes, but try this one, you might like it". And what in that statement I just wanted to say how I like them, not that I'm actually going to do that.

Re: Pop Punk. Generic?

benpaco — Mon, 2 May 2016 17:39:26 GMT

Author: benpaco

Posted: 05/02/2016 21:39

eyal91 wrote:

I like Nickelback, and I get the hate about them, but I still like them and I'm still going to try to persuade the guitarist of my band that we have to cover If Everyone Cared though he really hates them.

Re: Pop Punk. Generic?

eyal91 — Mon, 2 May 2016 15:35:52 GMT

Author: eyal91

Posted: 05/02/2016 19:35

Puncture Repair wrote:

This is probably a little rude, but to be all psychological about it, my guess is that you're feeling a little conflicted (self-conscious) about one of your favourite genres of music. Just enjoy whatever music you enjoy, but if some silver-tounged, charming man starts to point out that pop-punk might be an oxymoron, hear him out because you

Quote:

Well, it ain't like I really care what other people think about it, since at the end of the day that's what I'm going to listen to, no matter what people will say.

Oh uhh I mean this is music for gayyyyyyyyyyyyyyys

Oh well, I guessed that's how it seemed to be because I said that I don't care what people think about it yet I started a thread about it. I guess "I don't care" isn't the right statement... I do care what people think about any kind of music... it's just not an indicator to what I'm going to listen to... I like Nickelback, and I get the hate about them, but I still like them and I'm still going to try to persuade the guitarist of my band that we have to cover If Everyone Cared though he really hates them.

Oh, and about the contradiction thing... Well, Pop-Punk (to me) means radio-friendly Punk. It has the "old-skool"ness, it has the mess, yet it's melodic enough to fit a Pop listener. If you still can't sit with the term, just try to see it as something that is completely different from both Pop and Punk, something that was influenced by both, yet became something completely new.

Re: Pop Punk. Generic?

Norman Bates — Mon, 2 May 2016 12:40:05 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 05/02/2016 16:40

Puncture Repair wrote:

Pun intended? :P

Whenever you see me make such a bad pun, you can safely assume it was intended 😄

Re: Pop Punk. Generic?

Anonymous — Mon, 2 May 2016 04:54:56 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/02/2016 08:54

Norman Bates wrote:

I can't begin to see how you can defend this viewpoint.

Just my two cents, but I can see where the industry could be a means to an end. It provides a platform. Similar to how if a non-democrat political party wanted power they would likely have to be elected first. Mind you, in this day and age you could probably gain popularity through self publicizing using the world wide web.

Norman Bates wrote:

The irony of it is that I apparently value punk rock much more than you do, but am much less romantic about it. It's probably not ironical at all, actually.

Hahaha, I like this. But yeah, it's about perspective, as long as it doesn't sound like I'm talking out my arse, then I'm content.

Norman Bates wrote:

Punc 😄

Pun intended? 😜

Re: Pop Punk. Generic?

Norman Bates — Sun, 1 May 2016 16:08:43 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 05/01/2016 20:08

Puncture Repair wrote:

I don't think that buy selling a record you're immediately part of the biz

I can't begin to see how you can defend this viewpoint.

Puncture Repair wrote:

or just in it for the money.

I never said that. I think that what you're in it for is quite inessential in the end. Björk probably has made millions, and I don't question for one second the fact that she's in it for the "art". Fact is the industry doesn't care one bit what she's in for, as long as she sells 500,000 Homogenics.

Puncture Repair wrote:

wasn't one of the key drivers of the punk movement the emergence of independent labels so these bands could release music without representing larger companies? I feel like that at least gives more underground punk bands some authenticity.

Oh, some of them were 100% anti-corporate, no doubt. Again, the key issue for you seems to be authenticity. A very tricky value to weigh anybody's music by, and I for one wouldn't dare open that box.

Puncture Repair wrote:

I appreciate that you're not just dismissing my argument.

Why would I? It's an interesting chat to have, I think. The irony of it is that I apparently value punk rock much more than you do, but am much less romantic about it. It's probably not ironical at all, actually.

Puncture Repair wrote:

there's surely a contradiction?

I can't see it. Music for kids, who are the ones who're gonna buy the records. The fact that you're appealing to a niche audience is inessential to me. Same job, different reasons and moral principles maybe (not always, and anyway on whose part? The musicians? The producers? The labels? The distributors? How many records did, say, Dead Kennedys sell all in all? Who got the money in the end? I dunno).

Puncture Repair wrote:

I don't think it's a stretch to argue pop music = the system, and the spirit of punk is = fuck the system.

Unless you're implying that all punk rockers are trotskyites, I can't see how anyone can hope to fuck the system from within. Moles are always absorbed. Moreover, the "system" needs "fuck the system"s to work. It's like the King's jester. The insolent margins are indispensable, the fact that they exist legitimates the existence of the "system".

Puncture Repair wrote:

Punk represented a bunch of kids who couldn't play musical instruments

I sincerely believe this is not true more often than not.

Puncture Repair wrote:

blasting distorted guitars with barely any recognisable melody.

That's no-wave, but even in hardcore punk, this is simply not true very often. Now there's no such thing as "pop-no-wave" (and even this is debatable), but as soon as Eno recorded them, the movement died.

Puncture Repair wrote:

When you start to popify it by applying gloss and production to appeal

You don't need "gloss" or even a proper "production" to make pop, 157 lo-fi twee bands are reading you angrily this very moment 😄

Puncture Repair wrote:

but the fans of pop-punk, the believers of pop-punk I think are indulging in a mixed message, that's trying to be offensive enough to attract those who fancy some rebellion, but not offensive enough so that they're scared away by the sound.

I totally agree with this. But the music industry is not made for the fans.

Puncture Repair wrote:

Again (again again) I'm stressing it's not the reality, it's the philosophy and the message and what each genre is supposed to represent.

Mostly we've come to an "agree-to-disagree" situation, but it was a very interesting chat, thank you very much Punc 😄

Re: Pop Punk. Generic?

Anonymous — Sun, 1 May 2016 14:52:04 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/01/2016 18:52

Like you said, it's probably childish and naive, but I don't think that buy selling a record you're immediately part of the biz or just in it for the money. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the key drivers of the punk movement the emergence of independent labels so these bands could release music without representing larger companies? I feel like that at least gives more underground punk bands some authenticity.

Just did a read up of Malcolm McLaren, I was aware that the Sex Pistols were cash cows at the time, but I wasn't aware they were managed to that degree. Maybe I am thinking of hardcore punk, or at least assuming that 'true' punk is handcore punk. Maybe I should really just be irked towards punk rock in general.

Again I really should emphasise that I know next to nothing about punk, so I appreciate that you're not just dismissing my argument. Maybe the reality is that both genres are just pandering to the largest audience they can, but at least on a philosophical level, at least on what each genre is represents, there's surely a contradiction? Isn't there something that doesn't quite gel, something contradictory, when people sing along 'The subliminal mind fuck America' to a song that's probably generated millions in revenue for the country alone, and written to amass the largest audience possible?

I don't think it's a stretch to argue pop music = the system, and the spirit of punk is = fuck the system. Punk represented a bunch of kids who couldn't play musical instruments blasting distorted guitars with barely any recognisable melody. When you start to popify it by applying gloss and production to appeal to the very members of the society punk is supposedly protesting against, that feels like a contradiction, or at least an oxymoron. It's subjective. It's how I value punk and it's how I value pop, and combining the two should, in my head, be like combining oil and water.

I understand now that the strict reality is different in a commercial world, but the fans of pop-punk, the believers of pop-punk I think are indulging in a mixed message, that's trying to be offensive enough to attract those who fancy some rebellion, but not offensive enough so that they're scared away by the sound.

Again (again again) I'm stressing it's not the reality, it's the philosophy and the message and what each genre is supposed to represent. (are genres 'supposed' to represent anything? I don't know)

Re: Pop Punk. Generic?

Norman Bates — Sun, 1 May 2016 10:01:37 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 05/01/2016 14:01

Puncture Repair wrote:

Isn't that a fairly cynical view of punk?

I'm certainly not cynical. The times are, or were.

Puncture Repair wrote:

'Real' punk (at least, what I value as being authentic, since I know very little about the genre) is about sticking the middle finger up at the industry

and commercialize records? Come on...

Puncture Repair wrote:

Real punk isn't targeting itself at the rebellious youth, it is the rebellious youth.

I don't see how one comes against the other. On the contrary...

Puncture Repair wrote:

I think when that rebellious message conforms to the norms of what society has deemed accessible music (sharp vocals, pop chord progressions, verse chorus verse so on), it's working with the system and not against it.

If you think "real punk" has ever "worked against the system", re-read the Wiki for Malcolm McLaren. You might be talking about hardcore punk (even though they did conform to capitalism by putting records on the market anyway), but the discussion is about pop punk.

Puncture Repair wrote:

Pop-punk is like giving children foam swords, because you know they want to play fight but at least they can do it in a safe, comfortable environment.

Yes. And? By which I mean: what's wrong with that? and also: how does that contradict punk?

Puncture Repair wrote:

It's not the real thing, and the kids with the wooden swords know it.

Raises two major problems: "sincerity" and "reality vs. illusion". Everybody knows that art is about detsroying "reality"/nature to create, so what I'm wondering is whether you're talking about punk music or the punk squat community. As far as I'm concerned, whenever you publish a record, you're part of the biz, and deluding yourself that you aren't is childish - which is, by the way, a good thing ; and nothing I would criticize.

Puncture Repair wrote:

Just as a thought - were the Ramones considered pop-punk when they debuted? Or were they simply punk?

I'm quite certain (just through my readings of, say, Bangs) that they were taken for exactly what they were: a band of punks (i.e. if I'm to understand the meaning of the mid-70s right: white trash kids seemingly giving everybody the middle finger) playing rock'n'roll i.e. pop..

Re: Pop Punk. Generic?

Anonymous — Sun, 1 May 2016 07:09:40 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/01/2016 11:09

Puncture Repair wrote:

"Punk" is directly aimed at exactly the same target, and banking in on the seemingly rebellious state of the young and tender teen age.

Isn't that a fairly cynical view of punk? 'Real' punk (at least, what I value as being authentic, since I know very little about the genre) is about sticking the middle finger up at the industry or society or politics - not focused on banking anything. Real punk isn't targeting itself at the rebellious youth, it is the rebellious youth. (Sorry I hate the word 'real' because it's totally subjective and I realize this sounds pretty snobby)

I think when that rebellious message conforms to the norms of what society has deemed accessible music (sharp vocals, pop chord progressions, verse chorus verse so on), it's working with the system and not against it.

Pop-punk is like giving children foam swords, because you know they want to play fight but at least they can do it in a safe, comfortable environment. It's not the real thing, and the kids with the wooden swords know it.

Just as a thought - were the Ramones considered pop-punk when they debuted? Or were they simply punk?

Re: Pop Punk. Generic?

Norman Bates — Sun, 1 May 2016 04:51:12 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 05/01/2016 08:51

Puncture Repair wrote:

I was definitely directing myself at more modern releases, but I still can't enjoy pop-punk regardless of when its released. Admittedly Ramones is the only album of three I've heard, but I couldn't enjoy it. Something about the tameness of the songs against the punk rebellious message doesn't sit right with me.

I can't really vouch whether or not these bands are more authentic than modern pop-punk, because I wasn't alive at the time - maybe sniffing glue was a real shocker back then.

I don't get it. I'm not reviewing your like/dislike of this and that, as you have the perfect right to blahblahblah. However, I do puzzle at your comment on how the 'genres' (I invertcomma this because neither pop nor punk is a "genre") are contradictory in nature.

"Pop" is the market realizing that teen age has some pocket money, and aiming directly at this pocket money, and creating a "pop culture" whose direct, unhidden goal is to empty the pocket of its money. Fine. "Punk" is directly aimed at exactly the same target, and banking in on the seemingly rebellious state of the young and tender teen age.

They're not contradictory, they complete each other, and I think the less cretin of the poppunkers have completely understood that. Or I'm completely wrong and there's something I haven't got right?

Re: Pop Punk. Generic?

craola — Sun, 1 May 2016 04:13:50 GMT

Author: craola

Posted: 05/01/2016 08:13

[redacted]

Re: Pop Punk. Generic?

Anonymous — Sat, 30 Apr 2016 15:29:30 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/30/2016 19:29

I was definitely directing myself at more modern releases, but I still can't enjoy pop-punk regardless of when its released. Admittedly Ramones is the only album of three I've heard, but I couldn't enjoy it. Something about the tameness of the songs against the punk rebellious message doesn't sit right with me.

I can't really vouch whether or not these bands are more authentic than modern pop-punk, because I wasn't alive at the time - maybe sniffing glue was a real shocker back then.

Re: Pop Punk. Generic?

Decurso — Sat, 30 Apr 2016 13:30:58 GMT

Author: Decurso

Posted: 04/30/2016 17:30

I agree. The Ramones and The Buzzcocks had pop music sensibility that could easily put them in the pop/punk category. However, those bands also had a blue collar authenticity that is lacking from most contemporary bands that are labeled pop/punk. Bands like Green Day and Blink-182 are as punk as Wal-Mart and Disney.

Having said that, they must be doing something right, as they've sold a helluva lot more records than The Ramones or The Buzzcocks ever did. But personally...it's not for me.

Re: Pop Punk. Generic?

Norman Bates — Sat, 30 Apr 2016 10:22:54 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 04/30/2016 14:22

Puncture Repair wrote:

I still hold the belief that pop-punk is a contradiction of genres

How so? On the contrary, I think these:

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

Ramones by Ramones

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

are totally relevant, are not contradictory, and work.

Re: Pop Punk. Generic?

Anonymous — Sat, 30 Apr 2016 10:03:58 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/30/2016 14:03

I still hold the belief that pop-punk is a contradiction of genres and, for that reason, doesn't work, and is one of my least favourite genres.

But generic? I think that's a strange choice of word. Like Skinny said, anything placed into a genre is generic - to be wanky about it, both words come from 'genus' which means 'race or kind'.

I think I get where you're coming from, you're asking if pop-punk all sounds the same and is 'lesser' because of that? Maybe by generic you mean boring or formulaic?

I mean, a hell of a lot of jazz sounds the same, and not many people shit on jazz for sounding samey. Pop gets dissed for being dumbed down to appeal to the masses, and pop-punk shares that accessibility, but that's mostly down to design. People who think pop is easier to write than, I dunno, progressive rock (to pick the low hanging fruit) are just being lofty.

This is probably a little rude, but to be all psychological about it, my guess is that you're feeling a little conflicted (self-conscious) about one of your favourite genres of music. Just enjoy whatever music you enjoy, but if some silver-tounged, charming man starts to point out that pop-punk might be an oxymoron, hear him out because you

Quote:

Well, it ain't like I really care what other people think about it, since at the end of the day that's what I'm going to listen to, no matter what people will say.

Oh uhh I mean this is music for gayyyyyyyyyyyyyyys

Re: Pop Punk. Generic?

benpaco — Sat, 30 Apr 2016 08:15:27 GMT

Author: benpaco

Posted: 04/30/2016 12:15

Insomniac wrote:

Pop punk, much the same as Slipknot or Skrillex, is what I like to refer to as gateway or bridge music, in that it facilitates your transition (whenever that may be) between readily available, commercially targeted stuff, and music of more niche appeal, that generally boasts greater longevity.

Whilst it marks a small departure in style and structure from traditional "pop", it has to be easily palatable for people not yet exposed to different music in any real depth, in order to bridge that gap. I think this is where the "generic" aspect comes in, but that it's born out of necessity.

I get what you mean, it's all just so radio friendly and easily accessible!

Link

I sure am glad Pearl Jam exists, too, so someone can have baby's first grunge before evolving into bigger and better Chains or finding their Nirvana.
.

Re: Pop Punk. Generic?

Insomniac — Sat, 30 Apr 2016 02:33:31 GMT

Author: Insomniac

Posted: 04/30/2016 06:33

Pop punk, much the same as Slipknot or Skrillex, is what I like to refer to as gateway or bridge music, in that it facilitates your transition (whenever that may be) between readily available, commercially targeted stuff, and music of more niche appeal, that generally boasts greater longevity.

Whilst it marks a small departure in style and structure from traditional "pop", it has to be easily palatable for people not yet exposed to different music in any real depth, in order to bridge that gap. I think this is where the "generic" aspect comes in, but that it's born out of necessity.

Re: Pop Punk. Generic?

Juiceman96 — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 19:52:01 GMT

Author: Juiceman96

Posted: 04/29/2016 23:52

Pop punk is probably my favorite genre of music. That being said, I know that its not the "best" genre out there. Like others have said, I am going to listen to what I want because its my choice to do so. However, I will admit that at times I am ashamed of the fact that I listen to this genre. So many people in music forums bash and pop punk(ish) bands that I like and if I was to ever stand up for these artists I would be crucified. Not to mention all the cases of sexual harassment and sexism in the scene create an internal conflict for me of whether it is morally right to keep listening to them. I am still looking for a solution for this problem, but its really hard when strong outside factors like popular opinion fight against your musical tastes. Im hoping that this thread will help me find some sort of closure, if not give me some new perspectives to consider.

Um, yes?

xMUSICSNOBx — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 19:20:30 GMT

Author: xMUSICSNOBx

Posted: 04/29/2016 23:20

As a die hard pop-punker myself, I feel like it's fair for me to make a judgment on this. Yes. It is incredibly, unbelievably, generic. Nearly every song has the same lyrics, instrumentation, and concept. Just slightly varied between bands. The stereotype holds up.

The Story So Far: My Girlfriend Left me and now I'm gonna cuss her out and Jack up her car.

The Wonder Years: my girlfriend left me because I haven't showered in a while, and I can't stop quoting 'On The Road' and Motion City Soundtrack.

Real Friends/Knuckle Puck: My girlfriend left me and I used to cry about it, but after my long nostalgic drive through the Midwest, I'm not so sad anymore. I miss my mom.

Etc etc.

Re: Pop Punk. Generic?

RoundTheBend — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:59:00 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 04/29/2016 22:59

Skinny wrote:

Any music that works within the strict confines of a particular genre is, by definition, generic.

Crap... I don't know my own language very well. At first I thought.... hmmm I don't get it and then looked up the actual definition of generic and it is: characteristic of or relating to a class or group of things; not specific.

The last part of not specific is almost always how I use the word, so I thought... a genre at least is specific to that group, so therefore not generic... and then I see this definition and well, I guess I've been using the world only kind of correct my whole life.

Language mind exploded. Genre and generic probably share the same Latin root or something as well.

I've also heard the word peruse used wrong... it's used like to skim something over instead of the real definition, which is to read (something), typically in a thorough or careful way.

Skinny has the brains.