everyone listen to the Decsendents then say pop-punk isn't punk in some way

Pop Punk begins and ends with Buzzcocks. Green Day, Blink 182, Sum41, Fall Out Boy are just 'Rock' groups.

 

 

Punk was always originally about attitude not musical style. Let's face it the only thing the Pistols, Siouxsie & The Banshees and Ramones had in common was short, guitar driven songs played with rough edges. Not that different to bands like Count Five, The Creation or The Smoke but they're not classed as Punk.

word. thanks for the heads up about this. im checking it out right now. im in a hardcore punk mood right now too so this is perfect.

 

f*** yea some dope $h!t on this

 

HELLSHOCK - Your World

 

COLDBRINGER - Doomtown Now

 

f*** yea

I hope it's okay to reply to this so long after the last reply, I find the discussion going on previously really interesting especially when you relate it to that kind of music scene now.

 

In 2009 I wouldn't have considered myself a pop punk fan, I never really knew it existed tbh. I listened to Paramore a lot but I would have classed them as pop-rock, I still do. I love pop-punk music now and do think it's a justified sub genre. It's a style that's influenced both by pop and punk music, it doesn't matter to me if a pop-punk track is more poppy that punky or vice versa, it's only natural that there will be bands and songs that lean more towards one than the other. I agree that image does come into it a lot, especially with the likes of older pop-punk bands like My Chemical Romance or Fall Out Boy (early FOB, I'd consider them a rock band now) but it's more about the kind of issues these bands stand for and what they write about and the kind of shows they play that differentiates them from pop-rock bands. Punk music was very much a genre for the outcasts I think and pop-punk is that too, it's just more catchy I guess.

 

I'm not sure if pop-punk is as much of a thing now as it was from like 2004-2008, I find it harder to pin bands down to one genre now, which is a good thing I think. To me pop-punk has an edgier and more raw sound to it than any rock sub genre, I can't actually think of many 'new' pop-punk bands other than State Champs or As It Is and I think they're overshadowed a lot by upcoming pop-rock bands. There's definitely a difference between them, I think pop-rock is more accepted by the pop scene whereas pop-punk isn't really, I guess that's what makes it pop-punk :o I think pop-punk is progressing once again into a heavier sound looking at the newer bands that are surfacing like Issues, Real Friends, Neck Deep etc. I think it's also quite Americanised, probably because of Warped Tour and things like that where these kind of bands play and we don't really have an equivalent. I think there may be a UK Warped but it's nowhere near as big as it is in America. Even international bands have playing Warped Tour in America as like an ultimate, career defining goal :lol:

 

It's a shame that Pop-Punk peaked so early, I wish it was a bigger genre of music. I feel like there's enough room for it and the likes of pop-rock :wub:

I can't look at this thread with a straight face... oh my days. I mean, darn, these were the times I was... naive and excited. I'm still the same in some way though. LOL

 

And the title thread is still misspelled.

 

Anyway, what do I think of pop-punk as of now? Umm... ah... it's fun often times? :lol:

Edited May 12, 20169 yr by FM11

It's very similar to pop-rock in most of its forms, I think it mainly can be determined by how energetic and abrasive in the name of rebellion it is. The emo rock of MCR and Fall Out Boy served the same purpose as original punk for its day so putting it under that label isn't too disingenuous.

 

The thing is, pop-rock tends to conjure up images of either Kelly Clarkson or Coldplay so I see pop-punk as light poppy rock that feels the need to emphasise it's got at least a little of that rebellious sound, something we wouldn't need if pop-rock hadn't been so... lobotomised and neutered as a term. Definitely rawer than 'pop-rock'. Basically everything you're saying Lindsey.

It's very similar to pop-rock in most of its forms, I think it mainly can be determined by how energetic and abrasive in the name of rebellion it is. The emo rock of MCR and Fall Out Boy served the same purpose as original punk for its day so putting it under that label isn't too disingenuous.

As someone who is old enough to remember the original Punk explosion (though sadly too young to join in) I couldn't disagree more about the Emo scene serving the same purpose.

I actually like a bit of MCR, FOB etc but musically it was a commercialised form of Rock broadly derivative of the 3 chord/short blast structure with a lyrical focus on inner feelings. PATD and FOB were almost indistinguishable at one stage.

There very definitely appeared to be an elitist element to it too. A 'this is our scene, keep out' kind of attitude, and if you weren't Emo enough you weren't invited

 

Punk originally was the complete opposite. Bands were railing against the accepted industry and society rules with a DIY attitude. The famous 2 steps to Punk -

1. Pick up a guitar

2. Learn 3 chords

3. Now form a band

 

'70s Punk was about being yourself and everybody could join in. Bands looked and sounded wildly different - The Slits sounded NOTHING like The Sex Pistols. People made their own clothes. It was a free for all and not an industry pushed, sanitised scene were Hot Topic was the place to shop and your hair should be worn in a swoop. By contrast the 'Punk haircut' of the Mohawk was rare until the 1980s 2nd wave by which time it was becoming formulaic and the real excitement lay elsewhere.

 

 

Don't get me wrong - I love The Black Parade as an album, but it's more Queen or Pink Floyd at it's heart than it is The Clash, Conflict or Crass. A Punk inspired version of Pop- Punk Pop. Rather than a Pop version of Punk. A subtle but important difference.

 

 

 

 

 

On a side issue Lindsey, I would recommend for you to check out Against Me!, Creeper, Dead!, The Fearless Vampire Killers, The Creepshow, Schoolyard Heroes, Alkaline Trio, Thrice, AFI and Pierce The Veil.

 

Hopefully something you might enjoy there.

oh yea, even now My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy and Panic! At The Disco are considered like an emo trifecta, they were very similar, had the same swoopy hair, dark clothes and eyeliner aesthetic in the early days, sang about the same things etc but even then I don't think they were the only 'pop-punk' bands. I think of the likes of Blink 182, Sum 41, Simple Plan, Weezer, New Found Glory, Good Charlotte fitting under the same genre bracket, they just do it differently. I suppose that's why theres some people that class emo as a genre, which I disagree with because it's literally a shortened version of the word emotion/emotional which surely most songs can be described as, it's just that the 'hot topic' look ended up being associated with the phrase as it kinda formed this whole other meaning. I personally love the fact FOB and P!ATD have similar roots but have progressed into very individual bands ten years later or so and are barely pop-punk any more :D

Well, I wasn't alive so I was only postulating, that's very informative Severin. I guess all I can say is that, in the mainstream culture, pop-punk is about the closest thing 00s chart music got to punk even if it was a lot more industry driven than the original punk - probably due to the constructs from the punk days as well as all the theatrical rock you mention already existing, with the result becoming a hybrid that becomes almost pop in its makeup - another huge raw punk scene was unlikely to have formed again.

 

Although things like Pierce The Veil and (presumably) the other bands you mention carry some of that feeling a lot more these days, I think Pierce The Veil is the only one I've heard stuff from.

 

Emo as a genre tag I've never particularly liked either precisely for that reason Lindsey. The word just now carries an immediate image of My Chemical Romance so it's convenient more than anything else. :lol:

Pop punk = palm muting. :D

 

For me (as a massive rock fan) I either love or hate pop punk, largely depending on the band. I tend to want them to do something more, maybe bring in some piano, have a few fantastic riffs, not just slam 3 chords and sing 4 notes throughout a song. Some of it can get predictable and I don't like the generic whiny vocals (with over-exaggerated American accents), basic guitar patterns and uninteresting melodies the genre can produce. I've also found inexperienced bands can produce a 'pop punk' sound without much trouble. I do get that this was partly the original point of punk in the 70s and 80s but I'm not a massive fan of that sound either (as a whole, there were some great punk bands in that era).

 

I was in a band which largely favoured pop punk last year and got frustrated with some of the material, mostly because it just wasn't that interesting and it didn't suit my voice. However, although of course I know it's subjective, good pop punk is one of my favourite genres out there - Paramore, MCR, Relient K and many others already mentioned in this thread.

Edited May 12, 20169 yr by Jacob Alan