Mag Launcher wrote:Yep, that's your 2 cents.
Ain't worth much is it?
Neither are your "contributions" to the topic at hand, which tend to consist of nothing more than irrelevant disruptive comments about people.
I don't think I'm the only one that wonders if you even THINK about what you type before you do such.
Regardless...
If Blink-182 isn't "punk," as has been said, neither is the Suicide Machines, etc. Why is Blink not punk? Isn't the subject matter of the majority of their music the same as it was seven years ago? Some of their work has evolved to a more mature level, but most of it's still about poopy and boobies, just like it was when they were in high school and still regarded as "underground" and "street punk" by some.
Oh, wait. They got popular. Guess we can't like them anymore, and they're therefore not punk.... ^_~
Defining "punk" is useless. To be "punk" is generally thought of to be not categorizing with the mainstream. By even *attempting* to categorize what punk is, you're giving way to the very thing that punk is not.
No band is "punk." If they're "punk," they wouldn't be "punk."
It makes no sense. Exactly.
I just think categorizing is useless. It leads to negative feelings in the community, which isn't what it should be about. It's a lot more fun to just go to shows, meet people, have a good time, listen to what you want to listen to, and not THINK so hard about what it is.
It's music. Yay. Now everyone owes it to themselves to go find one new band to listen to, and send them an e-mail letting 'em know what you think :D.