
moooooo wrote:This whole cut up of different sub genres within already small enough sub genres is stupid. Punk is just a huge broad things with many different interpretations. If people think that punk is dead, because they dont like some mainstream punk bands, well that to me is ridiculous.
Rozard wrote:OK, I thought we weren't going to try and drudge this up again.
Punk as a genre is dead. Punk has since then split and melded into different genres and subgenres, such as Punk Rock, Pop Punk, Indie, Alt. Rock, etc. I recommend reading this book. I believe it wasw Johnny Rotten that said in it, "Once punk became accepted and went mainstream, it lost the sole purpose for it's creation."moooooo wrote:This whole cut up of different sub genres within already small enough sub genres is stupid. Punk is just a huge broad things with many different interpretations. If people think that punk is dead, because they dont like some mainstream punk bands, well that to me is ridiculous.
I agree that the whole subgenre thing is pretty messed up, but people have become so detailed in their tastes that they almost demand seperation from everything else. Punk is a broad term, and incompasses many different genres, but then again, so does Rock 'n' Roll. Although, like Punk (as a genre), Rock 'n' Roll as a genre is dead. It's spirit is best matched to what is now rockabilly and classic country. You have to accept that Punk as a genre is dead. Most mainstream 'punk' bands are Pop, Emo or Alternative Rock infused. And we don't hate them because Punk is dead, we hate those bands because they suckSeriously, I try and give everything I hear a chance and keep an open mind. I've come across some of my favorite bands that way.
Rozard wrote:Punk as a genre is dead.
moooooo wrote:But, I feel that it's kind of evolved into something new. Nobody really called Nirvana punk back in the early 90's, but they were. I know so many bands have infused different kinds of music together, whether it be metal and hardcore, indy rock and jazz, whatever, my point is, so many genres have stemmed from what punk is. If there was no punk, then there is no television, no television, no gang of four, if there is no gang of four, theres no sonic youth. So although a band like sonic youth sounds absolutly nothing like mid 70's punk, and none of those bands are your prototypical punk bands, they all did come from those punk rock roots. To me, thats still punk rock. In fact it's even more punk rock, because at least it's come from some sense of originality. It took a bit of A, a bit of B, and made up their own C and came up with something new.
Isn't that what the Ramones and Sex Pistols did?
bankies wrote:punk may be dead, it may be alive, it may just be wounded, but the fact remains that the majority of punk music is awful
lets dance
har har har
SSJ Zero wrote:Not to sound Behind the Music-esqe, but punk rock defined a generation, and punk rock is still alive in the hearts of millions. But adding to what Rozard said, the constant split of different genres pretty much put the final bullet in the personified head that is punk rock.
y2kwizard wrote:My next question is this: what is the punk of today? What genre of music are people listening to underground that's having the same effect on my generation that punk had on earlier generations? I'm beginning to think that there IS no such thing anymore. I don't think that there is now a genre of music that is so offensive and in-your-face as punk was a while back.
Rozard wrote:First off, I have to say that I love your avatar, SSJ Zero. Nick Hexum kicks assmoooooo wrote:But, I feel that it's kind of evolved into something new. Nobody really called Nirvana punk back in the early 90's, but they were. I know so many bands have infused different kinds of music together, whether it be metal and hardcore, indy rock and jazz, whatever, my point is, so many genres have stemmed from what punk is. If there was no punk, then there is no television, no television, no gang of four, if there is no gang of four, theres no sonic youth. So although a band like sonic youth sounds absolutly nothing like mid 70's punk, and none of those bands are your prototypical punk bands, they all did come from those punk rock roots. To me, thats still punk rock. In fact it's even more punk rock, because at least it's come from some sense of originality. It took a bit of A, a bit of B, and made up their own C and came up with something new.
Isn't that what the Ramones and Sex Pistols did?
Not really. The Ramones just stripped rock back to its bare basics: E-A-B chord progressions and a rebellious attitude. Wasn't their first album something like 21 songs in 44 minutes? My whole point is that Punk, just straight, original Punk, is no longer an active genre. The same with Rock 'n' Roll. My whole argument is that artists have taked aspects of Punk and created new genres, thus rendering the original obsolete in a way. There roots are in Punk, but they're something else.
Now, on the other hand, Punk is also used as a term for "music not of the mainstream." What is the punk of today? Polka. Always has been, always willHeh, not quite. Again, with underground music, there's no telling what you're going to get. Hell, Punk was a pretty mixed bag. I don't think you could pull out a specific style of music that is concurrent with all underground artists. The band that I was in sounded like a mix of Led Zeppelin, The Doors and some other classic rock bands, but we also had an Alternative Rock element, as well as Emo.
And with that, I'll end my post. It's gone on long enough
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests