NFG does it stand for New Found Glory or No F**kin good

Skyshroud · Post by **Skyshroud** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 9:19 pm

To be honest, I give NFG credit for covering songs like "Glory of Love" and "That Thing you do" (even though I don't usually like musicians doing cover songs), which are great compared to most of what's out there. However, after listening to their first CD, The first thing that I thought (and still do think) was "man, either these guys have little or no vocal range or they're slightly tone deaf". In short I really don't like the way they re-made those songs, but I admit I haven't heard much from them after that (I really didn't have much interest to after what I heard). I agree with what everyone else has been saying though, stick with what you like, don't be afraid to look at things critically, even what you already like, but in the end if you like it it doesn't matter how popular it is. And hey, I think NFG is a hundred times better than most of the pre-fab, bubble-gum pop out there (::hack:: ::cough:: Britney, Jessica, Christina, N' Sync, Justin, Backstreet, etc. ::cough::) and much of what else is considered good out there. Also, it is true people are too quick to think only what they like has merit (maybe even myself sometimes).

Toxie_punk · Post by **Toxie_punk** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:35 pm

I think they're ok but I do like From the Screen to Your Stereo

Propyro · Post by **Propyro** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:44 pm

VegettoEX wrote:w0rd. If you listen to everything other people say about music, you'll come to the conclusion that everything sucks. People seem to have lots of vocal opinions about what "sucks," rather than what they think is actually good...

or why it's good. (which is a really touchy area, not no mention painfully subjective*)

If you like it, great, thats good for you. Don't push it on me if i don't like it. but as for NFG, i really don't care too much, i've never really listened to them but i'd probably give them a fair chance.

* key otohiko word

[/|\]

DDramone · Post by **DDramone** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:12 pm

if your looking for the one band that nobody critisizes, your gonna be looking for a long time. everyone says the ramones were no talent, but i have almost a kind of loyalty to them. they're my fav. band.

but if you're going to take a poll on what people think of NFG...

i'd like to know why these pop punk bands are now the definition of punk. the last thing i wanna do is open up a "what is punk rock" discussion, but, and i know this is a tired argument, bands like NFG sound NOTHING like great bands like black flag, the germs, the slits, sham 69, and of course, the ramones! theyre a completely different genre! they have NOTHING in commen with this bands! how are they punk?

VegettoEX · Post by **VegettoEX** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:24 pm

DDramone wrote:i'd like to know why these pop punk bands are now the definition of punk. the last thing i wanna do is open up a "what is punk rock" discussion, but, and i know this is a tired argument, bands like NFG sound NOTHING like great bands like black flag, the germs, the slits, sham 69, and of course, the ramones! theyre a completely different genre! they have NOTHING in commen with this bands! how are they punk?

The definitions of genres change over time, whether we like it or not.

Britney Spears is "pop" music, now; Amy Grant (early 90's pop) sounds nothing like recent Britney music, yet they were both the "top pop music" for their time.

NFG and other "pop-punk" bands are telling a different message than regular ol' "pop" music, which is still why they're considered part of the (new-school)-punk community. I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying the new-school punk-rock music, as long as you understand the history behind it. You're not obligated to LIKE the music that influenced them and came first (and I wouldn't expect you to), but I do think it helps.

That's how I think, anyway ^^.

DDramone · Post by **DDramone** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 1:52 am

sorry, i dont know how to do the quote thing so i just cut n' pasted it.

"The definitions of genres change over time, whether we like it or not.

Britney Spears is "pop" music, now; Amy Grant (early 90's pop) sounds nothing like recent Britney music, yet they were both the "top pop music" for their time."

not knowing who the hell amy grant is, im going to asume she's retired.

you're asuming that "old punk" is over. well, to a certain extent, yeah, but there are still great bands like minor threat, the misfits (a certain incarnation of them at least), a global threat, GBH, ... the list goes on! THEY have a punk sound, they're still around! Dead Kennedys still tour, you know.

im not out to get anybody, but you've posted the exact problem! people think that popular opinion defines every thing and is absolute. tell me with a straight face that NFG sounds anything like minor threat.

its just a fact. bands like NFG do NOT play punk. MTV will make you think of these "pop-punk" bands as badboys to emulate, toning them down so that you would WANT to emulate them. if popular culture really wanted to show the real punk scene for all its self destructivness, confusion, paranoia, and violence, the masses would shy away from anything "punk." as a result? they wouldnt buy pop punk albums.

so to say that these bands are punk, even if you stick the word "pop" in front of it, you're basicly falling for big MTV advertising. you can like whatever music you want, but see things for what they are. pop punk is a false label. in this case, LABELS BAD.

VegettoEX · Post by **VegettoEX** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 4:03 pm

How am I falling for MTV advertising when I was into New Found Glory when <I>Nothing Gold Can Stay</I> was released on Eulogy Records? Last time I checked, MTV didn't know who the Hell they were until their self-titled album came out.

What you've typed out just seems to be "yet another" elitist punk-rock testamony from someone who doesn't like the direction the genre has split-off / turned into. You don't have to like the music, but the underlying tone of what you're saying is that what's happened is terrible, and the music should be abolished.

The Ramones are always quotes as one of the pioneering "punk" bands; they've always labeled themselves as simply a "rock" band. So in part, I agree with you: definitions of genres can be misleading. At the same time... sure, it's not OMG MINOR THREAT OPERATION IVY "punk rock"... but who cares? NFG, and a variety of other "pop-punk" bands are still spreading messages and writing lyrics (whether your LIKE these lyrics is your own perogative) that DIFFER from the "norm" of "pop" music.

I can't stand Britney Spears, but I can fully understand why it's called "pop" music these days, and I can fully understand why someone would like the music.

DDramone · Post by **DDramone** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:44 pm

naw, man, im not tryin to look down on you. im no purist. im all for change and expansion. i mean, look at the bands we're using as examples: minor threat doesnt really sound like op ivy, now does it? i mean, look how some stuff mixed with regge, and some with ska, and some with oi!, and some with... watever! metal even! but punk still has a definite sound, even with all the different versions. now, pop punk as expansion? elaberate on this, man. you mean brining punk to the masses? hell no. the whole point of subculture is counter culture, and thats just not going to happen when a sub culture is "brought to the masses." lets not just look at NFG, cuz i dont wanna diss your fav. band. lets look at all the pop punkers out there. were are they going that early beatles and rolling stones havent already gone? writing about kissy-kissy-boo-boo crap that every one loves to hear. pop punk is no expansion. is just recyled format.

not that you have to expand to be good. the ramones were great because they never changed! 20 years and they didnt really change much. but they were the most dynamic in their lyrics (check out all songs written by Dee Dee Ramone!!!)

and stop talking this whole "out wit the old, in with the new" crap. i already said they old is still very much alive! pop isnt a new direction. everyone else has already done pop. if pop punk bands should be called revolutionary... well, point being, they shouldnt.

and im going back to my origional question: why are these watered down and mass produced bands defining what punk is? it's like mc'donalds tellin us what a burger should taste like. and i dont care if something like what a burger should taste like is all relative; how the hell would mcdonalds know?!?!