The Doctor wrote:
Mr C. wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Everyone calls Green Day a punk band. They're not. I don't care what anyone says, they are quite emphatically NOT punk. As a punk band, they're crap. But taken as what they are, without the limitations of a genre, they are very good.
Er, Green Day is a punk band. Punk-pop maybe but still punk. I mean are you going to tell me that the Ramones aren't punk, when they are one of the top three defining bands of the genre (along with the Sex Pistols and the Clash?). The Ramones are by far the band that has had the biggest influence on Green Day. Yes, they have their own specific way of playing and a distinct sound, and in their later albums expanded their style a bit. What got them famous though was three chord energetic pop punk, the kind of thing that the Ramones basically invented. You seem to have your own definition as to what true "punk" is. Perhaps if you were thinking of hardcore or Oi! as your model of punk than Green Day is not really qualified, but in cultural terms where the genre is a broad umbrella with many sub genre's (many of which blend together), Green Day is well within it's scope. That's not a matter of opinion.
Before American Idiot, they had a kind of Punk sound, but certainly not anymore. As somebody once said to me, Punk was more of a statement than a music style, after getting fed up with the long drawn out prog rock. Green day's new stuff is very progressive and kinda nullifies one of the things Punk was based on. Though I suppose you could draw political parallels to Anarchy in the UK and American Idiot. To be honest, I haven't heard much of The Ramones (
), but Green Day sound nothing like the Sex Pistols or the Clash.
Well the Ramones don't sound like the Sex Pistols or Clash and really, those two bands don't sound much like each other. As for Green Day "changing" with American Idiot, they basically have the same sound they always did, just slightly longer songs with a couple uber-long multi part 9 minute plus tracks. That and they are more political, which if anything brings them closer to "true" punk as you kind of infer. Either way, I'd hardly call their new stuff "very progressive". It's the same basic style they've always done, just a little more drawn out with more "grown up" content.
I would also disagree that punk isn't a musical style. True, there was a "statement" aspect to the early portions of the genre that persists today but look at all the amazing bands that came about after the movement got going, calling themselves, "post punk" or whatever (Joy Division, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Depeche Mode, etc). Lots of interesting musical styles were going on at this time, none of which could of been realistically conceived of before the "punk" movement. It pretty much laid the groundwork for "grunge" and what we call modern "alternative" or "indie" rock. This would not of happened if punk music was just about making a statement. From a musical perspective it was simply about getting back to the basics, which is generally not a bad thing. It helped the genre of rock music "reset" itself so it could better move forward with fewer stale ideas being recycled.
I have taken my time to read empty caldera's posts on LS and two things are clear as day:
a) he is totally insane
b) he is incredibly intelligent.
Newsflash: EVERYONE acts in their own interests and do things to get the approval of others. The idea that men because they appear to be good fellows are calculating people who do every little thing to get people to like them is feminist propaganda.
03/03/10 + 03/18/10