Pop-Punk: an oxymoron or what?

Originally posted by Esckey

And Punk because the only people that listen to it are possers.

I'll take exception to that thank you very much. I've been a punk for 18 odd years (don't look it anymore but that's not the point) and I won't have anyone tell me I'm a poseur because so-called "real punks" feel compelled to turn to hard rock becuase the general populace is now listening to the Sex Pistols.
 
This is the best thread ever. ;)

Seriously, first, Sysphus' already high stock just went way up in my book. Second, that wikipedia definition must have been written by a SELLOUT, because how could something "radio friendly" be in the same genre as punk/hardcore treasures like Nomeansno, Black Flag, DOA or the Dead Kennedys?

I sort of look at this "I wanna sing like Celine Dion and still be called punk" fad as a spectrum:

1. Actual punk
2. The Clash get the benefit of the doubt (some of their stuff was experimental enough to deserve it, although if they'd made another album...)
3. Green Day is surprisingly good but still clearly just rock with pretensions
4. Avril = blasphemy (root it out, destroy it)

R.III
 
I fail to understand why this sweet girl Avril is being branded as an absolute evil, when, you know... there's Britney ! ;)
 
Originally posted by Richard III
This is the best thread ever. ;)

Seriously, first, Sysphus' already high stock just went way up in my book. Second, that wikipedia definition must have been written by a SELLOUT, because how could something "radio friendly" be in the same genre as punk/hardcore treasures like Nomeansno, Black Flag, DOA or the Dead Kennedys?

R.III
.

I've got to go with you guys one hundred percent on this. This "punk pop" is nothing but normal pop attempting to give itself a new face.


And sysyphus boosted his popularity with me and we all know i'm the judge of what it cool ;)
 
Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
I fail to understand why this sweet girl Avril is being branded as an absolute evil, when, you know... there's Britney ! ;)
The marketing strategy behind the product called "Britney" is an obvious and (though disgusting) in that sense quite honest one.
The "Avril" product rides on the pretense to be something alternative, though it is on essence exactly the same.

Analogue to an open attack compared with a nasty terrorist bombing. ;)

:p
 
Avril Lavigne. Sounds French. So it only makes sense that she is being burned at the stake.

This whole anti-poppunk sentiment is yet another example of wounded white middleclass male pride gone haywire. I did not even know there was such a thing as poppunk before this tread, but from a social perspective it is certanly interesting. Research has shown that it is anti-corporatist, non-political, hedonistic, perhaps slightly homoerotic. As such it is clearly a great threat to the established order.
 
Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
I did not even know there was such a thing as poppunk before this tread, but from a social perspective it is certanly interesting. Research has shown that it is anti-corporatist, non-political, hedonistic, perhaps slightly homoerotic. As such it is clearly a great threat to the established order.
:crazyeye:
Err ,what?

You didn't know there was such a thing but you know "research" that has shown something about it?
 
I don't care too much about deffinitions when it comes to music. And seriously, does this look like Bin Laden to you: ;)

avril.png



And for the record, she is not my favorite singer...
 
Its been a long time since I could get so worked up over music. I cant for the life of me understand the depth of hostility that apparently exists for these chicks. So their music sucks, who cares? I see more anger directed at these pretty little girls than at the rap neanderthals who make millions writing rap 'songs' about shooting people and beating up women.
 
Originally posted by Dumb pothead
Its been a long time since I could get so worked up over music. I cant for the life of me understand the depth of hostility that apparently exists for these chicks. So their music sucks, who cares? I see more anger directed at these pretty little girls than at the rap neanderthals who make millions writing rap 'songs' about shooting people and beating up women.
They're black. Hating them would racism. ;)
 
Originally posted by Dumb pothead
Its been a long time since I could get so worked up over music. I cant for the life of me understand the depth of hostility that apparently exists for these chicks. So their music sucks, who cares? I see more anger directed at these pretty little girls than at the rap neanderthals who make millions writing rap 'songs' about shooting people and beating up women.

I just think their music sucks :p. No real hate here. I can see they are just meeting a market niche.

Rap is something that feels me with pure hate. Not only is it violent in message, it is also sexist and racist.
 
Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
This whole anti-poppunk sentiment is yet another example of wounded white middleclass male pride gone haywire. I did not even know there was such a thing as poppunk before this tread, but from a social perspective it is certanly interesting. Research has shown that it is anti-corporatist, non-political, hedonistic, perhaps slightly homoerotic. As such it is clearly a great threat to the established order.


"When masturbation's lost its fun..."
 
Pop punk?

Billy Idol comes to my mind.

Or with more positive memories, the last records of Hüsker Dü, which had some qualities of pop.

And there was this adapting-punk-power-to-pop-structure movement, sort of early Blondie.
 
Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
I don't care too much about deffinitions when it comes to music. And seriously, does this look like Bin Laden to you: ;)
Youre right. Looks more like a gay, slovenly Jesus.
 
There is two kinds of pop-punk. There is POPULAR punk, as in true punk bands that became popular in the mainstream. The Clash come to mind.

Then there is pop-punk, as in punk that were either formed or cultivated by a major record label with the purpose of selling CDs to teenagers because punk is cool.Avril Lavigne or Good Charlotte come to mind.

People can move, IMO, from the first to the second kind if they become popular and then embrace popularity, i.e. selling out.

EDIT: I think the reason people hate the term "pop-punk" is that most popular punk is the second variety, the pop bands who just play punk because it is popular.
 
IT's really just pop. THey add the "punk" to it to give the image that it has some kind of edge.

I mean really, Avril Lavigne is nought more than Sarah MacLaughlin in camouflage pants.

As for groups like Green Day, I understand that even they don't consider themselves punk.
 
Originally posted by cgannon64
.
Then there is pop-punk, as in punk that were either formed or cultivated by a major record label with the purpose of selling CDs to teenagers because punk is cool.Avril Lavigne or Good Charlotte come to mind.

I am not sure about that.

See http://www.poppunk.com for instance

I think poppunk is not only a corporate thing, but also has a large and active underground community. The site states that they get 200 CDs per month from various poppunk hopefuls.
 
And seriously, does this look like Bin Laden to you:


You've got tot admit, there's an eerie resemblance :lol:

Anyway, Avril is NOT punk. She's just an a**hole. Subtle distinction there.
 
Originally posted by sysyphus
IT's really just pop. THey add the "punk" to it to give the image that it has some kind of edge.

I mean really, Avril Lavigne is nought more than Sarah MacLaughlin in camouflage pants.

As for groups like Green Day, I understand that even they don't consider themselves punk.

Well, at least we can give Green Day some credit for being honest about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom