3 ms·
I think "pop punk" is a good term, for me it's about the sound and delivery, it has nothing to do with commercial success, being "posers" etc. I think it's kind
by a57721 2y ago
I think "pop punk" is a good term, for me it's about the sound and delivery, it has nothing to do with commercial success, being "posers" etc. I think it's kind of evident from the music itself why someone who likes Dead Kennedys, Black Flag, Big Black, or GG Allin may not appreciate Green Day, NOFX and the likes (and vice versa). It's in the sound itself, ignoring the lyrics and everything else. Many bands without any mainstream success still play pop punk.
- jghn 2y agoI think of punk as being three completely separate variables, and for any individual or band they're independent of each other: 1) Ethos 2) Aesthetics/look & feel 3) Musical sound So someone could be punk as fuck ethos-wise but love listening to Yanni. Meanwhile a band could have a straight up anarcho-punk sound, but otherwise be white collar wage slaves But this is the root of so much disagreement. When Green Day started ascending in the 80s, people were pointing out the poppy music as not being "punk". But that's just one variable.
- doublerabbit 2y agoYou missed the fourth. Rebellion Punk is about rebellion, pop-punk is a good umbrella term as they had rebellious vibes but to call Green Day punk is a bit of a stretch.
- jghn 2y agoI was including that as part of `Ethos`. DYI, anti-authority, etc.
- hunter2_ 2y ago> Many bands without any mainstream success still play pop punk. The irony extends to the fact that while someone can play in the style of pop without being mainstream, they cannot literally be pop until they're popular. But if pop requires being popular and punk requires shunning the mainstream, pop punk couldn't exist. The fact that it does is therefore a bit of a paradox.