So... how come Punk is not under the Rock section?
 

Hmm. I'm not a punk hata or anything, but I wonder all the same... Punk, hardly being truly a separate entity to Rock music... with that in mind, how come it gets a separate section? I mean, what punk bands would actually deny that they're playing some form or other of rock music?

Question.

The ideas and messages of punk are very different from rock, and punk usually sounds a lot different than normal rock.

Saying it's "hardly a truly seperate entity" is ignorant.

In that case, we don't need as many forums I guess. We wouldn't need indie or folk or country, we can just put everything under rock and act like there are no differences between the genres.

Thanks for making this forum better.

Oh, really? As if "rock" has a certain number of definable messages. Rock is too broad a term. You can't associate a clear set of meanings to it, considering the full range of subgenres thought of as rock. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "normal rock" - presumably chart-rock/pop-rock. In that case then yeah, I'm sure music specifically thought of as "punk" has widely different meanings to pop rock.

Nevertheless, any meaning or meanings you attribute to "punk" will clearly be covered by some subgenre widely accepted as falling under rock.

And come on, it's not really a separate entity. Punk music came out of rock'n'roll, and then the alternative rock scene heavily borrowed from punk (yes, REAL punk too! boo hoo hoo!) even to the point that much modern pop-rock music is abound with punk (REAL PUNK) influences in the musical techniques used.

What IS ignorant, ridiculous and positively absurd is to deny that punk is pretty intricately linked to the umbrella term of "rock" music.

This is one of those cases where a metal fan is pissed that metal doesn't have its own forum but punk does so hes going to try and start shit about it m i rite?

I'm not saying that at all. Folk and country, as labels, predate rock and can be distinguished by a number of things. Indie, well, some indie IS rock and some is not.

The main point I'm making is that punk in particular doesn't seem to have any meanings and general connotations that aren't to ALSO be found in plenty of subgenres of music widely accepted as falling under rock.

I'm not even saying this to start some fight. I'm just making a point that I feel is entirely valid.

The whole point of punk in the first place was that it was anti - rock.
It started from people thinking that rock music had become distant and too far up it's own ass to have any real meaning.
Those lines may have become blurred over the years , but I have always seen rock & punk as two totally different things.

To say that "Those lines may have become blurred over the years" hits the nail on the head.
I was a young lad at school and well into my music when punk 'broke out'.
The two factions hated each other. The punk and rock poles, idealistically, couldn't be further apart.

From what i have read it seems punks hated fans of The Jam more than anything else.
I've read several books where it says them lot were kicking lumps out of each other on a regular basis.

As I remember it the Jam were considered a punk band early on, probably because nobody really knew what to make of them. I imagine they weren't too bothered about it at the time.
I can only think that the two sets had problems more, when the second mod wave came about.

Having said that, I'm talking from a Northern perspective.
Things could have been a lot different down in London.

Well I know when they started Weller was a supporter of Thatcher. He renounced it pretty quickly later on but I know some people never let him forget about it.

punk always struck me as being more straight up back to the roots "rock n' roll" than most of the music it was reacting against

and the reason there's a punk forum is because someone decided (accurately? perhaps not) that it could generate enough discussion to warrant an independent forum. if you want to argue that it should be a sub-forum of rock & metal be my guest, but who really cares?

Nah, y'all are right. I mean yeah, it's true that Punk came straight out of rock'n'roll, but if it was a reaction to one of the paths rock'n'roll music went down (i.e. prog), which, incidentally, became what was known as "rock" music, I suppose it's fair enough to not put Punk in the same category as Rock. But historically speaking, there's no doubt that it came out of rock'n'roll. And also, contemporary and alternative rock has had so much influence on much of the punk scene (whether you purists accept it as being the "real" punk scene or otherwise) and VICE VERSA, that the lines ARE pretty blurred.

I'm also not sure there's any particular ideological difference anymore. You'll even find progressive rock/metal bands frequently discussing topics probably more traditionally associated with punk music.