you and me both.

You find it in Dream Theater? :confused:

Theyll find more. We used to complain about Hootie, Nickelback and Creed in the same way. They just keep coming back.

I hope you're right. Against Me's new album seemed to poppy for me.

The world would be much better if everyone would just agree that punk died in the mid '80's. That doesn't even mean I don't like any post mid 80's 'punk' bands, Sleater Kinney & Fugazi awesome at what they do - but I would consider them more Indie Rock.

90's Indie Rock, 80's Hardcore / Underground are the direct descendants of punk. Any other band that simulates their sound & look are doing so in nostalgia or at best homage. I won't even say they suck, are sell outs, or any negative terms - but the post mid 80's punk bands are performing in a vacuam far removed from what punk WAS.

You can bands influenced by rockabilly, psychedelica, bands influenced by prog-rock, bands influenced by new wave - but those genres are deeply rooted in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's respectavely. Otherwise, those too are ancient genres that can influence bands later, but those bands do not belong in the same genre. They are 'new', 'post' or 'revival'.

This post is :banghead: incarnate.

by the way the first adjective that comes to mind when thinking about good charlotte and fall out boy.

i can make a list of adjectives i DO think of but it would be a long line of ****************************.

Dude, Get your head out of your ass. "Punk" can't die. you are completely ignoring skatepunk, hardcore, ska-punk, etc. While those bands aren't original at all, they sure as hell aren't doing it for the money.

this is true but there are no "skate-punk" or "ska-punk" bands that can even come close to comparing to successful punk bands think about it......

How do you mean "successful" punk bands?

Its hard to be truly "punk" about anything these days.

I mean what are punk bands doing today thats defying trends or not conforming to the masses? Nothing really. Now you just have a lot of guys who think they are punk because they can write a song about how much they hate George W. Bush.

I'm not talking about the musical genre which is alive and well but just the meaning of the word, I'm not saying punk is dead for sure, and to be honest I don't care if it dies or not, it had its run and there was a lot of great music that came out of it, but lets move on and stop whining about "which bands killed punk".

there are still alot of punks around, there kinda adopting cultural trends( the homeless(yes they have a culture), gypsies, cajans)

I guess you have to give punk props to the Amish as well since they isolate themselves almost completely from the rest of modern society.

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/oct2006/amish2.jpg

Hardcore.

Personally I dont care if someone is a "sell out." If their music is good thats all that matters. It is frustrating when a band I like changes their sound though to appeal to the more main stream and signs a big contract. But it could be worse, they could make no money, have no fans, and stop making music completely.

^ true, it just makes it impossible to see them live because the fans get worse and they usually play at some ****ty arena or something like that.

I agree, it is wrong to call bands like Fall Out Boy and Good Charlotte "sellouts" because that assumes that they at any point had any goal other than what is purely commercial. Selling out means that at one point they traded in their values in order to make money/get fame/whatever, but essentially selling out has been their value and intent since day one, so they never had to sell out to do so.

[EDIT]: Hehe, just read the OP, we say the same thing. Tee hee.

Like I said, if you sign on to a label, you're selling your art for money, so that is selling out. Not as much as abandoning your principles but still, its the artistic equivalent of prostitution.

In the future people wont even have to sign on to a label to sell records, and not only that, they won't even have to sell records if all they want is people to listen to their music. In Rainbows is a sign of this.

I'm not sure if In Rainbows is a good indicator. People were going to take that whether or not it was good/bad or cheap/expensive.

wait do you mean any label at all because there are plenty of independent labels and I wouldn't call bands that sign on to them sellouts.

i gotsa agree jacky d here. the black lips were on tiny record labels like bomp and **** and that is TOTALLY not selling out. but yes, i guess thats the dictionary term, but thats not the commonly used term. i say signing to a BIG label is selling out.

^ thank you my friend.

I don't think it's that black and white. There are some labels more respectable than others, and some bands take a different route. It all depends on the situation.

I agree, I even like fall out boys new album the most. I think its a bit more rocking than the last. Id love to see them live sometime.

Their live CD is awful. Patrick Stump really can't sing.

Please spare us and go to a Fall Out Boy thread. Fall Out Boy fans do not have a place in musicbanter.

Once againnn, i agree with jacky d :)

no.

i'd have to agree with GuitarBizarre. Dookie, in fact, does not own or pown or whatever. It just doesn't.

its because for 1 they started using synths,

2 instead of making music they like they make what others want to hear.

and thats not how it works.

you make what you want and if people like it thats good if they don't f@#! em.

Ha. The Hive's new album is guilty of that.I hope they aren't close to selling out though.

i don't necessarily like patricks voice however pete's lyrics i think are really good.

some people call them sell outs as an excuse to stop listening to them was because they got popular. and you know how some people just can't bear to listen to mainstream music anymore.

Every band is a "sell out"... they are trying to "sell out" seats :)

I never heard any fall out boy music but the term sell out is a dumb one when it comes to musical acts... a band isn't one persons personal possession, they are a business trying to stay in business by gaining as many customers as they possibly can. I support any decisions my favorite bands make in order to "stay in business" and when it doesn't work, they will try something else.

That's probably where most people are going to disagree with you. Most people see music as much more than business they see it as an art. Most bands who view their music as business completely suck anyway and are obviously in it for the wrong reasons.

so should I add this entry into the "unpopular opinions" thread? :)

I think bands that don't have a good sense of business more then likely get screwed and become "that band that wrote that song, who were they again?". Like anything you need a good plan before you just go out there and show the world what you got. Of course to that artist the music is their art but in order for it to get to our ears and be deciphered as art it needs to be pumped through the music business factory. This is just relating to bands that are popular... not talking about local acts that (outside of that town) nobody really knows about. If a band wants to stay relevant and continue to sell, they need to play the game and "sell out".

Think of any band that is more then 20 years old and still popular, I guarantee you somebody in that band has a sharp sense of business and/or they have a damn good manager that is telling them what to do. Just being talented and writing good songs isn't enough, you need to know how to break through and stay relevant.

Um, so The Fall, Dinosaur Jr., Radiohead, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds and Sonic Youth have all lost their relevancy or sold out?

Most of those bands are like the Rolling Stones and should've broken up long ago.

I would actually say yes to losing relevancy, the last I remember hearing anything about Dinosaur JR & Sonic Youth was about 12 years ago, don't know who Nick Cave, Bad Seeds or the fall is. Radiohead is the only one on your list that I still hear about and chances are it's because they are doing what they can to be heard about.

As far as a band staying in the game longer then they really should, if they weren't selling albums or selling out concerts they probably would break up.

You don't need to be massively well known to be relevant, Nick Cave and Sonic Youth's latest albums have been given lots of critical praise in most musical sectors.

You didn't hear anything about Sonic Youth & Dinosaur JR last year?

When Sonic Youth released their best album in ages & were playing sell out dates to their Daydream Nation shows?

And Dinosaur JR getting back together again and releasing a half decent album?

Have you been living under a rock?