Isn't 'Pop-Punk' an oxy moron? (lyrics, alternative, hardcore, metal)

Piss Me Off · 04-02-2008, 02:03 AM

No it isn't

sleepy jack · 04-02-2008, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oomph!

The 'yes' or 'no' is still too much to ask for huh?

Um no only did I answer "no" in my original post I explained why it was no. So here it is once again.

NO

For someone who claims to be so interested in a "genuine music debate" you certainly don't encourage it with posts like that.

~~Oomph!~~ · 04-02-2008, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

Way to totally acknowledge and reply to my post. How is punk a crossover genre?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oomph!

I didn't say punk was a crossover genre, I said pop-punk is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

Punk started out pop-punk. I thought you said you listened?

See, You just said pop-punk is not the same thing as punk, so there is nothing wrong about the idea of pop-punk being a crossover genre (a cross between punk and pop)

sleepy jack · 04-02-2008, 03:58 AM

Where did I say that?

adidasss · 04-02-2008, 04:24 AM

Ok, this is my take on it; when punk started it "sounded" more poppy, and from our perspective, it was accessible and catchy....as Urban rightfully noted, punk represented rebellion against the system in a time when simple chord progression and faster music could be considered a subversive alternative to disco, prog rock and other predominant music genres of the time. Later, the sound evolved, it became more dissonant and aggressive and people started calling that particular sound as hardcore punk. To distinguish it from the other sound, they named the original sound pop-punk.

So, just like The Beatles were a rock and not a pop band, so The Ramones were a punk band, no matter how different their sound is to what you and many others today perceive to be "true" punk. This is also why Dookie is not a pop, but a punk record.

Now I understand that when compared to Oomph! and Norwegian death-metal, the catchyness of punk doesn't really seem subversive, hence your dilemma. However, I'd imagine in 30 years, your children will wonder just what exactly you were thinking when you thought all those metal bands you listen to were badass and hardcore.

/end of thread

~~Oomph!~~ · 04-02-2008, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

Where did I say that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

NO

.....

~~Oomph!~~ · 04-02-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss

Ok, this is my take on it; when punk started it "sounded" more poppy, and from our perspective, it was accessible and catchy....as Urban rightfully noted, punk represented rebellion against the system in a time when simple chord progression and faster music could be considered a subversive alternative to disco, prog rock and other predominant music genres of the time. Later, the sound evolved, it became more dissonant and aggressive and people started calling that particular sound as hardcore punk. To distinguish it from the other sound, they named the original sound pop-punk.

Was anyone in this forum around back then who might know for a fact why it's called what it's called? I can't imagine this is something that needs to be interpreted.

Quote:

So, just like The Beatles were a rock and not a pop band, so The Ramones were a punk band, no matter how different their sound is to what you and many others today perceive to be "true" punk. This is also why Dookie is not a pop, but a punk record.

I believe the original reason we are disputing the genre of the Ramones is because 'Quill, If I understood him correctly, told me that because the Ramones started the punk genre means they are the measuring stick of punk, the cut and paste definition. The closer you sound to the ramones the more 'punk' you are. And he then said that because the Ramones are pop-punk and punk at the same time, pop-punk cannot be a crossover genre. Although he later told me that pop-punk is not the same thing as punk.

Quote:

However, I'd imagine in 30 years, your children will wonder just what exactly you were thinking when you thought all those metal bands you listen to were badass and hardcore.

That's not necessarily true, but perhaps. If the day comes and bands completely make my bands obsolete in terms of passion and talent, etc, than I will either conceed to the new bands, or not feel like listening to the new extreme music because I'm too old or something.

Quote:

/end of thread

You can leave whenever you want dude, if the rest of us don't feel like we are finished I think we have a right to continue our discussion.

adidasss · 04-02-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oomph!

Was anyone in this forum around back then who might know for a fact why it's called what it's called? I can't imagine this is something that needs to be interpreted.

It's not, you could Google it and come to the same results I did. Or you could be the troll that you are and refuse to accept any explanation that doesn't agree with your preconceptions and flawed logic.

Quote:

The closer you sound to the ramones the more 'punk' you are.

I haven't actually read anything of the sort. That would be like concluding that since Elvis is one of the first rock and roll artists, the more you sound like him the more "rock" you are. Which is kind of daft.

The fact that some punk artists later pursued a rougher sound, doesn't mean other punk artists that remain closer to the original sound are any less punk.

Quote:

And he then said that because the Ramones are pop-punk and punk at the same time, pop-punk cannot be a crossover genre. Although he later told me that pop-punk is not the same thing as punk.

I believe the NO was aimed at the question posed in the thread title. Let's not play dumb now...

~~Oomph!~~ · 04-02-2008, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss

It's not, you could Google it and come to the same results I did. Or you could be the troll that you are and refuse to accept any explanation that doesn't agree with your preconceptions and flawed logic.

punk music - Information from Reference.com

Quote:

Punk rock bands, eschewing the perceived excesses of mainstream 1970s rock, created fast, hard music, typically with short songs, stripped-down instrumentation and often political or nihilistic lyrics. The associated punk subculture expresses youthful rebellion and is characterized by distinctive clothing styles, a variety of anti-authoritarian ideologies, and a DIY (do it yourself) attitude.

Quote:

By the turn of the century, new pop punk bands such as Green Day were bringing the genre widespread popularity decades after its inception.

-----------------

Quote:

I haven't actually read anything of the sort. That would be like concluding that since Elvis is one of the first rock and roll artists, the more you sound like him the more "rock" you are. Which is kind of daft.

That's what quill said, not me.

Quote:

I believe the NO was aimed at the question posed in the thread title. Let's not play dumb now...

No, if you actually took a moment and read back to those posts, you'd realize he was reffering to the question "Is punk the same thing as pop-punk". Good try though.

adidasss · 04-02-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oomph!

punk music - Information from Reference.com

Isn't that essentially what I said previously? Are you conceding to (our) point or...?

Also from Wikipedia:

Quote:

The pop punk style emerged at the onset of punk rock around 1974, with the Ramones, however it was not considered a separate subgenre until later.

Quote:

That's what quill said, not me.

Where?

Quote:

No, if you actually took a moment and read back to those posts, you'd realize he was reffering to the question "Is punk the same thing as pop-punk". Good try though.

I'll let him explain then.

04-02-2008, 02:03 AM	#81 (permalink)
Piss Me Off Moodswings n' Roundabouts Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: At the corner of Dude and Catastrophe Posts: 4,512	No it isn't __________________ Last FM Rate Yr Music Muxtape

04-02-2008, 04:24 AM	#85 (permalink)
adidasss Slavic gay sauce Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Abu Dhabi Posts: 7,993	Ok, this is my take on it; when punk started it "sounded" more poppy, and from our perspective, it was accessible and catchy....as Urban rightfully noted, punk represented rebellion against the system in a time when simple chord progression and faster music could be considered a subversive alternative to disco, prog rock and other predominant music genres of the time. Later, the sound evolved, it became more dissonant and aggressive and people started calling that particular sound as hardcore punk. To distinguish it from the other sound, they named the original sound pop-punk. So, just like The Beatles were a rock and not a pop band, so The Ramones were a punk band, no matter how different their sound is to what you and many others today perceive to be "true" punk. This is also why Dookie is not a pop, but a punk record. Now I understand that when compared to Oomph! and Norwegian death-metal, the catchyness of punk doesn't really seem subversive, hence your dilemma. However, I'd imagine in 30 years, your children will wonder just what exactly you were thinking when you thought all those metal bands you listen to were badass and hardcore. /end of thread __________________ “Think of what a paradise this world would be if men were kind and wise.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle. Last.fm