POP/PUNK is dead
 

Not really, just kinda sleeping for a while lol. ANy views on the newer pop/punk bands that doing it? Taking Back Sunday, Fall Out Boy, The STarting LIne, all those guys when they first came out were amazing, pioneering something new. I kinda feel like maybe it got trashed by bands like Boys Like Girls, what do you guys think??

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...nter/EGG04.png

1. Boys Like Girls

sh*t

1. Taking Back Sunday
2. Fall Out Boy
3. The Starting Line

also sh*t

And welcome to MusicBanter.

These guys basically define terrible. Not sure what part of their music you can consider punk, but they look like a bunch of punks, in both meanings of the word.

edit: oops, I actually really like The Thermal's brand of pop punk

Bah, I don't care what this forum says, I liked Taking Back Sunday, Blink-182, Green Day, Motion City Soundtrack, and Sum 41 for a long period of time as a teenager. While my listening to these artists has sharply declined in the last couple years, I wouldn't call them **** and I won't renounce my enjoyment of their music.

That being said, because I stopped listening to Pop Punk, I haven't taken notice of any up-and-coming artists lately. Therefore, I don't have an opinion regarding the OP's question. Turns out this response was pointless.

LMAO at you thinking they pionered something new.

Pop Punk seems like it's the new in thing now, for whatever bizarre reason. I like my fair share of pop punk bands, but I'm not a hardcore fan.

I'm sorry but... I definitely DON'T think pop-punk is the "new" in thing.

Same here. All bands I listened to during my teen years. Especially taking Back Sunday. Eventually everyone grows out of bands like that I think. Except for those lifelong emo kids who tattoo themselves all up and dye and straighten their hair and go to Warped Tour when they are like 28... And the bands themselves. Haven't listened to any of these bands in years, but i liked it back then. For awhile I wondered why all the pop punk sounded like crap (i was more into bands like Brand New who were more...emo??) but then i realized i lost my teen angst, stopped feeling like a victim with girls, and in short just grew up.

I don't know. Maybe it's just because I'm new to music, but there seems to be an influx of pop-punk bands. The Wonder Years, Freshman 15, Hey Monday, Paramore, and a whole crap load of others seem to be sprouting out like daisies.

And I don't mean it's a fad, I just meant it was the relatively new in thing in comparison to other genres.

Dunno, bruh... I used to listen to pop-punk in the mid 90s, although it was a bit different than what we have now, which is to be expected...
Maybe you're just now noticing it.

I love pop-punk, and none of the bands listed in the OP are pop-punk.

This is pop-punk...

I want to assume the OP means "pop punk" in the same way you call "rock" "rock", even though the comparison between early rock and the shit people call rock now days is barely similar.
Not sure though... I guess, at a certain level, it's just a matter of semantics.

Well I'm of the belief that pop-punk should actually have a fairly noticeable punk element to it. I mean, that is what it's called after all. :p:

It's just not how it is in a lot of cases. Sound styles will constantly change and, dare I use the word promiscuously, "evolve"... and the label itself usually ends up as a variation of the original label, while not really retaining the majority of the defining characteristics of the original sound, after being diluted and filtered by enough perspective and general change.

Is it necessary to make a distinction? Maybe. I personally don't think it matters, especially when what's being questioned is being compared to something that's in the same position, considering its own predecessor.

pop punk=

Fuck right off. :finger:

Not really, I jest, but I tend to shy away from using Buzz****s as a textbook example of pop-punk, because their style of pop-punk is far different from the vast majority of bands, then and now. This has been said a thousand times, but if any of the early bands best represent pop-punk, it's the Ramones. If you listen to Teenage Bottlerocket (posted above), what they are, essentially, is a modern version of The Ramones.

I agree. I even find myself listening to Taking Back Sunday's Louder Now in its entirety because I really loved that album every once in awhile.

I don't know if The Used fits into pop punk as well but Lies for the Liars gets played quite often in my stereo.

I hate to say it but "Boys Like Girls" is pop punk. It may not be a band you like, but yeah it's the same genre as Taking Back Sunday and Blink 182. Other current pop punk bands include We The Kings Hey Monday and Mayday Parade.

I think you're a living example of what I like to call - The Weezer Effect.

Weezer isn't the first, the most guilty, nor the last band to end up in their situation, they just happened to the first I noticed, and by far the most blatant in my youth, so they get the name.

Ultimately what everyone needs to accept and recognize, is that mainstream pop music does not, and has never, actually cared about the listener. It's all about appealing to the commercial demographic that has the largest amount of disposable income while convincing them that their tastes (and not their money) is actually culturally relevant enough to shape the current reflection of society through mainstream media.

So with every major generational shift there's a major shift in the sounds of the pop culture. It's a way for the current generation to distinguish itself from its predecessors. As a grunge kid you better believe we wanted to stand away from the cheeseballs with poofy hair and spandex making all sorts of ooOOOOoo faces while looking 'sensitive' and wailing on some power ballad. But even in the end of that style the mainstream beast still offered up a few new bands from the old style to try holding on to some of the last fans who were stuck between the major style shifts, and it happened again a few years later.

I've got a lot of friends who rank Weezer as one of the main groups from the 90s, one of the Alt-Rock mainstays and originators. I disagree. In fact, Weezer has always sounded like the little kid answer to the Smashing Pumpkins to me but whatever. I had already been taken in by the mainstream, so it's 2nd attempt to pull in more people using the same trick was going to fail on me, but it worked flawlessly on my younger friends (and some have yet to clue in still).

You're doing the exact same thing with these bands. Taking Back Sunday or Fallout Boy were not amazing or pioneering something new. They were the little kid answers to Green Day and The Offspring, which could easily be argued as the little kid answers to The Ramones and The Clash.

Like what you like and don't worry about the rest. If you want more recommendations then click the embedded clips, they're all great - and so is Op Ivy too (but that's more ska than pop-punk but still check them out).

It's a genre which I think will always have a ready made market if it continues to tweak its image to appeal to the next generation of emotional teenagers and over zealous scene kids.

Technically, there are many incompetent pop-punk bands, the likes of Good Charlotte and Boys Like Girls come to mind, however moving away from the straightened hair and soppy movie soundtracks, there are bands who play a similar style of music with undeniable talent.

One need only listen to Jimmy Eat Worlds 'Clarity' to see how truly exceptional bands of this style can be, when focused on creating music. However, despite creating a fantastic album, JEW (Kinda weird abbreviation) were released from their label due to the record being a commercial flop, therefore they moved into a poppier, more mainstream sound in order to maximise profits and commercial success.

I can't honestly sit back and criticize any musician for wanting to make as much money as possible, as I would do the same thing had I been in their position, however it's the success of those bands who are not technically competent and perhaps as a result of a more dumbed down approach, more commercially successful that creates a stigma with many 'educated' listeners with this genre.

As earlier highlighted by another member, The Thermals are another really good example of what pop-punk can be.
To answer your point directly, I do not think pop punk is dying, bands in this genre seem to have a life cycle. You can't have longevity when your gimmick revolves around being young and hip. I.E. Blink 182 cannot be freshfaced youngsters who sing about first dates and skateboards in their middle age, a factor which I believe makes their re-emergence ridiculous.
There will continue to be more pop punk bands emerging from the woodwork as older ones fade out, because as I highlighted earlier, there is a definite market for their product.

just sounds like 3oh!3 style hip hop being directed at wannabe scenesters

This song was a jammer back in like 8th grade.

Uh, no artists particularly care about the listener. They make the music they enjoy and hope that others will appreciate it (unless forced by the label to record music that is expected to sell). If anything, pop artists are relatively more interested in crafting music that the public will like.

Pop/punk as a genre is rather lame. The artists tend to be goofing off, as opposed to doing the best they could do.

How is your second sentence not 100% contradicting your first sentence? No artists particularly care about the listener... Pop artists are more interested in crafting music the listening public will like....

How does anyone create music the public will like without caring about said public's opinion?

Think of it as "caring about" vs "catering to" or "enticing despite one's best instincts." Pop music often appeals to base instincts. Pop artists don't seem to mind if they're helping to turn this into a more sex-obsessed world.

I'll just sit here and wait for someone to take issue with you mentioning this in a negative light. ;)

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or just super pretentious. Honestly. Think about that for a second.

Now, do you really think the general public is so stupid and simple minded that they need to be raised by pop stars? That the average person looks at a pop star and thinks 'THAT is how I'm supposed to be!' as opposed to 'I would like to have that (perceived) level of fame and attention'?

Pop culture and mainstream society have the ultimate co-dependent relationship, they give each other what they want regardless of need, whether you as an individual agree to what the mass decides is kind of irrelevant outside your head.

Your argument basically mimics a popular misguided line about how fast food restaurants should operate. Here's a minor twist to your last statement:

Fast food restaurants don't seem to mind if they're helping to turn this into a more obese world.

Same logic, same indirect passing of the buck. It's not up to the fast food restaurant to ensure individuals maintain a healthy lifestyle. Same as it's not up to the pop star to make sure we all live in what, some kind of chaste boob-less world?

I happen to also be opposed to the fast food industry. As with that, who says I blame it all on pop musicians? But we're not talking about "the average person." We are talking about young people, often unintelligent young people. They're easily influenced. And pop-punk is like punk minus real desire for positive social change, plus punk has relatively lousy musicianship and it has unwritten rules against lyrics that focus much on sex and love, which is the stuff that easily hooks the mainstream audience. All that makes pop-punk mostly unsustainable on the charts.

Disclaimer: there is plenty of decent pop music.

And when you were still a young, unintelligent, easily influenced, person did you appreciate being talked down to by the older generation being shoved out of the mainstream in favor of your peers?

That's also a rather limited and idealistic view of punk music as well. I've heard PLENTY of punk rock that had exactly 0 desire for any sort of worthwhile positive social change. That's not to say there's plenty of it out there, but for every band like Midnight Oil or NoMeansNo making a serious difference / saying something worth hearing there's a 1000 no name punk bands who's only push for social change is to be able to keep acting like the brats they want to be.

Back to pop-punk!

I love that song but I've never thought of it as pop punk.

Pop-Punk has always been the same. A huge amount of ****ty bands but some good stuff if you dig, here's a great song released just last year.

"wisdom" was never unintelligent.

Yeah, it's a "limited and idealistic view of punk music." But I think many punk bands at least pay lip service to the idea that they're trying to make a difference. For example, the degenerates known as The Sex Pistols.

I'm too "young" on the boards to share a youtube link, but I have always been partial to THE MR T EXPERIENCE within this genre.

I also have been a fan of BOWLING FOR SOUP and a little RELIANT K (when they're not being too Christy). If I listen to pop-punk, which I don't often, I want it to be lighthearted and a little goofy. Obviously, you have to have some skills to do that well, or it's still just garbage.

Also, I am listening to some Take Back Sunday right now on youtube based on comments earlier in the thread, and I am not digging it. It feels too emo, and it makes me bored. But then, I haven't been 16 for a long time.

What would you label it?

I coudl only wish this was true.

maybe it's better of that way, better off to be dead! :) most bands today do not settle for a single genre, they move about, seeking which the audience would like and then they'd switch it!

Pop/Punk
 

I don't think that its dead! its still a really popular genre that is widely listened to.