Talk:Pop punk (revival)

Merge[edit]

This is a section to discuss merging pop punk revival into pop punk.

As a result of the discussion and a few comments concerning the merge, the articles will be merged by Wednesday, 8/2/06, (midwestern time 9pm). However, please continue adding to the discussion here and throughout the various articles discussion pages. Let me know if there are any strong objections. The main point which was gained from this discussion is the realization that indeed The Ramones are not a pop punk band and that pop punk must have origins years after the original punk groups. Resources for pop punk's origins would be valuable. I started a discussion at the knockknockrecords pop punk bored and have personally contacted several potential sources. Anything positively dated 1993/92 or earlier which say pop punk would be of use here. Im reading through old zines MRRs & fanzines looking. Cool When this is through I'll also make sure to archive this whole talk section within the pop punk article's discussion section. Xsxex 16:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge Xsxex 01:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No notable sources show that there is a distinction, or even that first wave punk bands were labeled as "pop-punk". WesleyDodds 02:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jesus told me to. We need something to fix Green Day's "punk" status and I don't see anyone else helping... Gold Stur 02:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep... two entirely different forms of music which there have long been problems and disputes about the two being stuffed into the same article[1], would support renaming to Californian Pop punk or something similar. - Deathrocker 02:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this approach is that we end up coining terms rather than describing things as they are. WesleyDodds 02:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I like a variant on this idea - Something along the lines of "California pop punk", and a link from the pop punk article, would work, but unfortunately that's not what people call it. Separating the article into two sections works best for me. --Switch 08:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge - "Pop punk revival" fails WP:V. It cannot be cited because it's not a term that's being used by legitimate sources. Wikipedia cannot be used to establish new "genres". Failing WP:V should end the discussion. -- ChrisB 23:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you claim its not sourced?... its sourced in the very first sentence of the article and has been before you even wrote this... it is also hardly a "new genre"... this form of music has its roots in the 1980s - Deathrocker 04:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has its roots in the 80s, but that does not mean the Ramones or Buzzcocks belong to a genre called pop punk. They seem to be mere influences on what was called pop punk starting around the mid to late 80s. WesleyDodds 11:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Oh wait, I mean Merge. I can't find any reliable uses of "pop punk revival" as a genre. It's odd that the 'revival' article appears to have more content, though. I have issues with the term "punk" being applied to obviously "pop punk" bands (See Warped Tour), but "Pop punk Revival" stinks of original research in attempting to invent a name. -- Xinit 23:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Same genre. Dwnsjane2 23:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to discuss logically why you think the two different forms of music are the same genre? - Deathrocker 04:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Its the same genre, different era's.--XXXtylerXXX 00:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I believe that it should be merged because, like the opinion above, it is the same genre, just different era. It is basically the same subject we are talking about- the revival should just be mentioned in another section in the pop punk article Ella 04:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Certainly different genres (the Ramones are not the same genre as Simple Plan), but using the same name. "Pop punk revival" is not used by any notable media source. Recommend pop punk article reflects that the term has two meanings and hence give article two sections, one dealing with each. --Switch 07:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Being a punk for more than 12 years it is the first time I ever heard of such genre. I strongly oppose artificial dividing punk music to multiple genres. In fact every band plays its own kind of music and, thinking that way, we could easely create an article on each of them style naming it a genre. CCMichalZ 07:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I completely agree with the person above, being a punk myself. DavidJJJ 08:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - ...unless more sources can be found. maxcap 17:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Lack of sources for the term itself. The Ungovernable Force 09:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - As per three or four comments above - Derek R Bullamore 13:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge Merge them into one article with two seperate sections. I don't agree with the statement in the opening paragraph of "pop punk revial" that says something like "it had little to do with the earlier punk movement of the 1970's". Alot of the early 80's bands were directly influenced by the late 70's stuff, and bands like The Ramones weren't known as pop-punk until much later anyway.Flage 06:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge All systems go 13:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Flage that they should be merged into one article with two separate sections. Pop punk (revival) is not a topic big enough to be considered a separate article. It is just another minor topic of the genre, pop punk.

Why[edit]

Why are any of these bands listed when none of them are punk? Gold Stur 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because some people seem to think they are. The Ungovernable Force 02:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like the companies and record labels that market them? Gold Stur 02:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately yes...and don't forget medias too...(but this article says that it's a mainstream movement...)

Gold Stur... why do you care if a band is labeled 'punk' you need to define punk more before you attempt to discredit another's claim to punkdom. Just because a record label or the media says something is punk does it make it punk? Now if you really want to get into it.. punk was created by punks and the media.. only after the summer of 77 (and the coinsiding media exposure in London) did punk truely come into its own. Since you seem to have a strong opinion of what is punk you should have no problem defining it here. However, i'd recommend really examining to the whole scope of the punk phenomenon before you say who or what is or isnt punk. Well do ya feel lucky? do yuh?? Xsxex 01:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling you, your stage name should be Moxie Xsxex. Now, I actually have picked up on the definition of punk rock, in the Green Day punk dispute archives, but I don't blame you for not seeing it, that area is a mess. Anywho, here it is "a harsh rock music originating from the 1970s with angry, offensive lyrics; a reaction against progressive rock". Source, wiktionary. Now, this is why Green Day atleast, is not punk. Not harsh, not too angry, not offensive, and not a reaction to progressive rock. I mean come on, they have a self declared rock opera! Gold Stur 02:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, remember how krautrock, a form of progressive rock, was an influence on punk rock? WesleyDodds 06:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never listened to "krautrock". Gold Stur 18:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Sturrrr - if you dont think Green Day is punk then you also should expunge the entire list of so called punk bands. By virtue of your own expressed defensive stance against Green Day you have implied that Green Day offends you. What is more punk than offending punks? And what is more punk that doing this for a period of time until you have every major label bidding for your group and then taking the cash. Did you completely miss the whole point of The Sex Pistols? Did you see the Great Rock n' Roll Swindle? "You're only looking for vinyl!!!!!!! Yeah, did I fool you, I want to be you!!!!!!" Did you not read the sign that said CASH FROM CHAOS??? Do you not understand that Joey Ramone (and Johnny and Dee Dee) DIED having never received sufficient monetary compentation nor the recognition for his artistic/musical efforts which were "stolen" and reinterpreted by his British admirers?? Have you taken a look at the List of best-selling albums in the United States or in the world or visited the RIAA website? You may think punk has sold out but punk has a long way to go as long as THE EAGLES GREATEST HITS is the number one selling album of all time in the USA. Finally - Does your definition of punk satisfy you in explaining the breadth and depth of the punk phenomenon? - punk punk'd punk Xsxex 02:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, calm down a bit...I personally agree with Gold Stur that Green Day are not punk, but from an encyclopedic viewpoint they should have it mentioned that they are labelled as such. And it should also be sourced that many punks scoff at them for having the audacity to consider themselves punks. The Ungovernable Force 06:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down a bit!!! this is CHaos!!! - this is WAR!!! BA-oooooooga!!! Just kidding ... ok. Im calm. You know this is all sounding a lot like Christians and Jews. Check out this analogy. See Jesus said he was as the Messiah, right, and the Jews even to today adamently say that he is not the Messiah (for various reasons)check out Messiah & Jesus. However, Christians follow in Jesus' claim of being the Savior. Jews are like the "true punks" and Christians are like the people who follow Green Day's claim that they are punk. Yet couldn't it be that they are both right? is that possible? Personally, I think anyone who claims to be punk or is labeled as punk can claim to be punk. However a person does not have to claim to be punk or BE punk if they are labeled punk. (kinda like emo). Yet, if a person does claim punk they should demonstrate some kind of references to the history of punk. A history of punk (in my current understanding, enlighten me please) where rock paves the way for The Ramones who set the template for Brit Punk which jubilees in 77' morphs into hardcore, straight-edge, skate punk, cowpunk, riot grrl, emocore, grunge(alternative), pop punk, ska punk, emo, melodic hardcore, mascara hardcore, indie-fusion digital networkingcore, etc.etc. Heres the thing, though, if you label any band who formed after say 78/79 or definitely 80 or more than by the strict definition can they be punk? Again, I would really hope you would do your research and learn as much as you can about The Ramones and The Sex Pistols (and the Clash, Buzzcocks, Brit Punk, summer of '77) In my current understanding (which is explained below) both of these band were jonesing for as much cash, notoriety, fame, upheavel, as they could get. They also sought to blow down doors of what could be done on at a rock concert/show. But do the research, enlighten me. ((I'll call you on your shit, please call me on mine. Yeah, then, we can grow together, make this shit hole planet better, in time... .........consider someone else stop consuming animals) Xsxex 12:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why these bands are listed as punk, is because they are. I think you skipped over the "punk" part of the title of this article.--XXXtylerXXX 00:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Playing on MTV is sooooooo punk. Hell, let's label them hardcore while we're at it. Gold Stur 16:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but there is a difference to selling out and only signing to a label for your fans to get the music they want. Lets take a band like Green Day. Billie Joe Armstrong created a indie label called Adeline Records that has produced some of the greatest pop punk bands, The Living End, Pinhead Gunpowder. And also, not once did I see a band like Third Eye Blind or Fall Out Boy on the list. You need to check your head, and watch your mouth whenever you try to make a point.--XXXtylerXXX 17:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sex Pistols, Ramones, and Clash all made music videos. MTV was built upon New Wave, a form of punk rock. DIY isn't the end-all, be-all of punk. Hell, many early DIY punk releases had the sole purpose of attracting the attention of major labels. WesleyDodds 00:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were the first wave of punk. It was their experimentation that showed us what to and what not to do. Gold Stur 03:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. It's a genre of music, not science. Hell, Black Flag had music videos. The Minutemen had videos. WesleyDodds 07:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its kinda ridiculous how kids have been brainwashed into thinking Green Day are what punk rock is about.. I have actually seen adverts on television which say "Godfathers of Punk... Blink 182" haha, there is probably no hope for the Hot Topic/My Space generation, as far as genuine punk or even understanding it is concerned.

Christ, even Guns N' Roses showed more genuine punk tendancies in their music (see: The Spaghetti Incident?) than Green Day ever have... yet you don't see people arguing on that band's talkpage trying to have the band's genre classified as "punk".

Notable people who actually took part in the punk movement, also do not consider Green Day anything to do with punk...

Steve Diggle: "I didn't have a clue who they were. And they're not punks."[2]

Johnny Rotten: "Don't try and tell me Green Day are punk. They're not, they're plonk and they're bandwagoning on something they didn't come up with themselves. I think they are phony."[3]

Perhaps "Plonk Rock" would be more suitable?? heh - Deathrocker 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the sources for those quotes Deathrocker! I have added them to Green Day's criticism sub article. Gold Stur 05:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to call you on bias, Deathrocker, especially since you're the one who split pop punk into two different pages. I get the feeling you did so because you consider one set of musicians "true" punk and another "fake". You don't have to like bands like Good Charlotte, Sum 41, or Simple Plan (and God knows I don't; I detest all three) but it's not your decision to create these sorts of explicit distinctions on Wikipedia. Pop punk (the stuff from the late 80s to today) is considered a subgenre of punk rock, whether we like the music they make or not. WesleyDodds 07:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I split the article, was to remmedy the disputes (which I wasn't involved in) that have long been occuring on the talkpage, with regards to the two totally different forms of music from a different time frame, been stuffed into the same article. And the fact that they are not the same style of music.

I can't change the fact that due to some current-journalists lack of knowledge on music history, these bands have been misnomered as "pop punk" or "punk" with no reasoning as to why they should fall under such a label, this is an encyclopedia after all and the articles should be written with factuality in mind, and not taking common misconceptions as gospel...

A bit of hair product to spike up hair doesn't mean a band play a certain form of music, I don't think anybody who is of the opinion that these bands are "punk" has come up with logical reasons as to how they are the same musically, or even share any of the same values.... though, if I were biased and attempting at a neologism to divide the bands, surely I'd create an article for these bands which doesn't contain "punk" at all? - Deathrocker 09:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were disputes over the genre; however, no voices were calling for a split of the page. I understand what you were trying to do, but you jumped the gun. And nothing musically to do with punk? Despends which bands you are talking about, because chief examples of pop punk such as Green Day, The Offspring, Blink 182, Bad Religion, and Screeching Weasel have clear elements of punk rock in their sounds. WesleyDodds 09:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man!!! wikipedia pissed me off terribly (especially when this "pop punk revival" article appeared (lets not get into what happened with list of pop punk bands) BUT NOW...! wow im excited again, and hopeful. Actually, as a result of this split and the discussiong that has followed i think we have actually reached some conclusion. I will be merging the articles by Wednesday 9/2/06 (midwestern time 9pm). It seems the Merge Discussion has warranted this. However, the pop punk article will owe a debt to this conversation. The most important point being that The Ramones are not a pop punk band. I think this is what my problem was and a problem that other peopl may have had. I wouldnt have gotten to that point unless Deathrocker & Co. hadnt done something. Alright. The pop punk article will still need more edits etc, so the journey continues, but i think we've taken a crucial step. Now that we are have found some common ground, i'd like to direct your attention to the knockknockrecords pop punk bored.. where i've started a thread addressing this issue as well as some of the issues that might come up related to it. You can create an account and participate in the community if you wanna, its probably the coolest board that i know of related to independent pop punk. Here's a link directly to the topic so you can see what i'm talking about. http://bored.knockknockrecords.com/index.php?topic=17015.0. Alright. Set to merge articles on Wednesday 9/2/06. Xsxex 15:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I have no care of pop punk. I tend to stay in simple punk or hardcore punk. Gold Stur 19:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you have sure spent a lot of time discussing something which you have no care for. Xsxex 02:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

I'd like to see some sort of notable reference for this "revival". maxcap 12:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Pop punk's revival can be traced to 1988, with the establishment of Lookout! Records. Based in California, the label was releasing music that went against the California hardcore punk that was predominant on the scene at the time." [4] -Deathrocker 12:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also says "While the sound began with the Buzzcocks, it was several years before it grew into what is arguably the most popular subgenre of punk today.". It also doesn't explicitly state that there's a clear division to the point where everything from the late 80s onwards should be called "pop punk revival". WesleyDodds 08:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO SHIT.. .you guys are crazy.. theres a funny farm with your names written all over it but im getting out of here... (stop).. I SMELL ICE CREAM!!!!... !!! They got praleans and cream!!! They got mississippi mud!!! They got CHOCALTE ERUPTION!!!!!!.. i dont know.. i know punk is difficult to comprehend for you nazi punks (go figure out what that song really means)... but this is just getting funny... Pop punk revival... what will they think of next... i know Wikipedia is a user-friendly farce of a joke.. but this is too good.. keep going.. keep going!!! - Oh for your reference.. it says "Pop punk's revival" which implies the resurgence of pop punk... SHOW US a reference that actually USES THE TERM pop punk revival. THIS IS NOT A NOTABLE TERM.... (further dispute of this article is written below) Xsxex 01:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wow, for music thats so simple, youve made it sound so complicated. However, one thing would say is that johnny rotten has no right to say green day arent punk. The sex pistols were on a major label, just like green day and the music is (no matter what you people try to say) while not the exact same, similar. Another thing, green day and blink surely cannot be classed with the likes of fall out boy. PS( just for all the 'im more punk than you' people) - this debate isnt very punk

but not signing your comments is punk!.... check again punk is not punk Xsxex 08:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - (No Revival)[edit]

Sorry, nice try though, it must have taken a little time to do this, however we need a more references than what you have provided. I have almost never come across the term "pop punk revival." i think you are trying to invent some kind of new term, in that case you might want to get a masters in writing and attempt to get a job for a major music publication or write a best selling book. Pop punk is just that ... pop punk .. it never really died it has just gone in and out of style over the years. - and for the wikipedia community at large... im getting pretty fed up with this. whats the point in writing an article if its gonna be disected without discussion a month later. Xsxex 15:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic blurb on "Punk Revival". They don't call it "pop-punk revival" though. But still, the idea that a more melodic type of punk made a splash around the late 80s and early 90s is not new. The Ungovernable Force 17:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, another music source I know that has its head up its ass. Oh well, punk is dead. Gold Stur 19:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punk's not dead. There's still a weak pulse, but I think it's brain dead and stopped breathing. The Ungovernable Force 22:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point !!! i agree with you that AMG is BS but... whats the point of pop punk revival that doesnt describe anything... ive never heard that used... 24.13.194.165 01:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hoepfully it can be used as a substitute for "punk rock" when it comes to bands considered to be in the pop punk revival genre. Gold Stur 04:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one of those really touchy subjects and I definitely understand some people's reluctance to have this article. If this were afd, I would say weak keep, but it really should be sourced better. At the same time, I also see the reluctance to label bands like simple plan, blink-182, green day etc as "punk" (I wouldn't in real life). I think pop-punk seems like it might be good enough though. The Ungovernable Force 04:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ungovernable, yup. ! pop punk is a good term to describe these bands. In fact thats what they have been referred to for a long time since the late 80s in MRR. However each year the boundary is pushed and pushed. But thats punk for yeeee. Xsxex 12:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Punk Revival is QUALITATIVE EXCREMENT (part 1)[edit]

Haha this must be some big joke right?? The Ramones were BARELY called punk rock to begin with let alone Pop Punk... from 1974-1977 (until the summer of 77 in london) punk was still a very esotric term... The term "Pop punk" probably was first uttered in the mid to late 80s to describe the music in on the West coast.. The Ramones and many others (as listed in the beginning) were instrumental in the pop punk sound, but this was only realized later. The Ramones were never considered pop punk until the late 80s/ early 90s.. and was reclaimed by bands such as Screeching Weasel. But you have to understand that Screeching Weasel took at least 10 years to become possible after punk (summer of 77). Point being... Pop punk was probably first concieved in the late 80s and broke on to the mainstream in the mid 90s... after which it continued to gain in popularity up to the present. Since the popularity of pop punk has never been obsolete or in serious decline... it makes no sense to speak of a "Pop punk revival." Furthermore I have never heard someone say they are in a pop punk revival band... and i have never heard a band described as a "pop punk revival" group. The author should reconsile these issues and make the appropriate corrections. If you want to spout off, start a zine!!! FURTHERMORE... SHOW US ONE BAND ON WIKIPEDIA THAT IS DESCRIBED AS "POP PUNK REVIVAL" - THIS NEOLOGISM IS USELESS Xsxex 01:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only person I can see "spouting off" is you, on this article you attack users by calling editors "Nazis"[5] and on the other article where you were throwing a little fit, you provided a link that didn't even work, claimed that you wrote the entire pop punk article and don't like people editing it. [6]

News flash; that isn’t how Wikipedia works it is an open encyclopaedia where people work civilly together on articles (a concept seemingly foreign to you), its not a "only Xsxex can edit, and whines when anyone else does.com" please make yourself familar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines....

The two forms of music are clearly entirely different concepts and there has been problems with the two been lumped into the same article for a long time [7], this was an attempt to remedy it. If you wish that this article be renamed Californian Pop Punk, or in a similar way such as; Pop Punk (revival)... then please go ahead and suggest it instead of abusing the caps lock key and throwing a fit... I don't see a problem with that.

Pop punk of the 1970s and that of present day Californian variation made popular via MTV, do not have the same influences, the same sound, come from two entirely different perspectives and time frames, if you don‘t like that fact, then I suggest you go to a Ramones fansite and complain that they made music first. - Deathrocker 02:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo cool at least there is some discussion here. Deathrocker... yeah The Ramones were the main influence on the form of punk which became popular in the mid 90s. Yet there are fundamental differences between Green Day and The Ramones. The most important point, however, is left unexplained in the "pop punk revival" article. WERE The Ramones EVER REFERRED TO AS A POP PUNK BAND (prior to the late 80s) I THINK NOT. Instead, quite the contrary. The Ramones were barely described as a punk band, and it was only until 1976 when The Ramones were put on the cover of John Holstrom's Punk Magazine (zine) did a sufficent number of events start to coincide to where The Ramones were even called punk. Even after their triumphant debut in London on July 4th 1976 Roundhouse, they returned to New York City and no one knew who they were. The Ramones wanted a number 1 hit. They wanted to sell out all of their album copies and more, but for The Ramones, it was British punk, the summer of 77 and The Sex Pistols, The Clash, and The Buzzcocks who were actually able to capitalize on their developments. In 1978 The Ramones felt as if they had started a revolution but had reaped none of the rewards. In the film, End of the Century, the Ramones discuss how they did not even think of themselves as a punk band in the beginning (during the 70s). We have to remember that pop punk was itself an acknowledgement of punk's pop/anti-pop roots. The Ramones have never been more important that right now (and their importance keeps increasing little by little). The most visible and outright notorious punk band was of course The Sex Pistols. (and if we do our research we'll find that they were a fabricated construction, along the line of The Monkeys, N*Sync, and New Kids on the Block, or even Spice Girls. The managerial role and artistic imput of Macolm McLaren demands this comparison.) So even from the beginning punk is acting upon and counteracting pop. So how can we say that the punk of the 70s and the California version of punk popularized by MTV do not have the same influences? Both were caustically against the dominant pop status quo. Only the "California verison" (which is a simplification of the geographical diversity of punk in the early/mid 90s) had the influence of 70s punk and 80s hardcore (hardcore being a direct response to 70s punk).... Using this logic, then what became called pop punk in the pages of MaximumRockNRoll by the late 80s and early nineties was in effect in direct lineage from the originators of punk, only now a new term was used to describe those bands that prefered a melodic approach. The subsequent popularity of such groups as The Offspring, NOFX, Bad Religion, and Green Day then became influences for future generations of pop punk. blink-182 is of course the next most notable example. The most striking aspect of which, was they appropriation of pop production techniques in the studio which expanded the audible repetoir, pushing the boundaries beyond albums such as Dookie (which was remixed by Jerry Finn). Additionally, Travis Barker nuanced rhythms referenced hardcore/post hardcore's spotlighting of the drummer. The further expansion of boundaries in the age of digital media, internet communciations, and mp3 players was achieved by a variety of bands which increasingly were confortable and polarized by fusing different genres to the punk/hardcore/pop punk model. These post millenium bands, however, draw influence and pay tribute to this lineage. Increasingly, though it is difficult to draw the line between what is punk and what references punk. Yet the de-authentication of punk was designed into the first punk icons. Anonynous, any-kid, any-where, with anybody. The spitting whinning Johnny Rotten or the echoing croons of Joey Ramone. P.S. you are punk!, punk!Xsxex 02:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address each parts with points...

1. The Sex Pistols as a "boyband" theory is a total myth.

Three members (the musical side of the band) were playing together before they even came into contact with MacLaren.. upon which Rotten was added into the band through being a mutual friend... the bands original material was wrote by themselves and even the fashion side (safety pins, ripped clothing) it is claimed in the The Filth and the Fury documentary that Rotten was using it before he joined the band and was the one who brought it into the Pistols. (Though MacLaren claims he had taken it from Richard Hell, as he was doing something similar)

It is rather amusing to see how many people on the internet have misconstrued MacLaren's later tongue in cheek attempts to re-write the history of the band as fact though.

2. Correct the Ramones did want to be popular... and they were steadily gaining popularity on both sides of the Atlantic just before 1977 British bands began to pop up. If you watch the documentary "End of the Century: The Story of the Ramones", they actual say the Sex Pistols stole their limelight when that band became very popular... and the Ramones were still touring in vans, playing small clubs.. its not like they were living in mansions as Kings or anything after the London punk scene exploded, the only real money they continued to get was the t-shirt money.

And as far as importance; the band were key to punk rock coming about in the first place... they were the link from the New York Max's Kansas City/CBGBs movement to the London bands... when they played the UK and people from bands such as the Damned, the Clash and the Sex Pistols attended they took onboard alot of what that band was doing and implemented it into their sound.... I don't see how they can be considered more important to modern day bands whom the media claims to be "punk" than to the original movement.

3. As you said, MTV's variation of modern day "pop punk" or Californian Pop Punk if you will emerged in an environment where Hardcore had previously taken place.. and undoubtedly took some influence from that, so to start off it isn't even "punk" in the same sense that Buzzcocks and others were in the first place..

And onto the "pop" side... the pop music in the Ramones (influences from 1960s Bubblegum pop) and other 1970s bands... is from a totally different perspective than that of say Blink 182 or Sum 41 are. I have a very hard time believing that any of the MTV Warped Tour bands are even aware of the music which the original pop punk bands took influence from (such as Joey Levine, for example).. let alone sharing those same influences, they're not even reading from the same book. Thus making the two kinds of bands which are labelled "pop punk", two very separate and entirely different concepts. - Deathrocker 03:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

xsxex response:
Deathrocker quote: "I have a very hard time believing that any of the MTV Warped Tour bands are even aware of the music which the original pop punk bands took influence from (such as Joey Levine, for example).."
Deathrocker, this statement makes no sense because pop punk bands DONT reference Joey Levine or the 60s bubgum... basically ONLY THE RAMONES DO and they are a PUNK band not a "pop punk" band. However, they are so NOTABLE in the realm of pop punk because they created the mold but they were never referred to as a pop punk band during their career. Moreover... the MTV Warped Tour bands ARE the ORIGINAL POP PUNK BANDS.

So actually, there are not two kinds of bands labelled "pop punk." There are only punk bands which are just punk bands. And there are pop punk bands which reference directly or indirectly reference The Ramones. YUP. However there are NO "pop punk revival" bands... (go start one) Also... Thank you for restating eveything I wrote about The Ramones, (even down to the show at the Roundhouse July 4th 1976) ... As for The Sex Pistols, I'd check again. McLaren is the link between Richard Hell and Johnny Rotten. But think... WHO OWNED A BOUTIQUE? Who managed The Modern Lovers. Who's the Svengali of the Sex Pistols? You might want to actually read Sex Pistols or try reading Malcolm McLaren. McLaren's "persective" is valuable and informative. And what I've come to see is that the Sex Pistols have all the trappings of a BOY BAND. (((Outraged!!!Scandal!!! Your brain is doing flip-flops!!!))).... As for the newer bands, of the late 90s through today, their "punkness" needs to be determined on a case by case basis. However, thats the jobs of the band members themselves, the journalists, record reviewers, etc... However its my opinion that referencing The Ramones or other punk groups or any music for that matter should not be limited to anyone group of people, no one has a monopoly on punk, gasp... not even me, poor baby.

Remember Mr. Holland's Opus when he puts on some rock and roll for the students? We have still yet to reach the point where punk has become canonized. Again... remember that The Eagles Greatest Hits is the number one selling record in America. Comparatively, interest in The Ramones is still a rare commodity. Yet of these new bands... I'd say they are qualitatively more aware than the average "true punker 77'" to who the statement "punk is dead" is an war-cry. What's more, they are making new music, connecting with newer generations and continuing forward. Yet under it all there is a connection to punk. There are lots of examples, such as Why does Gwen Stefani name drop Vivienne Westwood on Rich Girls. Or what do you think about this: this. Or this. You could say it's "punxploitation" yet what i'll say is SO ARE THE SEX PISTOLS.. they just did it first... More over though, AS YOU SAID, these pop punk groups NO LONGER HAVE TO REFERENCE (Joey Levine, Hermans Hermits (where The Ramones got "second verse same as the first"), The Beatles, Bay City Rollers, etc...) ..... final point. POP PUNK references THE RAMONES and the rest of punk history in whatever quantity they want!!! And since I'm sure you think Ben Weasel is a wannabe poser, this wont piss you off at all.
peace in / peace out. Xsxex 13:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're still incorrect about the Sex Pistols, as I've shown you that the band were already together before they even met their manager and indeed wrote their own songs (which boybands didn't do)... boybands don't assemble themselves, write their own music, and then go find a manager... also you may like to read the Sex Pistols article yourself it states clearly "in later years band members frequently accused McLaren both of cheating them financially, and of claiming credit for things that were not his idea as well as falsifying the bands' history"...

The Great Rock N' Roll Swindle is more of a fictional movie, a form of comedy, which foreign people who watch it don't seem to understand, than a genuine attempt at a documentary... The Filth and the Fury however is a straight faced, factual documentary. Huge difference, I think I'll believe a documentary over a comedy movie... but anyway, this isn't really relevent to this article at hand...

And as far as whether "Ben Weasel is a poser or not"... I don't really care, and am a little mature for "X is a poser", his rock band started playing music after punk rock had died, if that is what you mean....

Fact is punk rock is a very short lived genre of music (as was the original pop punk bands) from a spercific time frame, it died and the music media are just too lazy (or stupid) to think up and fully use whole new terms for bands that came along after... (Hardcore for example is a contradiction to what punk rock was originally about, yet people will still call it "punk" all of the time)... this is where you get little teenybopper kiddies growing up with their corny "Punks Not Dead" badges they bought from Hot Topic, thinking the definition of punk rock is NOFX, Minor Threat or Green Day, Good Charlotte, etc... uneducated musical journalists are to blame more than anything....

For example the media call Marilyn Manson "goth".. although he has never played music which sounds remotely like Bauhaus or any of those bands.

Just as the media calls Blink 182 and bands like that "punk".. although they have never played music which sounds remotely like the Damned or any of those bands. Its the same situation. - Deathrocker 04:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deathrocker is right... The melodic, poppy music of the Ramones, Billy Idol and Generation X (band), Blondie (band), Buzzcocks, The Damned, and their ilk was not the same as the agressive, angry punk played by more "punk" bands like the Sex Pistols. The former is now known as pop punk, (or "buzzpop" to some of those in the underground pop punk scene), and the latter just punk. Pop punk is recognised, by its musicians, fans and critics the world over as a fusion of punk rock and pop music, specifically bubblegum pop in most cases. Later, hardcore would develop its own subsection of pop punk, for example, the Descendents (band). Eventually, as more pop punk and melodic hardcore acts came to prominence in the eighties, they formed separate scenes and terminology changed. "Skate punk" stopped referring to hardcore with an association with skateboarding, and came to refer to hardcore infused with pop punk and sometimes ska. Later again, pop punk was used to refer to popular "punk" bands instead of musically poppy punk bands. Eventually, the term became very wide, incorporating pop-punk bands from the original Ramones-style genre (Screeching Weasel, Epoxies), and at the other end of the spectrum, to pop bands and even boybands with a manufactured "punk" aesthetic (Busted, Simple Plan). Marilyn Manson isn't goth, but he is marketed and labelled as a "gothic" artist. Same case here.--Switch 08:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Punk Revival is QUALITATIVE EXCREMENT (part 2)[edit]

reponding to Deathrocker and Switch (above) As for the Sex Pistols, my original statement was that The Sex Pistols have ALL THE TRAPPINGS of a boy band. This is merely to provide a comparison and to state that things are sometime not as waterproof as they seem. As you know, the Sex Pistols only became NOTABLE after McLaren took on managing responsibilities. It was through McLaren's changing boutique that the The Strand/The Swankers met Rotten. They were asking McLaren to manage them as early as 1973 to which he said no. Only later when McLaren took on managing responsibilites, changed their name to Sex Pistols (in coordination with his clothing store, SEX) and imparted his artistic education which he picked up in NYC while managing The New York Dolls did the new group begin to make an impact. Again, I would have a hard time believing that "The Swankers" would have much if not for McLaren, yet that is not to say that the members of the Sex Pistols were not integral to their own artistic achievements. I'd venture to offer the comparison of a professor and students. The Sex Pistols were like students under the guidance of their professor McLaren. Both contributed but it was McLaren who were using them to promote his business, McLaren "punk'd" the Sex Pistols yeah.. and that dialogue/dispute/dynamic is the motivational kernel of the Sex Pistols marketing identity. Again as you said, now we "have" to buy two films TGRnRS & TF&TF. Keep knocken' em back. You'll believe the documentary, I'm sure, I bet you "believed" Fahrenheit 9/11, just like you "believed" Nanook of the North and just like you don't "believe" in G-d. (The point im making here, again, is that we have two different perspectives in the two films, and just because something is labeled a documentary does mean that it is any more "true" than even a fictional film, no photograph is intrinsically more "true" than another. By the way you probably critized MTVs "The Real World" because it didn't depict "reality." I did too for a while until I gained some perspective.) Again, this is all part of the Punk Mythology.
So who are, as you say, "the original pop punk bands."
As said before, "hardcore" is a shortening of "hardcore punk," certainly the members of Black Flag (band), Crass, and possibly Minor Threat and Bad Brains adopted a "holier than thou/punker than thou" attitude, or adopted it in response to the growing "HtT/PtT" attitude in the scene to reflect it and shove it back in people's faces. The point is that these bands and countless bands since have found the aggression, attitude, and artistic stand point of punk is something that they reflect within themselves. Yet also remember that "punk" was RARELY a contruction of the "original punk bands" to whom the label was evenutally applied (somewhere in the punk rock discussion they say it was The Damned who were the first to market a record as a "punk record"). The Ramones didn't say they were a punk band until later. I think only McLaren really had a vision for punk and his motivation was to sell t-shirts. But this also become secondary to the entire scope of the punk pantheon.
As for Switch: quote '"Deathrocker is right... The melodic, poppy music of the Ramones, Billy Idol and Generation X (band), Blondie (band), Buzzcocks, The Damned, and their ilk was not the same as the agressive, angry punk played by more "punk" bands like the Sex Pistols. The former is now known as pop punk, (or "buzzpop" to some of those in the underground pop punk scene), and the latter just punk.' Again, these are not POP PUNK bands. They are all punk bands (Blondie is New Wave, and Idol could be both). Can we just finally agree that:

"The term pop punk refers to musical artists who combine the catchy "sing-song" attributes of some of the original punk groups, such as; The Ramones, The Sex Pistols, The Misfits, The Clash, and The Buzzcocks, with contemporary pop music trends. Unlike punk, which was primarily a dialogue between New York City and London, pop punk is predominantly an American phenomenon which has since spread to other countries such as England, Canada, and others around the world. Notable pop punk groups include Green Day, blink-182, Good Charlotte, Simple Plan, and Fall Out Boy(with sources).

The term was first used in the late 80s? (working on references!) in such publications as MaximumRocknRoll and other fanzines of the scene. Around this time, the underground scenes got a shot in the arm from Nirvana's success in 1991, with the album Nevermind (album). This album not only defined grunge (a fusing of metal, indie, hardcore, and punk) but it set the stage for pop punk's popular acceptance. 1994 was a defining year as several events coincided to propel pop punk beyond expectation. Green Day, who had been turning down offers from major labels for several years (example: source liner notes to 39/smooth LP 1990) while simultaneously getting lambasted within the scene (reference MRR#124, sept 1993, ben weasel column) finally caved-in and signed with Reprise Records releasing Dookie in February. Kurt Cobain's death on April 5th swept through music scenes and high school cafeterias across the nation resulting in significant exposure for the wide spectrum of "alternative music." With the eyes of the nation on Seattle and underground music, the popularity of Dookie swelled, and mass attention was paid to similar groups such as NOFX, Bad Religion, Rancid, and The Offspring who released Smash (album) weeks later on April 19th. By the end of year, Dookie and Smash together sold over 20 million copies and pop punk had become a force onto itself. (continue later) Xsxex 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"As for Switch: quote '"Deathrocker is right... The melodic, poppy music of the Ramones, Billy Idol and Generation X (band), Blondie (band), Buzzcocks, The Damned, and their ilk was not the same as the agressive, angry punk played by more "punk" bands like the Sex Pistols. The former is now known as pop punk, (or "buzzpop" to some of those in the underground pop punk scene), and the latter just punk.' Again, these are not POP PUNK bands. They are all punk bands (Blondie is New Wave, and Idol could be both). Can we just finally agree that:"

Sorry, but no, we can't. I think you'll have a hard time explaining to Ben Weasel, Mitch Clem, Roxy Epoxy and far more in the pop punk scene that the Ramones weren't a pop punk band. They called themselves pop. New Wave and punk are the same damn thing, so I've no idea where you're going with that. Billy Idol was on Warped Tour, which is about as pop-punk as you can get, and the biopic in the inlay to his Greatest Hits album also refers to his music as "dance punk", "punk disco" and "pop punk". The blurb on the back of the Buzzcocks DVD says that the Buzzcocks were "a combination of punk and pop", which is kind of just what pop punk is. Saying they're punk bands, not pop-punk bands, is like saying the Sex Pistols "aren't a punk band - they're a rock band!" It doesn't mean anything. --Switch 03:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difference of semantics and context. Saying "a combination of punk and pop" does not automatically refer to the genre known as pop punk. WesleyDodds 06:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Henry The Eighth, I Am[edit]

Only in a talk page discussing the merits (or otherwise) of how to describe / quantify / evaluate / pigeon-hole / dissect / etc., the undoubted beauties of punk rock; could you find a reference to a quintessentially English, music hall nonsense rhyme, as this song.

The articles grow by their diversity, and the sheer undiluted passion of its contributors. My pathethic input apart - and this is nothing than a pig in a poke - The Stranglers, Sex Pistols, Clash, Wire, Damned and Ramones have first rights to the 'punk' name, BUT Green Day - bless 'em - have done more than most to spearhead a revival in one of the most ancient forms of music - just having a blast for the sheer hell of it.

Do not, please, get hamstrung on shades of texture - this was never what punk was about. Let them all do their worst, their very worst if necessary, and thank them for simply having a go.

Derek R Bullamore 22:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramones and Pop (and punk)[edit]

The pop influences on the Ramones were obvious on day one (can we say "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend"?), and only grew more obvious (can we say "Rockaway Beach"?). Joey Ramone most likely named himself after Joey Levine (not merely pop but bubblegum).

If "pop punk" is a genre them, no, they are not "pop punk", just like Lucian of Samosata is not science fiction or speculative fiction. If it is a description, then, yes, they are (or were) punker and poppier than Green Day or the Offspring will ever be. - Jmabel | Talk 21:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]