PDA

View Full Version : Jakebert's Music Thought of the Night



Jakebert
07-12-2007, 09:06 PM
I haven't done one of these in a while, but the other night I was inspired.

On the wall home from Best Buy, sitting in my car listening to "New Maps of Hell" by Bad Religion, which I had just bought, I started thinking. Punk rock used to be my go-to genre of music. Bad Brains, Circle Jerks, Dead Kennedys, ect. made up my entire music collection. My old computer still has about 400 songs from that era of my musical journey. But, listening to the new Bad Religion album, I realized that aside from Bad Religion, I don't really listen to punk rock anymore.

The way I see it now, is that punk rock is essentially a genre made for immature teenagers. When it comes down to it, punk rock is just a shallow, mindless genre that poses as being rebellious and smart. Kind of like a teenager going through their "fuck my parents!" phase. Granted, there are a lot of bands who are intelligent enough, but at same time, I can only think of like 3 or 4 bands that really come off as real musical talent, and this isn't coming from someone who only knows the major bands. At one point, I was an expert on punk rock in all of it's forms, and I still retain most of that knowledge.

Now that I've grown a little bit and matured, I find myself wanting more subsance from my music. The same feeling I got when I listened to nu-metal, I'm now getting from punk rock. Strangely enough, the music I once used as a refuge from all things bland, generic, and shallow now comes off to me as bland, generic, and shallow.

Musically, punk rock's simplicity is it's biggest asset according to it's fans. But when you really pay attention, it's actually only there because of poor musicianship. It's the reason most punk bands move away from the genre as they grow as musicians, because eventually the same 3 chords get boring and limiting, and because once they actually learn to play their instruments, there's no need for the sloppy simplicity of punk rock. There's no real skill or talent behind it, it's mostly just a fluke, especially when you're talking about most of the 80's hardcore bands that all sound the exact same. Minimalism and simplicity are great, but only when there's a real reason behind it, not when it's only done because the musicans can't play anything else.

Even looking at the so-called "greats" of the genre, the music really kind of sucks. I listened to Minor Threat's "Complete Discography" the other day, and found that a good 90% of the songs on it all sound the exact same. It used to be one of my favorite CD's, but now I just found myself incredibly bored with it. Not because I was used to it, but because it all sounded so generic and the same. Nothing about it stood out as being great. Just sloppy and amaturish.

But then I really started thinking about the lyrics. And that's when I really got depressed about ever listening to punk rock. Lyrically, it's just a bunch of overgrown teenagers still bitching about things that I grew out of bitching about 2 years ago. And some of these guys were older than me when they wrote this stuff. Listening to "Milo Goes to College", I was almost embarassed by how childish the lyrics were, and I felt the same reaction to a lot of songs on "Cool To Be You", which was released when those same people were in their 30's. There seems to be no sense of maturing or growing up. It's all stuck in this immature little space in time, and I don't understand how people don't outgrow it. It's all so shallow. Sure, it sounds more dangerous than mainstream rock music, but it's essentially just as shallow.

coke_a_holic
07-12-2007, 11:29 PM
I would've agreed with you until recently. I have been listening to lots of punk bands that I think have plenty of talent with what they do, despite playing in a genre that seems to be an abysmal display of what it takes to be a musician in this day and age.

Lately, all I've been really listening to is Against Me! and Bomb The Music Industry!, which are two punk bands (note the exclamation points), but they have actual talent with what they do, which has pulled me away from the "punk is all awful, angst-driven nonsense!" picket that I had been wielding beforehand.

While what you say is true, it would take a whole lot more than reason to prove to any of these kids that their very way of life, the one thing that unites all suburban angst-ridden pubescent boys, is a complete farce. I'd say give up while you're ahead.

wheelchairman
07-12-2007, 11:48 PM
I find punk to just be shitty these days. I suppose I listen to AFI and Bad Religion still. Last.FM claims I listen to the offspring but that's only cause itunes is on shuffle, I usually skip them. oh the Clash are still good.

Otherwise you can find better sounding genres that express things you relate to better.

coke_a_holic
07-13-2007, 12:05 AM
Word on The Clash; London Calling is still my all-time favorite cd.

nieh
07-13-2007, 08:24 AM
I agree with most of what you said, but there's definitely some exceptions to the rule. Plus, being technically skillful to me comes second to being interesting and creative, so the fact that a punk band is probably not that talented doesn't really mean much to me. Just because you can play, doesn't mean I want to listen to you (this means YOU, Dream Theater). I tend not to listen to straight punk rock stuff like Bad Religion, Pennywise, etc., but there's lots of bands that still fall under the punk label or some sub-genre that manage to do lots of interesting things (Fugazi, Q and not U, Cursive, etc.). In all honesty though, it's the same way with every genre of music out there. There's always a shitload of bland, generic groups that make up the majority that follow the pre-designed rules of the genre to the letter, and then there's a few that stand out and do something special, even if that 'something special' happens to fall within the same genre as all the mediocre, worthless bands.

mrconeman
07-13-2007, 08:33 AM
I never really took punk music all that seriously to begin with, so I can't really say I know what you're going through. I never turned to punk for deep meaningful lyrics or anything above average musicianship.

I only ever listened to it as a fun thing to sing along to. Although in saying that I do agree a whole lot that most of it sounds exactly the same and there is alot of generic and bland going on, which is probably why I only ever listened to two pop punk bands (Offspring, Greenday) and a few of the original 70's punk lot (The Clash, The Ramones, Sex Pistols, Dead Kennedys). I suppose all of which I listen to less these days anyway, alot less in some cases.

so, uh, yeah. As usual I generally agree with everything said, I just didn't go through it myself.

edits:
Plus, being technically skillful to me comes second to being interesting and creative, so the fact that a punk band is probably not that talented doesn't really mean much to me.
I thought of saying exactly that during my post, and forgot.

Jakebert
07-13-2007, 09:56 AM
Lately, all I've been really listening to is Against Me! and Bomb The Music Industry!, which are two punk bands (note the exclamation points), but they have actual talent with what they do, which has pulled me away from the "punk is all awful, angst-driven nonsense!" picket that I had been wielding beforehand.

While what you say is true, it would take a whole lot more than reason to prove to any of these kids that their very way of life, the one thing that unites all suburban angst-ridden pubescent boys, is a complete farce. I'd say give up while you're ahead.

Against Me! is one of the exceptions to the rule, and I think that they show a lot of talent as musicians. I've never really listened to Bomb the Music Industry! because people started suggesting them to me after I got uninteresting in most punk rock, so I never really bothered to check them out.

I'm not really trying to convince anyone of anything as much as I was just musing to myself. I actually tried to stay away from being confrontational with my post because I didn't want to have to deal with the "omgztrupunx" crowd here.


Otherwise you can find better sounding genres that express things you relate to better.

Exactly. There are so many genres that do the same things that punk tries to do without sacrificing talent and originality.


I agree with most of what you said, but there's definitely some exceptions to the rule. Plus, being technically skillful to me comes second to being interesting and creative, so the fact that a punk band is probably not that talented doesn't really mean much to me. Just because you can play, doesn't mean I want to listen to you (this means YOU, Dream Theater). I tend not to listen to straight punk rock stuff like Bad Religion, Pennywise, etc., but there's lots of bands that still fall under the punk label or some sub-genre that manage to do lots of interesting things (Fugazi, Q and not U, Cursive, etc.). In all honesty though, it's the same way with every genre of music out there. There's always a shitload of bland, generic groups that make up the majority that follow the pre-designed rules of the genre to the letter, and then there's a few that stand out and do something special, even if that 'something special' happens to fall within the same genre as all the mediocre, worthless bands.

I guess I just find that punk rock is the biggest offender when it comes to bland, generic bands. I know other genres, including ones I really like, have those too, but half of the idea of punk is that all the bands have to stick to the same basic formula.

Technical skill isn't a huge thing with me either, and I've made a "Thought of the Night" thread about that too. But the problem is that if you can barely play your instrument, then chances are you don't know how to be creative with it. You don't have to be a totally amazing guitarist or anything, I just think that some level of skill needs to be there in order to really do anything.

Also, I'm glad someone else on here doesn't like Dream Theater either. I honestly just don't get the appeal of their music at all.

opivy21
07-13-2007, 10:38 AM
The way I see it now, is that punk rock is essentially a genre made for immature teenagers. When it comes down to it, punk rock is just a shallow, mindless genre that poses as being rebellious and smart. Kind of like a teenager going through their "fuck my parents!" phase. Granted, there are a lot of bands who are intelligent enough, but at same time, I can only think of like 3 or 4 bands that really come off as real musical talent, and this isn't coming from someone who only knows the major bands. At one point, I was an expert on punk rock in all of it's forms, and I still retain most of that knowledge.
I listen to punk, and believe it or not, I'm not immature, and I don't hate my parents. Punk is a little deeper than that, and I can assure you that there are many punk bands that are both "intelligent enough" and possessing real musical talent. Examples:X, Radio Birdman, The Tubes, Minutemen, Saccharine Trust, Meat Puppets, The Saints, Crime, and so on.


Now that I've grown a little bit and matured, I find myself wanting more subsance from my music. The same feeling I got when I listened to nu-metal, I'm now getting from punk rock. Strangely enough, the music I once used as a refuge from all things bland, generic, and shallow now comes off to me as bland, generic, and shallow.
I don't know what punk you're listening to that sounds generic or bland. I will acknowledge that ever since the 70s, punk has been ripped off and cheaply imitated more than just about any other genre, and some of the resulting bands have been completely awful, but at the same time, the original bands still sound fresh (to me). I assume you're probably talking about shit bands like Pennywise, the Casualties, etc., and if so, I can totally see where you're coming from, but from the first wave of bands I'd be hard pressed to find any two bands that sounded very similar to each other.


Musically, punk rock's simplicity is it's biggest asset according to it's fans. But when you really pay attention, it's actually only there because of poor musicianship. It's the reason most punk bands move away from the genre as they grow as musicians, because eventually the same 3 chords get boring and limiting, and because once they actually learn to play their instruments, there's no need for the sloppy simplicity of punk rock. There's no real skill or talent behind it, it's mostly just a fluke, especially when you're talking about most of the 80's hardcore bands that all sound the exact same. Minimalism and simplicity are great, but only when there's a real reason behind it, not when it's only done because the musicans can't play anything else.
Simplicity can be an asset, but that's really just a stereotype of punk. The reason that I personally appreciate simplicity in music is because it makes the music that much more accessible to those who listen to it. It's fun to be able to play along with a band you like even if you aren't very talented. That being said, there are/were many punk bands with great musicianship. More examples: Richard Hell and the Voidoids, Television, The Dictators, Johnny Thunders, The Oblivians (there's a modern-ish band for you), Reagan Youth, Slaughter and the Dogs, The Toy Dolls, The Damned, Angel City Outcasts (a current band), etc.

I can't defend 80's hardcore bands, and I don't really care to. I usually try to separate hardcore from punk because while hardcore did sprout from punk, there aren't many similarities. I do enjoy quite a few hardcore bands, but I would also agree that a lot of 80's hardcore was completely unoriginal and dumb.


Even looking at the so-called "greats" of the genre, the music really kind of sucks. I listened to Minor Threat's "Complete Discography" the other day, and found that a good 90% of the songs on it all sound the exact same. It used to be one of my favorite CD's, but now I just found myself incredibly bored with it. Not because I was used to it, but because it all sounded so generic and the same. Nothing about it stood out as being great. Just sloppy and amaturish.
No argument here. Minor Threat mostly sucks.


But then I really started thinking about the lyrics. And that's when I really got depressed about ever listening to punk rock. Lyrically, it's just a bunch of overgrown teenagers still bitching about things that I grew out of bitching about 2 years ago. And some of these guys were older than me when they wrote this stuff. Listening to "Milo Goes to College", I was almost embarassed by how childish the lyrics were, and I felt the same reaction to a lot of songs on "Cool To Be You", which was released when those same people were in their 30's. There seems to be no sense of maturing or growing up. It's all stuck in this immature little space in time, and I don't understand how people don't outgrow it. It's all so shallow. Sure, it sounds more dangerous than mainstream rock music, but it's essentially just as shallow.
Yes, there are and were bands comprised of angsty grown men, but once again, most of punk's lyrics were not like that. X, the Minutemen, Richard Hell, The New Bomb Turks - those bands don't sing about their parents, or anarchy. The lyrics are thought out and clever, but they're still relatable and actually about something.

endlesst0m
07-16-2007, 02:58 PM
Most of this is true, but I would argue that it mostly only applies to Street Punk.

German Andres
07-16-2007, 03:51 PM
I really agree with everything Jakebert said. Saint words.

jacknife737
07-16-2007, 06:24 PM
I thought about writing a brief essay in response to Jakebert’s musings, but I realized that I don’t really care all that much. What he/she wrote was well written, but I probably disagree with about 90% of what was written. There are some things that I dislike about “punk”, most of all it’s the entirely retarded “scene politics”, but despite this I find that as I get older I am turning more and more to punk (and ska) as my music of choice. One of the things that I find most appealing is the diversity (yeah, I know it’s a word not often used to describe “punk” but bear with me) if I want something a little more simple and “poppy” sounding I can turn to bands like Dead To Me, if I wanted something a little more complex I can turn to bands like Against Me!. If I want something with ska influences I can listen to Rancid, but should I want something a little more melodic I can listen to Alkaline Trio. But most of all why I think that I’m turning to “punk” more and more is the energy that I feel that it gives off, by listening to it I can vent off much of my frustrations that I have built up during the day.

Homer
07-16-2007, 07:54 PM
I disagree with this thread, well, most of it anyways.

Instead of writing a big post about everything, I've decided just to tackle a part of what was said... The reason why most punk songs are easy to play, and sound quite the same (well, early 80's hardcore punk, for that matter) because the idea is that if it's easy to play, then more people could play it. The lyrics sound similar because almost all of that punk came from the same idea in a short amount of time. Anyways, there's a lot more substance to punk than you think, it's not really in the song, but the idea behind the song, if that makes any sense. Oh well, there's my short, half-assed post on the subject.

And I like Minor Threat... well, most of the stuff I've heard of them, it's hard to get their stuff out here.

Jakebert
07-16-2007, 10:52 PM
I thought about writing a brief essay in response to Jakebert’s musings, but I realized that I don’t really care all that much. What he/she wrote was well written, but I probably disagree with about 90% of what was written. There are some things that I dislike about “punk”, most of all it’s the entirely retarded “scene politics”, but despite this I find that as I get older I am turning more and more to punk (and ska) as my music of choice. One of the things that I find most appealing is the diversity (yeah, I know it’s a word often used to describe “punk” but bear with me) if I want something a little more simple and “poppy” sounding I can turn to bands like Dead To Me, if I wanted something a little more complex I can turn to bands like Against Me!. If I want something with ska influences I can listen to Rancid, but should I want something a little more melodic I can listen to Alkaline Trio. But most of all why I think that I’m turning to “punk” more and more is the energy that I feel that it gives off, by listening to it I can vent off much of my frustrations that I have built up during the day.

There's so much more variety in other genres than in punk rock. At the end of the day, every single punk rock band follows the same basic formula, no matter what other genres are infused with it.

And even though I like Against Me!, calling them complex is just...no. They're not complex. They may have more complexity than most punk bands, but they're still not complex when compared to any other genre.


I disagree with this thread, well, most of it anyways.

Instead of writing a big post about everything, I've decided just to tackle a part of what was said... The reason why most punk songs are easy to play, and sound quite the same (well, early 80's hardcore punk, for that matter) because the idea is that if it's easy to play, then more people could play it. The lyrics sound similar because almost all of that punk came from the same idea in a short amount of time. Anyways, there's a lot more substance to punk than you think, it's not really in the song, but the idea behind the song, if that makes any sense. Oh well, there's my short, half-assed post on the subject.

People always say this "more people can play it!" crap, but I don't see that as something in it's favor. A lot of those people shouldn't have been making music, and shouldn't be in the first place. The whole thing about art is that you should at least be good at it, and most punk bands aren't good at being musicians, and really shouldn't be calling themselves artists.

And Opivy- I've heard every single band you listen, and the only ones on that list that stand out as being talented are Television and the Minutemen, but even they are still severly overrated. Television especially don't deserve most of the credit they get, and they come off mainly as something critics praise to make themselves look more "underground". You say that I must be listening to a certain kind, yet you name off a few bands that I was directly thinking of. Reagan Youth especially were in my mind when I was talking about how stupid the wanna-be rebellious lyrics are.

opivy21
07-16-2007, 11:15 PM
And Opivy- I've heard every single band you listen, and the only ones on that list that stand out as being talented are Television and the Minutemen, but even they are still severly overrated. Television especially don't deserve most of the credit they get, and they come off mainly as something critics praise to make themselves look more "underground". You say that I must be listening to a certain kind, yet you name off a few bands that I was directly thinking of. Reagan Youth especially were in my mind when I was talking about how stupid the wanna-be rebellious lyrics are.
Well if you don't think that those bands are talented, then there's nothing more I can say. I don't understand how you could listen to the Tubes and say that they're untalented, but different strokes I guess. And I listed Reagan Youth because of their talent on their instruments, not anything about their lyrics.

Homer
07-17-2007, 12:16 AM
People always say this "more people can play it!" crap, but I don't see that as something in it's favor. A lot of those people shouldn't have been making music, and shouldn't be in the first place. The whole thing about art is that you should at least be good at it, and most punk bands aren't good at being musicians, and really shouldn't be calling themselves artists.

Well, do you consider Bad Religion to be talented musicians? Well, they've said themselves (atleast I think it was them) that they became a punk band because they thought "Hey, we can do that!" They basically had no talented when they started out, but look at them now. The whole "more people can play it" is easier for people if they want to get their opinions out there, or if they want to make a name for themselves. Of course and obviously though, punk isn't art, and no one calls it that.

Jakebert
07-17-2007, 10:18 AM
I think Bad Religion are moderately talented technically. They're ahead of just about every other punk band, and it shows in the fact that they're still making somewhat interesting music after 20 years. Even if they got into the genre for that reason, they're still miles ahead of their peers. It's the reason I consider them one of the few that I actually still like.

If people want to get heard or make a name for themselves, then they should at least learn some skills or sometime. Making a name for yourself as a sloppy, half-assed musican isn't really making a good name for yourself.

Music is art. Punk rock is like a comic strip, comparing to a painting. It has some potential to be good, but it's almost always stuck in the same generic formula that bands are too afraid and not good enough to chuck behind them.

All About Eve
07-17-2007, 12:17 PM
I would just like to say that I'm in the same situation you are, Jakebert. I have a lot of punk CDs all over, but hardly listen to any. There's not any gripping depth; that extra element that makes me want to listen to it above other stuff.

GBH2
07-18-2007, 01:15 PM
jakebert: while i can see where you're coming from (i've kind of drifted towards other genres as well), i still think that what you have said is rather arrogant. using the descendents to support your points = fail. saying that punk follows the same formula is incredibly narrow-minded and just shows how little you seem to know about the genre as a whole. as opivy said, your post is pretty much spot on about 80s hardcore, but if you base your opinion of punk on stuff like that (ie minor threat), than you are missing out. also your responses to others like opivy who point out perfectly legit bands seem like you are completely in denial, or just retarded.

by the way, what other genres/band would you suggest that are so infinitley superior to punk in musicianship/playing ability/lyrics and the like?

nieh
07-18-2007, 01:40 PM
Compared to the thousands of punk bands out there, you guys have only managed to name a small handful of bands that are even remotely interesting and most of them haven't been together in years.

opivy21
07-18-2007, 02:26 PM
I listed the bands that I did because they are proof that punk music can have strong musicianship and clever lyrics. I realize that many, many punk bands cannot play their instruments, cannot sing, and write pretty simple lyrics, but I like many of those bands and I don't mind looking past poor playing to listen to good songwriting.

By the way, I don't see what it matters that most of those bands haven't been around for a while.

Vera
07-18-2007, 02:37 PM
I think as music, your point applies very well. Punk isn't the most imaginative, original or clever type of music there is. You'll find better lyrics, better melodies, more in-depth messages in a lot of other music.

But I think as a genre, punk goes beyond the music. I won't wax poetic about this punk ideology because y'all know it, having heard the bands, having heard the lyrics. Punk isn't popular music but its message is slightly populist, reaching wide crowds of people with this idea that they too can make music, get their voice heard, through punk, this very simple but very energetic form of music that basically unites people through this ideology. It's far from being sophisticated, it's far from trying to go for something fantastically revolutional and it's really far from trying to form the most talented band ever.

I remember reading an interview of the singer of this Finnish hardcore band, reading about their way of life, touring East-European countries in a shitty little van, having a tiny record company in their basement, I remember thinking, "Why don't these people just get real jobs?". But that's just it, I think, about punk, that you can do it even if you're not amazingly gifted as a musician, there's a certain freedom there, and it means there's a ton of shit there, but also just music people love, people relate to - not just teenagers but also older generations, because it's something they feel very close to.

So yes, as music I think your point applies, but punk is one of those genres that for some people, hell, for most of its fans perhaps, goes beyond the music. I think the ideology is very appealing, and the music is very appealing - in its fantastic simplicity (and yes, even occasional variety).

I also find your snobbery in this post sort of off-putting, to be honest. But then again I'm not one of those fanatic music lovers who're constantly sniffing for some amazingly unique indie rock talent... I just listen to stuff I like. So perhaps it's just that our type of interest in music is very different.

HeadAroundU
07-18-2007, 02:46 PM
/\ Whoa, nice post.

Homer
07-18-2007, 03:11 PM
I think Vera said what I was trying to say. Good post.

Jakebert
07-18-2007, 03:57 PM
jakebert: while i can see where you're coming from (i've kind of drifted towards other genres as well), i still think that what you have said is rather arrogant. using the descendents to support your points = fail. saying that punk follows the same formula is incredibly narrow-minded and just shows how little you seem to know about the genre as a whole. as opivy said, your post is pretty much spot on about 80s hardcore, but if you base your opinion of punk on stuff like that (ie minor threat), than you are missing out. also your responses to others like opivy who point out perfectly legit bands seem like you are completely in denial, or just retarded.

Punk generally does follow the same formula. Saying that every single band follows it would be dumb, but I never said that. There's always going to be exceptions to the rule, and I didn't think I'd have to point that out. But obviously I do. And why wouldn't I use the Descendents to support my points? They're exactly what I'm talking about: a band that gets a shitload of credit for being an amazing band when they're really not that great at all. Some of the songs are catchy, but that's it. There's no depth lyrically or musically.

Yeah, the majority of what I'm talking about is 80's punk rock, but the early stuff still fits into what I'm talking about. A few of the bands showed some skill and depth, but ultimately it came down to something that sounds very sloppy, and not because it's intentional.

The stuff from the 70's is better than the 80's hardcore, but at the same time, it's just as overhyped. Mainly because critics realize that praising the New York Dolls and Richard Hell will make them look hip and like they know what's cool and arty.

Why is the response retarded? Because I didn't want to get into the specifics on every single band that he listed? I wouldn't expect anyone else to do that if I posted a list of bands, so why should I do it?


by the way, what other genres/band would you suggest that are so infinitley superior to punk in musicianship/playing ability/lyrics and the like?

Hmm, let's see, there's folk, post-rock, progressive metal, stoner metal, indie rock, alternative (some), death metal, viking metal, neofolk, blues, jazz, no-wave, noise rock, grunge (some), psychadelic, and I could go on if you wanted.


I listed the bands that I did because they are proof that punk music can have strong musicianship and clever lyrics. I realize that many, many punk bands cannot play their instruments, cannot sing, and write pretty simple lyrics, but I like many of those bands and I don't mind looking past poor playing to listen to good songwriting.

To me, poor playing can block good songwriting. I'm not saying every band has to be technical geniuses at what they do, or do complicated stuff all the time, it's just that when a band can't play competantly, it shows up in the lack of range they have as songwriters. Good songwriting can trump lack of skill if the songwriter is that good, but usually it doesn't.

I pointed to Against Me as an example of a punk band that tends to be an exception to the rule. They're good musicians technically, so they have more range to experiment and do different things.


I think as music, your point applies very well. Punk isn't the most imaginative, original or clever type of music there is. You'll find better lyrics, better melodies, more in-depth messages in a lot of other music.

The main thing I'm talking about is the music, because that ideology can be found in tons of other genres. Even the "everyman" aspect of it is found in genres like folk and blues.

[/QUOTE]But I think as a genre, punk goes beyond the music. I won't wax poetic about this punk ideology because y'all know it, having heard the bands, having heard the lyrics. Punk isn't popular music but its message is slightly populist, reaching wide crowds of people with this idea that they too can make music, get their voice heard, through punk, this very simple but very energetic form of music that basically unites people through this ideology. It's far from being sophisticated, it's far from trying to go for something fantastically revolutional and it's really far from trying to form the most talented band ever.

I remember reading an interview of the singer of this Finnish hardcore band, reading about their way of life, touring East-European countries in a shitty little van, having a tiny record company in their basement, I remember thinking, "Why don't these people just get real jobs?". But that's just it, I think, about punk, that you can do it even if you're not amazingly gifted as a musician, there's a certain freedom there, and it means there's a ton of shit there, but also just music people love, people relate to - not just teenagers but also older generations, because it's something they feel very close to.

So yes, as music I think your point applies, but punk is one of those genres that for some people, hell, for most of its fans perhaps, goes beyond the music. I think the ideology is very appealing, and the music is very appealing - in its fantastic simplicity (and yes, even occasional variety). [/QUOTE]

But I think the things here that you described are the appeal of music as a whole, not just punk rock. The idea of doing it because you love it and because you're close to it is something that is in every genre, it's not exclusive to punk rock at all. I think that can be found in music lovers in general, no matter what they listen to.

[/QUOTE]I also find your snobbery in this post sort of off-putting, to be honest. But then again I'm not one of those fanatic music lovers who're constantly sniffing for some amazingly unique indie rock talent... I just listen to stuff I like. So perhaps it's just that our type of interest in music is very different.[/QUOTE]

I know I have potential to be a music snob, and fully admit it. It's just that, like you said, I'm one of those people who is incredibly fanatic about music. It's not that I can't appreciate simplicity. I can, and love a lot of bands that do incredibly simple music. It's just that I feel there's a difference between simplicity and sloppiness, and it shows.

Homer
07-18-2007, 04:16 PM
Hmm, let's see, there's folk, post-rock, progressive metal, stoner metal, indie rock, alternative (some), death metal, viking metal, neofolk, blues, jazz, no-wave, noise rock, grunge (some), psychadelic, and I could go on if you wanted.

You should NOT have responded to that.

Though yeah, anyone can pull out the 'Folk, Jazz, and Blues is better than your music genre' card.

opivy21
07-18-2007, 04:38 PM
To me, poor playing can block good songwriting. I'm not saying every band has to be technical geniuses at what they do, or do complicated stuff all the time, it's just that when a band can't play competantly, it shows up in the lack of range they have as songwriters. Good songwriting can trump lack of skill if the songwriter is that good, but usually it doesn't.
That's fair enough. We just have different opinions and there's really no way to argue them.

Vera
07-18-2007, 05:00 PM
It can apply to any genre of music but I think punk is the thing to relate to if you're young, urban and perhaps a bit resistant to some ideas of society. Or just, I don't know, a way of questioning certain conservative values you might've been brought up to believe. I think it's something a lot of teenagers should go through, even if it's on a dumbly shallow level, it'll work toward something better, a general awareness maybe.

God I should be in bed.

Jakebert
07-18-2007, 05:46 PM
Well, I give punk rock credit for the fact that used correctly, it can be a stepping stone to a greater awareness when it comes to questioning institutions and things like that. I think it's good for teenagers to have around to send them in the right direction mentally, but if that teenager truely grows, then after a while they'll move on from it. I know that's what happened to me and a lot of people that I know, anyway.

All About Eve
07-18-2007, 05:52 PM
It's almost like the mind-opening world wise punk gives teenagers allows them to have their mind-opening experience to music soon after.

jacknife737
07-18-2007, 07:10 PM
I think it's good for teenagers to have around to send them in the right direction mentally, but if that teenager truely grows, then after a while they'll move on from it.

Ok, i'm not trying to start some stupid/pointless argument; i just wanted to say that i find this mindset to be very arrogant.

BREAK
07-19-2007, 07:30 AM
Give it a few years, soon the music will go full circle back into being nostalgic for you.

There's no good blanket argument for or against any type of music, you either like it or you don't. Stop trying to be objective about one of the most singularly subjective things in a world full of subjectivity.

endlesst0m
07-19-2007, 08:28 AM
Musically speaking,what kind of songwriting ideas/techniques do you guys think could be applied to punk music to make it more interesting? Some of you claim that punk musicians aren't creative enough to keep the genre musically interesting, so obviously you must have some ideas for different directions it could take. And would most people still call it "punk" if it did successfully go in those different and interesting directions(AFI?)? Maybe that's why punk can't get any more creative.