PDA

View Full Version : Skate Punk



bighead384
01-29-2010, 01:48 PM
Do you consider skate punk to be a real genre? If so, how would you define it?

Personally, I feel like can identify the sound of skate punk if I hear it, but I can't quite define it. I know a lot of 90's punk has been called skate punk, including The Offspring, NOFX and Pennywise. But then there's older punk bands that have a more hardcore or thrash sound like JFA or Suicidal Tendencies that seem to be associated with skate punk as well. So what is skate punk?

Alison
01-29-2010, 02:11 PM
I always see punk with a bit of ska influence as skate punk, but also some Pennywise and things similiar to them. But...I'm not really sure if I'd call it a genre in itself...it seems a bit too vague to be so precise..

7Seconds
01-29-2010, 04:09 PM
I consider it more of a life style...

RageAndLov
01-29-2010, 07:04 PM
I find skate punk to be the sister of pop punk. I am therefore not very fond of the genre.

Smash punker
01-30-2010, 01:45 AM
I find skate punk to be the sister of pop punk. I am therefore not very fond of the genre.

Sister of pop? Would U say that U.S. Bombs is pop? :eek: Guess not :D Sk8 n punx has always gone hand in hand with each other for decades :D

dff_punk
01-30-2010, 06:45 AM
I call it all punkrock. All those subgenres confuse me...

jacknife737
01-30-2010, 06:53 AM
It's not a real genre.

In 95% of cases, it's just used as a synonym for 90s melodic/pop punk.

Tomasisko
01-30-2010, 09:36 AM
jesus christ... "pop punk". how much i hate that appelation :rolleyes: who was so brave and stupid to connect these two absolutely different music genres? sure there are some bands and their music style is called like this, but it's all bullshit. pop punk bands doesn't exist because these bands are not "punk"... not even close. they have nothnig to do with punk. even their look is not punk. it's fucking 13 years old emo :p

mspunk13
01-30-2010, 10:22 AM
To me pop-punk means punk-like music many people listen to, but I wouldn't say it means punk music, which got popular.

I think pop-punk bands' aim is to gain popularity, so they create upbeat songs with distorted guitars (that's the punk part), but they make them as catchy as possible (for instance by writing lyrics about love) and not nearly as hardcore (that's the pop part).

The Offspring probably lies somewhere between pop-punk and punk rock. They hadn't sold out until 1998 and they still keep making music with meaningful lyrics. I think they ruined their 'pure punk' image by creating songs like Pretty fly
or Why don't you get a job?.

Blink 182 say they're too dumb to write about politics etc., and they like to be on MTV. They like to mask their live-suckiness by looking cool, saying funny stuff etc. They create music for their fans, to make 13yo girls scream loud. That's what I call pop-punk.

Bad Religion, however, don't give a shit about any of those things. They keep doing what they love doing, their songs are still very fast with very distorted guitars, their lyrics are still amazing and they don't have to raise their egos by looking cool, anyway, they're great live. They're a pure punk-rock band, which got popular, because they write great music, not because they were doing everything just to get popular.

And when some people say 'NOFX is pop-punk, Bad Brains is punk' - it's really driving me mad, because NOFX don't give a fuck either, just because many people listen to them and just because they songs are not monotone and thrashy, doesn't mean they're not punk.



even their look is not punk
Tomasisko, I have to strongly disagree. I think it's totally the opposite. Pop-punk bands are trying to create a punk image of themselves by having full sleeve tattoos, piercings, tight pants, studded belts, skate shoes etc., while real punkers just don't give a fuck.

Rooster
01-30-2010, 11:17 AM
Pop punk, hardcore punk, punk rock,... Fuck sorting into genres, if the music rocks, it rocks. Period. Like dff_punk i just call it punk rock. I just see some bands as a part of more melodic side of punk and others part of more agressive, faster-paced side of punk. Some of them are somewhere in the middle between both (which is what i prefer). Skate punk isn't really a genre in my opinion.

By the way, Bad Religion are great, BUT there's something that bothers me with them, and that is the fact that when you've listened to one of their CDs it's almost like you've heard them all. The same goes for Pennywise. I'm not saying i don't like those bands, i really do, but sometimes they just feel repetitive. This very same thing bothers me about hardcore punk (besides all the kids in the highschool i visited that listen(ed) to hardcore punk just because they thought it would make them look cool super-tough) - it's just song after song of play-as-fast-as-you-can riffs, and God forbid you try something different, you're already called a sellout. I like when a band mixes things up a bit, not just have an album whuch sounds like 1 song burned 13 times on the same disc.

And arguing who's punk and who's not is just childish.

jacknife737
01-30-2010, 11:34 AM
I find most people's perception of what is "pop-punk" is totally off base, and thus leads to an incorrect definition.

Bands like Fall Out Boy or My Chemical Romance are not "pop-punk", and I hate when people use them as leading examples of the genre. They're nothing but pop-rock bands, who probably listened to a Green Day record once in high school.

So saying that Nofx sometimes write and play pop-punk music isn't an insult, its an accurate observation. They may be a punk band, but a lot of their songs have a very clear pop influence, and it's stupid to try and ignore this fact. Same goes for Bad Religion.

More examples: Alkaline Trio, Offspring, Green Day, The Ergs!, Pennywise, Against Me!, Lawrence Arms, Off With Their Heads, Dillinger Four, Lagwagon, None More Black, ect, ect, ect are all bands that have written "pop-punk" songs. People should embrace the term, rather than be disgusted by it.

T-6005
01-30-2010, 12:01 PM
You know the common denominator that really annoys me?

The 'punk' part. I've come to despise discussions revolving around what is and isn't punk.

mspunk13
01-30-2010, 12:07 PM
Maybe that will sound weird, but to me it seems like there is a difference between a pop-punk band and a pop-punk song.

I'd say NOFX is a pop-punk band because they're popular but they mostly write pure punk-rock songs, while... oh... well. Whatever. You're right. Everyone has their own definition of pop-punk, I'd better not start an endless fight :D

I have to agree that Bad Religion, Pennywise, Lagwagon and such feel VERY repetitive.

I also agree that pop-punk should not be an insult, it's just another genre. I guess even bands like NOFX sometimes write pop-punk songs. Like Franco Unamerican. Some pop-punk bands write punk songs (for instance Sum 41's Tables have turned). That's the way it is.

It just really bothers me that the Offspring changed their style so dramatically, not to say that they sold out. I loved the 89-97 times... :)

And about the play-as-fast-as-you-can riffs... 90% of songs on Ixnay had the same fast beat over and over again. And if you tell me that Ixnay sounded monotone, I swear, I will create software that will automatically install on your computer and punch you in the face :D

EDIT:

You know the common denominator that really annoys me?

The 'punk' part. I've come to despise discussions revolving around what is and isn't punk.

Punk is supposed to be your lifestyle, and that lifestyle is about not giving a fuck. That's it. For instance - the Damned didn't give a fuck, while Blink 182 definitely do. In fact, they give lots of fucks.

Punk music is often described as fast music with distorted guitars and lyrics about what makes you angry, but punkers believe they don't need labels.

Rooster
01-30-2010, 12:33 PM
And about the play-as-fast-as-you-can riffs... 90% of songs on Ixnay had the same fast beat over and over again. And if you tell me that Ixnay sounded monotone, I swear, I will create software that will automatically install on your computer and punch you in the face :D

Won't say that, don't worry. Maybe i should choose my words better - i'm more bothered with what stereotypical punk (or hardcore punk or whatever other subgenre of punk rock) bands do, and they usually tend to write/play only super fast songs which are very similar to eachother in structure, have similar or the same tempo and similar riffs. You can't say that for Ixnay, every song on Ixnay can easilly be distinguished from another, they have different hooks. You can still have an album full of fast songs that don't sound like the same song all over again. But unfortunately many stereotypical punk bands do just that - find a formula that works well and just use it for every song. Typical example? The Exploited. I've seen them live last summer, and GOD i was bored. You hear one song from them, and you have heard them all. Not to say they don't have skills as musicians, they do. But they're just boring.

Not all punk/hc punk/whatever-punk bands are like that. But a lot (really A LOT) of them are. I realise that there's not much new to invent these days, especially if you play a genre like punk, but despite this fact you can still make an album of songs that sound different one from another. You just have to look at song as a whole and make it different.

Alison
01-30-2010, 12:52 PM
I'd call stuff that's like The Methadones, Teenage Bottlerocket, some Screeching Weasel, some Queers, The Manges, all those kinda Ramonesesque type bands as pop-punk. While other bands like blink-182, fallout boy, etc are pop bands with punk influences. I dont know, I hate this whole having to classify everything we listen to, because it always gets fucked up somewhere.

mspunk13
01-30-2010, 01:15 PM
Typical example? The Exploited. I've seen them live last summer, and GOD i was bored. You hear one song from them, and you have heard them all.

Holy crap :eek: I'd be scared as hell - Exploited fans are famous for being aggressive... But you're right about their songs sounding the same. I hate that, too. I think that's the difference between popular bands and not-so-popular bands... Many Offspring songs have the same structure, but they are SOOO melodic, while, let's say, No fun at all songs manage to sound exactly the same. That's probably the reason why they're not nearly as famous as the Offspring.

Rooster
01-30-2010, 01:26 PM
I'd put it like this: there's a difference between a band that makes music to make their fans happy (you know there's only one way to make a tru punx happy... well, two actually, but since beer makes everyone happy it doesn't really count) and a band which consists of members who play music primarily for themselves, because they like it. You see them having fun at what they're doing, and that's what makes the difference.

mspunk13
01-30-2010, 01:31 PM
Haha... everyone has their own priorities. Beer has to be the priority.

Having fun is definitely the most important thing about playing in a band. I'm worried about the Offspring not having fun while playing live any more. They seem to treat the music stage like a theater stage, they are always like 'I'm having a fucking great time', then they'll jump once or twice, play Self esteem and end the show.

Rooster
01-30-2010, 01:49 PM
Hmm, haven't seen The Offspring live yet, so i can't tell if they're having fun or not. But if the songs are an indication, i'd still think they like what they're doing. Still, i'd like to hear a bit more energy in the next album :)

P.S.: the quite from your sig makes me wonder if that's the reason why our drummer refuses to use double bass pedal (he doesn't even have it, but during our first rehearsal i could have sworn it sounded like was using it :D)

mspunk13
01-30-2010, 01:59 PM
The Offspring are definitely still capable of creating great songs full of energy. I just wish they didn't look so bored while playing live.

About bass drum pedals: punk drummers say that fast double strokes sound better when played using a single bass pedal and that using double pedals is: a)gay, b)lame c)pussying out d)not having enough stamina e)lame f)lame g)gay h)lame and so on. - while metal drummers say double pedals sound better.

The reason why I'm not into double pedals is that you can't play on the hi-hat and the double pedal simultaneously (crap, this word is hard to spell... I hope I spelled it the right way).


i could have sworn it sounded like was using it
That's a good sign. A VERY good sign, actually :)

cool 2 hate 681
01-30-2010, 02:42 PM
The Offspring probably lies somewhere between pop-punk and punk rock. They hadn't sold out until 1998 and they still keep making music with meaningful lyrics. I think they ruined their 'pure punk' image by creating songs like Pretty fly
or Why don't you get a job?

i guess ixnay has really grown in the punk community i remember everyone hated it when it first came out

bighead384
01-31-2010, 01:37 PM
It's not a real genre.

In 95% of cases, it's just used as a synonym for 90s melodic/pop punk.

The thing is though, I can think of 90's melodic punk bands who defintly aren't skate punk. Like Bad Religion, Rancid, Anti-Flag, or the records the Descendents put out in the 90's.

Smash punker
01-31-2010, 05:53 PM
And arguing who's punk and who's not is just childish.

That´s a well said truth;)


The Offspring are definitely still capable of creating great songs full of energy. I just wish they didn't look so bored while playing live.



Then U´ve probably never seen the band live:rolleyes: I´ve been only to 2 shows n they were "shows"! N the second one in SK was even better than the one in Czech Rep. Guess that Parada brought the energy needed for the band. Maybe just Greg doesn´t jump or move around or shit like that, but the rest of the band do the show for fans. Dexter looks tired sometimes, but when there´s a song, where he doesn´t play guitar then he performs better. He´s all over the stage!!! :D The biggest "clown" of the band is Noodles these days. He´s almost 50 n he´s still playing, jumping like he was young!!! :eek: Maybe they look boring sometimes, but they got old. Hope they´ll stay on as long as possible......

T-6005
01-31-2010, 06:02 PM
Punk is supposed to be your lifestyle, and that lifestyle is about not giving a fuck. That's it. For instance - the Damned didn't give a fuck, while Blink 182 definitely do. In fact, they give lots of fucks.

Punk music is often described as fast music with distorted guitars and lyrics about what makes you angry, but punkers believe they don't need labels.

I get that people assume that this is punk's 'definition.' The truth, however, is that in trying to shape that sort of counter-cultural movement, punk's managed to create a small monoculture that's entirely based on certain norms. Essentially, to be punk, especially to others (and don't try telling me punk is all about independent individuals or I might laugh up a kidney) you need to give a fuck, to present your image and your priorities in a certain way.

If you need any more confirmation of what I just said, just consider the following statement "punkers believe they don't need labels." Who believes they don't need labels? Punkers. Who are punkers? I don't know, I guess it's a label for something.

jacknife737
01-31-2010, 07:22 PM
The thing is though, I can think of 90's melodic punk bands who defintly aren't skate punk. Like Bad Religion, Rancid, Anti-Flag, or the records the Descendents put out in the 90's.

There are no major stylistic differences between band's that traditionally receive the lable, like say Nofx, Pennywise, Guttermouth, Lagwagon, ect, and the bands you've just listed.

Skate punk has no unique characteristics that aren't already encompassed within another punk-subgenre. If somebody is going to define a genre as "I can't describe it, but I know it when i hear it", well, it doesn't exist.

bighead384
01-31-2010, 10:26 PM
There are no major stylistic differences between band's that traditionally receive the lable, like say Nofx, Pennywise, Guttermouth, Lagwagon, ect, and the bands you've just listed.

Skate punk has no unique characteristics that aren't already encompassed within another punk-subgenre. If somebody is going to define a genre as "I can't describe it, but I know it when i hear it", well, it doesn't exist.

NOFX, Pennywise, and Lagwagon (Guttermouth slightly less so) all have a different guitar sound. Bad Religion, Rancid, Anti-Flag, and the Descendents don't really have the same driving force and intensity to the majority of thier guitar riffs. For example, I remember how surprised I was the first time I heard Sinister Rouge by BR, because it's just got a higher level of energy then most of their riffs. If I had to try and define at least part of what constitutes skate punk, I'd say the guitars riffs borrow from thrash and hardcore in a way that those other bands I listed don't. There's got to be some difference between "bands that traditionally receive the label" and bands that don't.

mspunk13
02-01-2010, 04:28 AM
(and don't try telling me punk is all about independent individuals or I might laugh up a kidney) you need to give a fuck, to present your image and your priorities in a certain way.
[/I]

I think you misunderstood me a bit, or rather I didn't express myself precisely. I tried to connect the punk lifestyle with punk music. 'Presenting your priorities' is important - I understand this as writing lyrics about issues that you think are important and that basically is giving a fuck, but 'presenting your image' (I understand this as creating an image people will recognize, or associate you with) is kinda like selling out. Blink-182 present their image as hard as they can, while Bad Brains just don't care. By 'not giving a fuck' I meant 'not giving a fuck about what people want you to do'.


Who believes they don't need labels? Punkers. Who are punkers? I don't know, I guess it's a label for something.

I didn't express myself precisely one more time :) I can't deny the existence of labels, but labels make you fit in, while that's what punks hate. Having to do this and that because other people do so. I don't go around saying 'hey people I'm so punk', I don't need a mohawk or dr Martens to show off. I also don't feel the need to be associated with anarchy and aggression. That's what labels come down to. That's why I hate labels and I wish we could do without them, but we can't. That's what I meant... pretty much. There are so many stereotypes in this world... another example: 'christian' label. Christian doesn't mean religious. Just like 'gay' doesn't mean 'a freak with STDs'. Sure, many Christians are religious and there are many infected gay freaks, but not all of them are like that.


Then U´ve probably never seen the band live I've seen them live twice - in Hradec Kralove and in Berlin. The show in Czech Republic was fine, but in Berlin, they didn't even say anything until the last song. Dexter said 'I didn't even have a chance to say hi. So hi. Noodles, are you having a good time?' Noodles was like 'Yeah, I'm having a great time', then they played Self esteem and went off stage.

dff_punk
02-01-2010, 04:58 AM
NOFX, Pennywise, and Lagwagon (Guttermouth slightly less so) all have a different guitar sound. Bad Religion, Rancid, Anti-Flag, and the Descendents don't really have the same driving force and intensity to the majority of thier guitar riffs. For example, I remember how surprised I was the first time I heard Sinister Rouge by BR, because it's just got a higher level of energy then most of their riffs. If I had to try and define at least part of what constitutes skate punk, I'd say the guitars riffs borrow from thrash and hardcore in a way that those other bands I listed don't. There's got to be some difference between "bands that traditionally receive the lable" and bands that don't.

I can see how you separated for example Rancid and Anti-Flag, maybe because they have "fuzzier" or shall I say "dirtier" guitar riffs which cannot appeal to everyone's level/style of energic music. But I'd put Bad Religion with their guitar style right up there with NOFX, Pennywise, Lagwagon, and even The Offspring, even though each one of them has their own distinctive feature which makes them, shall I say, unique. Anyway, I still don't know if I got exactly what you said.

RageAndLov
02-01-2010, 05:44 AM
I find most people's perception of what is "pop-punk" is totally off base, and thus leads to an incorrect definition.

Bands like Fall Out Boy or My Chemical Romance are not "pop-punk", and I hate when people use them as leading examples of the genre. They're nothing but pop-rock bands, who probably listened to a Green Day record once in high school.

So saying that Nofx sometimes write and play pop-punk music isn't an insult, its an accurate observation. They may be a punk band, but a lot of their songs have a very clear pop influence, and it's stupid to try and ignore this fact. Same goes for Bad Religion.

More examples: Alkaline Trio, Offspring, Green Day, The Ergs!, Pennywise, Against Me!, Lawrence Arms, Off With Their Heads, Dillinger Four, Lagwagon, None More Black, ect, ect, ect are all bands that have written "pop-punk" songs. People should embrace the term, rather than be disgusted by it.

I agree, pop punk goes for more or less those bands listed. It's just that Blink 182 is defined as pop punk by the media and fans who don't know better. So people who hate Blink 182 and like bands like Pennywise, Against Me! etc. try to distinguish them from fans of bands which have nothing to do with punk whatsoever (like Blink 182).

coke_a_holic
02-01-2010, 10:06 AM
Big fucking deal: Making sure that when you tell people that you're upping the punx, they don't suspect you of listening to WHINEY BULLSHIT GIRLY MUSIC.

Not a big fucking deal: Uh, enjoying yourself and listening to whatever you want, regardless of its status as whiney bullshit girly music?

GUYS POP-PUNK IS FOR FAGZ.

Llamas
02-01-2010, 10:21 AM
I hate this whole having to classify everything we listen to, because it always gets fucked up somewhere.

This. This is the only truly intelligent thing in this thread.

I also mildly agree with this:

You know the common denominator that really annoys me?

The 'punk' part. I've come to despise discussions revolving around what is and isn't punk.

But most of all, what is with everyone and forcing music into genres? Movies fit into genres much more easily, because the most important factor is always plot and dialogue. A movie where a demon kills people and the dialogue is very serious is gonna be a horror. A movie where boy meets girl and the dialogue is light hearted is gonna be a romantic comedy.

But in music, we have too many factors. We have instrumentation... we have lyrics... we have vocal qualities... we have tonalities of each instrument... we have song length... we have how people dress (wtf?)... we have speed/tempo... we have keys and chord progressions... and the list goes on.

Music genres do not have set definitions, and it's generally truly impossible to say decisively what genre a band belongs to. Some bands fall perfectly into a genre, but that's rare. And coming with "sub genres" and arguing over them... it's pretty much like arguing abortion, only worse.

Once I tried to rearrange my CDs, and order them by genre. I got fully irritated and gave up because I had a good 30 CDs that didn't even kind of fit into any "genre".

IamSam
02-01-2010, 12:21 PM
You know what's funny? Non-conformists talking about conforming to societal music genres.

bighead384
02-01-2010, 12:22 PM
I agree with a lot of what's been said. I think the point is that genres can be defined enough to justify their existence, but people should also understand that genres aren't black and white; they involve a lot of grey area.

But then that begs the question, how much grey area is there? How much room for individual interpretation makes sense before you decide that what someone says regarding a specific band/genre is just foolish? I think that's where the genre arguments starts to go in circles.

RageAndLov
02-01-2010, 12:31 PM
This. This is the only truly intelligent thing in this thread.

I also mildly agree with this:


But most of all, what is with everyone and forcing music into genres? Movies fit into genres much more easily, because the most important factor is always plot and dialogue. A movie where a demon kills people and the dialogue is very serious is gonna be a horror. A movie where boy meets girl and the dialogue is light hearted is gonna be a romantic comedy.

But in music, we have too many factors. We have instrumentation... we have lyrics... we have vocal qualities... we have tonalities of each instrument... we have song length... we have how people dress (wtf?)... we have speed/tempo... we have keys and chord progressions... and the list goes on.

Music genres do not have set definitions, and it's generally truly impossible to say decisively what genre a band belongs to. Some bands fall perfectly into a genre, but that's rare. And coming with "sub genres" and arguing over them... it's pretty much like arguing abortion, only worse.

Once I tried to rearrange my CDs, and order them by genre. I got fully irritated and gave up because I had a good 30 CDs that didn't even kind of fit into any "genre".

I'm not into labelling either, but it really helps to find out exactly what type of music it really is. An example: Ben: "Hey, listen to this punk album called 'Songs About Girls' by Sum 182". Kate: "Sure, I love punk!". Steve: "Make sure you listen to this album to called 'Anarchy and Moshpits' by Hardcore Screamers". Kate ended up liking neither of the two albums. If only Ben and Steve could've been more specific about what kind of music the two albums were.

Llamas
02-01-2010, 12:47 PM
You know what's funny? Non-conformists talking about conforming to societal music genres.
I like this.


I'm not into labelling either, but it really helps to find out exactly what type of music it really is. An example: Ben: "Hey, listen to this punk album called 'Songs About Girls' by Sum 182". Kate: "Sure, I love punk!". Steve: "Make sure you listen to this album to called 'Anarchy and Moshpits' by Hardcore Screamers". Kate ended up liking neither of the two albums. If only Ben and Steve could've been more specific about what kind of music the two albums were.
And yet there's this really genius thing called actually describing the music :-P And if that seems too daunting, you can compare it to other bands. It works way better than trying to define genres. You could try to define those two imaginary albums, maybe as "pop punk" and as "hardcore punk" or whatever (I don't care), but I'm gonna have a different idea of any genre than you are, as is everyone. I'd much rather someone say "hey listen to this album, have you heard of ____? It reminds me of them." or "it's really light and upbeat, with a lot of power chords and fast lyrics"

RageAndLov
02-01-2010, 12:56 PM
All I'm saying is that genres help describing the music.

Llamas
02-01-2010, 12:59 PM
All I'm saying is that genres help describing the music.

I agree that they have that potential, but usually they just end in arguments. So it's pretty much better, in my opinion, to avoid them.

Alison
02-01-2010, 01:12 PM
But why must music be labelled into these really small categories that barely end up explaining what they are anyway. Even the smallest sub-sub-genres end up being very varied because people just can't agree on what they think music is.

RageAndLov
02-01-2010, 01:46 PM
But why must music be labelled into these really small categories that barely end up explaining what they are anyway. Even the smallest sub-sub-genres end up being very varied because people just can't agree on what they think music is.

Well, there has to be a boundary. And where that boundary should go is not easy to clarify. However, it is so much easier to call it hardcore punk than the kind of music where the chord progression is fast and few, has an angry feel to it, has a fast tempo, growling or shouting vocals, is presented in short songs and short albums and deals with political, social, sexual, disturbing, shocking lyrics with a dark undertone.
This could be the description of one single band, and if you were to describe another band or even just a record, you'd have to do that all over again. With genres, you get a collective term for certain bands with some equal traits. Not everyone has the time or patience to either tell or listen to long descriptions of one and one band. If you use genres, people will know somewhat what kind of music you are talking about. If needed, a full description can come afterwards.

T-6005
02-01-2010, 02:02 PM
I think you misunderstood me a bit, or rather I didn't express myself precisely. I tried to connect the punk lifestyle with punk music. 'Presenting your priorities' is important - I understand this as writing lyrics about issues that you think are important and that basically is giving a fuck, but 'presenting your image' (I understand this as creating an image people will recognize, or associate you with) is kinda like selling out. Blink-182 present their image as hard as they can, while Bad Brains just don't care. By 'not giving a fuck' I meant 'not giving a fuck about what people want you to do'.

I didn't express myself precisely one more time :) I can't deny the existence of labels, but labels make you fit in, while that's what punks hate. Having to do this and that because other people do so. I don't go around saying 'hey people I'm so punk', I don't need a mohawk or dr Martens to show off. I also don't feel the need to be associated with anarchy and aggression. That's what labels come down to. That's why I hate labels and I wish we could do without them, but we can't. That's what I meant... pretty much. There are so many stereotypes in this world... another example: 'christian' label. Christian doesn't mean religious. Just like 'gay' doesn't mean 'a freak with STDs'. Sure, many Christians are religious and there are many infected gay freaks, but not all of them are like that.

You may not have realized it, but you just patronized me. You made your point clearly enough, and believe it or not I understood it. What I'm telling you, though, is that you're wrong.

Oh, there's no doubt that at some level there some DIY ethic which galvanized the movement in the 70s, but the dominance of that movement has died away. Punk - as much as you might not want to believe it - is an image. It might be an image tied to a DIY ethos, but denying that the image is there is pointless.

The punk movement, in its rampant desire for non-conformity, has created a subculture with its own rules - that's what I meant when I said norms. Some of those rules are based on your attitude, your approach to music, sure. But in this day and age, just as many 'punkers' identify themselves by a style of dress. More importantly, tons of people use both - the dress and the attitude, which cements them as 'insiders' or whatnot. That people can be defined as punk or not punk is proof enough of that.


I can't deny the existence of labels, but labels make you fit in, while that's what punks hate. Having to do this and that because other people do so. To be a punk, you have to fit in with what it means to be punk. Am I as clear as I hope I'm being?

Maybe not - I'll try and put it another way. To "not give a fuck about what people want you to do" isn't punk. Only "not giving a fuck about what people want you to do in the context of punk ethos and imagery" is punk. See what I mean? "Not giving a fuck about people want you to do" if the person is Emile Durkheim makes you Claude Levi-Strauss. Not punk.

Fuck, I'm just not making any sense. I hope you understand. Punk is a label. I'm just trying to prove it.

You'll have to excuse me if there's some lingering formality in my writing - I just finished a paper on gender representation in the media and terrorism.

coke_a_holic
02-01-2010, 03:48 PM
mspunk:

For instance, if a punk band decided they really wanted to do a country album because that's what they wanted to play, they would be accused of selling out. This follows your definition, mspunk, where doing what you want without caring about what other people think is totally punk. But, selling out is the OPPOSITE of punk, which is what people would say if it ever happened. So are they punk for doing what they want, or are they sellouts for making a more commercially-viable album?

There's a hypocrisy between what punks say is their ethic: to do what the fuck you want without a care as to what others think, and what punks actually do: call anyone who breaks the standard a sell-out or a non-tru punx.

In effect, punk is ded.

RageAndLov
02-01-2010, 04:04 PM
Last time I checked, being punk is not about being apathetic.

Alison
02-01-2010, 04:05 PM
Well, there has to be a boundary. And where that boundary should go is not easy to clarify. However, it is so much easier to call it hardcore punk than the kind of music where the chord progression is fast and few, has an angry feel to it, has a fast tempo, growling or shouting vocals, is presented in short songs and short albums and deals with political, social, sexual, disturbing, shocking lyrics with a dark undertone.
This could be the description of one single band, and if you were to describe another band or even just a record, you'd have to do that all over again. With genres, you get a collective term for certain bands with some equal traits. Not everyone has the time or patience to either tell or listen to long descriptions of one and one band. If you use genres, people will know somewhat what kind of music you are talking about. If needed, a full description can come afterwards.

Yeah, I know, but hardcore is easily defined...whereas things like skate-punk and those kind of genres, they are not easily defined because people have different views of what they are. I mean, wtf is skate-punk anyway, punk that skaters listen to?
Like, I'm not talking about these pretty standard genres like hardcore. Those are easy to set boundaries to. But when you really dig so deep and make things like hardline and straight edge (since when is straight edge even a fucking genre), that's where it starts to fuck up. Because some people arent happy with just leaving things that slight bit more vague.

EDIT: Also, what's the obsession with trying to be punk. "Okay, I'm punk, I can't give a fuck, I can't be this I can't be that"

Llamas
02-01-2010, 04:11 PM
On this issue of what "punk" is... I like to be clean. I like to shower, to shave, to brush my teeth every day. I like to wear fairly cheap, fairly plain looking clothes. I don't like to put shit in my hair, so I don't. I listen to pretty obscure music sometimes, and I listen to music from many genres - I don't care what people think about what I listen to, because it's my decision and doesn't affect them. I do what I want, because it makes me happy. I don't do it for other people. But if I tried to say I'm punk, because I do what I want, the entire punk community would laugh at me and probably beat me up. Why? Because I don't fit into the LABEL of what's "punk".

Punk is not about doing what you want, doing what you feel like. It should be - that's what it seemingly was at its core, when it started. But last time I went to the warped tour, the people with mohawks and leather clothes and chains and no showers and shit in their hair and tons of piercings were treating the people who looked like me like shit. Why? Because they don't fit into the label of what's "punk".

Llamas
02-01-2010, 04:20 PM
Yeah, I know, but hardcore is easily defined...whereas things like skate-punk and those kind of genres, they are not easily defined because people have different views of what they are. I mean, wtf is skate-punk anyway, punk that skaters listen to?
Like, I'm not talking about these pretty standard genres like hardcore. Those are easy to set boundaries to. But when you really dig so deep and make things like hardline and straight edge (since when is straight edge even a fucking genre), that's where it starts to fuck up. Because some people arent happy with just leaving things that slight bit more vague.

Here comes the llamas standard... I disagree. :-P I don't think hardcore is such an easy genre to define. I see people argue about this ALL the time. "OMG I CANT BELIEVE YOU THINK AVENGED SEVENFOLD IS HARDCORE" "WTF MAN SLIPKNOT IS SOOO HARDCORE YOU'RE AN IDIOT" etc, etc.

Genres that you're the least into seem the easiest to define. The common folk think jazz and classical are really easy to define. But if you actually listen to it, it's not.

Example: I often hear people label a song like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQitoIp_scg as "classical". But such a classification would piss the hell out of a classical enthusiast.

Or what about this? What genre is this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgCh8RBOKMY Most people would probably be inclined to call it jazz. But the same goes for this as with the "classical" song above.

And what about this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxlRUOBj67I&feature=related Rap? Funk? Jazz? Rock? These are all genres that people generally think are really easy to define... but nobody can even agree on these!

Alison
02-01-2010, 04:25 PM
Oh shit yeah, fuck, I completely forgot about all those other 'hardcore' bands.
So basically, once again, back to square one :p

bighead384
02-01-2010, 04:26 PM
Sometimes conversation branch out into other things for a bit, by this point, it's pretty fair to say this thread went off-topic.

Llamas
02-01-2010, 04:30 PM
Of course... any thread that's titled a "genre" of music is going to end up as a debate about genres.

RageAndLov
02-01-2010, 05:45 PM
On this issue of what "punk" is... I like to be clean. I like to shower, to shave, to brush my teeth every day. I like to wear fairly cheap, fairly plain looking clothes. I don't like to put shit in my hair, so I don't. I listen to pretty obscure music sometimes, and I listen to music from many genres - I don't care what people think about what I listen to, because it's my decision and doesn't affect them. I do what I want, because it makes me happy. I don't do it for other people. But if I tried to say I'm punk, because I do what I want, the entire punk community would laugh at me and probably beat me up. Why? Because I don't fit into the LABEL of what's "punk".

Punk is not about doing what you want, doing what you feel like. It should be - that's what it seemingly was at its core, when it started. But last time I went to the warped tour, the people with mohawks and leather clothes and chains and no showers and shit in their hair and tons of piercings were treating the people who looked like me like shit. Why? Because they don't fit into the label of what's "punk".

What do you expect when you go to places like that? People who are fitting the label punk isn't at the warped tour.

bighead384
02-01-2010, 08:02 PM
Of course... any thread that's titled a "genre" of music is going to end up as a debate about genres.

No. Not neccesarily to the extent that it's happened here. Genres ARE possible to define, there's just a lot of grey area. We aren't even talking about "skate punk" here anymore.

mspunk13
02-02-2010, 10:21 AM
@coke_a_holic

NOFX and Bad Religion are popular as fuck, still they manage to stay punk. I did not state that being popular is automatically selling out. Selling out is when you do what people want you in order to do to be popular and earn a lot. When you're doing what you love doing, popularity and money come with time, but they're just a bonus.


@T-6005

But in this day and age, just as many 'punkers' identify themselves by a style of dress. More importantly, tons of people use both - the dress and the attitude, which cements them as 'insiders' or whatnot.

I still think that the image is just an addon. There are lamborghini gallardos and there are lamborghini gallardo replicas. Let's say you have a dirty gallardo in a super-ugly color with supersmall, rusty steel rims. You can buy a gallardo in a supersexy color with supernice rims. But both are still gallardos. The real deal. Now, what would be the reason for buying a gallardo replica that would look exactly like the supernice gallardo? To make people think you have a car you don't really have, I guess.

Here's a real story, I didn't make that up: when I was skating in my local skatepark, I decided to make a little test and strike up a conversation with a guy who was wearing a London Calling T-shirt. I asked him about his favorite songs by the Clash. All he could say 'umm... London Calling?'. I was surprised, I asked if that was it and he was like 'yeah, pretty much'. He was also wearing skinny pants, skate shoes, he had a studded belt, a studded wristband and a very visible wallet chain. He sucked at skating and at punk music knowledge. I wonder what he had on his iPod.

Now, have a look at this picture:
http://www.nordestfm.ro/images/Image/Jello%20Biafra.jpg
That's Jello Biafra. This guy is ultimately punk, yet he looks like the average Joe. Do you really think he gives a flying fuck about people labeling him as less punk than the guy in the London Calling shirt? I didn't think so either. And the fact that he doesn't makes him much more punk than any clothes would :)

That's what I meant. The image is just a shell, the attitude is the core and the shell cannot exist without the core.

I have to agree with this statement, though:

To be a punk, you have to fit in with what it means to be punk. Am I as clear as I hope I'm being?
Yes, very clear. And the statement is very true when it comes to attitude etc. but still, in my opinion, the looks should be treated as a cool extra.

Don't get me wrong, I like to wear skatepunk clothes - I love the phrase you used - to cement me as an 'insider'. Still, I treat the image as NOTHING more than the cement.

Llamas
02-02-2010, 11:35 AM
What do you expect when you go to places like that? People who are fitting the label punk isn't at the warped tour.

Actually people at the warped tour are better than at a lot of underground basement/backyard shows. At the warped tour, they treat you like shit... at "real" punk shows, they beat the hell out of you if they think you're too mainstream or a poser. I'm not saying it's always true, but I've seen it happen enough times. :-/

I actually like what mspunk said in his last post, and wish that more "punks" felt that way - look and style generally don't make you punk.

RageAndLov
02-02-2010, 05:23 PM
NOFX and Bad Religion are popular as fuck, still they manage to stay punk. I did not state that being popular is automatically selling out. Selling out is when you do what people want you in order to do to be popular and earn a lot. When you're doing what you love doing, popularity and money come with time, but they're just a bonus.


Now, it is debated if NOFX is punk. They barely play music that can be considered punk most of the time, and Fat Mike's DIY ethics went down the drain when he signed with Sony to let them distribute Fat Wreck Chords' music.

dff_punk
02-02-2010, 06:35 PM
I think he was drunk and/or high when he did that. No surprise for me :p