PDA

View Full Version : Best Breakthrough 90s Punk Rock Album



bighead384
07-25-2011, 10:35 PM
Out of the four mid-90s punk albums that made it big, which one do you think is the best?

jacknife737
07-26-2011, 12:11 AM
Well, putting Smash as an option on the Offspring's own bbs, is going to lead to a predictable final result.

Of those, i'd consider Smash the best of the lot: but i wouldn't consider any of those albums to be the best punk album of the 90s, nor even the best album by each of the respective bands.

Rooster
07-26-2011, 03:11 AM
White Light, White Heat, White Trash and Ixnay on the Hombre are two best punk albums of the 90's.

But of course, from your list i choose Smash. It's an obvious choice.

Alex101
07-26-2011, 10:04 AM
But of course, from your list i choose Smash. It's an obvious choice.
Same here.

bighead384
07-26-2011, 10:43 AM
Smash has a few mediocre tracks. Dude Ranch doesn't have enough diversity. And Out Come the Wolves just doesn't have any truly great songs, though almost all of them are good/very good.

I can't really find a flaw with Dookie.


i wouldn't consider any of those albums to be the best punk album of the 90s, nor even the best album by each of the respective bands.
I find it interesting to focus on these albums though, because they were influential and are viewed as classics of their genre/time period.

Retard
07-26-2011, 02:02 PM
I was never that big of a fan of ...And Out Come The Wolves, I mean it's good but it's not great by any means.
Smash is probably my least favorite album on that list.
Dookie is good, but I always liked Insomniac better.
I picked Dude Ranch. Love that album, even though it's not my favorite from them.

Jakebert
07-26-2011, 02:18 PM
Smash will win because it's a Green Day board, but I voted Dookie.

...And Out Come The Wolves is a really flawed album. The first half, up until "Ruby Soho" is pretty good for a generic 90s pop punk album. After that it completely loses steam. I don't remember any of the songs from that half of the album, despite still having the first half memorized despite not listening to it in years.

Dude Ranch is pretty much as generic as mid 90s pop punk gets. There's a little Fat Wreck influence, a little Epitaph, a little Descendents, and some Green Day influences as well. Pretty boring, middle of the road stuff. Most of the songs tend to blend together outside of a few notable songs, too.

Smash is probably the Offsprings strongest album, but it still has a lot of filler and a lot of songs that sound vaguely like they were ripped from other bands, which as I've gotten older I've noticed to be a big problem with them. Lyrically some of the songs are pretty great, but others sound like stereotypical teenage rebellion with little substance.

Dookie isn't perfect, but I'd consider it one of those albums that every 15 year old kid should hear at least once in their life. For a simple pop-punk album it's surprisingly mature without taking itself too seriously, and is incredibly genuine and honest. It's just really representative of what a good pop-punk album should be. "Coming Clean" is also really ballsy if you think about it, the idea of a horny teenage dude admitting that he's questioned his sexuality, being placed in a genre of music that's aimed at pretty immature, usually homophobic age groups. That, and I can't think of a song on it that I haven't forgotten.

Plus, if you want to talk mainstream impact, Dookie was lauded as a classic album long before Green Day's resurgent popularity with American Idiot. The other three albums will, let's be honest, probably not have that same impact.

jacknife737
07-26-2011, 02:44 PM
If we're breaking albums down:

...And Out Come The Wolves - I dig it: there's really not a song on there that I dislike, but through no fault of its own, (in my view) it gets rightfully overshadowed by two much stronger releases: Life Won't Wait (which Happens to be the band's best work) and their hardcore influenced Self-Titled.

Dude Ranch - Is an album that reeks of nostalgia to me, but aside from that i do think it manages to hold up fairly well: i'd definitely agree with Jakebert about the ep-fat sound being a huge influence for the band: which is/was a good fit for them, given Tom's utter lack of vocal ability. The album is also probably the band's most sincere effort lyrically: no pretentious statements of humanity are to be found, and as silly/stupid as it was, i really don't i think the "toilet humor" feels forced: it's an album for immature teens, written by immature almost-teens.

Dookie - The second best album on here: this was essentially my soundtrack to my early teens. I don't really think there's a week song on the album: the only real reason why i'd select Smash over it is that although its probably the most consistent album of the bunch, but some of the songs just don't click with me as well as Smash's does. I's also got a couple of my favorite songs by the band with FOD, and Coming Clean (and i'm going to have to agree again with Jakebert here, concerning gender relations: it's one of the most honest songs i've seen from a straight-male song writer, with only one other song, which is Against Me!'s The Ocean, i think manages to make a larger impact on the listener in this respect.

Smash - Not much to say, that i haven't already typed on this bbs hundreds of times before. A couple filler tracks, but when you hit the good stuff, it sounds phenomenal: this album also has some of my favorite vocals from any Offspring album.

cool 2 hate 681
07-26-2011, 03:07 PM
Plus, if you want to talk mainstream impact, Dookie was lauded as a classic album long before Green Day's resurgent popularity with American Idiot. The other three albums will, let's be honest, probably not have that same impact.

smash is still the best selling independent album of all time

also it far outsold and out come the wolves and dude ranch but your right dookie has the most mainstream impact out of the four

randman21
07-26-2011, 03:21 PM
I'm really not a punk rock scholar, but isn't this list missing Punk in Drublic? I don't think I've ever heard Dude Ranch in the conversation when talking about mid-90s punk awakening, whereas I always hear those other three and NOFX.

For me, it's no contest (Smash), even though I think they are all fantastic works, and even though Dookie is one of my favorite albums.

Static_Martyr
07-26-2011, 05:26 PM
Dookie. Hands-down.

The other albums are good (I dunno about the Blink-182 one but I have the rest), but Dookie is more of an "album" album; the others are more just like collections of songs that I like, hit or miss. To this day I still like every single song on Dookie; there's not a single one I skip when listening through it. It's just made for a single-mood listen-through.

Although, full disclosure, I'm speaking through slight nostalgia filter here; although I didn't really discover Green Day until around 2006, I learned how to play guitar and bass listening to Dookie, so there's also that to consider. The little fill-riffs and amateur-sounding "solos" give Dookie a bit more dynamic feel even though 99% of the riffs are just pure power chords. Rancid, I find, has a tendency to overuse this one particular guitar riff, which gives me the feeling that they sometimes include solos just for the sake of solos, and not because they really belong there. So ...AOCTW is a close 2nd for me, with Smash being 3rd not because it's a bad album, but just because it's one that never really grew on me. I really like the more diverse entries on Smash (What Happened To You, Bad Habit, Gotta Get Away), just because they seem so much more experimental than more recent Offspring records, but as a whole the album just doesn't seem to "flow" as well as Dookie does.

[/2 cents]

Jakebert
07-26-2011, 07:26 PM
smash is still the best selling independent album of all time

also it far outsold and out come the wolves and dude ranch but your right dookie has the most mainstream impact out of the four

Smash may have album sales, but Dookie is usually seen as a landmark album even to this day, while most critics consider Smash to be something of a 90s nostalgia piece that doesn't hold up. And Dookie's significance can be seen in the fact that people were willing to give Green Day a chance when American Idiot came out and propelled them to mega-stardom. The Offspring have just kind of become seen as has-beens by most critics and fans that don't post here.

A lot of people my age (18-24) who were kids in the 90s don't remember the Offspring aside from Pretty Fly For A White Guy and "Keep 'em Separated". Most of those same kids got into Green Day when they were 12-13 because, despite not having any hit singles since 1997 (this was pre-AI) the band was still considered something of a new generation of classic rock from the 90s. Whether or not it's an accurate portrayal, most people my age have the view that The Offspring were a two-hit wonder novelty band.

Not saying you have to agree with this or whatever, but if you're going by just popularity and cultural impact that's kind of the truth.

Also, funny: I Wiki'd "Smash" and in the critical reception section someone referred to it as "One of the most influential rock albums of all time". Someone from this board likes to Wiki.

Sidewinder
07-26-2011, 07:49 PM
In smack in the middle of that 18-24 age group but Smash might be my second least favorite Offspring album, no joke. I just really don't enjoy more than one or two songs on it.

Of those four, I'd definitely have to say Dookie. As I mentioned I don't like Smash really at all, I don't like Rancid as a band much at all, and I completely agree with Jakebert's analysis of Dude Ranch's mediocrity.

Oh, lols, also:

That, and I can't think of a song on it that I haven't forgotten.
Think about this statement for a moment... ;):p

bighead384
07-26-2011, 09:55 PM
I'm really not a punk rock scholar, but isn't this list missing Punk in Drublic? I don't think I've ever heard Dude Ranch in the conversation when talking about mid-90s punk awakening, whereas I always hear those other three and NOFX.

That was a tough call for me. However, Punk in Drublic didn't produce any hit singles unlike the other four albums in the poll, it didn't have videos on MTV, and NOFX didn't play any Late Night shows or anything like that because of it. And I don't think it sold quite as well, although I think it eventually went gold. True, it was still influential as hell and popular among punk/alternative rock fans. But then, so was Pennywise during that time period with About Time and Full Circle. And Lagwagon with Hoss. I had to draw the line somewhere.

Edit: Actually, if anything, you could make the argument that I should have included Bad Religion's Stranger Than Fiction. That album had 3 charting singles, with 21st Century Digital Boy almost cracking the Top 10 of the Modern Rock Chart (it peaked at 11). But eh, I just decided it didn't catch on quite enough to be in the same group as the others on the list. Or at least that's the impression that I get (lol I'm not putting the Bosstones on this list), and it seems like the chart positions of the singles other than Digital Boy support this thought.

In summation, Punk in Drublic was an underground album that sold well and became popular but was never mainstream nor did it have the same level of cultural impact.

Outerspaceman21
07-27-2011, 07:40 PM
Personally, I like Offspring, but going off sales and lasting popularity, Green Day is the one. The Offspring, however, had some great success for being a band on an indie label and proved a lot more than Green Day did.

jacknife737
07-27-2011, 08:05 PM
The Offspring, however, had some great success for being a band on an indie label and proved a lot more than Green Day did.

This is another reason why i've always been more impressed by Smash's success in comparison to Dookie. Green Day were on a major label and had a fair sized marketing department working to promote their album: i mean just look at the production values of the Basket Case music video compared to Come Out and Play (something that was filmed in some dudes garage, i think).

Sidewinder
07-27-2011, 09:20 PM
Can you clarify: Are we voting on which has had the most impact or which is our favorite?

RageAndLov
07-28-2011, 02:46 AM
Blink 182 made a punk album? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

bighead384
07-28-2011, 11:06 AM
Can you clarify: Are we voting on which has had the most impact or which is our favorite?

The options in the list are based on which punk rock albums from that time had the most impact/success. But what you are voting on is based on which album you think is best. I was just elaborating on why I chose these four specific albums.

Jakebert
07-28-2011, 01:00 PM
Blink 182 made a punk album? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You could say the same thing about any of the bands on there if you really want to.

RageAndLov
07-28-2011, 02:10 PM
You could say the same thing about any of the bands on there if you really want to.

Rancid and Offspring are debatable, but Blink 182? HAHAHA!

jacknife737
07-28-2011, 03:14 PM
Honestly, i really don't see how Dude Ranch is any poppier than say the Ramones Rocket to Russia, or Love Bites by the Buzzcocks.

Granted, it's nowhere near as good as those other records, but from a stylistic standpoint, it's not all that different.

Jakebert
07-28-2011, 08:47 PM
Exactly. I don't want to get this thread off on a tangent, but I've always been amused by the "it's not punx enough!!!" arguments when most of the first wave of punk bands were basically just rock 'n roll bands with more distortion and less impressive guitar work. The Ramones were basically the Beach Boys but brattier for the most part.

Really, what made those bands (and early rock 'n roll bands, for that matter) so impressive was that they mixed aggression with some of the catchiest pop melodies ever.

Retard
07-28-2011, 11:14 PM
That is the reason why i always still consider Blink a POP-punk band. There's about 89% of pop in there, with that 11% of punk in there to keep it from being complete pop. Dude Ranch and Cheshire Cat, are just as punk as Green Day is during their early days, they fucking toured with Pennywise for fucks sake.

Sidewinder
07-29-2011, 12:27 PM
Oh, Pennywise. How incredibly, astoundingly mediocre they are.

But, yeah. And Ska has done a similar thing to separate itself from punk. As punk grew further away from rock, ska went back to more basic, catchy/bouncy pop tunes done in their own style.

RageAndLov
07-29-2011, 02:01 PM
Exactly. I don't want to get this thread off on a tangent, but I've always been amused by the "it's not punx enough!!!" arguments when most of the first wave of punk bands were basically just rock 'n roll bands with more distortion and less impressive guitar work. The Ramones were basically the Beach Boys but brattier for the most part.

Really, what made those bands (and early rock 'n roll bands, for that matter) so impressive was that they mixed aggression with some of the catchiest pop melodies ever.

A lot of people and bands would not consider Sex Pistols/The Clash/The Ramones as punk bands. Ever heard the song Punk Is Dead by Crass?


That is the reason why i always still consider Blink a POP-punk band. There's about 89% of pop in there, with that 11% of punk in there to keep it from being complete pop. Dude Ranch and Cheshire Cat, are just as punk as Green Day is during their early days, they fucking toured with Pennywise for fucks sake.

Well barely anyone would argue that Green Day ever was a punk band.

Jakebert
07-29-2011, 02:25 PM
A lot of people and bands would not consider Sex Pistols/The Clash/The Ramones as punk bands. Ever heard the song Punk Is Dead by Crass?

Well, no offense and I'm not trying to be a dick, but if you don't consider the Ramones a punk band than you know next to knowing about music history.

Static_Martyr
07-29-2011, 03:15 PM
This might just be the Ramones fanboy in me speaking....but I swear I recall reading in a documentary/biography somewhere that The Ramones started calling themselves "punk" because of a bad review they got for a show one time where the reviewer called them "a bunch of punks" or something like that. And being The Ramones, they of course embraced the terminology. So in that sense you might say they were one of the first ever "official" punk bands.

I was pretty sure that this had something to do with the story behind "Sheena Is A Punk Rocker."

jacknife737
07-29-2011, 03:24 PM
This might just be the Ramones fanboy in me speaking....but I swear I recall reading in a documentary/biography somewhere that The Ramones started calling themselves "punk" because of a bad review they got for a show one time where the reviewer called them "a bunch of punks" or something like that. And being The Ramones, they of course embraced the terminology. So in that sense you might say they were one of the first ever "official" punk bands.

I was pretty sure that this had something to do with the story behind "Sheena Is A Punk Rocker."

From a stylistic point of view, i'd consider them to be the first band to encapsulate all the main characteristics of a "punk" band.

I've always been put off by the militancy (and downright silliness) that a lot of 80s hardcore and anarcho bands had towards the first punk wave bands from the 70s.

Jakebert
07-29-2011, 06:19 PM
The militancy of 80s hardcore about pretty much any subject is a huge turnoff for me. But the obsession with defining things as punk or not punk, or treating it like it's some kind of mentality rather than a genre of music is just silly.

There's a lot of 80s hardcore bands that I really like, but then I hear lyrics about how much they hate posers or jocks or whatever and I feel awkward.

bighead384
07-29-2011, 06:38 PM
Smash (the song) came on my iPod today and I realized something: When I used think those lyrics were epic, or at least found them somewhat relevant, it made Smash seem like a much better album. Smash used to be this epic finale to me, as well as a great song on the second half of an album that begins to run somewhat stale. Growing out of that song really makes that album significantly less good.

Retard
07-29-2011, 08:57 PM
Well back in the eighties a lot of "Jocks" hated punks and fucked with the hardcore kids and punks back then. They'd call them fags, beat them up, all that shit, it was not looked at kindly like it is now. Ever see that movie Suburbia?(the Flea one, not the Steve Zahn one from the nineties.) it's all about people trying to get rid of the punks in their town.

I honestly like Crass a lot more than the Ramones.

Jakebert
07-29-2011, 10:28 PM
I understand all that, but regardless it's still kind of childish. The thing about the 80s hardcore scene that a lot of people don't realize is that they used to beat the shit out of kids that would come to shows and weren't considered punk enough. That kind of tribal mentality that they fought against from the jocks or whatever was just as prevalent in the punk scene, and it translates into the music if you really pay attention to the "FUCK THE POSERS!!!" stuff. It's nothing more than warring high school cliques, and once you get past the age of 17 it's pretty meaningless. This is why a lot of 80s hardcore hasn't aged particularly well and the whole notion of a band or person being punk or not punk is an antiquated, stupid idea that ignores the fact that most of the first wave of punk bands were just really great aggressive pop bands and pretends that 80s hardcore is the only "real" punk.

nieh
07-29-2011, 11:03 PM
This might just be the Ramones fanboy in me speaking....but I swear I recall reading in a documentary/biography somewhere that The Ramones started calling themselves "punk" because of a bad review they got for a show one time where the reviewer called them "a bunch of punks" or something like that. And being The Ramones, they of course embraced the terminology. So in that sense you might say they were one of the first ever "official" punk bands.



From a stylistic point of view, i'd consider them to be the first band to encapsulate all the main characteristics of a "punk" band.
Coming up with the term doesn't mean they're the first people to do that style of music. You could argue that they were the first full blown punk rock band because they were the first band to focus on that style exclusively, but it existed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIJzOPBIVvw) before them (hell, there were even some stray songs that were effectively post-punk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYeVvp8sdmg) before them). And yes, the Ramones were effectively pop-punk, and it always boggles my mind when people say shit like "Blink 182 are too poppy for me. Now The Ramones, THERE'S a punk band."

Static_Martyr
07-29-2011, 11:22 PM
Coming up with the term doesn't mean they're the first people to do that style of music.

Yes, but what I said was that they were the first band to really give the whole package (that's why I used the word "official"). You can find bits and pieces and anecdotes of other bands here and there who did a "punky" thing or two, or had a couple of songs with a "punk" style, but the first-wave punk bands (Ramones, Clash, Pistols) were among the first to openly claim, and deliberately and directionally produce, such music.

It's kind of like how pop artists sometimes play things that aren't pop. If a pop-punk band has a metal-sounding song, that doesn't make them a metal *band* (at least not in my eyes), it just means that they have some stylistic elements of metal (which is not even a bad thing). Likewise, while there were bands before the 'first wave' groups that had punk elements, the first wave bands were the first ones to, as Mr. Jakebert said, "encapsulate" all of those major traits together, deliberately. Which, in my view, effectively makes them at least among the first punk bands, if not THE first.

jacknife737
07-30-2011, 01:02 AM
Coming up with the term doesn't mean they're the first people to do that style of music. You could argue that they were the first full blown punk rock band because they were the first band to focus on that style exclusively, but it existed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIJzOPBIVvw) before them (hell, there were even some stray songs that were effectively post-punk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYeVvp8sdmg) before them). And yes, the Ramones were effectively pop-punk, and it always boggles my mind when people say shit like "Blink 182 are too poppy for me. Now The Ramones, THERE'S a punk band."

I suppose we'll agree to disagree here: but i really don't consider the Iggy and the Stooges, nor any of their other early CBGB's compatriots like Patty Smith, Television, ect to be punk. They're "proto-punk", as in, they certainly share a few characteristics of the genre: and I Got A Right is pretty much a punk song on its own, but as you alluded to, i consider the Ramones the first punk band in the truest sense of the word, because essentially that was their only style of music.

nieh
07-30-2011, 06:55 AM
Oh, I don't consider any of them to be full blown punk rock bands either, they're proto-punk as you said, but I Got a Right is absolutely a punk rock song which means the Ramones didn't invent the style, even though they were the first to focus on it to the extent that you could describe them as a punk rock band. But coming up with the term doesn't mean anything if the style already existed the songs that were around before the term become part of that term, too. If, hypothetically, The Stooges did an album of nothing but I Got a Rights, and the term punk rock still wasn't coined until the Ramones, you would still have to call the Stooges album the first punk rock album.

RageAndLov
07-30-2011, 02:17 PM
Well, no offense and I'm not trying to be a dick, but if you don't consider the Ramones a punk band than you know next to knowing about music history.


The militancy of 80s hardcore about pretty much any subject is a huge turnoff for me. But the obsession with defining things as punk or not punk, or treating it like it's some kind of mentality rather than a genre of music is just silly.

There's a lot of 80s hardcore bands that I really like, but then I hear lyrics about how much they hate posers or jocks or whatever and I feel awkward.

Punk is something more than a music genre. It is a culture, a scene and a life style. Punks are people with loosely similar directions of ideas. So when big bands like Ramones, Sex Pistols and Clash, who sing about punk and its ideals, suddenly go against everything they stood for, making themselves a bunch of hypocritical rock stars, then it is not weird that punks would not see them as common men anymore. The three bands arguably played punk music, but they weren't punk bands. People from the punk scene would say that bands like Ramones didn't even play punk music; songs being too poppy, songs always following the commercial formula etc.

Static_Martyr
07-30-2011, 02:25 PM
Well maybe it would make more sense for people to not use the term "punk" when talking about "punx lifestyle" bands, given that the term originated amongst the first-wave "punk" bands (Ramones, Clash, etc.). Argue about the style all you want, but that was when the term first came to be used. When I think of punk I think of Ramones, Clash, etc., I don't really think of Minor Threat and Black Flag. Those guys make me think "hardcore."

I always say "punk" when I mean "pop/punk" and "hardcore" or "hardcore punk" when I talk about 80s hardcore. Then there are a smidgen of bands that sort of fall in between (Bad Religion comes to mind).

RageAndLov
07-30-2011, 02:38 PM
Well maybe it would make more sense for people to not use the term "punk" when talking about "punx lifestyle" bands, given that the term originated amongst the first-wave "punk" bands (Ramones, Clash, etc.). Argue about the style all you want, but that was when the term first came to be used. When I think of punk I think of Ramones, Clash, etc., I don't really think of Minor Threat and Black Flag. Those guys make me think "hardcore."

I always say "punk" when I mean "pop/punk" and "hardcore" or "hardcore punk" when I talk about 80s hardcore. Then there are a smidgen of bands that sort of fall in between (Bad Religion comes to mind).

Punk is one of those overused words used in all different ways, that it barely has a meaning anymore. It means so many different things to so many different people. Pretty much like the word "socialism". I agree there should be a better word for it and also words separating pop punk from hardcore punk in a fashion of common understanding. Punks refer to hardcore punk as just punk, MTV refers to blink 182 as just punk. That's the basis of the never-ending debate regarding what is punk and not punk. If everyone would call it for what it is, then problem solved. Or at least create different terms for the different things. There is a difference between Bowling For Soup and Minor Threat, but the term "punk" does not show that properly.

jacknife737
07-30-2011, 04:26 PM
But the thing is though, these "punk ideals" like DIY, anti-major labels, ect were products of a very particular sect of the subculture: primarily they originated from the DC area hardcore scene in the 1980s, so i think it's a bit unfair to assign those as being the defining characteristic of the entire subculture; as well it's unfair to libel the Ramones with the charge of being hypocrites, since from their origins they've always wanted to be one of the biggest bands in the world, same goes for the Clash.

Again: i'm going to have to agree with Static_Martyr. Punk is a label that i would definitely give to the first wave 70s bands: and i certainly don't consider hardcore to be the only true form of the genre. Though i doubt anybody is going to change each others minds about this.

nieh
07-30-2011, 06:15 PM
Punk rock is a musical genre. That's why the word "rock" is in it. Any lifestyle people choose to associate with that musical genre is their prerogative, but it's not inherent to it. As with every other genre, there are defining characteristics of it that the first wave of bands like the Clash , The Ramones and the Sex Pistols all had. Ergo, they are punk. There is also some wiggle room within the genre, hence why someone like Bad Religion and Blink 182 can both be considered part of the same genre, just like how there's other bands with distinctive styles in every other genre.

Jakebert
07-30-2011, 07:24 PM
This. What Nieh said. The idea that punk is some strict, narrowly defined thing that only a select group of bands that fit each and every single abstract rule applied to it by the fanbase is silly, and would mean that it'd be impossible to be a "real" punk band unless it's made up of homeless dudes in spiked collars who don't make any money off of their albums and don't do anything that could be considered something mainstream. This is why people like Jacknife, Nieh, Static Martyr, and myself are saying that the definition of a band as punk or not punk is too abstract to even bother with.

Look at it this way: Led Zeppelin and Sonic Youth are both rock bands, yet they sound nothing alike. Each of them share certain characteristics in terms of song structure and the type of instruments used. This is why they're both considered rock bands, and no one would dispute that. Getting into an argument over which band is more "rock" than the other would be silly, as a pretty obvious musical lineage links them together, a lineage that's difficult to dispute if you have any knowledge of the history of 20th century popular music. Each band may be a different type of rock- with Zeppelin being a heavy blues rock band and Sonic Youth being a noise rock or alternative rock band- but they're both still rock bands.

Blink 182, the Offspring, and Black Flag all have some stuff in common that make them each punk bands. All 3 bands follow a very simple structure of short, aggressive songs that use very basic chord structures, usually relying on mostly power chords. All 3 bands use fairly simple hooks and melodies that pretty much stick to a verse-chorus-verse structure. They all descend from a fairly easy to follow lineage that began with proto-punk bands like Iggy Pop and the Shaggs, that followed to the early 70s bands, then stretched out into hardcore and a multitude of other sub genres that all fall under the punk label and are largely meaningless outside of giving a description for a new listener to latch onto so they know what to expect when checking out a band.

But, at the end of the day, all of these bands are punk bands and who is more or less punk is completely irrelevant, meaningless, and trivial. It's an argument grown out of a human need to create cliques, labels, and trends that people can identify with. Hating a band because they're not punk enough is kind of like a big tough weight-lifter hating a frail effeminate Star Trek fan because they're a "faggot". It's a way to help the person whose branding something as an "other" feel superior and important about themselves. Because no one ever says that a band isn't punk without it being a derogatory comment or some kind of slam against a band that isn't cool enough to really be a punk band.

And, to Jacknife's point, the Ramones, Clash, Sex Pistols, and basically all of the first wave of punk set out to be big from the beginning. Yes, the music itself was partially a reaction to the excessive of progressive rock at the time, but the bands still wanted to be popular, because as a musician the idea of being able to make money doing something you absolutely love without having to work day jobs is a no-brainer. By becoming popular or evolving their sound they weren't being hypocrites because they never fought against that stuff at all.

Retard
07-31-2011, 12:15 AM
Back that shit 100% Jake.

ad8
07-31-2011, 07:56 AM
I'm really not a punk rock scholar, but isn't this list missing Punk in Drublic? I don't think I've ever heard Dude Ranch in the conversation when talking about mid-90s punk awakening, whereas I always hear those other three and NOFX.

For me, it's no contest (Smash), even though I think they are all fantastic works, and even though Dookie is one of my favorite albums.
Yes.
I also think that Stranger Than Fiction deserves to be in there, even though I would still vote for Smash as the best breakthrough album.

RageAndLov
08-03-2011, 08:15 AM
This. What Nieh said. The idea that punk is some strict, narrowly defined thing that only a select group of bands that fit each and every single abstract rule applied to it by the fanbase is silly, and would mean that it'd be impossible to be a "real" punk band unless it's made up of homeless dudes in spiked collars who don't make any money off of their albums and don't do anything that could be considered something mainstream. This is why people like Jacknife, Nieh, Static Martyr, and myself are saying that the definition of a band as punk or not punk is too abstract to even bother with.


That makes the term "punk" virtually meaningless and you end up saying Rihanna's Shut Up and Drive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up7pvPqNkuU&ob=av2e) is just as punk as any Negative FX song. Every artist and band with a somewhat fast guitar in their songs would be punk. That's the only criteria you come up with; anything else is voluntarily.

Jakebert
08-03-2011, 10:29 AM
My point this whole time is that what is or isn't punk is largely meaningless, and just a description of what a certain genre of music sounds like. So yeah, you're absolutely right that my argument would make the term punk meaningless. Because it largely is.

Retard
08-03-2011, 02:16 PM
I totally bet that when Rihana and her producer were in the studio about to record that song, the producer probably said something like oh this song kinda has a punkish feel to it. So in the long run, what Rage said was kinda true, Negative FX and Rihana had something in common, besides me loving both of them.