Green Day as a Punk/Rock Band: Yay or Nay?

Nic Neptune

From me: a big fat NO!

No offence to Green Day fans, I like their music but not the band members. Anyone who proclaims "WE ARE PUNK" is definitely NOT punk. (It was the most anti-Punk documentary I've ever laid eyes on).

Listen to the punk greats: The Clash, Sex Pistols, Buzzcocks, Cure etc. (sorry if I left out your fave band :P) There's a rawness there that I don't think will ever be achieved in modern music.

Imo, they're punk/pop, not punk/rock. Punk was more for the music and the message, and while there is a message in some Green Day lyrics, it doesn't reach out nearly as strongly as true punk (take Stiff Little Fingers as an example).

I'm not saying that as fact, that is just my opinion and I was wondering if anyone agrees or disagrees with me.

Not a debate thread, but simply a stating of opinion.

Brunteaphile

Viva La Gloria

Green Day's lyrics have very strong messages. Did you listen to their last two albums? 21st Century Breakdown, while there are a few ballads not particularly relevant to any form of revolutionary 'punk' anthems, is a very anarchic album in ways. Songs like 21st Century Breakdown, East Jesus Nowhere, Static Age and Peacemaker (to name a few) are easily PERFECT examples of sending out a clear message and rebelling against what's alleged to be 'normal' in society.

Green Day doesn't actually call themselves 'punks', they stopped doing that years ago because they are constantly evolving and 'punk' isn't the same as what it was in 1994. They might now refer to themselves as a 'punk rock' band, yes, but no one can really call on whether sub genres such as that even exist because it's a never ending debate. They were named best punk band of all time in Rolling Stone a few months ago. Sure that's ****ing bull**** anyway because there's no way you can even decipher something like that when 'punk' is such a drawn out movement spanning over so many years.

Dord

Brunteaphile wrote: »

Pretty much.

I'm a fan of the band and make no apologies about it. I don't give a **** what genre they fall into. Quite a lot of Pop Punk bands aren't actually fckin' Pop Punk, but just Emo. You could say the same about most modern "Hardcore" bands... and so on...

Here's a funny relevant picture

Jake The Fat Ma

The Cure? Punk? I dont think so dude

calex71

Ah look once they might have been but people / bands move on or evolve so what does it matter what they are now ??????

Enjoy the music or don't !!!!

I have to admit it took me a while to get past what they have become and simply enjoy the music for what it is.

Nervous Wreck

The worst thing about Green Day is that they inspire people to say things like this:

Nic Neptune wrote: »

Listen to the punk greats: The Clash, Sex Pistols, Buzzcocks, Cure etc. (sorry if I left out your fave band :P) There's a rawness there that I don't think will ever be achieved in modern music.

Imo, they're punk/pop, not punk/rock. Punk was more for the music and the message, and while there is a message in some Green Day lyrics, it doesn't reach out nearly as strongly as true punk (take Stiff Little Fingers as an example).

and others to say things like this:

Viva La Gloria wrote: »

Green Day doesn't actually call themselves 'punks', they stopped doing that years ago because they are constantly evolving and 'punk' isn't the same as what it was in 1994. They might now refer to themselves as a 'punk rock' band, yes, but no one can really call on whether sub genres such as that even exist because it's a never ending debate. They were named best punk band of all time in Rolling Stone a few months ago. Sure that's ****ing bull**** anyway because there's no way you can even decipher something like that when 'punk' is such a drawn out movement spanning over so many years.

Tweedo

Jake The Fat Ma wrote: »

The Cure? Punk? I dont think so dude

Maybe this thread should be The Cure as a Punk/Rock Band: Yay or Nay? I've heard several people calling them Punk, but from what I've heard ( although I'm not THAT into them, only know maybe 10 of their songs ) they sound anything but Punk. Alternative, even rock maybe, but not punk

Viva La Gloria

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I wonder if you're as much a moron in person as you are on the internet...

Nervous Wreck

That's not me, it's James Van Der Beek.

suspectdevice

the cure were punk? now? nah, not since the real early days http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAFbv9EpEYE&feature=related

and green day are a pop band now which means they were never really punk

tr0llface

Green Day /were/ punk, but they've gotten so ridiculously mainstream. I mean, everyone knows more than five people who are all "OMGGG! I LUV GREEN DAAAII! HAHA WAK3 M33 UP WEN 9TH MUNTH ENDZ!!". -.-

Viva La Gloria

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

That's not me, it's James Van Der Beek.

L O L.

suspectdevice wrote: »

and green day are a pop band now which means they were never really punk

How were they never punk just because of what people think they are now?

suspectdevice

because they were never punk if they were prepared to slip into mainstream. never stayed true to their creed. little short arsed pop star going around playing stupid ballads. ****wit

played to perfection. surprised malcolm mclaren didnt manage them

Cameron Poe

suspectdevice wrote: »

because they were never punk if they were prepared to slip into mainstream. never stayed true to their creed. little short arsed pop star going around playing stupid ballads. ****wit

played to perfection. surprised malcolm mclaren didnt manage them

Define mainstream? What about Feargal Sharkey banging out a few ballads? Hasn't ruined the Undertones legacy.

What is a punks creed?
What bands turned you on to punk as a kid? Bet they were signed to a major at some stage or another (including fat wreck and epitaph etc).

This is all a load of nonsense really.

dulpit

Punk snobs = :mad:

Who cares?

To be honest the question would be better phrased as "Green Day as a good band: yay or nay" to which my answer would be they used be good but have gone way off the boil.

problemchimp

Punk happened once and won't happen again, but who gives a fuuck. Green Day are not a punk band in my opinion, but again, who gives a fuuck. Either you like them or you don't. When genres like punk or ska, or movements like the hippie thing happen, they happen for that time and trying to copy them is just a bit contrived and usually done by the "marketing chap" at the record company. Green Day are a bit too young for the punk thing but I wouldn't knock them for belting out some decent tunes.

Tomk1

Jake The Fat Ma wrote: »

The Cure? Punk? I dont think so dude

Formed towards the end of the Punk-era, just listen to their first album, and their early live stuff, pure & raw. There are many aspects of punk, from sone of the 1st bands The New York Dolls, The Ramones, to the darkness of Joy Division & The Cure.

When Green day started they were collage-punk/rock, now they're just a pop band for teen-girls.
I so much regretted buying that album 'American Idiot' rather than dump it, I gave it away as fast as I could and tried to erase it from my brain.

Now for some Elvis Costello.

Viva La Gloria

suspectdevice wrote: »

because they were never punk if they were prepared to slip into mainstream. never stayed true to their creed. little short arsed pop star going around playing stupid ballads. ****wit

played to perfection. surprised malcolm mclaren didnt manage them

So what if they signed to reprise records? They knew damn well that they weren't part of the Gilman punk scene after that and they were making huge sacrifices in deciding to sign to a major label with regards to their values and where they came from, and even their friends. If you look at all of the big bands that are considered 'punk' - The Clash, The Sex Pistols, The Ramones, etc. etc. (none of whom even exist anymore) How rich and famous were they? How many people knew who they were? What record labels were they signed to? The whole point of punk was to rebel against conformity and not concede to the capitalist and corporate jerks who were rolling around in money. It was all about 'doing it yourself' - which is odd, because if The Clash or The Ramones were to have done that, then nobody today would know who they are. Oh yeah, those bands totally stayed true to their 'creed.' The whole thing is ****ing bull****, it's like an a la carte menu.

Nervous Wreck

Viva La Gloria wrote: »

So what if they signed to reprise records? They knew damn well that they weren't part of the Gilman punk scene after that and they were making huge sacrifices in deciding to sign to a major label with regards to their values and where they came from, and even their friends. If you look at all of the big bands that are considered 'punk' - The Clash, The Sex Pistols, The Ramones, etc. etc. (none of whom even exist anymore) How rich and famous were they? How many people knew who they were? What record labels were they signed to? The whole point of punk was to rebel against conformity and not concede to the capitalist and corporate jerks who were rolling around in money. It was all about 'doing it yourself' - which is odd, because if The Clash or The Ramones were to have done that, then nobody today would know who they are. Oh yeah, those bands totally stayed true to their 'creed.' The whole thing is ****ing bull****, it's like an a la carte menu.

Tenner bets there exists an interview somewhere where Billie-Joe says this whole post practically verbatim.

Viva La Gloria

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Tenner bets there exists an interview somewhere where Billie-Joe says this whole post practically verbatim.

Are you actually just arguing for the sake of arguing? I don't really get what your deal is, mate.

dregin

Cameron Poe wrote: »

Define mainstream? What about Feargal Sharkey banging out a few ballads? Hasn't ruined the Undertones legacy.

Probably because he had ballix all to do with the creative side of The Undertones.

dregin

Viva La Gloria wrote: »

So what if they signed to reprise records? They knew damn well that they weren't part of the Gilman punk scene after that and they were making huge sacrifices in deciding to sign to a major label with regards to their values and where they came from, and even their friends. If you look at all of the big bands that are considered 'punk' - The Clash, The Sex Pistols, The Ramones, etc. etc. (none of whom even exist anymore) How rich and famous were they? How many people knew who they were? What record labels were they signed to? The whole point of punk was to rebel against conformity and not concede to the capitalist and corporate jerks who were rolling around in money. It was all about 'doing it yourself' - which is odd, because if The Clash or The Ramones were to have done that, then nobody today would know who they are. Oh yeah, those bands totally stayed true to their 'creed.' The whole thing is ****ing bull****, it's like an a la carte menu.

You do realize that MacLaren and Westwood created The Pistols purely for fashion reasons? I like some of their music, but they're definitely not a band I'd base any argument on.

Motley Crue

Green Day established themselves as a Punk band, based on their core values and reasons for personally picking up and learning instruments, and for going out and performing concerts.

I think what they've become now is a more modern, Punk for the 21st Century, although of course you wouldn't compare them musically with the likes of The Jam and The Ramones you would say they have left as lasting an impression (or are likely to leave such a lasting impression) because of their belief and strength in performing Punk music.

The fact is that Green Day obviously wanted more from their music personally, as individuals, and could have broken up sometime around 1999 and kept their "legacy" intact but instead decided to look inward, strip away their pre conceived notions about what a Punk rock band is expected to play and produced an album which surprised even their biggest expectations.

I consider the last two Green Day albums more as freedom of expression than proper studio albums, more concepts then conception, and I think that they may return to their "roots" one day (if, for nothing else, to sell more records)

Viva La Gloria

dregin wrote: »

You do realize that MacLaren and Westwood created The Pistols purely for fashion reasons? I like some of their music, but they're definitely not a band I'd base any argument on.

It doesn't matter, Sex Pistols are still widely considered to be one of the biggest 'punk' bands around. So if you're going to call them punk then you might as well call Green Day punk. It's all stupid, this whole "Punk is not dead!!" ****e can go **** off, you simply can't compare punk from the 70s and 80s to the 'kerrang punk' that's around today, it's not the same. It's like as if 'punk rock' is now the safer term to use for bands who fit under the 'punk' category but are too maistream to satisfy it. Just like Green Day, they are so often referred to as 'punk rock.' I don't know or care what they are, to me it doesn't matter. They've been my favourite band for 10 years and I can't see that changing any time soon.

Dord

Motley Crue wrote: »

Green Day established themselves as a Punk band, based on their core values and reasons for personally picking up and learning instruments, and for going out and performing concerts.

I think what they've become now is a more modern, Punk for the 21st Century, although of course you wouldn't compare them musically with the likes of The Jam and The Ramones you would say they have left as lasting an impression (or are likely to leave such a lasting impression) because of their belief and strength in performing Punk music.

The fact is that Green Day obviously wanted more from their music personally, as individuals, and could have broken up sometime around 1999 and kept their "legacy" intact but instead decided to look inward, strip away their pre conceived notions about what a Punk rock band is expected to play and produced an album which surprised even their biggest expectations.

I consider the last two Green Day albums more as freedom of expression than proper studio albums, more concepts then conception, and I think that they may return to their "roots" one day (if, for nothing else, to sell more records)

In fairness, if you look back to their influences they weren't really all that punk. They cite influences such as The Replacements (some earlier punk/later rock), Husker Du (punk earlier/rock later), Cheap Trick (rock), The Who (rock) etc...

Now, these are all great bands and I love and listen to each of them. But, Green Day were always coming from a pop rock/punk background. I read a few interviews with Larry Livermore (Lookout! Records) and he stated that initially he was quite worried that Green Day were going for a lighter approach compared to their peers. It's not only recent.

dregin

The Replacements were awesome.

viadah

I think ya may get some consensus on what 'punk' actually is before indulging in these kinds of arguments, and good ****ing luck to anyone who wants to poke their tadger into that wasp's nest.

Viva La Gloria

Dord wrote: »

I read a few interviews with Larry Livermore (Lookout! Records) and he stated that initially he was quite worried that Green Day were going for a lighter approach compared to their peers. It's not only recent.

Yeah, sure in the very beginning they weren't allowed to play in Gilman because they were too 'poppy' apparently. And with a name like Sweet Children, I guess you can't really blame them. But that was back when they were about 16. I remember reading an interview before where Billie states that he was also very influenced by Van Halen as well and that was the foundation for his friendship with Mike Dirnt. I thought this quote was interesting: 'Sometimes I think we've become totally redundant because we're this big band now, we've made a lot of money – we're not punk rock any more. But then I think about it and just say, 'You can take us out of a punk rock environment, but you can't take the punk rock out of us.'

Also, this interview at 0:40

suspectdevice

sure, you know it all don't you.

dead kennedys
feederz
uk subs
crass
subhumans
first slf album

you know the stuff. punk


undertones were a pop band

suspectdevice

Viva La Gloria wrote: »

So what if they signed to reprise records? They knew damn well that they weren't part of the Gilman punk scene after that and they were making huge sacrifices in deciding to sign to a major label with regards to their values and where they came from, and even their friends. If you look at all of the big bands that are considered 'punk' - The Clash, The Sex Pistols, The Ramones, etc. etc. (none of whom even exist anymore) How rich and famous were they? How many people knew who they were? What record labels were they signed to? The whole point of punk was to rebel against conformity and not concede to the capitalist and corporate jerks who were rolling around in money. It was all about 'doing it yourself' - which is odd, because if The Clash or The Ramones were to have done that, then nobody today would know who they are. Oh yeah, those bands totally stayed true to their 'creed.' The whole thing is ****ing bull****, it's like an a la carte menu.

philistine