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

Viva La Gloria

suspectdevice wrote: »

philistine

this made me laugh out loud.

suspectdevice

why?

Viva La Gloria

Because I really can't see how it applies

suspectdevice

guess you never will then

Viva La Gloria

...is it that you aren't capable of elaborating on your argument, or are you just not arsed? in which case, why even bother in the first place?

suspectdevice

they were the green days of their time, thats all

take crAss, they were punk, and some of the bands today are punk, but it aint green day

Viva La Gloria

But that doesn't change the fact that Green Day was most definitely considered punk in their early years.

suspectdevice

hmmm....ok.

its subjective with regard to what punk means. can't expect anyone to stick with it forever. staying true to it like crass is punk. using punk as a route to become a pop band like little billy short arse isn't....but lets say thats my honest opinion

viadah

So this is how far punk has come? Bitching about Green Day? Who really gives a **** about their credentials? All mainstream 'modern punk' was a record label driven reaction to the oppressive mood of grunge anyway, capitalising on jaunty, happy go lucky songs that weren't all about being miserable, so any band that got any kind of push after Kurt Cobain's shotgun rang out can be considered 'not punk' by scene-Nazis regardless of credentials.

Check out N.W.A.'s 'Efil4zaggin' if you want punk. Why? Because not many people consider it punk. Can't find the Guitar World (yeah I know) article that listed it as one of their top punk albums as a back up to this statement but **** it, it'd be a better way to spend your time than bitch-slapping Green Day.

OakeyDokey

I like Green Day, their earlier stuff more than their newer stuff but I still like them. Who gives a sh*te what genre they are? Seriously what is the big deal about it?

suspectdevice

some people don't like to hear it when they are told that green day aint punk

MightyMighty737

suspectdevice wrote: »

some people don't like to hear it when they are told that green day aint punk

Telling people what is and isn't punk, most definitly isn't punk.

dregin

I have to say, I was once so desperate to be in a band that I auditioned for a Greenday covers band. Happy to say I had to read the lyrics off a CD's liner notes They were ****e.

bitzy

ANY BAND WHO TAKES A YEAR TO MAKE THEIR LAST ALBUM AINT A PUNK BAND!! THEY ARE STADIUM ROCKERS FOR STADIUM PEOPLE WHO PAY STADIUM PRICES TO WATCH 3 TINY ****IN DOTS!

PS. RAMONES-FIRST ALBUM-TWO WEEKS TO RECORD-COST?-6,400 BUCKS-INFLUENCE?-A WHOLE ****IN GENERATION!

BITZY

viadah

I love punk.

'Yeah and the Ramones are so punk that every ****er on the planet owns a Ramones t-shirt.'

Ya wind 'em up, and ya watch 'em spin. In my opinion, the least punk attitude in the world is arguing whether something is punk or not. Stop being so ****ing precious about it, it's worse than listening to 13 year old girls back in the day when Robbie Williams quit Take That.

suspectdevice

MightyMighty737 wrote: »

Telling people what is and isn't punk, most definitly isn't punk.

bahahaha.........telling people that telling people what is and isn't punk most definitely isn't punk so what

i just think its funny the way the like green day fan boys get their panties all bunched up when they realise they support a punk band and their merch comes from hot topic

yeah, punks not dead.......i know

Viva La Gloria

suspectdevice wrote: »

i just think its funny the way the like green day fan boys get their panties all bunched up when they realise they support a punk band and their merch comes from hot topic

I don't know one Green Day fan who feels that way...

suspectdevice

its a typo.....i was drunk.....see if you can figure out what i meant

languagenerd

I hate the way that this argument comes up whenever Green Day are mentioned - sometimes people expect you to be nearly apologetic when you say you like them!

If we're gonna define punk by the old underground-subversive-counterculture scene, then no, they aren't punk now. But they started out in that scene, they began as a punk band. They couldn't make music that sounds like 39/Smooth or Kerplunk or even Dookie forever! They evolved, and whether you want to call em punk now or not is up to you.

I do think they deserve some credit for re-invigorating the punk scene though. A lot of the kids who heard a Green Day CD in 1994, or 1997, or 2004 (or even 2009 I guess) then went back and looked up the Ramones, or Op Ivy, or Stiff Little Fingers, or The Clash or whoever and got into punk that way (I know I did, judge me if you like :P).

I like (most of) their music, new and old, and I think they put on a great show. At the end of the day, is that not the whole point of music? Does it really matter what label is put on a band?

viadah

All that matters is that that badge you wear shines brighter than the next guy. Watching people argue about the definition of punk is like watching a retard trying to **** a doorknob.

Everyone ends up fat and old eventually. Then it doesn't matter.

bosnian

I would say no.
If you're on today's MTV, you're definitely not punk.

viadah

See? ****ing relentless.

suspectdevice

pray tell oh wise one.....tell us what subjects you think we should limit our discussion to

if there is one thing punks hates its fascists who would restrict anyones beliefs and expressing opinions

i think its funny listening to people who get their panties in a bunch when other people discuss topics they obviously have an interest and an opinion

viadah

Of more meritorious discussion would perhaps be evolving personally and as a scene under the blanket banner of 'punk', harbouring a communal spirit that allowed creative initiative to flourish and removing all trace of elements that restrict evolution by pigeon-holing any artistic endeavour to a restrictive definition of itself.

Then we could all eat a thesaurus together.

Then maybe the name we apply to ourselves in this world wouldn't be as important as the things we do. And yeah I know it's just a goddamned web forum and a brain dead topic being discussed but **** it, nothing wrong with a little idealism now and then to break the monotony.

suspectdevice

too true

pity theres only a few of us though

Viva La Gloria

languagenerd wrote: »

I do think they deserve some credit for re-invigorating the punk scene though. A lot of the kids who heard a Green Day CD in 1994, or 1997, or 2004 (or even 2009 I guess) then went back and looked up the Ramones, or Op Ivy, or Stiff Little Fingers, or The Clash or whoever and got into punk that way (I know I did, judge me if you like :P).

Same. If it wasn't for Green Day then I wouldn't like The Ramones, Screeching Weasel, The Queers, Riverdales, Operation Ivy, Dead Kennedys, etc.

ahhh..

the "genre" debate..

It always start off with "are greenday punk or not"... yada yada yada
and escalates to this...

Imo.. I couldnt give a sh!t what genre any band/artist are..
Why does it matter .. if you like their music.. so what??

Viva La Gloria

My main point was more so about the OP claiming that Green Day doesn't deserve to call themselves punks (which they haven't actually done in some time)

Malice

suspectdevice wrote: »

Is there a reason why the swastika in that picture is the wrong way round?

Viva La Gloria

Viva La Gloria wrote: »

My main point was more so about the OP claiming that Green Day doesn't deserve to call themselves punks (which they haven't actually done in some time)

Yes.. but the whole "point" has lost meaning.

It just translates into a debate over whats punk and whats not.

It's a never ending argument.