Talk:Pop punk (revival)

message: This is a section to discuss merging pop punk revival into pop punk. 
As a result of the discussion and a few comments concerning the merge, the articles will be merged by Wednesday, 8/2/06, (midwestern time 9pm). However, please continue adding to the discussion here and throughout the various articles discussion pages. Let me know if there are any strong objections. The main point which was gained from this discussion is the realization that indeed The Ramones are not a pop punk band and that pop punk must have origins years after the original punk groups. Resources for pop punk's origins would be valuable. I started a discussion at the knockknockrecords pop punk bored and have personally contacted several potential sources. Anything positively dated 1993/92 or earlier which say pop punk would be of use here. Im reading through old zines MRRs & fanzines looking. Cool When this is through I'll also make sure to archive this whole talk section within the pop punk article's discussion section. Xsxex 16:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this approach is that we end up coining terms rather than describing things as they are.  WesleyDodds 02:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I like a variant on this idea - Something along the lines of "California pop punk", and a link from the pop punk article, would work, but unfortunately that's not what people call it. Separating the article into two sections works best for me. --Switch 08:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How can you claim its not sourced?... its sourced in the very first sentence of the article and has been before you even wrote this... it is also hardly a "new genre"... this form of music has its roots in the 1980s - Deathrocker 04:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has its roots in the 80s, but that does not mean the Ramones or Buzzcocks belong to a genre called pop punk.  They seem to be mere influences on what was called pop punk starting around the mid to late 80s.  WesleyDodds 11:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Care to discuss logically why you think the two different forms of music are the same genre? - Deathrocker 04:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Why are any of these bands listed when none of them are punk? Gold Stur 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because some people seem to think they are. The Ungovernable Force 02:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the companies and record labels that market them? Gold Stur 02:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately yes...and don't forget medias too...(but this article says that it's a mainstream movement...)
Gold Stur... why do you care if a band is labeled 'punk' you need to define punk more before you attempt to discredit another's claim to punkdom. Just because a record label or the media says something is punk does it make it punk? Now if you really want to get into it.. punk was created by punks and the media.. only after the summer of 77 (and the coinsiding media exposure in London) did punk truely come into its own. Since you seem to have a strong opinion of what is punk you should have no problem defining it here. However, i'd recommend really examining to the whole scope of the punk phenomenon before you say who or what is or isnt punk. Well do ya feel lucky? do yuh?? Xsxex 01:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm telling you, your stage name should be Moxie Xsxex. Now, I actually have picked up on the definition of punk rock, in the Green Day punk dispute archives, but I don't blame you for not seeing it, that area is a mess. Anywho, here it is "a harsh rock music originating from the 1970s with angry, offensive lyrics; a reaction against progressive rock". Source, wiktionary. Now, this is why Green Day atleast, is not punk. Not harsh, not too angry, not offensive, and not a reaction to progressive rock. I mean come on, they have a self declared rock opera! Gold Stur 02:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, remember how krautrock, a form of progressive rock, was an influence on punk rock?  WesleyDodds 06:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never listened to "krautrock". Gold Stur 18:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: First off, calm down a bit...I personally agree with Gold Stur that Green Day are not punk, but from an encyclopedic viewpoint they should have it mentioned that they are labelled as such. And it should also be sourced that many punks scoff at them for having the audacity to consider themselves punks. The Ungovernable Force 06:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason why these bands are listed as punk, is because they are. I think you skipped over the "punk" part of the title of this article.--XXXtylerXXX 00:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Playing on MTV is sooooooo punk. Hell, let's label them hardcore while we're at it. Gold Stur 16:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but there is a difference to selling out and only signing to a label for your fans to get the music they want. Lets take a band like Green Day. Billie Joe Armstrong created a indie label called Adeline Records that has produced some of the greatest pop punk bands, The Living End, Pinhead Gunpowder. And also, not once did I see a band like Third Eye Blind or Fall Out Boy on the list. You need to check your head, and watch your mouth whenever you try to make a point.--XXXtylerXXX 17:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The Sex Pistols, Ramones, and Clash all made music videos.  MTV was built upon New Wave, a form of punk rock.  DIY isn't the end-all, be-all of punk.  Hell, many early DIY punk releases had the sole purpose of attracting the attention of major labels. WesleyDodds 00:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were the first wave of punk. It was their experimentation that showed us what to and what not to do. Gold Stur 03:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes no sense.  It's a genre of music, not science.  Hell, Black Flag had music videos.  The Minutemen had videos.  WesleyDodds 07:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for finding the sources for those quotes Deathrocker! I have added them to Green Day's criticism sub article. Gold Stur 05:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I have to call you on bias, Deathrocker, especially since you're the one who split pop punk into two different pages.  I get the feeling you did so because you consider one set of musicians "true" punk and another "fake".  You don't have to like bands like Good Charlotte, Sum 41, or Simple Plan (and God knows I don't; I detest all three) but it's not your decision to create these sorts of explicit distinctions on Wikipedia.  Pop punk (the stuff from the late 80s to today) is considered a subgenre of punk rock, whether we like the music they make or not.  WesleyDodds 07:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, there were disputes over the genre; however, no voices were calling for a split of the page.  I understand what you were trying to do, but you jumped the gun.  And nothing musically to do with punk?  Despends which bands you are talking about, because chief examples of pop punk such as Green Day, The Offspring, Blink 182, Bad Religion, and Screeching Weasel have clear elements of punk rock in their sounds.  WesleyDodds 09:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I have no care of pop punk. I tend to stay in simple punk or hardcore punk. Gold Stur 19:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 

message: I'd like to see some sort of notable reference for this "revival". maxcap 12:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also says "While the sound began with the Buzzcocks, it was several years before it grew into what is arguably the most popular subgenre of punk today.".  It also doesn't explicitly state that there's a clear division to the point where everything from the late 80s onwards should be called "pop punk revival".  WesleyDodds 08:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: Sorry, nice try though, it must have taken a little time to do this, however we need a more references than what you have provided. I have almost never come across the term "pop punk revival." i think you are trying to invent some kind of new term, in that case you might want to get a masters in writing and attempt to get a job for a major music publication or write a best selling book. Pop punk is just that ... pop punk .. it never really died it has just gone in and out of style over the years.  - and for the wikipedia community at large... im getting pretty fed up with this. whats the point in writing an article if its gonna be disected without discussion a month later. Xsxex 15:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Allmusic blurb on "Punk Revival". They don't call it "pop-punk revival" though. But still, the idea that a more melodic type of punk made a splash around the late 80s and early 90s is not new. The Ungovernable Force 17:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, another music source I know that has its head up its ass. Oh well, punk is dead. Gold Stur 19:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Punk's not dead. There's still a weak pulse, but I think it's brain dead and stopped breathing. The Ungovernable Force 22:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, hoepfully it can be used as a substitute for "punk rock" when it comes to bands considered to be in the pop punk revival genre. Gold Stur 04:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is one of those really touchy subjects and I definitely understand some people's reluctance to have this article. If this were afd, I would say weak keep, but it really should be sourced better. At the same time, I also see the reluctance to label bands like simple plan, blink-182, green day etc as "punk" (I wouldn't in real life). I think pop-punk seems like it might be good enough though. The Ungovernable Force 04:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree - (No Revival)  

message: Only in a talk page discussing the merits (or otherwise) of how to describe /  quantify / evaluate / pigeon-hole /  dissect / etc., the undoubted beauties of punk rock; could you find a reference to a quintessentially English, music hall nonsense rhyme, as this song.
The articles grow by their diversity, and the sheer undiluted passion of its contributors.  My pathethic input apart -  and this is nothing than a pig in a poke - The Stranglers, Sex Pistols, Clash, Wire, Damned and Ramones have first rights to the 'punk' name, BUT Green Day - bless 'em - have done more than most to spearhead a revival in one of the most ancient forms of music - just having a blast for the sheer hell of it.
Do not, please, get hamstrung on shades of texture - this was never what punk was about.  Let them all do their worst, their very worst if necessary, and thank them for simply having a go.
Derek R Bullamore 22:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm Henry The Eighth, I Am 

message: The pop influences on the Ramones were obvious on day one (can we say "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend"?), and only grew more obvious (can we say "Rockaway Beach"?). Joey Ramone most likely named himself after Joey Levine (not merely pop but bubblegum).
If "pop punk" is a genre them, no, they are not "pop punk", just like Lucian of Samosata is not science fiction or speculative fiction. If it is a description, then, yes, they are (or were) punker and poppier than Green Day or the Offspring will ever be. - Jmabel | Talk 21:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramones and Pop (and punk)