Talk:Pop-punk/Archive 1

message: Guttermouth, No use for a name, I admit isn't very hard, but ti's NOT POP PUNK!
The offspring is comertialised yeah, but not POP!
NOFX, Me first and the gimme gimmes? What the f...-That does not even remotely resemble pop! I don't care if the frekin topic is controversial THEY SHOULDN'T BE ON THE LIST! And what's american Hi-Fi doing there? They're NU metal if you ask me.
Even if a band sucks it should at least catagorised properly!
I understand how you could have gotten some No use for a name songs mixed up in to pop punk, but the NOFX thing...that is just WRONG 
My comments deleted, see above--FilthMasterFlex 01:01, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ARE YOU PEOPLE INSANE?!

message: I don't believe its fair to classified some punk as pop punk. Wouldn't it be more accurately called Pop Rock? The reason I bring this up is that Punk is notorious for their lyrics against much of the mainstream industry. Though their is no actual so called "punk" standard, I still believe that Pop punk shouldn't be a term to classified any band that makes it big.
--You are very right. Mainstream rock bands that have punk influences shouldn't be considered pop-punk. The commercialization of the term pop-punk to mean any band with kids in it who sing about broken hearts and dye their hair black is a bastardization of the term. An argument could be made about certain bands that cross over from the punk scene, such as blink-182, but several of the bands listed, such as Simple Plan, Sum-41, were never part of any punk scenes before they were used by records labels as profit machines. A band selling out is one thing, but this selling out of an idea is quite another.
- This page has gotten better since I last posted here, but there are still some weird things about it. I shortened and moved the Emo comparison because it had many POV sentences and should not be so high up in the definition. It should be an added note at the bottom, like how Ska punk is. Secondly, the Australian bands section should merely be a link to it's own section and not be incorporated to the very broad and general article on Pop punk. I deleted the Australian bands in the "list of recongnized bands" because 1. they are already listed above in the paragraph and 2. they are not very recongnized outside of Australia, with the exception of some. I deleted the paragraph on Me First because it is a POV statement, saying they were 'one of the more interesting bands to develop during this time'. They are however linked at the bottom of the page. I agree with the above statements on the oxymoron, mainstream listing of pop punk bands like Sum 41 and Avril Lavinge. They should be under there own "mainstream pop punk" section. Someone should add on a section like this, where it talks about punk crossing over into the mainstream in the mid-90s with Green Day and Blink-182. Milk 01:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Punk, An oxymoron? 

message: OK everybody, Ive just done a full blown rewrite of this article due to the calls from certain people that it should be merged with the punk pop article. Undoubtably we will not all agree on the accruracy or whatever of this article but please do not simply revert it back to the old one. Personnally I think that if everybody chips in we can make this an article that will satisfy everyone equally and that it can be a good article potentially.Motown Junkie 18:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Full Rewrite

message: Although this entire article seems to be a magnet for vandalism and edit-warring, the 'Notable pop punk artists/bands' section gets hit (mainly by anonymous users) much more often than anything else. I believe that the major issue with this list is the issue that blights most punk discussions, i.e. the (in my opinion utterly pointless) poseur/sellout debate and differing opinions as what constitutes 'punk'. Whilst I would like to keep the list in some form, due to the emotions and the various factions involved, I do not realistically see any way for it to be anything other than a continued edit war/vandalism/POV nightmare - to the detriment of the article and the encyclopaeda itself.
Thus, I propose that the list be removed. Punkmorten has suggested that the list be moved to its own separate entry but I feel that this would only be moving the problem somewhere else. Opinions please, ladies and gentlemen. --Kurt Shaped Box 18:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal - removal of 'Notable pop punk artists/bands' section? 

message: I mean for me they're the real pop punk, and the 90s and 00s
"new school" stuff this page talks about is more like
"Epi-Fat crap" or even "mainstream crap".
Am I the only one with this point of view? Or is there a page
with a different title for "original"/"classic" punk bands
with a lighter sound?
If not, I think a section should be added acknowledging this.
OK, I admit it's not a clear classification, so we can't write
much about it, but at least it could be a nice collection of
these bands.
BTW it's not just British bands. The Ramones, for example,
would certainly fit in here. And really, how are the
Descendents or even the Adolescents hardcore? (compared to,
say, the Dead Kennedys or Black Flag???)
a.
80.98.158.218 02:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  And what about bands like 999, the Adicts, the Adverts, the Boys, etc.? 

message: In addition to the "First-Wave" acts, there should be a section listing classic late-70's/early 80's pop-punkers like The Ramones, The Undertones, The Rezillos, The Boys, The Buzzcocks, and The Descendents.
Just an idea.
* ...and it's a brilliant one, actually.  This article, to me, disregards some very important concepts.  First, most of your early seminal bands in any style are trying to be popular. (Call it the Me and the lads, we've got this new thing we made, and we really like it, and we hope that you'll really like it too syndrome.)  Second, a Punk Pop article already exists.  Third, this article seems just a little to focused on the post grunge pop music world.  Remember, Green Day wasn't marketed as punk rock, rather as Alternative.  (New Wave doesn't mean shit. Claude Bessey said that, remember...)  Anyway, for the love of punk, please consider incorporating the more useful bits into Punk Pop or delete this article wholesale!!!! Two halves 21:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classic pop-punk acts 

message: When they are listing pop punk bands of the new millennium they listed bands like Simple Plan and Fall Out Boy (Which I totally agree with) then they go on to list Britany Spears and N'SYNC. That is not pop punk. Pop Punk is a genre of punk rock music that is pop. Accually most real pop punk bands hate pop. Ex. In blink-182's music video of All The Small Things they are mocking pop boy bands like N'SYNC. For example two blink-182 quotes...
*"I think it's incredible how there are all these boy bands out there like the backstreet boys and N'SYNC. They're all so bad! It hurts me, I've cried."
*"I don't get boy bands these days. They don't write their own songs and everything is choreographed from their dance moves to how they have sex with eachother after the show."
Ultradrummer528 01:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britany Spears and *NSYNC Pop Punk??? 

message: I'm sorry, this is the sorriest excuse for an article.
Green Day is first wave California punk?  Huh?
Seriously, has nobody heard of Jawbreaker?
There are so many things wrong with this article, I just don't know where to begin.  Jlee562 07:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This whole article needs to be deleted and redone 

message: Seriously, it should be completely redone if not simply erased. Just one pathetic example : The Larry Arms, pop-punk ? Please !
Frankff 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The pop punk bands list is a joke 

message: Fine. NPOV banner goes on. No one ever agrees on anything. If we can come to some consensus, I'll get rid of it. However, since all that gets done is incessant arguing over the inclusion or removal of bands in the list, you leave me little choice. -- Sarsaparilla39 09:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: Atticus, why do you insist My Chemical Romance is pop punk? They are not? Show me the online review or bio that claims this and you can keep it in and I will admit I am wrong. Until then, do not add it back in. Madangry 19:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Chemical Romance is not nor have they ever been pop punk 

message: We need two seperate articles, because this one just won't do.
We need one for Pop Punk (Popular Music) which would be mainstream bands who have brought punk to a larger audience and one for Pop Punk (Poppy Punk Music) which is a genre of punk which sees 50's Bubblegum pop as a major influence.
If not, the wars about these lists will never end.
Madangry 00:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, I think the article should be written by people like Mitch Clem, eg., people in the punk scene who like pop punk specifically. I think people not involved in the punk scene should not be coming here (and saying OMG NOES TEH RAMOONS WER TEH TRU PUNX NOT PAWP PUNK LOLZ NOFX R SO PUNK RAWK I HAEV NEVER EVEN HERD OF THA ADICTS HOO R DEY). I mean, if you haven't heard the Descendents, you don't know enough about pop-punk to be a contributor. But I digress. I think it is indeed necessary to split the article into pop punk and punk pop. Also, people rambling about how modern pop punk bands aren't pop punk but "new school" punk... Resist were around at the same time as NOFX, okay? That was modern punk. --Switch 14:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi-five. I whole heartedly agree with you. Madangry 18:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *In an effort to help things along I have taken out the POV pop punk/punk pop paragraph, created a disambiguation article as well as a Punk Pop article. This should make things a lot easier and less confusing. Madangry 20:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Allmusic.com defines Punk Pop as a post-grunge strand of alternative rock that combines power-pop melodies and chord changes with speedy punk tempos and loud guitars. For example, the Ramones type of rock (or punk) has nothing to do with grunge or alternative rock. It is deemed Pop Punk because it is punk which sees 50's Bubblegum pop as a major influence...furthermore these pop punk bands rarely see any mainstream success, again the Ramones are a good example, and thus yet another distinction between Punk Pop and Pop Punk. The two are NOT one and the same. Not even close. Madangry 18:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in the Punk pop talk page, Allmusic doesn't make a distinction between the two.  Find a source that does.  WesleyDodds 09:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The best way to end this insane discussion 

message: I removed this section, as it served only to direct the user to the disambiguation page. Isopropyl 22:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop punk or punk pop