Blink 182 and Rancid are no longer relevant. Rancid tried to launch themselves back into mainstream pop punk a few years ago with some release that isn't even worth mentioning. E for effort, but that's about it. Blink 182's target audience have mostly graduated from college by now, and either realize that their maturity level has reached the point that Blink 182 no longer applies to them, or they are still living out of the parents basement and, either way, have discovered Pink Floyd, Led Zepplin, or The Doors as they can now be labeled "pot heads."

Green Day on the other hand, still tries desperately to be relevant, but they've shifted into a whole other genre. To utter Green Day and punk in the same breath is like calling Oprah Winfrey a poor white redneck farmer. They just don't go together. American Idiot, for what it was, was probably a pretty decent album. As a "fan" of Green Day - Nimrod and earlier, the album was utter shit and meant nothing. The next will probably be the same.

One can only argue musical taste long enough to watch his or her words go in and out of everyone else's ears. If you like 'em, go get 'em, and don't listen to "critics" or naysayers that will tell you you're musical taste is weak. Enjoy your shit, and be happy.

Punk can be successful while being mainstream and still being "Punk" Nevermind the bollocks went platinum and debuted at number 2 the clash have several gold albums and I think a platinum or 2.

I don't see how you consider The Clash punk, they're poppy as hell.London calling over Pretty Vacant, it makes
London calling look like the Jonas Brothers

If it's the ideology than the Sex Pistols are punk.The didn't try to make McLaren rich, they were trying to make a statement.They just ended up getting fucked over,the only commercial move they made was hiring Sid Vicious because he had the image.Sorry I had to bring Sid into this.

Seconded, punk is more about the music than the ideology.I mean there always is some but it's mainly the instrumentation and a little bit of vocals that's why The Ramones are considered punk.

Because for the music genre exists it also needs an ideology.

That isn't true, what makes alternative rock alternative?There's not and ideology there's a sound.REM who basically invented the genre could play everything that say I dunno, Nickleback plays,same lyrics,same idea,but with the classic REM sound, and it would be alternative not rock or post-grunge or whatever.

Hardcore doesn't always have screaming, it's just faster punk.But yeah,really punk was just guys trying to sound like the older 60s rock bands but they couldn't sing,play,or write like them so they wrote about their issues,sang as well as they could which was good or bad depending on the guy,and played basic chords.

If she seeks money, it'll be commercial and therefore "not punk".
I'm not saying that you're only punk if you stay on the underground, but after you reach the mainstream it's hard to stay with your roots, with all the pressure from the label, media and even fans.
Punk nowadays is something hard to define because it varies from person to person. Some say it's all about having gangs and beating people that don't agree with you, others say it's about trying to make the world better. I know I may be wrong in everything I say, but that's my view of punk, after listening/reading/watching things about it.

Edited by user 19 May 2009 11:48:30(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified