• 74 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by astrotriforce (1326 posts) -
#2 Posted by foggel (2763 posts) -

Meh. It's allright.

#3 Posted by mylifeforAiur (3482 posts) -

Not particularly^^ 

#4 Posted by Gamer_152 (14051 posts) -

Yes I do.

Moderator
#5 Posted by Lydian_Sel (2479 posts) -

I like Joe Strummer.

#6 Posted by mderbs311 (58 posts) -

Yes, yes I do. And all its variations as well!

#7 Posted by Brians (1458 posts) -

Like most types of music I like some. Anything on the radio classified as punk Fuck no.

#8 Posted by mnzy (2911 posts) -

Well, not that poprock that is considered punk nowadays in the US, but i like older stuff like The Ramones and harder newer stuff like Pennywise.

#9 Posted by Subject2Change (2966 posts) -

big pop-punk fan; New Found Glory, Blink 182. As well as some of the older stuff like Rancid and Pennywise.

#10 Posted by RockAction (376 posts) -

 
I clicked yes, if you consider US Punk 'Punk', that includes all the 'arty' / avant garde stuff going back to velvet underground, but particularly bands like The Stooges, MC5 and New York Dolls but also bands / artists from the new york 'early to mid 70s' scene like Suicide, Patti Smith, Ramones, Television and bands from cleveland and other areas of america like rocket from the tombs, pere ubu or death 
  
there is only one good UK punk band which is XRay Spex, everything else sucked, not that its bad but i dislike how bands like sex pistols, clash and damned got labelled as punk just because they couldnt play their instruments (even though some could) - pistols don't count because they were too young and got used by malcolm mclaren, joe strummer (and others like chyrssie hynde) happened upon the scene while they were looking for something to use and as such the clash are comparable to the Stones in terms of scale and breadth of musical content (not talent though, the Stones are pretty much the best there is)
 
so i don't rate UK Punk as Punk if you're talking about music created by the US bands i mentioned, so i categorise it as US Art Rock and UK Punk, the uk bands didn't really get the US bands, for example the UK punk scene was based on working class kids and a 'life sucks' kind of mentality, but the US bands like new york dolls in particular had a 'life sucks, so what are we going to do about it' attitude. 
 
later stuff in the 80s was quite good, that post-punk ideal like the Fall and Blondie on either side of the atlantic, but otherwise there was a lot of crap that called itself post punk so its kind of forgotten as pop music, but bands like the Fall especially and Blondie created really good music 
 
that stuff kinda gave way to the 90s hardcore scene and grunge, i've never really liked that kinda of punk, but some bands were great like early black flag and bad brains - who were greatly inspired by Death - and i enjoyed grunge more than hardcore because being able to play a 3min song in under a minute doesn't appeal to me
 
 then the 00s stuff like blink 182 / green day all that shit just isnt punk, its bad enough people can't differentiate between actual punk bands let alone bands like this, just not a fan of this stuff, really ineffectual music
 
but to answer the question, yeh i like punk, had a whole punk phase - which was also tied with a blues phase (another type of 2minute song written by people who had to be creative with guitar) so my own style of playing is weird
  
incidentally, i've seen The Stooges (three times), New York Dolls (three times), MC5 and Suicide.  

#11 Posted by Gargantuan (1881 posts) -

I like the Ramones.

#12 Posted by Dimsey (948 posts) -

To some extent.

#13 Posted by Psykhophear (939 posts) -

THE OFFSPRING!!!

#14 Posted by Synthballs (2193 posts) -

Okay this is just getting motherfucking retarded. Honestly. 

#15 Posted by CptChiken (1987 posts) -

I chose C. "meh" i can take it or leave it. 
 
Also you,re questions are getting more and more lame... are you running out of ideas?

#16 Posted by astrotriforce (1326 posts) -
@CptChiken said:
" I chose C. "meh" i can take it or leave it.  Also you,re questions are getting more and more lame... are you running out of ideas? "
The questions haven't gotten any lamer, considering people said this when I first started. The vocal minority. Unless you think this is lamer than hamburger vs hot dogs, et al. But I digress. 
 
@RockAction said:
"  I clicked yes, if you consider US Punk 'Punk', that includes all the 'arty' / avant garde stuff going back to velvet underground, but particularly bands like The Stooges, MC5 and New York Dolls but also bands / artists from the new york 'early to mid 70s' scene like Suicide, Patti Smith, Ramones, Television and bands from cleveland and other areas of america like rocket from the tombs, pere ubu or death   there is only one good UK punk band which is XRay Spex, everything else sucked, not that its bad but i dislike how bands like sex pistols, clash and damned got labelled as punk just because they couldnt play their instruments (even though some could) - pistols don't count because they were too young and got used by malcolm mclaren, joe strummer (and others like chyrssie hynde) happened upon the scene while they were looking for something to use and as such the clash are comparable to the Stones in terms of scale and breadth of musical content (not talent though, the Stones are pretty much the best there is) so i don't rate UK Punk as Punk if you're talking about music created by the US bands i mentioned, so i categorise it as US Art Rock and UK Punk, the uk bands didn't really get the US bands, for example the UK punk scene was based on working class kids and a 'life sucks' kind of mentality, but the US bands like new york dolls in particular had a 'life sucks, so what are we going to do about it' attitude.  later stuff in the 80s was quite good, that post-punk ideal like the Fall and Blondie on either side of the atlantic, but otherwise there was a lot of crap that called itself post punk so its kind of forgotten as pop music, but bands like the Fall especially and Blondie created really good music  that stuff kinda gave way to the 90s hardcore scene and grunge, i've never really liked that kinda of punk, but some bands were great like early black flag and bad brains - who were greatly inspired by Death - and i enjoyed grunge more than hardcore because being able to play a 3min song in under a minute doesn't appeal to me  then the 00s stuff like blink 182 / green day all that shit just isnt punk, its bad enough people can't differentiate between actual punk bands let alone bands like this, just not a fan of this stuff, really ineffectual music but to answer the question, yeh i like punk, had a whole punk phase - which was also tied with a blues phase (another type of 2minute song written by people who had to be creative with guitar) so my own style of playing is weird  incidentally, i've seen The Stooges (three times), New York Dolls (three times), MC5 and Suicide.   "
Wow, props on the huge explanation! :D The problem with genres in general is that no one really agrees and there's lots of overlap. That's why I'm trying to keep it simple with core overarching genres and not sub-genres. My original question was going to be "Do you like Hardcore" but I ultimately came to the conclusion that I wouldn't ask that as it's a sub-genre and/or extension to/from Punk. And there's a million-and-1 subgenres.  
#17 Posted by RockAction (376 posts) -
@astrotriforce said:
" @CptChiken said:
" I chose C. "meh" i can take it or leave it.  Also you,re questions are getting more and more lame... are you running out of ideas? "
The questions haven't gotten any lamer, considering people said this when I first started. The vocal minority. Unless you think this is lamer than hamburger vs hot dogs, et al. But I digress. 
 
@RockAction said:
"  I clicked yes, if you consider US Punk 'Punk', that includes all the 'arty' / avant garde stuff going back to velvet underground, but particularly bands like The Stooges, MC5 and New York Dolls but also bands / artists from the new york 'early to mid 70s' scene like Suicide, Patti Smith, Ramones, Television and bands from cleveland and other areas of america like rocket from the tombs, pere ubu or death   there is only one good UK punk band which is XRay Spex, everything else sucked, not that its bad but i dislike how bands like sex pistols, clash and damned got labelled as punk just because they couldnt play their instruments (even though some could) - pistols don't count because they were too young and got used by malcolm mclaren, joe strummer (and others like chyrssie hynde) happened upon the scene while they were looking for something to use and as such the clash are comparable to the Stones in terms of scale and breadth of musical content (not talent though, the Stones are pretty much the best there is) so i don't rate UK Punk as Punk if you're talking about music created by the US bands i mentioned, so i categorise it as US Art Rock and UK Punk, the uk bands didn't really get the US bands, for example the UK punk scene was based on working class kids and a 'life sucks' kind of mentality, but the US bands like new york dolls in particular had a 'life sucks, so what are we going to do about it' attitude.  later stuff in the 80s was quite good, that post-punk ideal like the Fall and Blondie on either side of the atlantic, but otherwise there was a lot of crap that called itself post punk so its kind of forgotten as pop music, but bands like the Fall especially and Blondie created really good music  that stuff kinda gave way to the 90s hardcore scene and grunge, i've never really liked that kinda of punk, but some bands were great like early black flag and bad brains - who were greatly inspired by Death - and i enjoyed grunge more than hardcore because being able to play a 3min song in under a minute doesn't appeal to me  then the 00s stuff like blink 182 / green day all that shit just isnt punk, its bad enough people can't differentiate between actual punk bands let alone bands like this, just not a fan of this stuff, really ineffectual music but to answer the question, yeh i like punk, had a whole punk phase - which was also tied with a blues phase (another type of 2minute song written by people who had to be creative with guitar) so my own style of playing is weird  incidentally, i've seen The Stooges (three times), New York Dolls (three times), MC5 and Suicide.   "
Wow, props on the huge explanation! :D The problem with genres in general is that no one really agrees and there's lots of overlap. That's why I'm trying to keep it simple with core overarching genres and not sub-genres. My original question was going to be "Do you like Hardcore" but I ultimately came to the conclusion that I wouldn't ask that as it's a sub-genre and/or extension to/from Punk. And there's a million-and-1 subgenres.   "
 
Yeh, i find 'punk' to be similar to 'jazz' - i mean etymologically - in that there are a huge number of differing styles within the genre, and like you said there are too many ideas of what it is to be definite, but i've always seen it as i expressed it above - could be wrong but i think it was the logical conclusion to 'modern music' in general; that idea of picking up an instrument and just making a noise, fairly primitive but really expressive at the same time and it created practically infinite sub-genres
#18 Posted by YoThatLimp (1879 posts) -

Nuetral, I find the problem lies within the people who listen to punk music (as i find with metal). Why do you feel the need to dress up in a costume because of a genre of music you listen to after the age of 16? 
 
My wife has a lot of friends who are "punks" and I find it ridiculous. Here she is making fun of goths, emos and hipsters but in the end, they all wear their own (stupid) costumes. 

#19 Posted by Eristocrat (439 posts) -

Yeah, only the stuff from the 70's though, that other shit isn't real punk.

Online
#20 Posted by CrashRHCP (25 posts) -

Yeah i do, The Clash, Rise Against and even Green Day. I like it all.

#21 Posted by FreakAche (2949 posts) -

I absolutely love The Clash (they would definitely be amoung of my top five favorite musicians of all time), but as for punk in general, I feel kind of meh. Also, as is the case with pretty much any music related subculture, the scene that surrounds it is totally laughable.

#22 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -

Yes

#23 Posted by Sin4profit (2905 posts) -

i like good punk,  yes.

#24 Posted by MooseyMcMan (10464 posts) -

Not really. Some old stuff like the Ramones I consider listen-able, but I don't really like it. And as with most music, the modern stuff is worse (in my opinion). 

#25 Posted by rm082e (197 posts) -

I got into punk when I was 14. I wasn't that into it and a lot of the bands were hit or miss for me, coming form the metal scene. But, punk was my path to discovering industrial and some of the European metal stuff that I had not previously been exposed to, so I will always appreciate it. Also introduced me to a lot of kick ass underground bands that don't really fall under the punk label, but are still on the same wavelength.  
 
Example: 
 
  

#26 Posted by cnlmullen (900 posts) -

For the most part no, but there's some punk I like.

#27 Posted by chocolaterhinovampire (1287 posts) -

Pulling on my boots and threading up the laces???

#28 Posted by Redbullet685 (6024 posts) -

Its alright.

#29 Posted by CitizenKane (10502 posts) -

Depends on the style of punk and the band.

#30 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -
@CitizenKane said:
" Depends on the style of punk and the band. "
What's your style brah? You like the hardcore shit of hardcore punk? or maybe you like it a little artsy fartsy and like art punk? Or maybe you say screw all that I'm going to the post-punk era!
#31 Edited by zityz (2360 posts) -

I Enjoy punk myself. Nofx, rancid, Anti-flag, Choking Victim, and The Clash are awesome.  
 
Plus I know i'll get flak for this but The Clash > Ramones. 
 
 
EDIT: Also forgot about Joy Division, Bad Religion and Flogging Molly.

#32 Posted by raidingkvatch (1149 posts) -

Hells Yeah. Although I tend not to like people who consider themselves "punks" all that much. They're conforming to a fashion set by non-conformists, who all moved on long ago when they realised they were being homogenised adn went on to sell fucking butter! 
  

#33 Posted by Jasta (2217 posts) -

Sure do.

#34 Posted by weegieanawrench (1935 posts) -

Only if it's Daft.  
 
But to answer the question, no not really.

#35 Posted by Liono88 (368 posts) -

Bad Brains.Half punk, half Reggae. Fully BADASS!

#36 Posted by Gunner612 (4338 posts) -

punk is one of the few genres i've been listening to since i was a kid.  
 
So yes.

#37 Posted by coryrx8 (175 posts) -

I hate punk. I think. Some of you guys are naming off bands, like Rise Against, that I absolutely love but wouldn't consider to be punk in a thousand years; they're more alternative. I really don't like Green Day, and that singer from Blink 182 wouldn't be any more high-pitched and annoying if someone kicked him in the junk. There are few things that make me scramble for a mute button faster than "All the Small Things". Bad Religion is about the only exception, as they're one of my favorite bands. I also like AFI, but they're not really a punk band anymore.

#38 Posted by iam3green (14390 posts) -

it's alright. i don't really like it all that much.

#39 Posted by TheJohn (553 posts) -

I love Punk Rock, adn I can find good bands in almost any off-shoot of the genre. At the moment I'm finding myself to enjoy the faster hardcore punk the most, but that won't stop me from enjoying Ghost Mice, The Misfits or Bikini Kill when I'm in the mood for it.
 
A complaint often thrown at the punk scene is the perceived insult that "they(we) can not play". While it is true that many performers might lack technical skills, what has always made me return to punk rock is the focus on writing songs, rather than worrying about instrumental brilliance. I'd rather listen to someone playing songs from the heart that resonate with me and my life, albeit slightly out of tune, than having to listen to formulaic "perfection". But that's just me, though. I understand why punk rock isn't for everyone.

#40 Posted by Bloodgraiv3 (2712 posts) -

Not at all. 
#41 Posted by Shookems (474 posts) -

     
      

    
 

    
     
 
 
  
   
 
  
   
 
  
   
 
  
   
 
Punk is not Green Day or Rise Against.
#42 Posted by Gunner612 (4338 posts) -
@TheJohn said:
"A complaint often thrown at the punk scene is the perceived insult that "they(we) can not play". While it is true that many performers might lack technical skills, what has always made me return to punk rock is the focus on writing songs, rather than worrying about instrumental brilliance. I'd rather listen to someone playing songs from the heart that resonate with me and my life, albeit slightly out of tune, than having to listen to formulaic "perfection". But that's just me, though. I understand why punk rock isn't for everyone. "
That pretty much hit the nail on the head for why i love punk.
#43 Posted by nintendoeats (5975 posts) -

Anarchy for the fucking UK

#44 Posted by Gunner612 (4338 posts) -
@nintendoeats said:

" Anarchy for the fucking UK "

  
#45 Posted by Gunner612 (4338 posts) -
@Shookems said:

"                  

 
     Punk is not Rise Against. "

I beg to differ 
  
  
 

#46 Posted by one_2nd (2359 posts) -

Yes. 

#47 Posted by Example1013 (4834 posts) -
@TheJohn said:
" I love Punk Rock, adn I can find good bands in almost any off-shoot of the genre. At the moment I'm finding myself to enjoy the faster hardcore punk the most, but that won't stop me from enjoying Ghost Mice, The Misfits or Bikini Kill when I'm in the mood for it.
 
A complaint often thrown at the punk scene is the perceived insult that "they(we) can not play". While it is true that many performers might lack technical skills, what has always made me return to punk rock is the focus on writing songs, rather than worrying about instrumental brilliance. I'd rather listen to someone playing songs from the heart that resonate with me and my life, albeit slightly out of tune, than having to listen to formulaic "perfection". But that's just me, though. I understand why punk rock isn't for everyone. "

The only part of music that takes any kind of natural talent to do is singing. You can learn literally any instrument, if you just put the effort in. So poor musicianship really equates to laziness on the part of the performer.
 
Honestly, I've been playing music for close to 9 years now, and I can tell you that this is the absolute truth. If someone wants to be good at an instrument, all they have to do is actually try.
 
Singing I'm not sure of; I'm not a singer, so I can't speak to how well your average joe could learn to sing. As such, I might allow poor singing in the face of focus on craft, as you say. But not being able to play the damn instrument just means you're not willing to put the work in.
 
Also, "perfection" in music follows no formula. There's some jazz from the '70s that you could listen to and swear the guys in the band weren't even playing in the same room because it sounds so...bad (sort of). I'm talking about masters of the craft, guys like Miles Davis, sounding like they don't even know what song they're on. But they were in pursuit of a new sound, and broke literally all the rules. It never became popular, because most people would probably call it crap. But it was their search for a new thing.
 
Just my take on it. Also, I don't like punk music, so answered "no". But I'm not judging anyone who likes it. When I call someone a punk, I'm not referring to their clothing style or choice of music; I'm referring to the fact that their attitude towards me makes me want to punch them in the face. So even if you listen to punk, as long as you're not an asshat who goes around sneering, glaring, and generally looking with disgust at me, I'm not going to call you a punk. Unless you want me to.
#48 Posted by TheJohn (553 posts) -
@Shookems said:

"Punk is not Green Day or Rise Against. "

Nor is snobbish elitism. While I agree that the bands you mention are lacking the components I look for when I listen to punk rock, I still appreciate the fact that to some kids they're probably the most abrasive and rebellious stuff they've ever heard. I view them as gateway-bands, that allow unfamiliar ears to to get a taste for something better down the road. And while I personally enjoy the songs you posted, they're still old and imitated to death by now.
 
Allow me to quote Jello Biafra, from his song "Nostalgia for an Age that Never Existed" off the country album he did with Mojo Nixon:
"Do you remember
being the first punk in your town
Outlaw number one
For the t-shirt you had on
 
Now you stay home
Mad at the whole scene
For refusing to freeze
in 1983
 
Oh why can't all the old bands reform
And stick to playing the same old songs
It ain't punk
if it isn't like the old days
"
#49 Posted by TheJohn (553 posts) -
@example1013 said:
" @TheJohn said:
" I love Punk Rock, adn I can find good bands in almost any off-shoot of the genre. At the moment I'm finding myself to enjoy the faster hardcore punk the most, but that won't stop me from enjoying Ghost Mice, The Misfits or Bikini Kill when I'm in the mood for it.
 
A complaint often thrown at the punk scene is the perceived insult that "they(we) can not play". While it is true that many performers might lack technical skills, what has always made me return to punk rock is the focus on writing songs, rather than worrying about instrumental brilliance. I'd rather listen to someone playing songs from the heart that resonate with me and my life, albeit slightly out of tune, than having to listen to formulaic "perfection". But that's just me, though. I understand why punk rock isn't for everyone. "
The only part of music that takes any kind of natural talent to do is singing. You can learn literally any instrument, if you just put the effort in. So poor musicianship really equates to laziness on the part of the performer.  Honestly, I've been playing music for close to 9 years now, and I can tell you that this is the absolute truth. If someone wants to be good at an instrument, all they have to do is actually try.  Singing I'm not sure of; I'm not a singer, so I can't speak to how well your average joe could learn to sing. As such, I might allow poor singing in the face of focus on craft, as you say. But not being able to play the damn instrument just means you're not willing to put the work in.  Also, "perfection" in music follows no formula. There's some jazz from the '70s that you could listen to and swear the guys in the band weren't even playing in the same room because it sounds so...bad (sort of). I'm talking about masters of the craft, guys like Miles Davis, sounding like they don't even know what song they're on. But they were in pursuit of a new sound, and broke literally all the rules. It never became popular, because most people would probably call it crap. But it was their search for a new thing.  Just my take on it. Also, I don't like punk music, so answered "no". But I'm not judging anyone who likes it. When I call someone a punk, I'm not referring to their clothing style or choice of music; I'm referring to the fact that their attitude towards me makes me want to punch them in the face. So even if you listen to punk, as long as you're not an asshat who goes around sneering, glaring, and generally looking with disgust at me, I'm not going to call you a punk. Unless you want me to. "
While I agree that anyone can learn how to play an instrument, I refuse the notion that lack of skill might be only laziness, or that such lack of skill devaluates the music in any way. If the song is good, that's good enough for me. I'll never berate a drummer for not using enough fills, or a guitarist for sloppy strumming, as most good punk bands make songs that suit their limitations. I'll also add that most musicians in the punk scene are much better than outsiders give them credit for, but have chosen to play fast and sloppy rather than focus on tight technique. 
As for singers, there are many singers recording today that are "bad", in the ears of an unfamiliar public, but to their fans reach a level of perfection in their imperfections that scholastically trained singers can never reach. The magic often appear in the faults, the missed notes and the mistakes.
 
I've been singing and making punk rock for quite some time now, and nearly all the musicians I've worked with over the years are dedicated and talented people. Whenever the accusation that we can't play is lobbed at us(as a scene), it feels more like a knee-jerk reaction based on pre-conceived truths held by people not familiar with punk rock, rather than a serious critique.
 
However, I'll be the first to admit that the seemingly never ending torrent of shitty, sub-par bands regurgitating carbon copies of songs and attitudes nearly 30 years old gets rather tiring, and if this is a persons only exposure to punk rock today I can't really fault them for questioning the merits of the scene. But to write off an entire genre, based on a few shoddy examples - who often are young, drunk and new to the scene themselves - is in my opinion silly. Note that I'm not accusing you of doing this. This is merely an observation.
 
As to your example with jazz, I agree wholeheartedly, and this applies to punk as well. My initial exposure to traditional New Orleans jazz was through my schools choirs' bland butchering of "When the Saints". Supplement that with some smooth, never ending saxophone solos on the radio, and it should come as no surptise that my metal-loving mind decided to write off all jazz as crap. While this was true to me at the time, no person with any level of interest in jazz would take my critique seriously.
 
If there's a point to my ramblings, I think it's something like; you don't have to be a master guitarist to write a great song. It might help when performing, but it's not essential. And if one decides to ignore a great song just because the guitarist could have been better, then you're doing it wrong. And people with that outlook on music usually write pretty boring music.
#50 Posted by Shookems (474 posts) -

 I'm not trying be come off as elitist, snobbish, or standoffish. It's just irritating when someone hears "punk" and the only thing that comes to mind is Blink 182 or Green Day. Worse is someone who claims to like punk that has never heard of the Misfits. Presently punk has become an influence that has spread across a spectrum bands of so wildly different that they sound like they're from different planets. Yet the present "punk" that the majority of people recognize today is typically only the most overly commercialized garbage and some of the poorest examples of the genre available. All I'm trying to do is establish an insight on some of the roots of the genre so the people posting in this thread can make somewhat more of an educated opinion.