Hacker News Reader

Comment by benj111 | Hacker News Reader

Its the nature of these things, that the original ethos gets lost, for example, Green Day is classed as a punk band.

There's something very punk about innocently asking "oh you're a punk fan? Do you enjoy the 'The Greendays'?" and then stand back as they either ooze contempt or explode... :P

You can throw Avril Lavigne in there are a curveball but they'll probably know you're taking the piss if you do.

This shouldn't be seen as an attack on punks ...it's more like a Minor Threat.

(Damn it, I've become my father.)

Nah_ dude. You're dad didn't listen to Minor Threat. You're still cool. (If you're not, then I'm not and I refuse to accept that and I have the bad tattoos to back me up.)

Punk's original ethos was "I don't like my parents' music and culture and I don't know how to play an instrument but I still wanna express myself". Tons of crap falls into that category, music that doesn't even classify itself as punk.

I find it almost impossible to classify bands as a single specific genre. They're almost always in a spectrum of multiple genres. You can try to say "X band is more punk than Y band", or "X band is more Y genre than Z genre", but to say "Agnostic Front is punk" would be problematic; Is it hardcore punk? Is it just plain hardcore? Crossover thrash? Who cares? It is more punk than Adelle, though.

> Punk's original ethos was "I don't like my parents' music and culture and I don't know how to play an instrument but I still wanna express myself".

This isn't even close to the reality. You might enjoy reading a book entitled, "Please Kill Me: The Unauthorized Oral History of Punk Rock", by Legs McNeill (he coined the term Punk).

The Ramones were kids who had an intense love of post-war Americana. Inspired by late '60s/ early '70s glam-rock & proto-punk scenes, they wanted to bring back to the garage which had been lost to 10 minute soloing prog-rock bands and soulless disco music. I feel like "We Want The Airwaves" is the "Why?" section of /ramones/README.md.

The Clash? Mick Jones and Topper Hedon were very well-versed musicians. Joe Strummer was a passable rhythm guitarist, but was an amazing lyricist.

Sex Pistols? They were the boy band of the MacLaren empire.

None of that seems to have anything to do with their ethos. Yes, The Ramones, the shittiest punk band that ever existed, was basically making bad 50s music. The Clash and the Sex Pistols were absolutely fed up with their parents' generation. Who gives a shit if they were taking advantage of pop idols and trying to make themselves "bad boys"? Clothing and the ability to shred isn't an ethos.

I think this tension is fundamental to the concept of genres across all mediums of art and entertainment.

Just because some people say that doesn't make it true. Green Day fans are like the flat Earthers of punk.

Glad to see that the superiority complex of the scene is still alive and well...

Everyone needs an onramp to discovery. There are WAY worse things to be into than Green Day. But please, don't let me stop you from telling Hacker News how you're too punk for Green Day...

green day dookie was the first CD I owned. It was the first thing I found on the street (read: garbage), and inspired my interest in free and used things. I owe them a lot. But man do they suck.

I don't know, I've always been more of an Offspring fan, but I don't think it's fair to say that Green Day "suck". They've obviously achieved an impressive level of success and people still pay attention and listen to their new releases decades after they were truly relevant.

I never was a big fan of Dookie but their next album, Insomniac, is still an immensely enjoyable album to this day. Whether it's technically not 'punk' and is instead 'pop-punk' or just 'rock' makes no difference to me. The fact that their music isn't overtly anti-establishment doesn't affect the quality of the music.

In fact, and this may get me into trouble here, I like the Dead Kennedy's 'Plastic Surgery Disasters' just as much as I like Green Day's 'Insomniac'. Is one punk and one not? Who cares? I quite dislike the purity tests in some genres of music (like punk and metal). That's something I've always appreciated about pop music - it doesn't have to adhere to some nebulous framework to qualify for the genre, it simply has to be popular (e.g. Beatles were pop, Madonna was pop, and Arianna Grande is pop - very different styles of music)

You like the music you like and that itself is as punk rock as you can get.

The difference between "Lookout! Green Day" and "Warner Green Day" is one of DIY vs Payola. These days, it's much easier and potentially more profitable to go the DIY route, but back then, you needed a sugar daddy to "make it big" fast. Taking the easy route meant Green Day were shunned by their original fan base (somewhat justifiably so,) but they had more energy, raw talent, and Buzzcocks hooks than anything else on top 40 radio with the exception of Nirvana (which is why Warner was trolling for talent in the first place.)

It's hard to call any "punk" bands sellouts after Nevermind. Were Hüsker Dü sellouts? They signed to Warner in '85 (almost a decade before Green Day.)

The music business is harsh. If you're in a band and into it for the long haul, own your masters and go the DIY route. Your fans will find you and are more likely to pay directly when they do. If you're in a band and want to make it big fast, consider this often cited article from Steve "Mr. Gold Bracelet" Albini on cashflow:

https://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17

There's a reason you're seeing a lot of live music. Streaming doesn't pay the bills.

I ignored Green Day when I first got into punk because they seemed like radio-rock music. But years later, when I was in grad school and stopped caring so much about how I classified bands, I was blown away by "American Idiot." That album was brilliant.

I listened to Offspring's album "Smash" a bunch in middle school, which made for an interesting revelation when I devoured Bad Religion's entire catalogue in high school.

This seems to be turning into a thing so let me explain. My comment is obviously satirical, but with any satire there's a grain of truth. Personally I never got into them but when they 1st came out I didn't have a negative opinion about them either. It's more about what they turned into. They found a formula and just stuck with it because it pays. Now I'm not saying that punk bands can't be successful but there's a difference between just making good music and making something that just generates sales. Billy Jo is almost 50 years old now. I was born in 75 and he's older than me but Green Day is still making the same played out, radio frindly, teen angst driven music after 20 years. They've just become a sad parody of themselves.

Well TFA is about MRR, so playing punker than thou is par for the course.

Great point. So true.

I don't know when "dookie" came out I was like 12 and this album was pretty much the starting point for me and my friends. Don't know who much people got into punk via ZSD, but for us this came later. Maybe like VisualBasic for programming, started with it but wouldn't touch it today. Well at least I'm a True Believer ;)

Waxing nostalgic about Visual Basic like that, one might imagine you're also a hopeless romantic.

What else have we got other than some people saying it? Some people say the Sex Pistols are punk, there isn't really an objective measure we can measure this against.

What do you mean, "some people"? Is there anyone saying that the Sex Pistols WEREN'T punk?? I can't truck with any taxonomy of punk rock that excludes the Sex Pistols, the Ramones, or the Clash. There were later waves of punk rock (bands like the Dead Kennedys, Minutemen, Circle Jerks) and there were not-strictly-punk spinoffs especially in the NYC art scene (Talking Heads, Television, Patti Smith)... but come on, anything written up in "Punk" was clearly at ground zero of the scene.

I mean I can disprove the flat earth theory by walking around the world, orbiting around the earth in space, or use something that relies on that, like say GPS. Whether Green Day is punk or not is a matter of peoples opinions. We can discuss what punk meant in the 70s, what it means today, whether its still relevant, how Green Day fits into that, it's pretty much someone's opinion whether they classify them as Punk.

Apparently The Monkees were also written up in Punk, are we calling them punk now?

Whether Green Day is punk is debatable... probably mostly centering around whether you think punk is a musical style or a philosophy.. but I'm really just saying that it's not really debatable that the Sex Pistols were punk, since the term "punk rock" was pretty much coined to describe what they were doing.

I don't think Green Day counts as punk rock, because actual punk rock was about a lot more than the music... so Survival Research Labs, f'rinstance, was definitely punk in my book... and so were Nazi skinheads, although they sucked. But as you say, opinions vary.

If you've read the Monkees writeup in "Punk", it's a snide hit piece the thrust of which is "these guys represent everything we're not". Punks hated hippies, and fake Madison-Avenue canned hippies were considered about the lowest of the low.

Personally I'd rate the Monkees a bit better than that, once they started dropping acid... anybody who gave me Head surely can't be all bad!

> and so were Nazi skinheads, although they sucked. But as you say, opinions vary.

Nazi skinheads are alcoholic sociopaths who dream of an authoritarian, fascist world dictatorship. I'm not sure how that fits the punk ethos?

I think it's a problem of specificity. Green Day's music do or did sound like punk, but do they (still) live the punk lifestyle/ideology? Did they ever?

I remember that question being hotly debated even before Dookie came out. Hard to believe this is still something people quibble over. Let’s get back to tabs vs spaces ;)

Still? No. Did they ever? Yes. I would never touch Nimrod, but I'm not at all embarrassed to still listen to Kerplunk.

And why shouldn't they be?

What throws them into the "not punk" category? Making money? Growing older?

Pretty much. Malcom McLaren's svengali ambitions notwithstanding, commercialism ain't punk.

The real germ of punk rock was pretty close to "Fuck Thatcher's England and Reagan's America, and all they stand for".

Here's some actual punk rockers participating in the music industry...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm0t99WmSCM

Wouldn't that literally mean that as soon as you're successful/make money you're not a punk anymore? I guess you could give it away, but assuming you're not entirely pursuing the cash, what does it matter?

I mean Jello's done ok, right? And I don't think anyone would argue Ian MacKaye or Brett Gurewitz weren't punk and they've got old and made a fair amount of cash...

I'm not totally sure that follows. In reference to Malcom McLaren, he specifically put together a band, and named it the Sex Pistols and dressed them to market his clothing store (called Sex). The band was formed to sell the NY punk scene to London. Take from that what you may.

Outside of a music genre, punk existed as a counter culture for a number of people who couldn't fit in or thrive in the monocultralism of the late 70s-80s. Punk isn't about a level of money or success. It's about contributing to counter culture rather than the monoculture! When that monoculture ceased to exist, the counter culture that was punk slowly splintered and evolved as well (but I think that's another topic altogether).

Anyway, to relate this back to Green Day, shortly after leaving their indie record label, they changed their sound (so they were no longer punk as a genre - compare them and how they evolved to another Berkeley band like Fifteen) and played for the mainstream crowd (so they were no longer punk as a counter culture).

Now, to relate this to MRR, and possibly explain why people care about the "punk" label, Tim Yo's attitude around once punk bands going mainstream certainly wasn't the best, and he did a lot to put forward this "punker than thou" type of image/attitude that (I think) hurt the punk counter culture in the long run. Most people really didn't (or wouldn't) care, but Tim did and was popular as the tastemaker of punk.

Fifteen! The album "Lucky" was a revelation to me.

"Wouldn't that literally mean that as soon as you're successful/make money you're not a punk anymore?"

That school of thought was definitely well-represented in the punk scene, although I don't subscribe to it. There was a strong streak of self-destructiveness in punk.

The money itself isn't really the point, it's more like what you do to get it. Punk was about DIY, staying raw & real. Graduating from independent labels & playing for the scene into major labels, college radio, and playing for the masses is pretty much the opposite of that. That's when Green Day moved on from their roots.

I'm not hating on them; I'd very likely have done the same thing in their shoes. It's just not punk.

OTOH, DKs, Minor Threat, Bad Religion... their members continued to make their way singing that Sinatra song (although happily not ODing on smack). They're a good example of how to do it.

Haha, I think we're going to end up arguing the same point and I'd strongly guess that the whole scene has / had an much of an impact on your life as it has on mine...

I'm pretty much with you. I've got very little time for the punker than thou crowd, but I think it's a pretty interesting area to discuss. I mean, if you're doing something unpopular and it becomes popular and you keep doing it - are you not 'punk' anymore? Equally, if you're doing exactly what the hell you want without worrying about it being a commercial success or not, isn't that about as raw and real as it gets?

"Equally, if you're doing exactly what the hell you want without worrying about it being a commercial success or not, isn't that about as raw and real as it gets?"

Punk had specific ideas about what qualified as raw/real, and it was a lot closer to "shock the bourgeousie" than to "raising capital to create web apps". We can't claim everything we like under the banner of punk, strictly speaking. If you're not within spitting distance of someone disrespecting an authority figure, how is it punk?

But sure, the core ideas underlying punk are far more universal than punk rock itself. I've known people who claim Jesus as a punk. There's an argument to be made!

Just to draw some semantic boundaries as I see it:

Meat Puppets I - straight punk Meat Puppets II - getting tired of the limitations of hardcore. Half punk, half not. Up On the Sun - not punk. Closer in spirit to R.W. Emerson than "Jesus Entering from the Rear".

Same guys, same attitude, kept it real, grew out of punk.

Modern Lovers - punk before punk was even a thing (like, say, the Undertones). Jonathan Richman - not punk. Same guy, pretty much the same attitude, grew out of punk.

In fact Jonathan's got a very charming bit about growing out of punk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_SYDA-jVPg

Fun to reminisce. Anyway, back to the 21st century and the bourgeouis concerns that occupy my sellout life (having failed to live fast and die young).

I saw Jello spinning recently at a fetish party at a gay bar. Punk enough for me.

To me, punk rock is more about "do it simple, give no shits" than anything else. Making money isn't a problem, but caring more about the money is a problem. Growing old isn't a problem, but worrying about growing old is a problem. If you want to see some old rich punk rock, check out this video of Mick Jones playing at his local library: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcL91CKyivE

Can't get more punk than that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com