Hacker News Reader

Comment by drcongo | Hacker News Reader

This is getting downvoted, but I'd never even heard them referred to as punk before. And as a British former punk, I don't understand it either.

View on HN

They were punk, just mainstream, pop punk. It was a common label for them in North America in the 90s.

As a former North American Punk, they were posers, not punks.

Saying I'm punk, and you are not punk, is about the least punk thing you can do.

what about working for an investment bank? How punk is that on the scale?

It could be very high on the scale. Like punks, bankers often don't ask for permission.

Given how often they break laws, ignore social norms, and thumb their noses at authorities... pretty damn punk.

Ha! The amount of gatekeeping on the definition of punk that I've lived through makes me feel so old, but it also tickles me a little to see it come up again today. The more things change ...

Anyone who releases an album for sale is a poser. Trying to make money from music is unpunk.

The classic No True Punksman fallacy.

Gatekeeping isn't punk

As a self-confessed "former punk", do you really deserve to make that assessment?

“One, two, three, four

Who’s punk what’s the score?”

Get outta here with the gatekeeping

I think "pop punk" is a good term, for me it's about the sound and delivery, it has nothing to do with commercial success, being "posers" etc. I think it's kind of evident from the music itself why someone who likes Dead Kennedys, Black Flag, Big Black, or GG Allin may not appreciate Green Day, NOFX and the likes (and vice versa). It's in the sound itself, ignoring the lyrics and everything else. Many bands without any mainstream success still play pop punk.

I think of punk as being three completely separate variables, and for any individual or band they're independent of each other:

1) Ethos

2) Aesthetics/look & feel

3) Musical sound

So someone could be punk as fuck ethos-wise but love listening to Yanni. Meanwhile a band could have a straight up anarcho-punk sound, but otherwise be white collar wage slaves

But this is the root of so much disagreement. When Green Day started ascending in the 80s, people were pointing out the poppy music as not being "punk". But that's just one variable.

You missed the fourth. Rebellion

Punk is about rebellion, pop-punk is a good umbrella term as they had rebellious vibes but to call Green Day punk is a bit of a stretch.

I was including that as part of `Ethos`. DYI, anti-authority, etc.

> Many bands without any mainstream success still play pop punk.

The irony extends to the fact that while someone can play in the style of pop without being mainstream, they cannot literally be pop until they're popular. But if pop requires being popular and punk requires shunning the mainstream, pop punk couldn't exist. The fact that it does is therefore a bit of a paradox.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com