Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Green.Lady
The real definition of pop-punk is punk with catchy melodies. Believe it or not, The Ramones, Bad Religion, The Buzzcocks, Screeching Weasel, The Descendents, etc. are all classified as pop-punk.
Nowadays, bands like Blink 182, Green Day, NOFX, Sum41, etc. are also classified as pop-punk, and this is no less correct than the Buzzcocks or Ramones being called pop-punk. The only difference is that these bands are shitty. There's shitty bands in every genre, and fantastic ones as well. Most kids today seem to think that pop-punk equals only stuff like Blink 182, but it's a genre that been around for decades and should be respected.
So, if you wanna insult some of the greatest punk bands ever made, say that all punk music with pop influences sucks.
|
Pop refers to music that is popular, not music that is catchy or melodic. Pop is *usually* catchy and melodic,yes, but not always. The Ramones, Bad Religion, Buzzcocks, etc. were not popular for the majority of their careers. Ask a pop music aficionado about these bands, and if you are lucky they will name you one Ramones song. It is only in the past 5-10 years that these bands have been at all absorbed into pop culture. Perhaps that helped create a market for pop punk, because punk was old enough to be tame and marketable, but to call those bands themselves "pop" is not accurate.
I understand your argument - sure the Ramones were influenced by 50's rock and roll (i.e. pop), and bands like the Cramps were influenced by Elvis (as pop as it gets), but influences do not define a band, nor does melodic structure.
If you have any articles/interviews/books etc. that support your position I'd be interested in reading them, but if it's just a personal theory of yours then it goes against established music history.