It would be like calling Grunge "Big Band"
2006-10-20 02:57:39 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
Punk rock died in the mid 80's. What they call "punk" rock now is corporate garbage. All of this new "punk" crap should be labeled as garbage and disposed of accordingly. Anybody who wants to listen to real punk rock should stick to mid 70's to early 80's $hit like the Sex Pistols, Black Flag, Dead Kennedys, The Exploited (I could go on all day).. and denounce all that Blink-182, Green Day, and Fall Out Boy type of rubbish that gets heavy corporate radio station airplay.
2006-10-20 03:06:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
All depends what your definition of 'punk' is. To me Punk was a movement, rather than a specific sound, empowering people to go back to basics and make their own music, in direct contrast to the glam and prog rock so prevalent at the time. So 'punk' encompasses everything from the Sex Pistols to The Jam via the Boomtwon Rats and the Pogues.
Many Brits would not class a number of American Punk bands as really 'punk', although that is not meant to denigrate some great bands; The Ramones and Blondie spring to mind, iconic but not true punk.
And even some bands over here which had that label hung on them were not really 'punk', the obvious example here being The Stranglers.
2006-10-20 10:06:16 · answer #2 · answered by AndyG45 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Amen to that...
CBGB's is closed (the Roundhouse went decades ago), the Romones are pushing up daisies, Buzzcocks frontman Pete Shelley recently recorded a song with Elton John, I've heard Clash and Stranglers songs as musak on elevators, and the Suicide Girls are modern punker's dished up as a viable marketing commodity.... the situation IS, to quote a wonderful old girlfriend, ******' Bollocks.
2006-10-20 10:07:12 · answer #3 · answered by decodoppler 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Misleading is hardly the word. Travesty maybe? Dead Kennedys vs. Blink 182... F#cking ridiculous. Today's punk (as put by Jello Biafra) has too many solos and no soul.
2006-10-20 09:59:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've noticed the same thing. What my 15 yr old son calls "punk", is not what I would consider punk. Chalk it up to the evolution of punk, I suppose. We saw it happen to rock-n-roll: Elvis > The Stones > AC/DC > Motley Crue > Godsmack.
2006-10-20 10:03:48 · answer #5 · answered by Christina 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rock isn't much different from the 60s 70s and now. Evolution! I must be getting old.
2006-10-20 10:05:36 · answer #6 · answered by Ron D 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
R 'n' B ain't rhythm and blues either. Oh the times they are a changin'...
2006-10-20 10:00:32 · answer #7 · answered by Beechy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋