mosc wrote:GutterMOUTH, yes. Dammit, I am embarrassed! Anyway, y'all need to stop what you're doing and listen to secure horizons. "gotta learn to diversify!"
Eh, I wasn't really trying to propose a real definition, just make a cynical comment. Course, punk is so cynical that maybe a cynical definition is the best kind? That's sad.
I don't care what anybody says though, there is a specific "punk" drum beat, guitar strumming, vocal style, and chord progression. 400 years from now, that'll be what they use to define punk. Furthermore on the subject of selling out, has anybody heard the Ignite song where they call out the FANS as being bigger sellouts than the bands? I thought it was very witty and accurate. I think the song is called "who sold out now?"
Good call with that Ignite song. "Constant complaining makes my ears ring, I care about hardcore but I hate the scene" My thoughts exactly.
If I was going to attempt any kind of classification of music it would definitely be on the basis of song structure like you were talking about. Pandora.com does this pretty well. Any song that has "punk roots" or even "punk influences" listed as part of its Pandora description should probably be considered a punk song. It may not be a good
song and the band may not be what you would consider a punk band but the song is going to display certain characteristics that are prevalent in all punk music.
What people seem to get hung up on a lot of the time is that they want to disallow certain subgenres under the punk heading because they don't like the type of music. You don't have to like the style of punk for it to be punk. A lot of emo music, as much as I dislike it, is a form punk rock. So is pop punk, Oi, ska punk, hardcore, etc. It's kinda like how a Geo Metro is a car. It's a shitty car and I don't want to own one but it's still a damn car.
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds - Bob Marley