Why is it that...

AMEN!

You preach it brother!

What gets me about the new breed of pop-punk bands out there is that they stand for nothing! They have nothing insightful to say about politics, religion, or war. Punk feeds off of explosive beliefs, hence the speed and structure. It's not always about the music, but the message. I have a hard time believing the in 20 years we will be seeing any of the boys from Rancid/Green Day/Sum 41 performing a spoken word tour. Why is Jell-O Biafra or Henry Rollins so successful post-band? hrmm... Oh yeah, cause they actually believe in what they have to say and have the nads to back it up without a $400,000 polished studio album.

Eh.

You guys are trying way too hard to put "punk" into a box. Rancid's a great fucking rock'n'roll band (at least on ...And Out Come the Wolves and Life Won't Wait), regardless of packaging, lack of smarts/belief, whatever... I'd argue that their two best albums are actually stronger and more consistent than any single record the Clash released, aside from London Calling and the first album.

And since when were intelligence and spoken word tours some kind of guage for punk success? Pete Shelley isn't doing spoken word tours. Dave Vanian isn't doing spoken word tours. Poly Styrene isn't doing spoken word tours. And none of them had anything insightful to say about politics, religion, or war, either, really. It's all more heat than light, just like Rancid (aside from the Buzzcocks, who seldom bothered with the political, anyway).

I'm not gonna speak up for a lot of the other modern punk bands mentioned, since I think a lot of them suck, regardless of genre. But to say that "punk" has to conform to some narrow idea of political enlightenment, undefinable grit, or intelligence is pretty weak.

The Sex Pistols, the Clash, and the DKs might have been about "anger and outrage," but the Ramones were more about boredom and not liking anything on the radio (as with Blondie), the Buzzcocks were about young lust, the Damned and Fear were about being outrageous for the fuck of it, the Heartbreakers were about a good time, X were about characters and social commentary, and Talking Heads, Television, and the Voidoids were about taking things forward, musically.

Were these bands better than anything being served on MTV today? Yeah, mostly. But to bash this new bunch for not being "punk" is losing sight of the fact that "punk" is and has always been pretty much anything you want it to be.

Next up: "What's More Emo?: Rites of Spring or Dashboard Confessional?"

I see what you are saying; Dave, and I couldn't disagree with you more. Have you ever seen Jell-O or Rollins speak? Probably not if you think they have little insight into the world around us. Jell-O ran for mayor of San Francisco for Christ sakes!

My argument is that we have this generation of cookie cutter bands that sing songs about oppression, youth pressures, and politics yet they have absolutely nothing to say about their material. You have hordes of groups like Offspring that consider themselves punk, and sing songs like “kids aren’t alright” but the only thing they can talk about is the success of their album or recent tour. They have nothing. Nothing. To say about the material they write. Why? Maybe because groups like these take ideals that made the genre successful and market the hell out of them to make a buck.

There are old school bands considered punk that had really no insightful meaning into anything, but at least they backed up their music. GG Allin would be a forgotten ghost if he packed it up after his first show, but he didn’t and people still remember him. The point is this new breed isn’t about impact or statement; they are about marketing. As soon as they’re done, they’re done. No longevity, no staying power, they play and sell and fade out of memory.

Okay. Begin.

Off to a bad start. I haven't seen either, but I've heard a number of recordings.

Where did I say those guys DIDN'T have insight? I said political motivation, anger, or what-have-you aren't requirements to be called "punk." For every Jello who knows his politics, there are ten Johnny Thunderses who never gave a fuck or Pete Shelleys who wrote largely love songs.

<strong> Dylan never says shit about his material. Good work speaks for itself, and I think Rollins and Biafra would tend to agree.

You think this is so different from the early punk bands how? The outwardly political bands weren't as great a majority as you think in the early punk days. Check out Please Kill Me or even London's Dreaming sometime.

Again, that's kinda bullshit. The material should speak for itself. I never heard Joe Strummer going out of his way to hold your hand and explain his songs to you. As a punk listener, you should be a little more DIY about how you get your information. Bad Religion may have a lot of political content in their lyrics, but I don't think Greg Graffin would recommend you use it as a primary news source. He'll tell you to go read Chomsky or something. Probably the same thing Dexter Holland (not one of my favorites, but certainly not a dummy) would tell you, actually. Music is about emotion, not necessarily facts.

Oh, yeah? How does one do that? How do you "back up" music? Where's the justification for playing an A major barre chord on a Mosrite? Is that more punk than a C minor on a Fender?

Oh, yeah. A day doesn't go by that I don't find myself humming "Ten Year Old Fuck."

Throwing poopy onstage is a great way to make people remember your important message of... ummm... it's gross to throw poopy! No one knows his music or whatever message he had other than "being outrageous gets you attention." Did G.G. have a more important message than Marilyn Manson?

Perhaps. But isn't this true of some bands from all different eras? And some may just surprise you.

"No longevity, no staying power, they play and sell and fade out of memory."

That was the actual idea of punk. The fact that people still worship at the altar of 70s punk bands means they failed in their supposed effort to destroy the rock god mentality.

Wrong!

I'd recommend ...And Out Come the Wolves or Life Won't Wait. Nice, diverse collections of tunes verging on ska that bridge the gap between classic rock songs and totally disposable pop - as some of the best punk does. I thought the s/t was pretty unlistenable, but the new one ain't bad.

I will admit that reading interviews with the members leaves me confused, since they don't seem smart enough to formulate a complete sentence much less come up with a great song, but punk is not always about being smart.

Thank you.

Wrong, also!

Plus, your tortured reasoning pales next to outlawtorn's simple rox/sux criteria (the only criteria that counts in rock'n'roll).

I thought it was how many albums you sold.

FYI, Rhino's got a big honkin' punk box set that's coming out next week packed with good stuff. No Sex Pistols, though.

Oh, and Dave's right.

That's an argument I can buy a lot easier than the whole "important personal and/or political statement" thing.

Of course, bands like Yes, Led Zeppelin, and the Eagles also did things no one had done before, and many would consider them the antithesis of punk.

In rock'n'roll, sometimes you don't need originality if it feels right. Plus, how can you say advancement is so important when so many of these bands developed one good trick early on then rehashed it and rehashed it (see Ramones). Do you only have to be original once, then all bets are off?

I think we'd agree that advancement isn't necessarily the key to being good in the case of a single band's career trajectory. Why, then, is it so important among many bands?

Eh. I like 'em. For me, they rox. At least, they often rox.

We're wearing you down Dave, by the end of the day you'll be on the Sux boat.

Never said they were perfect. I said they have two fantastic albums, and one good one. Never cared for the early stuff or the self-titled one.

It ain't about bands and personalities to me. It's about individual pieces of work.

I liked those Rancid albums before I saw them live. Now I can't listen to them without thinking "Man, these guys really fucking suck live." I hate it when that happens.

In that case, you should find the fact that the Ramones' inspiration for "Blitzkrieg Bop" was the Bay City Rollers' "Saturday Night" (you see, Joey and the boys thought "Saturday Night" was great fun at the very least, and wanted a song with chanting in it themselves) an especially effective emetic.

As for Rancid, I must say I really have no opinion. They have made no dent on my consciousness, aside from that A-1 mohawk that one dude has (or used to have). Good mohawks are like good afros, just too damn rare.

And a hearty "welcome back to layin' the smackdown" to my good pal DaveB. You've been too long silent.

Eh, I picked up Turbonegro's newest, and while it strives to be the rox, it doesn't quite do it, but it hardly sux.

There are numerous shades of gray in between "rox" and "sux".

I have? Between this and Micah's comments about my diminished presence in that chewer compliment thread, it sounds like I've unwittingly been lurking more than posting lately. I'll increase the two cents dropping.

I'd agree that there are degrees of rox and sux. If there weren't, there'd be no room in the world for that slightly-less-than-rox-but-not-sux Sounds CD you recommended.

I'll have to hear that Turbonegro CD. I was meaning to pick that up.

Sorry to derail, but I must.

Either you've never listened to a Manson album, you have listened but don't get it and write it off as shock rock, have never read or seen an interview with him, or all of the above. That statement's ridiculous. Part of his act is to shock people, sure, especially back in the early Manson days, but he has written some decent lyrics and even some of the more simple/playful songs have meaning. Watch his segment in "Bowling for Columbine" sometime.

For the record, I think Manson's smart, and his act and music are dumb. Intentionally so. Dumb sells. For the record, I think he's SMARTER than Allin, especially in that he's clearly PLAYING at being dangerous, rather than bashing heads at his own gigs, shooting heroin, and throwing crap.

Regardless, whatever message MM or G.G. Allin might have is entirely overshadowed by the attention-getting tactics that both employ(ed). In that spirit, here's another question: are Manson or Allin all that different from Madonna?

I'll say this: I've heard alot of people talk about how great GG Allin is over the years. I've almost never seen a GG Allin album in someone's collection, and I've certainly never witnessed anyone actually LISTENING to GG Allin. So I agree--when people say that pop acts sell their image, with music being just a secondary afterthought, such was the music of GG Allin. Even moreso than most "pop" acts.

Dunno about "Bowling for Columbine" but I've always regarded Manson as a less tongue-in-cheek Alice Cooper.

And choose your words carefully before slamming either in reponse.

GENIOUS