Music Banter - View Single Post - Isn't 'Pop-Punk' an oxy moron?
View Single Post
Old 04-18-2008, 09:07 PM   #98 (permalink)
Oomph!
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Posts: 240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teshadoh View Post
I don't think punk's primary issue was ever 'pop', but commercially over-saturated 'popular' music. Of course the Bee Gees & Abba, but also Led Zeppelin, Van Halen, The Who (1970's era), & Pink Floyd.
O really? You think think Led Zepplin and the Who were commercially saturated and/or corporate bands?

Quote:
The latter grouping would not be considered 'pop' music by most people's definitions here,
I'm sure there a many people on this board who would take the liberty of saying Led Zepplin or the Who are indeed 'pop music' if it conveniently suited thier response at the time.

Quote:
but were targeted for either being shallow or being full of themselves.
Wait, first of all, since when has it been generally believed that Pink Floyd or Led Zepplin were 'full of themselves' or 'shallow'? And secondly, punk was anti-establishment not anti-people-who-are-full-of-themselves. Led Zepplin and Pink Floyd weren't the 'establishment', pop bands were.

Quote:
Punk was about taking rock music & stripping it down of all the pretenses that had built up through the 1970's.
And pop music was/is about building those pretenses and reinforcing them, hence them being opposites.

Quote:
Besides, if no one thinks punk bands never played pop music
No one said that, so what does it matter? That isn't what this thread is about so no one cares about you chanting the 'buzzcocks'.
Oomph! is offline   Reply With Quote