Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonace
There are many factors. Alot has to do with the attitude of the musicians, the generally brighter sound matter and the more positive lyrics. Check out these videos for three classifications of punk through the years:
Sex Pistols: Bodies
Punk started as rebelious music and as a reaction to the increasing amount of prog-rock in those days.
Altough Sex Pistols songs can be "brighter" than this one, their lyrics and attitude were very controversal in those days. They raised alot of hell.
Bad Brains: Banned in DC (watch all the way through)
Faster and more intense punk rock devoloped in the 1980's. It was still rebelious, but less intent on shaking the foundations of soceity and more focused on the music itself.
|
Well, why wouldn't Sum 41, be classified as punk, their sound isn't always bright and colorful lol, or even Simple Plan for that matter.
I know for a fact that Deryck Whibley and the rest of Sum 41 was almost deported for their last album for being so controverseal. One of their music videos was even banned from either MTV or VH1
I know I sound like a fanboy, but I'm just trying to figure this out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veronica Lodge
I think it's mostly because it was marketed. Overkill with radio play, and music videos. Where as non pop-punk was less mainstream, and more an epic band that didn't need music videos and money to keep them happy.
There's no need to take offense to the classification of "pop-punk". I mean, it really only means popular punk.
Most hardcore punk lovers don't like pop-punk because it's not as aggressive, or genuine.
|
I did not know that, I thought Pop meant poppy as in like Britney Spears and NSYNC stuff...happy endings and heartache in every song...