What if?
 

The idea of this thread is to make people think. My intention is that this thread be a sort of hypothetical situation discussion. Feel free to answer the questin posed, or post one of your own.

I have seen some grumblings that all the music talk has dried up, so hopefully, this will make people think about music.

Ok, I will post the first question.


I find the song "American Idiot" by Green Day to be a great song. It's got a lot of energy, and 'snub your nose at authority' lyrics.

I have heard a lot of people bash Green Day for being soft punk, or whatever it's called.

My question is, what would the average punk fan's opinion of American Idiot be if say, The Ramones, or The Sex Pistols, had written and recorded it?

I think alot of people dislike the song for the fact of what green day stand for. I mean yeah you diss america for alot of reasons blah blah thats all good. Then you go and wear eyeliner and dress like a trendy hot topic goth. All the hype they get for it and press doesn't help the love for it either

Now more to the question, I doubt the ramones would do something like that to be honest they we're never very political. If the sex pistols did it, then alot of average punk fans would probaly be all over it and praise it. Because a "true punk band" did it, as opposed to an "MTV punk band" doing it. Then again alot of average punk bands have a hate for the sex pistols because of that whole mess they are.

I agree that most people bash Green Day because of their new style mostly.

My question is, what if The Aquabats and The Hippos started out with their newest albums (The Aquabats are now new age punk-thing, The Hippos are now synth pop). Would they be more popular?

I`d put it down to them having a bad day.

But in seriousness the problem with it is it sounds like exactly the same as every other song they`ve ever recorded and after about 6 or however many albums it just gets dull.The Pistols made one album & dissapeared , they never let that happen.It could be said the ramones are guilty of what green day are too but I never really liked them much either , apart from that album they recorded with Phil Spector and I liked that because it was different.

I still stand by Green Day. They are still making good music. They got more commercial than some would like, they didnt "sell out" sicne that term is being thrown around so much. If the Sex Pistols did it, I think it would have been ****ing sweet though. Green Day did good, but Sex Pistols could've done better.

^ i used to like you.....

No one likes Green Day because they're trying to do something they're not. Or at least they're trying to do it but they have no vindication. If the Ramones tried to do American Idiot, they would do it their way, and people would love it because it's the Ramones, it's what people come to expect from them. When Greenday did it, all I thought was man this is crap, it doesn't sound like Greenday. Probably didn't help when the DJ said it was the biggest song of the year eather.

Choosing a supercar, what do you pick: The purebred Ferarri or the no frills Mazda? Can Mazda even make supercars?

Point being, you recognise a band based on what it has done, what it is renowned for, what you can expect to gain from listening to them.

Greenday, by doing something new, took a risk. Frankly they ballsed up but if they continue with this new style I'm sure they can create a taste for it and maybe one day produce the next American Idiot, that everyone will like, based on what they've come to expect.

indeed.. If Green Day happend to write the best Pop song ever, I'd still think it was ****.

I don't understand the Green Day hating. No one likes Green Day because they're trying to do something they're not? What does that mean? Is it because they don't fit into one's description of punk? How does anyone, except for Green Day themselves, know for sure what Green Day is trying to do?

Maybe I'm missing something, I don't know. I always thought a band was just being a band. It's the public at large that seems to want to fit bands into a certain genre, and have a certain amount of distain when a band doesn't fit neatly into it.

So anyway, I guess people get hung up on image or whatever.

Next question, anyone?

Someone in the other thread said it best "It has become trendy to bash on Green Day" It's the truth. Bashers don't think for themselves, they take recycled put downs from the lips of people and use it as if they came up with the thought independantly. They aren't allowed to form the opinion for themselves, or else it would ruin their "street-cred". Of course these people will deny this...

"Of course I can form my own thoughts! They are this and this and this!"

Recycled put downs.

The best example of this is 14 and 15 year olds saying that they aren't punk and they sold out. That's when you know it has become the trend - these people weren't walking or talking when Kerplunk! was released, yet they put this act like they've been following them from the beginning and watched them "Sell out".

I can understand if someone says they don't like the music. Not my kinda thing, not my taste, etc etc. I don't understand, and in fact think it's retarded when people put Green Day down for changing their musical style, and the content of their lyrics. You often hear, I like their old stuff... but not their new stuff.

Every band will get caught in this Catch 22. If they keep making the same sound of music people will call them a one trick pony. All their stuff sounds the same, etc. But if they change people will say they sold out. Doing it for the money. Sometimes this may be true. I don't think it is with Green Day. They aren't 17 anymore, they aren't going to sing about masturbation or getting high all day. They are 30 years old... a 30 year old caring about politics and singing about it? THAT IS UNHEARD OF. The new musical style? So the f*ck what? They are trying new things - experimenting with sounds from vaudeville and musical theater... creating a Rock Opera.

As for their style and the "Hot Topic" comment. Do you still wear the same stuff you did when you were 5 years old? No. Your style has changed. So has theirs.

you think music would be really different if beatles never exisisted?

I think us Green Day haters are getting far too much flak.

I don`t think they ever sold out I just think they`re shit and have done ever since I heard their 2nd album when it came out 12 or 13 years ago. Of all the bands on small independant labels that could have got attention this bunch of 3 chord wonders without an original bone in their entire bodies got it all. Their music is lowest common denominator singalong pop rock dressed up as punk to give it some marketability.

Say what you like , I fucking hate this band. I don`t care if they`re punk , I don`t care if they sold out , it`s just a smokescreen for a band that never had any fucking originalty at any point at any time.

For every marketed, hyped band out there, there is 100 more worthy bands with much more talent, who never get a look in and it winds me up, but I don't blame Green Day. I blame the music market and the tossers who fall for it.

Green Day = the Spice Girls of Punk.

i think times have changed and the internet makes it possible for every band to get an audience.

but to move on from green day bashing ( i like green day by the way ), no i don't think the beatles made such an impact on music and it would have developed just as well without them.....besides, the rolling stones were their contemporaries which means that not every rock band derived from the beatles' music.

They sold 1.45 million copies of American Idiot in their first week, in the age of downloading this is a very impressive feat. I have never weighed in on the Green Day issue so I would like to tell you that it is a very good and daring album. It brought up issues the public was thinking at the right time. I don't own it but it is quite good compared to anything else on the charts

I would heartily agree with this comment, anything sold half of a million copies in the moden age by any music style is good and well I used to bash them and mostly blindly until I head the live allbum, and well I won't bash them anymore.. They're far form my favorite but I don't hate them BLINDLY anymore like I used to.. Uusally the more critics/'normal' people hate a band or an artist that'll make me want to hear 'em een more and judge for myself..
They're far from my favorite, but the live effort gets a nod of respect from this 'hardened' and jaded music fanatic.

I seriously hope that you are joking.

Does anyone here know who The Aquabats and The Hippos are? :(

You really missed what I said, "I mean yeah you diss america for alot of reasons blah blah thats all good. Then you go and wear eyeliner and dress like a trendy hot topic goth." I didn't diss them for dressing just for dressing like that, I dissed them for dressing like that and putting out a message like they do. Kind of hypocritical to dress extremely trendy then have lyrics like these "Don't wanna be an American idiot one nation controlled by the media information age of hysteria it's calling out to idiot America." don't ya think?

Oh yeah I wasn't responding to you singularly, but you always hear bashing based on their style - so I addressed - I only referenced your comment because I didn't want to be coming out of nowhere. I don't know if it's hypocritical... ironic, maybe. Green Day is creating some of these trends - some of it isn't trendy before they do it- but it's hard to pinpoint that kind of thing.

I don't think it's new to not like Green Day. I mean it's like that for everyband... some people are going to like you, some aren't. It's like that in every walk of life. It has, however, become trendy to openly bash Green Day - put down their fans - say they "suck" - call them the cliche "sell outs", "wannabes", "fake punks"... what have you....

I think that Green Day does deserve respect. They've made music through two decades of a radically changing music scene, staying true to their roots... they don't claim to be anything more than the 3 chord punk that they started out as - all the members are still there... they've accomplished great things. Yeah, they make a lot of money... does that make them sell outs? They make music that their audience likes... does that make them sell outs? With every album they try something new, they grow... does that make them sell outs? They dress accordingly to the styles of the day... sell outs? They make political statements in their music... sell outs?

Following that same syllogism... the Beatles are also sell outs.

Geez. Maybe I should have picked a different song and artist. The last thing I wanted to start was the 10,000th Green Day argument.


About the Beatles, though, they came along at exactly the right time. The 50's sound was on its last leg, and the Beatles were the shot in the arm the music scene needed. They captured lightning in a bottle, because music fans from the 50s were in their 20s by then and the next generation was left with the residual effect of Ricky Nelson, The Penguins, The Platters, etc, etc.

The early 60's was a transitional period for rock and roll, even at its early age. After the flash point of Elvis, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, and the like, rock and roll wasn't ten years old, and already the flame was starting to flicker. The initial craze had settled, and it was pretty much par for course, a sort of subdued, steady as she goes type vibe in music back then. No real daredevils or what have you. It was as though all the artists from that time had taken the recipe for rock and roll, and just stirred it, without adding anything new.

When the Beatles came along, they were the 60's equivalent of Elvis. Where Elvis had long sideburns, they had mop tops. They had the Italian boots and the tight cut pantlegs. The 'new' wild.

Kids ate it up, for a few reasons. They were bored with music, and, on top of everything else, their parents hated it. LOL. That is the one thing that has not changed in 50 years of Rock and Roll. If my parents hate it, it must be good.

My own personal opinion is, I thought the Stones were, if not better, more interesting. While the Beatles sang "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", the Stones sang "I Wanna Be Your Man". The counter-culture Beatles.

Anyway, my two cents.

Aww. Consider them my flaw, okay? I have a soft spot for "Wake me up when September Ends".

That song makes want to throw burning babies off a cliff. and this is coming from a big Green Day fan.

Thank goodness I don't listen to the radio. I only hear that song when I've got my iPod on shuffle or when I'm listening to American Idiot. I like it I guess, it isn't their best song... but it's not their worst.

lol.

Well it was just refreshing. And the video was a bit over-dramatic, but I have a friend who is going into the army and his girlfriend reacted that way, so I think of them when I hear that song.

And at least I'm not raving about Good Charlotte or All American Rejects. I would deduct myself respect points if I ever started going off in a tangent about them.

I was thinking about these two bands 2 pages ago and you've prompted me to ask the next question.

What if The Rolling Stones were the more widely regarded of the two bands.

i.e What if it were the Rolling Stones who were revered the way the Beatles are today. The possible impact on todays music?

They are for me :)

The Beatles were nice clean cut boys who wrote nice pop songs , at least to start with anyway .I think the Stones were more in tune with how rock bands are now.You just have to look at their image & attitude .. shaggy hair ,didn`t wear matching suits & write songs about the seedier side of life with dirty great blues riffs.You can see their influence the whole way through rock music not just musically but the attitude & the imagery.

Then they started trying new things and became a influence on everything from prog to pop to alternative rock to metal.

Only depending on how you define "rock band", if you mean only the glam, hard rock and punk bands then yeah...I think you are just including the kind of rock you like, and not everything else.

They make better music than The Beatles because they dress better?...Is it just me or do you really let a bands pysical appearence have way too much influence on your opinion about them?

Thats certainly never been done before, how innovative.

But if you take away the imagry and fashion sense, The Beatles still had more musical influence overall...They opened the gates for many genres of music to come, after the mid 60s they began to try a handfull of different things, and didnt give a **** about the consequence's of the risks they took, they just took them...Not to mention they were the first rock band who learned how to use the recording studio to its full potential...The music industry would be a hell of a lot different without The Beatles than The Stones, both are great bands, but The Beatles are greater in my opinion.

Whoever's better is completely up to you.

You`ve missed the point by a mile

I was suggesting what qualities the stones had , not comparing what they did to the Beatles. I`m not suggesting the had more influence than the Beatles anybody with half a brain can see things pretty much started with them, I just think the Stones deserve some credit for what they did without 'oh the Beatles did this the Beatles did that' every 5 minutes.

I dont think anyone here was trying to take away credit for what The Rolliing Stones did.

ok I'm gonna be bold and try and get back on the original topic and pose a what if theory and probably open one of my fave bands up for bashing and flaming but I was the one who asked the opinion, so here goes..
This is more to the people who dislike Kiss either intensely or just a little bit.. What if they'd written basically the same material and style but if they'd started off WITHOUT their makeup I wonder if they would have become as phenominal as they did, of if they would've become lost in the 70's shuffle. This is coming from a fan, too, but I'm thinking they probably might've gotten lost if they had left it off.... And another quesiton would you have possibly liked them any better and given them more credit if hey hadn't done the makeup thing..

Your whole post was comparing them to the Beatles

Thats because i thought you were doing the same, it certainly appeared that way.

All I did was say what I thought was different about the 2 bands in the first line

Oh, well sorry for the misunderstanding, i thought you were implying that The Rolling Stones were a greater band because they were more rock n roll.

The state of recorded music may have suffered had the Beatles not existed, however the state of music would be the same. I really don't think their influence is half as great as people say

Uh no it wouldnt...Not by a f*cking long shot.

I`m not so sure thats true.

Had the Beatles not existed somebody else would have done.It could have been one band , it could have been several bands.It would be different , but i`m not so sure it would be worse.

Not everything they did in such a short time period no, plus that is just mere speculation...Pretty damn insignificant in this case, it dosent take away from the innovations they made.

Still saying everything would be the same is pretty damn ignorant.

Huh?

Of course it`s speculation , I don`t live in a world where the Beatles don`t exist.
How can you quote me as saying 'things will be different' and then say i`m saying things would be the same?