So... how come Punk is not under the Rock section?
 

Hmm. I'm not a punk hata or anything, but I wonder all the same... Punk, hardly being truly a separate entity to Rock music... with that in mind, how come it gets a separate section? I mean, what punk bands would actually deny that they're playing some form or other of rock music?

Question.

The ideas and messages of punk are very different from rock, and punk usually sounds a lot different than normal rock.

Saying it's "hardly a truly seperate entity" is ignorant.

In that case, we don't need as many forums I guess. We wouldn't need indie or folk or country, we can just put everything under rock and act like there are no differences between the genres.

Thanks for making this forum better.

Oh, really? As if "rock" has a certain number of definable messages. Rock is too broad a term. You can't associate a clear set of meanings to it, considering the full range of subgenres thought of as rock. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "normal rock" - presumably chart-rock/pop-rock. In that case then yeah, I'm sure music specifically thought of as "punk" has widely different meanings to pop rock.

Nevertheless, any meaning or meanings you attribute to "punk" will clearly be covered by some subgenre widely accepted as falling under rock.

And come on, it's not really a separate entity. Punk music came out of rock'n'roll, and then the alternative rock scene heavily borrowed from punk (yes, REAL punk too! boo hoo hoo!) even to the point that much modern pop-rock music is abound with punk (REAL PUNK) influences in the musical techniques used.

What IS ignorant, ridiculous and positively absurd is to deny that punk is pretty intricately linked to the umbrella term of "rock" music.

This is one of those cases where a metal fan is pissed that metal doesn't have its own forum but punk does so hes going to try and start shit about it m i rite?

I'm not saying that at all. Folk and country, as labels, predate rock and can be distinguished by a number of things. Indie, well, some indie IS rock and some is not.

The main point I'm making is that punk in particular doesn't seem to have any meanings and general connotations that aren't to ALSO be found in plenty of subgenres of music widely accepted as falling under rock.

I'm not even saying this to start some fight. I'm just making a point that I feel is entirely valid.

The whole point of punk in the first place was that it was anti - rock.
It started from people thinking that rock music had become distant and too far up it's own ass to have any real meaning.
Those lines may have become blurred over the years , but I have always seen rock & punk as two totally different things.

To say that "Those lines may have become blurred over the years" hits the nail on the head.
I was a young lad at school and well into my music when punk 'broke out'.
The two factions hated each other. The punk and rock poles, idealistically, couldn't be further apart.

From what i have read it seems punks hated fans of The Jam more than anything else.
I've read several books where it says them lot were kicking lumps out of each other on a regular basis.

As I remember it the Jam were considered a punk band early on, probably because nobody really knew what to make of them. I imagine they weren't too bothered about it at the time.
I can only think that the two sets had problems more, when the second mod wave came about.