multiple subgenres for punk are about as necessary as multiple subgenres for metal... ie: if there are more than 3-4 bands using this term to describe themselves a new name needs to be created so that they remain 'unique'...

the real question to me is, are the subgenres more relevant to the bands who create the music or for the egos of the listeners?

Genres and sub-genres are a reality. Some folks may not acknowledge them, or refuse to acknowledge their existance, but the reality is new bands are attracted to genres, or better stated "scenes", hard-core, cow-punk, skate-punk, whatever...and either die a death within it's confines, or expand out of it into something else. The Clash, X, Meat Puppets, The Replacements, Husker Du are examples of bands that started within the narrow constrains of various punk scenes, then busted out of them to become something else.

i don't deny their existence, i deny their worth.

a.k.a. They finally figured out sub-genres were dumb and moved on.

If you knew the first thing about it you wouldn't be saying that. Check out some Naked City, Lounge Lizards or James Chance sometime.

I really hope your not serious. And if you are you need me to introduce you to some music, stat.

Since some very talented musicians are attracked to them, they must have some worth. On the other hands, untalented musicians that jump on the bandwagon and vomit the same old song and dance are worthless.

like who?

adhering to a genre (especially a subgenre) so you can say you're part of 'something' strikes me like yet another patch of some torn up punk coat that screams the same message as every other patch on their coat. 'will someone PLEASE pay attention to me already! mommy and daddy were too busy'.

a talented musician worthy of note gets attention because of the music they create not because of the genre it happens to fall within.

Of course they're worthless, they're untalented...and possibly ill.

Just because a band doesn't invent a new genre, or doesn't break barriers doesn't mean they're worthless. By the same measure, not all bands that create new genres and break barriers are worthwhile.

In the end, it's the music that matters, not the stupid categorization of it.

A lot of bands view genres as an opportunity of expression and use it has a vehicle to launch from. Another obvious examples was Wire. The crappy bands are the ones you're referring too, which I just filter out. Regardless of the quality of music, which is a subjective judgement, the genre (sub) still exists and continues to influence other bands as well as future genre (sub) that haven't been created yet.

can anyone else make sense of this post and reiterate it in a way that my old ass can understand it?