Talk:Pop-punk/Archive 1

First Wave of California Punk
In the article it states that the first wave of the Califronia punk scene started when Green Day came about. However Fear and X both came out of Califronia long before Green Day was ever in existence.

ARE YOU PEOPLE INSANE?!
Guttermouth, No use for a name, I admit isn't very hard, but ti's NOT POP PUNK! The offspring is comertialised yeah, but not POP! NOFX, Me first and the gimme gimmes? What the f...-That does not even remotely resemble pop! I don't care if the frekin topic is controversial THEY SHOULDN'T BE ON THE LIST! And what's american Hi-Fi doing there? They're NU metal if you ask me. Even if a band sucks it should at least catagorised properly! I understand how you could have gotten some No use for a name songs mixed up in to pop punk, but the NOFX thing...that is just WRONG

My comments deleted, see above--FilthMasterFlex 01:01, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with a lot of the bands on the "List Of Recognised Pop Punk Artists/Bands" section. And I think the second genre of pop punk, which is the So-Cal/Nofx style, should have it's own page and simply be linked to this page. I would call that type of punk Skate punk, or melodic punk. Fans of the true Ramones/Lookout type pop punk would agree, and most of them heavily dislike the Blink 182 style that is mentioned. True pop punk means "poppy", fun sounding, bubblegum type music and the second genre means "popular", melodic. See the difference. It's a shame that they are confused with each other and both thought as "pop-punk". User:Milk May-23-04

The images on this page has been added by User:Weezer76(Talk), which is also almost certain "michael". Should they bee removed??

I don't understand your concern. Surf on over to the heavy metal page, which has been there for some time. That is where I got the idea.

I read the posts about this user. Kind of amusing. From what I gather, he can't write quite like I do.

CAN SOMEONE help me, I apologize, but I just read the plethora of copyright information, and since I borrowed heavily from some copyrighted sources (offline), I would appreciate if someone could revert the page back to March 23 and delete the subsequent content. I tried to do this myself but someone then switched it back. I don't want anyone to get in trouble. Again, sorry for the confusion. Best regards, User:Weezer76

OK, is it the text or the images? The use of the images is considered to be under fair use, as we are not doing this for profit, and because we are commenting on the albums. Just edit the image page saying who owns the copyright, etc. -- Jim Regan 19:31 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No, I meant it was textual. Thanks. User:Weezer76

-- From Votes for Deletion
 * pop punk archived content for July
 * I am a newbie and borrowed from some offline textual sources without permission before really getting into and understanding your copyright files. Another user helped revert the page back, but I would like the cached stuff for July permanently deleted.  I read that I had to request this here, but I am not sure if I have to do this myself; I am not very tech savvy so I wouldn't have a clue how to anyway.  My sincerest apologies. -- weezer76
 * I presume one of the developers could selectively remove all the July history for this article. The other option would be to delete and then replace the stub. But that would remove the record of edits by 68.100.238.156  and Ams80. Anyone got thoughts on this? -- sannse 20:30 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * Isn't Weezer a name that was used by one of the banned users?

Good rewrite. I wrote a lot of stuff for this page as it was very small when I found it and whoever has written this new one has managed to successfully expand on what I said, making it some thing bigger and more complete without completely destroying it. Good job!Motown Junkie 14:55, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Pop Punk, An oxymoron?
I don't believe its fair to classified some punk as pop punk. Wouldn't it be more accurately called Pop Rock? The reason I bring this up is that Punk is notorious for their lyrics against much of the mainstream industry. Though their is no actual so called "punk" standard, I still believe that Pop punk shouldn't be a term to classified any band that makes it big.

--You are very right. Mainstream rock bands that have punk influences shouldn't be considered pop-punk. The commercialization of the term pop-punk to mean any band with kids in it who sing about broken hearts and dye their hair black is a bastardization of the term. An argument could be made about certain bands that cross over from the punk scene, such as blink-182, but several of the bands listed, such as Simple Plan, Sum-41, were never part of any punk scenes before they were used by records labels as profit machines. A band selling out is one thing, but this selling out of an idea is quite another.

- This page has gotten better since I last posted here, but there are still some weird things about it. I shortened and moved the Emo comparison because it had many POV sentences and should not be so high up in the definition. It should be an added note at the bottom, like how Ska punk is. Secondly, the Australian bands section should merely be a link to it's own section and not be incorporated to the very broad and general article on Pop punk. I deleted the Australian bands in the "list of recongnized bands" because 1. they are already listed above in the paragraph and 2. they are not very recongnized outside of Australia, with the exception of some. I deleted the paragraph on Me First because it is a POV statement, saying they were 'one of the more interesting bands to develop during this time'. They are however linked at the bottom of the page. I agree with the above statements on the oxymoron, mainstream listing of pop punk bands like Sum 41 and Avril Lavinge. They should be under there own "mainstream pop punk" section. Someone should add on a section like this, where it talks about punk crossing over into the mainstream in the mid-90s with Green Day and Blink-182. Milk 01:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This whole article should be shortened and merged with the pop-rock article since it is an oxymoron.

--Alright, I'm not gonna get into the definition of pop punk here, suffice to say that Avril Lavigne doesn't belong on that list. Everything else is debateable, but Avril Lavigne is a pop singer no matter how you look at it. There isn't an drop of punk in her blood, much less in her songs. So... Permission to remove her from the list?

Also, Rancid is in no way Ska Punk, and the description of emo is obviously unresearched, at points blatantly false, and definetly not well written. So... If no one has any problem with it, I'm gonna rearrange and rewrite a couple things towards the end. Speak up soon if you object. DenBez 17:22, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Emo
Ummmm... Emo isn't related to pop-punk. At all. Did anyone bother to read the emo page?

DenBez 00:48, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne
I see that this is an ongoing conflict, but I don't see the reason for it. Pop punk means nothing other than popular punk music. Thus, these are punk bands which soften their punk elements in order to become mainstream. Nevertheless, bands such as The Offspring and Alkaline Trio (just to give a few examples) still keep a certain heaviness on their songs, as do all other bands from the genre. Avril Lavigne's only resemblance with the punk music style is the use of simple riffs repeated constantly. She bears closer resemblance to North American pop singers than with band such as, say, MxPx, wouldn't you agree? The fact that she has a band behind her means nothing. She is still simply Avril Lavigne, she is not even Avril Lavigne and Her Band. So, I will ask that you reasond beyond your liking for her music, because she doesn't belong to this musical genre. --Sn0wflake 00:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see the relevance of Avril's band not being credited alongside her, but hey. Thank you very much for actually being prepared to debate this - there are way too many idiots who'd simply respond with the standard "Avril is a poseur bitch" (which is becoming a very lame punk rock cliche in itself now). As you said, Avril's uses punk-styled riffs in her music, which contains the energy and agression of punk. Some of her lyrics are poppy and radio-friendly but IMO, she retains the 'heaviness' and sly wit that seperates her from 'mere pop stars'. She's certainly at the lighter end of the spectrum - but I feel that she merits inclusion in this list (it's a very broad genere after all) - if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and all that. Also, considering that Sum41 and Simple Plan have been included here, there is absolutely no reason why Avril should not be on the list.
 * I welcome your opinions on this - no incoherent ranting about 'poseurs' and 'sellouts' please, guys - let's keep this vaguely civilized. Kurt Shaped Box 07:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) 07:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The poser concept is a very broad and complex one, and when it comes to punk music it's even harder to draw the line correctly. A truly punk band is impossible to find on the mainstream market nowadays, since being punk is not just playing a certain kind of music or dressing in a certain way; it's a way of life. Thus this is, in theory, a genre entirely made up of posers. So I don't think that's really the matter here. The issue is mostly fanbase related, I think. You could assume that a fan of The Offspring also listens to, for example, Pantera. The same could not be said about an Avril Lavigne fan. Pop punk is the fine line between heavier music and mainstream teenager music. I'm not trying to say that Avril is a manufactured singer, though. I mean, she was inthe beggining of her career, her singing was hideous live, but things have changed with time. What I'm trying to say is that she isn't an entry point to heavier bands, as it happens with most pop punk bands.


 * Well, that's my POV anyway. I don't care either way, since I'm not very into mainstream North American bands and such. I like Thrice and maybe Autopilot Off. So if after what I said you still think Avril is pop punk, then at least put her name on alphabetic order. :P --Sn0wflake 18:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's a little unfair to judge an artist based upon the actions of certain fans - all bands have followers who do incredibly stupid things from time to time, which the artist may not want to be associated with. As someone has been to several of Avril's gigs, I can assure you that the stereotype of the majority Avril's fanbase being 14-year-old teenybopper sheep is incorrect. This may indeed have been the case at the beginning of her career - I have no idea, but it certainly wasn't when I saw her. Quite a large number of Avril followers seem to be fans of other, less mainstream female punk bands such as The Donnas and Sahara Hotnights - I don't see why she couldn't be just as much of any 'entry point' to the harder stuff as any of the other bands listed...


 * First of all, it's nice to see an intelligent debate about this subject and not the usual "Avrils a posuer!" "No she r0x0rs!" that goes on far too much. However, I still don't believe Avril Lavigne needs to be put in here. Musically speaking, Lavigne has more in common with the likes of Pink and Michelle Branch (though moreso the former than the latter) than Sum 41 or even Simple Plan- most of "Let Go" and "Under My Skin" are clearly singer/songwriter pop music than the more traditional, heavier pop-rock that Sum 41 and Simple Plan are associated with. Mind you, musical differences are subjective, but I see enough of a difference between Lavigne and Sum 41 to say that they do 'not' belong together.


 * However, if we're labelling Lavigne based on attitude- which has nothing to do with the music, which is what I think we should be sticking to- then we need to talk about other pop stars with "rebel" attitudes and "rockish" music, like Kid Rock and the aforementioned Pink, because they're in the same category as Lavigne. Perhaps a rewrite should say that "despite her debateable connections to punk, Lavigne's appearance onto the music scene solidified what many punk fans saw as a 'watering down' of the punk image, making into something that could be marketed and exploiyed", because that did happen. The current version isn't that bad, but it still leaves a lot out. -RomeW


 * I'll re-add her to the list - point taken about alphabetizing. :) 23:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Kurt Shaped Box 23:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but just because a certain someone is a fan of Avril Lavigne and believes that she has an "edge" to her music, doesn't mean she is categorized into Pop Punk. I'm sorry, but no one other than you automatically thinks of her has a forerunner in this category. The All Music Guide classifies her into rock, with styles of Pop Rock, Teen Pop, and loosely Adult Alternative. Sure, she may have a punk rock edge to her appearance, but it has nothing to do with her music. She sounds nothing like the Pop punk genre. Therefore I am suggesting a deletion to her name in the list of Pop punk bands. 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) -User: Alahan]

I second this, Avril has no place on any punk rock listing. Her music doesn't even bare the slightest resemblance to any form of punk rock. Pop - yes, Punk - no way. 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) -User: CelticJobber]

Full Rewrite
OK everybody, Ive just done a full blown rewrite of this article due to the calls from certain people that it should be merged with the punk pop article. Undoubtably we will not all agree on the accruracy or whatever of this article but please do not simply revert it back to the old one. Personnally I think that if everybody chips in we can make this an article that will satisfy everyone equally and that it can be a good article potentially.Motown Junkie 18:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deletion Now
I edited the topic and someone changed it back. I'm a music critic in England for 30 years now. I saw the rise and fall of punk, it's alpha and omega, and I can say for sure that this article has no point in existing. Pop punk is a completely wrong label. The sound of Blink 182, Green Day, Athreyu and others like them has nothing to do with the sound punk really is. The right label for it should be Power Pop or Pop Rock. Anyone with a medium knowledge of true rock know this. By allowing an article like this, Wikipedia only shows it's complete lack of credibillity, and, when one trys to correct it, you take it back the way it was. I think there should be a review of the topic and people should be able to correct something when it's not right! What kind of free encyclopedia you are if you allow only your views? This topic is wrong and I, with my 30 years of experience in music, demand a review or extinction of this topic.

Johnatan Wilkin, Music Critic

I think this article should be deleted and forwarded to Punk Pop
The Punk pop article is much better written and more broad in its description of pop punk. This is too heavily focused on the post-Dookie era where "true" punkers began to despise poppunk.

ok
ok, guys I have merged the two articles and with your help I will make the quality better. After a couple of days I'll delete the punk pop article, because two articles about one theme is something completely stupid and redundant. If you have some new ideas for the article - please help me. I think we'll make better work together. But I'm firm on my decision of the removal of punk pop. If you disagree (it's a wonder why, especially after the two articles have been merged), please say it here or in the discussion page. But please don't revert my work without any word, because I get angry when a bunch of fuckos start to revert my work. It's bad and I am certainly unhappy about that. Thank you very much for your atention. Painbearer 21:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't wait for your update. The delete marker on Punk pop has been removed, it should be a redirect, as the term is a valid one (though I've more widely heard Pop Punk).  Just promise that Green Day's Dookie is not considered the first wave of pop punk... Davetron5000

Whats wrong with you people?!
Ok, i've been dealing with this catergorizing, name-calling, whiney, Bla Bla-Punk-bla bla -poser crap since forever, and d'you what i gotta say to all of that? GET A LIFE! who cares? serously, why should anyone? its just music! so what if someone actually has a melody in there songs, of gets rich because alot of people dig their music? Do you think they care? Hell no! I don't. This whole argument is Stupid. It's all a load of crap and wasted effort over NOTHING. If you like the music listen to it, if you dont, then you dont. Don't get pissed because A million other people do. Does anyone really beleive Johnny Rotten when he sings " i wanna be Anarchist, again im pissed, Destroy!!" Ohh ya, Sex pistols really had something to say...basically they acted like assholes. That was how they got people to listen to them. IT was an fing act. Plus, i dont understand how you can hate a band for wanting to experiment. The Clash, everyone agrees that they're Punk right? they has some poppy songs and experimented with Reggae, Latin Beats, and Gospel. Plus less than Angsty lyrics: "theres a solitary man crying,'Hold me!' Its only because hes Lonely..." Also too, Mike Jones and the lead singer were known to give a heartfelt smile once in a while. Bring on the Flames people, bring on the flames..

Whats wrong with you people?!
Ok, i've been dealing with this catergorizing, name-calling, whiney, Bla Bla-Punk-bla bla -poser crap since forever, and d'you what i gotta say to all of that? GET A LIFE! who cares? serously, why should anyone? its just music! so what if someone actually has a melody in there songs, or gets rich because alot of people dig their music? Do you think they care? Hell no! I don't. This whole argument is Stupid. It's all a load of crap and wasted effort over NOTHING. If you like the music listen to it, if you dont, then you dont. Don't get pissed because A million other people do. Does anyone really beleive Johnny Rotten when he sings " i wanna be Anarchist, again im pissed, Destroy!!" Ohh ya, Sex pistols really had something to say...basically they acted like assholes. That was how they got people to listen to them. IT was an fing act. Plus, i dont understand how you can hate a band for wanting to experiment. The Clash, everyone agrees that they're Punk right? they had some poppy songs and experimented with Reggae, Latin Beats, and Gospel. Plus less than Angsty lyrics: "theres a solitary man crying,'Hold me!' Its only because hes Lonely..." Also too, Mike Jones and the lead singer were known to give a heartfelt smile once in a while. Bring on the Flames people, bring on the flames..

Um, that's MICK Jones. And the lead singer of the Clash was Joe Strummer (RIP).

hahaha what a idiot. the clash actually had the punk ethos while greenday etc. are just pish pop music

Pop-punk and Britpop
Considering the big breakthrough of pop-punk was in the mid-1990s, wouldn't there be obvious ties between pop-punk and Britpop, considering the sound was not that far apart? I'm thinking specifically of how Supergrass were originally considered the U.K. equivalent of Green Day, and how their I Should Coco album, their only album which enjoyed U.S. commercial success, came out about the same time as "Dookie" and no doubt appealed to the same people. When similar sounding musical genres emerge at the same time, one must look at some sort of connection. Also, would The Hives be in the pop-punk category? One could make a case for them being in this category as well as the garage rock category. Some of the acts listed, such as The Groovie Ghoulies, could arguably be included in garage rock lists as well.

Proposal - removal of 'Notable pop punk artists/bands' section?
Although this entire article seems to be a magnet for vandalism and edit-warring, the 'Notable pop punk artists/bands' section gets hit (mainly by anonymous users) much more often than anything else. I believe that the major issue with this list is the issue that blights most punk discussions, i.e. the (in my opinion utterly pointless) poseur/sellout debate and differing opinions as what constitutes 'punk'. Whilst I would like to keep the list in some form, due to the emotions and the various factions involved, I do not realistically see any way for it to be anything other than a continued edit war/vandalism/POV nightmare - to the detriment of the article and the encyclopaeda itself.

Thus, I propose that the list be removed. Punkmorten has suggested that the list be moved to its own separate entry but I feel that this would only be moving the problem somewhere else. Opinions please, ladies and gentlemen. --Kurt Shaped Box 18:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Pop dosen't mean the music is bad.
Yeah Punk Pop dosen't mean Pop or Punk. Punk Pop means punk with pop like songs, like stuff about teen agnst and school. And Pop dosen't mean boy bands, Pop means music that is popualr, so Offspring is pop, they had some popular songs. Green Day, Sum 41 and every other band that has had a popular song is pop. So stop whinning because Pop dosen't mean its bad.

Dude

And what about bands like 999, the Adicts, the Adverts, the Boys, etc.?
I mean for me they're the real pop punk, and the 90s and 00s "new school" stuff this page talks about is more like "Epi-Fat crap" or even "mainstream crap".

Am I the only one with this point of view? Or is there a page with a different title for "original"/"classic" punk bands with a lighter sound?

If not, I think a section should be added acknowledging this. OK, I admit it's not a clear classification, so we can't write much about it, but at least it could be a nice collection of these bands.

BTW it's not just British bands. The Ramones, for example, would certainly fit in here. And really, how are the Descendents or even the Adolescents hardcore? (compared to, say, the Dead Kennedys or Black Flag???)

a. 80.98.158.218 02:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Distinction Between Lookout/Bubblegum and New School
I'm not going to do any edits, because it is pointless when people are constantly editing and re-editing the page because (right or wrong) they are angry that a musical descriptor has hijacked a word which describes a beloved ethos or they don't understand overlapping musical genres (for more on this, see infra). To begin with, to describe how the article takes the wrong tack, therefore, I begin by questioning this curious statement: "Some of the Lookout! bands broke through into the mainstream in the 1990s." As it happens, only Green Day "broke through." Maybe because it was a relatively new, catchy sound really unlike bubblegum punk and therefore unlike anything else on Lookout before or since (other than B.J. Armstrong's side project(s) on Lookout of course), and newly-receptive MTV and alternative radio gave it to the masses. Who knows why it broke through, maybe because it made people feel good despite its lack of serious lyrical content.

This error is symptomatic of the main problem with the article, that it fails to clearly present the fundamental distinction between the two general strands of pop punk, 1) bubblegum punk (e.g. The Ramones, Lookout Records, early Donnas, Groovie Ghoulies, etc.), which borrows from 50s and 60s teenybands, surfing music, and general 70s punk, and 2) the California or "new school" sound, for lack of better descriptors, which borrows from or follows Hüsker Dü (umlaut) and The Descendents (e.g.. Green Day, Blink, NOFX, etc.). The Descendents' song "Clean Sheets," for example, sounds remarkably like early Green Day, but goes back to the mid-1980s. Download it sometime and take a listen. Moreover, members of both Green Day and Blink are quoted in several early articles as giving credit to these two bands. Having several thousand new school cd's and vinyl, I'd have to agree, since nothing besides Hüsker Dü and The Descendents even comes close to the new school sound.

Of course, there are lighter and heavier expositors of each strand, and bands that mix and match with ska/emo/classic punk/Britney Spears/whatever (e.g. Avril Livigne, who tends to generate more heat than light than anyone else in connection with this subject). And some bands even stray into pop punk for one song, like "Monkey Wrench" by the Foo Fighers, which is, in my opinion, about as pure a new-school confection as one can get. Thus, the Foos, Rancid, Avril Livigne, etc. are not pop punk per se, but they definitely have a pop punk component at times, and therein lies all the taxonomic controversy. It makes no sense to say 'well, there's a multi-dimensional musical spectrum and therefore we shouldn't label certain parts of the spectrum because nothing's concrete. I think Rancid's punk and you think they're ska, he thinks they're emo, and she thinks they're hardcore, therefore none of these labels could be true.' This thinking ignores overlapping musical genres.

Lastly, pop punk is a musical characterization, not an ethos, which is why Sum 41 is pop punk but not punk in the sense of anarchistic or DIY or ultra-individualistic. It is too bad that pop punk hijacked the word "punk" as a musical descriptor, but that's just how the language has developed. The invisible hand guides language as much as other aspects of human interaction, perhaps following the path of least resistance, much to the dismay of the grammar gods and the philosophically pure. Even so, anyone who cares about the "true" punk ethos, whatever that may be, should think it obvious to those who care that something described as "pop" punk has nothing at all to do with a philosophical position.

Additionally, it would be great if someone could describe the actual musical structures differentiating 70s/classic punk, hardcore, bubble gum, and new school.

READ THIS SHIZ NIT
Okay, Since I just got done listening to Slipknot, I might be a little one-sided. But We'll see how it goes. Okay, these are a few Pop Punk bands from the 90s and 2000s:The Offspring, Green Day, Rancid(although they were not that popular, they were getting sold out arenas), blink 182, Fall Out Boy, New Found Glory, Simple Plan, Good Charlotte, Sum 41, Bowling For Soup(not very popular), The All American Rejects, American Hi-Fi, Yellowcard, Relient K, and Sugarcult. Avenged Sevenfold is a metal band I think. But I think they will be big this year. What something you need to ask yourself is "Am I going to be listening to this in 20 years again?" I mean, My pastor looked at my friends "back in black" t-shirt during a class and started singing the first verse and chorus. I mean seriously, are those bands at the top going to be classics? The only bands up there at the top that will be mentionable for a while, would be(in my opinion)The Offspring, Green Day, blink 182, Fall Out Boy(i see a good future for them), and possibly Good Charlotte for a little more time. Those other groups(although i like Rancid and Sugarcult) arent the next "Nirvana". Thats something, that I am looking for. The next "Kurt Cobain". Here is a question you should ask yourself "What face do I think of when I think of Present-Day Rock?" What I think of is Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day. I want the new Nirvana to appear. It might be Green Day. But what I want by the end of this decade is the end of Rap and Pop music. (im not talking about Pop-Rock). I want the mainstream to be controlled by Rock bands again like the early nineties.

Rock On!

NO ONE SHOULD LISTEN TO THIS PERSON BECAUSE IT LISTENS TO SLIPKNOT AND SAYS ROCK ON

Classic pop-punk acts
In addition to the "First-Wave" acts, there should be a section listing classic late-70's/early 80's pop-punkers like The Ramones, The Undertones, The Rezillos, The Boys, The Buzzcocks, and The Descendents.

Just an idea.


 * ...and it's a brilliant one, actually. This article, to me, disregards some very important concepts.  First, most of your early seminal bands in any style are trying to be popular. (Call it the Me and the lads, we've got this new thing we made, and we really like it, and we hope that you'll really like it too syndrome.)  Second, a Punk Pop article already exists.  Third, this article seems just a little to focused on the post grunge pop music world.  Remember, Green Day wasn't marketed as punk rock, rather as Alternative.  (New Wave doesn't mean shit. Claude Bessey said that, remember...)  Anyway, for the love of punk, please consider incorporating the more useful bits into Punk Pop or delete this article wholesale!!!! Two halves 21:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

70s - not 80s
For some reason, the intro paragraph said that pop-punk began in the late 1980s, but obviously it began in the 70s, as the article later states, with bands like the Sex Pistols and the Ramones. Maybe just a typo on someone's part. Either that or a misconception.
 * Well, that's a pretty big mistake. The Descendents, Adicts etc. were around in the early-mid eighties. I also wouldn't say the Pistols are pop-punk though. Popular, definitely, (#2 single on their first(only) album) but not sugary melodic punk like the Ramones were. We're getting into the argument about "popular" and "bubblegum pop-influenced" punk again. While some bands might be both, I think the article should clarify more the difference between these two meanings of pop-punk. The Ramones weren't nearly as popular as the Pistols, but they're more pop punk. 203.208.72.234 12:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there's more than just two meanings of "pop-punk" and "pop" for that matter too. Even if you completely set aside the popularity or how "mainstream" they are factors, there are different definitions of what would musically be considered "pop."  You're using the "bubblegum pop-influenced" definition.  But I think music can be considered pop if it has catchy melodies - songs that tend to get stuck in your head and with a fast (but not super fast) tempo - even if it doesn't resemble the 50s/60s bubble-gum pop much at all.
 * Although the Sex Pistols were popular (and crappy too) they are not what I would call pop-punk. Ramones probably were though. The Ungovernable Force 02:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Britany Spears and *NSYNC Pop Punk???
When they are listing pop punk bands of the new millennium they listed bands like Simple Plan and Fall Out Boy (Which I totally agree with) then they go on to list Britany Spears and N'SYNC. That is not pop punk. Pop Punk is a genre of punk rock music that is pop. Accually most real pop punk bands hate pop. Ex. In blink-182's music video of All The Small Things they are mocking pop boy bands like N'SYNC. For example two blink-182 quotes...

Ultradrummer528 01:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)ultradrummer528
 * "I think it's incredible how there are all these boy bands out there like the backstreet boys and N'SYNC. They're all so bad! It hurts me, I've cried."
 * "I don't get boy bands these days. They don't write their own songs and everything is choreographed from their dance moves to how they have sex with eachother after the show."

This whole article needs to be deleted and redone
I'm sorry, this is the sorriest excuse for an article.

Green Day is first wave California punk? Huh?

Seriously, has nobody heard of Jawbreaker?

There are so many things wrong with this article, I just don't know where to begin. Jlee562 07:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. It doesn't seem to be written in an encyclopaedic style. Though I have admittedly never heard of Jawbreaker (sorry), this actually reminds me of the Green Day article, which used to read like a fan's heaven. (Thankfully, someone's gone and NPOVed it a bit. Is NPOVed a word? It is now.) People will never agree on what's pop-punk and what isn't, so the safest thing to do at this stage would be to simply have a small list of bands everyone should be able to agree on (Simple Plan, Good Charlotte and so on). Plus: California had waves of punk? What the?! Someone, please, redo this article!! -- Sarsaparilla39 12:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * One of these days I might just redo the whole thing. But this article is wholly inaccurate from top to bottom.  Pop punk draws its roots from the Ramones, but was fleshed out by bands like the Descendents and Jawbreaker, not Green Day. Jlee562 09:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Jawbreaker admitted they took their sound from Hüsker Dü, and Billie Joe Armstrong has stated that Hüsker Dü was one of Green Day's main influences. Hüsker Dü in turn were influenced by the Ramones, the Descendants and The Last.

The pop punk bands list is a joke
Seriously, it should be completely redone if not simply erased. Just one pathetic example : The Larry Arms, pop-punk ? Please ! Frankff 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

POV?
Fine. NPOV banner goes on. No one ever agrees on anything. If we can come to some consensus, I'll get rid of it. However, since all that gets done is incessant arguing over the inclusion or removal of bands in the list, you leave me little choice. -- Sarsaparilla39 09:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ramones certainly isn't pop punk! Stupid people.

No realy they are,I realise they have a big significant part in the formation of the whole punk movement (inventers, initiators, kickstarters, populerisers, whatever you want to call them) but Surf pop vocals over simple catchy hooks? yeah that's pop punk. Did the ramones themselves not call themselves Pop with teeth or something?

My Chemical Romance is not nor have they ever been pop punk
Atticus, why do you insist My Chemical Romance is pop punk? They are not? Show me the online review or bio that claims this and you can keep it in and I will admit I am wrong. Until then, do not add it back in. Madangry 19:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Atticus, there is no way I'm going to play a stupid delete/vandalize/delete/vandalize game with you. I give up and I still say you're dead wrong--you have not yet verfied nor proven that My Chemical Romance play pop-infused punk rock music and I doubt that you ever will. Madangry 20:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The best way to end this insane discussion
We need two seperate articles, because this one just won't do. We need one for Pop Punk (Popular Music) which would be mainstream bands who have brought punk to a larger audience and one for Pop Punk (Poppy Punk Music) which is a genre of punk which sees 50's Bubblegum pop as a major influence.

If not, the wars about these lists will never end. Madangry 00:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ideally, I think the article should be written by people like Mitch Clem, eg., people in the punk scene who like pop punk specifically. I think people not involved in the punk scene should not be coming here (and saying OMG NOES TEH RAMOONS WER TEH TRU PUNX NOT PAWP PUNK LOLZ NOFX R SO PUNK RAWK I HAEV NEVER EVEN HERD OF THA ADICTS HOO R DEY). I mean, if you haven't heard the Descendents, you don't know enough about pop-punk to be a contributor. But I digress. I think it is indeed necessary to split the article into pop punk and punk pop. Also, people rambling about how modern pop punk bands aren't pop punk but "new school" punk... Resist were around at the same time as NOFX, okay? That was modern punk. --Switch 14:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi-five. I whole heartedly agree with you. Madangry 18:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In an effort to help things along I have taken out the POV pop punk/punk pop paragraph, created a disambiguation article as well as a Punk Pop article. This should make things a lot easier and less confusing. Madangry 20:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

-I whole-hearteldy disagree with the removal of the pop punk/punk pop paragraph. The new seperate 'punk pop' article clears nothing up. The bands listed as Punk Pop are also included in the Pop punk section. What the removed paragraph importantly explained is that you cannot draw a definitive line between pop punk and punk pop, yet the article helped to set out some general guidlines through which a judgement can be made. -It is referred to as POV. I understand that articles are meant to be neutral. But what wikipedia and all of us must accept and note is that for abstract issues such as this neutrality is immpossible. I am a cultural studies student and I would strongly reccomend you read Geertz's work on the interpretation of culture. What this highlights is that trying to describe and understand culture will always be subjective. There is no concrete definition, no truth we can uncover. Cultural phenomina, like the term pop punk, means only what a person close to the 'movement' thinks it means. And I know it is argued that pop punk is just a style of music and has nothing to do with culture. However, logic will tell one this is false; music is the expression of the soul, of the spirit, of the values of a person. So in this case Pop punk is clearly the expression of a certain modern punk cultural movement. -With this in mind I suggest a new attitude to this whole topic. Lets stop the elitist "I understand the culture/music better than you so I'm going to delete everthing you say" and embrace a new attitude which accepts that anyone close to the music/culture can offer a reasonable interpretation of the term. It should be made explicit that this is an opinionated article and different (possibly contradictory) understandings must be allowed to proliferate freely and debated sensibly! As long as opnions are justified let them flourish! 84.9.179.147


 * I agree, Wikipedia should not be about opinion, rather about fact. Hence why that entire paragraph was removed. It was purely opinion with no sourced information. If you would like to re assert such information (or attempt to re-clarify the difference betWeen the two), please do so under the new article for punk pop--but only if you can verify and source it or it to may be deleted by other users. As for the bands being listed under both punk pop and pop punk---obviously I have no choice but to leave that list under this article as the bands can be considered as pop punk and punk pop. With such a grey area I cannot simply delete it from this article. Madangry 22:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The best way to end this insane discussion is for people to reference sources on the subject. Right now it feels like people are arguing from their own viewpoints rather than using some sort of authority's argument as an example. WesleyDodds 11:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Allmusic.com defines Punk Pop as a post-grunge strand of alternative rock that combines power-pop melodies and chord changes with speedy punk tempos and loud guitars. For example, the Ramones type of rock (or punk) has nothing to do with grunge or alternative rock. It is deemed Pop Punk because it is punk which sees 50's Bubblegum pop as a major influence...furthermore these pop punk bands rarely see any mainstream success, again the Ramones are a good example, and thus yet another distinction between Punk Pop and Pop Punk. The two are NOT one and the same. Not even close. Madangry 18:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said in the Punk pop talk page, Allmusic doesn't make a distinction between the two. Find a source that does.  WesleyDodds 09:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

See: Cite sources and Verifiability. Hyacinth 10:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Pop punk or punk pop
I removed this section, as it served only to direct the user to the disambiguation page. Isopropyl 22:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)