Are Green Day Punk?

[Boiled Rat]

well in greece some "crazy" people call green day and especially Billie Joe emo.... that's really annoying

wtf?????

[Isabel]

I don't understand why people are getting so wound up about the AI shows all being the same

You'd swear some people here were at every single show or something.

[Hermione]

I don't understand why people are getting so wound up about the AI shows all being the same

You'd swear some people here were at every single show or something.

Yeah you're so right. They expect a person to see one show, not all of them, so why would they need to drastically change it each time? I doubt many people who saw the tour saw more than one show, so it would make no difference to them.

They didn't design the tour with the people watching bootleg videos of every show in mind!

[chickin'pickin']

This is a train wreck of a thread if ever I saw one.

There's two different issues here, are Green Day a punk band or are they 'punk' in their attitude/ethics/lifestyle/whatever?

The answer to the former is relatively simple, they used to be a pop-punk band (Slappy Hours through to Insomniac). Pop-punk, being a sub-genre of punk rock would make them a punk band during that time. From Nimrod onwards they've been a pop-rock band influenced by pop-punk, and hence not a punk band. I draw the line at Nimrod because that's when mid-paced, more mellow songs started to become staples of their records rather than a one or two off on otherwise fast-paced, more gritty records (Redundant, Good Riddance, Last Ride In, Worry Rock). I would accept that Nimrod could be considered a punk album - there are still a good number of pop-punk tunes on there, and some that are somewhat ambiguous since they don't fit neatly into the pop-punk or pop-rock side of things (Hitchin' a Ride, All The Time, Prosthetic Head). From Warning on however, they've undoubtedly played pop-rock. Even the faster songs on Warning have a jangly more acoustic feel, and the whole record feels more downplayed, soothing, not angsty. American Idiot only has three, maybe four songs that could be considered pop-punk. The acoustic feel to the record may be gone, but it's still very much a pop-rock album. It's too smooth, too organised and too polished to be a punk record. That doesn't make any of them bad records incidentally, there are no Green Day albums I dislike (actually maybe Shenanigans), they're just not punk records.

As for whether they're actually punks, the ambiguity in the term is even more tricky than whether their music is punk. Punk means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, but it can't mean anything you want it to, or it starts to mean nothing at all. I've seen, and I'm sure many of you have seen, a million and one 'punks' who see the lifestyle as dressing to shock, as getting completely out of their face at every available opportunity either in 'protest' against what society expects or to 'escape' from an overbearing society. This is perhaps the most commonly seen face of punk as a lifestyle. But it's completely at odds with other parts of the punk scene. Many people who claim Straight Edge will tell you they're a punk, and those who don't will at least acknowledge that Straight Edge as a movement emerged from the punk scene. Often they don't conform to the stereotypical punk look, but the point for them is that they are rejecting a culture (and in punk a counter-culture) that sees getting smashed out of your face as a necessary social pursuit, and as a means of escaping the harshness of reality. Their punk ethic is one of change - don't just reject the proverbial system, try and do something about it. Abstaining from drink and drugs won't achieve that on its own of course, but the point is to have a clear mind in order to effect that change. It's also worth pointing out that there are plenty of 'punks' who still get fucked from time to time (or often) who are also committed to the punk movement as a mouthpiece for social change whilst rejecting the quasi-hedonistic approach of 'don't give a fuck'.

There are competing claims to what it means to be a 'punk' then, but at its root there are two fundamental things - individual freedom and an ethic of non-conformity (albeit expressed very differently). The notion of 'unity' comes into the idea of being punk somewhere too, although in practice you'll often find this is an idealist and pretty naive approach to the scene - it attracts dickheads (not least the hedonistic 'don't give a fuck' types) like any other sub-culture. In one sense these claims are so fluid that it almost makes it impossible to define whether someone is a 'real' punk unless you are that person. In the early days I think it would be fair to say Green Day were certainly punks - a mix of what I'd say are the good and the bad kind. Nowadays I'm less inclined to say they are. They've certainly bowed to 'conformity' as far as their music is concerned, and especially their image. For American Idiot they very much pandered to the 'snappy dresser, snappy looker' band crowd and a real concern over their image, whereas before they'd had appeared to care little how a band 'should' look.

But regardless, whether Green Day are punk or not shouldn't matter. I consider myself a punk, but I listen to plenty of bands that don't, and who don't write punk music.

All hail the voice of reason.

[annie]

^Yeah seriously, YMM (what's your name?) is completely right.

[Towers]

Whoa!

Andres for President!!

[Dimitra A.]

... I'am not very good at english, but I did understand most of it and I totaly, totaly agree. Love it! It´s wonderful.. I wonder what Billie, Mike and Tré would think about it.. I think they would love it to

me too.

Very well written

[gogreen1976]

Fantastic article, I couldn't agree more. I wrote something similar for my old zine, back around the time that Insomniac was new. (I don't have a copy unfortunately, but as I recall, I wasn't coming from nearly as mature a place as I would if I wrote it now, anyway.)

[Amanda]

^Yeah seriously, YMM (what's your name?) is completely right.

Mark is almost always right.

Whoa!

Andres for President!!

You saw the bit that said Angeline wrote that article, right ?

[annie]

You saw the bit that said Angeline wrote that article, right ?

Perhaps it's a pseudonym.

[Amanda]

Perhaps it's a pseudonym.

For justcause, yep.

[Fuzz]

I take full credit. And i agree that I should be President.

[Hermione]

I don't think I've commented on that brilliant article yet. I read it a while ago and I think it's amazing. It sums up how I feel about Green Day much better than I could.

[*withoutadoubt*]

I take full credit. And i agree that I should be President.

Andrrrrrres for President.

Always a pleasure to read that editorial, Angeline. Every time. And it's nice to see it pop up every once in a while to a whole new crowd.

[*withoutadoubt*]

^The link to her username is right in the first post.

[NoVaCaInE!]

lol when i looked at this thread it said..

"are green day punk" ............................. *withoutadoubt*

It was funny

[justcause]

I've just read that article all the way through, and while I admire the defence of the band, there's a lot of bullshit in it, especially as far as defending Green Day from a 'punk' standpoint is concerned.

I find this funny seeing as she later goes on in the article to talk about the 'dogma' of punk. Surely if there's one way in which punk rock can be dogmatic it's ascribing it to one man, or one band, or one way of doing things?

Actually there's plenty of people who can quite easily question whether Green Day (or many of their contemporaries - I'm looking at you Blink 182) write punk music or are punk. You don't have to be John Lydon to question these things. John Lydon was and is a fuckwit I have little to no time for anyway. You can't stylise an artistic movement, it is what it is, and just as John Lydon has no right to put of a stamp of ownership on punk, so nobody can do it on Green Day's behalf either. I'm very well aware of their roots and where they came from. I'm also very aware of their appeal to the fashion-core side of the 'alternative' music scene (and how incidentally is that conducive to artistic integrity) and the fact that their last two albums have made a very conscientious diversion into more mainstream territory. These things don't mean I don't like the band, but they do mean I can question whether they're a punk a band, ethically or musically. 'Question everything, including your own ideals' doesn't cut it as the be all and end all of a movement, at some point you have to arrive at some answers.

Was this written by a member of this board by the way?

Yeah, me. Here's the way it went down - Andres asked me to write an editorial on this subject, and so I considered what my opinions were. As regards the 'dogma' thing, whatever I say in that article is my opinion, I don't speak for anyone else and I'm sure no-one feels obliged to take my opinion as dogma.

What it would all boil down to for me goes with something Billie Joe said at some point that I can't completely remember, but it was along the lines of 'if punk was a smell, it would be...' - and that's how it is for me, a smell, a feeling, a sense. I look at Green Day, and they smell right .

As regards arriving at answers, I think that's up to the individual - personally, I don't go along with movements. I don't think so much in terms of answers as in evolution, but I know that to some people, answers are important.

Anyway, considering how much I've written on this theme, both in the editorial and in some of the better debates I got into in the thread following it, I'm gonna leave it at that.

[924Nimrod]

You know... I agree with that. And whenever people say that Green Day aren't punk, that is my argument, that they have no idea where Green Day came from and all the shit they had to get through to get here. Their story is amazing, really. To see how a group of fucked up kids from some small town in Northern California can go from being the little band of kids down at Gilman Street to being, possibly, one of the biggest bands in the world.

[netty]

personally, I dont care if they are punk or not.

I love the music.

I might get frustrated beyond belief at times... but that has nothing to do with "punk" or any other label. thats just my impatience.

"punk" means nothing to me. being true to yourself, means everything.

[Lolra]

to echo many others, Amen.

This is the problem with society these days, they want to put everyone in a box, and believe them to be dictated by stereotypes. Well, this has proved them wrong.

You should totally go national with that piece, it is amazing, and you deserve to have it published.

[Hermione]

^Agree. Totally deserves to be published.

On an unrelated matter, I love your avatar, it's mesmerizing

[mbk]

I've just read that article all the way through, and while I admire the defence of the band, there's a lot of bullshit in it, especially as far as defending Green Day from a 'punk' standpoint is concerned.

I find this funny seeing as she later goes on in the article to talk about the 'dogma' of punk. Surely if there's one way in which punk rock can be dogmatic it's ascribing it to one man, or one band, or one way of doing things?

Actually there's plenty of people who can quite easily question whether Green Day (or many of their contemporaries - I'm looking at you Blink 182) write punk music or are punk. You don't have to be John Lydon to question these things. John Lydon was and is a fuckwit I have little to no time for anyway. You can't stylise an artistic movement, it is what it is, and just as John Lydon has no right to put of a stamp of ownership on punk, so nobody can do it on Green Day's behalf either. I'm very well aware of their roots and where they came from. I'm also very aware of their appeal to the fashion-core side of the 'alternative' music scene (and how incidentally is that conducive to artistic integrity) and the fact that their last two albums have made a very conscientious diversion into more mainstream territory. These things don't mean I don't like the band, but they do mean I can question whether they're a punk a band, ethically or musically. 'Question everything, including your own ideals' doesn't cut it as the be all and end all of a movement, at some point you have to arrive at some answers.

Was this written by a member of this board by the way?

It seems to me that you're the one, if anything, who seems concerned about putting punk into a box and therefore excluding certain bands from claiming the name. All artistic styles evolve over time, and punk has influenced many bands that have adopted some of its style. The reason we wouldn't call some of them punk is because their style diverges too far from what is usually associated with punk rock, and because they didn't adopt the ethos that came with punk originally, and I would agree with that. Good Charlotte was influenced by punk in their music but they themselves admit they had never heard any of the original punk bands. I think in their case the influence is quite remote and diluted, and I wouldn't call them a punk band.

But Green Day is a punk band by almost any definition, not just because that's where they came from but because they kept the same philosophy and the same approach to writing music. Yes, they became a huge mainstream band, but the marketing was left up to others and I don't see that it changed their own thinking. And yes, their music grew stylistically, so they don't sound like the bands that influenced them, but I certainly don't think their last two albums were consciously more mainstream. That wasn't the goal. They just evolved musically.

[Haydée]

personally, I dont care if they are punk or not.

I love the music.

I might get frustrated beyond belief at times... but that has nothing to do with "punk" or any other label. thats just my impatience.

"punk" means nothing to me. being true to yourself, means everything.

i agree.

it's so annoying when i look at some you tube video and see comments like 'fuck off greengay, they think they're punk but they're not, they're fuckin gay'' i hate it and it's stupid..

who cares if they're punk or not? i just enjoy to listen to this crazy bastards.

[*withoutadoubt*]

lol when i looked at this thread it said..

"are green day punk" ............................. *withoutadoubt*

It was funny

Well, there ya go. Maybe it would even be more effective if I changed my username to Fuckyeah!

[beat_on_the_brat]

I've just read that article all the way through, and while I admire the defence of the band, there's a lot of bullshit in it, especially as far as defending Green Day from a 'punk' standpoint is concerned.

I find this funny seeing as she later goes on in the article to talk about the 'dogma' of punk. Surely if there's one way in which punk rock can be dogmatic it's ascribing it to one man, or one band, or one way of doing things?

Actually there's plenty of people who can quite easily question whether Green Day (or many of their contemporaries - I'm looking at you Blink 182) write punk music or are punk. You don't have to be John Lydon to question these things. John Lydon was and is a fuckwit I have little to no time for anyway. You can't stylise an artistic movement, it is what it is, and just as John Lydon has no right to put of a stamp of ownership on punk, so nobody can do it on Green Day's behalf either. I'm very well aware of their roots and where they came from. I'm also very aware of their appeal to the fashion-core side of the 'alternative' music scene (and how incidentally is that conducive to artistic integrity) and the fact that their last two albums have made a very conscientious diversion into more mainstream territory. These things don't mean I don't like the band, but they do mean I can question whether they're a punk a band, ethically or musically. 'Question everything, including your own ideals' doesn't cut it as the be all and end all of a movement, at some point you have to arrive at some answers.

Was this written by a member of this board by the way?

I gotta go along the lines of this guy. Even though I thought it was very nice written, a lovely article, etc etc. I cannot say I agree. Especially since I don't know anything about whoever wrote this. Surely she listens to Green Day, but does she listen to punk? Because I really do not think you're one to define the term "punk" or determine whether a band is "punk" or not, if you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not saying you don't, I'm just saying I find it hard to take you seriously when you might as well be a slightly more eloquent version of the average Green Day fan ("z0mfg green day is hXc punx"). Props for conveying your opnion in a very respectable way though.