Are Green Day Punk?

[justcause]

Angeline dear, you hit the nail on the head as always!

(But could you give all these amazed ppl at least an age range... I know you're not 100 but I also have a deep suspicion you're not 16...!)

And one day you'll find out !

(and thanx for the nail-hitting thing, )

[*withoutadoubt*]

As usual, Angeline, your words amaze me! Your passion and intensity for this band and their music is inspirational and well, just beautiful.

[justcause]

This was a very nice editorial.

There are a couple of points I've been wanting to make in the "punk" debate that's been raging and I guess this is as good an opportunity as any.

I'm the mom of 4 teens whom I've always encouraged to be independent and to appreciate all types of music. I love and respect the talent and musical genius of Green Day from the early days through American Idiot. From the beginning, they dared to go, musically, where no other band has ever gone.

No, I don't believe "American Idiot" is punk. However, I don't think that matters one bit. It's great music. How in the world can sensible people accuse Green Day of "selling out"? They've simply grown up. People in their 30s would be pretty silly to continue the "punk" lifestyle. The punk boys of Green Day, have grown and matured into men. Thank God! Their music had to grow and mature with them. They've accomplished the metamorphosis perfectly.

As a mother teens, a completely independent thinker, and free spirit, who is raising her children to have the same values, I do question a one small thing. The Adeline Street clothing line has really surprised me. Of course, it's very comendable of Billie Joe to support his wife in her fashion endeavors. However, I miss the object of creating a line of clothes for "punks". It seems really funny to me. How can someone who's spent years talking about being an individual suddenly be touting stylish clothing so kids can dress alike? Are punks really supposed to be fashion and lable conscienece? Isn't that rather "oxymoronish"? To be sure, it can't be that they need the money. How can someone who's proudly displayed their disregard for pop culture and all that is trendy, intentionally become a trend setter, and one who profits from the trend? Oh, the clothes are really cute, and I'm sure my two girls will end up with some of them. It doesn't make me lose any of my respect for Billie Joe's great talent, however, it does make me scratch my head in contemplation.

While I personally would be anti-label, I don't think Adeline is exactly hard-sell, or a big corporate thing - it's fairly limited line of what you could call niche clothing, I suppose, and no doubt it gives some creative people employment and an outlet for their talents. At the end of the day, I'm not going to get worked up about a bunch of t-shirts.

Adeline is one of those things that I would put in the 'extraneous' list I mentioned - it's just not something central to Green Day.

[the skuzz bot]

I dont debate the fact green day are good. they are probably the best radio friendly music, if not the best music, around today. what i say, is that punk label simpley isnt calling yourself it because you went through the scene and graduated into the major label sect. They had adversities, but every band has. if having a rough time by social elitism made your music inferior, is ashlee parker angel punk as well? if he claims he is punk, does the comunity jsut bend a knee and accept it? i think not good sir!

the biggest part of punks is being yourself. green day are original, green day make some of the best music around, but are they themselves? they said that they hated mtv, hated radio, hated major labels and hated the corperate rule over them, yet in a time of a pinch of money, they buckled and became mtv's poster child for teenage angst. and then after they were criticized by their former friends and scene kids around the country, they made insomniac (one of my favourite albums, by the way) to combat it. but by doing it, they tried to make a harder, faster, more "punk rock" sound to prove to every one they were still punks. the humor of this is green day never were that hard fast punk rock, they were the lighter side of punk, with catchy fun songs that every one could sing along to.

since i have forgotten all the rest of my points, ill just simply trail off.

and im not saying your wrong. we're all entitled to the opinion based on them. but me, and most "old school" punks just cant accept green day as punks.

[justcause]

I dont debate the fact green day are good. they are probably the best radio friendly music, if not the best music, around today. what i say, is that punk label simpley isnt calling yourself it because you went through the scene and graduated into the major label sect. They had adversities, but every band has. if having a rough time by social elitism made your music inferior, is ashlee parker angel punk as well? if he claims he is punk, does the comunity jsut bend a knee and accept it? i think not good sir!

the biggest part of punks is being yourself. green day are original, green day make some of the best music around, but are they themselves? they said that they hated mtv, hated radio, hated major labels and hated the corperate rule over them, yet in a time of a pinch of money, they buckled and became mtv's poster child for teenage angst. and then after they were criticized by their former friends and scene kids around the country, they made insomniac (one of my favourite albums, by the way) to combat it. but by doing it, they tried to make a harder, faster, more "punk rock" sound to prove to every one they were still punks. the humor of this is green day never were that hard fast punk rock, they were the lighter side of punk, with catchy fun songs that every one could sing along to.

since i have forgotten all the rest of my points, ill just simply trail off.

and im not saying your wrong. we're all entitled to the opinion based on them. but me, and most "old school" punks just cant accept green day as punks.

I agree totally that you're entitled to your view, but I still disagree that signing to Reprise was motivated solely by money - it was a case of getting their product to a wider audience, which was not possible with Look Out. They were touring their asses off, and finding that their cassettes were not available to people - an artist is entitled to be heard by as many people as possible.

I would be interested to know whether the punk credentials of most of the people dissing Green Day's extend any further than buying cds - Green Day's punk roots are from lives on the front line of it.

I would also take issue with you over Insomniac - my favorite album also. While the sound is harder and faster (and fucking great) and a more pronounced punk sound, I would argue that it reflects the emotional content of the album and facilitates its expression.

Insomniac is the musical, lyrical manifestation of a state of mind: it is an intensely personal document of terrible pain, self-loathing, and the story of that torn-away identity.

To say, as so many do, that it was purely a response to the fall-out from Dookie is not to see the whole picture of this dark and beautiful work - it is the culmination of all the things Billie Joe had lost by then, the story of a man who couldn't seem to hold onto the things he loved most. He lost his home when he lost his father and his whole world fell apart: he lost the presence of his mother at this defining time because she was waitressing round the clock to support a family so torn apart by grief that it almost imploded.

He built a new 'home' in Gilman street, and he pieced together a life and and identity that was his own, something to believe in after all the things he had previously trusted to last had vanished in the few short months it took his father to pass away. I don't doubt that this is when the little kid who prayed every night, like he says in 'One of My Lies', lost his faith also.

He made a decision about his art, and through that lost everything again: Insomniac is the voice of a soul in hell, and the structure of the songs enables the expression of that terrible grief and self-reproach. What are you hearing when you listen to it - just some punk guitar? You're just scratching the surface; if you want some truth, do what the man has been asking since 'Welcome to Paradise' - pay attention.

Listen to how many times he talks about lost things, or about being lost himself. Insomniac is a wasteland of the spirit, the winds of self-reproach whip through its unprotected heart, jangle through that punk guitar, punch like a knuckle-dustered fist in the gut.

Neither is it just simple punk guitar - the things Green Day do with sound on Insomniac are amazing, not only from the point of view of shit-hot, tight musicianship, but in how they create tension between the sounds of each instrument, the vocals and the lyric, for different effect : on '86', the lyric is the words of the agressor, but the vocal is the person on the receiving end, the guitars are a low, animal-howl of pain.

On Panic Song, the instruments tell a whole story without words - when has punk been used as creatively as in the rapid-heartbeat drum and bass, the guitar that comes in like a pang of fear in the pit of your stomach and escalates to taunt the bass till they overwhelm and dominate, this whole vortex of energy so vividly evoking a panic state, it makes the vocal and lyric almost superfluous, before you realise that it's expanding the idea even more?

What are you hearing? Just what people said it was about, or are you actually engaging with it like the work of art that it is? Forget every cynical thing you've heard about this album, and just listen - open your mind and feel what's going on in there, inside Insomniac - the energy that drives it.

Dylan's got an album called Blood on the Tracks: Green Day couldn't give any more than they gave on Insomniac - there's blood all over these tracks.

[mbk]

skuzz bot, what defines Green Day more than anything else is they they are a "walking contradiction." They hate a lot of the very things they embrace and live with, but that's the only way to be truly honest and live with intergrity: not by defining a dogma to live by but by juggling all of the contradictions that inevitably define your life -- especially for people who are thrust in the position that they're in -- and accepting them openly, instead of trying to dodge them with excuses. They have never tried to make excuses or justify themselves, they've simply been brutally honest and up front about who they are.

The biggest part of punk is not being yourself: what truly defines punk is the rejection of bullshit and falsehood. And by that measure the guys pass with flying colors. (And I think they are also themselves through and through, btw.)

[Awesome]

Just wondering, where did 184% come from?

Anyway, this was a fantastic article, the best so far (there has only been to but, oh well)

Haha, that's the number I always pick when I wanna be random

[saint-jimmy-girl]

I don't know what to say about this it was very well put and it made me really think about how they must feel being around the press all the time

[**nobodylikesyou**]

It is so nice to see that there are so many other fans that truly "GET" Green Day and what they are about, where they came from, what they have been through and who they are now. When I listen to Green Day's music it is so much more than just a bunch of songs or words with a good beat. It is so meaningful.

Angeline are you sure you are not Stephen King or John Grisham in disguise? Wow you can write.

[justcause]

It is so nice to see that there are so many other fans that truly "GET" Green Day and what they are about, where they came from, what they have been through and who they are now. When I listen to Green Day's music it is so much more than just a bunch of songs or words with a good beat. It is so meaningful.

Angeline are you sure you are not Stephen King or John Grisham in disguise? Wow you can write.

Well, Stephen King called American Idiot 'beautiful - and LOUD!!', and said he 'played the spots off it' - dunno about Grisham - he could probably provide an airtight legal definition of punk that everyone could line up and conform to, which is what some people seem to want!

I love to write about Green Day, and I jump at the chance like a hungry dog/bitch, whatever! I think they're epic, legend in front of our eyes. They're complex and fascinating, and they produce work of this steely beauty and honesty - 'beauty is truth, truth beauty'.

And thanx so much for your kind words!

[Another Urchin]

F'ing awsome article. I don't think anyone who bothers to learn about the young life of Billie Joe Armstrong, Mike Dirnt, and Tre Cool can help but be impressed. Does that make them punk? Maybe, maybe not. Its hard to define, both musically and as a lifestyle. I heard a quote by Billie Joe once

"A guy walks up to me and asks 'What's Punk?'. So I kick over a garbage can and say 'That's punk!'. So he kicks over the garbage can and says 'That's Punk?', and I say 'No that's trendy!'"

One thing you can never say about Green Day is that they are trendy. They do what they like because its who they are. They just happen to be really successful musicians because of it. Everything from Paper Lanterns to Whatsername exists because they like to play music. In the end, you might not be able to label them simply punk, but, if a band tried to simply be punk, they'd be trying too hard. Then they won't be punk, they'll be trendy.

[the skuzz bot]

If they wanted to have a bigger distribution to their fans, why not sign to Alternative Tentacles or another indie label? And the fact that you say lookout was slacking on its duties is totally bull. Because theres one thing Lookout did, it sold, (allegedly, i didnt make this up, ive heard it from mitch clem) the best selling album ever, energy, by operation ivy. This energy thing may seem far fetched, but think about how many kids have bought the energy album 10- 15 times when their 12" got too popped to play.

You make it seem like Lookout was skrewing green day over because theyre an indie label. But they didnt only want to be heard by their fans. Because they refused to sign to majors plenty of times and then they just were like I WANT MONEY and signed.

And finally, why does it matter? Its not like them being punk or not being punk makes them less good. It is a title. I only argue because i want to keep my scene free from wanna be kids trying to be something to be cool. You cant just say your punk. And you cant just dress punk. You need to live it. You need to get up every morning and say to yourself " Man, today, im gonna do something. Im gonna make a difference to help the world for the better". And that could be attending a gay rights ally or picking up a piece of trash. It doesnt matter. Punk isnt about money. Its not about acceptance (which makes green days ploy of trying to get every one to believe their punks not very punk). Its about being. Not being spike haired and anarchist. Not being mohawked and listening to the Sex Pistols and the Dead Kennedys. Punk is Punk. Nearly undescribible. Totally independent.

oh. did i mention im a horrible writer?

[justcause]

You make it seem like Lookout was skrewing green day over because theyre an indie label. But they didnt only want to be heard by their fans.

No, I'm not saying Look Out was screwing them over, just that they couldn't handle the demand or more so, the distribution.

I respect everything you've said about your Punk principles, and you're living them:for a lot of people, as I said, punk credentials only extend as far as buying some cds.

I still don't see why you seem to believe that Green Day could have the same attitude as you have yourself to making the world a better place - they are still socially active and concerned, they supported organizations like Amnesty International on the AI tour, they supported campaigns for rent control in Berkeley - I don't know everything that they do privately, either.

Why is it so easy to believe that because they were ejected from a strict punk scene, that they abandoned all their principles at the same time? These are not bad guys, these are decent people who give a shit about a lot of things.

I also wonder how things might have gone if that '86' door hadn't kicked them in the ass - if they'd been accepted in their community again on any kind of level; that community also turned their back on the contribution these guys could have been making.

[the skuzz bot]

actually, it was 924 gilman street. i have no clue why the song was 86.

plus, they cant be living in lavish mansions and give like 100 dollars Nd say theyre doing their part. and i also dislike billie joe selling adeline on hot topic. mainly because thats like COME GET YOUR PRE PACKAGED NEW WAVE PUNK! he jsut helped promote something thats not about fashion, thats not about being or looking cool through some sweet new threads that all those 12 year old girls that are screaming OMG GREEN DAY PUNXORS wear.

almost every punk then and now doesnt call them bad people, theyre just hypocrites. you cant jsut totally abandone every thing you stated before and then try to reclaim it later. every one in the scene would do the same to any one who abandoned their ideals. jesse michaels, jello biafra, even ian mackaye. but they have principles, ideals that cant be changed by money flashing in their face.

and if they wanted to sell to more people, they coulda done what jello biafra did and start their own record company. and they did that with adeline, jsut a few years too late for it to keep them with their punk ideals.

damn. i am what repetive horirble writer.

[justcause]

Skuzz, this is from an interview Mike did in 1994. Check it out and see what you think of some of the motivations he talks about - I think they sound pretty reasonable. In the same interview, he talks about the advantage of being with a big label being that they could invest in developing their sound in a way they couldn't do with the resources available to them on Look Out.

A: Was it a consensus to change to Reprise?

M: Yeah, fully. The main reason we switched labels, it took us over a year to make the decision, because there comes a point where 15-16 year old kids can't put on 600-900 people shows. So you end up dealing with medium size club promoters, and a lot of those guys are really sleazy. If you have no legal stance, then they're just gonna rob you. 3 out of 4 shows on our tour were being cancelled because the fire marshall would show up and close down this punk club, either fully close the club or just close the show down and alert the police and the fire marshall to these clubs. All that's doing is damage to punk shows. And then we're getting all these people going, "Look at all these other jerks showing up at your shows." I've had people come up to me now and go, "Man, look at these people you draw to your shows now, look at them all." I'd say, "You know what, man, you're fucking racist." That's a problem. If I meet someone and they're a jock or I meet someone and they're different than me in any way, if they're a nice person I'll shake their hand, but if they're an asshole and they're letting me know it, I'm gonna tell them they're an asshole. Our music wasn't created strictly for punks. But it was put out and we did play to punks because our friends were punks and we like to hang out and do the punk circuit. And I felt that we gave a lot of the best of us. We've played close to 1000 punk shows now and it really takes its toll out on you. And it really hurts even more when I hear people saying, "Well now kids at my school are gonna like your music, 'cuz it's like the trendy thing to do blah blah blah." To me that's kind of selfish. Yeah, but you had the music when it first came out there, be glad that you had it years ago. That's how I feel about it. I get people that are mad at us just for that and that alone. We don't want to draw any of those legal aspects into punk shows, into the punk scene at all. We were drawing a lot of people who didn't understand punk shows, so there would be fights going on. It was all leading to one thing, either quit or go on. So we're going on.

I realise that in this piece, Mike says they liked 'to hang out and do the punk circuit', whereas Billie Joe actually describes himself as a punk - but what Mike's doing is asserting his right to play his music for any audience he wants, and to take it in whatever direction he sees fit. The fact that he's saying this so strongly is an indication of the fact that there was an hardline strand who felt that punk music was only for punks, and he obviously isn't signing up for it. That in itself is punk attitude - he's not going to have his music ghetto-ised to fit in with an ideology.

His whole attitude is invested, responsible and even protective of the punk community and its ideals, even though they were always going to make the best decisions for their music, and they were refusing to be hemmed in by categorization. His friends are punk, he's living the punk life, he's playing his music to punk audiences - but he's not looking to anyone to define what he is - he's his own sight. Billie Joe took punk as his identity - they're two different people, and they received it in different ways - maybe Billie Joe had a stronger need to belong, to have a belief system to replace the one he lost.

The fact that Mike's asserting his right to play the circuit and have the free association he wants, without signing up to what Billie Joe said a 'PC punk clique', is a punk characteristic - he doesn't need to join a club to have it.

It's also borne out by the very fact of their exclusion - unless the punk community felt Green Day was a part of it, why would they have reacted so aggressively against them? How could they be excluded if they weren't included in the first place?

What I said in my original post was basically what Mike has described - there was a period in their lives when the punk people they are was in harmony with the punk community they were living in: but when it begin to be a constraint rather than something that freed them, they moved on from it.

My argument is that in themselves, through their lives and their attitude of commitment to personal expression and individuality and social involvement, as well as the time they spent making their music on that circuit and living the life, they embody punk, whether or not Mike chose to give himself the name, as Billie Joe did.

[the skuzz bot]

they dont embody punk. that is the biggest stray from reality so far. to embody punk is to stray true to yourself. to have the same pride in your scene as you always had. but they comercialized it, demeaned it, turned it into a trendy pop culture , radio friendly, overplayed music style. they lost the last bits of their true punk-ocity.

i may seem mad, and its not that im mad, but its that im frusterated. like, being a punk isnt jsut this silly name you add on the end of your sentence to be accepted. they will never be accepted again because they turned their back on their friends and on their scene and on every indie punk kid who would go to the little club shows and be totally happy if a concert got shut down jsut because theyd be able to meet and talk to them. now, green day sign some autographs and say hi to a few fans, but they dont have the same jene se qua (i dunno how to spell it) that a real punk has. the real punk would have an inteligent conversation with every one at the show if they walked up to them. but i dont think their politcal points extend past FUCK BUSH or BUSH IS AN ASSHOLE. theyre inteligent, theyre great musicians, but they jsut arent punk. and i will never be persuaded into believing it. because i pride my scene, i pride the great talks ive had with band members and the moshing and the threat of being shut down because theres too many people or we're being to loud. thats part of the scene. thats the people. thats us.

[justcause]

Again, I totally respect your standpoint and your passion and commitment to punk, and the fact that you're protective of it. The thing is, it's at odds with anyone wanting a broader audience - you just can't continue printing up your own handbills and t-shirts and handling it all yourself when it gets bigger - you're gonna take the opportunity to invest in your music, and have the other stuff taken off your shoulders.

Billie Joe again:'I think there definitely should be an underground scene, there always should be.Punk rock isn't supposed to be for everyone. There is that sort of private club mentality, which is necessary. It keeps things from getting watered down and boring. But there was a lot of jealousy and resentment towards us.'

I've read many interviews where he defends the punk community's right to exclude Green Day - it only shows him to be more open-minded than a lot of the people he's defending. He understands and respects their motivation - something that was hard-won and closely-guarded as a result, individual expression in an climate of idealism. The restrictions that put on his artistic ambitions were unacceptable to him, and he didn't accept them - how could he have, in all honesty? He was faced with a decision, he took the best one he could.

The resentment and jealousy he describes are hardly the stuff of ideals, though - and neither did the treatment meted out to Green Day reflect any glory on the community he refused to condemn, even though it condemned him.

Have you checked out that article in the News forum? It fits right in with this theme, and I'd be interested to know what you think of it.

http://www.miseriacantare.com/openletter.php

[the skuzz bot]

how can he call himself punk but turn around and say its meant to be underground so it doesnt become watered down? because of green day, bands like simple plan, fall out boy, and ym chemical romance are popularized. that is watering down punk. green day smoothed the path and lead a wave of mediocre and horrible punk acts. and even green day, i think it was either billie or mike (for some reason, tre is void of opinions in the punk matter) said that if they could go back, they wouldnt have taken the major. so, they make an ode to hypocracy whenever they open their mouths. they are the walking contridiction, and they aint got no right to call themselves punk anymore.

[**nobodylikesyou**]

how can he call himself punk but turn around and say its meant to be underground so it doesnt become watered down? because of green day, bands like simple plan, fall out boy, and ym chemical romance are popularized. that is watering down punk. green day smoothed the path and lead a wave of mediocre and horrible punk acts. and even green day, i think it was either billie or mike (for some reason, tre is void of opinions in the punk matter) said that if they could go back, they wouldnt have taken the major. so, they make an ode to hypocracy whenever they open their mouths. they are the walking contridiction, and they aint got no right to call themselves punk anymore.

Tre is void of alot of thoughts...ha anyway I am very curious to know if you were a 19 yr old kid with your 19 yr old friends from grade school and your band was blowing up huge, what decision you would make and why you would make it?

[justcause]

Tre is a pure artist - he just does what he does, and doesn't tend to put his views foreward that often.

He's also intelligent and thoughtful - he was the one who introduced Billie Joe to Winston Smith when they were putting together that amazing artwork for Insomniac.

This is Tre in 2001 - not condemning anyone either, playing the whole thing down -

Interviewer:-

The VH1 "Behind the Music" special really played up the whole East Bay-Gilman Street punk scene. [The crowd at the famous Berkeley, Calif., punk club 924 Gilman Street is known for fostering the Do-It-Yourself ethic, and for disowning bands that sign with corporate-owned labels.] Talk about what happened there. You guys were loved one minute, then the hardcore fans didn't like that you had a hit.

Tre:-

We just played at Gilman a couple of months ago, and it was all good. You know, people who do those rockumentaries and stuff like that, they like to kind of make more out of something--they want to have some sort of crutch. Some sort of way to sell it, a gimmick, you know. Otherwise, they won't be able to pull it off, the guys won't let them put it out.

And I really do not think you can 'blame' Green Day for the success of other bands - that's the music-buying public deciding what they like. I would also defend My Chemical Romance's right to exist (!), make whatever kind of music they want, and play it to whoever they choose. I mean, Fall Out Boy! If you're going to feel threatened by Fall Out Boy, where does it end?

Hey, I have to go offline now - my ass is getting numb sitting at this pc!

It's been really great debating with you - your punk scene sounds fucking amazing, long may it last for you!

[the skuzz bot]

to *nobodylikesyou* i would do what anyone with pride would do, turn it down. i dont care about money, or how many people listen to me, or how many records i sell. sure, if people like me, thats great. id rather make music for free than have it mass marketed and then start a revolution in the music industry which starts a wave to make everyone think that punk is jsut about the music. almost every band i hang out with every now and then or talk to have nearly the same ethics. when you get signed to be mass distributed, to make money, the whole being of your music's credibility is destroyed. especially when you were known for talking about not selling out and not signing to a major and not being played on mtv.

its not that i blame green day. its more of an annoyance that they made horrible bands accepted into the mainstream because of what they call themselves. plus i fucking hate those bands. fucking wanna be's. yeah. i have a personal vendetta against them.

and i msut depart as well. my ass doth hurt. and finals are this week. so study study study and enough of my personal life.

[**nobodylikesyou**]

Okay this is it for now, but if you are really 16 then someday when you have a car payment, insurance, mortgage, school tuition, GAS, medical bills and insurance, kid expenses and all the other crap you have to pay for you might change your mind on what decision you would make. It doen't mean you care about money it means you realize you actually need money to live. I am glad to hear that you don't blame them for their decision. Even Billie Joe says they and Blink 182 are two of the biggest sell outs of all time. So he admits it. But one thing GD will get out of the whole thing is they will go down in history as legends. I wont go into all the reasons why at this time as my ass is hurting too. However I am sorry to see that you blame them for the wanna b's and all the other bands they paved the way for. They chiseled the road that is true, they stepped out of the box and hit on something people loved. Or in my case could totally relate to every word they sung. But it isn't their fault that people like them and that genre of music has become popular. Blame they music industry blame the copy cats. If you must blame, cast it correctly. Don't blame someone for something that was beyond their control. And on a final note, you say that when you get signed to be mass distributed, to make money, the whole being of your music's credibility is destroyed. Could you please explain to me exactly how that happens and also please tell me where GD has compromised their music? I think they still write from the heart as they always have and if people like it great and if they don't so what.

Ass out. Good luck on exams!

[greatestband]

full of meaning and well written. makes you question the government.

[justcause]

And finally, why does it matter? Its not like them being punk or not being punk makes them less good. It is a title.

It's been quite a few days for me in this thread. I've gotten to say a lot of stuff that I've been wanting to say for a while, about the two strands of Green Day - their lives, and their fucking amazing music. Yet I know I can't separate them, because they're like this single impulse. Before I was impelled to find out their history, I could already hear it in their songs, even before I sat down one day with all the lyric books, and read them thru without the music, and saw a life-story laid out in front of me.

That line from Scattered often comes to my mind 'all the songs have been erased' - the songs that are one man's life, told in the words he found around him - sign post, neon, graffiti, Bible, medical shit, some little talismanic phrases that are like well-rubbed 'worry rocks', the words that finally broke their bonds in American Idiot and exploded like that mother of all bombs, colored graffiti/confetti words that showered and sparked and settled and glowed and illuminated the dark corners of desperation that exist when kids wonder if anyone cares that nobody cares.

All I know is that this is special; all I know is that I do care, and that a person's identity matters. As a child, your identity comes mostly from your parents - if you lose a parent at whatever point in your life, you discover just how much of your identity was tied up in them, but for a child - well, provided those parents are good ones, they have something like the stature of gods, they're the structure you live in and feel safe. 'I was on the inside when they pulled the four walls down' was how Bono referred to his mother's early death in 'I Will Follow'.

Your identity is not a case of whose poster you put on the wall - although that will be expressing your search for it, for someone who represents your values. Your identity is what you go out into life and find for yourself - 'find what to believe', and it's a mix of philosophy and experience.

And so to punk, the identity that meant so much to Billie Joe, the creed of the outsider writ large. In my opinion, punk is too big to accommodate in the 'cliques' he talks about - you're just gonna become the rock'n'roll equivalent of the Amish. Granted, you'll preserve something you love and value, but you're never gonna get your revolution because you're in the business of exclusion - and exclusion is not punk. Punk is about breaking down barriers and giving everyone a voice - to the extreme extent in early BritPunk when it was seen as non-punk to be able to play a musical instrument.

Extremes can't last - the nature of extremes is that they end up being the exact opposite of what they started out, just as in the current climate when in the interests of protecting democracy, people's fear leads them to cede their own rights.

Ideals are something that good people aspire to, but generally speaking, can only totally live for a certain time - the time you make your contribution, step up to the mark, help with the project, give what you have to give. Beyond that, and you burn out, and what use are you to yourself or anyone else then? Most artists are glad - normally envious, but overall glad!- when one of their own gets a break, because everyone's been thru the same struggle. It should make you more compassionate, not less - think of Mike and that fucking thousand punk gigs, jeez! Years and years of poverty and struggle and trying to get your music across all the time: Skuzz may be cheering for the indie kid who gets to talk to the band because the gig is cancelled, but I'm thinking of the band that was all psyched up to do the thing that makes them live, and then can't get to do it - that's kind of fucked-up to me.

Green Day did all this for punk, and as I said, thru their lives also, they owned it for themselves - they owned the right to see where they fitted in the broad definition - they never signed up for the bit where you surrender your judgement or your right to a choice.

I distrust any philosophy that starts telling me that I can't decide what's best for me in my own life - I wouldn't touch one that said I couldn't show humanity to a person who had been my friend, fuckit, to any person. I would not feel that in embracing a philosophy, I had to embrace or reject it 100% - and that's where I feel Green Day were coming from; I feel like the punk community could have left the door open for them to give what they could give, and if they wanted to change their minds, wanted to turn back from the mainstream - which has been flung at them in derision - why the fuck not let them? Wouldn't it have counted as a huge triumph for punk, or was it that people got more satisfaction out of sticking it to them?

I feel like there's dishonesty going on here, and it's not coming from Green Day - they've never been anything but upfront. But then I've never understood why people feel the need to defend their credo - it should stand by itself, without being propped up by the exclusion of dissenting voices.

Punk is about hearing all the voices, and still keeping your own counsel, being your own sight, doing as you see fit, and speaking your truth.

Sounds like Green Day to me.

[MrsPinkPunkRabbit]

'Punk rock is an anti-establishment rock music movement which began around 1974-1975 (although transitional forms can be found several years earlier), exemplified by the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, The Damned, and The Clash. The term is also used to describe subsequent music scenes that share key characteristics with those first-generation "punks," and it is often applied loosely to mean any band with "attitude" or "youthful aggression." The term is sometimes also applied to the fashions, ideology, subculture, or irreverent "DIY" ("do it yourself") attitude associated with this musical movement.' Taken from Wikipedia. Id say thats a fairly good deascription of what punk is.

Really? Well thats news to me.

I don't mean to be horrid but the fact that you had to look that up on an internet dictionary shows me only too well that people cannot define punk for themselves. What I was trying to say, is that punk cannot be defined as just a type of music, or fashion statement. it means different things to different people. I was trying to say that these people who are defining Green Day as one thing or the other can only be wrong- Green Day are Green Day be it their music or their personalities, you cannot put a word on what they are because they are an enigma.

(btw the thing about the gay men is in the Green Day special edition of Metal Hammer0- page 41 if you don't believe me! )