The Oldest Debate in the Books

[Ila Reto]

i think its funny, how we say how overdone this debate is however every time someone tries to

create a topic about it, the thread is immediately closed.

maybe it's because it is one of those touchy subjects for fans, fearing that we would create a divided forum.

maybe its because people on here are defensive by nature, so instead of being grown-ups and defending their positions, they create arguements.

i however feel that people on both sides need insight and perspective to fully understand their own.

we would just need a moderator of some sort to keep the insults out and keep the the debate clean.

for example:

EuGJaMMeR

You know.. we know how Green Day grew up and sing about more important things nowadays but there's still something you have to keep asking about them..

Why couldn't they make their songs like their older songs? Why couldn't they sing a song like American Idiot but in a sound similar to their older songs? Fast, catchy, crazy drum rolls, amazing basslines..

They could've sang a song like Holiday with three chords..

adamrr52

the answer to that question is age

EuGJaMMeR

Age? They're only 37 or something! Well that's the most pathetic excuse ever because I've seen them do immature things in the Vancouver show last year. Rancid's members are over 40.

So what if they're older? They're not NORMAL PEOPLE. They're a fucking band. They had trademarks and signatures when they were in the 90s but they just left that. Do you know how it breaks the heart of older fans to see Green Day appealing to the younger generation everyday?

jinxfink

exactly, they're normal people. normal people who can do whatever the fuck they want with their music. it has nothing to do with age, it's them opening their minds and exploring all types of music. their trademarks and signatures are still prominent if you actually listened.

im a 2006 fan, and yea even i got a little bitter when the new album came out and new fans appeared but you can't deny that even you were a new fan once be it in '97 or whenever.

EuGJaMMeR

Notice that no fan that became a fan from the 90s gives replies similar to those who reply who can appreciate the newer albums.

Ok, well Billie's got a copy of Blue, and a whole lotta guitars.. why? Tre doesn't wear shorts anymore. Mike doensn't compose complex bass fills.. If it's not about age, why would they remove everything they had that it's almost as if there's nothing left from their 90s look that 90s fans can be proud of?

I think it's easier for a newer fan to say what you say.

jinxfink

I have been researching green day for years, it is like my job to notice those differences and you do have a point. howver my work has enabeled me to meet thousands of fans, many from the 90s, and earlier, who share my views.

i play bass, of course i notice the fills are simpler. billie has money now, what musician wouldn't buy a bunch of new guitars?

90s fans should be proud that their favorite band is stilll together and enjoying being musicians. at least, thats how i see it.

jinxfink

as well, Pinhead Gunpowder, who has grown along side of Green Day since 1990...if you llisten to Goodbye Eltson Ave. and their new "7inch" album, you will notice the difference. and no, not because BJ is in the band. he plays only a minor role and doesnt write the songs for the most part. its because bands grow and are always trying to out-do themselves.

obviously we are both strong in our beliefs, and i think you and i can agree being stubborn fans we are, that we wont be changing them.

EuGJaMMeR

The things the 90s fans could've been proud of are covered by something completely different..

EuGJaMMeR

Well didn't you notice that they give MTV more chances to host them? They really seem to be playing alotta shows in MTV now and have a lot of effects. I suggest that if you're a Green Day anaylist, you should also study punk rock. I mean, that's the point. BJ has money now but aren't punks angry at those people? Green Day hasn't started a rebellion or movement yet though and are they going to be content with that?

jinxfink

the 80's punk scene were hesitant to accept them, the crowd at gilman even then were claiming that they were too "pop-punk", too british invasion.

what exactly do you think the 90s fans- as you put it- have the be proud of?

i am aware of the punk "success is failure" mentality, but that was applied to the band back in '94.

they may not have started a rebellion, but they did start a movement.

face it, the whole idea of what "punk rock" is has changed, with green day leading the way.

EuGJaMMeR

Well if they were already too pop punk then, which I don't have a problem is because they were really making pop punk music fromthe start, what are they now? If punk rock has changed, I'm betting there's alotta pissed out old punks out there.

If people listen to Green Day, shouldn't most of the fans know who the Ramones are who Husker Du is? There are lots who don't..

jinxfink

of course there's a lot of pissed old punks out there. it's been that way for almost 15 years now.

they are still pop-punk, just expanding their horizons. punk rock has indeed changed; from a close-knit

undergound of people, to really just about anyone who has an appreciation for good music and a sense

of individuality...at least, that's what i've been shown.

jinxfink

and older fans listened to the Ramones & Husker Du before green day day, and then was introduced to them,

but with new fans its the other way around. they use green day as a springboard or a gateway to older bands.

personally i was introduced to The Kinks after hearing GD's cover of "Tired of Waiting for You" from their UK basketcase single.

but i dont see how knowing other bands gives "older fans" some sort of place above all the rest.

how silly of us, we're taking about 90's fans and post-american idiot fans, but not even counting 2000 fans.

see, both sides have very good points. neither is completely right.

its just a casual debate, no insults necessary.

ready? go.

[The Disappearing Boy]

its a difficult one. being a recent fan, i fall on the 'new' side of the debate, yet i do still love their older albums.

i think age did have something to do with it. they 'matured' somewhere around warning, which is about when their kids got to the age when they could see the stuff their parents were doing. and perhas green day didn't like it. perhaps they wanted to change. i also wonder if problems in their marriages/partnerships occurred round that time. between nimrod and warning. just a hunch.

[RobyRoom]

Having gone through almost all the eras, I stand on both sides. The old songs remind me of my experiences as a teenager, the new songs represent more what I am now

Really, I can't choose. I see an evolution through all their albums, so I don't think that an era excludes the other one.

[Aramos]

I think the older I get the more I appreciate the new stuff.

[LetItBeHappy]

well, they're not 18 anymore, they're alduts. And their desire of experiment is what makes their music so great. I think is better that they have more "sounds", because, otherwise, you'll get bored. Can you imagine having 15 records, all of them sounding exactly the same to the others?

[Jaymee!!]

well, they're not 18 anymore, they're alduts. And their desire of experiment is what makes their music so great. I think is better that they have more "sounds", because, otherwise, you'll get bored. Can you imagine having 15 records, all of them sounding exactly the same to the others?

This.

I personally enjoy both 'generations' of their music. But just clear this up for me, where is the dividing line between their old and new material? Was American Idiot the starting of a new era of music for them, or is it since they released Dookie and 'sold out'?

I hear people ALL the time saying 'I really liked their old stuff, Dookie is AMAZING. Everything else is shit.' So is Dookie the only cd that can count as their 'old' material? Or are they including 39/Smooth and Kerplunk? What do you think is the borderline?

[Alan86]

I dont buy into this old Green Day new Green Day thing at all

Its all Green Day

[Daughter.of.Rage.and.Love]

This.

I personally enjoy both 'generations' of their music. But just clear this up for me, where is the dividing line between their old and new material? Was American Idiot the starting of a new era of music for them, or is it since they released Dookie and 'sold out'?

I hear people ALL the time saying 'I really liked their old stuff, Dookie is AMAZING. Everything else is shit.' So is Dookie the only cd that can count as their 'old' material? Or are they including 39/Smooth and Kerplunk? What do you think is the borderline?

If I have to draw lines, I think of it in three parts: 1039/SOSH and Kerplunk; Dookie - Warning; and American Idiot and 21st Century Breakdown, but if I'm talking about the 'old stuff', I usually mean the first two albums.

There isn't really a clear line between old and new though, they and their music grew up and developed over the years and albums, especially in the subjects their songs are about, there isn't a clearly define-able point where there's suddenly a big change. It's more easy to see a change of their sound (Warning - American Idiot), but ... I don't know how I wanted to end that sentence.

I have to think about it a little bit more before I can say what I want to say.

edit: I do want to say at least that I don't draw a line between old and new Green Day or something, if that makes sense. I love all their stuff, and I don't think that any of their stuff is better/worse because it's older/newer.

Okay, I hate this post, I can't really explain how I feel about this, I only end up saying things I don't want to say. =|

[Isabel]

Yeah, taking sides really doesn't matter to me. Why tie yourself down to one when Green Day is just all round amazing?

I love all of their albums for various reasons, none of which have anything to do with whether or not they're older/newer than eachother.

[LetItBeHappy]

This.

I personally enjoy both 'generations' of their music. But just clear this up for me, where is the dividing line between their old and new material? Was American Idiot the starting of a new era of music for them, or is it since they released Dookie and 'sold out'?

I hear people ALL the time saying 'I really liked their old stuff, Dookie is AMAZING. Everything else is shit.' So is Dookie the only cd that can count as their 'old' material? Or are they including 39/Smooth and Kerplunk? What do you think is the borderline?

it depends who you ask. I draw the line between old and new stuff with Nimrod, because that's when they started to use new sounds. But someone can draw the line with Dookie, for selling out, or Warning, for growing up, or American Idiot, for becoming one of the biggest bands in the world.

[JHyena86]

Having gone through almost all the eras, I stand on both sides. The old songs remind me of my experiences as a teenager, the new songs represent more what I am now

Really, I can't choose. I see an evolution through all their albums, so I don't think that an era excludes the other one.

This.

I get the "Dookie was awsome, everything else sucks" shit all the time. Also heard lots of people bitch about Breakdown. And it's like Jaymee said, where do we draw the line. Most people I've argued with think Dookie was their first or 2nd album. They don't even know about 1039SOSH or Kerplunk. Most people overlook Insomniac and Nimrod and Warning as well. To me, each album is a different era for them. They ALL sound different. If you take their whole library of songs and just listen to it, the changes in their musical style flow. You can hear them growing up and evolving.

As far as what I think about it all, it's all amazing. I love and respect Green Day for what they do. They take risks (like Warning), which other bands won't. They aren't afraid to make a political statement like with AI, or to comment on the state of the world like with Breakdown. People tell me that they should have just stuck with Dookie. Imagine 37 year old men writing songs about boredom and masterbation. Instead of people complaining that they should go back to the old stuff, people would be saying they need to grow up already. If they tried to please everyone, they would never get anywhere.

[Smoothed Out]

Well I became a fan in 21st CB era (I know :/) but I love their old stuff and the new stuff. They've changed, they felt as though the old music they were playing had been worn out to much and the world was looking for something different, they weren't looking for fast paced 2 minute punk songs anymore. With everything that began to happen around the world, people needed music that was on their side, that displayed the angst they were feeling. Remembering AI was their last shot at making it big again, it just turned out a whole lot bigger than they anticipated and their political points of view came through the rock opera theme and it worked. Different times, different people, different needs. There are always going to be some people who prefer one over the other because of memories or their own personal choice, but Green Day are individuals and they write and perform what they want to.

Anyways, just my opinion

[Ticcnluna]

I dont buy into this old Green Day new Green Day thing at all

Its all Green Day

Me either, though the 'new' and the 'old' do sound different, but at the same time,

they can't keep making songs, that sound the same.

[valentinesandcigs]

People need to realize that this isn't the 90s anymore and the boys aren't in there 20s anymore.

[Sarahnade.]

But, where do we draw the line between "old" Green Day and "new" Green Day? They've always been evolving and changing. No record sounds exactly the same. Dookie to Insomniac to Nimrod to Warning to American Idiot. Those albums stretch the span of 10 years, and each is different than the next. They're human beings who want to change, who grow, who learn and develop, personally and professionally. They're adults now, so they feel a need to write about more important things instead of masturbation or drugs or girls or something. And they should be allowed to.

Those early albums are fantastic, and so are the most recent ones. I became a fan in 2004, so I've been a fan for about 6 years. And within those 6 years I've listened to every song on every album, and saw them live, and really have fallen in love with the band. I love how everything is fresh and they don't have a million songs like Basket Case or something. Each song is different, and I love that about them.

I guess don't really prefer "old" or "new" Green Day. I like Green Day.

[matteo263]

Imagine....every album sounds like dookie.....where's the fun in Green Day? I love dookie, but people change and so does their music, it becomes more mature. I LOVE 21 CB!!!

[Minority_GD]

Green Day have never been the same. They've always changed.

Green Day's music is like progress and I'm curious at how it'll change in the future.

Yeah , sometimes I wish they'd write songs like "burnout" or "disappering boy" again, but they wrote those songs when they were young. They wrote music to express those feeling they had back at that time.

Their feelings, the things they care and think about changed, so of course their music changed as well.

Billie's lyrics show how he grew up.

[ScreamsInSilence815]

Old Green Day stuff is still Green Day stuff.

New Green Day stuff is still Green Day stuff.

Green Day stuff is good.

Therefore, does it really matter?

Logic.

[Anja]

I love how everything is fresh and they don't have a million songs like Basket Case or something. Each song is different, and I love that about them.

That's what I love about them, too! I can think of a million bands out there that have/had that one big hit and because they sold millions of that one record, they continue making the same music because they know it just sells! Well, 90% of them fail and disappear from the screen.

With Green Day, I don't get that feeling cause each song is just different. Not just musically but also lyrically. There's no second "Basket case", no second "American Idiot". You just see and feel how they evolve with every record and that's one of the reason why they are still around in the music scene!

[Sarahnade.]

That's what I love about them, too! I can think of a million bands out there that have/had that one big hit and because they sold millions of that one record, they continue making the same music because they know it just sells! Well, 90% of them fail and disappear from the screen.

With Green Day, I don't get that feeling cause each song is just different. Not just musically but also lyrically. There's no second "Basket case", no second "American Idiot". You just see and feel how they evolve with every record and that's one of the reason why they are still around in the music scene!

Exactly! It's like bands have a formula, and they have one hit single with that formula, and figure it's working, so they need to stick to it. I think some bands are too afraid to develop, or try new things. I'm glad Green Day isn't one of those bands.

[Anja]

Old Green Day stuff is still Green Day stuff.

New Green Day stuff is still Green Day stuff.

Green Day stuff is good.

Therefore, does it really matter?

Logic.

Old Green Day + New Green Day = Green Day

Makes sense!

[Hermione]

I don't see the "old" and "new" two distinct, separate things at all. I mean, you can see their evolution through all their albums, it wasn't just a straight jump from Kerplunk/Dookie style to American Idiot style. They experimented and progressed on every album and their lyrics were already much more outward looking on Warning - way before AI.

And looking at their stage show, again you can see that gradual progression to the more theatrical style of today starting as early as Nimrod and already looking very similar to how it does now by the Pop Disaster tour. I love being able to look back and see their gradual progression.

The only way I can really see to accurately separate the "old" and "new" Green Day is if you do it based on their clothes and eyeliner wearing habits . I think that's probably one of the main reasons for this debate existing. Personally, my 4 favourite Green Day albums are 21st CB, Nimrod, Dookie and American Idiot. I have no preference for any particular Green Day era, it's all good!

[JHyena86]

Exactly! It's like bands have a formula, and they have one hit single with that formula, and figure it's working, so they need to stick to it. I think some bands are too afraid to develop, or try new things. I'm glad Green Day isn't one of those bands.

Same. I think of Fall Out Boy and ALL their songs sound the same to me. ALL of them. And most other bands sound so much alike that I can't even tell them apart. I'll be like "is this *insert name here*?" and it's usually someone else. But with Green Day, EVERYONE knows who it is. They stick out. That's why they made it. When bands started copying them, they changed and therefore stayed unique.

[Chelsea Hotel]

What if Green Day were still writing songs about girls and masturbation now that they're all pushing forty?

Bands can change. People can change. And I'm glad for it.

[Anja]

Same. I think of Fall Out Boy and ALL their songs sound the same to me. ALL of them. And most other bands sound so much alike that I can't even tell them apart. I'll be like "is this *insert name here*?" and it's usually someone else. But with Green Day, EVERYONE knows who it is. They stick out. That's why they made it. When bands started copying them, they changed and therefore stayed unique.

I think of Nickelback. Every song by them sounds the same to me! The lyrics might be different in each song but the musical style is just the same and that totally bores me. And I agree, I often can't tell apart bands either when they are on the radio. Though to be fair, the radio plays songs of the same sort all the time anyway At least the stations here.