Where do you personally think Green Day should go sonically with their next record?

[SmoothedOut]

1 minute ago, JJ1964 said:

Actually, they were manufactured.  They started out as a band called The Strand.  Their manager was an artist and clothing designer.  He wanted the band to stick out as something different so he kicked out the guy that was the lead singer and searched for someone that fit the style of what he wanted the band to look like.  That is how John Lydon got the got, he had the look the manager wanted.  The bassist quit and Sid Vicious was hired because he was friends with John Lydon and again had "the look".  He didn't even know how to play bass. 
    

I don't think people are getting the point here. The fact that the Pistols were manufactured prove how much more genuine the members of their band were. Most bands get together because they actually want to become famous. You can't say that about the Pistols because they were made up of people who looked the way they did, acted the way they did because they were naturally so and were forced to play together for the sake of making money for someone else. They were products of their social classes made to play instruments. Blame McLaren for all his evils, he embodies exactly that corporate animal that will take any opportunity to make money out of human beings. What matters is that the Sex Pistols weren't going to take any of that. You will always read how they hated McLaren and wanted to kill the disease that was rock and roll at the time.

[Chin for a Day]

1 minute ago, DookieLukie said:

How is that any different than other bands, such as the Beatles? And the bassist was thrown out because his musical interests and image didn't fit the band, but how is that such a bad thing? The dude wanted to make Beatles music and the rest of the band didn't.

I didn't say it was bad.  You said they weren't manufactured but they were.  You do have to question hiring a bassist that doesn't play bass.  Yes, The Beatles were manufactured as well.   Again, I didn't say it was a bad thing, just that it was a fact.

[DookieLukie]

Just now, JJ1964 said:

I didn't say it was bad.  You said they weren't manufactured but they were.  You do have to question hiring a bassist that doesn't play bass.  Yes, The Beatles were manufactured as well.   Again, I didn't say it was a bad thing, just that it was a fact.

Manufactured is such a stupid word though. They were a group of people brought together bc they had the same image and musical styles. Manufactured is just such a condescending word to use. Is Green Day manufactured bc Tre was recommended to the band bc he fit their style and looks?

[Chin for a Day]

Just now, DookieLukie said:

Manufactured is such a stupid word though. They were a group of people brought together bc they had the same image and musical styles. Manufactured is just such a condescending word to use. Is Green Day manufactured bc Tre was recommended to the band bc he fit their style and looks?

You are right, they were a group of people put together because they had a certain look and style, just like N'Sync and One Direction.  I don't know why you are getting so angry, I did not say it was a bad thing.

 

5 minutes ago, SmoothedOut said:

I don't think people are getting the point here. The fact that the Pistols were manufactured prove how much more genuine the members of their band were. Most bands get together because they actually want to become famous. You can't say that about the Pistols because they were made up of people who looked the way they did, acted the way they did because they were naturally so and were forced to play together for the sake of making money for someone else. They were products of their social classes made to play instruments. Blame McLaren for all his evils, he embodies exactly that corporate animal that will take any opportunity to make money out of human beings. What matters is that the Sex Pistols weren't going to take any of that. You will always read how they hated McLaren and wanted to kill the disease that was rock and roll at the time.

Actually, you are not getting the point.  Being manufactured makes them less genuine.  They were put together because they had a certain look, a look that fit a style that their manager thought would make money.  

Most bands are formed because they want to make music, and yes make money, that is the point of any business.  However, they get together because they have the same interests, most of the time are friendly and want the same musical goals.  

Again, please explain how it is genuine to hire a bassist that doesn't play bass.      

[DookieLukie]

Just now, JJ1964 said:

You are right, they were a group of people put together because they had a certain look and style, just like N'Sync and One Direction.  I don't know why you are getting so angry, I did not say it was a bad thing.    

If it's not a big deal to you and not a bad thing, then why even bring it up? I'm not angry, I'm just sick of GD fangirls knocking down every other punk band and finding bs reasons to call them bad bc they only like the Green Day punk.

2 minutes ago, JJ1964 said:

 Being manufactured makes them less genuine.  They were put together because they had a certain look, a look that fit a style that their manager thought would make money.  

Ok so you just fucking said that being manufactured isn't an insult and isn't a bad thing, and then you go and call it a bad thing 2 minutes later. Alright.

[Chin for a Day]

3 minutes ago, DookieLukie said:

If it's not a big deal to you and not a bad thing, then why even bring it up? I'm not angry, I'm just sick of GD fangirls knocking down every other punk band and finding bs reasons to call them bad bc they only like the Green Day punk.

Ok so you just fucking said that being manufactured isn't an insult and isn't a bad thing, and then you go and call it a bad thing 2 minutes later. Alright.

First, I never said that I didn't like The Sex Pistols, I responded to something you said that The Sex Pistols were not manufactured.  They were manufactured, that is a fact.  I do indeed like many Sex Pistol songs.  But I cannot change the fact that they were manufactured.  Also, I love many other punk bands, not just GD so I would really appreciate it you stop jumping to conclusions.  I didn't say anything you are getting angry over.

Also, the other poster had responded that being manufactured makes you more genuine that that means you are not after money.  I disagree with that.  I think if you are a manufactured band you are going for a certain look to make money.  Again, I never said it was a bad thing, please re-read it.  Alot of bands have been manufactured, and that does not mean that the music is bad.  Just like any other band, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

And yes, I agree, there can be an argument made that Tre was added to GD because of a certain look.  I don't necessarily agree with that, but I can understand how someone can come to that conclusion.  

 

[SmoothedOut]

24 minutes ago, JJ1964 said:

Actually, you are not getting the point.  Being manufactured makes them less genuine.  They were put together because they had a certain look, a look that fit a style that their manager thought would make money.  

Most bands are formed because they want to make music, and yes make money, that is the point of any business.  However, they get together because they have the same interests, most of the time are friendly and want the same musical goals.  

Again, please explain how it is genuine to hire a bassist that doesn't play bass.      

You are looking at this inside out. They weren't put together to fit any sort of punk mold. The punk mold was made because they were put together. Or at least the most obvious parts of the mold that created the genre it is today > safety pins, anti-authority, dyed hair, connection with the audience, anarchy. If the idea of a bassist who couldn't play bass being in a band was never made, you wouldn't get people like Billie Joe or Tim Armstrong telling kids who couldn't play that they too could be in a band and play music. Most credit goes to the Ramones for simplyfing rock music again in the 70s.

3 hours ago, Hermione said:

Punk existed before the Sex Pistols, they weren't the first or only punk band. It's true they were an influential part of punk and partially influenced Green Day but both could easily still exist without that one band.  

Who started punk is an endless argument. And yes, it was created by a collective. But I can name things that have been directly influenced by the Pistols or the Ramones. Its just a matter of listing them all down. The Sex Pistols, anarchy; the Ramones, simplicity. Everything has to start from somewhere. All in all, they contributed to a movement that was noisy and thus, progressive. The point is, we are missing all this right now in popular music.

[DookieLukie]

3 minutes ago, SmoothedOut said:

You are looking at this inside out. They weren't put together to fit any sort of punk mold. The punk mold was made because they were put together. Or at least the most obvious parts of the mold that created the genre it is today > safety pins, anti-authority, dyed hair, connection with the audience, anarchy. If the idea of a bassist who couldn't play bass being in a band was never made, you wouldn't get people like Billie Joe or Tim Armstrong telling kids who couldn't play that they too could be in a band and play music. Most credit goes to the Ramones for simplyfing rock music again in the 70s.

She's looking at it after-the-fact and doesn't realize that the punk "style" become popular bc of bands like the Pistols. Their look was something new and not cool at the time.

[Chin for a Day]

All these Sex Pistol fanboys are so damn cute.

[BilIie Joe Armstrong]

If Sex Pistols weren't manufactured then One Direction weren't either. SP were a band made by a producer and a fashion designer the whole package was a very well-made product that people stuck with, but no one can deny that the punk fashion was invented to increase the profit

[AlissaGoesRAWR]

Yeah, I'm done trying to reason with this logic... carry on, fanboys, carry on.

[SmoothedOut]

2 hours ago, AlissaGoesRAWR said:

Yeah, I'm done trying to reason with this logic... carry on, fanboys, carry on.

Just don't say you want to talk about discrimination, corruption, and poverty next time if all you're going to do is namecall.

 

Also, the other poster had responded that being manufactured makes you more genuine that that means you are not after money.  I disagree with that.  I think if you are a manufactured band you are going for a certain look to make money.  Again, I never said it was a bad thing, please re-read it.  Alot of bands have been manufactured, and that does not mean that the music is bad.  Just like any other band, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I understand your argument. But I didn't say that they weren't looking for money. I'm saying they were genuine punk in the sense that their look, attitude, and sound was natural to them and only something later bands could just copy or add to. They didn't pick it up from a magazine or anything. They just were it. < And not that copying is entirely bad, but I'm just putting credit where it is due.

 

[Brutal-xkid2]

Because theres a huge discussion going on about sex pistols, i decided to listen to them. I listened to god save the queen, and it was the worst horseshit ive ever heard. You guys baited me

[Chin for a Day]

20 minutes ago, SmoothedOut said:

Just don't say you want to talk about discrimination, corruption, and poverty next time if all you're going to do is namecall.

 

I understand your argument. But I didn't say that they weren't looking for money. I'm saying they were genuine punk in the sense that their look, attitude, and sound was natural to them and only something later bands could just copy or add to. They didn't pick it up from a magazine or anything. They just were it. < And not that copying is entirely bad, but I'm just putting credit where it is due.

 

Their look was true punk because their manager designed it that way.  He wanted the band to look a certain to profit from the fashions.  He was a fashion designer.  It wasn't that th ey said "my look is punk"  they just dressed the way they dressed.  It was marketed as a punk look

Also, I just want to add that I don't think this is bad.  This is business.  Regardless of what you may think, all celebrities are in this to make a profit.  Marketing plays a big key in that.  When the Beatles were new everyone had long hair just like them, a few years ago young boys had justin bieber haircut.  10 years ago guys wore black suits, red ties and guyliner. 

[SmoothedOut]

8 hours ago, JJ1964 said:

Their look was true punk because their manager designed it that way.  He wanted the band to look a certain to profit from the fashions.  He was a fashion designer.  It wasn't that th ey said "my look is punk"  they just dressed the way they dressed.  It was marketed as a punk look

And I guess you can blame the manager for being a scumbag. Just imagine this: You are you, wearing the things you wear, talking the way you talk, and doing the things you do. Let's say you're a little different from everyone else. One day, someone tells you you're going to front a band and the genre will be called "fuzz" (for example). With his help you get big. YOU, your image, your clothes, your sound becomes the new image of the "fuzz" movement without you having done anything. Now everyone wants to be "fuzz" while you were just being your genuine self. Imagine being nicked out of your natural surroundings to become a profit for someone else. You were genuine and true.

8 hours ago, JJ1964 said:

Also, I just want to add that I don't think this is bad.  This is business.  Regardless of what you may think, all celebrities are in this to make a profit.  Marketing plays a big key in that.

Yeah. But we need bands like Green Day and Sex Pistols who make a stand when business begins to get out of hand.

[Ham Pascale]

On 21.12.2015 at 3:37 PM, SmoothedOut said:

Without the Sex Pistols we would not be talking in this forum. Without the punk movement, there would be no Green Day. That's all one needs to look at to know Johnny Rotten's significance in music. And a company can do anything, music is just another platform to communicate and you need stadiums and record contracts for that.

Now wait a minute. There was a punk movement before them. A prolific punk movement, I must say.

Unless you or I could have travelled back to '76 made sure Sex Pistols didn't happen, I don't think you are in full right of saying that, no offence. Sure, a company can do a lot of things if not everything, but, for one, they can't legally force you to sign a contract. It was all Sex Pistols' will through and through.

And you don't need stadiums and record contracts to spread your music. That's kind of the point of punk, isn't it?

On 21.12.2015 at 8:58 PM, SmoothedOut said:

You are looking at this inside out. They weren't put together to fit any sort of punk mold. The punk mold was made because they were put together. Or at least the most obvious parts of the mold that created the genre it is today > safety pins, anti-authority, dyed hair, connection with the audience, anarchy. If the idea of a bassist who couldn't play bass being in a band was never made, you wouldn't get people like Billie Joe or Tim Armstrong telling kids who couldn't play that they too could be in a band and play music. Most credit goes to the Ramones for simplyfing rock music again in the 70s.

On 22.12.2015 at 2:15 AM, SmoothedOut said:

And I guess you can blame the manager for being a scumbag. Just imagine this: You are you, wearing the things you wear, talking the way you talk, and doing the things you do. Let's say you're a little different from everyone else. One day, someone tells you you're going to front a band and the genre will be called "fuzz" (for example). With his help you get big. YOU, your image, your clothes, your sound becomes the new image of the "fuzz" movement without you having done anything. Now everyone wants to be "fuzz" while you were just being your genuine self. Imagine being nicked out of your natural surroundings to become a profit for someone else. You were genuine and true.

Yeah. It's just business can go out of hand sometimes. People will start to wear Green Day shirts because the mainstream says its cool but not because they actually like Green Day. That's why we need bands like Sex Pistols who cut the crap and scare people with the truth. Don't get me wrong, many bands have done this but I can argue that the Pistols have huge credibility in this sense. Without constant checks, one day we'll accept that killing is cool because the media says so... The nature of business is always to sell. So if they say the best bands are those who promote misogny, they have the power to make it happen. Art and bands will stand up and say, "that's not right".

You can't have too much of anything - business or raw emotion. We just need to be able to sense when the balance is off, you know what I mean?

Yes, you are absolutely right, Sex Pistols created "the punk mold". I do not deny that. But Sex Pistols often, if not all the time, bend the values of punk. Not because they were manufactured, not because Lydon fails to recognise that he has become a parody of himself and he should better shut up and retire now, no. But because "the punk mold" is a paradox. Punk is about being different and mold is about being the same. Punk virtually has no mold. Punk was not a certain way of thought, not a certain way you dress and not a certain way your band sounded.

I think that Sex Pistols have narrowed the scope of a such diverse movement, pinning it down to only a certain way you have to dress, a certain way you have to sound, a certain philosophy you have to follow, a VERY certain way you have to think. Maybe, they were genius charlatans who knew how to trick gullible try-hards into making them moderately rich. Or maybe they were these try-hards themselves. Maybe they took punk at face value and, as an uncalculated result, a whole lot of people followed. Who knows. But still, facts are facts, they were expected to become the next big thing, from the very beginning.

And their success wasn't because of business going out of hand. Sex Pistols were manufactured specifically to create the punk mold, to make punk the next big thing. Should McLaren determine punk not having the potential to become the next fad, therefore able to generate a very reasonable revenue, there would no Sex Pistols.

On 21.12.2015 at 8:18 PM, SmoothedOut said:

That is EXACTLY what I am trying to bring forth here. I am coming from a part of the world that is full of these sort of issues and was looking to see if music can still be a tool for social change, for awakening people. I can attest to a society that is so gullible and dumb that it not only eats up everything the government gives it but it is too afraid to speak up or talk about its current state. People are way too complacent. The fact that they will not look at any other music than the crap given to them is directly related to this. There is, however, a sort of rising youth culture here that is standing up for the truth through art and indie bands have been greatly associated it.

John Lydon is the real scumbag in here. I never let myself forget how jealous he got when Green Day started bringing in big numbers. The dumb shit was arrogant and greedy enough to call punk his thing and deride Green Day solely because he didn't have the guts to stick with Sex Pistols after Sid's death. These Sex Pistols reunion shows were just beyond cheesy. I think it is obvious enough they were in here for big bucks. We all know that there is nothing wrong with making a buck. But being a hypocrite is very wrong.

And how do I forget the butter commerical?  I think that a person who did something this embarrasing and regrettable should be held responsible for it.

Yes, I do blame them for hooking up with Malcolm McLaren and Sex. Signing contracts is a voluntary thing, anyway. No one made them do that. No one. They could have walked out of it, no questions asked. Were they so influential, talented, geniune, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, they would have done very well for themselves on their own, without people like McLaren and Westwood backing their every move. And I think these guys could have put some brain cells together to figure out what's best for them. No offence, but you put it like they were forced to be endorsed by McLaren.

And as to band members who could not play their instruments, I think you are trying to describe different things. Dave Mello joined Operation Ivy with little to no drumming skills, and got out a hell of a great drummer. I think that McLaren and Sex Pistols were thinking, "Wow a bassist who doesn't play bass! So kewl! So punk rawk!" Sid joined Sex Pistols not knowing how to play bass, and died not knowing how to play bass. He was not a proficient member of the band who contributes to the music. He was an ornament of kind, a guy who's here just to pose with an unplugged bass guitar. Words cannot express how fake it is.

On 21.12.2015 at 8:18 PM, SmoothedOut said:

I put the Pistols in such high regard precisely because of of the characteristics of punk that they have in one way or another contributed to because I see it as missing in the society that I speak of. To further support my argument that they are a MASSIVE influence to Green Day and to stay within the context of this thread, I think Green Day should go ahead and make an amazingly loud album, as should other bands.

Could you please cite the reference? Where did you get that?

And what society do you speak of? A lot of fucked up and unfair things happen, have happened, and will be happening. That's what you get for living in a society. Punk is not the solution. Nor anarchy is, being mostly an utopian acid trip, is not going to happen anytime soon. That's the nature of us humans, we are crooked, corrupt and power hungry. I think I understand where you're coming from, but you do overestimate Sex Pistols a little.

I am actually very surprised you didn't utter a word about Black Flag, D.O.A., Circle Jerks, etc. I must ask you, though, how they are inferior to Pistols? How the Pistols are "scaring people with the truth" and these bands do not? How come these bands are less geniune than them?

[That Dude]

Something sonic would be rad. 

[DookieLukie]

"Sex Pistols fanboys" say the Green Day fangirls. There's no reasoning with those people. 

 

Smoothedout, don't even bother criticizing AlissaGoesRawr's hypocrisy. It's so obvious that there's no need to point it out.

[Private Ale.]

If we go back to green day's new sound ,i think it should be like Nimrod.It should be experimental and filled with different type of songs.

What makes nimrod special is that it has "Take back" and "time of your life".After that,all the albums had different songs but none of them captures the variety of Nimrod in my opinion. In short it should be a great,non-overproduced album and you guys should stop criticizing each others' opinion cause opinions are cool ,we are all here to share our opinions. here is a young and optimistic point of view

[moonflower93]

this is why i stepped back from the punk rock pop punk music, b/c of the elitists. 

Spoiler

it's bullshit

 

[SmoothedOut]

17 hours ago, Ham Pascale said:

Now wait a minute. There was a punk movement before them. A prolific punk movement, I must say.

Unless you or I could have travelled back to '76 made sure Sex Pistols didn't happen, I don't think you are in full right of saying that, no offence. Sure, a company can do a lot of things if not everything, but, for one, they can't legally force you to sign a contract. It was all Sex Pistols' will through and through.

I don't think anyone can prove it exactly. All I can do is speak within the context of my age. Let's say I'm just using the word "punk" to refer to such individuals because that's how the world around me has defined them to be. Perhaps every great artist in the past was "punk". Da Vinci, Mozart, Van Gogh. I am forced to call them the first "punks" even though they were not the first "Van Goghs" simply because that's the language of today. I believe we're on the same page. I agree when people say Elvis Presley or Chuck Berry were the first real "punks".

17 hours ago, Ham Pascale said:

I think that Sex Pistols have narrowed the scope of a such diverse movement, pinning it down to only a certain way you have to dress, a certain way you have to sound, a certain philosophy you have to follow, a VERY certain way you have to think. Maybe, they were genius charlatans who knew how to trick gullible try-hards into making them moderately rich. Or maybe they were these try-hards themselves. Maybe they took punk at face value and, as an uncalculated result, a whole lot of people followed. Who knows. But still, facts are facts, they were expected to become the next big thing, from the very beginning.

I don't know about the other Pistols, but I don't think Lydon was looking to head any movement. In fact, he believed that if people didn't worship bands like them or follow any sort of movement, people would be as diverse and as free as they possibly could be. Because there'd be no authoritive figure. People can just get on with what they want to do without getting lambasted for it. He thinks that the media as an establishment shouldn't exist. The philosophy I take from him is that people should value their individuality and of others. Anything related to the media is a sham because how the media defines people is not how they naturally are. The media creates stereotypes, hierarchies... war, hatred.

Also, what I meant about business going out of hand is when the music industry starts to market the wrong idea of a thing. Back then the wrong idea was airport rock and roll and 9 minute rock songs being "rock and roll". It's times like these that artists need to step in and say that's not what rock and roll really is. Going back to what I said earlier, I think there's only so much we can do in this age. A record company is a medium through which aspiring musicians can actually become successful as musicians in this age of consumerism. >You have to sell.< I think it would be unfair to judge the work of the artist by the intentions of the businessman. The artist has the idea but needs a medium through which he can express it. The two have always gone hand in hand in artistic revolutions. It just so happens that in our current age the media has narrowed down these mediums to the point that people think TV = fame and success... Artists have had to stoop down low to conform to the ideals of the media. Yes, I'm demeriting every musical movement since the end of WWII in saying this. Petty compared to artistic revolutions of past centuries unfortunately because of the contraints set by the media.

I thought the butter commercial was hilarious

17 hours ago, Ham Pascale said:

Punk is not the solution. Nor anarchy is, being mostly an utopian acid trip, is not going to happen anytime soon. That's the nature of us humans, we are crooked, corrupt and power hungry. I think I understand where you're coming from, but you do overestimate Sex Pistols a little.

Until the idea that "punk" was just some movement of the 70s lead by a bunch of bands trying to make money is corrected, we'll never see it as a solution to anything. Yes, society is crooked and corrupt and that's why we need cataclysts, heroes, and artists who will go out of their way to speak the truth. But I really think the word "punk" in essence means cataclyst; consumerism just took the idea to make money off of it through fashion, music, shows. The media makes us believe that "it's cool to be anti-establishment"; but it never tells us that the media itself could be an enemy. Even the Ramones and Sex Pistols didn't want to label themselves "punk". They were being them - and not more garbage to sell. What I'm trying to say is, the world as we know it today - ruled by the media - is more dangerous and manipulative than we think. That's why I think there's something special in bands who don't want to call themselves bands...

Yes, I must admit I rate them a little highly. Maybe it depends on perspective?

But we're entering this whole new century and you have to wonder about the significance of anything that's ever been TV. How successful are you really by getting on Top of the Pops? Or selling a million records? Thinking of it this way, most bands and including Lydon are in fact hypocrites in the sense that they had to make dealings with corporations in order to become "successful". But see how cruel and unreal the past century was to artists? Hypocrisy was always inevitable due to the nature of the media.

As we transition into a new century, I think we'd be smart not to side with any band or take their word seriously. Even Lydon has said this. If there's any movement which can be of any significance to us in the long run as human beings... its the punk movement. Its taught us to be different, to challenge the law, to respect each other's rights, and to value our individuality. Success doesn't strictly mean getting on TV. It's fighting for the truth that counts. It just sucks he or the punk movement doesn't get enough credit. In general, punk has always advocated this and I'm happy it came about when it did. Now is the time to learn from it. This is what we should consider if we are to face the biggest challenges of today, including breaking ourselves free from the slavery of media.

sorry for getting all philosophical and shit towards the end but I just found this talk really mind-spurring.

And still relating to the topic of this thread, i'd fancy anything green day puts out in the face of the really safe popular music that's out there now.

[Ham Pascale]

3 hours ago, SmoothedOut said:

I don't think anyone can prove it exactly. All I can do is speak within the context of my age. Let's say I'm just using the word "punk" to refer to such individuals because that's how the world around me has defined them to be. Perhaps every great artist in the past was "punk". Da Vinci, Mozart, Van Gogh. I am forced to call them the first "punks" even though they were not the first "Van Goghs" simply because that's the language of today. I believe we're on the same page. I agree when people say Elvis Presley or Chuck Berry were the first real "punks".

That's not really what I was trying to say - there were quite a few people who had defined themselves, their outlook on life and art as "punk", long before Sex Pistols came into picture. But, yes, you are right indeed.

3 hours ago, SmoothedOut said:

I don't know about the other Pistols, but I don't think Lydon was looking to head any movement. In fact, he believed that if people didn't worship bands like them or follow any sort of movement, people would be as diverse and as free as they possibly could be. Because there'd be no authoritive figure. People can just get on with what they want to do without getting lambasted for it. He thinks that the media as an establishment shouldn't exist. The philosophy I take from him is that people should value their individuality and of others. Anything related to the media is a sham because how the media defines people is not how they naturally are. The media creates stereotypes, hierarchies... war, hatred.

Well, I wasn't there and I don't know what was going on in his head, really. And, I think that it is not possible to have any restrictions at all. "People can just get on with what they want to do without getting lambasted for it." I think this opens even more ways for people who see everyone else as a potential asset to their needs - and I'm not even talking about murder and terrorism. That way, they are expressing their indviduality - and, following this philosophy, there is no wrong type of individuality. They can get away with every fucked up thing they do - and that's what we kind of tried to eliminate. So, what do we do?

Media generates a lot of bullshit, yes. But if John Lydon opposes media so much, how come he appears on talk shows and gives interviews to big glossy rock magazines? The man has the resources not to do that anymore, and I must note he is very good at doing it. He strikes me as a pretentious person on so many levels, you won't even know where's the real him and where's not. You know, Lydon's grand big speeches about how corrupt media have become dime a dozen, because he is like a broken record - always droning on and on about this. He says the right things, but, you know, I get an impression that he can't channel his frustrations and lets the anger get the best of him constantly. And, as a result, he comes off as an obnoxious dingbat.

It doesn't matter who he was in 1977. Who he has become in 2015 is what really matters. And he chose to become a person who lives off his past glories and is being a total douche about it.

5 hours ago, SmoothedOut said:

Until the idea that "punk" was just some movement of the 70s lead by a bunch of bands trying to make money is corrected, we'll never see it as a solution to anything. Yes, society is crooked and corrupt and that's why we need cataclysts, heroes, and artists who will go out of their way to speak the truth. But I really think the word "punk" in essence means cataclyst; consumerism just took the idea to make money off of it through fashion, music, shows. The media makes us believe that "it's cool to be anti-establishment"; but it never tells us that the media itself could be an enemy. Even the Ramones and Sex Pistols didn't want to label themselves "punk". They were being them - and not more garbage to sell. What I'm trying to say is, the world as we know it today - ruled by the media - is more dangerous and manipulative than we think. That's why I think there's something special in bands who don't want to call themselves bands...

That's why I try to stay as far away from 70's punk as possible, especially Sex Pistols. I might just even go as far as saying that punk had its real start in the 80's. I'd say 80's punk is superior to 70's punk, being more smarter, more interesting, more dynamic and more, I don't know, DIY? 

You know, whatever device you use for writing on this forum was manufactured by an "evil corporation" and Internet providers are corrupt as hell too. Almost everything we own is produced by corporations. And now you're telling me that media and corporation are evil. What you're trying to say is right, but, unfortunately, is also very redundant. It all has been said at one point or another, by different people - thoughts behind it are exactly the same, only words are different. But each one of them thinks they are the real deal here and others are just "sheeple" who need someone to preach the scary truth for them, no insult intended. But that's the nature of us humans - we are exactly the same for trying to be different. And you can't just run away from it.

[That Dude]

Oh god, the "punk rock argument" again.  I was going to make this big rant about how it's 2015 and we need finally let that garbage go.   But it wouldn't do any good.  Some of you would falsely label me a punk god while others would call me a sell out and the whole freaking cycle starts again.  What is punk?  Who is punk?  If you claim not to be then you are.  If you say you are, you aren't.  if you sell too many records you aren't, if you don't sell enough records you didn't really break the punk mold so therefore aren't punk.................AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGH.

How about as people, we listen to music.  If we like it - great.   If we hate it - great.   

Green Day should release the album they feel like making, and if everyone on GDA hates it, then who cares???!!!!

Green Day albums are like politicians (this sounds like a bad joke, haha).  Get it?    

I'm so punk rock.  

Rant I wasn't going to do, done.  

            

 

 

[SmoothedOut]

5 hours ago, Ham Pascale said:

Well, I wasn't there and I don't know what was going on in his head, really. And, I think that it is not possible to have any restrictions at all. "People can just get on with what they want to do without getting lambasted for it." I think this opens even more ways for people who see everyone else as a potential asset to their needs - and I'm not even talking about murder and terrorism. That way, they are expressing their indviduality - and, following this philosophy, there is no wrong type of individuality. They can get away with every fucked up thing they do - and that's what we kind of tried to eliminate. So, what do we do?

You forgot about the part of valuing others individuality as well as our own. How I see it is that people should accept that we are all different. And even then we should help each other achieve our desires as long as they're good. That's why murderers and terrorists are always an exemption to this rule because they're occupied with killing life. If it's a good end you're trying to reach, go for it. And the ends don't justify the means. The problem is that media is so powerful it dictates what's cool, what's fashionable, what's in... and in the end everyone's view of the good and bad is so petty and narrow (ex. stupid rivalries between fanbases). Lydon's never been one to glorify death and the "rock and roll life" (ex. deaths of Sid and Cobain). It's all a sham.

 

5 hours ago, Ham Pascale said:

You know, whatever device you use for writing on this forum was manufactured by an "evil corporation" and Internet providers are corrupt as hell too. Almost everything we own is produced by corporations. And now you're telling me that media and corporation are evil. What you're trying to say is right, but, unfortunately, is also very redundant. It all has been said at one point or another, by different people - thoughts behind it are exactly the same, only words are different. But each one of them thinks they are the real deal here and others are just "sheeple" who need someone to preach the scary truth for them, no insult intended. But that's the nature of us humans - we are exactly the same for trying to be different. And you can't just run away from it.

I know what you mean. Yes, we can't just run away from it. But that's also why we keep fighting it. We have to keep fighting it. Living is a fight to the death. Imagine if we just sat there and did nothing? The media a successful dictator of our minds? The media can tell us to stop fighting because it was "last decade's movement" or "it's out of style to be different". The Media is a dictator that hides itself behind cute slogans and sweet tunes. John Lydon, out of all punk icons, has communicated this idea to me the most and it's a shame he and punk rock doesn't get that credit from today's so-called "progressive artists". But we'll see in time anyway... Thank goodness for artists of our time who have stood up and fought.

I guess writing on this forum is the only way I can communicate with you really. I do, however, feel the urge to chuck my laptop out the window and I long to connect with everyone in person. I guess that's what all of us want. Yes, they're old ideas. And I don't know whether or not I'm ready for a drastic change in the world. But I do know we have to keep fighting for those ideas. Thus bands who have advocated change in the past century, flawed in their philosophies or not, should be given the limelight once again by those who followed them. You and I understand punk in its essence, so it's probably our responsibility to say, hey "punk did way more than what the indie scene is trying to do" for the sake of continuing that fight. Again there's a flaw in that philosophy but it's the thought that counts. It sickens me when a scene poses as "rebellious" when it's really not. We need to start valueing what punk music meant again...

Whatever it is we're trying to achieve, whether it's killing the media forever or some other thing, has been fought for by every nonconformist artist (post-1950s) that has ever existed. They're screaming "don't believe the world" (parents suck, TV sucks, I don't want to live in the modern world, let's dance). And yet they scream it for the media, just to make a living. There's hypocrisy in that, yes. They're screaming behind moderated walls and people aren't getting the message. But the fact that they're doing it anyway means we're naturally free people but something is crippling us. Artists and people are crippled now more than ever and it's so hard to see it. I just want to thank punk rock for letting me in on this view and this is why I think it should return musically. Its legacy deserves more than just a place in some Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. We can't allow people to just brush it off like it was last year's music...

One day people won't have to depend on the media telling them how to live in the way it's telling them now.

[Hermione]

The discussion has gone pretty far off topic in here (and I doubt anyone's likely to change their opinion on this subject anyway ), let's get back to the subject of how you'd like Green Day's next record to sound.