45 replies to this topic

[death by cheez]

That is just one song as an example. And Rambo, was that meant to be offensive? If so, then thanks because I don't care what people like you think. I had a kid start a huge rumor about me being gay (WHICH I AM NOT) at school and I did nothing. At least until he made a crack about my family. Then I beat the crap out of him.

Edited by death by cheez, 09 February 2009 - 04:43 PM.

[sam]

death by cheez, on Feb 9 2009, 01:43 PM, said:

1. That is just one song as an example.
2. And Rambo, was that meant to be offensive? If so, then thanks because I don't care what people like you think.
3. I had a kid start a huge rumor about me being gay (WHICH I AM NOT) at school and I did nothing.

1. Its perfect example on teen angst bullshit.
2. I don't believe it was meant to offend so much as you didn't recognize my sarcasm, thus making you look stupid and eventually feel stupid.
3. You did nothing at school, but you made sure to let a bunch of people you don't know on the Internet know that you aren't gay. Good for you.

Honestly there isn't much difference between Miley Cyrus and Blink 182 in my mind. Sure they play different music, but they are both rather shitty, and not very talented. They are popular, not talented, there is a difference. They are popular becasue you are told to like them by MTV, VH1, PBS and whatever you young people watch these days.

EDIT:
Fuck, I just got into an argument with my 999th post. I'll just say a few more things:
1. You don't have to have talent to be famous and make millions. Look at damn near everything on MTV/Radio/etc.
2. Being on Guitar Hero doesn't make you good, or mean in any way that you are talented.
3. Horny school girls don't make these guys money. Its angsty teens who believe that this music speaks to them.

Edited by sam, 09 February 2009 - 07:51 PM.

[rork]

Blink-182 is an imitation of an imitation of actual punk. On the other hand, whatever it takes to lure the kiddies away from emo is an improvement, I suppose...

[Merzlin]

I don't get why people keep on saying they aren't talented. Heck, you don't have to like them to be talented, and I'm pretty sure they're more talented than you, seeing they're on the stage making thousands.

[boom]

Merzlin, on Feb 9 2009, 04:13 PM, said:

I don't get why people keep on saying they aren't talented. Heck, you don't have to like them to be talented, and I'm pretty sure they're more talented than you, seeing they're on the stage making thousands.

Yes they may be making thousands but it is from horny school girls and a couple of homosexuals.

[slowguitarman]

Popularity =/= talent. Blink 182 is not musically talented. Compare their guitar riffs to a band like Racer X or even something like Coheed and Cambria. Srumming power chords and plucking a single note doesn't make you good. You don't even need to shred to be musically talented. Putting thought into your music and making that apparent is what talent is.

[boom]

Wow someone finaly agrees with me.

[raw shrimp]

I really tried to not post in this thread, but after the number of people that made blink-182 references to them being punk , I had to intervene, becuase, they are not. Any one that really is a fan of punk, real punk, would be able to tell you that they are not. And playing power chords may be all you need to make a good song.

[SirTofu]

Punk Died in the 80's.

For Real.

[deaddumpster]

I'm sorry, punk?

No, try listening to the Misfits, The Ramones, The Sex Pistols, The Dayglo Abortions. THAT is punk.

Blink-182 is "Pop-Punk"

[washedup]

No, I'm thinkin bubble-gum emo at best.

[VACC]

A rule of thumb is pretty much that if they conform enough to the musical status quo to recieve ample airtime to build a large and diverse fan base....they're probably not punk. Whining about your girlfriend or your allowance is not societal rebellion. It's just whining.

That's not to say that they are not talented or do not play good music. I may not be a hug fan, but that's not the point of my comments, nor am I calling into judgement the taste of those who do like them. I'm just concurring with dumpster on the notion that they cannot be fairly categorized as "punk" in the spirit of what punk music originally represented.

[imaseoulman]

I find this entire thread completely hilarious. I never even knew that anybody even thought of Blink-182 as "Punk." I'm not a fan of the group, though they have their niche. I just really think it's funny that people freak out when you insult their "gods of music."

If you want to listen to REAL PUNK check out New Found Glory!!! Manliest punk band ever!

[slowguitarman]

boom, on Feb 9 2009, 08:10 PM, said:

Wow someone finaly agrees with me.

Wow...I really hope you weren't referring to me.

[Carbon]

slowguitarman, on Feb 9 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

Popularity =/= talent. Blink 182 is not musically talented. Compare their guitar riffs to a band like Racer X or even something like Coheed and Cambria. Srumming power chords and plucking a single note doesn't make you good. You don't even need to shred to be musically talented. Putting thought into your music and making that apparent is what talent is.

Take that, Johnny Ramone!

Popularity doesn't necessarily equal talent, but popularity can come about because of it. I can't believe I'm speaking in defense of Blink-182 here, but...

Contrary to popular belief, crafting catchy pop melodies takes musical talent, regardless of complexity. Not every successful band is such because of a massive marketing campaign (although that helps). Sometimes they're popular because they're catchy, and consistently so. Flavor of the day bands with little talent tend to fade quickly. Blink-182 is technically simple, but use those power chords to good effect. Are they the second coming? No, but I think they're fun to listen to, and certainly aren't one hit wonders.

Flash in the pan success seems to be pretty common for pop punk (most of the bands in the genre are pretty disposable), but consistent catchiness requires talent. As another example of "nothing wrong with being simple", Green Day is entering their third decade...which still blows my mind (never expected them to last past 2000). Simple, simple music, but it's catchy...which has lead them to popularity. That's musical talent.

[slowguitarman]

Apparently, you don't understand what I'm saying, so I am going to just stop trying to get my point across.

[DJ Mashbot]

Musical talent comes in a couple forms. There's the knowledge side of it, where producers arrange riffs, melodies and hooks to make an appealing song, which is really where marketing comes into play. Then there's the talent to actually play the music, which is where musical artistry comes into it. As far as Blink 182 is concerned, though.... who cares? When it comes to music, listen to whatthehellever you enjoy.

[rork]

Comparing Blink-182 to a prog-metal outfit like Coheed & Cambria is...misleading. I'm not saying they're good; I'm saying that they're (as Carbon says) an inferior grade of pop-punk, and not even close to real punk, like the Sex Pistols or whatever. Comparing the Sex Pistols to Coheed and Cambria on the basis of pure technicality would result in an inferior grade for the Sex Pistols, but the fact remains that they are undoubtedly a great, hugely influential band. There's more to music than technical prowess; Trent Reznor can conjure more dread out of static, distorted synths, and whispering than most Black metal bands can coax from a band, a choir, an orchestra, and 3 fake copies of the Necronomicon.

And Washedup: I like neither, but "emo" refers to a whole spectrum of masturbatory non-music that light, amusing wankers like Blink-182 do not belong to, sucky though they may be.

[Crankymonky]

Are people really going to whine about them again?

They are fun to listen to. Despite Mark Hoppus' stage demeanor being quite the opposite of what is recommended for a bassist, his shows are quite entertaining. Their last album was quite good and I hope their future stuff goes down that route.

If you want to talk about the punk thing, if air time is a determining factor, and the Ramones, Sex Pistols, and Clash created the genre, clearly being popular is not saying you aren't rebelling against society, just that people like listening to your music. Air time would relate more to "indie" - independent, since bands without air time don't get record contracts, thus they are independent.

Unless you want to be an elitist punk-music aficionado. But I'll stick to accepting all types of music, regardless of air time or fan base.

Would I say Blink is punk? No. Would they? I doubt it. None of their songs talk about any form of rebellion, they tend to stick to childish humor and songs about girls.

Would I call Green Day punk? Why not, lots of their music is a social commentary.

Can the world get over the whole "you can't be popular to be punk" thing? It's about a certain message, not about how many people hear the message. Last time I checked, it's still a protest whether there are 10 people or 10,000,000 people protesting. And isn't that the concept of punk music? So remember, God Save the Queen.

[TantumBull]

Have you guys ever realized that people have opinions, so what one person considers awesome, the next person might hate?

Lu-lu-lu-lu-lu-lu-lu There's a sign post up ahead, next stop: the twighlight zone! bup-a-da-bup-a-da-bup

Wow, that line fails on the internet.

Edited by TantumBull, 12 February 2009 - 12:49 AM.

[Greed]

Update: go to my arguing about music thread, so the people who like the band can have their fun here.

Edited by Greed, 22 February 2009 - 04:19 PM.