Green Day

tohostudios wrote:

Painkiller wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Nah, Green Day is way too upbeat for those mopey emo kids.

Regardless, I think calling them a "punk" band is being too kind. They certainly have more in common with alternative rock than pure punk rock (think of Samhain).

Yeah, now that I can agree with; I wouldn't call Green Day punk.  But here's a question for you PK, how would you classify the music of The Misfits?  Most consider them a seminal punk band yet to me they sound a lot like Green Day with horror lyrics. 

Punk to me is stuff like The Germs, UK Subs, Dead Kennedys, Rancid etc.  I'm not sure I'd even call The Ramones "punk" now; they also have a lot in common with Green Day IMO.

Green Day was punk, just a different shade of it. And musically no different than most classic punk bands. Now, however, they're a kind of mish-mash of different styles. Some of their more recent material strays into other genres a bit, like the acoustic songs and the more alt-rock tracks like "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" and "21 Guns." Still, overall I'd say their stuff is mostly well within the realm of punk rock.

Either way, I think they're a great band.

Too bad EmoElmo hasn't been around to set Wordkiller straight.

Boris2008 wrote:

Green Day were at one time, absolutely considered punk, but they deliberately threw that away as they saw the possibility of $$$$$ on the horizon. My problem with them isn't that they signed a major deal and made a whole heap of radio friendly albums, that is their right and no big deal. It's the fact that they aligned themselves so closely to that whole Gilman St scene (which was the complete opposite of that) in the early days, they really did use that scene to get a name and then dumped the whole idea when people came in with money.

They will always be considered sell outs by punks because that's what they are. But it's got very little to do with the music they make.  

I've heard this before, and it's total bullshit. They got popular by playing the same shit they were playing from day one. They didn't begin to evolve their sound until much later in their career, and even then it wasn't drastic, it was clearly artistic. Just natural musical evolution that reflects natural personal evolution.



That's from 1989. Besides recording quality, what's the difference? Or are you suggesting they sold out because they're no longer dirt-poor like all their scenester paint-huffing fans still are?

Eyesore wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

Green Day were at one time, absolutely considered punk, but they deliberately threw that away as they saw the possibility of $$$$$ on the horizon. My problem with them isn't that they signed a major deal and made a whole heap of radio friendly albums, that is their right and no big deal. It's the fact that they aligned themselves so closely to that whole Gilman St scene (which was the complete opposite of that) in the early days, they really did use that scene to get a name and then dumped the whole idea when people came in with money.

They will always be considered sell outs by punks because that's what they are. But it's got very little to do with the music they make.  

I've heard this before, and it's total bullshit. They got popular by playing the same shit they were playing from day one. They didn't begin to evolve their sound until much later in their career, and even then it wasn't drastic, it was clearly artistic. Just natural musical evolution that reflects natural personal evolution.





That's from 1989. Besides recording quality, what's the difference? Or are you suggesting they sold out because they're no longer dirt-poor like all their scenester paint-huffing fans still are?

Think that you need to read what i've written before declaring it 'total bullshit' I never at any point claimed that they sold out by changing their sound. I said the opposite. Fact is that they are considered sell outs because they were part of scene that hated the major labels and cash grab bands, it was their choice to be a big part of that Gilman St scene and as such they took on the principles of it, got the owners and patrons of that club to help them fund their first couple of records and along with Operation Ivy were virtually a house band of that club. then when they had built up a large underground following, they signed a major deal and were subsequently banned from ever performing at the Gilman ever again. It could be argued that they would not have hit big if they had stayed indie but that really wasn't supposed to be the point.

It also has absolutely nothing to do with making money. Rancid and Nofx all sold plenty of records and made plenty of money, but they stayed within the DIY principle that all of those bands supposedly believed in, Green Day said that they believed in it, but obviously didn't.

Now, what part of that is total bullshit?

.

Boris2008 wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

Green Day were at one time, absolutely considered punk, but they deliberately threw that away as they saw the possibility of $$$$$ on the horizon. My problem with them isn't that they signed a major deal and made a whole heap of radio friendly albums, that is their right and no big deal. It's the fact that they aligned themselves so closely to that whole Gilman St scene (which was the complete opposite of that) in the early days, they really did use that scene to get a name and then dumped the whole idea when people came in with money.

They will always be considered sell outs by punks because that's what they are. But it's got very little to do with the music they make.  

I've heard this before, and it's total bullshit. They got popular by playing the same shit they were playing from day one. They didn't begin to evolve their sound until much later in their career, and even then it wasn't drastic, it was clearly artistic. Just natural musical evolution that reflects natural personal evolution.



That's from 1989. Besides recording quality, what's the difference? Or are you suggesting they sold out because they're no longer dirt-poor like all their scenester paint-huffing fans still are?

Think that you need to read what i've written before declaring it 'total bullshit' I never at any point claimed that they sold out by changing their sound. I said the opposite. Fact is that they are considered sell outs because they were part of scene that hated the major labels and cash grab bands, it was their choice to be a big part of that Gilman St scene and as such they took on the principles of it, got the owners and patrons of that club to help them fund their first couple of records and along with Operation Ivy were virtually a house band of that club. then when they had built up a large underground following, they signed a major deal and were subsequently banned from ever performing at the Gilman ever again. It could be argued that they would not have hit big if they had stayed indie but that really wasn't supposed to be the point.

It also has absolutely nothing to do with making money. Rancid and Nofx all sold plenty of records and made plenty of money, but they stayed within the DIY principle that all of those bands supposedly believed in, Green Day said that they believed in it, but obviously didn't.

Now, what part of that is total bullshit?

Settle down. I read what you wrote, including the part about them making a "whole heap of radio friendly albums," suggesting they altered their sound, which is what a lot of people suggest. Thus, you got the first part of my post.

As for what part is bullshit. All of it. You're talking about kids. Literally. How old were the guys in Green Day when they "sold out?" Twenty, maybe 21? Just because Rancid stayed on Epitaph is meaningless, especially considering that Epitaph Records is a huge label.

You are arguing the rights and wrongs of being on a major label and that's completely the wrong way of looking at it. I haven't said that signing with a major label constitutes selling out, Green Day did! I think that the Gilman St guys are elitist assholes, but Green Day bought into it and were proudly under that banner, until it suited them not to be. It's like if some TV evangelist who's made his name calling us all sinners, gets caught with a truck load of coke and half a dozen hookers, it's always going to have a lot more impact than if Tommy Lee gets caught doing the same because total hypocrisy is involved.

Epitaph is a huge label, but it didn't used to be, it's gotten big because many of the bands in that scene went with them and sold an awful lot of records, but it still operates under the principles that they had as a small indie label, I see no problem with the fact that they have been successful in what they do.

I also don't see any problem with me saying that Green Day have made radio friendly albums that have progressively moved away from catchy pop punk towards a more pop rock sound designed to appeal to a wider and longer lasting fan base, that's exactly what they have done, I also said that has absolutely nothing to do with why they are considered sell outs.

If you go back to what I originally said, I've got no real problem with Green Day (apart from them being a bit boring these days) but I don't consider them punk.

Painkiller wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Sure, if you don't know shit about music.

I only know about good music.

and how do you define 'good' music??

.

Painkiller wrote:

exact33 wrote:

and how do you define 'good' music??

Music that isn't made by Green Day.

So Miley Cyrus & Taylor Swift is good music then?

Glad we've got that cleared up!   

.

Boris2008 wrote:

You are arguing the rights and wrongs of being on a major label and that's completely the wrong way of looking at it. I haven't said that signing with a major label constitutes selling out, Green Day did! I think that the Gilman St guys are elitist assholes, but Green Day bought into it and were proudly under that banner, until it suited them not to be. It's like if some TV evangelist who's made his name calling us all sinners, gets caught with a truck load of coke and half a dozen hookers, it's always going to have a lot more impact than if Tommy Lee gets caught doing the same because total hypocrisy is involved.

Epitaph is a huge label, but it didn't used to be, it's gotten big because many of the bands in that scene went with them and sold an awful lot of records, but it still operates under the principles that they had as a small indie label, I see no problem with the fact that they have been successful in what they do.

I also don't see any problem with me saying that Green Day have made radio friendly albums that have progressively moved away from catchy pop punk towards a more pop rock sound designed to appeal to a wider and longer lasting fan base, that's exactly what they have done, I also said that has absolutely nothing to do with why they are considered sell outs.

If you go back to what I originally said, I've got no real problem with Green Day (apart from them being a bit boring these days) but I don't consider them punk.

And like I said, you're talking about something kids did...

And I'd planned to write more but now I have a baby in my arms and typing one-handed is annoying. Haha.

Eyesore wrote:

And I'd planned to write more but now I have a baby in my arms and typing one-handed is annoying. Haha.

I've heard of people snacking at the computer, but that's really taking it to the next level...

Runicen wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

And I'd planned to write more but now I have a baby in my arms and typing one-handed is annoying. Haha.

I've heard of people snacking at the computer, but that's really taking it to the next level...

I work from home, so I have no choice. It was better when he just sat there and drooled. Now he's grabbing everything, mashing the keyboard. He just figured out how to make my standing desk go up and down, so that's a struggle keeping him away from the controls. Haha.

Sorry, I made a really poorly aimed baby-eating joke that didn't end up working anyway.

Might be easier to find him a piece of tech to mess with - maybe find an old, cheap mixer. Seriously, as a kid that would have dazzled me for hours with all those buttons and sliders.

Who am I kidding? I'm STILL dazzled by buttons and sliders. Bonus points if they are automated and/or light up.

Painkiller wrote:

exact33 wrote:

and how do you define 'good' music??

Music that isn't made by Green Day.

Well i guess now that you have come down from on high and told them they are no good they can disband   

Seriously dude - it music. Don't embarrass yourself so much over it.

.

tohostudios wrote:

Yeah, I don't think pop punk has much in common with emo at all.  Most pop punk lyrics are like metal lyrics, sex, drugs and rock n roll (no dragons though).  Emo is all this whiney, angsty stuff; way too downbeat to go with the uptempo melodies of pop punk or power pop.

The only thing I know about emo is that my 14 year old niece likes it and her emo boyfriend wears the same kind of make-up she does. Still, better than listening to Miley Cyrus, One Direction, or Justin Bieber, which she really hates.

Painkiller wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Well i guess now that you have come down from on high and told them they are no good they can disband   

Seriously dude - it music. Don't embarrass yourself so much over it.

Was I even taking this whole thing seriously from the get-go?

i don't know what you are trying to do but you end up embarrassing yourself a lot here. If you don't like something, fine. don't listen to it!

I'm probably wading into waters I shouldn't, but I never would have survived in nature, so that hasn't stopped me before...

Ultimately, Green Day leaves me cold in that they seem to try to mix the commercialism of a band like Kiss, which is fine for Kiss, but which comes off really opportunistic in punk. Punk, at least to me, sort of follows what John Lydon has always said about it, which is that it was about being yourself. There wasn't SUPPOSED to be a set sound or uniform or whatever and that's why post-punk really seemed to carry the spirit of the initial movement better than the so-called punk acts that kept rolling with the same sound, same image, etc. and who seemed totally ok with their fans emulating them exactly.

Green Day really rode that wave hard, especially when they first broke. Maybe it's kind of ephemeral and not really a musical reason to dislike them, but I can deal with fantasy and insincerity when someone's adopting a character. I have a really difficult time dealing with someone trying to pull a Bono and being the rich rock star who is supposed to be believed to be socially conscious and engaged while farting off to a mansion and having histrionic fits on stage because of an addiction to prescription painkillers or whatever that the average person couldn't afford to start.

My view may be completely incorrect, but that's the series of impressions I've gotten of GD as they've sort of developed.

My 9 year old has recently discovered Green Day - he seemed surprised that I knew who they were, I guess he thought they were a "new" band

Green Day are pretty good. I've kind of lost track of them after American Idiot, but i like the stuff up to and including that album, though personally my favorite album by them is Insomniac.

My son (see my previous post) scored a copy of Green Day's "Bullet in a Bible" live CD/DVD combo at a library sale this afternoon.

So his music collection now consists of that and Metallica's "Ride the Lightning," which I bought for him a few weeks ago so he'd quit stealing my copy. My wife is like "Great, another pack rat."

I recently revisited both GD cds I own, Dookie and Nimrod, and while I found them enjoyable enough, neither one inspired me to either seek out more Green Day or even keep the ones I own. Once I rip them, I think both will be destined to the "sell" pile. Maybe.

I find myself listening to Dookie from time to time. I think that's more of a nostalgic thing for me though. I always loved the Dookie album art.