Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Does anybody else get annoyed when they see Blink 182, Sum 41, Good Charlotte, Avril Levigne, or any of these other cute little pop acts?.........god they get on my nerves.

They are all tatted up.......their hair is dyed blue.......heads are shaved with mohawks........pierced all over wearing leather and chains..........

I get all psyched.......these guys look hardcore.......I think I'll give them a listen to......


then they grab the mic and bust into a pop song.......whining about this......singing about crap 12 year old girls care about......all while keeping on key to their crappy little pop melody........

Some of these bands I mentioned actually call themselves punk? Okay.....I know that their twelve year old female audiences don't know what punk is because they are too young and just think punk is cool but c'mon.........who do these bands think they are fooling? Don't they realize that every other person on this earth who isn't a twelve year old girl is laughing at them?


By the way........when did A.F.I. start sucking? I used to love A.F.I........that was punk..........anyway, I catch their video being played the other day, and this was NOT punk.......it was some slow sappy song. God........must everybody sell their soul for a gold album?

Next time you see some little kid with a red mohawk wearing a "Good Charlotte" t shirt .......tell him to go buy a Sex Pistols, Germs, Misfits, Corporate Avenger t-shirt so he won't be laughed at by his unknowing sponsorship of corporate pop.

I think the problem is that bands like Blink 182 et al see themselves as the new version of punk because they've got a similar image. Although I haven't seen many of their fans walking around sporting a proper mohawk, bomber jacket, and safety pin through their noses attached to a chain, fixed to their ear piercings!

image has nothing to do with it..........surely they know thier music is just plain ol' pop music..........I think they use their image to try to convince 12 year old girls that "we're what punk is and punk is cool so we're cool" because those little girls don't know any better.

I mean c'mon.........Johnny Rotten is probably one of the most punk, I don't give a **** about anybody else people who has ever lived..........he used to wear teddy boy suits with neckties........image has nothing to do with it.......it's about the music.......and those bands are pop music straight up.

It is because 12 year olds spend a lot of their parents money on the music
For the industry it is all about the money, always has, always will

Sad thing is that these bands were like this before they were part of "the industry"...........I've seen those "before they were stars" type segments on VH1 and MTV before on Sum 41 and Good Charlotte.......they were the same bands when they were nobodies playing in their garage..........the industry didn't change them (coughgreendaycough)..........I think these people so desperately want to be thought of as cool so they pretend to be something they aren't.........

Word!

anyone who makes a statement with their look is a poswer to me, if they were intelegent they could make said statement with their words. the.

Why must everyone think they're "generic" and/or "made up" by the music industry. Everyone ASSUMES this about all these bands. Um here's a NEW thought THEY LIKE TO PLAY THAT TYPE OF MUSIC AND THEY LIKE TO WEAR THAT TYPE OF CLOTHING, AND THEY LIKE TO SING ABOUT THAT TYPE OF STUFF.

And their music lives on in other bands because kids hear them, like them, and want to play like them. so they do that, then a new band starts, they may or may not become popular and the cycle continues. This happens with all genres of music.

people say that because they seem to be following a trend. one band will come out with a certain style and look, then alot of other bands will conviniently emerge from obscurity for a few months, singing about the same tired subjects all at the same time. then another fadd will come about and all the members of the previous fadd will fade back into obscurity, you cant help but think that they were simply processed by the music companies to capitolize one whatever current trend is 'in'. thats why teh good bands last for years and years, metalica, korn, tool, slayer, pantera, they are orginals and were never made in order to cater to the popularity of their genre.

Um again bands are "made to cater to the popularity of the genre" people listen to a certain band, they like it and can relate to it so they decide to follow in that type of music. And EVERY band sings about the same subject over time. It's their type of music. A lot of the music in the 60's (you know the hippy fade) sings about a lot of the same shit, but yet this music is considered original and great music. This is just a new generation with a new sound and new issues that they want to address. That simple

yet the sound is not new, the issues are not new. if bands arent created in order to capitolize on the popularity of a current fad, then explain blink 182, good charlette, linkin park and other bands that have no distinctive qualities. they were all produced by the music companies to make money, nothing more, too put it another way, if it werent for the popularity of the type of music they play, they would not have a career, because most of them do not have any real talent, other then copying a sound that already exists. and no, good bands do not sing about the same subject over and over, the bands that do have no depth and range.

Where's your proof that blink-182, good charlotte, linkin park and "other bands" were manufactored by the music industry? Oh you have none, cause it's all ASSUMPTIONS because you don't like the music...oh ok.

Oh and did you know that a few years back good charlotte wasn't even heard of, and did you know that blink-182 had albums before enema of the state, or even dude ranch(i know you know this, i'm just making a point) these bands didn;t get popular off their first album. Fans found their music and THEN they became popular because people liked them. That simple

they became popular because mtv played their music and they deemed them as "buzzworthy". im well aware that many of the bands werent well known from the start, what i am saying. they were however forced into the publics eye because of the popularity of their genre. and something you need to learn at your young age, popularity does not make a band good. some of the best bands are not popular, because they do not want to sell out and whore themselves to mtv in order to make money, making good music is what they are interested in, not making money.

...dude, something you need to learn is that just because a band becomes popular doesn't mean they "sold out." "selling out" is such a overused and dumbass term. And again the only evidence to back up saying a "band sold out" is assumptions about the band, and assumptions aren't facts/evidence. Therefore your argument has no credibility

you're right, not all bands that are popular sell out, however, bands that get played on mtv contantly in order to get popular are sell outs. mtv has pretty much all the power over what is popular and what isnt. if you want facts, here it is, blink 182 got populer when they went on mtv and SOLD OUT in order to get popular, if they had any confidence or respect for themselves musically, they would have done it the same way tool or korn or slayer or pantera did, by relying on word of mouth from fans of their music. linkin park is the same, they got popular as soon as mtv said they were buzzworthy and started playing their videos nonstop because the genre of the music the bands happened to make was popular. heres a question for you, do you think good charllete, blink 182 or linkin park would be as popular as they are if it werent to mtv? no of course not. they knew that their band didnt stand out in any particular way, and that hardcore fans of their genre wouldnt buy them, so they needed to reach out to the mediocre fans through mtv in order to get a name.

Um I heard of linkin park, blink-182 way before they were played on mtv, and loved them. I also bought the first good charlotte cd(also way before they were played on mtv) Mtv is watched by millions yes. And it's a way for bands to become popular. Now why do you say they "sold out?" Did they change their music to become popular? Their's only a few people who can answer that. And that's the people in the band. And that's your only outlook for FACTS, everything else is just heresay.

you seem to be missing my point, whether or not they changed their music is irrelevent. the fact that they relied soley on mtv to become popular, completely giving up on word of mouth shows me that they dont have belief in their musical ability. it makes me think that they felt they needed mtv to become popular, rather then letting their music or their fans spread their name. plus, there are no facts in this discussion, so stop using that as a defense, it is irrelevent.

Exactly their are no facts. It's not a defense it's logic. You can't make a valid statement about how these bands "suck" and i can't make a valid statement about how they "don't suck." I like the bands(along with a lot of others), you don't like the bands(along with a lot of others) so why do we constantly keep having to trash other people's music. I only trash others musics when my music gets trashed.

And again how do you know that these bands relied on mtv to get popular? Do you have any FACTS that they didn't also rely on word of mouth.

yes, because they got popular as soon as mtv started playing their music. plus all my statements have been valid, but you dont have any defense for these bands other then asking me to state facts, which dont exist. thus i am defending my opinion so you can understand why i say the things i do about the bands, which you seem to be conveniently ignoring in order to ask for facts. if you were a good debater you could make statements about why these bands dont suck, other then asking for facts that arent there

...DUDE! LOOK WHAT YOU JUST WROTE..."FACTS THAT AREN'T THERE" !!! EXACTLY! You can't defend jack squat without facts man. You think the bands suck, but that doesn't mean they actually suck. I think the bands are great, but that doesn't mean they actually are great.

if you rely on facts to argue for you then you are in the wrong forum, you're discussions will lose credibility very quickly if you are going to jump on everyones back for not having facts to back up their opinion. heres what one of you're discussions will look like

"this movie sucks"

"oh, do you have facts to prove it?"

"of course not, the acting was just bad and the dialogue was retarded"

"you dont have facts!! you're argument isnt valid"

"what are you talking about? the movie was just bad, there arent any facts that can prove it, it isnt a scientific methond"

"do you have any facts to prove it? what if it is a scientific methond, wheres your FACTS"

"im gonna go now..."


get used to it, thats what you're discussions will look like, all the discussions that occur here are about peoples different opinions, if you cant defend an opinion without trying to make the other person give facts that cant be presented, then why even be here. and before you ask, no i dont have any facts to back this statement up.

Dude, i wouldn't reply exactly like how u posted. If a person said "the acting was just bad, and the dialogue was retarded" i'd say "prove it" and the point is that like you said it can't be proven. So therefore you yourself don't have an argument.

The reason i use the "facts" to argue is because people are always so arrogant to think their musical taste or movies taste etc etc is superior to others.

And if i was so "defend an opinion without trying to make the other person give facts that cant be presented"(as you stated) then i'd be forced to rely on the common judgement of whats good and bad, etc. And just because this is commonly excepted doesn't mean it's right.

so in other words you arent ever going to be good at debating.

...define good...i'm debating write now, and you can't prove me wrong. Therefore based the "common perception of good debating" i actually am very good at debating

prove it.

prove what?

that you're good at debating.

first define good

not relying on facts to prove you're points.

...then based on your defintion of "good" i'm a horrible debator. But that's just your opinion isn't it backfire?

no its common sense, because any idiot can do what you do, as i am proving and as you proved in this thread.

Define "common sense" and define "idiot" and explain why i am an idiot.

You can't do any of these things and refuse to even try, therefore you're the idiot. Oh but this is just an opinion, as is whatever comes out of your mouth/whatever you type.

you are an idiot because you rely on facts that arent their to argue for you. you cannot defend an opinion without them obviously.

it all ties back to my belief system. And believe me it's hard to argue against it. I used the same kind of thing to debate the war in iraq. again, i'm tired and i'm going to bed, c ya

ive done a pretty good job against it today, i on one hand, gave reasons why i dont like you're music, so that you could mayber understand why i feel that way, you on the other hand, gave no reasons, why you do like that music, or anything, instead you tried to attack my opinions by asking for facts that cant be given, instead of understanding why i feel the way i do about the generic rock music of today. and its not a belife system if you rely on facts that arent there. belief is something that cannot be proven, you on the other hand, rely on simple facts, and if something isnt factual, then it must be wrong or untrue. i bet i can already tell what you're argument was against the war in iraq....


"why bomb iraq?"

"because theirs a good chance they might be hiding devestating weapons in there country"

"but theres no proof"

"no there isnt, but theres a good chance, why else would they not allow UN weapon inspectors into their facilities, they probably had something to hide"

"show me proof"

"well there is none, because they didnt allow UN weapon inspectors to go into the facilities, so we dont know, we have to assume they are hiding something, and if they arent then they can allow the UN weapon inspectors in to the places they are asking to see"

"prove it, they dont have any facts"

"yeah... we just had a discussion about that. didnt you read my previous statement, why would they not allow un weapon inspectors into the facilities if they werent hiding soemthing?"

"but they dont have any facts"

"....ok... i have to go now..."

113, you need a dictionary..just incase i'll define that for you. A COLLECTIVE BOOK OF WORDS CONTAINING THERE MEANINGS,

...actually no, instead of assuming things, learn to ask questions.

My argument was more along the lines of

Anti-war protester: "This war is wrong, it should be stopped"

Me: "Why is it wrong?"

Anti-war protester: "because it is!"

Me: That makes no sense, you didn't explain why it's wrong"

Anti-war protesters(at this point they become like you and think i'm just some idiot) "because they're going to kill thousands of innocent people just for their own greedy cause"

Me: (At this point i have two points to attack them on, 1 being similar to the one in this discussion) "How do you know the government is conducting this war for a greedy cause/where's your proof?"
(and 2 being) "even if that is the reason, so what?" That only means the war is wrong by your standards. And that's not a reason why the government should stop the war.


And by the way this actually happened with a few anti-war protesters i encountered, all were shown to be dumbasses by me. And they basically always resort to just calling me names/mocking me (much like you're doing now)

Actually no, i wouldn't have said "define it" there, i would have said. "WHich dictionary are you talking about? English, French, Spanish, German? Chinese? or possiblly soe other language none of us have ever heard of" One persons meaning of things may be different to anothers. It's all percpetion. Why is that so hard to understand?

I guess you'll believe it from Einstein instead of me(since he's a person commonly acceped to be a "genious". Theory of relativity.

It's not only something that's true for motion, but something that's true for individuals.

i think we can all agree to this, no? read it carefully, some good points are mentioned.

http://www.recroommagazine.com/framesmain.htm sorry, click on "articles" on the left side, and click on "Avril Lavigne: Rising Star or Rising *******?" the link didn't work so just do that.

it just makes me feel a lot better knowing that so many peole are against bands from Canada. this author really knows her facts. lol.

Facts? Why the hell do you need facts? You just have that gut feeling that you already know!

very true. replace what i wrote with "stuff"

Avril Lavigne is the perfect example

busted

I agree BUSTED

Blink sucks a long with a lotta new bandz

Busted can eat me out, along with all them poppy little bands that think they're rock.

YuP! LMaO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Im so sorry to butt in so late but this off what you said ages ago! Johnny Rotten did not wear teddy boy clothes that was Malcolm WaNKER MCLAREN!
I do agree that pop bands with guitars reckon there punk when there not, and if anyone here lives in the uk its like saying Busted are punk cause their just like good Charlotte!

then they grab the mic and bust into a pop song.......whining about this......singing about crap 12 year old girls care about......all while keeping on key to their crappy little pop melody........


ok..now im 14....close enough to 12 and all my frends just LOVE gc, blink 182 and all dat otha crap.give me a couple of sex pistols, misfits, and germ cd's and ill be happy...Punk today sux!!!!

Avril is another "mall-punk"...

They're always gonna be pop to me,no matter how many piercings they get or what colour they dye their hair or whatever clothes they wear,its the music that counts and theyre pop,they can say what they want and try to fool all every1 but i think even their fans realise that theyre pop

Avril 'must die' Lavigne!

Well, it's true. The people that mainly influence the music charts are the tweenyboppers that get their parents to buy them things all the time, not the people with, well, y'know... taste.

i like good charlotte cos they sing bout their life and they GENUINELY dont care whether people think they're punk or not. its not their fault they're popular. dont penalise them for it. if you were in a band and suddenly you went from being a group of nobodies with guitars to having a bit of success you'd like it wouldnt you? just because theyre popular doesnt mean theyre crap. metallica are popular arent they? slipknot are popular. red hot chili peppers are popular. they get played on mtv. doesnt mean they're not rock tho does it? think before you make stupid accusations. im totally on 113's side.

the ones that really get me are New Found Glory

god i hate them....

New Found Glory is my favorite band, and they have never called themselves punk. I also like Good Charlotte because they got me into punk.

Avril is not punk, she's a damn country singer.

But thats the thing, GOOD CHARLOTTE IS NOT PUNK! the one band that I hate most out of these crap bands is Simple plan. They piss me off so much.

They are not, That is why there is a genra called pop-Punk.
I do howvever have a soft spot for Blink because they got me into Nirvana And Metallica.
But I think that every genra of music that sow talent deserves respect. Pop-Punk does show talent, Maybe not how we like to see it but talent, so does Country and Rap, But Straight up Pop...No talent=no respect=End of story

Good Charlotte will always have a place in MY heart because they got me into punk. And Benji is a punk. He has a genuine love for the music, and to me that is what constitutes a true punk.

then according to you, the beatles are punk.

and J Tim.

Ya know what's wierd for every one pop star who goes punk, a punk star goes pop.

LOL True That.

AVRIL

BENJI IS PUNK


GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA i love benji

SUX

No, guy. I mean a genuine love for "punk" music and the things it represents.

I'm from the Uk, and here we have two awful sell out bands called McFly and Busted. They call themselves Punk Pop. check them out to see how bad they are. Far worse than Blink 182. All the little kids dress fake "grunge". Plus the band have a ll this fake grunge wear, with their hair gelled into these hairstyles that are considered rock. Pass me the sick bucket.

Blink 182 is great

no... no they're not

whatever man. I hate Slipknot, so there you go.