Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Does anyone have any more technical and complex punk than the normal stuff which is all really simple?

Progressive Punk(If it exists) recommendations would also be great.

I've always preferred a lot of the early(ish) stuff. UK82 was perhaps time for punk IMO. Bands like G.B.H. and The Exploited all played really simple stuff, but at fast paces which give it a rough and raw sound. I don't like a lt of the modern stuff because the sound quality is too clean. I liked it to sound as if it was made in some crappy recording studio using ancient equipment. It added to the whole feel of things.

At 10/27/09 05:19 AM, AniMetal wrote: Does anyone have any more technical and complex punk than the normal stuff which is all really simple?

Isn't that kind of an oxy-moron? I mean I'm sure these bands might exist, but I'm not sure how far you can deviate from the generically set conventions of punk, without leaving the genre altogether.

Progressive Punk(If it exists) recommendations would also be great.

I would imagine the closest thing to this would be post-punk banks like Joy division?

At 10/27/09 11:39 AM, EternitySpent wrote: Isn't that kind of an oxy-moron?

It shouldn't be.

Why should a genre limit it's styles so much?

I mean look at metal, you can make about a infinite number of different styles of metal without leaving the genre.

Why isn't punk the same or at least similar to the same or similar degree or variety?

At 10/27/09 12:53 PM, AniMetal wrote:

Why isn't punk the same or at least similar to the same or similar degree or variety?

Punk's always just been more simple, especially compared to metal.
Refused is kind of a technical punk band though... I forget the album name, I haven't listened to them in ages... I think it's "The Shape Of Punk To Come" ... Check that one out.

At 10/27/09 12:59 PM, EpicFail wrote: Punk's always just been more simple, especially compared to metal.

But why? I don't see why musicians limit themselves.

So much unlocked potential.

At 10/27/09 12:59 PM, EpicFail wrote:

At 10/27/09 12:53 PM, AniMetal wrote:

Why isn't punk the same or at least similar to the same or similar degree or variety?

Punk's always just been more simple, especially compared to metal.
Refused is kind of a technical punk band though... I forget the album name, I haven't listened to them in ages... I think it's "The Shape Of Punk To Come" ... Check that one out.

That's an awesome album, definitely check it out. It may even quench your thirst for technical punk.

At 10/27/09 01:02 PM, AniMetal wrote:

At 10/27/09 12:59 PM, EpicFail wrote: Punk's always just been more simple, especially compared to metal.

But why? I don't see why musicians limit themselves.

So much unlocked potential.

Fuck if any of us know.
That's just the way the genre is... Enjoy it.

I like old school punk (The Clash, The Offspring, ect...). Can I join then?

At 10/28/09 02:29 AM, HighWayStar365 wrote: I like old school punk (The Clash, The Offspring, ect...). Can I join then?

Offspring isn't old school man... Yeah, you can join. I'd recommend most of the bands we've discussed. Check them all out.

At 10/28/09 02:36 AM, EpicFail wrote:

At 10/28/09 02:29 AM, HighWayStar365 wrote: I like old school punk (The Clash, The Offspring, ect...). Can I join then?

Offspring isn't old school man...

Well, it's old-ER punk :P

Yeah, you can join. I'd recommend most of the bands we've discussed. Check them all out.

I might do that, but probably to lazy to actually do it :P

At 10/27/09 01:02 PM, AniMetal wrote: But why? I don't see why musicians limit themselves.

That's how the genre is.

It's like I'm going to sit down to write a poem and decide it will be a sonnet, but then I decided instead of 14 lines, I want it to be 27 and instead of a Petrarchian or Shakespearean pattern, I make up my own faggotry. My poem now no longer is a sonnet.

Musicians aren't limiting themselves, but if they don't follow generic conventions, they will just cease to be punk.

And I think punk is great how it is, if it was any different, it wouldn't be punk.
Green Day isn't punk, but they claim to be... Because they're different, if you give them the same mindset and musical talent as The Ramones, they are punk.
See what I mean by that? Changing the genre will make them no longer a part of the genre...

At 10/28/09 12:23 PM, EpicFail wrote: See what I mean by that? Changing the genre will make them no longer a part of the genre...

So if in the early 80's since metal went from this to this then that makes Sonata Arctica NOT metal?

Every metal band, rock band, pop band, rap artist, etc. has differences among the genre.

I mean, even if some artists are highly similar if you keep a genre EXACTLY the same then NOTHING will evolve out of it.

People need to innovate, doing the same shit in the early 80's and still today doesn't mean you are staying true to the genre - It means you are fucking lazy and unoriginal and you also know how to recycle riffs and lyrical themes.

I mean, fucking look at grunge. It was only big between '91 and '94.

Why? Because it remained EXACTLY the fucking same without anyone doing anything different.

Yeah, grunge died, if you hadn't noticed, so did punk...

Metal changes because metal has a lot you can do with it.
Punk just doesn't.
Punk and Metal are also nothing alike.

At 10/30/09 01:08 AM, Gergaloth wrote: Metal changes because metal has a lot you can do with it.
Punk just doesn't.

WHat are you talking about?

So a punk band has to have lyrics that sound like every other punk band out there and all their instrumental has to be those insanely generic + repetitive + simple riffs over, and over, and over again?

BOY IF WE HAD A DIFFERENT SOUNDING SINGER, AND MORE ORIGINIAL BUT STILL KICKASS INSTRUMENTAL WE WILL BE A DIFFERENT GENRE BY DEFAULT HUR HUR

It doesn't work that way, at all.

And even if traditional punk fans wouldn't consider it punk? Fine, then we'll a new amazing genre of music!

Besides a few shit bands today like Sum41 and Green Day and maybe a few of the FIRST thrash metal/hardcore bands there influences could unlock amazing potential.

Punk and Metal are also nothing alike.

They are both huge music genres, I was comparing how one has VAST variety and the other has none.

Not the music itself.

At 10/28/09 02:36 AM, EpicFail wrote:

Offspring isn't old school man...

Their debut came out like 20 years ago.

At 10/30/09 12:42 PM, Mendou wrote:

At 10/28/09 02:36 AM, EpicFail wrote:

Offspring isn't old school man...

Their debut came out like 20 years ago.

Yeah, I know that.
It's just that when I hear ' old school ' I think Ramones and shit.

1.NOFX
2.Less Than Jake
3.Rancid
4.Dead Kennedys
5.Lagwagon
6.Frenzal Rhomb
7.GBH
8.Lower class Brats

Dude, fuck the pistols bunch of overrated sellouts that wrote about 15 damn songs and are fucking famous for it. fuck johnny rotten and fuck sid vicious fucking money loving assholes who took advantage of the 70's punk scene.

At 11/3/09 12:04 AM, LaughterK wrote:

Dude, fuck the pistols bunch of overrated sellouts that wrote about 15 damn songs and are fucking famous for it. fuck johnny rotten and fuck sid vicious fucking money loving assholes who took advantage of the 70's punk scene.

The Pistols were fucking sweet.
It seems you're jealous of their success with barely any talent.
Rotten didn't really take advantage of it, and neither did Sid.
Sid just got addicted to some stupid fucking drugs.
Rotten, I know nothing about him, all I know is he was in the Pistols, and was pretty good.

At 11/3/09 07:58 AM, EpicFail wrote:

At 11/3/09 12:04 AM, LaughterK wrote:

Dude, fuck the pistols bunch of overrated sellouts that wrote about 15 damn songs and are fucking famous for it. fuck johnny rotten and fuck sid vicious fucking money loving assholes who took advantage of the 70's punk scene.

The Pistols were fucking sweet.
It seems you're jealous of their success with barely any talent.
Rotten didn't really take advantage of it, and neither did Sid.
Sid just got addicted to some stupid fucking drugs.
Rotten, I know nothing about him, all I know is he was in the Pistols, and was pretty good.

well sid didn't really do anything, nothing against him.
But johnny rotten is a fuckin cunt, he's just trying to suck as much cash as he can from the pistols.
The music isn't all bad but it's seriously overrated I mean i see kids walking around my school with a sex pistol shirt from hot topic then the next day their wearing we the kings.
other than helping to get the punk scene more out there sex pistols didn't do shit.

I actually own some vinyl records of The Misfits, Sham 69 and Minor Threat along with TONS of punk CDs.

The Casualties' new album is pretty fucking good, by the way!

I love punk music But i don't know why every one gets so pissed any time anyone makes any money!
Ha, if i could make as much money as jonny rotton i would!

At 11/13/09 12:33 PM, PaNicATtaCk64 wrote: I love punk music But i don't know why every one gets so pissed any time anyone makes any money!
Ha, if i could make as much money as jonny rotton i would!

I'm not pissed at all about Rotten. It's Green Day and Simple Plan, the groups who call themselves punk and make a bunch of money because of the mainstream.

Yeah ok i agree with that.. i still like green day though (but they're not punks whatever they say)

Relevant
I have no problem with this though. I think its pretty fucking hilarious that someone like Johny Rotten would go on a butter advert. Its very ironic how one of the biggest icons of punk, a music genre that typically opposes commercialism and the mainstream, would go on an advert like that, as if he was breaking away from the mainstream of punk culture, which is supposedly not being mainstream, by becoming mainstream, which would make him mainstream, and also not mainstream at the same time, because in punk not being mainstream is mainstream, so if he became mainstream, that would actually make him less mainstream than other punk bands.

At 11/13/09 05:28 PM, DeIirium wrote:

Its very ironic how one of the biggest icons of punk, a music genre that typically opposes commercialism and the mainstream, would go on an advert like that, as if he was breaking away from the mainstream of punk culture, which is supposedly not being mainstream, by becoming mainstream, which would make him mainstream, and also not mainstream at the same time, because in punk not being mainstream is mainstream, so if he became mainstream, that would actually make him less mainstream than other punk bands.

Uh... my head is spinning now... cant bands just be good?

Sorry the first bit was supposed to be quoted

At 10/29/09 04:07 PM, AniMetal wrote: I mean, fucking look at grunge. It was only big between '91 and '94.

Why? Because it remained EXACTLY the fucking same without anyone doing anything different.

I gotta say you are wrong there man. Look at grunge as a whole, every grunge band was vastly different. It died because after Nevermind came out a whole fuckload of Kurdt Kobain cocksuckers decided to copy the exact formula Nirvana used.

When you look at the whole picture you have such diverse bands as: Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Screaming Trees, Alice In Chains, Mudhoney and more. Each one of those bands had a completely different style and they all (except Mudhoney) grew and changed their sound over the years.

Grunge died because Nu-Metal came along and all teenagers decided grunge wasn't BR00TAL enough for them. Then Nu-Metal was deemed not enough which is how we have such terrible shitty fucking bands as Bring Me The Horizon today.

Basically you can't say that grunge did exactly the same thing for the whole time. Heck even Nirvana drastically changed their sound across their three albums.

At 11/14/09 11:41 PM, Punkboyben wrote: Heck even Nirvana drastically changed their sound across their three albums.

Nirvana changed so much throughout each album.
Each album sounded so bloody different, one of the reasons I love Nirvana.