Category talk:Folk punk

This should either be a subcatagory of Anti-Folk (which I think is right) or a supercategory - not both. As of right now, each is a subcategory of the other (meaning they are the same category, making this very redundant and losing the distinction between the two categories). If no one weighs in on this in a few days, I'm going to fix it (if I remember). 149.43.x.x 20:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Upon further reading, I think maybe Anti-Folk is a subgenre of Folk-Punk. Then again, where does that leave someone like Ani Difranco? However, based on the way things are worded, my intepretation is thus: Folk-Punk is punk/folk blend, in the most general sense, although it often refers to more specific styles (American folk blended with particular American punk styles). Anti-folk seems to be something like more rootsy American folk blended with some style or another of punk, or in relation at least to punk roots and punk ethics, etc. That's a very spotty way to put it, and I don't know if this stuff is really easy to make sense of, but that's how I read what's in the articles at this moment, and because of that, I'm going to take the Anti-Folk category out of Folk-Punk.149.43.x.x 16:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Folk and Folk Punk are two seperate styles, that do not have much relation to each other. They both have different roots, and are not intertwined much. Anti-Folk is not spawned from Folk Punk, nor is the opposite true. Neither of them should be the subcatigory of the other.

First of all, the problem was that both were subcategories of the other. Second of all, read the article. "Anti-folk is a genre of music related to punk rock and American folk music" - it couldn't be simpler than that. If you want to establish that they don't have the same roots, you'll have to do more than state it without reference or support. Cheeser1 15:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)