Talk:Pop-punk/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Fresh discussion

Let's return this page to the subject at hand which is to write best article possible concerning pop punk in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. The past discussions have been archived in the links below. Lets use this space to discuss and improve specific sections of the article. Xsxex 18:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Archives

• Archive3 (post "ppr" merger, ideas and discussion for the article) Archived by Xsxex 18:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Archive2 (gathered from "pop punk (revival)" after merge with pop punk.)
• Archive1
• ArchiveResources (place to archive resources regarding pop punk.)

Active users working on pop punk

Listed alphabetically. Have I missed anyone? I'm still looking through the history. Also If you are interested in helping out with punk-related articles you should consider reading and joining the Punk music WikiProject. Xsxex 19:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Deathrocker
• Spylab
• The Ungovernable Force
• WesleyDodds
• Xsxex

Adding a new section

If you think there is a new section or subsection missing from the pop punk article please discuss those ideas here. Xsxex 18:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• We need a section which discusses the technical aspects of the music and the sound. Xsxex 16:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• There could be a section which talks about pop punk's connection to female fronted bands, and women in general. It seems like women are more active in pop punk than in other genres of punk, except of course riot grrrl. something to think about. I'm not sure it warrants it's own section though. Possibly? Discuss. Xsxex 16:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction sentence

Currently it says "Pop punk is a fusion genre that combines the catchy attributes of some of the original punk rock groups with trends in contemporary pop music." Does anyone have objections to this? Also we do need to find a reference for this. Xsxex 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• This was just added "It is a display of punk music that appeals to a wider, more mainstream audience." by 24.62.11.153. What do you think? I think its a decent addition. Could it be included else where in the article, or is it good there? Or should it be re-worded? Xsxex 00:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Why does it need a reference? I don't know of any other music genre on wikipedia that needs a citation for its definition. This definition seems reasonable, leave it and forget the reference. Yourmotherisanastronaut 16:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC) (sorry, wasn't signed in)

• Deathrocker, i think we have this relatively established, if you feel we need a footnote there, (which i agree, would be ideal) than maybe help do some research or come up with a better intro sentence. thanx. Xsxex 04:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• We established before that the majority of what is now known as "pop punk". (Good Charlotte, Simple Plan, etc, etc) take influence from 90s pop punk groups rather than punk rock itself. While Green Day for example take influence from the Buzzcocks... it needs to mention how the majority of the bands that fall under the genre take influence from earlier 90s pop punk groups, not punk. - Deathrocker 00:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Deathrocker, Ok, when you explained it like that it helps to understand what you've looking for. Here's what my response is; while it is true that the majority of the "contemporary pop punk" bands draw much more from mid 90s pop punk, this article is not only about them. The article is about pop punk and since it is the bands from the early 80s (Descendents to Vandals to Weasel to Green Day etc, etc,)... the introduction applies most strongly to them, which makes sense because, one could say, they are the "original pop punk bands." Also most of the bands from the "Independent pop punk" section will also continue to draw from the original punk rock groups. It is these bands which are basically the bands which can be defined as pop punk, whereas the "Contemporary pop punk" groups are actually combining pop punk with other musical influences, many of which are coming from pop music. The reason they can be mentioned here is because since they are referencing the original pop punk bands (i.e. Green Day, Offspring, Descendents, Weasel, Queers, etc...). One would think that a band which draws from or is a descendent (no pun intended) of the original pop punk bands would have the potential to be considered, at least, in part as pop punk. This is actually the case as many of these newer bands are described, in part, as pop punk. Usually their sound is also combined with other musical genres, influences, and styles. I am going to take down the {{Fact}} tag, but I DO want to continue this discussion if you feel or if others feel that this is not a convincing counterpoint. Post responses below right here. Thanx! Xsxex 11:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the word "catchy" might be a problem, because it can mean different things. Perhaps being more explicit would be better. For example, if what the definition is trying to say is that pop punk bands took the rhythmic drive of original punk (just a hypothetical suggestion), then why not say that? More broadly, though, the effort in this article to do Original Research, and develop definitions/do historical interpretations might be at odds with the Wikipedia principles. Wikipedia is supposed to collect together the consensus of experts on the topic, as found in encyclopedias, reference works, etc. In the case of pop punk, I imagine the experts would be music critics who have written books on pop punk, music historians who have researched the 1980s and 1990s punk and pop punk music scenes, etc.Nazamo 02:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel a better way to phrase that would be 'Pop-punk is a sub-genre of punk that contains the catchy sounds of early punk groups with pop's more mainsteam appeal and lyrics.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puffthemagicbison (talk • contribs) 01:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Overview

Comments? Additions? Discuss. Xsxex 19:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• It definitely needs to be improved to clearly describe the genre of pop punk . Spylab 19:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

• What do you suggest? I agree that it is not where i'd like it to be. I'm going to adjust the second paragraph as it seems repetitive. Xsxex 19:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Someone added the band Jimmy Eat World to the list of recognizable pop punk bands. Any support for inclusion or any reasons to not include them there? Xsxex 16:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Spylab, yeah i think the overview needs to focus exclusively on pop punk, thats why i took off the link for California and moved SoCal to the bottom. I renamed that section 'nicknames' but there's probably a better name. Its just that the overview should not have links and more references to anything other than just pop punk. Xsxex 15:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• User:Evilchino posted a number of bands in the introduction, without any discussion in the talk page. This happened on August 30th, 2006. The bands added were; Sunny Day Real Estate, The Movielife, Spitalfield, The Academy Is..., and Hellogoodbye. The user also deleted (possible vandalism) these bands from the overview paragraph; Simple Plan, Sum 41, Relient K, Panic! at the Disco. While pruning is a good thing, this user has not engaged in discussion and made a case for their additions to the article. I am returning the list to where it was before the changes. If this happens again with more frequency it will be addressed as vandalism. Instead, please use the discussion page (HERE) to state your ideas and communicate with others. Here's my specific comment about the bands added to the list. While at this point, we dont have a set criteria for which bands should be mentioned in the overview, it seems that the overview itself uses the idea "mainstream success." Again, what is the criteria for mainstream success? We could develop one here, which would be useful, but in the meantime, i think we can agree that the bands added to the list are not more mainstream than even the least mainstream on the list prior to the edit, (the least was probably Relient K which could be argued that it should not be on the list. A good rule of thumb is concidering if the band is a household name. For instance, my mom listens to Green Day. She also has Fall Out Boy on her Ipod shuffle for when she exercises, also in the shuffle are the Beatles, Michael Jackson, Jason Mraz, Natasha Bettingfield, etc. Anyway, would anyone object to the removal of Relient K, or can it be established that they have reached mainstream success, should we attempt to settle on a criteria for mainstream pop punk bands? Responses... Xsxex 11:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• sunny day real estate where probably one of the first pop punk bands along with jawbreaker. the movielife can be moved to Contemporary pop punk with lifetime as the pioneers of the trend of mixing hardcore and pop punk that fall out boy followed. Spitalfield i guess is just a band that popped up of thinking of some. the academy is should stay in Contemporary pop punk as well but should take panic! since they arnt really pop punk. if not might as well add hellogoodbye on the main list(their latest release recently hit the top of billboard with their recent release on drive thru records. the main pop punk lable pre fueled by ramen..which have also been around forever but were cursed with an extensive list of band tragedy, ironicly drive thru is having that same issue, specially with its sidelable rushmore records) we should also keep atleast active pop punk bands with the exception of blink 182 tho broke up, both simple plan and sum 41 are pretty much on infinate hiatus's if not completly defunct, as for reliant k, eh might as well.they will blow up eventually, its wholesome christian pop punk maybe we should add mxpx, alkaline trio, and afi all season vets and been in the genre a good 10 years user:evilchino now! 2006

• You seem to be mistaken about Sunny Day Real Estate. According to their Wikipedia article, they started in 1992, and their first album was released in 1994. The article says they are an "alternative rock band" and that they "helped bring the emo subgenre from an underground musical phenomenon to a wider audience." You may be mistaken about the rest of your assertions as well. I've never heard of some of the bands you listed, so I doubt those ones should be included in the first paragraph. The intro is not the place for a long list of bands anywat, so perhaps some should be deleted.Spylab 20:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

• Fallout Boy and Panic! at the Disco need to be removed. They are NOT punk, and that is NOT opinion. (signify, 21:13 EST)

• User:Signify, please support your claims about these bands. In the meantime these bands will be replaced. Specifically about your comment, FOB and PatD may or may not be punk (depending on what your criteria for punk is), but they are, however, pop punk. Both the articles on these bands can confirm that. If you take issue with it, please provide evidence on those articles' talk pages. Xsxex 15:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sunny Day Real Estate have formaly called themselfs pop punk in many interviews,but this whole section about pop punk needs to be rebuffed or probably re written by someone that actually is very in root with pop punk or will take the time out and do massive amounts of supported research in not just the internet but in books,zines, interviews and movies, seeing as you have no idea which many of the bands ive named and many of those already stablished legends ( Mxpx , Alkaline Trio ) and/or the front runners ( Afi , Hellogoodbye The Academy Is... ) in the new era in the pop punk/emo scene(sadly mainstream wise there is a very thing line between emo and pop punk, also a reason half of the former spot light bands decided to go back to smaller indie lables where they came from due to the fact that they were being pulled away from their original sounds, mxpx lifetime and alkaline trio for example). i still completely disagree with having bands on the intro since atleast half arent pop punk or are no longer a band anymore (with the exception of blink 182)p!atd have said many times they are not pop punk in interviews and simple plan and sum 41 both now defunct, naming jawbreaker, or the decendents would be much better since they have long been stamples in the pop punk community,i disagree with removing fall out boy from the intro list because they are pretty much leaders of the pack on pop punk in the last year or so..pete wentz credited to even bringing the creators of the pop punk/hardcore mix scene Lifetimeback for a new record evilchino now!

Hi, this page could have more sources (music critics, pop punk music experts, pop punk music books). A number of editors are arguing about the relative importance of band A versus band B, or whether or not Band X influenced Band Y, but without referring to sources. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize the verifiable consensus of what experts in the field have written about a given topic, not have original research (this is not my opinion--it's from the Wikipedia policy pages) : )NatMor 19:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• It would probably be better to have two short lists of bands; one of early bands that are definitely pop-punk (I'd say Descendents, Weasel and Blink) and one of recent bands that have been leading the mainstream pop-punk movement. Also, it does not matter at all if a band says they are or are not "pop punk", or any other genre. Radiohead swear black and blue they hate progressive rock, but that's the genre they're most identified with. Same goes for plenty of bands that have recently been called "hardcore", "punk", "pop punk", "emo", "scene" or any combination thereof. --Switch 11:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Pop-punk, is still punk, and is not a completely different genre, and that's what a lot of people don't think about when they go and label Fall Out Boy, Panic At The Disco, and Reliant K pop-punk. I'd say the poppiest it should get is Blink-182's or MxPx's later albums, and FOB certainly exceeds that. There should be no blurred line between Pop-punk and Power Pop. The All Time Low article has them as pop-punk. That should not be.

Alternate use

Comments? Etc. Discuss. Xsxex 16:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• I was there in the "Popular acceptance (1994-1997)" part and believe me you can remove bands like MXPX and Smoking Popes... they didn't exist. (user did not sign the comment)

History

Comments? Additions? Discuss. Xsxex 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Punk rock origins (1974-1980s)

I think the Sex Pistols, The Misfits, The Damned, and others could be included in this section. Xsxex 19:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• According to an unreferenced claim in Cheap Trick's article, there might be some speculation that they are one of the first "pop punk" bands. Right now were still considering The Descendents to be the first based on reviews from 1982 on their website (in the press/articles) section, and also citations from blink-182 in Jim Derogatis' article reviewing the 2001 Screeching Weasel (final performance) at the House of Blues, Chi-town. If you have some solid references for either of these bands or others where they are described as "pop punk," please let us know about them. Early mentions of "pop punk" will definitely have an impact on the way this article takes shape. Xsxex 00:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've put up two early uses of the term pop punk. One is from issue 20 of MRR (1984) the other is from the New York Times in 1977. Check out the footnotes. If you have some examples that are older or more significant. Please add them, or post the information concerning them here so we can check them out. Xsxex 02:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The Pistols were popular, but that doesn't make them pop punk. Certainly not The Misfits. The Buzzcocks and the Dickies pioneered the sound, I guess you could include The Damned as well. The Descendents breathed new life into the form throughout the eighties. I'm perplexed to see no mention of them, while there's all sorts of bands mentioned that seem to have nothing to do with it. 67.240.171.58 (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Formation (1980s-1993)

We're still looking for the first use of the term, however there was some support coming from the Descendents press archive including a story about the band written in 1982. Also Jim Derogatis' review of the Screeching Weasel performance at House of Blues provided a quote from blink-182 members that sited the Descendents as one of the major influences on their band. Xsxex 19:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• All could be another group, in an article near the bottom of the page here [1] a writer mentions a "punk-pop" burrito. Xsxex 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Any section on pop punk in the 1980s that does not mention Hüsker Dü is quite lacking.

Popular acceptance (1994-1997)

• Kurt Cobain's death was very much related to the popularization of punk. The months of Feb-April in 1994 would not have been so catapulting had he not passed away. This should be reflected in the article. Sources are need. However, it should not be hard to find many article from spring/summer of 1994 which do not mention this. In fact, at this time, this was by far the biggest story in music news. Xsxex 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly challenge this assertion. Green Day were already getting attention thanks to the unexpectedly high chart debut of Dookie. MTV was buzzing about it before Kurt died. Green Day didn't get their spot at Lollapalooza or Woodstock because of Cobain's death. The assertion that Cobain's death contributed to Green Day's (or punk's) success that year is simply music editorialism. It's not a statement of fact.

Furthermore, I challenge the usefulness of narrowing down the specific origin of the term "pop punk". Just because someone used it to describe The Descendents doesn't mean that the band was part of pop punk as a genre. The Descendents were not popularly known as pop punk. The 70s and 80s era bands listed in this article were called "pop punk" retroactively because of the similarity of sound to the bands that were considered pop punk. Pop punk wasn't considered a specific term until the SF punk scene of the late 80s (Green Day, Mr T Experience), and not a popularly considered genre until the mid-to-late 90s. -- ChrisB 18:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course the descendents were pop punk. The band's fanbase, their influence, their press, and they themselves say this. --Switch 12:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Switch! yeah... im gonna have to say it... yep.. i think we're on to something.. yeah.. CHRISB; go listen to SOMERY .. SUBURBAN HOME was recorded in 1983... also we have a reference (jim d-row's review of SWeasel at the HOB, in which he quotes blink-182 member saying that he was influenced by Descendents and SW..) yeah, again.. were still working on the sources and proper references.. but the guess is that Descendents are possibly the first true "pop punk" based on this info.. ALSO.. again... we need more references so if you want to help out, thats where we need help. go to the library and research "pop punk" find articles where it is used.. type up the publishing information like you are writing a research paper, and we can read them too... especially if you can find a mention of pop punk before 93/92.... those are going to help alot... Thanks!!.. please keep in touch and I'd recommend listening to Somery.Xsxex 15:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• One more point about Kurt Cobain's death. (for ChrisB).. we're not saying that green day would not have been on lolla or that they weren't big already. The point is that if Cobain does not die in April 94... the whole music climate would be totally different. Its hard to think what music in america would be like if he didnt pass away. (lets not get into the details or speculation surrounding his death..) The point is that he did die.. and that had a huge effect on the way the underground was percieved. Green Day was making it big.. but when Cobain dies it put the final nail in the coffin of grunge... (here's my interpretation, i was around when it happened, we can also go find articles about it) .. The music media was already rippin grunge apart making fun of it.. saying it was done.. even the main people involved with it were thinking it was over because the whole point was that it was supposed to be underground.. Cobain's death just sealed the deal because the mainstream American public saw in that tragedy that his depression, his music, his style, his outlook, etc.. had failed. This is also becomes apparent despite the controvesy around the death. Kurt was becoming ever increasingly isolated and people didn't even know where he was for the last few days. I think people saw this and said.. man, he should have just gotten help. or talked to some one.. or been able to make a connection with someone think about how many people loved him. LOVED HIM. but he wasnt able to make the connection, get help, get out of the situation/crisis. People responded in different ways but overall i'd say alot of people said it was just sad and wrong. Meanwhile here's Green Day who are just out for having fun. And they already said f-you to the whole scene they had grown out of. (they said "F-you.." it was mutual, but also they have shown over and over again that they are still concerned and care about what is happening in, not only berkeley/924/mrr, but in the independent punk/pop punk undergound as well.) Some will slight them because they have broken the rules.. some love them because they broke the rules... some people just have a little affection for them because they write really catchy upbeat-ish songs which are played n the radio... (like my mom does)... but the point with Green Day and the other bands that broke out in 94.. they were offering something which Cobain wasnt able to. They offered a way to move forward, or to at least keep going. ... Anyway, theres more to be said about it im sure.. but i think that it is important enough to warrant a sentence in the article. And this is also not a bash-fest on Cobain. People still love him and wish he had not gone away. It's a tragedy its just sad. I got one mediocre source for this right now which is the song "Anavrin" by Oblivion on there 1995 album "Shoot Me A Waco" ... see if you can find the lyrics and ask yourself why they choose to write that song, and also how they named the album. Finally, ask yourself what would have happened if Cobain had not died. Xsxex 15:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Continued mainstream ascent (1998-2003)

There is a big section here missing about blink-182, which should be included. Also there are a number of other contemporary bands which should be discussed in this section. Xsxex 22:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ok. it looks like there's been a lot of good additions added to the article including the blink-182 info and lots about many of the newer bands etc, which has continued with the next section. Xsxex 16:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary pop punk (2003 and later)

I think this section should be split of from history, since contemporary is really not history anyway. I am going to make the change now. Xsxex 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• There's such thing as "contemporary history." The definition of the word History is anything that has happened, even one second ago.Spylab 19:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

• So you are arguing against splitting it from the history section. Ok,i'd like to get a few more opinions, but for the moment I'd agree that it could all be included under the history section. Xsxex 19:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I can't find a reference to the band Go! Ambulance Go! anywhere, is this correct? Star-Crossed 18 August 2006

• Star-Crossed, lots of times bands get added and edits made which are not properly referenced, but if we can find a reference that would help sipport the claim. Personally, I have not heard of this group, but maybe we can find some info and support an article? Xsxex 18:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

All time low —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rporada2 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Independent pop punk

This section really needs to be expanded. There is alot more to be covered here. Also for those who are using the term "buzzpop" this section might become the basis and eventually link to a buzzpop article. Right now buzzpop links back to the pop punk article. Xsxex 19:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think this should be a separate section, especially since Screeching Weasel is such a pivotal band in pop punk. Underground pop punk bands should be incorporated into the article where appropriate. WesleyDodds 22:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Really? wow I wouldnt have guessed that you'd be against the UPP section. Well, I dont know, we probably need more opinions on the subject. As for me I think this section needs to expanded. There should be at least a larger paragraph or two. There are definitley a number of bands through out the last 20 years which could be mentioned here which are not really necessary to note in other places in the article. Also since there is definitley a community of people who are definitely only interested in the independent pop punk scene it is a reflection of what actually exists in the world. Also, come to think of it, I'm gonna change the section title to 'Independent pop punk' I think that's more descriptive. Thoughts? Xsxex 00:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think UPP should have its own article, but I'd like to see an explanation of the word buzzpop (why it is used, by whom, etc.) in the section. The word isn't notable enough to have its own article, but I'd like to see some information on the word itself as it seems relevant. --Switch 13:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand why we should be deleting bands from the list under "Independent pop punk". I mean, some of the bands listed may not have wikipedia entries, but they are *independent* after all. Not being on wikipedia doesn't mean they aren't significant...

• The general rule of thumb on Wikipedia is if a band isn't noteworthy enough to have its own article, it's not notable enough to be mentioned in an article. There are exceptions of course, but the logic is that there's no point of listing a band name if nobody knows who they are, and you can't click on their name to find more information. Otherwise everybody and their dog will be listing their own bands on Wikipedia in order to get publicity.Spylab 12:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab

• There are, after all, thousands upon thousands of independent pop punk bands. Listing them all is completely unreasonable, so a short list of the most prominent ones should do it - and the most prominent ones will be prominent enough to have their own articles. --Switch 17:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm thinking that this section of the intro can be expanded on a great deal in the body of the article. As an example: seems like almost anyone released on Dirtnap (including a lot of pop punk, The Exploding Hearts and The Returnables to name two) have generated a lot of positive press in underground media and seem pretty influential as a result. I mean the article spends a lot of time talking about commercially successful bands, which obviously makes sense in the context of notability; whereas there isn't much on the impact of bands that have only been moderately successful but still play an important part in the emergence of scenes that have produced big hitters. I think it might help flesh out the ambiguities of describing what pop punk sounds like, too. I've obviously got a bias so I'm bringing it up here first. Zytsef 08:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Related genres

This section used to be include in a section called "Usage and related styles." I think that this section was valuable and should be re-introduced to the article. The section could explain the difference in usage (such as definition and description) and also talk about related styles/genres. This section was placed after Overview, but maybe it could be after "underground pop punk"??? Thoughts??? Xsxex 19:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Other names for pop punk

this is a place to write about the numerous names which are applied to pop punk and its fans. There are a lot which can be discussed and explained here. Xsxex 17:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've posted elsewhere on the Talk page that the pop punk article needs to draw more on sources (music encyclopedias, music reference books, books on pop punk). For example, the Allmusicguide does not call this music pop punk. It calls it "punk revival".... Here is the para from Allmusicguide:-

During the early '90s — nearly a full 20 years after punk happened — the United States had its first punk rock hit albums and singles, as a wave of bands raised on '80s hardcore and '70s punk worked its way into the American mainstream. Essentially, Punk Revival bands were all traditionalists — they kept alive the sounds and styles of groups like the Sex Pistols, the Stooges, the Jam, the Exploited, Black Flag, Dead Kennedys, the Descendents, and countless other punk and hardcore bands. Since hardcore mutated into speed metal in the late '80s, it wasn't surprising that these punk traditionalists were heavier than their initial influences, but that is partially what made the music appealing to a mass audience in America — it was simpler and heavier, much like a faster, harder outgrowth of grunge rock. The first punk revivalists to break into the American mainstream were Green Day and the Offspring, and their success helped solidify cult followings for groups like Rancid, NOFX, Pennywise, and Pansy Division, as well as bring the spotlight to neglected '80s punk bands like Bad Religion and underground punk genres like the third wave of ska revival.http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:2770Nazamo 02:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

bullshit, it is commonly known as pop punk which is much more specific. punk revival includes many more sub genres besides pop punk- which is the subject of the article.

I agree with what Nazamo said about punk revival, however we have to be a little cautious of what allmusicguide tells us... though thet have lots of good info. The word "punk revival" doesnt really have much to do with the term "pop punk". Like this article says, the term pop punk has been around for a long time and was used in record reviews in MRR in the early 80s. Pop punk was a term that was definitely used within the scene for a number of reasons, but it is different than a "music critic's" notion of a "punk revival". Pop punk once acknowledged, basically creates a continuous unbroken strand from The Ramones, through the new artists which are coming out today, from Panic! at the Disco to more independent stuff like The Steinways, The Unlovables, The Methadones, The Apers, etc.. etc.. (not that all those bands are newly formed.. ) Anyway there seems to be a Post-punk revival, but not a punk revival article, so maybe that should be considered. The point im making here is that pop punk is a separate to punk revival, but they are closely related. Xsxex 00:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Alternate names:
  • Punk pop
  • Buzzpop
  • Wentzrock
  • Contemporary pop rock (oh really?)
  • Mall Punk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.48.176 (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • «insert here»

π₰₯ ĬLʡ$Φǚɭђµπt₴ŗ ₯₰π 17:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Im just going to throw pop-rock out there as another name. Just to see what happens. Pay me no mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puffthemagicbison (talk • contribs) 01:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

See also

Right now, the "see also" section refers to the "list of pop punk bands." (1) that article has the possibility of being deleted. Does anyone want to step up and propose a re-vote or a re-evaluation? Is there a good reason why "lists" should deleted? (2) Is there a policy against including links to the related categories in this section? According to Spylab there is but the policy was not referenced. Xsxex 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• (1) I'm not sure why the "List of pop punk bands" article should be deleted, unless there is a widescale effort to rid Wikipedia of list pages. Plenty of music genres have articles that are just lists, but maybe they're also slated to eventually be deleted. I don't care either way, but there should be consistency. (2) In every article I've seen on Wikipedia, "Categories" are linked at the bottom of the page. They are not meant to be set as links in "See also" sections or within articles. "See also sections are supposed to link to other Wikipedia articles (including lists).Spylab 19:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

• Ok i'm slowing getting the point about lists, my only concern is that I dont want the information on those pages to be deleted unless it is replaced by mostly similar category pages. Xsxex 19:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Spylab & others, I am concerned that if the list of pop punk bands is deleted that will put this article at a higher risk for vandalism. I dont see why lists have to be expunged from wikipedia. I do see the utility of categories and they are good resources too. Only the lists have their own good qualities too. Show me where it says we need to rid wikipedia of lists? Xsxex 17:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the problem with lists on Wikipedia is that they start out being helpful, as a collection of the most influential bands/artists, etc. Then editors start adding their cousin's pop punk band, their uncle's girlfriend's pop punk band, and then soon there are 100 unknown bands in the list. Since lists are usually unsorted, this means that the list does not serve its (I imagine) intended purpose: guiding Newbies to a topic around the main bands/artists/genres etc. On the "electric bass" page, there was a list of "influential bassists"...it started out with the major bassists (Lemmy, Flea, Newsted, etc) then soon people were adding their brother, their roomate, and it became useless.NatMor 19:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

To understand what a footnote is and what they're for, look at Footnote.Spylab 19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

• I think you mean: "For the usage of footnoting on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes." I'll check them out. Word. Xsxex 19:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ok. Im changing the heading of this section too. Xsxex 19:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Archiving resources

The information that was here has now been moved to ArchiveResources. Please feel free to add information to this archive. This will be a reference resource for all things regarding pop punk. Lets keep it organized and growing. Xsxex 21:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Past versions

I'd really recommend incorporating text from previous versions of the article (particularly from before the split and re-merging) such as this [2] WesleyDodds 09:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wes, i totally agree. there was some good info there. Maybe think of it in parts and just do one at a time. I re-formatted this talk page to make it more useful to discussing each section. Cool. Xsxex 15:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wentzrock: what is it?

Can someone please explain what the following sentence means, re: "Wentzrock" and "slighting." It makes no sense without any context or references. "Wentzrock has come along, slighting the entire Decaydance Records rosters and those bands associated with Fall Out Boy."Spylab 19:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Pete Wentz is the lead singer of Fall Out Boy. Wentzrock is presumably a neologism but it doesn't seem to be widely used and is uncited. So I'm removing it. Cedars 05:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Pete Wentz is not the lead singer, he is back vocals. Patrick Stump is the lead singer of Fall Out Boy. Punk-Lova 21:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

List of pop punk bands

Please see the recent edits and discussion on the List of pop punk bands. Someone has decided that the following bands are not pop punk, and promises to return to delete them (after already doing so twice): Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, NOFX, The Offspring and Rancid. I can see why there would be a dispute about Rancid, but the others seem so cut and dry it's mind-boggling that someone would even thing to suggest they don't fall under the label pop punk.Spylab 01:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Pop-punk refers to a very chopped down simple and melodic style of punk usually tailored to appeal to the masses. Any one of those bands would feel the need to knock your lights out if you called them pop-punk. The Offspring may have gotten poppier with later records but their early stuff (smash included which is why I deleted smash as a seminal "pop-punk record") is very cut and dry punk. If they were an underground band who had never achieved fame you would call them punk rock if not straight hardcore punk. It's pretty silly to change the genre of a band based on the amount of success they achieve. As for Rancid... I won't even bother to argue with you on that. Rancid should never have been put on that list in the first place. They're one of the purest punk bands around, sadly. NoFX... I find them way too political and angry to be considered pop-punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.156.166.47 (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• All of those bands' Wikipedia articles have references showing they are (or were) considered part of the pop punk genre, so your fantasy about band members feeling the need to "knock my lights out" is irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia.Spylab (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Factually incorrect sentence in Alternate Use section

Deathrocker insists in re-entering the following sentence,

It must be noted however, that these bands are not related to later bands who fall under different variations of the "pop punk" terminology.

I have deleted it because it is based on opinion, and is not cited. The sentence is false, because those 1970s bands had a huge influence on the later bands that became to be labelled pop punk. Without those 1970s bands, there would be no pop punk. That is the opposite of "not related." Second, the sentence is redundent because the section already explains that these bands are not the same as the later bands that are known as "pop punk" in the most common use of the term. Spylab 19:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Keep it out. It's either redundant or blatantly false, depending on interpretation. --Switch 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

They are not related because they were part of different scenes, from a different time, playing a different form of music, with different image, etc. Hense why it is under "alternative use". Are Green Day related to glam metal just because they claim Van Halen as an early influence?... no. - Deathrocker 17:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• You have provided no reliable sources to back up your personal opinion that the 1970s/1980s bands are unrelated to the current pop punk bands. Yes, they sound different, just like 1960s R&B is different from current R&B, and early hip hop is different that current hip hop. That in no way proves that the earlier style is unrelated to the later style. Also, you have just pointed out that the sentence is redundent, because the section is already titled Alternative use, so there is no chance that anyone will confuse those bands with current bands that are labelled as pop punk. Spylab 15:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sweet guys, the article is shaping up pretty good. It needs tweakin here and there. I'd propose two addition sections. One for "instrumentation" and another which specifically addresses the issue of "selling out" within the context of pop punk. As for Deathrocker, well sorry dude, i appreciate your enthusiasm and i can see that you developing as a writer, but in this instance, this extra sentence really doesnt add much. Instead, why not use the space below here to start these new sections. Xsxex 06:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Instrumentation

Pop punk is known for heavy instrumentation. Many bands boast a raw sound, while others are more polished with the inclusion of piano, backing percussion, strings, or lead synth hooks à la New Wave. Any thoughts on this? — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 08:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never really thought of any of the pop-punk I've heard as having a "raw" or "heavy" sound. Then again, they're being compared with Black Flag, Cannibal Corpse, and Hirax in terms of heaviness, so I can't really speak for the average perceptions.Cronos12390 22:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Selling Out

Many pop punk bands deviate from a raw, heavy sound to something more accessible, sometimes lyrically as well, and sometimes to the point of being poppy and overproduced. Which often leads to being accused of "selling out" and abusing punk rock. Any thoughts on that? — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 08:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I must be the only one finding your statements comment-worthy. I find that a band can only honestly be accused of "selling out" if they had changed. As far as I know, Simple Plan has maintained a similar sound throughout it's career, so I suppose an accusation of "Corporate Music Industry Puppet" is more accurate. Cronos12390 22:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Pop-punk" is an oxymoron.Mr bouregaurd 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Bouregard: Thats why I love it! Xsxex 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"if they had changed" - Not necissarily. Some bands may change because they tire of making the same music, for example Linkin Park's new album Minutes To Midnight. "Selling out refers to the compromising of one's integrity, morality and principles in exchange for money, 'success' or other personal gain" -from the wiki article on "selling out". "Pop-punk" is a technically incorrect genre of music as many have said on this page.

Worst music

EVER Mr Richardson 00:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the article? Jacknife737 19:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I give Up

Well.. I was trying to fight the battle for pop punk being a specific genre but now any band that is a liitle pop and a little punk (so pretty much all bands that are a little punk) is considered pop punk. I leave it to spylab to go ahead and open that pandora's box. When they start labeling both Siouxee and the Banshees and Panic At the Disco! as pop punk maybe you will all see the errors of your ways.--Dr who1975 19:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your "battle" to reinvent the definition of pop punk to fit your narrow definition is original research. Wikipedia is for presenting documented facts. I don't think anyone mentioned anything about Siouxee and the Banshees other than you, so I'm not sure what they have to do with anything. Spylab 15:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who reinvented the definition... not me. I relaize we dicsuseed it before hand but, as you know, I completely disagree with your changes to this page. To accuse me of changing the definition when you're the one who made massive changes to this article is the pot calling the kettle black.--Dr who1975 15:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't say "change to the article." I said "reinvent the definition." Before I made the recent factually-accurate edit to the article, it falsely implied that pop punk is a fairly recent phenonenon, which is grossly inaccurate. Wikipedia should not be promoting falsehoods.Spylab 16:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone who doubts the existence of pop punk in the late 1970s should look at this site: http://punkmodpop.free.fr/ Spylab 16:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You think I couldn't find a reference that contradicts that?--Dr who1975 03:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

how about the pop article on wiki and punk article on wiki? pop is being mainstream, punk is being against mainstream, you can't be both at the same time.

While it's true that the specific term "pop punk" wasn't used as a distinct genre label until sometime in the 1990s, both the genre and the phrase already existed long before that. And yes, it does go straight back to The Ramones — I don't think it's possible to argue that point without getting into a POV "my punk is better than your punk, nyah nyah!" pissing match that has no business being anywhere near an encyclopedia. I don't care whether you call the Ramones "pop punk" or "the original precursors and inventors of the genre that eventually became known as pop punk", but any encyclopedia that's even remotely concerned about getting its beans right has no business pretending that the link between the two doesn't even exist. And I've also seen no evidence that anybody ever said anything about Siouxsie and the Banshees in all of this. Bearcat 05:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

But Siouxsie and the Banshees is both pop and punk therefore it must be pop punk... isnlt that the logic here?--Dr who1975 15:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

oxymoron

is pop punk a oxymoron?

yes it is, and there are articles, they're part of wiki. according to the wiki punk article, punk is against mainstream and everything is stand for, and other things, but you can read for yourself. According to the wiki pop article, pop is mainstream. You can't willing be in the middle of middle of mainstream and love (aka being pop) and be complete against everything mainstream is (aka punk) at the same time.

It's possible, and if there are reliable publications that say as much that would be relevant to the article. But otherwise, hey we have a Military intelligence article too, oxymoron or not. --Gimme danger 17:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the is an article on Microsoft Works. The fact that "pop-punk" is an oxymoron isn't relevant to the article Mtijn 16:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. ;) Punk from the very beginning was a stripped-down return to the pop roots of rock and roll (especially early 60s, I suppose). Joey Ramone described Sedated as "the Ramones doing the Beach Boys", and he certainly didn't mean the later, experimental Beach Boys. The Ramones were a reaction to what pop had devolved into. The Sex Pistols took that and turned it into a reaction to contemporary society as a whole. Those two together alienated older folks and rebooted pop music. If anything, "pop punk" is redundant. (Note: we need another article called, perhaps, "shit punk" which would include Blink 182 and their followers.) --MQDuck (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Terrible Article

I’ve given this article a good look through at its quite obvious that the article is in need of a complete re-write.

First off, the introduction is far too long, and cluttered. The introduction could be improved greatly by removing the rubbish about “mall punks” and “independent pop punk”. Perhaps the controversy surrounding the term could be acknowledged but there is just far too much of the introduction dedicated to it.

As for the rest of the article, there is far too much dedicated to what could be called the more “mainstream” bands, while ignoring many prominent “independent” pop punk bands. Jacknife737 05:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah seriously, I was about to say this... this article needs a complete re-write and if we're going to include time periods, describe the music of them and don't just list like 6 bands (for example, the 2003-present section for some reason has the blink-182 breakup as it's first paragraph? It's completely irrelevant). Burnedthru 17:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Since there is no discussion here on the neutrality, I'm removing the note that it's disputed. --MQDuck (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can help change the template at the top to one that doesn't claim there are "multiple" issues, that'd be great. --MQDuck (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad Religion and the underground

It seems to me that a bunch of punk fans have made a very through effort the remove any mention of Bad Religion, NOFX, Propagandhi and many of the more popular underground pop punk outfits beacause they seem to think that it is a mark of shame. It's not. It's a real genre, and like many other's has some diverity in the bands that are included in the genre and includes some bands which have given up thier convictions for money. Just beacause some bands *Cough*Green day*Cough* have sold out, dosn't mean the entire genre is worthless —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan Rachmaninov (talk • contribs) 20:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oxymoron

Pop punk is the an oxymoron as punk is anti establishment and pop means its popular so there for its and oxymron. And RANCID arent pop punk they are jsut PUNK!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.159.25 (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.95.64.254 (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is everything getting labeled as pop punk?

In respect to bands like All-American Rejects, My Chemical Romance, The Jonas Brothers, and Plain White T's, despite whatever sources people might throw on these guys just can't be labeled as such, I mean maybe MCR can possibly be labeled as pop punk, these others just can't, I mean I understand if some of their songs have elements of pop punk and because the sources say so, but come on, their really not.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.107.89 (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Jonas Bros and Plain White T's are more pop than pop-rock, and they dont seem to match up with other, definite, pop-rock bands.Puffthemagicbison (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad Religion?

Umm, huh? Since when is Bad Religion pop punk? They are punk rock... at least the songs I have heard from them. If you are going to call them pop punk here, then check the Bad Religion Wiki page, where their genre is punk rock. I sincerely think that they should be only labeled punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiaoxiaoman9 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, they have elements of pop, the 'oozin' aahs' for example. Zazaban (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing about Bad Religion and similar bands like the Ramones is that they were called punk rock back in the day before pop-punk became a separate genre, but to my ears they are not musically much different from a lot of other bands who have formed since the mid 90s who are labelled pop punk. Its just semantics really, its not an insult to be called pop punk, but compare bad religion to a band like the tim version and they definitely have a slightly poppier sound going on. Suckers_intl_has_gone_public (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ramones

I'm sure I'm beating a dead horse here, but how have the Ramones gotten a "pop punk" label if they were the first punk band? If they were the first in the genre, they define the genre - they can't be part of a subgenre; if the first punk rock band isn't just "punk rock," then I don't see how any other band could simply be called "punk rock." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.224.227 (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, if the first punk band is the Ramones, and the Ramones were pop punk, then "Punk rock" should be removed from Pop Punk's stylistic origins, as pop punk was apparently the first type of punk music to exist. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.224.227 (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ramones first punk? What about The Velvet Underground???? 1965....... If your going say the ramones were the first punk band and argument could be the clash and sex pistols, which were close to the same time frame. But you can't argue 1965 and the velvet underground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.138.224 (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider The Velvet Underground punk. I guess it's kinda like calling Black Sabbath doom metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.188.167 (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yellowcard

Yellowcard emerged around the same time as greenday did, but with a more main-stream punk sound. when they moved to LA, they changed their sound and hit it big. They are one of few bands to use a violin as a main instrument, and I propse they be mentioned under '1990s' because they are one of the most notable pop-rock bands today.Puffthemagicbison (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Yellowcard emerged around the same time as greenday did". Are you trying to make me fall out of my chair laughing, or are you just 14?.Brakoholic (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Confused over the validity of Pop Punk as a subgenre of Punk

Before I say anything, I should probably state that I dont really listen to Punk, and as a layman I dont quite understand how Pop punk is really Punk, as Pop punk seems to be commercially viable, accepted and endorsed by the public, and not really confronting in any sense. Don't these facts fundamentally oppose what Punk is/represents? I would have assumed that Pop punk bands would not be embraced by the more serious Punk community; Is Punk no longer an ideological movement? Are there still punk bands who piss on stage, do the whole spitting thing, etc.? I don't mean to offend fans of the genre, but I would assert that Pop punk is a derivative form of punk, but a subgenre of Pop music.

Remember that I say that I dont really listen to punk, but I think this a question that most people who visit this article would be asking themselves. Hopefully this starts some discussion and leads to some useful content in this article.118.208.203.73 (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Pop Punk is a subgenre of Punk Rock because it's still protest music! Well, except some bands that I don't think they're Pop Punk (example: Good Charlotte). It's more punk than it's pop. And it didn't derivated from directly frompop, but from powerpop, pop rock and maybe Teen Pop (my opinion with teen pop) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.71.91.63 (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

---

It's punk in the strict, musical sense. Although it retains the same themes (politicians suck, the current order of the world sucks, everything is horrible) and the sound, it lost the entire attitude and culture; the 1970's/80's punk culture has moved on to independent hardcore venues, but even then, hardcore is also getting more and more 'accepted' every day. The evolution of punk into... this, is no different then what happened to rap. Can we truly consider amongst rap (a genre which SOLE PURPOSE is to express anger by the poor and hopeless) artists guy's like Lil' Wayne, guy's who literally go AGAINST everything rap stands for by singing about how rich and spoiled and privileged they are and how they can have anything they want and never have to work an honest day in their life?

The idea that punk would always be anti-establishment was stupid at best. No matter what, if a genre is good enough to make people listen to it, it's good enough to be inevitably cannibalized, gutted, and assimilated by the mainstream culture. In the 21st century the Trent Reznors and other TRUE individuals who make music separate from the corporate world are the lunatics and minorities, not the trend-setters. -unsigned

Punk was never real..because the ideology was about being unique and every punk has to like the ramones and dress how johnny rotten wants, to be punk!Pop punk is punk because it derived from it!No matter if it's mainstream or not, it's still punk!How do you expect good music not being mainstream?--188.26.49.0 (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is jagged. It's quite revealing of the fact that thousands of people wrote it without corrobberating with each other at all

So, as the article makes extremely clear, by "pop punk" we're not discussing "popular punk" (by which standard virtually any punk band with a valid wikipedia page would be "pop punk", and we would have no reason to bother differentiating between the two terms), but the actual musical style of "pop" music; the lighter, cleaner, clearer, refined, and for lack of a better word, "pussy" sound. So with that in mind, whoever stated that Green Day and The Offspring popularized pop punk is an idiot, who clearly was either A) Too young to clearly remember the mid-early 90's, or B) Never actually heard mid-early 90's punk, in their life, and is basing their utterly false (and somewhat laughable) claim that the bands started off pop-punk on the fact that they read that moniker in the bands wikipedia page, was too stupid to look up the bands' history, and had no sort of context whatsoever. The claim that Rancid, Green Day, and The Offspring where playing pop punk is simply wrong. Offspring and Greenday played as pure punk as one could imagine, and Operation Ivy/Rancid played a Skacore Punk that sounded nothing whatsoever like pop. All three bands begain switching to a pop (and eventually, in Greenday's case, a pop/emo) in the very early 2000's. Anyone who thinks any of the bands early works sounds anything remotely close to poppunk should listen to 1039 Smoothed Out Slappy Hours, Smash, or the album Rancid. Those albums are as "pop" as Minor Threat. -unsigned

You know, based on this rambling, incoherent passage of text written by someone who is obviously very threatened by someone calling Green Day and The Offspring what they are, which is pop-punk, I went back and listened to 1039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours (which is actually two EP's packaged as one album, but this guy obviously didn't know that), and then I listened to Minor Threat, since I have Complete Discography. I thought I might educate myself in the wisdom this sage man offered.

And wouldn't you know it, he's wrong! Completely! Green Day is a pop band! It's great that Wikipedia allows idiotic crap like the above, and lets it stay there to do nothing but prompt responses like this one! Pierrelarcin3 (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Please don't ramble about your outmoded ideas on authenticity here, please. You offer no actual evidence to support your claims, and sound uninformed and whiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.95.64.254 (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary Pop Punk?

Shouldn't this article make mention of the more contemporary but not necessarily mainstream pop punk such as Teenage Bottlerocket? It seems incomplete if the only contemporary pop punk it is mentioning is that of the mainstream field, it should also mention modern independent and underground pop punk. The current version of the article might make it seem as though underground pop punk died out in the early 90's and was "replaced" by only mainstream pop punk, it's linear and incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VanPunker (talk • contribs) 05:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Easycore

I've redirected easycore to here as I could not find a single reliable source for it and every band referred to as such was a pop punk band,Inhumer (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Pop Punk is still PUNK!

If you search for "pseudo-punk" you'll get redirected here! Pseudo means "fake" and pop punk shouldn't be classified so just because of the bands like Simple Plan or blink-182! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.48.176 (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think pseudo just means punk that has been watered down. So pop punk. So I see no problem with it in my opinion. In my opinion, too many people are desperate for their music tatse to be considered 'cool' these days that they hate anything that could injure its reputation. When its something as important as Wikipedia, some tolerance is needed and this discussion page certainly doesn't show that (on a whole). Zylo1994 (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, pseudo means fake.It's punk, since even the Buzzcocks played it!And I'm deleting "surf punk" from the article, because that redirects to skate punk..look:surf punk--188.26.49.0 (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Skate Punk

should skate punk be put in the stylistic origins? i mean the offspring and blink-182 were both skate punk before developing. skate punk was essentially a transitional genre. Jonjonjohny (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC) No, actually Pop Punk is one of the stylistic origins of Skate Punk.--212.71.91.63 (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wannabe Punk

Someone modified the article and wrote that Pop punk is WANNA BE PUNK..I deleted that, because the Ramones and The Buzzcocks were the first pop punk bands. Not Blink or Simple Plan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.71.91.63 (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)