Talk:Pop-punk/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Cheap Trick

Wouldn't Cheap Trick be considered influential to pop punk? NoremacDaGangsta (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

it's not really an oxymoron

you see the thing is that people call it an oxymoron because it's got the word pop in it, but does pop have fast distorted guitar's? pop punk is punk but a little more melodic, so it's not actually an oxymoron, it's just been misnamed, a better name choice would of been melodic punk. So while the name may be an oxymoron the genre is not. 188.222.41.105 (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Blondie?

The entire discussion of what is or isn't punk or its subgenres generally leaves everyone a bit stupider. That said, wouldn't Blondie be considered pop punk? Historically they started at the same time as the Ramones (the first official Ramones gig was opening for Blondie in August, 1974), and while I don't think the Ramones and Blondie were pop, Blondie seems closer to the mark than the Ramones, although the overlap in their sensibilities is apparent. (Maybe "pop art" is a better description). And when they toured the UK in 1978, another band listed, the Buzzcocks were chosen to open for them. There was a noticeable similarity in styles of music. I'm always a bit bemused how Blondie never seems to fit the bill when these Wikipedia articles are written. A lot of it is source material; music writers habitually neglect them. But a major band from the punk scene that had a huge global impact in their own time that was always being accused of being "too pop" seems like a significant omissionAlexhaniha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"Loud guitars"

I've gotta say, a definition of a musical genre that includes 'loud guitars' as a criterion sounds simple-minded at best. Bitbut (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request to fix redirect

{{Editprotected}} Change the link TSOL to T.S.O.L. to fix a redirect caused by a page move. Uncontroversial. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleted "Underground" section

I deleted the "Underground" Pop-Punk (1990-Present) section because it was unreferenced, unencyclopedic, trivial, and was POV-pushing original research. The point of the section seemed to be "Not all pop punk bands had big hits. Here are some pop punk bands I like that didn't have big hits."Spylab (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what I'm doing on this, but I actually agreed with the underground section, as most teenagers that are in the pop-punk scene would reference those bands. Someone looking up pop-punk on this site is going to think that ATL and blink are what pop-punk stands for. The main bands referenced all have large followings, however more of their fans are more of the screw paying for music I'm a broke teenager/college student who can't afford it, so they download it illegally. I just think that it's dumb bands not in the top 40 or not listened to by the 30 somethings editing this page should not be on it. Sorry for not really knowing how to post on here. (74.212.38.15 (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC))

I have this paged watchlisted as of my edit (a reversion). All I have seen have been the re-addition and reversion of content since then. I have requested Page Protection until this can be sorted out. My personal opinion is that without references of this idea, how can we justify notability and adding in what seems (to me) a sort of trivia section. Tartarus ^talk 00:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said before the protection, my case is that of "if we don't have any way of citing it as fact, how to we put it in the article?" Assuming that it is indeed true, how do we go about indicating such? (e.g.: references or citations; quotes from people of notability.) I have left a message at the talk pages of all those involved in this discussion urging you all to come and comment on how we can resolve this. Tartarus ^talk 02:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• I looked at the section again to see if it could be salvaged, but I really don't see how. It is pretty much all just opinion. Maybe some of the bands that are mentioned can be discussed in another section of the article.Spylab (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Spylab. And I think it will be not be easy to reliably assert that the relatively obscure bands mentioned were influential. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. I don't see a lot here that can be salvaged as reliable sources that support notability are unlikely to be forthcoming.--SabreBD (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• I propose that unless a reliable source or notable reference can be shown as well as a rewritten paragraph, within the next four days, that a consensus has been reached by those involved that the section should not be re-added. Tartarus ^talk 12:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Update - full protection

I've full-protected it till there is some resolution on the talk page. Discuss away. If any admin feels there is a resolution and I'm not around, feel free to unprotect. It'd be nice to get a broader input. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Update - unprotected

Oops. Forgot about this. Now duly unprotected. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy?

Fall Out Boy was mentioned in this article before the page locking dispute. Why aren't they on anymore? They are one of the extremely few pop punk acts that achieved massive mainstream success in the mid 2000s, and brought their pop punk songs to hit mainstream pop radio hard (3 Billboard Hot 100 top 10s and 2 more in the top 20) with 3 top 10 Billboard 200 albums (Infinity on High peaked at #1; 2 gold albums, a double platinum and a platinum). They even have an influence over other bands of the genre such as All Time Low, with bassist Pete Wentz's Decaydance record label signing a few successful pop punk groups. Panic! At The Disco was successful too - their "I Write Sins Not Tragedies" single was a monster smash hit in 2006, everyone in pop punk as well as even mainstream pop still knows it. This page could also mention, if sources can be found, the decline (ahem almost death) of pop punk in the 2010s. Blink, New Found Glory, Good Charlotte, Simple Plan and Sum 41 were monster pop punk bands in the early 2000s but today their latest albums are commercial failures. From platinum over and over to one week in the top 50. I have a Billboard source that says the pop punk genre ?lacks mainstream representation" (the Blink cover story a few months back) Noreplyhaha (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Expanding history

I think that we should expand the history list to include many bands that have formed recently, such as Man Overboard, Set Your Goals, The Wonder Years, Four Year Strong, and A Day to Remember — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.128.126 (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC) I think we really need to, we did have them up, but some prick said they were all no names, but that is because they all grew up in the 90's early 00's and cannot fathom that new bands could form and have a large following, because they have not heard of them. 209.74.51.238 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Content needs to be relevant and backed up with reliable references. There is already too much unreferenced content of debatable relevance in this article. There is no need to add even more. If you just want to add bands, add them to List of pop punk bands (with references showing they are pop punk bands).Spylab (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Punk

shouldn't this be redirected to Alternative Rock? Ericdeaththe2nd —Preceding undated comment added 23:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Daft Punk: Punk?

As a friend once opined, these many years ago, everything on Earth is either Punk, or its Not Punk. For example, Bob Vila? Not punk. The guy from Yankee Workshop? Punk. All that said, is Daft Punk punk? They're musically, of course, not punk, but that doesn't mean that they are Not Punk as a whole. If you know much about their backstory, you know that they have this thing where, they claimed to have had an "accident in their studio" -- and the outcome was, they both transformed into robots. This was the story behind their appearing in robotic costumes and otherwise rocking that vibe for awhile. I'm not sure what they're doing now, but i suspect its equally..."of elaborate mythology", you know? So, would you say that they are punk, or that they are not punk? Or pop punk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.56.24 (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

They're Electronica. Get over it. (142.29.104.31 (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

They're the opposite of punk, why would anyone even consider it a possibility for that group to be punk? Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Easycore"

I would like to point out that despite being in the scene, I haven't ever heard of "Easycore" before. I understand that bands like A Day To Remember and Four Year Strong are some sort of harder pop punk, but the label "Easycore" is completely obscure and unknown. Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As someone into the scene I can verify that it is a fairly common term. http://www.xeasycorex.net/ would be a good example of all of it.--184.8.136.151 (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The main issue with easycore as it died really quickly. For instance the original editor who added examples of easycore bands like: The Wonder Years, Veara, Major League, Chunk! No Captain Chunk and City Lights. Bar The Wonder Years, none of these bands have wikipedia pages due to lack of notability and The Wonder Years, if you could consider their first album easycore, have shown a departure from the related ascetics. And the same goes for Set Your Goals, who were considered easycore but have gone to a more straight up pop punk sound now. Easycore was based on pop punk bands fusing elements of post-hardcore, melodic metalcore and melodic hardcore with varying degrees for different bands.

But the fact is it isn't a typically well documented sub-genre, and for now is just one of those terms kept in the pop punk scene. Alternative music focused comedy blog site Stuff You Will Hate talks about easycore a lot, in fact it's editors support bands that still try to make the music by writing about them. Easycore.net tragically is not considered WP:RS but it does show that the scene still exists. A good link to follow and read through is the Google news search of easycore, the links that come up will be reliable. Jonjonjohny (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Pure Pop Punk

I actually think this article is great, in that it unapologetically just follows the popularity of pop punk, naming the bigger, more successful acts, and tracking their album sales. That is how you would most accurately measure pop punk (or any music genre's) cultural impact. That is how you would scientifically tell how many people are affected by it. However, I am one of the people who agrees that this article has 2 main problems:

1. It has kind of a makeshift "amature" feel to it (no offense to anyone), and.... 2. It doesn't go deep enough into the "purity" of pop punk, and exactly what the sound of pop punk is, originally.

As to the 2nd point, I really think that none of the article needs to be deleted, but it really needs to add a section on what bands are unquestionably pop punk, whether they are popular in the mainstream or not. I truly believe that MxPx is about the best example of a pop punk band out there, although there are other examples that are just as good. Their song "Responsibility" just about nails the genre on the head, both in sound and "attitude." I just tend to think that MxPx didn't get enough mention, as they really seem to be in the dead center of the genre, sound wise, even if they've never had the popularity of Fall Out Boy etc. The reason I mention this is because acts like Fall Out Boy and Avril Lavigne are getting plenty of mention here for their success, but at their most extreme, they sound pretty different from pure pop punk. I just wouldn't want people to think Avril's "I'm With You," or FOB's "Sugar We're Going Down" are dead on examples of pop punk. Many mainstream songs like that let chords ring a lot longer, and really lose the frenetic, quick punch of pop punk. They are not very pure examples of pop punk, even if they are great, popular songs.

I also think it's worth going into a little further that The Ramones (although not the be-all- end-all origin of punk) were quite poppy at their core, with songs like "Blitzkrieg Bop," and "Sheena is a Punk Rocker." I think its relevant that punk was quite poppy in its inception, and a lot of its purpose was to bring fun simplicity back into rock. By that measure, pop punk might be the purest form of punk. Another thing worth mentioning is the close relationship between emo and pop punk because of bands like MxPx.

As for getting a more encyclopedic feel to the article, maybe someone could get a music professor with a PhD. to write all of this stuff on his blog or online somewhere, or maybe you could quote a book written by a music expert that goes into all of this stuff. It would seem a l ittle more official, not to criticize. Overall, I like the existing sections of the article.CaptainNicodemus (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pop punk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061120201744/http://www.theundertones.com/index.cfm?go=public.band to http://www.theundertones.com/index.cfm?go=public.band
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071001002403/http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7250430/undertones_get_new_kicks to http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7250430/undertones_get_new_kicks

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pop punk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081009155020/http://darwin.citysearch.com.au:80/music/viewContent/1119945819575/1137509637901 to http://darwin.citysearch.com.au/music/viewContent/1119945819575/1137509637901

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Pop punk subculture

What is the proper name for the Trendies of the late 90s and early 2000s who wore Tripp pants, spiky hair, striped clothing and red plaid? They listened to groups like Green Day, Sum 41, Korn, or Blink 182 and were viewed as posers by the older punks and goths. These are the same kids who ripped off emo fashions in the late 2000s like skinny jeans, comic print hoodies, keffiyehs, and androgynous hairstyles.

-Ossie

I think "Poseurs" is pretty much the accepted name for the early 00's Pop Punk kids. "Mall Punks" was also another term used pretty commonly around this time.

SickofTalk (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pop-punk/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is a horribly written piece. It offers absolutely no insight into this genre of music but rather only gives what bands were influinced and their albums released. In my opinion it reads as if a fan who collects their cd's wrote it and has not done any actual research into the subject of pop-punk. To improve this article, there needs to be some sort of actual depth included. Questions that need answered are what differentiates pop punk from hard core, and punk bands of the 1970s.

Last edited at 08:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pop punk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/16/AR2006071600317.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

How is Man Overboard not mentioned in this article?

Defend Pop Punk, man. Defend it. Man. Xsxex (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Citing, with suggestions for improvements.

Overall the citing in this article is spot on, but there are some areas where it could be improved, such as the final paragraph under the sub header "Popular Acceptance, where mentions of bands making the Billboard lists were not cited. Additionally, might the inclusion of All Time Low's "Dear Maria, Count Me In" be better made noticeable considering they are mentioned in the section "Continuation and hybridization (2005–2009)" merely for their success relative to the Billboard lists; Maria was certified platinum in 2015, despite the band's seemingly eternal struggle to gain radio popularity (not as much an issue in modern culture, but in 2007 when it was released (on the album "So Wrong, It's Right") radio play was a primary stage for budding artists (of course MTV had a huge part in solidifying ATL's mainstream presence, however). Tagg580 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Pop punk

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Pop punk's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "billboard.com":

• From Emo: "Heatseekers: Something to Write Home About". Billboard charts. Archived from the original on June 10, 2009. Retrieved March 25, 2009. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Billboard 200: "Greatest of All Time: Billboard 200 Albums". Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. 2015-11-12. Archived from the original on 2016-10-01. Retrieved 2016-10-02. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Easycore

Easycore is notable enough that it warrants it's own page, as it is a different genre from pop punk. Thoughts? SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 23:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Emo pop

If Emo pop is no longer considered a mixture a Emo and Pop Punk and instead a fusion between Emo and Pop similar to that of Pop Punk should it not be mentioned at all here? Pop Punk is a genre many contemporary Emo groups are accosiated with and it is listed as a stylistic origin on Emo's respective page, can Emo be added as a derivative form then or a subgenre? Dekai Averett (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, go ahead and make that change as long as you don't remove any sources. If you find a source that defines emo pop a fusion of emo and pop punk, please add that to the emo pop page.--MASHAUNIX 23:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Should Emo be added as a Derivative form or Subgenre? Dekai Averett (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dekai Averett: Don't make this change please. Emo pop is a mixture of pop punk and emo. Emo isn't even close to a subgenre of pop punk; it's already been established as a subgenre of post-hardcore and indie rock. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 17:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Care to provide a source that defines it that way? I would expect better from you than to make that change without any regard to sources cited and any explanation...--MASHAUNIX 21:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@SuperLuigi22: you need to find a source that says so, if you can not it will be taken down again, and not by me. Dekai Averett (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dekai Averett: The AllMusic source that has been used on emo pop's page explicitly states how it came from pop punk. Putting emo as a subgenre of pop punk would lead to confusion, as bands like Rites of Spring and Embrace who are members of the first iteration of emo aren't pop punk in the slightest. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 18:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to note, neither are they indie rock.--MASHAUNIX 21:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mashaunix: Can you clarify? I don't understand your sentence. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 22:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

You could just as well say that "Rites of Spring and Embrace ... aren't indie rock in the slightest".--MASHAUNIX 22:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mashaunix: Exactly, because they aren't. Rites of Spring are post-hardcore and emo. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 22:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, yet you also say "it's already been established as a subgenre of post-hardcore and indie rock". So you are contradicting yourself in your argument against considering emo a subgenre of pop punk. I don't have a strong opinion for either, just wanted to point this out to you.--MASHAUNIX 22:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mashaunix: You might have misunderstood me a little bit. There are two different forms of emo; both of which are acknowledged on the emo page. The first one is a subgenre of post-hardcore/hardcore punk which contains confessional lyrics and twinkly guitars. The second form is a form of indie rock, as well as math rock and alternative rock, which contains the same confessional lyrics as well as adding a unique vocal style. I was stating that Rites of Spring was in this first style of emo, which is post-hardcore. For example, Sunny Day Real Estate would be a second wave emo band.

I think it can be misleading to think of a strict hierarchy of genres. Genres, musicians really, are influenced and influence each other back and forth. Jonpatterns (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Green Day trilogy

This article needs mention of Uno! Dos! and Tre! as it was kind of a big deal. BlackDragon 02:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

@Black60dragon: No they weren't at all. Those albums aren't even primarily pop punk anyway SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 03:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pop punk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812030445/http://punkmodpop.free.fr/ to http://punkmodpop.free.fr/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015235600/http://www.livedaily.com/news/2098.html to http://www.livedaily.com/news/2098.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2011/sep/14/blurt1/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Easycore, infobox

Could Easycore be given it's own infobox in its section? It wouldn't be the only page to have a second infobox as Jazz-rock, Indietronica, and Jazzcore all have infoboxes on their respective pages (Jazz fusion, Indie rock, and Jazz punk). Dekai Averett (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No. Easycore is not as big a genre as you think it might be, and honestly the other examples probably shouldn't either. They do source their claims just fine, but I would object to why they are there in the first place because that's already been made clear in the prose (or if it's not, it could easily be done). dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Broken Citation Link

Citation 83 - a yahoo bio referencing Avril Lavigne's music as pop-punk or pop-punk inspired - is broken. --Nkcomn (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Blink's huge representation in pop punk

Reading the article it only showcases Blink-182 being just another band that got mainstream, while not refering to them as being responsible for its huge influence in developing the subgenre, that it's often overshadowed by critic darlings Green Day. I made changes that I considered "major" in the summary, putting Green Day (along w/ Rancid and Offspring) in prompting punk rock (not pop punk) to mainstream success, while pointing blink as the band that made pop punk mainstream as a whole in late 90s, because of their glossy production made the band a household name in the subgenre, that propelled them to a more radio-friendly sound than their contemporaries. ManneredMan (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)