![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please use the space below to suggest fundamental changes to the article as it is being merged and re-written as decided by the vote on talk:pop punk (revival). Please feel free to make minor edits on the actual article, but for larger issues that would warrant the rewrite of whole sentences or paragraphs, please use this space. Thanx. Xsxex 22:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Pop punk is the more commonly used term that punk pop which describes a sub-genre of punk. This sub-genre rejects the punk ethos with more mainstream, melodic music that has a very polished and heavily produced feel. This contrasts with the raw, incredibly fast sound of punk, ska punk and hardcore punk. Punk Pop is a strange swapping of the more general term which should be merged with the pop-punk page.
Additionally, the term has changed meanings over time. Whereas it was very commonly found in the pages of MaximumRocknRoll during the ninties, it later was used in the larger music press and mainstream journalists. As a sub-catergory of the Punk subculture, the term also changes as punk culture changes. Punk itsef has had a variety of cultural meanings which ranging from pre-punk rock meanings (such as: adj. inferior, poor health, or n. prostitue, young homosexual, young man, hoodlum, dried wood used for tinder, or a beginner/novice), to post-punk rock cultural perceptions as a tabloid curiosity (1977), a societal disease (1980s), annoying snot-flingers (1990s), and most recently, cute little babies (2000s). With punk culture edging past 30 years, and apparently still full of steam, spinning off subgenres and attracting new devotees, undoubtly the meaning of punk is still being made.
Inter-Note Reference [ [7]]
Inter-Note Reference [ [8]] (click "skip advertisement" at the top of the page, can this be avoided?)
I have removed this section, as all it did was direct the reader to the disambig page. Isopropyl 22:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Proposing that we split off list of bands, unless someone objects with a valid reason. Isopropyl 22:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. Isopropyl 17:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
There is talk, evidently, or a movement rather to turn lists into categories and to delete the lists, I dont know what you guys think about this but, I dont think list of pop punk bands should be deleted. Thoughts? Xsxex 00:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The pop punk tribute band to ABBA and The Ramones, Gabba (band) has been marked for deletion. You may want to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabba (band) -- 62.147.113.247 05:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm considering splitting the article, its quite clear that there are two different meanings of the term "pop punk", I'm thinking of turning this one into a focus on 1970s original pop-punk movement, ala Buzzcocks and Ramones...
While creating Pop punk revival for the more recent 1990s Californian MTV bands. A similar situation is already inplace with the Post-punk article where they created Post-punk revival to solve it. - Deathrocker 06:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've split it now... needs some work though. - Deathrocker 14:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't we create a stylistics origin section for pop punk. DavidJJJ 16:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this has been address in the article now, but it could be more in dpeth, what do you think? Xsxex 15:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
just because some guy decided to re-name a genre doesnt mean it should be included in the first sentence... case in point there is no article for "buzzpop" other than a redirect to Pop punk... so whats the point.. THERE IS NO BUZZPOP.. im getting annoyed.. by the way... I WROTE THE ORGINAL ARTICLE in DECEMBER 2004 ((( http://bvio.ngic.re.kr/Bvio/index.php/Punk_pop)))... theres been a lot of appropriate additions and corrections and improvements but i dont know whats been going on lately... if anyone wants to write me add a note in my talk page on my user profile... bradley adita aka Xsxex 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
word yeah i know.. thats why im not changing anything.. and frankly i dont really care.. but i do.. but not enough to really go bonkers or anything... yeah no one owns the article.. but have you ready it lately?? i wouldnt want to own that.. 24.13.194.165 02:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Mothers, fathers, sisters, brother, YO!, so yeah the "Bvio" link that I provided above has been put out of commish. The point is i wrote the skeletal article back then, and it was a big hot heap of hooey, but it provided some structure. User:Painbearer merged the article which i wrote for "punk pop" into this article on June 10th 2005. There has been alot of changes since then. Actually we're on a much better path now, i think. im my humble.... ok. Xsxex 23:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Haha this must be some big joke right?? The Ramones were BARELY called punk rock to begin with let alone Pop Punk... from 1974-1977 (until the summer of 77 in london) punk was still a very esotric term... The term "Pop punk" probably was first uttered in the mid to late 80s to describe the music in on the West coast.. The Ramones and many others (as listed in the beginning) were instrumental in the pop punk sound, but this was only realized later. The Ramones were never considered pop punk until the late 80s/ early 90s.. and was reclaimed by bands such as Screeching Weasel. But you have to understand that Screeching Weasel took at least 10 years to become possible after punk (summer of 77). Point being... Pop punk was probably first concieved in the late 80s and broke on to the mainstream in the mid 90s... after which it continued to gain in popularity up to the present. Since the popularity of pop punk has never been obsolete or in serious decline... it makes no sense to speak of a "Pop punk revival." Furthermore I have never heard someone say they are in a pop punk revival band... and i have never heard a band described as a "pop punk revival" group. The author should reconsile these issues and make the appropriate corrections. If you want to spout off, start a zine!!! Xsxex 01:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Simple Plan? Good Charlotte? New Found Glory? Yellowcard? Fall Out Boy? The majority of the bands don't seem to be influenced by punk rock at all in their music, but more skate punk stuff like NOFX. - Deathrocker 12:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I did a major cleanup to get closer to Wikipedia standards, but there are still improvements to be made by people who know more about the subject. I re-ordered it so it's organized better and easier to read, deleted a lot of point of view, deleted repetitive content, deleted content that isn't relevant to the topic and fixed up sentence structure, among other improvements. Spylab 03:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab
Skylab, said at the top of the page, This article or section is currently being developed or reviewed. Again, please use the talk page before you make any sweeping edits. The article does need to be closer to wikipedia standards, but I think in this case you might have deleted too much information. Please make the revert yourself and bring up specific points on the talk page. Xsxex 13:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I did use the talk page. You just responded to it. If you think I deleted anything that is necessary to understand the topic, go ahead and re-add it. I only deleted content I believe is irrelevant to the subject of pop punk, biased or incorrect. I see you made a lot of recent changes to the article too, and don't see your explanations for what you did. Perhaps you should lead by example. Spylab 15:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab
The changes were reflective of the material which was deleted by you and others, I was surprised to see even Deathrocker reverted the article after your deletions. If you want to discuss it on a point by point case thats cool and there is a section at the top of this talk page to do so. I'd recommend going through the article and making a list of points. However, the article will be reverted back to it's prior edit. I don't see why categories "must" be listed at the bottom of the page. However when I revert I will display both ways. If you want to contest it, right it with one of your points. Also, was it your intention to delete references? Please be more careful when you edit. Thanks. Xsxex 16:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please use the space below to suggest fundamental changes to the article as it is being merged and re-written as decided by the vote on talk:pop punk (revival). Please feel free to make minor edits on the actual article, but for larger issues that would warrant the rewrite of whole sentences or paragraphs, please use this space. Thanx. Xsxex 22:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Pop punk is the more commonly used term that punk pop which describes a sub-genre of punk. This sub-genre rejects the punk ethos with more mainstream, melodic music that has a very polished and heavily produced feel. This contrasts with the raw, incredibly fast sound of punk, ska punk and hardcore punk. Punk Pop is a strange swapping of the more general term which should be merged with the pop-punk page.
Additionally, the term has changed meanings over time. Whereas it was very commonly found in the pages of MaximumRocknRoll during the ninties, it later was used in the larger music press and mainstream journalists. As a sub-catergory of the Punk subculture, the term also changes as punk culture changes. Punk itsef has had a variety of cultural meanings which ranging from pre-punk rock meanings (such as: adj. inferior, poor health, or n. prostitue, young homosexual, young man, hoodlum, dried wood used for tinder, or a beginner/novice), to post-punk rock cultural perceptions as a tabloid curiosity (1977), a societal disease (1980s), annoying snot-flingers (1990s), and most recently, cute little babies (2000s). With punk culture edging past 30 years, and apparently still full of steam, spinning off subgenres and attracting new devotees, undoubtly the meaning of punk is still being made.
Inter-Note Reference [ [7]]
Inter-Note Reference [ [8]] (click "skip advertisement" at the top of the page, can this be avoided?)
I have removed this section, as all it did was direct the reader to the disambig page. Isopropyl 22:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Proposing that we split off list of bands, unless someone objects with a valid reason. Isopropyl 22:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. Isopropyl 17:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
There is talk, evidently, or a movement rather to turn lists into categories and to delete the lists, I dont know what you guys think about this but, I dont think list of pop punk bands should be deleted. Thoughts? Xsxex 00:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The pop punk tribute band to ABBA and The Ramones, Gabba (band) has been marked for deletion. You may want to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabba (band) -- 62.147.113.247 05:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm considering splitting the article, its quite clear that there are two different meanings of the term "pop punk", I'm thinking of turning this one into a focus on 1970s original pop-punk movement, ala Buzzcocks and Ramones...
While creating Pop punk revival for the more recent 1990s Californian MTV bands. A similar situation is already inplace with the Post-punk article where they created Post-punk revival to solve it. - Deathrocker 06:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've split it now... needs some work though. - Deathrocker 14:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't we create a stylistics origin section for pop punk. DavidJJJ 16:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this has been address in the article now, but it could be more in dpeth, what do you think? Xsxex 15:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
just because some guy decided to re-name a genre doesnt mean it should be included in the first sentence... case in point there is no article for "buzzpop" other than a redirect to Pop punk... so whats the point.. THERE IS NO BUZZPOP.. im getting annoyed.. by the way... I WROTE THE ORGINAL ARTICLE in DECEMBER 2004 ((( http://bvio.ngic.re.kr/Bvio/index.php/Punk_pop)))... theres been a lot of appropriate additions and corrections and improvements but i dont know whats been going on lately... if anyone wants to write me add a note in my talk page on my user profile... bradley adita aka Xsxex 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
word yeah i know.. thats why im not changing anything.. and frankly i dont really care.. but i do.. but not enough to really go bonkers or anything... yeah no one owns the article.. but have you ready it lately?? i wouldnt want to own that.. 24.13.194.165 02:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Mothers, fathers, sisters, brother, YO!, so yeah the "Bvio" link that I provided above has been put out of commish. The point is i wrote the skeletal article back then, and it was a big hot heap of hooey, but it provided some structure. User:Painbearer merged the article which i wrote for "punk pop" into this article on June 10th 2005. There has been alot of changes since then. Actually we're on a much better path now, i think. im my humble.... ok. Xsxex 23:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Haha this must be some big joke right?? The Ramones were BARELY called punk rock to begin with let alone Pop Punk... from 1974-1977 (until the summer of 77 in london) punk was still a very esotric term... The term "Pop punk" probably was first uttered in the mid to late 80s to describe the music in on the West coast.. The Ramones and many others (as listed in the beginning) were instrumental in the pop punk sound, but this was only realized later. The Ramones were never considered pop punk until the late 80s/ early 90s.. and was reclaimed by bands such as Screeching Weasel. But you have to understand that Screeching Weasel took at least 10 years to become possible after punk (summer of 77). Point being... Pop punk was probably first concieved in the late 80s and broke on to the mainstream in the mid 90s... after which it continued to gain in popularity up to the present. Since the popularity of pop punk has never been obsolete or in serious decline... it makes no sense to speak of a "Pop punk revival." Furthermore I have never heard someone say they are in a pop punk revival band... and i have never heard a band described as a "pop punk revival" group. The author should reconsile these issues and make the appropriate corrections. If you want to spout off, start a zine!!! Xsxex 01:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Simple Plan? Good Charlotte? New Found Glory? Yellowcard? Fall Out Boy? The majority of the bands don't seem to be influenced by punk rock at all in their music, but more skate punk stuff like NOFX. - Deathrocker 12:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I did a major cleanup to get closer to Wikipedia standards, but there are still improvements to be made by people who know more about the subject. I re-ordered it so it's organized better and easier to read, deleted a lot of point of view, deleted repetitive content, deleted content that isn't relevant to the topic and fixed up sentence structure, among other improvements. Spylab 03:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab
Skylab, said at the top of the page, This article or section is currently being developed or reviewed. Again, please use the talk page before you make any sweeping edits. The article does need to be closer to wikipedia standards, but I think in this case you might have deleted too much information. Please make the revert yourself and bring up specific points on the talk page. Xsxex 13:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I did use the talk page. You just responded to it. If you think I deleted anything that is necessary to understand the topic, go ahead and re-add it. I only deleted content I believe is irrelevant to the subject of pop punk, biased or incorrect. I see you made a lot of recent changes to the article too, and don't see your explanations for what you did. Perhaps you should lead by example. Spylab 15:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab
The changes were reflective of the material which was deleted by you and others, I was surprised to see even Deathrocker reverted the article after your deletions. If you want to discuss it on a point by point case thats cool and there is a section at the top of this talk page to do so. I'd recommend going through the article and making a list of points. However, the article will be reverted back to it's prior edit. I don't see why categories "must" be listed at the bottom of the page. However when I revert I will display both ways. If you want to contest it, right it with one of your points. Also, was it your intention to delete references? Please be more careful when you edit. Thanks. Xsxex 16:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)