With this year being arguably one of the finest years of music in recent years, having witnessed a huge revival and surge in popularity of pop-punk music, unfortunately it's increasing status and it's greater presence in mainstream culture occasionally brings it under fire from critics. Blink 182 are back, new bands the Wonder Years and Fireworks are in full form. Set Your Goals feel like veterans, and there are a legion of young bands that harken back to New Found Glory's finer days. It has prompted criticisms such as "it's just whiney pop music" and "it's all the same watered down throwback to bands like Green Day." These are extremely common criticisms. But it's this I'm not angry with. It's a specific statement from members of generations before us and a few snobby internet teens who turn to the past for musical satisfaction. They will fiercely say, with unwavering conviction and certainty; that pop-punk, "is not punk", infuriatingly negating the whole music genre and scene that so many of us love. When questioned, the strongest point in their argument, which shall be debated in this piece, is that the original punk movement was based on politics and social change, a common belief. But is this statement entirely true, and does it negate pop-punk music as undeserving of the 'punk name'?
I was sat in a hostel bar in Buenos Aires on a rather typical evening on my travels, sipping the first of many beers in an average, university style, ritualistic pre-drinking session. Everything was quite normal for that brief period in my life; two close friends, a few nice people we'd just met , sitting at a long table having a post-dinner drink, warming up for the night in the city to come. Then, everything changed. Mid conversation, i am posed one of the most frustrating questions ever brought upon man. The person I was chatting to was a friendly, but loud and outspoken mid-twenties guy from northern england, and he inquired: "What kind of music are you into?" Now, over the years I've learned to direct people to my ipod to see for themselves, an easy cop out of a response, but a response to this question that is as brilliantly thorough as I have ever discovered. However, tonight I chose to answer vocally. "Loads of different things; at the moment, a mixture of things, mainly punk music." The very second I finish my sentence, he inquires further: "What bands?" I try my best to name some of the bands I listen to and put the music in perspective. The damage was done. "That's not fucking punk!" he fired back. But little did I realise I was facing a 15 minute scolding very reminiscent of angering the teacher in a primary school class. The veracity in which he was shouting at me was turning heads - literally three other people instantly began skirting our conversation, getting the kind of enjoyment you would get out of it if a bar fight just kicked off at the other side of the room. If honest, the guy was so loud in protesting against me, that they didn't have a choice but to overhear. After a thoroughly demeaning, yet somehow amusing, conversation, I managed to ditch him, and over the next few days gathered my thoughts on the topic.
Looking objectively at modern pop-punk music and 70's punk music, there are a few clear cut differences. modern punk is based in america, among late-adolescents and young adults, and a throwback to the distorted guitar, fast punk music of the original movement. 70's punk was rooted in the uk and co-existed with ska, and revolved around more of an underground arts culture among working class adults. Bands in the original 70's punk movement are largely considered to have been outspoken about politics, oppression and the working class, while pop-punk is more about the experiences and conflicted emotions of post-adolescence, and the angst that comes along with it. Punk, arguably, built it's name on the all encompassing nature of the music. Most punks felt a part of a huge movement based on shared political ideals. The political ideals are not integral to the music of modern pop-punk in America, and there is no widespread political ideology amongst it's fans. It is more of a musical phenomenon, and there is not a preachy, unifying, protesting social edge to the music, and in this way it differs greatly from 70's punk. If this alone is the defining factor of 'punk' then the people arguing this point have a more or less steady footing, however this still must be questioned. If you stumble upon the latest record by an American pop-punk band called The Wonder Years, and you'll find the track "I Won't Say The Lords Prayer", a ballsy critique on organised religion and it's impact on society. They sing "It's a gang mentality, a dangerous thing. Billboards flaunt scare tactics, make you think that you're only good if you're afraid of being punished." In more mainstream and mid-2000's examples, NOFX's 'War On Errorism' and Green Day's 'American Idiot' were largely focused on the presidency of George Bush and the war in Iraq, and sought to unite the young among america to get involved in politics and rebel. One can't directly compare this to lyrics of any arbritary first wave punk song, but it must be noted that pop-punk does occasionally have a political edge, and isn't that the definitive characteristic that makes punk, punk? Can you alienate the pop-punk bands that aren't directly associated with social commentary?
Looking back to the origins of punk's history and the songs of some of the most timeless bands from that era would reveal very surprising truths about punk. The Clash sung songs about girls and partying (see: "Should I Stay or Should I Go" and "Rock the Casbah"). The Sex Pistols didn't believe in anything but mindless anger (see: Anarchy in the UK), and rather ridiculously, were essentially a boy band constructed by Malcolm McClaren, (see: "The Great Rock and Roll Swindle", among common histories of the band). Is when the Sex Pistols played on a boat on the Thames during the Queens Jubilee as a marketing stunt, without any political motivation really the legitimate, meaningful protest that punks at the time would feel it is? In the words of a mentor at music college, "It got me in the record shop first thing the next day." The Undertones' greatest hit was "Teenage Kicks," a song about essentially wanting to get laid: need I say more? So, why is punk held in such a hugely political light? I ask, especially considering there is political music found elsewhere, such as the blues, which came directly out of American slavery. I'm positive that within the subculture there were a legion of small bands who really were angry about specific causes, and rallied against genuine oppression, but then consider this: did they really make that much of an impact at all? Surely if they had made an impact on specific issues, surely they would be remembered as such. Even the Specials had more political commentary than some of these punk bands (see: "Ghost Town", "Too Much, Too Young"), and they were a Ska band. The whole movement also dissipated quickly into what can only be described as a trend: the police, a pop group, were marketed by their label as punks, posing in leather jackets by decrepit walls in their photoshoots, and largely giving the opinion of a tougher, rebellious edge.
The latest wave of pop-punk is at times, a very powerful, legitimate form of music that really does have something to say for itself. Is post-adolescent angst, confusion and feelings towards the opposite sex illegitimate? Are the high pitched, nasal voices really not to be taken seriously? Straying away from a large proportion of mainstream pop music that has little to say about anything, beyond being the product of hollywood personality type songwriters with dollar signs in their eyes, you'll find some outspoken pop-punk bands with a real sense of beliefs, community spirit, and passion. We see socio-political commentary amongst some bands, as referenced earlier in the piece. One must also consider the unity and inter-relatability of the fans. It is very much a defining part of their personality, fashion sense, and commune in the punk venues and clubs in the area, or more excitingly, set up gigs in their basements. If this isn't a legitimate social movement, then i don't know what is. Though this isn't the entire story, and with hours of research this argument could be expanded on massively, it's quite clear that pop-punk has a right to carry the name of punk, should it want to, with little opposition. Oddly, unbeknownst to me, the argument was actually settled that very evening in the bar, the moment that the loud, abrasive guy from outside birmingham pulled out this weird gem of a quote: "Margeret Thatcher.. Great woman, but I would have a glass of champagne on the day she dies". I mean, really?
Post-script: I must be emphatic on this point, with hours of research this argument could be expanded on massively and take various avenues that I haven't taken in this article. This article is simply a musing and a few thoughts on a very wide-spanning and complex argument. Thank you for reading.
