• @[email protected]
    8•6 months ago

    I mean, you can have whatever opinion you want but this one in particular isn’t very helpful. Lots of new bands call themselves or are called punk.

    https://bandcamp.com/discover/punk

    Are you going to tell them they’re doing it wrong?

    You could make an argument that there is “classic punk” like “classic rock”, and maybe people would know what you meant, but that’s not really the language as it is spoken today.

    • kronisk
      0•6 months ago

      Did you actually listen to any of the bands from the bandcamp link? A lot of them could not be called punk by any stretch of the imagination, but more genre tags mean a higher chance for listens.

      Some extra confusion comes from the fact that “punk” doubles as the name of a movement (or perhaps an attitude) and any style of vaguely ramones-derived music. Most of the time, it’s used as no more than a nice buzzword that simply means “attitude” in a very vague sense. To exemplify, “Noone is as punk as Celine Dion!” is a sentence that both makes perfect sense (you understand what is meant) and is complete nonsense at the same time. The words “dubstep” or “zydeco” cannot be used in the same way.

      Are you going to tell them they’re doing it wrong?

      To be clear, is your argument that the term “punk” is completely devoid of meaning and if someone calls their music punk, it must be? That’s really not helpful at all.

      • @[email protected]
        3•6 months ago

        My argument is there are contemporary bands that call themselves punk and are called punk by others. There are subgenres like pop punk to further clarify. One could be a cliché pedant and say like “pop punk isn’t punk” but that was an eyeroller when 30 years ago when the argument was new.

        You said “a lot of them” on the search link can’t be called punk. But then some of them presumably can be. So then new punk bands exist.