Worst pop-punk band ever?

I nominate Simple Plan. Goddamn they suck.

I also nominate Blink 182, I liked them when they first came out, but then their past few albums they have sounded more like the "Blink Street Boys" than a punk band.

Their recent records (Enema, Pants and Jacket) were by no means good albums, but were at least listenable. They had a few good cuts.

I don't see that with Simple Plan.

-C

they sure are enjoyable IMO. You can hardly even hear Simple Plan singing, and that's even worse than a band like Good Charlotte that imitates Blink 182's vocals.

At least Blink 182 doesn't pretend to be anything other than idiot fratboys. Good Charlotte wants to be taken "seriously" as "social commentary." And they really, really suck.

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1794

Snip:

"I received a staggering number of requests that I turn my boundless wit and wisdom toward Good Charlotte. Unfortunately, I’m not sure I’ll be able to do that to everyone’s satisfaction, because after Barney got overexposed and annoying I pretty much stopped following children’s records."

FUCKIN' SLAM.

I had almost forgotten about Good Charlotte -- another atrocious crime against music.

Goddamn that is hilarious.

and they're marketed to the same teeny bopper crowds that listen to N'Sync and Backstreet Boys

What could be worse than a poser Grean Day band? :puke:

None of those bands are even remotely punk.

For the purposes of this thread, let's allow MTV to classify shit as punk or not (painful, I know, but we gotta find a common definition somewhere, even if all of us hate it from the get-go).

Or maybe Good Charlotte. Very tough call.

that simple plan song "perfect", jesus is there anything more un-punk rock than that.

i have to wonder if these guys really like their stuff or if they are just doing it for the money/exposure. either way it really sucks and i am happy to see people sharing my opinions.

good charlotte also sucks. and so does also these pseudo-emo pop bands these days. like we needed anymore emo or pop-punk. how come bands/musicians feel that they must belong to a genre of music. this stuff has be regurgitated too long. how about some originality.

on the bright side of pop music i am glad to see Outkast getting so much airplay. the I find the latest album to be very fun and original in its mix of styles. blah blah blah etc....


what i find funny is that NOFX is still writing excellent albums that blow all of this stuff away. they are still around, they still don't need MTV, some members are probably close to 40 by now and they are still much hipper than these MTV schmucks. They still manage to make social commentary and be witty/funny at the same time.

I'll have to look into them some more. I love Franco Unamerican ( that's them, right?) and The Idiots Are Taking Over. Snotty as hell.

n/t

You deserve a beat-down for calling Nirvana a pop-punk band. :grr: :argh:

but in my opinion they are a far cry from "pop-punk".

They're grunge. If we started a "worse grunge band" thread then you could pick Nirvana.

n/t

They're generally regarded as the second best rock band of all time, behind only Led Zeppelin.

can one define "grunge"?

They need to get a haircut, and start voting republican like all rich people should do.

Welcome to DU, GW Bush. :hi:

There's no such thing as a good pop-punk band! How does pop-punk even exist!! The whole point of punk is to NOT be mainstream!!

I don't know who they are, but Karl and Unka Dick said they were a good band to proclaim as bad.

and what about that band Sum 42? they're pretty sucky.

Sure, it wasn't CALLED pop-punk then, but Green Day is nothing more than a Buzzcocks-wannabe hack band.

Hence, that's the source.

n/t

Green Day made a career out of exhuming the remains of the Buzzcocks and Frankensteining them up into something sucky.

never thought of it that way, thanks for the insight...

For a long time, well-crafted pop-punk was one of the best arguments against suicide I had: Descendents, Samiam, Doughboys, Husker Du, et al. Some of my favorite music EVER....around 1990, there was a lot of great tunage of this stripe about. But like everything good, once the media gloms on, it becomes a burlesque.

Sure, the roots of the sound started with the Buzzcocks, but by 1988, the approach had become injected with metal influences and stretched out in all kinds of directions. It's like saying why bother listening to Metallica when Black Sabbath invented their sound - arguable, but Metallica incorporated elements Sabbath couldn't have dreamed of in 1970, plus the recording technology by 1986 had advanced to make both bands' sounds tougher, more steely, less murky. Same thing with the early nineties pop-punk sound....


The only legitimate argument that can be made when saying "all (x) kind of music sounds alike" is in techno/dance/electronica and most hip hop, because all the music's purveyors are using the same software, samplers and programmers, and no actual musicians are being used in the making of the music. The only difference is in the vocals, if there are any. In PLAYED music like jazz, punk, rock, folk, funk, etc. each player's purposeful idiosynchrasies and nuances enhance the listening experience and provide the ear with a palette of differences. A Keith Richards can be discerned from a Bob Mould, but a moby cannot be discerned from an Aphex Twin. The best bands produce a sound that within 30 seconds can be i.d'd as THEIR sound; think of the Minutemen, AC/DC, the Stones, Zep, Gang of Four, Karate, etc. Alll of these bands, before the vocals kick in, make their unique presence known......Some pop-punk bands are the same; I can usually tell by Billie Joe's guitar tone that a Green Day song has just begun, unless he's playing an acoustic. But don't ask me to tell the diff between Simple Plan, New Found Glory, etc. Okay, Something Corporate has a piano, but they're the only ones who've tried to develop a musical personality. They suck, but still.....

let alone that either of them sound like the Buzzcocks. I was simply making a logical connection as to the progression of a "sound," a coming down the line from a particular subgenre (I don't care for the genrefication anyway, my ideal record store would not be sub-divided, but would have ABBA next to Cannonball Adderly next to Amon Duul II). You want to stretch it out further, you can say that the Buzzcocks were just ripping off the Beatles (albeit doing a much better job than the bands in question on this thread).


On a side note, how's that Swaggart record treating you? Saved yet?

I always thought they sucked the first time around, and as kitsch sucked twelve times harder. I don't get the ironic enshrinement so many hipsters my age jizz all over certain cutural totems......Reminds me of that Onion headline: "Man spends 20% of all income ironically," and there's a picture of the guy surrounded by He-man action figures, Neil Diamond albums, Starsky and Hutch posters, etc.

Having said that, I enjoy the Swaggart album UNIRONICALLY, and plan on icorporating caucasian gospel choir vocals in my new pop-punk band as soon as we get around to extending the guitar solos a bit.

Again, as to the question of influences, it's been said before and I'll say it again, there's nothing wrong with ripping someone off as long as we're ripping off someone I LIKE. I purposefully look for bands/artists who rip off The Kinks, early Genesis, Husker Du, The Jam, Fela, etc. If their press kit says they sound like Radiohead or KMFDM or the Cure or Morrissey, I toss that momporker out da window toot sweet. Your tastes are formed in adolescence and concrete by 23; studies show that adults hold on to styles, music, TV shows, etc. that they liked at 23 as the "best" they'll ever get. It's all downhill after that. I know musically that I seek out sounds that sound the most like the bands I dug at 23, and that in 1998 (that year) I definitely had my tastes set in stone by hearing The Wrens, Lotion, Fastball, Harvey Danger, Zumpano, et al. for the first time. My firmament is solid in this regard. To ME, that stuff sounds like the true Beatles-Buzzcocks-Husker lineage, not Simple Plan and their ilk.

My ideal record store would not have ANY ABBA in it.

I disagree. Sure, they suck; but within the suckiness, one can find gems: "When I Kissed the Teacher" -- beautiful song.

Now I do not own, nor would I pay money for, any ABBA records. But I don't mind them being in the store.

I enjoy the Swaggart album UNIRONICALLY

As well you should. Christ, Jerry Lee Lewis is his cousin, there's gotta be some good rockin' in the blood!

there's nothing wrong with ripping someone off

Absolutely not. The BEST to do something are rarely the FIRST to do it.

as long as we're ripping off someone I LIKE

Here's where we differ. There are plenty of ripoffs I like much better than the originals, like... okay, can't think of 'em right now (at work), but there are some. There's some absolute SHIT out there that gets redone (and I agree, irony has no place in the ripping-off) much better.

Of course, I was 23 at the same time you were. What I was listening to a LOT of at that time was Love, Columbus rawk, Delta Blues, free jazz -- yeah, I still dig that. And the other stuff I like, I already liked before then (okay, I liked the aforementioned music before, too; but I was REALLY digging on it then).

Funny thing is how it all comes back. In high school, I abandoned any and all "classic rock" 'cause IWASAPUNKANDPUNKSDON'TLISTENTOTHATSHIT, or something. Later in college, I abandoned "indie rock" -- not necessarily rock on independent lables, but that jingly-jangly shit -- 'cause that's all the other DJs at WBCR played. Now I listen to plenty "classic rock" (have I mentioned how much I love "Foghat Live?") and "indie rock" (the new Death Cab for Cutie is pretty good).

What's all this mean? Probably nothing.

Godz suck! Godz rule!

They are masters of pop structure.

Back on topic, Simple Plan has no sense of structure. :-)

Again, "When I Kissed the Teacher," I'll grant you.

And maybe "Dancing Queen."

But not "Fernando." Not in a million years.

That has to do with structure. Remember, this is opinion.

I speak for aesthetic FACT. ;)

:-)

Did you see the ;)?

And there is plenty of objective fact in music, as in any art. It's just that there is a lot MORE to it that is subjective.

Anyway, talent can sometimes be disputed, but not enjoyability.

I just sometimes am forced to make ethical judgments about people based upon what they find enjoyable. ;) ;) ;)

As Wittgenstein wrote, "der Ethik und der Esthetik sind eins."

I don't understand why people like certain artists, but that's as far as I go. :-)

There's lots of "classic rock" I would never, ever blush about when confronted with. The only people who pooh-pooh classic rock out of "principle" are demented snobs who take their cultural cues from Spin magazine or live their lives perpetually up inside the Hip intestinal tract, tickling the colon of the Big Hipster, refusing to come out to meet anyone who might dwell in the real world. Chuck Eddy had another great quote about the noxious influence the Velvet Underground had on rock, something to the effect of: if the Velvets were so great, the next time you visit your mechanic, ask him if he's heard of them. Probably it'll be a NO.

Professional hipsters: they've spent too much time cultivating their supposed differentness from "real people" and pretending that the music of trendy, poorly haircutted young people is so ding-dang important that it's closed their ears to hearing the wonder and invention and surprise of the music of a group like Yes or Steely Dan or Jefferson Airplane or early Tull.

"My parents listen to that stuff!" Yeah, well, your parents drove cars and drank beer on occasion as well - are you gonna avoid those things too, out of "principle?"

I'd never dare to be so tunnel-visioned as to dismiss ANY music that grabs me by the boo-boo, simply because some art-school tastemaker has deemed it "unhip." In fact, that's usually an incentive to GO for it.

And you're right about ripping off someone and liking the rip off better.....I much prefer Zumpano to Bachrach and blues without feedbacking electrics and feathered hair usually bores the piss outta me.

Oh, and if you like Death Cab for Cutie (I don't) go back and check out Lotion's entire catalog, since we're talking about ripping people off and all.....

I bow to your superior knowledge

Bad! They try to be more than what they are, which makes them worse. New Found Glory and Simple Plan also bother me. And Hoobastank's a no-talent IMO.

I love Green Day. Blink 182 is a definite guilty pleasure, though their latest may be overrated. Good Charlotte's also a guilty pleasure, though I like Blink 182 more - didn't like Good Charlotte before, but they have some competent 80s rock mixed in.

i called them sum42 in my previous post (I guess I got their name confused with Blink 182)

n/t

I admit they have some catchy songs that I enjoy listening to.
However, their song "Get A Job" is unforgiveable.

The last thing I need to hear from a punk band is preaching about getting a job and a haircut. That's what parents are for.
Jeez, what were they thinking?
:eyes:

Offspring are a bunch of poseurs

Their catchiness is really all they have to offer, but I've heard better catchy. It's a bit empty. They're ok because they at least attempt some originality musically, and it works sometimes.

They SUCK.

tinny, solid-state wallpaper punk. They sucked first.

Back when the Misfits were the surest guarantor of the punk whack-upside-the-head I needed (I was 12/13), the Buzzcocks indeed were too tinny and fey to deliver the goods required for the job.

In college, when writing songs on my own, I heard "Ever Fallen in Love?" not for the first time ever, but for the first time after being rejected romantically, and that song then became the key to unlocking the Buzzcocks' door for me. Pete Shelley's limp-wristed voice can get on my nerves sometimes, but I maintain that he was a justly-lauded songwriter 70% of the time.

And yes, his band could have mule-kicked a lil' harder for my tastes, but at the time, the punks were rejecting hardness in favor of speed, solidity in favor of immediacy.

If so, at least now I know what to say when I tell people the kind of music I hate.

Put me down for "all of them."