My wife

[bear]

punk is objectively the worst genre and i'm glad to see you're easing off the bad music teat, pepmint

[Deleted]

I would say country is the worst

[Skelly Craig]

Guys we already had this discussion. Next someone's gonna say reggae is the worst. Fact is, even the best music's gonna sound crap to the wrong audience

[bear]

sure, there can be amazing and horrible punk music within the boundaries of its audience's standards, it's just that the genre itself is the worst amongst music as a whole

[ghostie]

Some punk is amazing, some isn't
Some pop punk is amazing, some REALLY isn't

[Skelly Craig]

Mar 9, 2016 16:03:10 GMT -5 bear said:

sure, there can be amazing and horrible punk music within the boundaries of its audience's standards, it's just that the genre itself is the worst amongst music as a whole

The worst at what? It depends on your criteria. Those might differ from someone else's, or what someone's looking for at any given time.

It might be too loud, have not enough chords or lack vocal skills for one person, but for someone else it's the antidote to other music's rigidity, softness, and/or obliqueness.

[ghostie]

Thanks for reppin the punks, terry-bro

[bear]

Mar 9, 2016 16:29:41 GMT -5 Skelly Craig said:

The worst at what?

the worst at having talented musicians

[Skelly Craig]

Punk bands that are more talented than many artists of other genres: The Clash, Black Flag, Misfits, Minor Threat, The Ramones, and proto-punk like Iggy&The Stooges, MC5, The Sonics, New York Dolls, Patti Smith, Television, plus lots of good post-punk. (And even more artists who were influenced by all that.)

Didn't you say you like Death Grips? They wouldn't exist without other punk bands before them, and they themselves are a mix of noise music, hip hop, and punk.

[bear]

there's no doubt a lot of great music is concentrated before and after the rise of punk. the clash, iggy pop, patti smith, and television are all good and i don't associate any of them with the majority of punk music. the genre that actually emerged had, i think, the most disparate ratio of no-talent acts to talented acts, and the genre as it exists today has a pretty clear sound that i'm sure you know is nothing like the bands mentioned earlier in this post. not trying to discredit punk's existence or anything.

[bear]

this is like when you defended country music by talking about how great bob dylan is

[Skelly Craig]

Hm, I guess if you're talking about ratio, maybe it's kinda true, but that's something that comes with the territory when it comes to punk. It's all about the attitude and how you translate it to the audience. It kind of took the spirit of rock'n'roll to an extreme.

Not recognizing the best a genre has to offer as part of its genre is a mistake imo, though. That's like the people who once said (sometimes still say) that well-written sci-fi isn't really part of the sci-fi 'ghetto', or how great comic books are actually more novels rather than comic books, or how animation for adults is somehow not 'regular' animation. Patti Smith's Horses is recognized (f.ex. by Rolling Stone mag) as the first significant punk rock album, and The Clash dabbled in reggae/dub, but were punk first and foremost.

When you think about it, hip hop, electro, and maybe experimental music (stuff like Cage's 4'33) probably have just as much of of disparate-ratio of no-talent/talent.

EDIT: Re:Dylan: I only mentioned him in passing (Nashville Skyline is a country album though), I remember mostly talking about Johnny Cash, Hank Williams and some others.

[ghostie]

I guess the ratio thing is valid. But that's kind of the point of punk; it came from the masses, not the people who had guitar lessons. Just people who wanted to spread a message. So naturally not everyone's necessarily ~talented~ but that didn't matter as much in this genre so much as boldness.

Also yes obviously punk today is not the same punk as it was in the 70s.. What is your point

[bear]

i think if low-quality techniques become rampant enough to define the genre in general, there needs to be a distinction. like i have no problem admitting that a graphic novel is a comic, just that we should still use the term graphic novel to identify it as having a different audience/significance than the very bad writing & art in your average comic book.

[Skelly Craig]

Well there is lots of terms for different kinds of punk music (art punk, hardcore punk, acoustic punk, pop punk, punk-rap...), but they're all part of the same thing. You can use the term graphic novel, but it doesn't mean that a graphic novel is necessarily better than a collection of Peanuts or Calvin&Hobbes comic strips.