Green Day - Why All the Hate?

I think that’s more it - anybody who grew up during the punk/post-punk scenes of the late 70s/early 80s has heard it all done much better. I don’t think the problem some of us have with them is that it’s so popular it appeals to 12 year-old mall rats - it’s that it is designed to appeal to 12 year-old mall rats. I’ve heard some songs from American Idiot, and the “political” content sounds facile compared to the political songs by The Clash or Husker Du or The Minutemen. Also, back during those days punk, as mentioned above, actually meant something to its fans; it was indeed a way of life, with an actual philosophy behind it, not just pointless adolescent ennui. There were plenty of catchy punk bands - The Ramones, The Buzzcocks - but they always came with an ethos, whether it was evident to “outsiders” or not. Green Day obviously were touched by punk, but they bring absolutely nothing to it - it’s all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I have to disagree. I hung around with punks throughout my adolescence and eary 20s, and never met a single person who idolized Sid Vicious. Joe Strummer, maybe, or Jello Biafra.

Also, although Blondie came out of punk, nobody really considered them (or the Talking Heads or Television) “punk”; that’s why they invented the term New Wave, to identify artists who were influenced/wouldn’t have existed without punk but were more “pop” about it (which I don’t take as an insult; many excellent artists, from Elvis Costello and XTC to New Order and, of course, Blondie, didn’t fit in, musically, with The Damned or The Sex Pistols, though they had a similar outlook, politically and socially).

Took me so long to type it seems lexi beat me to the points I was making. Sorry, dude (or dudette).

Green Day is awesome, “real punk” be damned.

And that’s perfectly fine. Not your cup of tea. Can’t argue with that. They’re not really my cup of tea either.

But it burns me up when I hear the “not real this or that” argument.

Both Blondie and Green Day came up through the ranks of the punk scene. They were considered punk by the scene. That is, until they caught on with the public. Then, and only then, did they nay-sayers come out. (To be fair, Blondie’s sound went through some radical changes. Green Day’s music hasn’t changed that much, style-wise)

Some people will choose to listen or not listen to a band based on their popularity with the public at large. As if this decision gives them some kind of credibility. But it just makes them morons.

Agreed. They came along later than the originators of the punk movement, but no one can deny that they were part of the punk scene to start with. That the record labels have used their sound (which, as spooje notes, is nearly identical today to what it was in their pre-major label days) to sell “punk rock” to a generation of angry suburban teens is annoying, insofar as it has spawned countless shitty bands whose success comes from the mass commercialization of the punk name (Good Charlotte, I’m lookin’ right atcha), but it doesn’t say anything about Green Day themselves.

Why does this burn you up? It’s just as ignorant, to me, to claim there aren’t any opportunistic bandwagon-jumpers as it is to have an elitist view of music based solely on underground status. If you think there weren’t or aren’t poseurs, or that record companies don’t start looking for bands with the current hit sound (or encourage established artists to change their styles to fit new trends), you’re being naive. Are you saying there were no groups who had no interest in punk but latched onto the sound because they thought it would make them rich? Or that all the early/mid 80s synth pop bands that sprang up overnight had been passionate about that type of music since Kraftwerk came on the scene, and the charts had nothing to do with it? Remember Kiss and The Rolling Stones (and countless other “rock” acts) doing their big disco songs in the late 70s (To be fair, the Stones might have actually appreciated the style, though even at that point they seemed to be pretty much doing it for the money)? Or all the Pearl Jam, Jr. bands that sprouted up in the early 90s? Sure, whatever you like is your own personal right, but I don’t trust anyone who says all music is as “real” as all others and the idea of poseurs is elitist.

Blondie came up out of the punk movement, and the songs on their first album, thematically, had many similarities to the Ramones. Stylistically, too, they took a lot from punk - short, catchy songs without long jack-off solos. But the reason people don’t consider them “punk” has nothing to do with their album sales - like I pointed out, the term “new wave” came about (pretty quickly, too) to distinguish groups who were punk-influenced in outlook but didn’t have the same thrashing, distorted to the max 3-chord sound. If anyone called Blondie or the Talking Heads punk I wouldn’t argue with them, but it seems a useful distinction to me.

As for Green Day, I have no problem calling them “punk”, but I think anyone who was around the first time would agree that punk doesn’t signify the same thing it once did, and it has nothing to do with popularity - it has to do with inspiration and outlook. “Mall punk” might be a derogatory term, but it’s also another distinction that I think is important to recognize (if not terminologically fair). You really can’t take a musical (or any social) movement out of its context, and the context for Green Day was not the same as the context for The Clash, or X, or Husker Du (and I was a Gilman St. regular when Green Day was coming up). I don’t think Green Day is any kind of affront to punk - I just think it’s an entirely different form from the original.

That’s not completely true. I hate punk, think it’s irritating as shit, and usually dislike people who have to make a big statement about their uniqueness by confirming to a “non-conforming” sub-culture.

Having said that, Green Day is clearly a watered down commercial pop-punk.

Then again, my knowledge of punk is limited, so maybe there’s a lot of light, watered down punk accepted in the genre as legitimate and greenday is only excluded because of popularity? Doubt it, though.

They’re posers in the very worst sense of the term. Their music sounds forced and whiny, like upper-middle-class yuppies trying to be punk.

I don’t think they’re not “real punks” or anything, and I like some of their stuff, but thay seem to steal riffs from other artists. For example, the latest thing out from them (in the video, they’re riding around in a car, IIRC) sounds too close to “The Passenger” for comfort. There’s so many Buzzcocks and Jam riffs ripped off throughout their body of work, that I can’t possibly find them terribly credible.

I thought they were quite good back in the day, when I also would go see them at junky old Gilman St. in Berkeley. (Crandolph sums up that time best.)

Nowadays, you can see one guy shopping for tricked out Bentleys on Cribs. Another’s action figure comes with its own little bag of money. True!

Nothing especially hateful about that, but don’t try to sell me the notion that they are punk rebels, outside the mainstream looking in, and sneering at all our empty materialism.

“Come on in here boy, have a cigar, you’re going to go far,” etc.

I think that this is key. I don’t know from punk (don’t know much about it, myself, and I admit this honestly), but what I’m hearing in this thread is a conversation something like this:

“Is this punk?”

“Nope. No way, not punk.”

“How about this, then.”

“Nah, that’s not punk either.”

“Then what is punk?”

“I can’t tell you. But man, if you were one of us, then you’d know.”

It seems goofy. Maybe you don’t like being defined, and that’s fine, but you gotta realize that you’re going to be anyway. And for people who aren’t familiar with punk, what so bad about pointing to a well-known band and saying, “that’s an example of punk”? No, it’s not the whole thing, but if people like that sound, perhaps they’ll do more exploring in the genre on their own. But when you say, “no, that’s not it, and no, that’s not it either, neither is that, and no, I’m not going to tell you what is, but it isn’t anything that’s been defined by anyone else” people just get turned off.

As I said, I’m really not familiar with punk, so I don’t know whether Green Day is or isn’t. But I like 'em, for what it’s worth.

Green Day are hated by many people, for varying reasons.

Before I begin to elucidate these however, I think it should be noted that Green Day has begun to gain favor amongst those who would once have despised them; the ambition and political slant of American Idiot has allowed both rockists and scenesters to overcome some of their reservations. Warning was a respectable maturation process, but it wasn’t a good enough album to really show a wider audience that the band had moved on from its younger days, although many critics grudgingly praised it. And although I say “grudgingly,” to be fair to those critics, Warning was a transititional album, solid without being spectacular, mature but not comfortable in its maturity.

One of the major criticisms of Green Day is its lack of authenticity. This is very important to the punk kids, yet authenticity is so problematic within even a punk context as to be almost irrelevent (outside of a punk context, it is so unnecessary as to be laughable). For so long, authentic punk has been impossible to pin down. The Sex Pistols were created to sell fashion. The Ramones adored '60s pop, and its music so often attempted to imitate the Beach Boys and girl groups that to pretend that it was a band uninterested in the more mainstream aspects of popular music is pointless. Meanwhile, The Clash was, with London Calling, showing that punk didn’t need to be sloppy playing and simplistic guitar work. By 1980, punk as a movement was well established enough to be a cliche, and the most interesting bands growing from the movement had moved on to pop, post-punk or new-wave (see Joy Division, Blondie, Talking Heads, etc.)

None of this is meant to be a criticism of the original punk bands, nor of the bands that followed them, such as Black Flag, Hüsker Dü, Rites of Spring, Fugazi, NOFX etc. It is just to say that by the time punk had become an established modus operandi, the notion of authenticity meant little if one continued to try to measure it by the original punk standard.

Of course, outside of a punk context, who gives a fuck about authenticity? Who cares what record company is doing what, and where the band members came from? If a record sounds good, it’s a good record. Blondie might have had pop production all over their songs, but Atomic is still a great track. The people who claim the non-musical elements of a band’s history matter are the same people who discount entire genres like hip hop, R&B, techno and pop simply because they do not fit into their narrow view of what “good music” is meant to sound like, which is for the most part a template established in the late '60s by middle-class white guys.

Have you ever been to an independent record store and passed by the PUNK/HARDCORE section, and looked at those carefully outfitted guys (and sometimes girls) with their leather jackets, their safety pins and their mohawks? I always wonder why these kids wish to so slavishly imitate those who experienced their adolescence a good five years before they were born. Are they trying to maintain the rebellious spirit of the original punk movement? How is regression rebellious? It is akin to the '60s-era Rolling Stones taking to wearing tuxedos and imitating Sinatra. If this is real punk, it makes Green Day look like poster boys for anarchism; at least Green Day builds on its influences to create music relevent to a contemporary age, rather than fetishizing the subculture of its forebears.

So Green Day is hated by baby boomers because baby boomers are convinced there is little worth in anything created outside their adolescence. Green Day is hated by punks because the elements of the punk subculture Green Day maintain are different to, yet no less important than the elements modern punks maintain. Green Day is hated by Propaghandi fans because Green Day is popular. Green Day is hated by rockists because it veers too close to pop to be credible (although, with Green Day introducing ten minute songs and politicism into its music, the rockists have begun to embrace them). Green Day is also hated by some people because they just don’t like its music.

I think Green Day is a good band. It is isn’t the best band out there, but it possibly is the best modern rock band on the charts at the moment, considering the Foo Fighters hasn’t been able to get anything right for a long time, Coldplay continues to be soporific and Radiohead has seemingly abandoned us. I also think that as time passes, Green Day, and other pop-punk groups will be recognized as writers of amazing pop songs, rather than derided as sell-outs from a scene that isn’t sure what is credible and what is isn’t. I expect that within ten years, Dookie will be celebrated as one of the best albums of the '90s (you’re kidding yourself if you have any interest in modern music and can’t at least give this idea some credibility), American Idiot will be seen as a signficant and ambitious, though not perfect modern rock album, and even the albums between these two recognized as, while not classic, certainly containing some of the best pop songs of the era; “Good Riddance” may be hated by the punks, but it’s nevertheless a great song. (I doubt that Green Day’s first two albums, while containing good songs, will ever hold much interest outside fans, completists and historians.)

In short, people hate Green Day either because they don’t like the sound of its music, or because of immaterial authenticity objections that don’t stand up to intense scrutiny.

Don’t direct that at me. I don’t like punk music nor punk culture. It’s just pretty obvious to anyone who’s heard what’s considered punk to not look at green day as a watered down, commercialized variant of that.

It’s definitely not obvious to me.

By my count Green Day has “sold out” no less 5 than times:

[ol]
[li]When they jumped to a major label with “Dookie”[/li][li]When “Dookie” sold a whole lot of records[/li][li]When they used an acoustic guitar on “Good Riddance”[/li][li]When they put out a Greatest Hits package[/li][li]When they did “I Fought the Law and the Law Won” for an RIAA commerical[/li][li]And finally, whenever some punk tells someone “Green Day aren’t real punks”[/li][/ol]

If this ever gets moved to The Pit I can say how I really feel about all the ****ers that keep complaining Green Day “sold out”.

They sold out alright. They sold out every concert they’ve ever held and are better musicians than every whiner who thinks they’re not punk could ever dream to be.

And by 5, I mean 6. I forgot the “general sell out” I added to the end.

I know what you mean; the first time I heard it, I was on the edge of my seat at the end of the first verse, waiting for the screamed “ONE-TWO-THREE-FOUR” and the electric guitar. By the end of the song, I was a little shell-shocked.

Their new stuff isn’t punk, but has anyone asked Green Day if they’re punk? Does getting paid for making music somehow invalidate the creative process? They worked pretty hard and spent some seriously long hours recording American Idiot – to the point where Billie Joe was the only one who didn’t lose his wife.

You have to admit that “Boulevard of Broken Dreams” is obviously satire - making fun of groups that jump into the studio, throw rhyming words together over three chords, and let the producer make it a hit (Nickelback, I’m staring at you). If you listen to the rest of American Idiot, it doesn’t really fit into the story arc at all, and the lyrics are absolutely laughable. They’re taking a good dig at musicians who sing about lonely adolescence, instead of urging kids to get involved. I almost feel like the label or the producer came to them and said “we need a second single from this album - something the kids can identify with, about angst” and Green Day “sold out” by releasing BoBD.

Also: when was the last time a top-selling rock band dared to release an album as blatantly political and topical as American Idiot?

Yes, and God knows the American public is really discerning when it comes to pop superstars. Just go ask Britney!

They aren’t real punks because they know how to play their instruments and put some thought into their craft.

And they have money–don’t forget that; it’s vital.