I don’t really listen to punk. Except for hearing some songs from a Rancid tape my wife has, about the only punk I’ve really heard is what’s played on the radio. I know that a lot of true punk fans will probably say that that’s not real punk. But what separated Billy Idol, for example, from other rock artists? And what about groups like Blink 182, (who I’m not too fond of)? Are they really punk? Seems bands like them, Green Day, and The Offspring only have subtle difference, if any, from other rock bands.
Actually, I kind of take that back. When listening to the radio, I can usually tell if a new band is punk because lately, they’re all sounding the same.
But anyway, what is supposed to separate punk rockers from other rockers?
Short songs, a few lines with lots of repeating of main ideas, best if the music drowns out the singing 
Punk is an overused term, the meaning of which has changed over time… it also depends on who you talk to.
The song structure element has always stayed fairly consistent to what Aslan2 said (for the most part)… short, loud, minimum of wanking (ie, no guitar/drum/bass/keyboard/theremin solos), simple music (some punk bands can be quite accomlished musicians, but the idea of punk was that anybody should be able to do it), political/strange/crass lyrics… and a look that was outside the norm (and sometimes strayed into “Nonconformist Uniform” type idiocy).
The definition of punk during the Billy Idol years (and earlier) is quite different from the definintion of punk now that we are in the Blink-182 (and later) years.
At one time, if you heard it on commerical radio (and perhaps any radio whatsoever), it ceased to be “punk” in many people’s opinion.
Also, if you walked down the street looking like a punk… or were a punk band playing in certain venues, you were often taking your life in your hands.
In the last few years (probably since Nirvana), punk has become much more of a commodity. Mall punk bands are less likely to actually sing about politics, and are more likely to sing about “attitude”. The look and the sound has become (at least for bands of Blink-182/major label stature) much more part of the establishment.
Regardless though, there are plenty of good young bands coming along all the time… but often on a local, smaller basis (pretty much like it’s always been). Locally (Vancouver, BC) there is a skatepunk band called S.T.R.E.E.T.S. that kick ass and are all probably young enough to be my ummm… younger brothers. Yeah, that’s it.
Better to think about what punk has in common with what came before it. In 1977, when punk as we know it came to the fore (I’m aware I am giving short shrift to the Stooges, the Modern Lovers, the NY Dolls), it was marked by a connection to rock’s roots. In the return to a democratic simplicity (you don’t need Eric Clapton’s chops to make a record, the complexity of an ELP record is just pretentious excess) punk had more of a connection to the early rock and roll records than it did to the artier fare that gained currency in the 50s and the rareified studio sophistication of the early 70’s.
So what’s important to keep in mind about punk is not so much that it’s different from everything that came before it but that punk claimed direct lineage from the simple three chord rock and roll that started it all. The “three chords and an attitude” recipe is what marks real punk rock.
Blink 182 is supposed to be a punk band?
I will go with what vl_mungo said. Something along the lines of:
Short songs
Fast Tempos
Political, weird, or non-conformist lyrics
Simple production values–a “raw” sound
No harmonies
Vocals de-emphasized in the mix
I can see Rancid or NOFX being classified as punk, but Blink 182? They seem to be more “punkish”, even further away than Green Day, The Offspring, or Sum 41.
NOFX, now here’s something that surprised me. I was listening to NRK (A Portland Oregon station with the motto “The New Rock Alternative”), and they played a new NOFX song “Franco Un-American”. Now, coming from a band that’s been around a while (I’ve never listened to them, but I’ve heard of them, and know that they’ve been around for about 15 years or so) I figured I’d hear a good song. What I heard, sounds exactly like a bunch of other shit I’ve been hearing lately. (No offense to those who like that kind of music, this is just my opinion.)
Anyway, it shocked me to hear an older band, do music that I’ve only just recently been hearing.
I agree with the “short songs” part, although NOFX did make an 18 minute song called “The Decline”.
Fast tempos are necessary, although of course speed metal is also fast.
The lyrics seem to vary as far as I can tell. While bands like the Clash and the Dead Kennedys were definitely political, bands like the Descendents sang a lot about relationships, bands like the Ramones and Minor Threat often sang about “the scene”, and bands like the Vandals often had silly lyrics.
There are a lot of punk bands that have vocal harmonies, such as Bad Religion and NOFX.
Not sure about vocals be de-emphasized, but I agree that there aren’t many punk “crooners”
As I sit listening to my NOFX CDs (having changed my CD collection for the second time tonight)…
They may have lost their edge somwhat but listen to Liberal Animation again and tell me that it is not a punk album. Maybe they sound like everyone else because everyone else is trying to sound like them (albeit in a more diluted form).
Well, like I said, I don’t know about their other stuff, but Franco Un-American sounds exactly like all the new stuff that’s comming out. If that’s what they normally sound like, then I think I’ll pass hearing anything else from them. I’m not into that style of singing or instrament playing.
I found the Rancid album Out Come The Wolves OK. I’ve heard a Ramone song or two, like Sedated, which is pretty good. I saw one Public Image LTD. video for a 20 year or so old song, it was OK. I’ve allways been curious to hear what Generation X, Billy Idol’s old band, sounded like.
Relating to the OP, I was trying to define what the common characteristic was among what I would consider “definitive” classic punk groups:
Pre-Punk: VU, New York Dolls, Modern Lovers, Wire
Definitive UK Punk: Sex Pistols, Clash, Damned, Buzzcocks
Definitive US (or Canadian) Punk: Dead Kennedys, Black Flag, DOA, Circle Jerks
IMHO, NOFX, Rancid, and Pennywise have that element. The Pogue-ish tunes of Dropkick Murphys or Flogging Molly come somewhat close.
Sum 41, Green Day, The Offspring, The Ataris, Blink 182 (maybe). et al have the fast tunes and irreverent attitudes, but are slick and empty. Do not get me wrong–I have (and enjoy) CDs from all these groups, I just would consider them punk-like and not punk.
Would the Violent Femmes be concidered punk?
Yes.
Herein lies the problem. Pop-punk and West Coast punk fit into the description being used in this thread (short songs, repitition, etc.), but then you leave out punk rock bands like Sonic Youth, Shellac, Jon Spencer Blues Explosion, etc. As far as mainstream radio is concerned, NOFX etc. are punk. But to most people who like to pay attention to the underground the definition is much wider and is usually more about an attitude (do-it-yourself, play what you want because you want to, not because you want to be famous, etc.) than a particular format.
That’s why, pop as they are, I also think of the Strokes and the White Stripes as punk rockers.
As far as being shocked that NOFX sounds like all the newer bands, you’ve got it backwards. All the newer bands sound just like NOFX because that’s who they grew up listening to, and the particular brand of pop punk they choose to play doesn’t leave much room for innovation (another reason punk branched out into so many forms).
Makes sense. Thanks.
Children these days who claim to be ‘punk’ (the term for a fan of the genre has moved from ‘a punk’ to just ‘punk’ though I still use the older term) think of bands like NOFX, Simple Plan, etc., as punk. Green Day, early Blink 182, etc., are seen as alternative. I, however, a youth of a modern generation though a fan of proper punk (Anti-Flag, Clash, Dead Kennedys, Rancid, Bad Brains, Bad Religion, and on and on) use the term punk sort of as a catch all- any band which has evolved after 1975 which plays fairly short, no more than 5 basic chord songs, with short solos, using drums, guitar and bass. Then, different genres like ska, reggae, or even Celtic (which many modern day punks force into the punk genre) are simply offshoots of punk (Less Than Jake, Reel Big Fish, the Clash, Rancid, Flogging Molly, Dropkick Murphys, etc.) Also, punk’s widening range since the post-grunge days has turned it into yet another pop genre (see above.) Thus, true punk is more a frame of mind and a way of living- a non-conformist, united, and peace-loving scene which counter almost every will and whim of the government. Thus, the blink 182’s of this world have travelled too far. Another myth about punk is the un-tempo-ness. While many punk bands are up-tempo, band like the Sex Pistols were down-tempo even for their time. Listen to “The Answer,” “Faith Alone,” or “Sanity” by Bad Religion.
With most of the “rules” of what punk is or sounds like stated here (including the ones I mentioned earlier)… you will always find exceptions.
No harmonies? Bad Religion has harmonies
Fast? Flipper was slow.
Simple 3 chord music? The Minutemen could play.
Political? The Descendents weren’t.
etc. etc.
It is as difficult to define punk as it is to define “rock”. Hell, a lot of the earlier bands didn’t even like being called punk or “punks”. There’s a quote by someone (can’t find a cite, so I’ll paraphrase)… “I always thought that a punk was just some guy who’d get raped in prison”. Trying to define punk was one of the problems that brought in the “nonconformist uniform” people. “You’re not punk… you have long hair.” “We are punk, cause we look like the Ramones” and so forth. In many ways, trying to “pigeonhole” and “define” are the antithesis of punk, and render the term meaningless. So, were the Violent Femmes “punk”? Well, back when I considered myself a punk, I didn’t think so. At the same time they sure as hell weren’t mainstream either (at least to begin with), and the Skynyrd/Zeppelin/Halen crowd could still turn pretty nasty if you tried to put it on at at party.
that has got to be the most times I have written the word punk in one sitting
Safety pins.
louder, faster, shorter. Except, as VL_Mungo points, Flipper, who were louder, slower, longer.
What is art? It isn’t about the technique or the final product, but the INTENT. The “why” not the “what”.
Same with punk rock.
Well, anybody could form a band and call themselves punk, but that wouldn’t necessarily make them punk.
Bands that are called punk bands, are usually called so for a reason. They have a sound, or style, that people can listen to and say “Yeah, that sounds like punk.” Kind of like you know heavy metal when you hear it, the music is louder and harder than other kinds of rock. Or soft rock, which usually has elements of rock, like electric guitars and keyboards, but is slow and mellow. Or speed metal, because it’s hard and very fast. Or pop rock which, I don’t listen much to the radio any more, but in the 80’s described such artists as Duran Duran and Prince.
You can with certainty that Megadeath is heavy metal, or Van Halen is hard rock, or Eminem is rap.
So the point of my OP was, what is it about a punk band that identifies it as being punk? But, as everybody else already pointed out, there is nothing. The Ramones and Sex Pistols were both punk, but yet didn’t have a commonality that I can think of.
Anyway, I think my question has been answered. Thanks.
Personally, with the “political” element, I recall reading a statement by one of the Ramones in a book of rock quotations that said (I’m paraphrasing) “Punks should either have no political views, or else have them right-wing. Left-wingers are really just dressed-up hippies”
As you can see, there’s no consensus on what makes a punk.