EMOS DIE!

Eyesore · **Posted:** Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:43 am

derncare wrote:

I can't define it, but they've always come off as fakes to me. They did sell out as far as I'm concerned - the second they started as a band. I think they new they were playing radio-friendly pop-punk the from the beginning. That's just how I see them. I used to be a teacher, and I can spot ingenuity from a mile away. It's one fo a very few things I admit to doing well.

Hell, Billy Joe has even said he learned three chords to make money and get chicks.

But that's total speculation. That's not like Sugar Ray who had an acoustic pop hit and then proceed to write three more albums of acoustic pop.

And is it selling out if your intent from day one is to be on radio and MTV selling millions of albums? To me that's not selling out; that's integrity. Selling out is Sugar Ray, AFI, Christian bands like DC Talk, etc.; bands that started out one way and changed with the musical climate to be more form-fitting. Green Day never did this. If anything they went against the grain with Warning and the laid back rockabilly nature of it, and on American Idiot with three 9-minute plus songs. Aside from that the band hasn't changed and they've stayed very relevant since their third album, Dookie.

derncare · **Joined:** Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:40 am **Posts:** 731

I have nothing against someone hoping to make a career or money in music. I just don't like people who learn to play easy-to-digest pop-rock-punk stuff anyone could learn in three days like it's some kind of get rich quick scheme, which is what I think Green Day does. If you make music for the purpose of becoming rich and famous without a care in the world about music itself, that's selling out to me. That's how I see them. Plus, I just don't think they can write a decent song to save their lives.

Are they as despicable as a band like Sugar Ray? No.

noodles · **Posted:** Sun Dec 03, 2006 3:54 am

Real punk and fake punk both suck as far as I've heard. Green Day really suck, but I guess they get props for coming back after no one cared about them for 10 years. The Beatles are OK. Everything about music except the music depresses me.

omg and green day are theeves!

Quote:

We all pretty much know about as much as we need/want to know about Green Day's American Idiot. First of all I'm not setting out to dismiss any musical talent of the band, but these guys are downright offensive.

In 1976 George Harrison lost a highly-publicized court case against him because of All Things Must Pass's "My Sweet Lord" for "unconsciously" copying the Chiffon's song "He's So Fine." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Harrison#1970s)
Though it was one song on a triple album, it was the major radio hit so he lost a huge chunk of the album's earnings.

Now fast-forward 20-30 years. No need to rekindle the over-rated/under-rated, 1/2 star or 5-star arguments over Green Day's newest album; it's all been said before. In fact what I'm talking about may have been said before but I looked into it and nothing particularly came up. Green Day are plagiarists. They occasionally do cover songs, which is fine, but at their worst they treat 60s and 70s rock like a buffet table. A little bit of this, a little bit of that, and a song is made. Examples:

"Warning" (Warning) - The Kinks' "Picture Book" (The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society)
"Walking Contradiction" (Insomniac) - The Kinks' "Do It Again" (Word of Mouth)
"Brain Stew" (Insomniac) - Chicago's "25 or 6 To 4" (Chicago II)
"Boulevard Of Broken Dreams" (American Idiot) - Oasis' "Wonderwall" ((What's the Story) Morning Glory?)
"Jesus Of Suburbia" (American Idiot) - David Bowie's "Moonage Daydream" (The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars)
"St. Jimmi" (American Idiot) - Ramones' "Blitzkrieg Bop" (It's Alive)

Et cetera, et cetera. How are they getting away with this? In some cases, like the Kinks' songs and the Chicago song, they're basically taking the guitar riff right out and plopping it into theirs. Other ones are a little less in-your-face, but still bad. I contend they must just be scientists conducting an experiment on just how ignorant modern day music fans are. Please comment, defend them if you will but with something other than "Green Day rawks." Also other bands that employ in-your-face plagiarism but get away with it, such as Guns'N'Roses' "Sweet Child 'O Mine" ripping off Traffic's "Dear Mr. Fantasy."

Eyesore · **Posted:** Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:04 am

derncare wrote:

I have nothing against someone hoping to make a career or money in music. I just don't like people who learn to play easy-to-digest pop-rock-punk stuff anyone could learn in three days like it's some kind of get rich quick scheme, which is what I think Green Day does. If you make music for the purpose of becoming rich and famous without a care in the world about music itself, that's selling out to me. That's how I see them. Plus, I just don't think they can write a decent song to save their lives.

Are they as despicable as a band like Sugar Ray? No.

Well, let's be honest here, a beginner can play anything by Bad Religion, Sex Pistols, and Ramones in about a week's time. Punk is a piece of cake to play.

grandbazaar · **Posted:** Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:42 am

noodles wrote:

Real punk and fake punk both suck as far as I've heard. Green Day really suck, but I guess they get props for coming back after no one cared about them for 10 years. The Beatles are OK. Everything about music except the music depresses me.

omg and green day are theeves!

Quote:

We all pretty much know about as much as we need/want to know about Green Day's American Idiot. First of all I'm not setting out to dismiss any musical talent of the band, but these guys are downright offensive.

In 1976 George Harrison lost a highly-publicized court case against him because of All Things Must Pass's "My Sweet Lord" for "unconsciously" copying the Chiffon's song "He's So Fine." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Harrison#1970s)
Though it was one song on a triple album, it was the major radio hit so he lost a huge chunk of the album's earnings.

Now fast-forward 20-30 years. No need to rekindle the over-rated/under-rated, 1/2 star or 5-star arguments over Green Day's newest album; it's all been said before. In fact what I'm talking about may have been said before but I looked into it and nothing particularly came up. Green Day are plagiarists. They occasionally do cover songs, which is fine, but at their worst they treat 60s and 70s rock like a buffet table. A little bit of this, a little bit of that, and a song is made. Examples:

"Warning" (Warning) - The Kinks' "Picture Book" (The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society)
"Walking Contradiction" (Insomniac) - The Kinks' "Do It Again" (Word of Mouth)
"Brain Stew" (Insomniac) - Chicago's "25 or 6 To 4" (Chicago II)
"Boulevard Of Broken Dreams" (American Idiot) - Oasis' "Wonderwall" ((What's the Story) Morning Glory?)
"Jesus Of Suburbia" (American Idiot) - David Bowie's "Moonage Daydream" (The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars)
"St. Jimmi" (American Idiot) - Ramones' "Blitzkrieg Bop" (It's Alive)

Et cetera, et cetera. How are they getting away with this? In some cases, like the Kinks' songs and the Chicago song, they're basically taking the guitar riff right out and plopping it into theirs. Other ones are a little less in-your-face, but still bad. I contend they must just be scientists conducting an experiment on just how ignorant modern day music fans are. Please comment, defend them if you will but with something other than "Green Day rawks." Also other bands that employ in-your-face plagiarism but get away with it, such as Guns'N'Roses' "Sweet Child 'O Mine" ripping off Traffic's "Dear Mr. Fantasy."

thats plain bullshit cause Boulevard of broken dreams does not sound whatsoever like wonderwall. give me a break...

any song can have similarities with other songs but that does not make it plagerising....theres just so many notes you can play on an instrument.

If you listen to Green Days catalogue from the start to end you'll see they have kept their sound through the years, and take a look at the pictures from all those years and their present *look* is pretty much in line with what they wore in the past.

People should stop whining at anything that isn't metal just for the sake of "it's not metal it's not cool" or "it's too popular it's not cool".

My Chemical romance's newest album is the perfect exemple of a really great album most of you on these boards will skip due to the fact the band is too popular . Green Day is also a fine band and their latest album Americain Idiot is a fine piece of music wether you guys will admit it or not.

and for the record Green day is considered Punk Rock. How a band decides to dress has nothing to do with the music style, meaning I could decide to dress metal with the black leather and spikes and play some jazz music if I wanted and it would not be called Metal. So quit calling Green Day emo they aren't.

last bit of ranting, emo, like any other styles of music have some really great bands that are worth discovering so some of you guys better learn to be less judgemental and keep their horizons opened cause who gives a damn what people think about what you listen too?

I like music, I'll listen to anything that sounds good and that has good guitar work. too bad not everybody sees it that way.

JÃ¼rgen · **Posted:** Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:30 am

grandbazaar wrote:

People should stop whining at anything that isn't metal just for the sake of "it's not metal it's not cool" or "it's too popular it's not cool".

My Chemical romance's newest album is the perfect exemple of a really great album most of you on these boards will skip due to the fact the band is too popular.

Who's whining?

I'll skip My Chemical Romance's new album because i don't like their music, not because they're too popular.
If i would reject music that's too popular, i would start by throwing my AC/DC, Led Zeppelin etc. records in the trash.

noodles · **Posted:** Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:38 am

Jürgen wrote:

I'll skip My Chemical Romance's new album because i don't like their music, not because they're too popular.
If i would reject music that's too popular, i would start by throwing my AC/DC, Led Zeppelin etc. records in the trash.

The new My Chemical Romance doesn't really have much in common with what they've done before. It's probably closer to AC/DC and Zeppelin than it is their older stuff

derncare · **Joined:** Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:40 am **Posts:** 731

Eyesore wrote:

derncare wrote:

I have nothing against someone hoping to make a career or money in music. I just don't like people who learn to play easy-to-digest pop-rock-punk stuff anyone could learn in three days like it's some kind of get rich quick scheme, which is what I think Green Day does. If you make music for the purpose of becoming rich and famous without a care in the world about music itself, that's selling out to me. That's how I see them. Plus, I just don't think they can write a decent song to save their lives.

Are they as despicable as a band like Sugar Ray? No.

Well, let's be honest here, a beginner can play anything by Bad Religion, Sex Pistols, and Ramones in about a week's time. Punk is a piece of cake to play.

I agree, but what I said was people learning to do that as a get rich quick scheme. I guess though that it's not an argument to apply in this case since it's in some way a common trait to all punk bands.

Honestly, punk is not my thing anyway, but I respect The Ramones, Bad Religion, etc. I just don't respect Green Day. It's not as though I secretly enjoy their music but take some kind of "they are too popular" holier-than-thou stance. I also can't stand their songs for a number of reasons: songwriting, sound, Billy Joe's annoying faux-british vocals...

Al@metalreviews · **Posted:** Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:26 pm

To the original poster: Just because you listen to a bunch of underground thrash bands does not immediately give you the right to look down your nose at anyone, you're choice in music does not make you a superior being. Witty jabs, satire or complaints about a musical 'movement' is fine, but sitting there with a holier than thou attitude saying 'well I listen to X bands, who are, like, tr00 and underground, and I hate all those emos with their 'popular' music cos, y'know, that makes me cool, Love me please!' is just hot air and immaturity. If you want to score brownie points go elsewhere. If you don't like something, don't like it, its your right as a human being but at least demonstrate a whiff of knowledge about the music your discussing as opposed to bashing it to try and look good. The teenage 'alternative' culture movements will always be there regardless of what you think, grow up and listen to the stuff you actually like, and do others a favour by spreading the word as to why its good. Simply bashing popular culture will not ingratiate yourself to anybody with a brain.

As far as Green Day are concerned, pretty much what Ken has said. They've never changed their sound from day one, aside from Warning, the only thing that's changed is the production (become slicker) and the lyrics (which have matured somwhat). They never changed to be popular, they just became popular. How exactly can you 'sell out' without changing your sound? What would you have them do? Start playing stuff to be deliberately unpopular to gain the 'respect' of a teenager sitting at a computer? I'm yet to meet an actual Green Day fan (with a scrap of musical sense) who will argue that they're a true punk band. they're a rock band, I see them more as a band like U2 than as a punk band and always have. However the people that hate them due to them being popular will argue that they're 'trying' to be a punk band. I've seen this arguement from the mid 90's and am still yet to see a shred of evidence aside from media spin.

derncare · **Joined:** Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:40 am **Posts:** 731

Al@metalreviews wrote:

As far as Green Day are concerned, pretty much what Ken has said. They've never changed their sound from day one, aside from Warning, the only thing that's changed is the production (become slicker) and the lyrics (which have matured somwhat). They never changed to be popular, they just became popular. How exactly can you 'sell out' without changing your sound? What would you have them do? Start playing stuff to be deliberately unpopular to gain the 'respect' of a teenager sitting at a computer? I'm yet to meet an actual Green Day fan (with a scrap of musical sense) who will argue that they're a true punk band. they're a rock band, I see them more as a band like U2 than as a punk band and always have. However the people that hate them due to them being popular will argue that they're 'trying' to be a punk band. I've seen this arguement from the mid 90's and am still yet to see a shred of evidence aside from media spin.

I'm glad we agree they aren't really punk.

As far as selling out is concerned, there's no set definition on the term. Whether it happens before the first album is released or after a previous sound was established. For all we know, they were playing something entirely different before they ever got a record deal and changed then to make more money. That's selling out no matter how you spin it. I don't know if that's how it went down, but it could have. Just because we didn't see the decision to sell out being made, doesn't mean it wasn't. Limiting the concept of selling out just to bands who established another style publicly doesn't make sense. Alot of my opinion also has to do with reading them in interviews and so forth. I can just tell they're fakes. I can't prove it, but I'm confident in my ability to do so because like I said before, it made me very successful at a previous career.

Al@metalreviews · **Posted:** Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:54 pm

derncare wrote:

Al@metalreviews wrote:

As far as Green Day are concerned, pretty much what Ken has said. They've never changed their sound from day one, aside from Warning, the only thing that's changed is the production (become slicker) and the lyrics (which have matured somwhat). They never changed to be popular, they just became popular. How exactly can you 'sell out' without changing your sound? What would you have them do? Start playing stuff to be deliberately unpopular to gain the 'respect' of a teenager sitting at a computer? I'm yet to meet an actual Green Day fan (with a scrap of musical sense) who will argue that they're a true punk band. they're a rock band, I see them more as a band like U2 than as a punk band and always have. However the people that hate them due to them being popular will argue that they're 'trying' to be a punk band. I've seen this arguement from the mid 90's and am still yet to see a shred of evidence aside from media spin.

I'm glad we agree they aren't really punk.

As far as selling out is concerned, there's no set definition on the term. Whether it happens before the first album is released or after a previous sound was established. For all we know, they were playing something entirely different before they ever got a record deal and changed then to make more money. That's selling out no matter how you spin it. I don't know if that's how it went down, but it could have. Just because we didn't see the decision to sell out being made, doesn't mean it wasn't. Limiting the concept of selling out just to bands who established another style publicly doesn't make sense. Alot of my opinion also has to do with reading them in interviews and so forth. I can just tell they're fakes. I can't prove it, but I'm confident in my ability to do so because like I said before, it made me very successful at a previous career.

The thing is, they were in their mid to late teens when they released their first album on a small record deal and even younger when they started playing together as a band. I just can't see kids of that age having the maturity to take a conscious, cold hearted business decision about the style and genre of their music. It just doesn't seem plausible in my eyes. I think it's somewhat more likely they played what they were good enough to play and liked to play, it worked and after a few years they became famous. From then on they never really changed.

As far as selling out is concerned, many, many bands change drasticly before they put out a record / start peforming live, It's simply experimenting with what works for you as a band, not selling out. What a band does before they actually launch themselves into the public domain is pretty irrelevant.

derncare · **Joined:** Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:40 am **Posts:** 731

To me, it's about character when it comes to selling out. It's not that the decision is made or when the decision is made. It's how and why the decision is made. yeah, alot of bands try various things out before they get a record deal, but there are also those who care little about music and make the decison as soon as they start that they are going to try whatever works to make alot of money. There are plenty of bands who get together with the specific intention of being "rock stars". And there is no way anyone is going to convince me a kid in his late teens can't make those kinds of decisions. I could list a dozen 80s rock bands that did that very thing to become rich androgenous rock stars before they were of legal age to drink. People don't give kids the credit they deserve. I have two myself. They are often more capable of making decisions like that because they haven't had the real world come crashing in on them yet.

As I said, I smell a fake every time I see one of those guys discussing their music.

Radagast · **Posted:** Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:20 pm

Eyesore wrote:

Radagast wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

HIM is metal. Sorry. And Green Day are legends. Sorry.

What is wrong with you? You say some of the most idiotic things.

What is wrong with me? Music is what it is, my friend. Just because you dislike a band does not mean your definition of what they are is correct.

Are suggesting HIM are not a metal band? No? What are they, then? Green Day is not a legendary band? No? What are they, then?

Idiotic is not being able to separate your dislike for something and the definition. You dislike HIM so the mustn't be metal! You dislike Green Day so they mustn't be a legendary band! THAT is idiotic.

Ken I was using your own fucking words against you, you enormous hypocrite.

For the record:
HIM - Goth rock
Green Day - very, very popular pop-punk band. Is being popular enough to make something legendary? Then by that definiton (since I know you are all about differing definitions) I guess they must be.

Cú Chulainn · **Posted:** Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:26 pm

as for emoness, i greatly dislike it, but not because of the 'holier than thou' stance. The emo trend glorifies depression and sef mutilation, serious human problems. When i see this little whiny assholes pretend to be depressed and sad and complain about fake problems (it also raises a persons ego- every emo I know is a complete egoist with no regards for anyone else's problems) I wanna punch 'em and tell 'em to get a life.

derncare · **Joined:** Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:40 am **Posts:** 731

FrigidSymphony wrote:

as for emoness, i greatly dislike it, but not because of the 'holier than thou' stance. The emo trend glorifies depression and sef mutilation, serious human problems. When i see this little whiny assholes pretend to be depressed and sad and complain about fake problems (it also raises a persons ego- every emo I know is a complete egoist with no regards for anyone else's problems) I wanna punch 'em and tell 'em to get a life.

Forget all the Green Day and HIM subplots this thread has developed, Frigid has nailed this thread back in its place!

Cú Chulainn · **Posted:** Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:51 pm

derncare wrote:

FrigidSymphony wrote:

as for emoness, i greatly dislike it, but not because of the 'holier than thou' stance. The emo trend glorifies depression and sef mutilation, serious human problems. When i see this little whiny assholes pretend to be depressed and sad and complain about fake problems (it also raises a persons ego- every emo I know is a complete egoist with no regards for anyone else's problems) I wanna punch 'em and tell 'em to get a life.

Forget all the Green Day and HIM subplots this thread has developed, Frigid has nailed this thread back in its place!

W00t. Green Day aren't worth the debate anyways. Bunch of losers.

Eyesore · **Posted:** Sun Dec 03, 2006 7:56 pm

derncare wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

derncare wrote:

I have nothing against someone hoping to make a career or money in music. I just don't like people who learn to play easy-to-digest pop-rock-punk stuff anyone could learn in three days like it's some kind of get rich quick scheme, which is what I think Green Day does. If you make music for the purpose of becoming rich and famous without a care in the world about music itself, that's selling out to me. That's how I see them. Plus, I just don't think they can write a decent song to save their lives.

Are they as despicable as a band like Sugar Ray? No.

Well, let's be honest here, a beginner can play anything by Bad Religion, Sex Pistols, and Ramones in about a week's time. Punk is a piece of cake to play.

I agree, but what I said was people learning to do that as a get rich quick scheme. I guess though that it's not an argument to apply in this case since it's in some way a common trait to all punk bands.

Honestly, punk is not my thing anyway, but I respect The Ramones, Bad Religion, etc. I just don't respect Green Day. It's not as though I secretly enjoy their music but take some kind of "they are too popular" holier-than-thou stance. I also can't stand their songs for a number of reasons: songwriting, sound, Billy Joe's annoying faux-british vocals...

Well, I don't think Green Day are doing that. If that was their intent they would have quit long ago as they've been multi-multi-millionaires for a long, long time now.

But it's cool. A lot of people hate Green Day.

Eyesore · **Posted:** Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:10 pm

Radagast wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Radagast wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

HIM is metal. Sorry. And Green Day are legends. Sorry.

What is wrong with you? You say some of the most idiotic things.

What is wrong with me? Music is what it is, my friend. Just because you dislike a band does not mean your definition of what they are is correct.

Are suggesting HIM are not a metal band? No? What are they, then? Green Day is not a legendary band? No? What are they, then?

Idiotic is not being able to separate your dislike for something and the definition. You dislike HIM so the mustn't be metal! You dislike Green Day so they mustn't be a legendary band! THAT is idiotic.

Ken I was using your own fucking words against you, you enormous hypocrite.

For the record:
HIM - Goth rock
Green Day - very, very popular pop-punk band. Is being popular enough to make something legendary? Then by that definiton (since I know you are all about differing definitions) I guess they must be.

How am I a hypocrite because you used my words against me? :huh:

And like I said, call HIM goth rock, or goth metal, both fit, but I'll argue neither.

Your sarcasm is boring, by the way.

Fingon · **Joined:** Sun Mar 20, 2005 3:11 pm **Posts:** 3207

maybe we should change this into Greenday&Eyesore shitfest? :rolleyes:

Dago · **Posted:** Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:30 pm

Al@metalreviews wrote:

To the original poster: Just because you listen to a bunch of underground thrash bands does not immediately give you the right to look down your nose at anyone, you're choice in music does not make you a superior being. Witty jabs, satire or complaints about a musical 'movement' is fine, but sitting there with a holier than thou attitude saying 'well I listen to X bands, who are, like, tr00 and underground, and I hate all those emos with their 'popular' music cos, y'know, that makes me cool, Love me please!' is just hot air and immaturity. If you want to score brownie points go elsewhere. If you don't like something, don't like it, its your right as a human being but at least demonstrate a whiff of knowledge about the music your discussing as opposed to bashing it to try and look good. The teenage 'alternative' culture movements will always be there regardless of what you think, grow up and listen to the stuff you actually like, and do others a favour by spreading the word as to why its good. Simply bashing popular culture will not ingratiate yourself to anybody with a brain.

As far as Green Day are concerned, pretty much what Ken has said. They've never changed their sound from day one, aside from Warning, the only thing that's changed is the production (become slicker) and the lyrics (which have matured somwhat). They never changed to be popular, they just became popular. How exactly can you 'sell out' without changing your sound? What would you have them do? Start playing stuff to be deliberately unpopular to gain the 'respect' of a teenager sitting at a computer? I'm yet to meet an actual Green Day fan (with a scrap of musical sense) who will argue that they're a true punk band. they're a rock band, I see them more as a band like U2 than as a punk band and always have. However the people that hate them due to them being popular will argue that they're 'trying' to be a punk band. I've seen this arguement from the mid 90's and am still yet to see a shred of evidence aside from media spin.

I think this is the best response to this thread.

Metal Reviews

EMOS DIE!

Who is online