|
|
Post by astropoug on Jun 13, 2022 13:52:46 GMT 10
So I came across a very recent article: thesundae.net/2022/04/24/seven-ages-of-pop-punk/It discusses the 7 eras of pop punk, including the golden age of the early 00s, the emo phase of the mid 00s, the decline in the 2010s, and the recent revival. John Titor, I’m especially interested in your take. Do you agree with the dates?
|
|
|
|
Post by John Titor on Jun 13, 2022 14:07:33 GMT 10
So I came across a very recent article: thesundae.net/2022/04/24/seven-ages-of-pop-punk/It discusses the 7 eras of pop punk, including the golden age of the early 00s, the emo phase of the mid 00s, the decline in the 2010s, and the recent revival. John Titor , I’m especially interested in your take. Do you agree with the dates? Well first the article incorrectly puts y2k as 03 lol but I agree with most of what the article said. Early 2000s pop punk sound was from 2000- Summer 03 with the jump off point being August 2001 when MTV & MTV 2 were spamming Sum 41 and Jimmy Eat World to Death. These videos were always on MTV and MTV 2 in the morning ( 2001) The next phase 04-08 is right, Specifically late 2004 when MCR's music video I am not ok was spammed to death on the music video morning rotation as well as American Idiot by Green Day. By 08/09 school year pop punk was pretty much dead and phased out, it had a good run but pop punk genre went back underground until 2019/2020. You can look to MGK's Bloody Valentine as the song that kicked off the current incarnation despite traction 2017/2018 and 2019 to bring it to life. Without the bands bringing it to life in those years, you would be hard pressed to have any momentum in getting it airplay. Oh and one more thing that article did not mention is that Disney had all of their new acts adopt a pop punk sound, when u are watching tv and see Disney channel promoting Pop Punk..it's no longer appealing. Key years for pop punk, 1994, 2001, 2004
astropoug likes this
|
|
|
|
Post by astropoug on Jun 13, 2022 14:17:36 GMT 10
I think it just comes down to the infamous trait of referring to the early 00s as Y2K when it wasn’t at all.
Just call it TRL-core like Punk Rock MBA does. That is far more accurate imho.
Anyways I actually agree on the early and mid 00s phases of pop punk. I think they could’ve gone into more detail over how it was over commercialized by the late 00s.
I do find it fascinating how they split 2008-2012 and 2013-2018 into separate eras, the former being defined by many “last hurrahs” by 00s pop punk bands, and the latter by the “Defend Pop Punk” movement in the underground.
I also personally think 1994-1996 and 1997-1999 were different/distinct periods for pop punk. I think the Dookie/Cheshire Cat/Smash stuff is quite different from the material that came out following the release of Dude Ranch, arguably the first pop punk album that has a 00s feel to it (or at least proto-2000s). The early mid 90s stuff largely blended in with the general alternative scene of the time with numerous bands taking influence from punk during this time. Even Pearl Jam did with Vitalogy, released in November 1994.
|
|
|
|
Post by mc98 on Jun 16, 2022 16:44:45 GMT 10
I think it just comes down to the infamous trait of referring to the early 00s as Y2K when it wasn’t at all. Just call it TRL-core like Punk Rock MBA does. That is far more accurate imho. Anyways I actually agree on the early and mid 00s phases of pop punk. I think they could’ve gone into more detail over how it was over commercialized by the late 00s. I do find it fascinating how they split 2008-2012 and 2013-2018 into separate eras, the former being defined by many “last hurrahs” by 00s pop punk bands, and the latter by the “Defend Pop Punk” movement in the underground. I also personally think 1994-1996 and 1997-1999 were different/distinct periods for pop punk. I think the Dookie/Cheshire Cat/Smash stuff is quite different from the material that came out following the release of Dude Ranch, arguably the first pop punk album that has a 00s feel to it (or at least proto-2000s). The early mid 90s stuff largely blended in with the general alternative scene of the time with numerous bands taking influence from punk during this time. Even Pearl Jam did with Vitalogy, released in November 1994. Would Tragic Kingdom full under 1994-1996 category?
|
|
|
|
Post by astropoug on Jun 16, 2022 16:49:37 GMT 10
I think it just comes down to the infamous trait of referring to the early 00s as Y2K when it wasn’t at all. Just call it TRL-core like Punk Rock MBA does. That is far more accurate imho. Anyways I actually agree on the early and mid 00s phases of pop punk. I think they could’ve gone into more detail over how it was over commercialized by the late 00s. I do find it fascinating how they split 2008-2012 and 2013-2018 into separate eras, the former being defined by many “last hurrahs” by 00s pop punk bands, and the latter by the “Defend Pop Punk” movement in the underground. I also personally think 1994-1996 and 1997-1999 were different/distinct periods for pop punk. I think the Dookie/Cheshire Cat/Smash stuff is quite different from the material that came out following the release of Dude Ranch, arguably the first pop punk album that has a 00s feel to it (or at least proto-2000s). The early mid 90s stuff largely blended in with the general alternative scene of the time with numerous bands taking influence from punk during this time. Even Pearl Jam did with Vitalogy, released in November 1994. Would Tragic Kingdom full under 1994-1996 category? No Doubt aren’t even pop punk, but instead, part of a completely different movement that peaked in 1995-1997, called third wave ska or ska punk. They were part of the movement alongside Reel Big Fish, Sublime, and Less than Jake. Rancid are sort of a mix between this, and the aforementioned mid 90s punk/pop punk movement.
|
|
