Talk:Punk pop

Requested move

It has been requested that this page be moved to "Punk pop" to correct the capitalization of the title. Please discuss here. Isopropyl 23:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Move to adhere to correct capitalisation. --Switch 10:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RM discussion is over. Nightstallion has completed the move. Isopropyl 04:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of punk-pop/pop-punk

Do not merge before first explaining how it can be done on this talk page. Madangry 19:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles seem to be about the same thing. "Starting in about 1999" suggests the two are essentially the same, especially given the overlap in the bands. I suggest that the information from the 2000s pop punk article be included into this one. --Switch 02:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging all information under Punk Pop would be ok by me!! :) Madangry 17:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense to me.. "Punk pop" and "Pop punk" are used interchangeably. What is the difference between these two terms? Please merge the articles. Since "Pop punk" is the more common of the two terms, that should be the target of the merge. Rhobite 17:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punk Pop (Popular Music) which would be used to describe mainstream bands who have brought punk to a larger audience and Pop Punk (Poppy Punk Music) is a genre of punk which sees 50's Bubblegum pop as a major influence and is usually not associated with mainstream success--such as the

Ramones, Screeching Weasel etc. Two totally different things. Allmusic.com defines Punk Pop as a post-grunge strand of alternative rock that combines power-pop melodies and chord changes with speedy punk tempos and loud guitars. For example, the Ramones type of rock (or punk) has nothing to do with grunge or alternative rock. Madangry 18:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rhobite; they are pretty interchangeable. Allmusic itself is using terms interchangeably, since no entry exists for pop-punk.

Also, it's incorrect to say the Ramones have nothing to do with grunge and alternative rock. While they are different genres, punk rock evolved into alternative rock in the 80's so there is a connection. WesleyDodds 08:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for this opinion? Madangry 00:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To get to the base of the argument, the terms refer to two entirely different things. Punk pop is popular music with some basis in punk; whether the bands play(ed) punk rock, like Rancid and Green Day, have a punk "image", like Good Charlotte, or are merely marketed as punk, with little-at-best similarity to it (like Simple Plan). The fact that these bands are popular means that they sometimes play pop-punk, which tends to be more radio-friendly; however, Rancid are a punk band with only a small pop-punk influence, but are still popular, and Avril Lavigne is "pop with a bit of rock" who adopted a punk image. Pop punk is punk rock with a bubblegum pop influence; the Ramones, Buzzcocks, et cetera. That some bands can be classified as both does not make the terms the same in meaning. That is why this article was separated from the pop punk article; trying to describe two different movements in one article was leading to ambiguity, incorrect information and constant edit wars. --Switch 13:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference which explains the distinction between pop punk and punk pop? Rhobite 14:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that distinction makes sense. Pop punk is punk considered to have a "poppy" sound, where punk pop is pop music with a punk attitude. And they're absolutely not the same thing. And yeah, Allmusic uses "punk pop" to describe what came out of bands like Green Day in 1994 [1], where pop punk is an older term used to describe bands like Buzzcocks and so on. So they aren't the same thing. Sarge Baldy 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the term "pop punk" was ever used back in the Seventies to describe the Buzzcocks. WesleyDodds 00:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if not then pop punk is a neologism to describe them. But judging by Google results, Buzzcocks are tied to "pop-punk" twice as often "punk pop", where the converse is true for Green Day. Sarge Baldy 00:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarge Baldy has his definitions correct. Unfortunately this is Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not equal truth. Wikipedia text can only be here if it is sourced. It's also a shame, I think, that most of the sourcing is done by way of the internet. Not everything is on the internet. Most of what is "pop punk" is in underground print media (as opposed to Punk Pop which was birthed and remains a part of mainstream media)...so my conclusion? This debate will never end on Wikipedia. Migth as well give up. Let the mainstream rockers and admin believe what they will and keep what text they will. Madangry 00:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can reference that underground print media you mentioned. WesleyDodds 09:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get my girlfriend to scan in a copy of a magazine, then. I don't have a scanner. But such media does exist, it's just hard to get it up here. And, while I don't believe the Buzzcocks were ever called pop-punk in the seventies, Generation X had had that term applied to them by the early 80s, and it wasn't much later that the term spread. I'll try to scan in a source for that too. --Switch 12:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Actually, I'm having trouble - I can't find a publication that makes clear the difference between "pop punk" and "punk pop". There are plenty that use the terms, but never explaining the difference or the meaning of the terms. I guess it's implied, so they don't really need to. And now, after the term "buzzpop" has spread a little, that is often being used to describe poppy punk rock, while pop punk describes what is intended by this article. Given the lack of sources, I guess I'll have to concede to a merger, or a renaming of the articles to "Buzzpop" (which isn't in widespread enough use yet to justufy) and "pop punk". Mitch Clem has talked about the meanings, I believe. I'll look at his livejournal. --Switch 13:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge, but if they are not the same thing, as Sarge Baldy says, then there needs to be definitions on the disambiguation page. GilliamJF 12:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Bad Religion are the same genre as Simple Plan, so they are different - but working out the articles can be tough. I want to move the pop punk article to buzzpop, and move this to pop punk, with an added line directing people to the other article. --Switch 14:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think until the term "buzzpunk" becomes pervasive enough (like appears in a major music publication) we'll just have to merge the two articles under pop-punk. Yes, people will complain that so-and-so is not pop-punk, or pop-punk is not real punk, blah blah blah, but they also need to provide adequate sources to back their arguments. WesleyDodds 08:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs merging, the article seems like a fanboy attempt to give their favourite bands "punk credibility", when they do not play punk rock music. - Deathrocker 12:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge dispute

It's been awhile. Someone please explain why they dispute a merge with pop punk. WesleyDodds 21:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've voiced my opinion, but for the purpose of a wikipedia entry? No objection. Merge to pop punk, with an explanation of the dual meaning of the term. --Switch 00:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll merge it then seen as nobody wants to voice a reason why not to. A concensus has been achived. - Deathrocker 22:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]