every word that itchy spoke is true, it will get people into more real punk and things of the sort and u should hat a band for the music not the money they make

So starving punk band is good? Punk band sellign CDs and making money is bad?

I love music, all music (well with a few exceptions). I don't care if the band makes $100 a year or a $100million a year if I like the music. I'm not looking for a message or anything else. Sure some songs grab me more than others but that's only natural. I have soem groups that I've liked every CD they made and others that are hit and miss with what I enjoy.

The point I'm trying to make is listen for the music, not the band.

Not at all. There are many bands who have made it big without going mainstream; Lagwagon, No Use for a Name, Get Up Kids, Face to Face, Midtown, and a slew of others. Of course I don't want my favorite bands to starve, I just don't want them to sell-out punk. I always thought that was what punk music was about: being anti-mainstream/conformity/whatever. There is a distinction between success and selling out.

Itchy93

I understand what you are saying. I just don't go along with compartmentalizing music. There is only a "mainstream" if enough people buy into it.

Let me point out that all "rock" bands don't in fact write their own songs. All or most of Good Charlotte's new material is "co-written" (guess what that really means) by Tim Armstrong of Rancid, an experienced punk rocker turned industry whore. Mmm, hit machine.

Ya i thought i noticed one of the guys from Good Charlotte in Rancid's new music video.

i used to adore tim armstrong i thought that guy was awesome and i knew he wrote songs for other ppl but i didnt know he wrote gc toons... new raccid sux ne way

This thread sorta veered off course. Started out as a thread about who should be classified as "boy bands" and has turned into "lets list the punk band sell-outs."

Its a good discussion anyways.

Umm yeah. I'm gonna second the idea that Boyz II men are far superior to your run of the mill "boy band." Reason being is that they were never about a giant dance routine and what not. Bottom line is I think that as far as musical talent, I can respect them for that and to tell you the truth, they made a lot better music than any Nsync or any other group.

How about the "boy band" that almost made it: The House Jacks. They are huge in the a cappella world, and were signed to a major label, but were ultimately screwed over. Try comparing that to your Boyz, and see what you think.

i can't agree more. i'm supposed to like them cause they're from the DC area...fuck that, they just suck, doesn't matter where they're from. i think the fact that they're from around here makes me hate them even more because people feel they can be possessive about them...

hahahahahahahahahahaha.

uhh... sorry, read somethin wrong!

I too would like to defend The White Stripes, Jack Johnson. . .

I like the music, I don't care if they're popular with thirteen year old girls. This is the music I like. I also Like Led Zeppelin, The Doors, Pink Floyd, the list continues with band that were a huge success across the world. Just because you sell out stadiums does not mean that you make poor music.

I also note that no one has mentioned the original 'boy band' aka The Beatles. What about those guys, they were extrememly popular among thirteen year old girls, does that make them 'sell outs?'

I like Led Zeppelin and The Doors, and I love Pink Floyd. But they weren't whoring something that wasn't meant to be whored.

Itchy93

Please, please, PLEASE don't compare Good Charlotte to the Beatles.

And I never included The White Stripes in my original thread. That was added in by others. I don't think The White Stripes are in my definition...

I wasn't comparing Good Charlotte to the Beatles. . .I simply stated that they were known as a boy band, esp when they first arrived to America.

The Screaming 13yr old girls have spoken

jack johnson is great music... no matter what anyone says