Originally Posted by noob_pwner
there's something else operative there...non-musical. as a culture, punk is anti-capitalism. green day capitalized off some pop bastardization of that culture and sold it to people who had no knowledge of that real culture. that spawned loads of unauthentic "punk" bands which ****ed up the music genre and culture.
hmm. yeah, I think you've got a fair point there, as punk has been a cultural movement as much as a musical one
i think there's this continuous process of influence and innovation that evolves everything, specifically forms of expression in culture. the people who geek out on something usually end up doing it better/knowing more than who they were emulating. from that, they become the most influential of something new, but are 'before their time' and inaccessible. however, a number of people do copy them, but don't do it nearly as well...they create an accessible/popular version of it which later on nearly everyone follows because it's the most accessible/popular. meanwhile there are the elitists who search back in time and seek out who was the most authentic...who was the most influential...who was the most elite. a select few of those elitists will reinvent something based on what the older elitists did... and creating something new, then the whole cycle repeats...
as an elitist, i'm always searching for that rawness and realness...
ov3rmind: well put.
that's the part I'd debate: I'd use "different" instead of "don't do it nearly as well"
this might not be as universal across genres as I thought, as I'm admittedly pretty ignorant when it comes to punk or metal