As these disputes take too much space in the talk page of Green Day. Any section about Green Day's genres has been placed here. psychomelo₍di_sc_ussion) 14:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I compressed all the separate punk dispute topics into one, please post your arguments here. --Mac Davis 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

A comprimise has been made by listing Green Day as a part of both Pop Punk and Punk Rock. Green Day has had albums/songs in both the Punk Rock (American Idiot) and Pop Punk (earlier albums) genres. Therefore, it is fitting that it be classified as both. This judgement is made based on the Wiktionary definitons of both genres.

---

--Djbob 06:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Day is not punk, nor punk rock. They are pop-punk, and I believe they have been quoted as saying that. To be punk, you need to be making a political statement, which is absent from all of their albums save American Idiot. But in the case of that, they sound more like a genuine rock band. --66.68.32.177 00:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Does it mean The Ramones were not punk either? As far as I know, they were not political at all. But have always been regarded as one of the greatest names of punk. -200.195.88.155

I'd say The Ramones were punk rock, and punk and punk rock are different things. Also, you don't need to be making a political statement to be considered punk, there've been tons of punk bands with no political message. --Yoko-onassis 6 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)

The Ramones are seen as the fathers of pop-punk. Ask anyone who takes their punk seriously. So no, they weren't strictly Punk; they were pop-punk.Canaen 08:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are upbeat and have little to no talk on politics or current events. Real punk is like NOFX and Strike Anywhere. Green Day is not. I tried to put that they were pop-punk but it kept being reverted. Andre Wong 02:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The lyrics of a song do NOT change its genre. Ben Folds covered a song by Dr. Dre in his usual folk-y/pop style, does that make Ben Folds a rapper? Anyway genre is a very subjective matter. Stellis 00:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed:

Green Day's music is similar to earlier punk bands:'

• Bad Religion
• NOFX
• The Offspring
• Operation Ivy
• Seven Seconds
• The Subhumans (UK)

Because it's POV (many would claim Green Day is utterly unlike NOFX or Op Ivy). See Talk:Fiona Apple for some other reasons. Tuf-Kat

I've re-added the list under a different title: 'Other earlier punk bands include:'. I agree it is POV saying that Green Day's music is similar to those in the list, but I think a list of related bands is always useful, especially for genre-driven, subcultured music styles like punk rock. --Zaim

Ah, sorry, I've just removed it again (same list as above but with the addition of Rancid). "Other earlier punk bands" is too vague. We have lists of other earlier punk bands elsewhere - see Punk rock. It would, however, be good to say what the band themselves have cited as influences, or what reputable critics have said about their music, and what it is similar to. It's okay to mention critic's opinions, but we're not allowed to say whetehr we agree with them... -- Oliver P. 18:10 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ah, that was quick. Just to note that that was my first Wikipedia edit. And I see what you mean, thank you for pointing that out. Wiki and Wikipedia is very nice. --Zaim

Oh, well in that case, welcome to the project! And yes, it is nice, I have to agree with you there. :) -- Oliver P. 19:23 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Green Day is so not like NOFX, and I think that they are more POP-punk than punk. Generally, traditional punk is darker and less upbeat. Like Pennywise. BTW, Zaim, I love Wikipedia too, as it has helped me infinitely on school projects. Thanks to all! Andre Wong 01:38, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Come on, Green Day is so pop-punk. Their subject matter and their playing style is wayyy too upbeat.Andre Wong 00:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article comes across as being written by a fan. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't exactly create a NPOV. I removed the incomplete sentence 'Hopefully they do.' as that doesn't exactly come across as Enyclopedic. I could say the same thing about many band pages on Wikipedia. Discolando 15:34, 23 Nov 2004 (CDT)

Upon further reflection, I removed the entire sentence, "Dirnt has been quoted on MTV as saying they may or may not find the master tapes soon." This is more of a temporary news blurb and doesn't add any value to the article. Discolando 18:16, 23 Nov 2004 (CDT)

Green Day is a pop-punk band; this is a well-established fact. If you want real Punk, I suggest you look at old Anti-Flag (first 3 albums or so), the Sex Pistols, Sham 69, the Dead Kennedys, or any number of other Punk bands. Although some of Green Day's earliest stuff (first album, no later) may be regarded as Punk, anything after is either pop-punk with rare exception (Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)), up until Warning or so. Then, it progresses into mainstream rock. This shit isn't a mystery, it's common sense for anyone who's been a punk for even a few months. Canaen 08:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seems to agree on what music they play!! Green Day is it's own style of music altogether, they are always at least in some way different to other bands, they are unique.

I don't know why there's become this huge issue with the classification of Green Day, it is clearly noted on the edit page and in the talk archives that the consensus is that Green Day is punk rock. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually not clear; I see just as many if not more people argue in favor of the punk-pop genre to classify this group. To compromise, I included both terms on the most recent edit since either way, they are both. As for the consensus bit in the article, I think it was referring to the pop-punk genre - that is how I first saw it. Now, agruements for the not-so-pop punk rock classification arise from the ideology that this genre was thought to have surfaced in the late 1990's - after Green Day first broke into the mainstream. However, they have virtually blended into the pop genre so much as of recent that they are having more success in that genre than "traditional" pop punk groups such as Blink-182 ever had. Drdr1989 02:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's close to Blink-182 in terms of being po-punk type but Green Day seems to be more hardcore rock, as shown by many of their songs. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore punk? Have you even listened to punk? Hardcore's eating your own shit on stage. Anyway, back on topic. Why have both? Pop punk is already saying that they're punk, so it's like repeating yourself. Someone debate me. And BTW, I don't think they're pop punk, I think that whole term is a contradiction. If anything beside pop, I see Green Day as emo. Gold Stur 20:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Punk Rock/Pop-Punk works in terms of the infobox and the intro paragraph, and I've changed it as such. How should it referred to after that though? Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Their brand of punk"? --Joewithajay 21:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one cares enough to reply, I'm changing them to just pop punk. Gold Stur 21:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the classification as pop punk only since don't they also qualify as punk rock? Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to Black Flag, GG Allin, The Clash, Dead Kennedys, and The Weirdos. Green Day sounds nothing like any punk rock band. They don't sound punk, they don't dress punk (how many punks dressed in suits?), and they certainly don't act punk. Also, punk bands never made slow songs, and the ones that did got ridiculed. Wake Me Up When September Ends is probably the best evidence needed to show that they're not punk. As DK put it in the song, Pull My Strings (where they act as a new wave band), "I’ll make my music boring. I’ll play my music slow. I ain’t no artist, I’m a businessman, no ideas of my own. I won’t offend or rock the boat." On top of that, punk bands didn't make 9 minute songs and appear on MTV. Punk was about being fast, quick, offensive, and independent, another thing Green Day isn't. Gold Stur 21:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The most un-punk think I've ever heard of is telling someone they aren't punk (I know how circular that can be, but it's about as true than trying to define what punk is). Just a theory that my friend and I were pondering the other day (while watching the mediocre Bullet in a Bible DVD), though not a theory either of us came up with. I remember seeing Johnny Rotten talk about it in 1995. By your definition, though the Clash really weren't punk, Joe Strummer certainly wasn't. One of my favourite recordings of his is a slow, acoustic duet with Johhny Cash. They covered Bob Marley's Redemption Song. Then again, my favourite Clash song is Train in Vain.. which isn't especially fast or aggressive. It's kind of a sappy emotional song, really. All about some girl, and getting dumped by her. How horribly un-punk.. Kinda like signing with a major label (say, CBS) or wearing a collared shirt on stage[1]. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 23:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Then again, if you were to ask me to define punk, I'd say that punk is doing what you want, being who you want to be, and telling anyone who doesn't like it to FOD[2]. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 23:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with classifying Green Day is that they don't fall completely into punk but neither do they fall under pop though they do fall under rock. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've given in with ol' Scoops. I had no idea that there were in fact so many punk artists, I mean, some of these punk rockers don't even play music! No fear though, I've undergone the task of slowly going through Wiki and correctly labelling everyone who does what they want, be who they want to be, and tell anyone who doesn't like it to "FOD" (whatever the fuck that means) with punk rock. My first change is Dr. Dre. See if I've done you good, master. Gold Stur 00:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could make a pretty valid argument that Dr Dre is an follower of the punk ideology, honestly. I know Rolling Stone has. I wouldn't say he's punk rock, as his music tends to not be very rock-ish. I congratulate you on your sarcasm though. I suppose it was an attempt to call my bluff. Like I wrote earlier, you cite the Clash as a prime example of punk. I fail to see a large-scale difference between the Clash and Green Day. Both signed with major labels. Both have written songs that are loud and fast, as well as songs that are softer. Both have dressed in a vriety of styles over their carreers. In fact, I'd say the two are more alike than either is like GG Allin. Maybe you find my definition overly inclusive. I find yours overly exclusive, since your defintion excludes one of your prime examples of the genre. I'd say your definition is probably closer to hardcore punk. I certainly don't think Green Day (or the Clash) would fall in there. And FOD, as per the link, stands for Fuck Off and Die. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 01:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually debated including the Clash knowing that they were rather prime targets. However, I must now defend my decision. As I stated earlier, Green Day is not fast, quick, independent, and neither do they dress like punks, sound, or act like punks. The Clash was not always quick as they had reggae influences though they usually were, and when not, the punk sound was distinctive. The length, or quickness as I put it, of their songs, while lengthy for punk rock (highest I know of being five minutes) was not near as long as Green Day's nine minute works. Punk worked against progressive rock and an almost trademark signature of progressive rock was lengthy songs. Now, one could argue that the Clash and Green Day are both sellouts, and to be honest, I don't care much about the Clash, however, they were an early punk band and didn't really have much direction from past bands to build on, if that makes since. As for their clothes, I don't see how loosely wearing a collared shirts is any where near frequently appearing in a nice suit and tie. And really, Green Day does not act punk at all. As I quoted from DK earlier, they don't offend or rock the boat. Before you say it, the Clash wasn't too offensive, but they did dwell into more political issues (in a broad spectrum, i.e. Spanish Bombs), unlike Green Day, who has only just recently gotten into politics, and one could argue that it only makes them more pop-ish because they're on the bash Bush bandwagon. And lastly, they just don't sound punk. Atleast when the Clash did a slow song you could hear the reggae in it, WSE just sounds like emo / pop. Gold Stur 02:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like I wrote, it sounds like your definition of "punk rock" squares more directly with hardcore punk. Really, I hope you've read and absorbed that article and the punk ideology article I also linked earlier. While I don't disagree that Green Day are more pop than the Clash, that's also not entirely within their control. What's pop depends on what's popular. Stylistically, they haven't changed a whole lot between 1,039 Smoothed Out Slappy Hours and American Idiot. I find it hard to blame them for their success, given that fact. Thematically, they've changed and grown, as one would hope. They don't dress punk? I didn't realize there was a dress code... I don't think I've been following one... In fact, I always thought the whole conforming to a stereotype was kinda un-punk... Also, I'm not sure what your exposure level to Green Day is, but I find it hard to believe that you could listen to, say, Insomniac and say that it's not hard and fast. That would be the album that featured Geek Stink Breath, a video nearly pulled from MTV. It was a minor, and rather silly controversy, but they never seem worried about conforming to me. Ultimately, I don't see what the problem with the current classification is. It doesn't seem factually inaccurate to me, given the various things I've read and observed over the years. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 02:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's say I give you all of that. I still fail to see how that would justify both the use of pop punk and punk seeing as how one is stating the other, only more accurately thus the use of pop punk devoids the use of punk rock. Gold Stur 03:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's a valid point. However the current state of the page isn't my choice at classification either. Given the choice, I'd call them a punk band. No rock, no pop. It strikes me that pop-punk isn't really a valid description of the band, since they've not changed their style much, but have had two waves of popularity vs non-popularity. They're a punk band who play rock and happen to be popular right now. If their next album tanks, despite a similar sound to all their prior ones, would they still be "pop-"punk? Are Insomniac, Nimrod and Warning pop-punk? They certainly weren't very popular. In any case, punk rock/pop punk was a group compromise. I'm happy to live with it, even when they aren't popular anymore. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 03:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's all the fuss about? They have freedom of speech just like any other American. As for the heart grenade and swearing, their music is actually for mature listeners, hence the Parental Advisory on American Idiot.

Green Day is the most punk you're gonna get these days and are worthy of the label "punk rock". Bullet in a Bible is genuine punk, and if you don't believe me, then go listen to some sellouts like Good Charlotte or Fall Out Boy. Now the "pop", I would use for only considering it "popular", not the overproduced "pop" that you hear from the All-American Rejects or something like that. Green Day is solely based on ANGER, like any punk bands, not ANGST like pop-punk bands like GC or Simple Plan.--4.253.125.29 04:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Insomniak[reply]

True, Green Day is miles more punk than all of the bands you list, but I believe you would agree that many of Green Day's songs have a pop-flavor to them, not to mention the crossover appeal. I think the pop-punk/ punk rock is the most accurate description of them. Drdr1989 04:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

((personal attack removed Kelly Martin (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC))) Gold Stur 03:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Early Green Day such as the 1039 Smooth and Sweet Children EPs were lo-fi, punk influenced and under produced. They also had no comercial success and therefore cannot be categorizies as pop. More recent albums have seen comercial success. For a 12 year old buying a Green Day album today Green Day are just another pop band as the child has no knowledge of past punk scenes. More mature listeners to even recent Green Day albums will still be be able to identify with the rockier punk elements of songs. I therefore believe Green Day should be classified as pop-punk/punk-rock. Heezy 11:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Green Day does not sound, act, or dress punk. Even with their early shitty albums. ((personal attack removed Kelly Martin (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC))). Gold Stur 12:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that Green Day are less punk than the unpunkest thing that ever wasn't punk, Gold Stur, I'm sure you must have better things to do with your time than write poorly-spelled personal attacks to other users. Please keep in mind WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL before you write your next comment, even if you are talking to User:Drdr1989. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Stur, I have removed some of your personal attacks from this page. Please adhere to Wikipedia's civility policy henceforth in both your talk page comments and your edit summaries. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For one, Green Day is pop-punk, but pop-punk is a form of punk. While it's true they have deviated from this sound lately, they still are and will always be pop-punk. Green Day is pop-punk, as is NoFX, so whoever thinks NoFX is punk but Green Day isn't has a problem. And whoever mentioned the Ramones being the originators of punk but not political at all has a good point. A band doesn't have to be political to be punk, but many are anyway. Also, Green Day was political before American Idiot - listen to "Minority" and "Maria" for two good examples. With the exeption of War on Errorism, NoFX hasn't been all too political either. Their biggest hit was arguably "Bob", a song about as pointless as Green Day's "Longview".

Although it is true that NoFX is a pop-punk band, I contest your view of their lack of political content. Fat Mike himself says that they formed to make music about how much Reagan sucked. Canaen 08:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Sabrebattletank 06:11, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with your position, this dispute appeared on blink-182's article. It is kind of lame to have these sort of discussions, instead of really caring about making a much better wikipedia...--Greedyredbag 18:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter what the band is? They are who they are, they rock and make me have a good time. Call them what you will but why put lables on some thing that you don't really know. For all you know they could sing lullabies while in the shower or some thing like that and well that not punk or pop thats just lullabies in the shower. stars2005 may 19

Labels... puh! If we step back and put a bit of logic into this, we can correctly point out what kind of music they are. The most obvious indicator is how well-known they are in the musical mainstream, and since they've been causing a stir from the start with Dookie, it's safe to assume they're well-known. That factor immediately adds the word "pop" to whatever other genre they are. The other gender, then, breaks down into the musical conventions the band follows more closely - and although the sound is rather experimental, it all breaks down into basic chords on the guitar and a moving bass line (often at a fast pace). BAM - there's your punk label. Mainstream music (pop) + balanced chord structure and moving bass line (punk) = Green Day (pop-punk). And that's my only word on this subject. Wanderer 02:51, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Really, we should be following NPOV, which means that anything controversial should be attributed to those who hold the opinions. Does anybody feel like citing some sources? It doesn't matter what I think, or what stars2005 thinks, or what Wanderer thinks; we should rather be citing print or web sources (how does allmusic classify them? how do punk purists classify them? add this to the article, with links and references as needed). Tuf-Kat 21:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Forget about the punk part for a moment. How in the world is Green Day a pop group? This comes across me as being the funniest thing I have ever heard. 64.231.154.102 14:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The official definition for punk rock from Webster's New World Dictionary and Thesaurus says, "a loud, fast, and deliberately offensive style of rock music". Green Day is not fast or deliberately offensive. May be loud, but not the above two. That's why I'm once again taking away the punk rock listing. Gold Stur 21:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Part of their music is all three. Not all of their music, but a substantial part, mind you. This is why we have both categories. Drdr1989 01:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the "deliberately offensive". Gold Stur 02:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Deliberately offensive" is unnecessary in the definition, since the shock value of punk rock can be interpreted in various ways. Sometimes it was just the rebellion against the modern rock scene in the late 70s. certainly Green day has been offensive in their career at various times, be it starting a mudfight at Woodstock 94 or having a provocative politica viewpoint on their current album

And your overall argument is flawed since the definition of punk rock is most fluid in the minds of members of the punk scene. Sure, dogma emerges from time to time, but many artists, ranging from Joy Division to Beat Happening to the Minutemen to Big Black to Nirvana have interpreted punk rock as the ability to approach their music with a mindset that would allow them to do whatever they wanted. Some would consider Throbbing Gristle punk rock due to their approach and beliefs regarding music, even though sonically they're the template for early industrial.

If you want to apply the rather unspecific definition of "loud, fast, and deliberately offensive" to Green Day, then you have to apply to all punk rock bands. For instance, the Sex Pistols rarely played past midtempo speeds, and Richard Hell's "Blank Generation" is pretty relaxed. Punk rock was relatively faster than most other rock at the time, but it didn't become blindingly fast until hardcore bands like Black Flag (who actually slowed down later on) and Bad Brains speed up the tempos. Green Day generally plays at speedy tempos, and they can be pretty damn fast ("Jaded", "St. Jimmy", "Platypus (I Hate You)", to name a few). Aditionally, I don't see how the Damned's "New Rose", the Buzzcocks "What Do I Get?" or even anything put out by Bad Brains or Fugazi is in any way "deliberately offensive". And loud? Green Day has loud, distorted guitars on most songs. And you should note (given yoru criticism of sogns on the most recent album) that American Idiot is a rock opera, so there's a massive incorporation of many styles, tempos, and dynamics. Hey, pivotal punk rock double albums like Zen Arcade and [[[Duoble Nickels on the Dime]] were pretty diverse. The Minutemen incorporated jazz and funk (and even a Steely Dan cover), and three songs into Husker Du's double album they bust out acoustic guitars and harmonize on "Never Talking to You Again". And both those albums wee released on SST, Black Flag's record label!

And let's not even get into mainstream musical popularity. If you define punk rock by set of ethics that rejects mainstream success, you have to acknowledge that a whole swath of CBGB's bands were signed to Sire Records (of many major labels other punk bands signed to) and the Sex Pistols topped the charts and sold albums by the truckload in the UK. In fact, punk rock was hugely successful in Britain. The idea of "punk rock integrity" mainly comes from the American underground scene, since punk rock was not largely successful in America. And even then you have figures like Greg Ginn, Ian MacKaye, and Mike Watt bemoaning the rigidity and factionalization of 80's punk rock in Our Band Could Be Your Life.

In my opinion you seriously need to deeply research both Green Day and punk rock in general. WesleyDodds 03:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's so many examples on every album. Some are actually covered in this talk page. In regards to the definition, I'm pretty much OK with it (although some people may interpret "deliberately offensive" in their own way). What I was trying to make clear was that part (again, not ALL) of their music has that punk-rock feel; some has a pop feel. With that, some people might think that they could denote it, therefore, as just "pop-punk". I was one, just like you. This was before I realized that the term "pop-punk" is actually new a subgenre of punk (like Simple Plan for example). The split categorization was meant to eliminate that ambiguation. I just don't see how one could compare Green Day to those who are true pop-punkers. Make sense or am I confusing you still?? Drdr1989 03:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how any one could classify Green Day as punk rock at all. Like I said, give me examples of their offensiveness on their supposedly punk rock releasings.Gold Stur 04:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've already told you where to go look for the "offensiveness". Your classification opinions unfortunately go against consensus. You could still argue with it and very much disagree, but unfortunately the current consensus is a split. If I could keep it at only pop-punk I would, but their classification is unfortunately quite complex enough to go beyond being another Blink 182. At least you'll still have your pop-punk part in there, right? Drdr1989 20:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my little collection of evidence on why Green Day should be Punk-Rock (as well as pop-punk) I have structured it in terms of the Webster's New World Dictionary and Thesaurus definition from Gold Stur. Loud: Very much so. All the Green Day live gigs I have been to have been very loud. Fast: Album: Nimrod, Track: Platypus (I hate you), BPM:214... Album: Kerplunk, Title: Best Thing in Town, BPM:220... Album: 1039, Track: I Want to be Alone, BPM:192... nearly all tracks (including the modern ones) are over 180bpm. Deliberately Offensive: The Song "Green Day" from the Album 1039 is with reference to drug taking. Frequent references to masturbation and drug taking on the album "Dookie". Many people accuse them of anti-american lyrics on the latest "American Idiot". I think those points should satisfy the three criteria but I am happy to provide more if required. Now I have proved Green Day fulfill the dictionary definition of "punk-rock" heopfully we can settle on the "punk-rock/pop-punk" genre tagging even if it does mean slightly different things to different people. Heezy 21:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of their recent songs like Wake me up when September Ends and Boulevard of Broken Dreams are some of their most played recent songs and those are neither loud nor fast. Drug use is not something that is taken offensive in today's music world. Rap, disco music, and rock from the 60s to today have had drug references. Nothing new or offensive. As for masturbation, not offensive. Have you heard of the hit pop song, Turning Japanese by The Vapors? Anyway, masturbation is essentially sex, just with yourself, and again, as with drugs, sex has not been a controversial issue in music since the late 60s early 70s and is prominent in today's rap, rock, and pop musicians such as Britney Spears. As for American Idiot being offensive, if it is, it's certainly not as offensive as other anti-government punk songs. Plus, the American Idiot album can't even be considered as punk in the first place because, as with mention of WMUWSP and BoBD, American Idiot is an album far too slow to be considered punk. And as with Drdr1989's rebuttal, just because the majority thinks some thing doesn't make it true. Democracy can't be applied to everything. If you vote on wether a green car is red or green, and everyone votes that it is red, that doesn't change the color. Your arguement isn't a valid one. Gold Stur 22:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus is a consensus. There has been much talk on this to lead to this consensus as you can see. Anyway, your car example is too objective. I'll add that your disco and 60's examples of offensive type materials just shows that the "offensive" trait doesn't necessarily mean a punk denotation. Drdr1989 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Gold Stur he has a point, there is a consensus for the double classification. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy, discussion and consensus are critical to the success of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a democratic forum. As for your claims that American Idiot is "too slow" listen to the track "St. Jimmy" off of it that is over 180bpm. You may well argue that some of the tracks are slow therefore it cannot be categorizied as punk, in which case I suggest you listen to some of the slower Ramones tracks and then ask if maybe the Ramones should not be categorizied as Punk. GoldStar wrote "As for American Idiot being offensive, if it is, it's certainly not as offensive as other anti-government punk songs" Very true. It is not the most offensive album ever released. However if you want to see what impact it made look back to the MTV coverage of the recent US Presidential election where for once MTV were producing shows detailing how modern artists were getting political such as Green Day, Eminem and Puff Daddy. Another good place to look for the contraversy the album has caused is Wikipedia. The Green Day page has been vandalisied many times with complaints of Anti-american sentiment or false accusations over how Green Day hate Jews because they are anti-American. It is also important to consider that many artists go through different phases/styles over their carear. Even if you (GoldStar) do not believe modern Green Day recordings to be punk-rock you cannot ignore early Green Day recordings from the late 80's/early 90's where the fast beat, offensiveness and loudness was present at the same time as being hugely unsuccesful eventually signing to a small very minor label (Lookout) and not enjoying popular success until their 3rd album (Dookie). Heezy 10:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said twice before, just because the majority thinks something, that does not make it true and factual. The majority of people used to think that the sun, stars, and planets revolved around Earth. Today we know that's not true. If your arguement was correct though, the human race wouldn't even need science, just other humans to vote on things and then the voice of the people would be the definitive scientific answer. Can I be clearer? And Drdr1989, no, being offensive isn't just a trait found only in punk, but it is an essential trait. And what I was saying was that those disco, rock, and rap bands weren't offensive, so they're not punk. Mainstream = nonoffensive. Gold Stur 02:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And you can quote definitions all you want and that doesn't make it right either especially in music where Green Day's music qualifies as many things but that doesn't make it right either, and actually the current version is not a consensus version because it is a compromise version due to lack of consensus so if you want to make the change then fine convince everyone that it's a good idea and I for one would be happy to go along with it but until then leave it alone. Btw, also what's your definition of offensive in terms of music and what do you think would qualify under that category in terms of music and bands? Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I figure I should clarify, the current wording is not a consensus wording by the fact that no wording except for this compromise could be agreed upon, however the choice to use this wording was by consensus to prevent edit warring and ongoing issue with the wording. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Stur, you keep missing the point over and over. Let's make it clear for YOU. The fact is: this a compromise based on comments for either sub-genre. Whether it is scientific or not is irrelevant here. Maybe 100 years from now if someone wanted to do some sort of "scientific study" the consensus could be changed, but until then, what you see is what you're gonna get. And I hope for your sake you don't think that all rock and rap are not offensive. Also, if those types of "non-offensive" genres talk about offensive stuff then where does that put punk rock? Drdr1989 04:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here a few links from well respected music sites that attribute punk (in particular punk-rock) to Green Day. (there of course many more of these available... just the same as there are many more sites definining Green Day as pop-punk) NME Big Cheese BBC USA Today Pure Volume I support the punk-rock/pop-punk genre tagging as we have considerable evidence and argument for both categories and it is unlikely we will ever reach a consensus on a single genre (and why should we! its quite ok for a band to have multiple genres throughout a carear) Heezy 10:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like both genres together wins as opposed to just "pop-punk". Lharvill 17:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I take it that if I got a petition going, saying that Green Day was actually an evil plan introduced by SkyNet and they are actually cyborgs, and I got say, 500 people to sign it, I could get that new scientific fact into Wiki? I'll get right on that. Gold Stur 20:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on that, until you get that petition completed will you at least agree not to change it unless you can get a consensus to do so? I hate having the article protected since that means that neither myself (and I do have improvements I'd wish to make) or others can edit it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I plan to make it scientific fact that Green Day are cyborgs though. I went ahead and bought the domain www.greenday-cyb.org and am planning it out. Keep watch of it and be sure to be the first to sign the petition when I release it. Let the truth ring! Gold Stur 23:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty funny... Drdr1989 00:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got the site up, check it out [3] and don't forget to sign the petition [4]. I know it's shabby, but it should take more shape over the weekend. Gold Stur 01:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hooo-kaay. Go ahead.... Get "enough" petitions. When you still get a rejection of both your pop-punk and cyborg claims, we'll let you know why. Can you get the Governator to sign? 69.236.136.85 01:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read above. This democracization is a common and completely accepted practice in Wikipedia. It relates directly to 1984. 2+2=5 because that's what Big Brother says. Green Day=punk rock because that's what the people say. Green Day will soon=cyborgs because that's also what the people say. Gold Stur 02:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Brilliant straw man argument. You've failed to prove your point, so instead you'll attack the system. Aside from the patent absurdity of your claim, trying to re-define a band's place in the musical spectrum and trying to re-define a provable fact are two entirely different beasts. Whether or not something is "human" is both provable and binary. They either are, or are not. A musical genre would be neither wholly provable nor necessarily binary. This place is a secondary reference. It aggregates data from primary references. You can find valid primary references (for example, published music critics) referencing both genres, hence an agreement to include both genres. You can not, and will never, find a valid primary reference that would conclude that Green Day are cyborgs. The best you could possibly come up with would be something like "a totally non-scientific internet petition has deemed that Green Day are cyborgs." As opposed to the current situatuion, where a non-scientific survey was used to decide on the inclusion of verifiable primary source material. I must say though, you are fun to watch. Keep up the good work. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 03:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought people would long be over the "Green Day is not punk" argument. Jesus, they began their career in the Gilman Street punk scene. They were on an independent punk rock record label. They're influenced by the Ramones, The Clash, Dead Kennedys, Buzzcocks, The Jam, and Husker Du. Their musical style certainly contains the conventions of punk rock. I mean, if Green Day aren't punk rock, then the Buzzcocks and any other punk band with a sense of pop melody isn't, and that's pretty much 60% of the original wave from the 70s. WesleyDodds 08:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is considerable dispute as to Green Day's genre, I have added the disputed template there so that those of you who think Green Day is punk rock can be happy, and those of us that think they aren't can be a little settled. I R bold. And I have also added the request source info on the Lookouts: the beginning (1988-1992) section, more specifically, the third paragraph that compares them to the Beatles. Gold Stur 23:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still curious why you couldn't just allow both categorizations to remain on the page, without adding the disputed thing. The fact that more than one category is given would seem to indicate that there is no total consensus on what their style is. There is also a note embedded in the article indicating that there has been some controversy over the categorizations and that the current wording is a compromise. And you still haven't provided more than opinion as to why they fail the punk rock classification. I find that especially interesting that you'll find several Green Day songs listed as examples of specific punk rock themes in the punk rock article. Quite frankly, the more of these assertions I read, the more I get the impression they're based solely on a quick look at Green Day since American Idiot came out (and perhaps including Good Riddance). All these things about how they dress, 9 minute songs, slow songs etc. I'd highly recommend people check out 1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours, Kerplunk! and Insomniac (particularly the latter). -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 00:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find it absurd that you say that all my arguments are opinion when all of yours and others arguments are also opinions. The whole genre debate is opinionated and is not a factual debate. Atleast with the tag everyone can know that there really is some debate, and not the result of a vote of opinions. And the note in the article is only visible when someone trys to edit it. With this tag, everyone can see it.

And last but not least, even if their old albums are punk, which I have listened to (albeit not entirely) and they sound more like skater music than anything, that doesn't mean that they should be given the punk label. The Beastie Boys started as a punk rock band but on their genre the Wiki article doesn't state "punk rock/hip hop". The most important thing that matters is what they are now or at the time of death / disbandment. Gold Stur 01:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I've also noted that my opinion and what I'm advocating here are not actually the same thing. I'm advocating maintaining the compromise that already existed. I've also provided links that can help to illustrate that other Wikipedians seem to be of like mind. I come back to the fact that they seem to fall in with most, if not all, of the points on the punk rock page. I just don't see why it needs to be changed from punk rock/pop-punk. You aren't happy with it, apparently. That's fine. That doesn't really make the article "disputed." I'd have to wager you could find someone to disagree with something on almost every article in this encyclopedia. The point is to find the happy medium. The happy medium here is not to stick in this disputed tag, it's to include the two tags that are generally agreed to be most appropriate: Punk rock and pop-punk. Then if someone disagrees, they'll go to edit the page and see the note regarding the perceived balance in the classifications. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 04:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the The Beastie Boys were or were not a punk rock group is irrevelant since their current sound is definitely not punk. I know that our sturred friend pointed this out, but Green Day still has the punk characteristic manifest which renders the Beastie Boys issue irrevelant to this discussion. Drdr1989 06:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of removing the tag since it interrupts the reading and serves no real purpose, there has to be a better way to do this. My suggestion is just to not note it since it's more of an editorial issue than anything else and their genre only seems to be disputed here and it isn't a wider global issue. I also added a little more to the html comment regarding it to note that changes to genre without talk page discussion would probably be reverted. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How much evidence is needed to show that Green Day is not punk? I just thought of two more points for the case against a punk Green Day. American Idiot is a self proclaimed rock opera. Rock operas are traits of prog rock. Punk rock and prog rock are two highly contrasting genres that are at odds with eachother. The second point is Green Day's concerts. They are huge. Don't believe me? Do a google image search. And I also know that they are big from local concerts they've had around my area and people I know that have gone to their concerts. Punk rock concerts were small and usually in bars. Even during the times when punk concerts were big, they weren't near as big as Green Day's. So, in sumnation, here are is all the evidence that Green Day is not punk.

• Don't sound punk
• Don't dress punk
• Don't act punk
• Slow, long songs (very prog rock)
• Self proclaimed rock opera (also very prog rock)
• Large concerts
• Frequent play on MTV
• Signed with large record company
• Non-offensive attitude and music

When I think of more, I'll add them. And since the tag left, so does punk rock. Gold Stur 01:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big time agreement with Gold Stur!!!!!!--Alhutch 00:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call them non offensive and in terms of American Idiot being a rock opera your right but at the same time that's only one album. It doesn't entirely matter to me what they're categorized as long as it's at least one of the things that fits it but since the HTML comment now appears to be incorrect I'm going to remove it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• In its almost three decades of existence, punk music has evolved and mutated to create a diversity of sounds. Punks may now enjoy the earthy harmonious-ness of folk-punk, the nostalgic, but often still relevant anthems of 80s peace- and anarcho-punk, or the more abrasive offerings of hardcore punk ("hardcore" for short), and its own elaborate array of sub-genres (i.e. crust, grindcore, metalcore, thrash, power violence, etc.) In general, however, punk music is loud, fast, and usually didactic. The sound is meant to express impatience, frustration and discontent. It also expresses anger and aggression by being loud and fast. The rhythm is often monotonous, but can in some cases be extremely erratic and complex. punk ideology. Green Day's "loud, fast and didactic" songs outweigh any of their others by far, taking in their whole catalog.
• As the punk movement matured, fashion became less important as punk ideas became more important. Punk fashion has also received criticisms for being meaningless and for being conformist as the fashion grew in popularity. punk ideology
• They write, play and produce their own albums. They're vocal about their beliefs. They always have been. Their beliefs have become more political of late.
• I can't deny that they have written two long, slow songs. And a handful of other short, slow songs. Over the course of 7 albums. Averaging more than 15 songs each.
• I wouldn't call a rock opera "prog rock." Certainly not typical punk. Certainly not conformist.
• They do draw big crowds, indicating their popularity. So did the Sex Pistols last tour. And the Ramones.
• Frequent play on MTV is also a sign of their popularity, true. For American Idiot. And Dookie. Their other five albums did not generate the same video play.
• The Clash signed to Columbia. The Sex Pistols signed to EMI and Warner during their career. Billie Joe also operates an indie label for other punk bands.
• I suppose they're not offensive to some people. People who are anti-war or pro-pot legalization, for example. Some people, on the other hand, find their recent political leanings fairly offensive (hence them having been labeled anti-American by some). Their longer-standing drug stance never seemed to garner much attention at all. I'm not sure that's necessarily their fault. I don't find many punk bands offensive. My mother finds almost all of them (including Green Day) offensive.

I also note that you've gone through the punk ideology article and removed every single Green Day reference. I find some of the removals suspect, as having listened to and read the lyrics to the songs removed, they seemed to fit well within the sections they were placed (except perhaps Holiday, which probably got in just for one line in the song). -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 05:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not into Punk rock as much as others are, but I am a major fan of bands such as Iggy Pop, Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Adicts, The misfits, Bauhaus and the Ramones. I dont think Green Day sounds punk at all with exception of his voice, because he and all the other pop-punk bands out there have that same tone when they sing.

Their guitars occasionally range close to the punk sound but not enough to be classified.

This is the thing you have to remeber when classifying the genre Pop, Pop means popular, aka mainstream desiring artists. One could say Britney Spears is EBM and Christina Aguilera is Soul, h however they both fall under pop because theyre music isnt their music and it is purposely intended to sell. Green Day's music is aimed to please their fans. POP-punk is a genre made to sell to a young crowd. Pop-punk or pop-rock doesn't HAVE to be an insult. Why do people not like it? Because little 12-14 year olds and I'd even say some older teens would love to be different and would want to believe their music is special too. Therefore they call their music names like goth, punk, emo. Even if their music is really just mainstream rock. Its real fans of punk that tell them Green Day is pop or pop punk. And then their fans get mad because that degrades their artificial esteem built upon feeling important.

Green day is just another example of their fans/hottopic making them out to be something they arent.

• Again, this is all a your personal POV. The article description is based on citable references describing them as both. I can (and have) made all kinds of arguments for why they are punk rock. It's still my POV. It doesn't belong without references. And there are references. For both. You may not think they're punk rock. GoldStur may not. I may. Others may. We don't matter. We aren't valid primary sources. The article is for aggregating data from verifiable primary sources. It does. Being popular doesn't make you pop. If it did, Metallica would be pop metal and AC/DC would be pop hard rock. Not to mention that Green Day have released more albums (at least 5, depending on which albums you count) considered to be not commercially successful (ie. not popular) than the two that have. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 20:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As per the reasoning above if they don't qualify as one then the current version should be fine because it classifies them in a way as to not display a certain POV. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Punk rock is what they're marketed as, not what they are. WB knows how to capitalize on "teenage rebellion" and knows that their teen buyers want to be edgy and not another brick in the wall, so they market Green Day as punk rock. All the sources cited are listing Green Day by what they're marketed as, not what they are. And hell, I bet that to a USAToday writer there is no difference between punk and pop punk. Gold Stur 21:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True about the marketing, but what they are is how the media (mainstream or underground) interprets them as - thus the classifications. No way around that, the media is much more powerful than you and me. Don't know about the USAToday writer deal, Lord help them, but I do know one thing. You need to get to work on your site. The site! The site!! Don't forget about the cyborgs!!! How is that coming along btw? Drdr1989 01:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got a distinguished "Mr. Fag" to sign my petition, so it's going good. And I want to bring something up about sources. On Tony Hawk's American Wasteland, the game states Green Day as "Rock/Other" for genre, while they state Dead Kennedys, Black Flag, Sham 69 and Circle Jerks as "Punk". That's one major source against their punk listing, and it's one that one would think to be biased FOR Green Day's punk listing. Gold Stur 01:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what you think the big problem is with having the compromise listing, it's just as good and considering the variety of Green Day's msuic it's just as accurate so what's the big deal with keeping it as it is? Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) It's redundant. Pop is short for popular, so pop punk = mainstream punk. Saying pop punk and then punk rock is not needed. 2) Punk rock is about being underground, not selling out, and about 50 other things I listed above. Green Day is not punk rock. They're not even pop punk. However, I know that their die hard fans will never accept that they're not punk or pop punk, so I'm being realistic arguing for pop punk and not something more fitting like just pop or rock. Gold Stur 03:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having two classes that have "punk" in them may seem redundant at first, but I already mentioned about the groups that are supposed to make up the "pop punk" category. That is why we need the punk rock thing in there, too. ...and of course the "pop punk" part - only due to their mainstream success. Anyway, keep working on your site. How about a pay-per-click campaign for that? Drdr1989 06:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, (Goodness, am I good at thses genre articles) first off, I would like to note that Green Day is ALTERNATIVE ROCK; meaning that they were punk (all the albums prior to Dookie) until they blew up into an international rock group, and yes, they are very popular now, but they don't sound like Simple Plan or Fall Out Boy (like Pop-punk). Green Day is alternative, no matter how punk their attitude on stage is, their music made them become commercial changed their style. Please agree, because Green Day is a great band, but their MUSIC isn't punk after becoming mainstream. Please, just label them alternative rock, because that is what they are.

While I agree with labeling them alternative rock (one of a few styles their music falls under), there is nothing inherent in punk rock that it cannot be mainstream. Punk rock certainly broke through to the mainstream in late 70's Britain, and many of those groups were on major labels. WesleyDodds 00:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the unsigned user was referring to the genre rather than them being actually alternative to mainstream per se. Anyway, "alternative rock" is much too broad. The compromise punk split works best. Drdr1989 02:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The inherent problem here is that genres are - by their very definition - subjective, especially in the case of somewhat generic bands such as Green Day, who's sound isn't original or static enough to easily categorise them. With that in mind, I suggest we leave this as Pop-Punk, and move on. It somewhat appeases those who claim Green Day is purely pop, it somewhat appeases those who claim they're purely punk-rock, and it's a nice middle ground for everyone else. Above all else, there's the fact that the band themselves have taken to calling themselves Pop-Punk nowadays, which is a marked move away from previous years/albums, where they stuck to the Punk-Rock tag. There have been a few examples of this, but the one that comes to mind is during their last appearance on Last Call with Carson Daly - Billie Joe specifically mentioned that they "wanted to show how divisive Pop-Punk could be". In the absence of strict guidelines as to what makes X band Y genre, perhaps we should just stick with what the band refer to themselves as? Such definitions are equally fluid, of course, but it seems like as good a place as any to start. Excursus 21:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I once thought that the "pop-punk" genre was the only one suitable (about six weeks ago); but there's just so much agruement for both genres that we couldn't think of anything but a compromise. Perhaps "divisive" means extending to "punk rock"? Long and short: Compromise works best! Drdr1989 01:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ok, adding in my two cents from an avid Green Day listener for many years: When Green Day began, they may have been the very definition of punk. Over time they matured and mellowed, and formed albums such as "Waiting," taken by many fans as being very soft, and extremely un-punkish. Through Waiting and afterwards, their genre of music has been highly disputed. I think American Idiot falls between the cracks very well. I think it best to just plain call them rock. And that is something we can all settle on. Just call them rock. :) --Mac Davis 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rock is probably just about okay for American Idiot, but doesn't suit their early work. Either way, rock is possibly too broad a term for this, since just about any guitar band could be called rock if you tried. Also, another problem here is how you define punk - is it the attitude, or the music? The music doesn't fit the punk tag anymore (if it ever did - it's always had a distinct pop tinge to it), and whilst you could debate the merits of their attitude being punk, I've never been convinced attitude is relevant when it comes to defining a band's genre. The very fact Warning was such a departure for the band - and not in a commercially appealling way, either - means you could easily argue they were being punk there, but it's the most non-punk sounding record they've ever done. Which is more important in this context? Excursus 19:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to recall comments made about Green Day's 'Punkness,' people said that they weren't an offensive band. Come on, these guys are offensive. Have you not heard 'Platyus - I hate you.' That song is about how happy Green Day are that journalist who gave Green Day bad reviews died of cancer. That is offensive! Even swear words are considered offensive. Green Day are an offensive band and I strongly believe that they are a punk rock band too. --Lutrov71 13 December 2005

No, this is completely inaccurate. Whilst the song was directed at a Journalist who had turned on them, he was very much alive at the time of them writing it. He only died later on, just prior to the album hitting the shelves. Excursus 19:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This song was also very old and immature, back in their punk days. --Mac Davis 08:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously is there really a problem with Green Day either being punk, pop-punk or non-punk? This whole debate ,in my opinion (mind you), is really stupid. In general, Green Day is Alternative, if you take in account all and I mean all of their songs. I seriously think that Green day has their own style and I don't know why people compare them to other bands. Hello! no two bands are the same, however I believe that bands should be categorized in thier proper categories. I'm not saying that they are either punk or not. Either, please end this whole debate,or ask Green Day if they consider themselves as punk or not? Oh,my gosh! --"noboby" unknown 5:55 pm 12/16/05.

This is all completely ludicrous. Green Day are obviously pop-punk. They have the punk sensibilities of fast rhythm, simple chord structures, and bold lyrics. The have the 'pop' of selling millions of albums. They have brought 'punk' or any of its variants to the mainstream in a way no other band in history ever has, while not relying on traditional punk structure for what they accomplish. If that's not pop-punk then I don't know what is. If they themselves have re-defined pop-punk so be it, but they ARE pop-punk whther you like it or not. "Miami_pony" 12:21 pm 12/17/05

It's funny that now, when the old "consensus" looks as though it maybe endangered that there is no talk of a new "consensus". How often do we hold elections in Wikipedia anyway?... Gold Stur 18:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Green Day gets labeled as "punk" solely for their Bush hatred. They're not even anti-government. Did they care when Clinton bombed Iraq? Oh, right, not ONE anti-war celeb whined about THAT... Jerry Only has stated a full support for the war(Misfits lost a friend on 9/11 in the towers), but I can see GD appealing to Glenn Danzig fans... soft sticks with soft and weak. Not that I know anyone with an IQ above 80 who listens to Green Stain's music. They always appealed to the D and F students, and now they're ant-Bush... hmm, wonder if it's even SINCERE, or just a convenient career boost? The fact Alice Cooper won't even acknowledge them is proof enough they're not a valid band. They cater to people who don't think(Bush opponents will eat up any propaganda they can be fed).

Green Day are not Punk. But it will be unfair to say they're Pop, either. Pop Punk is what they do. They're kind of a mixing between a rock band and a boy-band. They are sure not Punk Rock, There is a clear defenition for what Punk Rock is. And one more thing, Pop does not stand for "popular". It's a genre that is a bit of R&B and some Dance Music, mostly about love. In my opinion, They music is Punk, and they're lyrics is Pop. Psychomelodic 12:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does any1 care wot type of music Green Day play. We like it dont we.

Maybe YOU like it. Psychomelodic 15:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Green Day plays Punk rock music. Maybe years ago they may not have been considered it but all music is change. The Punk rock we know today is different from the time of the Ramones but remember music is change. Green Day is definetley Punk Rock and should not be mistaken or compared with bands like Good Charlotte or Simple Plan who are known as pop-rock. To settle disputes I suggest we should change the genre of Green Day to Punk Rock/Punk-Pop to make people who think they are Punk-Pop satisfied as well. ~Helen

i think it's unfair to compare Punk bands to see whether they're 'punk' or 'pop-punk.' I've listened to Green Day since elementry school and always considered them to be punk until their album Warning. From that album you could tell they were trying to gain an edge with the audience. now with their new CD, they're only playing for the money. This is why I now classify them as a pop-punk band. they're selling themselves to the media. Also, you cant compare them to bands like the sex pistols, ramones and op ivy and other bands who arent around anymore. those bands have ended. who knows, maybe they would have fallen into the media and become 'pop-punk.' -jope

Agree with every word (also with what Gold Stur wrote). Face it people, they make Pop-punk. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK. Only the facts are matter. If you still think Green Day is Punk rock, Please listen to American Idiot (song). If you still think they're Punk rock, well... not very good at identifying music genres are you.

---

A comprimise has been made by listing Green Day as a part of both Pop Punk and Punk Rock. Green Day has had albums/songs in both the Punk Rock (American Idiot) and Pop Punk (earlier albums) genres. Therefore, it is fitting that it be classified as both. This judgement is made based on the Wiktionary definitons of both genres.

---

--Djbob 06:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well whoever made it was wrong, stop vandalizing the page before we reach a consensus 88.152.182.249 06:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, If you think the music that Green Day plays today is Punk rock (and read the article before you comment!), please speak here.

It is time to change the consensus.

Yes, Green Day used to play Punk Rock. But that was 10 YEARS AGO.

Should it be included in the article or what? And if so, Whouldn't it be better with a small comment beside it?

The only classification they play today it Pop punk, and there's NO dobut about that (read that too, and listen to American Idiot. You'll see I'm right).

So, Anyone has to say something? I'm wrong? I'm right? I'm sooo not in and Green Day is da best hardcore heavy rock band?

Leave your comments here ;) New!!!!!oneone 05:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm exaggerating, But they stopped playing Punk rock atleast 5 years ago.

Still I'll like to know what you think New!!!!!oneone 05:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, enough time past and nobody thought I'm wrong. I'm editing the article. New!!!!!oneone 14:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not time to change the consensus. Please see the discussion here. Perhaps a few songs in American Idiot take a step away from punk-pop, but the fact remains that the majority of their work falls under this category. You cannot change this because of a few songs on one album. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, also any changes without consensus to their genre is considered vandalism and will be reverted on sight. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 16:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely correct. That would be vandalism or at least ... a trait of something else. Drdr1989 01:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go as far as to calling this vandalism. I have no doubt the people who make this kind of edit have good faith, but it'd be nice if there was more respect for precedent. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 01:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read that, what's your point? Green Day made Punk rock in the PAST, before the album "Warning". I will revert the article now. By the way, I have an idea. 2 aritcles: 1. for Green Day before the "Warning" album, and 2. for after. The first aritcle could be Punk rock and the second Punk pop. And one more thing; AMERICAN IDIOT IS DEFINITELY NOT PONK ROCK! Agreed? New!!!!!oneone 15:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert the article again. A consensus has been reached and going against that consensus is a bad idea. Also, regarding your edit summary, idiots all around me, please consult WP:CIVIL before making these remarks in the future. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was not here when the consensus reached (Maybe that's why I wrote "It is time to change the consensus"?). I would like to have a discussion with anyone who thinks they're Punk rock and explain him why he's wrong. And yes, poeple who acuuse me of mental disorder are idiots. New!!!!!oneone 16:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is still available here. You are free to participate. Also it's considered impolite to make these kinds of changes without the consent of other authors. What you are doing could be interpreted as starting an edit war. Please refrain from these kinds of edits. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 16:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought thats discussion was closed and a "consensus" has reached. I am now moving this part in. New!!!!!oneone 16:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am on the record saying Green Day is not punk. Read a dictionary and look up what it says under punk rock. Gold Stur 20:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why to bands have to be classified? It might help someone if they don't no what a band sounds like and they want a general idea. Who doesn't know what Greenday's music sounds like. If you haven't heard them then you aren't from anywhere around here. There is no reason to put Greenday in a certain classification.

-Paul Feb. 5 Lake Tahoe

Damn, talking to you guys is like talking to a brick wall. "Green Day's not punk!", "What you are doing could be interpreted as starting an edit war. Please refrain from these kinds of edits." Yeah, great way to back up your argument, just completely ignore the evidence brought forth (and the worthless new concensus) and threaten people. Take debate class, please. I'm removing punk rock. Gold Stur 23:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Punk Rock designation does not remove from the designation of Pop Punk. It is just an addition genre defintion. Green Day has had albums (American Idiot) that have completely fit the Wiktionary definition of Punk Rock. For this reason they are considered to be a part of the genre. --Djbob 00:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiktionary entry for "punk rock". 1. a harsh rock music originating from the 1970s with angry, offensive lyrics; a reaction against progressive rock. Notice it says "a reaction against progressive rock". As said earlier, a rock opera is prog rock, along with long slow songs. Both of which Green Day has done. This means they AREN'T punk rock. Gold Stur 01:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to notice the semicolon in the definition. That means that "a reaction against progressive rock" is an alternative way of defining the genre. --Djbob 02:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether they are punk rock now (they definitely do not make punk music now) but they have been punk rock and much of their major music falls into that category thus the dual listing is probably the best way to categorize it since both are correct. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody knows that don't play punk now (well, excepts the fanatic fans in wikipedia), but since they played punk like 6-7 years ago, shouldn't it be "1988-1999: punk rock, 2000-present: pop punk"? It can confuse a visitor who only listened to American Idiot and looks at Green Day's article and sees "punk rock". Damn, he might even belive that American Idiot IS punk rock. psychomelo₍di_sc_ussion) 06:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And wikipedia is not a fan site club. "punk rock" was added by fans who listen to MTV's Punk (!). Therefore, me, as Britney Spears's fan, have made Talk:Britney_Spears#Adding_rock_genre. psychomelo₍di_sc_ussion) 06:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I do not listen to MTV's "Punk" or whatever you wish to call it. In fact, I do not watch any MTV at all. My musical interests are wide are varied and include everything spanning from country to hip hop. I have albums from bands like the Clash and the Sex Pistols. I know what Punk Rock is. Let's refrain from insults, shall we? --Djbob 02:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are in confuse. But OK, I accept the idea that they did punk rock in their past and the punk rock label can stay in their article. Now, after we got over that, read the section below. psychomelo₍di_sc_ussion) 02:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(section below moved to Talk:Billie Joe Armstrong#Country music)

Okay, lets define punk here. Is it a lifestyle? A clothing style? A rock subgenre? Point is, there are so many definitions of punk now. It used to be, you basically just had to be different, but now you have to be a certain KIND of different. Oh, you have to dress like this, wear your hair like that, only listen to these bands. I've been listening to Green Day and a ton of other punk bands all my life, they're all different people! Punk doesn't even know what punk is anymore, so drop it! -Emogoth

Punk is a scene (like for example the Hip hop culture) of people who make and listen to Punk rock, dress and act diffrently, acting 'outgoing-ish', rebel the government, police, mainstream culture etc. AS WE CAN SEE, The people who listen to Punk rock (and are part of this "scene") do not consider Green Day as Punk rock. It doesn't means they're not Punk pop. I think Punk pop is the perfect defention for what they are. Making pop\rock music with some elements of Punk, but admired by teenage girls and get screentime on MTV. 88.155.176.98 13:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously peoples! I mean it! Drop this shit before I get really mad and suck your blood! Quit stereotyping people and music. Punk rock does NOT nescesarilly need to be anti-political, Green Day are not emo, they don't make goth rock, they aren't pop, (for proof, just listen to some south-central Minnesota raido. Honestly, Jessica Simpson is played litterally ten times more than Green Day) and if you don't like what I'm saying, you're gonna have to live with it, cause trust me, I am a rock expert! Now shut the hell up! -Emogoth

Guys, please, be civil. Raising your voices only makes it harder for a discussion to continue, and makes everybody look bad. A concensus has been made already, see the beginning of this section. Kareeser|^Talk! 17:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of contradiction are you fans not grasping. A consensus has been made, and you are happy with it because it supports your love for Green Day. You're brushing aside the fact that the consensus does not include any of your opinions. You all consider Green Day Punk Rock, right? And what songs do you consider Punk? Please excuse me while I reference what a few of you have said in Green Day's defense:

Let's start with Drdr1989.

"Whether or not the The Beastie Boys were or were not a punk rock group is irrevelant since their current sound is definitely not punk."

Right. So you're saying that the label given to a band should be based on what they currently sound like. Well, that's fine, since the current consensus is that their current sound is punk rock. So many people have gone back to old punk rock bands, like The Ramones, for instance. The point is, and you outlined it for me, thanks, that that band is over. Therefore no, we are not going to go back and change their label. However, because The Beastie Boys are still playing music, you will change their label? Alright, fine. Last time I checked Green Day was still playing (enourmous crowds, I might add). Based on the majority of the Green Day fans' claims here, Green Day's new music is not considered punk rock. I emplore you, go right ahead and follow through on what you said.

I'm also pretty sure Le Scoopertemp wouldn't be too please to hear you say that, since he does not share your opinion, but probably thinks he does.

"Quite frankly, the more of these assertions I read, the more I get the impression they're based solely on a quick look at Green Day since American Idiot came out (and perhaps including Good Riddance). All these things about how they dress, 9 minute songs, slow songs etc. I'd highly recommend people check out 1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours, Kerplunk! and Insomniac (particularly the latter)."

Le, come on. The current consensus is that new Green Day is punk rock. The statement above clearly shows you disagree with that. You claim that although you have opinions, you are not totally driven by them. I ask you, if not saying anything about the current consensus even though you disagree with it, just so that this particular band you enjoy gets stuck under the label you'd prefer, isn't completely hypocritical and soley opinion based, what is?

My personal opinions are close Gold Spur's, although perhaps not in such a biased and angry manner. Green Day is not punk rock. Look at what punk rock is. Examine it. You've given examples for the bpm. Fine, but how fast a song is doesn't automatically make it punk rock. Look an angry girl feminist electronica; that stuff is fast. It's not punk rock. Just because fast defines all punk rock music, does not mean that all fast music is punk rock. To be punk rock, fast is a must, yes. But it is also true that punk rock is either political or very opinionated. The only political Green Day song that falls under the fast music category is American Idiot, and I'm pretty sure I'm speaking for everyone here when I say that song is not punk rock, but simply a "hop onto the bandwagon". Whether or not Green Day actually dislikes Bush is actually pretty irrelevant; was disliking Bush original? No. Another part of punk rock is originality, and that's another thing I think we can all agree on. So far the only song I see that falls under two of the must's for punk rock is American Idiot. Until someone finds me a second, I'm standing behind my opinion that we immediately change the label to pop punk. And even if you do find another example, I'm not budging. All of you have said something along the lines of "oh, but they had so much good old stuff, screw the new stuff", which is basically a ratio. So go ahead, find me another example. Then it'll be 2 verses about 120. Superb.

Thus, pop punk. Soon. Because the "pop" itself is there because it means the group is mainstream popular. And by the looks of the fans' thoughts, "don't worry, Green Day will simply go back into being unpopular soon and all the teenyboppers will forget about them." At which time we will have to reach a new consensus, because no way in hell are Green Day simply "punk".

Finally, I move we reopen the voting for the consensus, no matter who thinks what. Because 95% of us are in agreement with the current consensus that American Idiot is punk rock, despite what we may or may not say.

-Natalie, 16th March, 2006.

Since when did Green Day get classified as emo? Was this some sort of vandalism or did I miss something? Cjmarsicano 02:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of funny. But vandalism is not, which is what it is. --Mac Davis 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

haha green day emo.--ChildOfMorella 17:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Day should not be considered emo in any sense of the word, regardless of the makeup and hair changes they've made. Even though some songs are mellow and depressing on American Idiot, they are not emo. If so then most country music songs should be called emo. Ever heard "Whiskey Lullabye"? It's about two people drinking themselves to death.

I've removed as unsupported the following material. Per WP:V, WP:CITE, and even WP:WEASEL there needs to be something to back up these claims. Tell who said these things, and where. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much of Green Day's most recent work has met with a degree of wide-ranging criticism. Many argue that their latest commercial offerings are of inferior artistic and creative merit to their earlier works. Furthermore, many argue they have used political messaged to plug a hole left by this decline in creativity, and as such they are accused of playing off trends in American society to their own commercial betterment. Still others attack the mere notion of the Pop Punk gender espoused and led by Green Day.

Uh, I've been saying that for a long time.Gold Stur 23:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many doesn't cut it though in terms of inclusion into an article so it should be sourced or left out. Even if it can be sourced it may be better to be left out though. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

green day are not punk rock, wheres the angry vocals and the torn clothes or the attitude? They're far to emotional to be punk, pop punk maybe but punk rock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Rotten (talk • contribs) 17:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at all the debates on this talk page about this topic... and please don't repeat them.--Greedy 18:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edit - See if this works. I linked to the actual disambig page for punk. I'll leave it someone else to be more specific if need be. Drdr1989 08:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed it slightly to remove the genre reference from the intro paragraph since that reads pretty well and gets rid of that issue. The box is accurate as is in terms of they're genre since they have music in both categories and I definitely like the sentence explaining their genre change in terms of their music. Maybe the topic of how they're music has changed over the years should be delved into more deeply into the article. Overall, I love the changes... nice work Drdr1989. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 09:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Drdr1989 19:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please users, check the additional genre that have been added recently. I'd like to know the consensus here. Personally I think, Green Day does not fall into Pop Rock and Alternative Rock. (And someone, please start archiving the discussion, this page is getting way too long) --Andy123(talk) 08:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Green Day are certainly not 'pop rock'. Punk or Pop Punk are the best terms to describe their music. Someone should change that first paragraph.

My personal opinon is that Green Day is mostly Pop-punk\Pop-rock. They are clearly more Pop-rock than Punk rock. As for Alt. rock, well you can say they're music is alt.rock (and it tells in GD's-related articles they are alt.rock), but the pop\punk\rock definition summarize it. "Pop punk, Pop rock" is what is suggest. psychomelo₍di_sc_ussion) 00:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is Green Day clearly more 'pop-rock' then 'pop-punk'? Some songs on warning do lean towards the 'folk/punk' side, however i think that they identify themselves as 'punks', and that is the term that most accuratly descirbes the majority of their music. Jacknife737 04:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it said in #Punk rock or not?, It doesn't matter how they (nor the fans) describe themselves. The only condition that brought the judgment is the music they play. Take this is an example; Tomorrow 50 Cent will claim his music is Alternative hip hop. Should Wikipedia change his genre description? No. The most Wikipedia can do is to add a sentence "On 23 March, 50 Cent told in an interview to People Magazine that his music isn't as much as mainstream as his critics claim". Green Day do not make Punk rock. They play a Pop\rock mixture with some elements of Punk. "Listen to Black Flag, GG Allin, The Clash, Dead Kennedys, and The Weirdos. Green Day sounds nothing like any punk rock band." (Gold Stur, 17 November 2005). If you wish to dispute about the Punk rock genre specifically, Do it in #Green Day's Punk Disputes. However, I admit they played some Punk rock in their past, Which is widely detailed in the article itself. As for the main genres, Punk rock should be out. psychomelo₍di_sc_ussion) 13:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]