Talk:List of pop punk bands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 27 July 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
Wikiproject_Punk This article is part of WikiProject Punk music, an attempt to improve articles related to Punk rock. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details on the projects.

Contents

[edit] Somebody's gonna pay...

NOFX?! Rancid?! Me first and the gimme gimmes?! The offspring?!

My regards to the people who don't know that mainstream isn't necessarely pop(the Offspring), or that ska-punk isn't pop (Gimme gimmes and Rancid).

Okay random acts of musical ignorance, small mistakes, I can ignore and forgive.

But NOFX.... what the.. I mean... who the... how did...

Somebody's going to DIE! --Mudel 21:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • All (or at least most) of the bands you deleted are mentioned in the pop punk article, so obviously other editors disagree with your point of view. I have restored those bands for that reason. Also, please avoid personal attacks on Wikipedia.Spylab 22:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab

It says 'While the popularity of Dookie and Smash swelled, attention spilled over to similar bands such as Rancid, NOFX, Bad Religion, MxPx, Pennywise, Jawbreaker, Smoking Popes and Lagwagon. Of these, Rancid received the most attention with the two hits, Ruby Soho and Time Bomb, from their album ...And Out Come The Wolves, which eventually went platinum. However, other punk and pop punk bands saw growing sales and increased interest surrounding their music. Pop punk's sarcastic "brattiness" provided an effective contrast to the moody, nihilism offered by many grunge, hardcore and earlier punk rock bands. By the end of the year, Dookie and Smash had sold millions of copies [3], and pop punk had become a prominent musical style.'

I find no implication that those bands are pop-punk, wich uh THEY ARE NOT, infact it is later implied that they are, and I quote 'grunge, hardcore and earlier punk rock bands' that offer nihilism and moodynessness.

Yep, deletion time, And don't try to acuse me with vandalism, I'm trying to do a good thing.

I don't mind pop-punk at all, but musical errorism I can't stand! Oh and this isn't personal mate, it's for punk fans everywhere.

--Mudel 19:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Those are your personal views, not backed up by facts. I am reverting your deletions until you can come up with references to back up your opinion, with goes counter to the consensus of previous editors.Spylab 19:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Nope. Facts, put a CD in a radio man and listen man. If you can't realise NOFX rancid, Offspring and the Gimme gimmes are not pop-punk, shame on, really man...

And if I have to...

I will will contact the bands and get their statements, will that be evidance, pardon, FACTual enough?! I know a close friend of NOFX (shit you not), and Fat mike(Singer,basist) is in the Gimme gimmes and they know Rancid and, well they don't like the Offspring, but the Offspring is the closest of these bands to come to Pop-punk.

I don't have time right now to edit this thing ever 10 min, I got some work to do, but hey see you on the weekends. I don't give up. EVER. MUAHAHAHA.

Ever, remember that--Mudel 19:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Nope. Opinion. Not good enough for an encyclopedia. Other editors disagree with your opinion.Spylab 19:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab

And why are the editors opinions superior to mine? More 1337 than me or something? Shit. So can I have an e-mail of these editors so the bands can write to? Or are the band's opinions not good enough as well? --Mudel 20:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

One mor thing if for exampe NOFX are in one form pop-punk, why don't I see that on their wiki page?

  • If you type "pop punk" and the names of those bands into google, you'll get many, many hits describing those bands as pop punk. They're certainly not hardcore, Oi!, death metal or disco - although they incorporate influences from many styles of music. Of all the bands you mistakenly believe are not pop punk, Me First and the Gimme Gimmes is the poppiest pop punk of the bunch. In fact, all of those bands are so obviously pop punk that I'm not sure what you imagine pop punk to be. I suggest you closely read the pop punk article and take your theories of what is, and isn't pop punk to that article's discussion page. As for NOFX, that band's article says: "The band's sound is diverse, utilizing elements of skate punk, ska punk, pop-punk..." Spylab 20:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Gimmes are ska, SKA SKA SKA SKA!!! Ska beats, trumpets it's SKA!! Just 'cause it's softie doesn't mean it's pop!

Pop punk is this not so agressive punk thing, often love themed with the singer sounding like he's 17 or something. Not to mention it is also popularised in terms of comertalisation, wich is a form of pop these bands, except maybe The offspring don't have.

NOFX are against pop-punk to begin with for crying out loud! What do you thing songs like 'Medio-core', 'It's my job to keep punk rock elite' or 'The seperation of church and skate' are about?! They may have influenced pop punk but are not pop punk. What's next, blink 182 are emo because some of it's influence on it?

I know it's just some internet webpage who punks don't really give a crap about, people tell me to not give a care, but I can't. Now we've got kids growing up thinking all sorts and some of them do, of small flaws like I'm trying to undo here. And as a great fan of these bands and Wikipedia, I can't let this go on. ...you do realise people who know a thing or 2 about punk music think that list is wrong?

What do I have to do? Run polls on 5 diffrent Music forums to change your mind? Is there a wikipedia poll or something???

Or maybe you can give me that e-mail insted of avoiding it and let's get this from the horses mouth, whadya say? --Mudel 21:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • There's absolutely nothing ska about Me First and the Gimme Gimmes. They are a pop punk band that plays different covers of old songs from different genres. I suggest you learn more about different music genres before you make edits based on unsubtantiated opinions. Again, take your theories about how those bands don't qualify as pop punk to the pop punk discussion page and see what people say. That's where you'll find people who know more about the subject than you're showing here.Spylab 01:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab

You may be right, but they're still not a pop-punk band. And I don't lecture you on how musically educated you are, so don't try to tell me I don't know anything about music genres, I know music genres you have no idea exist. Shit, you, not. If you have this picture of me being some punk with a PC who is limited in taste, please, do erase it from there.

Who are you supposed to be? Some wikipedia overlord who can just push people who beg to differ around? Can I get some democracy here? Okay I apolagise for being agressive at the start, but let's face it you've been no better. I'm tired of these pro et contra bollocks mate.

I'm quite confidant that NOFX at the very least are not a pop-punk band. Heck I'm positive. If you think you're so right as well, let's get some third party, heck let's get a fourth and fifth to be sure.

AGAIN, whadya say? --Mudel 15:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

PS NO I'm not going to take my problems to that page, this list quite directly and more than topic clamis these bands are of a pop punk genre. Why would I want to complain about a problem here, there?

  • This list is an extension of that article. The bands you deleted are mentioned in that article. It makes no sense to call them pop punk in the article and deny that they are pop punk here. You're the one who suggested things like making polls on message boards and emailing band members, yet you won't make the tiny effort of taking your problem to the source; the group of people who wrote the article and created this list.

If you want to deny that those bands - which by consensus have been labelled pop punk - are actually not pop punk, you have to make a better case than "just because." Clearly you have a different definition of pop punk that contradicts the people who created the article and list - as well as the countless people in the music industry and media who do label those bands pop punk. Again, type into a search engine "pop punk" and the individual names of the bands. The facts are on my side. Spylab 16:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Yeah the third result for 'pop punk NOFX' on google was nifty

'Clearly you have a different definition of pop punk that contradicts the people who created the article and list' Gee, YOU THINK?!

'as well as the countless people in the music industry and media who do label those bands pop punk.' Wich one, the alt music industry or the mainstream and pop music industry?

But you know what, we got two definitions and two diffrent sides. NOFX and bands from that music world don't call themselves pop punk, and some other branches of the industry do call them pop punk. I think for a second, you may be right, then I listen to Maximum rock'n'roll and Liberal animation, and I think; Maybe popular, NEVER pop punk. Ever. I'm done arguing. Let the copy/paste war begin. --Mudel 19:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You're WRONG, and we'll probably never know.

  • So you just confirmed that your deletions are based on personal opinion, nothing else. You totally reject the views of the many people who created the pop punk article (who list those bands as pop punk in that article) and the countless music writers who have labelled those bands as pop punk. The odds are not in your favour. It doesn't really matter what the bands call themselves. Music genres are not a science, but if a majority consensus consider a band part of a certain genre, then that is the defining factor. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic website, not a zine where people get to redefine things based on personal bias. Feel free to post your views on message boards or your own website instead of tampering with factually sound content on Wikipedia. Or as I suggested, take up your issues direcly to the pop punk article, where those bands are defined as pop punk.Spylab 20:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Sylab

I don't know about you, but that active discussion panel makes me happy ^^ Basically says: Some of this here stuff is flaud :) AND THEY ARE!--Mudel 09:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

NOFX are pop punk according to their own article. Same with The Offspring, man. I can agree to some extent with Rancid, although they have adopted more and more pop sensibilites as their career progresses, but NOFX, Offspring and especially Me First is just bamboozling. No, for the record, a band themselves aren't a credible source: are Good Charlotte punk? Are My Chemical Romance metal? Are Motörhead just rock'n'roll? Most people would say no. They would be right. Bands cannot be trusted to define their own genre.
I think that their mention in the pop punk article makes it clear they were just a less-popular pop punk band. They're not the Sex Pistols. And they're definitely not Crass.
By the way, as far as I an remember, most of the zines I've read classify NOFX and the Offspring as pop punk, along with most music journals and the like. --Switch 06:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Zines are bad for you, don't trust zines, NOFX are skatepunk, going softy, true, but have too much non pop-punk history, the offspring are just on MTV, but not pop-punk by sound. --Mudel 17:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The fact that a punk band is relativly mainstream doesn't make it pop. That's like saying SOAD is popmetal. For example, AFI is by no means pop-punk, even though they used a bit of synth in their last album, and their later material is not as aggressive as their former selves.

[edit] Artists who reference punk

If there was a place to have a list such as this, I think this list is good enough as any, unless someone wants to write an article about the subject. (The subject being artists who utilize punk but may not be thought of as "punk"). In the meantime I think this list provides a place for those artists who have connections to punk but who wouldn't really fit in the other sections. A good example is Foo Fighters. This will also help readers gain a bit of perspective if they are, lets say, just fans of Foo Fighters and wonder how they fit in regarding punk. I think Nirvana is another good example. Thoughts? Xsxex 16:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion: Wikipedia List Precedence

Dear fellow wikipedians & fellow WikiProject Punk music participants. This is a space to discuss the uses of list (and categories) as Wikipedia has developed. We can use Wikipedia:List guideline and Wikipedia:Categories vs lists as reference points. Since the discussion has been initiated to turn this page into a category page, I am proposing that we wait a week (8/9/06?) to sort out some new developments. The Pop punk article will be merged with Pop punk (revival) as decided in a discussion amongst 15 users Talk:Pop punk (revival), go check it out and add your comments too. If we can have a good talk about the utility of list and categories and come to some mutual understandings i think we'll be able to all get our points across. Instead of thinking category OR list we can have both, however it is true that we need to have a better understanding of the function of the list, and maintain it better. That said, lets use the space below to talk about Wikipedias list guidelines. We can also nuture the related categories such as Pop punk groups and Pop punk albums. Thanx!!!! Xsxex 17:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • P.S. Anyone know why the the categories wont appear in the paragraph, how do you link to a category? lets solve that problem too. (for now the links are at the bottom of the page, scroll down) Xsxex 17:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, The problem written about above in "P.S." has been figured out. The way to make hypertext links to categories in Wiki language is to put a colon before the word "category" and then a colon, then the category name, and finally the text you want the link to appear as. Word!!! Xsxex 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waves (1,2,3, none?)

I want to discuss what we should do about the issue of the "waves" I think there are arguements for a few solutions. What exactly constitutes one wave and separates it from another? I do think that things changed pretty much from 1997 through now, and I could see that maybe the first wave would be 1987 through 1997. Of course, the original punk groups would be from 1975-1977/1979 and from 1977/1979-1987 would be the time of the predominance of hardcore punk. I do think the list of independent pop punk bands is appropriate. I would also like to include a list of artists who reference, fuse, or appropriate punk/pop punk images and styles into their work. Let me know what you think. Xsxex 23:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

NO!!! I think there must be something that separates one wave from another cuz some REAL punks that like things like the Ramones hate stuff from shit 182 (hahaha sooo glad their off). its realy hard to explain the diference between one and the other but first of all is the lyrics theme... you know bad charlotte, stupid plannnnNN and other shitty stuf like that are more like "oh! you borke my heart ='(" and shits like "I love you **muac**" or stupid jokes are worse musicians than God Bless the Ramones!!! or not a good religion and other stuff that sais "god! i hate the government, their only stupid rules used to control my mind" or "I hate society, people are just, so... stupid... they don't even have a mind from their own"

[edit] Why is this list so long

hey if you havent realized.. this list is really long... well guess what... it's not long enough.. think about it.. punk (and pop punk ((which is a way of talking about notable punk bands))) is basically the future of rock and roll. almost everything in rock and roll that happened after the ramones and the british punk '77... sex pistols.. was effected by punk. yeah there are some bands on here that are somewhat questionable, but punk is questionable. punk asks questions, punk. so bring it on. if its got something to do with punk, or if its a notable pop punk band thats not represented here, add it up... we also have sections for international pop punk and independent pop punk, and also for pop stars who reference punk. aight. rock on (Xsxex 22:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

You're right. Currently, there are so many pop punk bands developing it's not even funny. This is the future of music and this list is going to get bigger and bigger. Ziggy55 (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quinessential Debate

The "Quinessential" section was added because The Ramones had been listed before as in proto-pop punk. The Ramones are a really unusual case and need to be noted apart from the other bands on that list because they were the band that really invented the model which was imitated from then on. Therefore, they were put under "quinessential."

Reflecting on the possibilty of other "quinessential" bands, Green Day immediately came to mind. Even though The Offspring were nearly as notorious, Green Day had much larger impact on punk and mainstream culture.

Blink-182 represented another paradigm shift after punk stylistics had been spread across the mainstream culture via Green Day. The rise of the internet and digital media in the late 1990s and the ever increasing ability to own and listen to a wider variety of music played a part in the success of Blink-182, who's 1999 album, Enema of the State, was embraced by an even larger population and more diverse population of fans.

Though still a stretch, and the most easy to contend, Fall Out Boy represents yet another changing of the guard. Taking full advantage of world wide web leverage, this group of kids catapulted themselves to celebrity status over the course of 4 years. Their underdog stature, their ability to fuse hardcore with rap posturing, their relentless determination, and their mix of sardonic pop punk song structures with emotional semi-political poetics make them likely candidate for the "quintessential" pop punk band of the day (not discounting Green Day's return to prominence with American Idiot).
thoughts?
-user:xsxex
p.s. - [[1]]

One person declaring something "quintessential" is what Wiki calls POV. "Quintessential" is an opinion, not a fact. It violates Wiki guidelines (see WP:NPOV). Please don't add it again. -- ChrisB 02:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
ChrisB - i think you are mistaking the intention. first, The Ramones (absolutely) are the hands down Quintessential Pop Punk - this is PROVEN by the number of bands that claim them as an influence (Sex Pistols, The Clash, The Queers, Teenage Head, Screeching Weasel, U2, etc..) and a few have even covered ENTIRE albums. - second. - if we are going to consider the possiblilty of Quintessential bands, than Green Day and blink-182 fit the bill. My purpose of including Fall Out Boy was to create discussion, which you have successful obliterated by deleting the edition. Please reconsider your decision. - I would also like to point out that I have spent the last couple hours going over the bands listed in the Pop Punk List and have made some significant editions (such as Bad Religion, Crimpshrine, THE MISFITS). Anyway.. point being, please read what I wrote here on the discussion page and take that into consideration. I am under the impression that Wikipedia is a place for referenced discussion and not a venue for undisclosed absolutes. If you want references for The Ramones, Green Day, or blink-182... read the articles associated with them. This is not opinion. Fall Out Boy remains to be seen, but a number of magazines and news sources have pointed to them. Please respond - user:xsxex


ChrisB ok.. interested, obviously i have not had time to digest the titanic amount of guidelines which wikipedia makes available. I think I'm not alone when i reveal that I'm learning as i go. Thanks for pointing out the issue about this not being a forum for discussion. Ok. i can understand that (to a point, what are we doing here than?) - I think I lost you with the whole part about deprecating the lists. - explain that again? -hmm.. after some though I can see what you are say, which is basically items in a list are just that, a list of vegetables is a list of vegetables, a person can't say that a broccoli is the Quentessenial vegetable. OK. - - hmmm. all i have left to say is given that i think the main article on pop punk which is still definitely a work in progress, should make it more clear about the important role The Ramones play in the genre. Thanks! Word. - xsxex

[edit] Foo Fighters?

Are Foo Fighters considered Pop Punk? Personally, I'd say Pop Rock. Thoughts? --ScarletSpiderDave 07:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I Took the Foo Fighters off the list and if someone puts them back on, I will just delete again. Thank you 70.53.110.23 18:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

the foo fighters are punk (related) and they are definitely pop .. basically anything that relates to Nirvana is gonna fit here. sorry.. read up on what pop punk is. oh yeah, and you might also want to actually invest the time increating a user page so that you have an iota of credibilty. (Xsxex 22:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC))


I can see where you are comming from, Xsxex, but to me, punk related isn't the same as punk. I think they would fit nicely under "Pop artists who reference punk" (Nirvana is located there at the time of this writing). --ScarletSpiderDave 14:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Xsxex 13:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Since when does post grunge = pop punk? And also they're not pop... pop is Justin Timberlake and Gwen Stefani and crap like that.

[edit] The All-American Rejects?

Are the The All-American Rejects pop-punk? Aren't they powerpop? Dwnsjane2 22:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

seem to be a combo, as i remember that first popular single, "Swing, Swing" was like a power popped out take on what jimmy eat world was doing at the time. Ben Weasel is a fan, I think they have enough "punk" credentials, the name of the band seems to reference things in punk, the line in Green Day's song "reject" off of Nimrod. (1997) , oh i just saw avril does a cover of it and changes the line to "reject all-canadian" ... and Ben Weasel has been recently taken to them, (he's working with one of them on some recording stuff?), Weasel talks about it on his blog. Again, bands are not just one thing, other than the band itself. But AAR have many markings of a pop punk band and are towing the pop punk line, if you will. They also seem to work on a power pop level, as well as just a pop level (especially more recently). P.S. I also have to mention The Goonies connection, whic is accidental probably, but when the gang is up in the attic finding the map to one-eyed willy, mike's explaining why his dad has all this pirate stuff in the attic and he says the museum had a show a "restrospective" and these were the rejects, and chunk says, "kinda like us, Mike, the goonies..." and Mouth says, "Im not a reject" Xsxex 15:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOFX? Really?

First wave pop punk? There's just something I don't understand, it says '92-'97 right? So considering that NOFX have been active since '83 and by '92 they had already released 3 albums on Epitaph, as well as several EPs and so on. Commercial success came with Punk in Drublic but it wasn't a pup-punk album either. I have no problem with the pop-punk genre (in fact, I quite like some of the bands on the list) BUT I do think it is misleading to place NOFX in that list. Skate punk, or Second wave punk, but not Pop punk. It's not just the musical content, but also the lyrical content - NOFX's political/social lyrics. Also, some of the bands are in this list not due to their sound but due to their age. Bad Religion could easily be on the list if it was slightly "younger". Anyway, the list has some fatal flaws and I think some bands shouldn't be there. All we need now is some consensus... Andrius 13:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally someone!--Mudel 14:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Bad Religion are too old to be a pop punk band, even though you admit they play pop punk?
Also, yes, very definitely NOFX. I'm completely confused as to why you're so adamant they should be refused. --Switch 05:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you really think so then, OK, let 'em stay. Andrius 08:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

NOFX have gotten more softier with the last two albums, still not enough, made one or two pop-punk songs, but thinking of them as anything less than skatepunk is WRONG. --Mudel 02:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing "less" about it. They're just two very similar genres. They have played both for their entire career, more or less. --Switch 16:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes but Pop-punk laso tolls this MTV culture with it wich NOFX do not posses. They're not comertialised like typical pop-punk bands.--Mudel 15:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The pop in Pop punk doesn't necessarily mean commercialized or mainstream. It refers to pop music influences on the music. Spylab 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a bit of both, I think we should point out the two meanings of pop punk and how having one atribute does not mean you have the other. Say Offspring is mainstream, but doesn't sound pop. Or bands that for most of their musical career have been making non pop-punk songs are in fact pop-punk... NOT --Mudel 19:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not a bit of both. Nobody calls The Casualties or Jello Biafra pop punk, but people call both sellouts. On the other hand, I don't hear people calling Screeching Weasel sellouts, but everyone knows they're pop punk. Last I checked, the pop punk article has an entire section on "independent pop punk", which is clearly not very MTV. --Switch 06:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As informative as this article is...

I am putting it up for deletion. This is not a good idea for an article, it is not informative (or right for that matter), and it is not encylopedia worthy. I am sorry if you think wiki is a place where you can find out all the useless info you want, because it is not. This is an enyclopedia and this has no importance or validity. Something so opinionated on a topic that NO ONE will agree with is not meant to be here. I don't know the basis for this article nor why spylab seems to know exactly what a "pop punk" band is and won't allow editing as this article is in dire need of. --Nytemunkey 01:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea if you put an actual reason for the ProD on the notice itself (maybe a summary of the above). I'm not going to contest it, btw, I can't even remember why this is on my watch list to be honest, and have no opinion on its validity. Bubba hotep 07:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • First, this is not an article. It is a list. Almost all music genres have lists of notable artists on Wikipedia. There is no legitimate reason to single out this particular list for deletion. Second, disagreement amongst editors is no reason to delete a page on Wikipedia. If that were the case, there would be almost nothing at all on Wikipedia. Third, I have no idea what your rediculous statement "spylab seems to know exactly what a "pop punk" band is and won't allow editing" is based on. Spylab 12:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh spylab, you don't seem to understand. Let me break this down, I'll try to make it simple. List or article, this thing doesn't seem to have any place here. We can look at a lot of lists, published or made up out of thin air and we could put them on wiki, but should we? The answer is no if you weren't sure. Some things really don't have a place here on wiki, kinda like articles with no importance, articles that are uninformative, or articles that are not valid to name a few. Well this article meets all three of the previous criteria I just listed. Disagreement on something like how to word an paragraph is one thing, but this is heavy disagreement. Disagreement to the point where where everyone who comes to this page has the opinion that some part of this article is wrong. If you would like me to seek out other pointless wiki lists or articles, I do already. If you really think this article belongs here, make a poll, dare ya. And at the moment I am not sure what that "rediculous" statement was based on.--Nytemunkey 08:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand perfectly well. Almost every notable genre of music on Wikipedia has a list of bands or artists. There is absolutely no reason to single this one out for deletion. Disagreement about who belongs on the list is not a good enough reason. There is disagreement about many lists and articles on Wikipedia. So you don't even know why you made that ridiculous statement I mentioned above? Then perhaps you shouldn't have made it. Also, why would I make a poll to delete a list that I don't want deleted? That's another ridiculous statement. Spylab 18:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mcfly???

Somebody has listed Mcfly on this list which I do not agree with. Mcfly are a pure commercial pop boyband not a pop-punk band. I feel them being on the list is completely unjustified. Certain websites may wrongly list them as 'pop punk' but they do not meet the wikipedia 'pop punk' article's criteria. I mean where is the 'punk' element in Mcfly's cheesey music? Christian1985 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.147.229 (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Punk Bands

Stop adding regular punk bands to this list. Bands like: The Clash, The Descendents, Generation X, The Jam, Naked Raygun, The Ramones, and The Undertones are not pop-punk, they are powerpop, post-punk, or just plain punk, please stop adding these kinds of bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.236.35 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The Descendents, Generation X, The Jam, The Ramones, and The Undertones all have references referring to them as pop punk. They are an essential part of this list, because they helped pioneer the genre.

Spylab (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • What? The Descendents and The Ramones are two of the earliest, pioneering pop punk bands....they stay. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)