The Anti Britney? I wouldn't go that far...this article's informative but a little too self serving for my tastes

[G-man Joe]

<div style='font: 11pt "Fine Hand"; text-align: left; '>Purists are like that. They take their genre seriously.</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Make sense to me - she's not an "artist," she's a "product." She's catchy and she's cute, but she's not that different from a new kind of Pepsi.</div>

[Julius Seeker]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Just because she writes music you don't like, she's not an artist?</div>

[Julius Seeker]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>I honestly just don't like Pearl Jam because their music doesn't appeal to me (and it never has), I just never ever talk about them. Sorry for using them as an example, because I'm sure there are fans here, but it's the only one I could really think of since they were an extremely popular band.

My reasons for disliking Pearl Jam have never been about their image, their video's, or any other reason other than their music just does not appeal to me. I don't care if Eddie whatever his name is doesn't write his own music or what, that's not really a reason to hate a band, some of them just don't write their music.</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>That's just it - she doesn't write music. She's the newest corporate product. I have nothing against her, but I certainly have problems with the entertainment industry that does that.</div>

[G-man Joe]

<div style='font: 11pt "Fine Hand"; text-align: left; '>Kupek, I wanna make you a rock star. You'll have plenty of money, fame.....and loose women. =8^) But can you sing?</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>I've been told by several independent sources that I am completely tone deaf. But who says we need to use my voice, anyway? We just need my image. CS majors are all the rage now.</div>

[SineSwiper]

<div style='font: 11pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light"; text-align: left; '>How is wanting good non-commericialist crap considered to be "purist"? Avril is -NOT- punk. It's just about proper catagorization. It's not even being nitpicky, because calling Avril punk is like calling Mozart rock.</div>

[Gentz]

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>I don't really care all that much. Nor am I a "purist" like G-Man implied. I don't even listen to punk music really (I listen to some, but I'd hardly call myself a fan, let alone a "punk"). And I don't like Avril Lavigne's music, but that's not the reason why she pisses me off. It just angers me that there is nothing <i>real</i> about her in any sense. Her look is entirely artificial. This is made obvious by how emphasized it is. Everything about her seems to scream "hey, look! I'm a skater punk! I'm unique! I'm not 'down' with your rules, man!" But the thing is that she would not exist if punk music wasn't the latest trend. She's just a commercial for "punk culture", riding the wave of the fad until it dies out; yet, she sings songs about not conforming to society's standards. If that isn't a complete contradiction I don't know what is.

Like, she can do whatever she wants, but that doesn't mean I can't think it's stupid.</div>

[SineSwiper]

<div style='font: 11pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light"; text-align: left; '>That's fine, because most consider Pearl Jam to be grudge. Even if there were some disagreements with that catagorization, it's nothing wildly inaccurate.</div>

[G-man Joe]

<div style='font: 11pt "Fine Hand"; text-align: left; '>Are you really this....un-smart? I'm talking about Gentz. ie "GENTZ IS A PURIST! HE DOES NOT LIKE COMMERCIALIZED PRETENDERS!" Sine....lay off the drugs. They don't make you smarter. They can make you dumber.</div>

[Julius Seeker]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>If Avril Lavigne is pop, then Pearl Jam was definetly pop.</div>

[Julius Seeker]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>I thought that was fairly common knowledge. Some of the songs are Co-written, but she's been writing music since she was very young. Even if she didn't, would that really matter? I know there are a lot of Garbage fans here, are they going to hate Garbage because Shirley Manson doesn't write her own music? NO, that would be stupid. Hardly any bands do their own Music Video's, should you hate them for it? no because that would be just as stupid.

Just remember, Britney Spears, she doesn't write her own music, I don't think she even sings her own music, but someone had to right?

If you don't like how the music is marketed, well tough, it's obviously been a successful strategy, and if it pisses you off, then that's fine too (even though I don't see how it makes any sense).

Anyways, what I'm saying, if you hate music because the performer didn't write it, then you obviously have it wrong with Avril Lavigne because she does write a lot of her own music. Also, look at some of the best songs ever recorded, Turn the Page by Metallica, they didn't write that; The Critically acclaimed song The Man who sold the world by Nirvana, they didn't write that one either; All along the Watchtower by Hendrix, guess what? He didn't write that either. Should we hate all those songs just because they didn't write those songs? As I said above, no, because that would be a stupid reason.</div>

[Julius Seeker]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>To tell you the truth, I don't really give a crap about her image. it's the music I'm interested in. I'm not going to claim her image is manufactured either, as it fairly accurately describes a large portion of High School Girls and a lot of University Students for the last 4-5 years anyways. Maybe not to that extreme, but you get the picture.</div>

[Gentz]

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>And, again, effective marketing and mass-appeal does not necessarily entail "good art." And notice that I do not describe Avril Lavigne as being "not art." Simply "bad art." And there's a big difference.</div>

[Gentz]

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>Oh, and yes, I'd say Avril Lavigne plays "punk" music. It may be extremely poppy-punk, but it's punk nonetheless. Just because you hate something doesn't make it not what it is.</div>

[SineSwiper]

<div style='font: 11pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light"; text-align: left; '>It's not punk. Have you even heard it? It's barely grudge, and I say that with the utmost respect for the genre.</div>

[Gentz]

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>It's seems to me that you just like to de-classify anything that you don't like, Sine</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>"Effective marketing strategy." Man, you're giving up a promising career in PR.</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Jesus Christ, calm down. We trash-talked your favorite new singer - no one said their life was harmed by this girl. I have little respect for teen pop-stars, get over it. She's cute, she's catchy, but she's just Brittney in different packaging.</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>If you define punk as anything with guitar, bass, drums and a relatively fast beat, then yeah, it's punk, but that's really missing something.</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>She's either pop or pop-punk. Pearl Jam is definitely neither of those.</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Have you heard any of the songs? What's angry about those?</div>

[Gentz]

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>Avril Lavigne has a "punk" sound and the lyrics have "punk" themes. It's distorted and vapid punk, but it's still punk. The problem isn't that Lavigne isn't living up to the standards of her genre, it's that she's adopting the standards of a genre in order to portray an image of her being a member of that genre. To be pithy, it's not that she isn't punk, it's that she's <i>trying</i> to be punk.</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>From what I've heard from her songs, they're not "punk" themes. Like I said, if you define punk as guitars, bass, drums and a relatively fast beat, then its punk. But like porn, I don't think the definition is that simple. A lot, I think, relies on (perceived) intent.</div>

[SineSwiper]

<div style='font: 11pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light"; text-align: left; '>She's acting like a punk (not really), but the music is not punk. It's just not punk. Blink 182 isn't punk either.</div>

[Gentz]

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>And as utterly ridiculous as it sounds when she sings it, the music in the punk genre deals quite a bit with the same issues - they just don't sound quite as "wannabe-ish" when they do it.

And if it's perceived intent that decides how we should categorize an artist...Well, in dealing with your pornography example, I'd assume you mean that just because a movie has a lot of sexual situations doesn't mean it's a porno. It's the intent to exploit the sexual-aspects of a movie by the filmmaker that makes a movie a porno. The analogy here being that just because a piece of music has a fast beat and heavy guitars doesn't mean it's a punk song - that, again, it's the intent of the songwriter to create a song in the punk style that makes it a "punk song." But I'd certainly say that Avril Lavigne is intending to create punk songs - and that she most likely considers herself to be a punk artist.

So if her songs reflect the punk genre both music-wise and intent-wise, then what makes her not punk? If the shoe fits...

I think you're being swayed here by your own personal preferences, Kupek. It seems to me as though you want to deny Avril Lavigne being punk because you are a fan of the genre and you want to exclude her from being considered with other musicians that you really enjoy. I understand that, and I agree that she's an insult to everything that punk-culture <i>should</i> stand for, but in the end, really, it's just a category. Categories are quantitative, not qualitative. The claim "Avril Lavigne is punk" does not undermine the claim that "NOFX is punk" (if you like NOFX), because the categorization inherently says nothing about the quality of the music - it's only a utilitarian classification. Avril Lavigne is remarkably BAD punk, but that doesn't mean her music isn't punk.

Say, for example, I wrote a poem that went like this

bee bop bee doo
<dd>wop
wop wop bee bop
<dd>pee doo
jack kerouac was
an amazing
<dd>typomatic machine god
buddha
i love you!
<dd>buddha

If I was going to categorize this poem, I would have to call it a Beat poem. It's a ridiculously BAD Beat poem...but I'd still call it a Beat poem. I don't really even like Beat poetry, and I'm hardly skilled enough to be a poet on the same level as Jack Kerouac - so I really don't do the genre (nor them) any justice at all. But that doesn't make me <i>not</i> a Beat poet.</div>

[Gentz]

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>I refer you to my reply to Kupek</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>From the article:

<ul>''Punk is a touchy subject,'' Lavigne says. ''A punk is a person who's always getting in trouble and doing things they're not supposed to. Yeah, I do that.... Then there's punk as a way of life, and punk rock as an aggressive form of music, which is very political, and I never said I was that.... People are like, 'Well, she doesn't know the Sex Pistols.' Why would I know that stuff? Look how young I am. That stuff's old, right?''</ul>I don't think she's even saying her music is punk.</ul><i>And as utterly ridiculous as it sounds when she sings it, the music in the punk genre deals quite a bit with the same issues - they just don't sound quite as "wannabe-ish" when they do it.</i>

If you pay attention to it, her song topics are pretty much the same as your standard pop star.

<i>I think you're being swayed here by your own personal preferences, Kupek. It seems to me as though you want to deny Avril Lavigne being punk because you are a fan of the genre and you want to exclude her from being considered with other musicians that you really enjoy. I understand that, and I agree that she's an insult to everything that punk-culture should stand for, but in the end, really, it's just a category. Categories are quantitative, not qualitative. The claim "Avril Lavigne is punk" does not undermine the claim that "NOFX is punk" (if you like NOFX), because the categorization inherently says nothing about the quality of the music - it's only a utilitarian classification. Avril Lavigne is remarkably BAD punk, but that doesn't mean her music isn't punk.</i>

Categories are qualitative. Listen, don't think that I'm somehow insulted here if this girl is labled in a genre of music I enjoy. I really don't care. But what it all comes down to this: she does not exhibit the characteristics of what I think of when I think "punk." It's really that simple.

What is and is not punk music is something I've read some really silly essays on, and I've basically just decided it's your own whim. You're defining it as "music that sounds like ___" which is not something I do. And even then, as far as the sound goes, is SR71 punk? Smashing Pumpkins? The Cult? Foo Fighters? If a fast beat makes it punk, then label losing what little meaning it had. Of course, it really doesn't matter, either.</div>

[SineSwiper]

<div style='font: 11pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light"; text-align: left; '>A pile of shit by any other name is still a pile of shit.</div>

[Julius Seeker]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Where did I say it was only the lyrics she wrote?</div>

[Julius Seeker]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>I like the music because it sounds good, I don't even pay attention to the media hype of any bands nowadays. Obviously a lot of people like her music, and it's not because people tell them to like it, it's because it is GOOD MUSIC. Why else do you think so many people like her music?</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Find me something that says she writes everything else, too. Even in the standard four person band, one person does not write the music for all instruments.</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>There's a difference between "catchy" and "good."</div>

[Gentz]

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>I mean, your musical tastes are so refined, yet so <i>pure</i>. You are truly a redoubtable figure (I hesitate to call you a "man" because you're really more like a God).

Personally, though, I think Avril Lavigne's music is total crap regardless of any of the political factors involved. There is a reason why so many people like her music and it's not because it's artistically <i>good</i> in any way. The music has mass appeal because its entirely devoid of any complexity or unpredictability. It's <i>easy</i> music. You can listen to it and know exactly what's coming up at all times. You never have to get up out of your sphere of comfortable ignorance - you don't even have to fidget. It supports complacency. It supports simplicity. The good guys and bad guys are perfectly defined - nothing else need be said. It's easy to listen to music that supports complacency and simplicity because you don't have to think (after all, thinking takes effort). People who listen to this type of music are mostly young, white, and middle class, and there's a reason for this - these are the people with the least amount of unpredictability and highest degrees of complacency in their lives.

The main reason why I target Avril Lavigne moreso than other pop/mass-appeal musicians is because she would have us believe that her music is somehow <i>anti</i>-status quo. She touts herself about as though she's some big anti-conformist who is challenging people's ideas, but nothing could be further from the truth. She's just simplifying the situations. Making them comfortable and predictable. "Punks rule! Jocks suck! Take off your preppy clothes! Be a SK8R BOI! Yeah!" She's not saying anything new, she's just dumbing down things that have said for decades now.</div>

[Gentz]

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>It sure sounds like punk to me. It sounds like a pop-flavor of punk, but still punk. You're right that this argument is basically pointless, but what makes a category qualitative?</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Because descriptions of music are qualitative. Unless you're going to do something really silly like define punk as music with a guitar, a bass, drums and has X beats a minute.</div>

[Gentz]

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>I mean, just because we're using a quantitative classification doesn't mean that our criteria must only adhere to strictly objectively-definable standards. We can use the "impression" the music gives us or the "perceived intent" as a criteria for classifying it in a certain way; and while these criteria may be somewhat subjective, they need not be qualitative. A category doesn't (and shouldn't, I think) say anything about how good or bad the music is - it should only have to do with what <i>general type</i> of music it is.</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>I think it does. How can else can you categorize music but by describing it?</div>