Random Green Day Thoughts

[Private Ale.]

3 hours ago, PurpleIron1039 said:

I may be a bit biased here because, as I think that I've stated, I'm not really into much pop punk---most of it (e.g. Blink-182, Sum 41, etc.) never really appealed to me in the first place, so I may not be able to appreciate the extent of Green Day's influence on a genre. However, I am a very big metal fan, so naturally I don't see much of GD's influence in that genre. I'm trying to look at this from both perspectives, I guess, both as a a huge GD fan and as aa huge metalhead. I can relate to metal fans' anger, frustration, and indignation at the genre's being snubbed (mostly, with the exception of Black Sabbath and Deep Purple, which I consider proto-metal), but I can also understand Green Day fans' reasons for GD's first ballot induction. I'm just not too sure where I fall more on the spectrum of the argument.

in my opinion, what makes Green Day special is that they are not only pop-punk whatever. They have almost everything. Rock Hall also inducted Cat Stevens ,S&G which are not rock that much,let alone metal. It's not about a genre .

When it comes to people saying terrible things about GD , they are jealous asses.Take my word,they are. None of them can hear Brain Stew(which is a bit metal, in my humble opinion)  and can deny it's a great song, if they're honest. They are biased,If you ask me this is more unfair than RRHOF thing. 

However,i think sex pistols are horrible band that gets so much plause because they are cool. A green day song made at age 16 is so much better than that fucking band. None of that jaded punks are fair ,they pretend that crap is epic and some famous band is bad. Well,my opinion anyway.

I also don't get how it's all pop-punk ,as i said first they have never been a genre band. I mentioned my weird thought about Brain Stew being sort of metal , i'll go and say Nimrod is not a pop-punk album.Insomniac is not either. I have my reasons to think that way  ,i don't know how pop-punk is defined but it bothers me. nimrod is an album for everybody. For those commentors ,even for old grandpas. But it can only reach to limited number of people cause it's classified "pop-punk" "made by poseurs " blah blah. I wonder if those people can create something half great as Nimrod. but that's not the subject.

If they are so into metal or punk ,then they should have said something about Cat Stevens getting in. I don't think they like him , however they probably don't even know who he is. Cause they won't get anything from bashing him.

 

i'll admit most famous green day songs are not the best but if people hear their whole discography (let alone hearing epic non-album songs like "J.A.R" ) they will know they are great band that deserves it more than most others.But, people are biased. it's always been unfair ,so i really love the fact that they are in.they deserved it.

 

[alienlifeform]

4 minutes ago, Private Ale. said:

in my opinion, what makes Green Day special is that they are not only pop-punk whatever. They have almost everything. Rock Hall also inducted Cat Stevens ,S&G which are not rock that much,let alone metal. It's not about a genre .

When it comes to people saying terrible things about GD , they are jealous asses.Take my word,they are. None of them can hear Brain Stew(which is a bit metal, in my humble opinion)  and can deny it's a great song, if they're honest. They are biased,If you ask me this is more unfair than RRHOF thing. 

However,i think sex pistols are horrible band that gets so much plause because they are cool. A green day song made at age 16 is so much better than that fucking band. None of that jaded punks are fair ,they pretend that crap is epic and some famous band is bad. Well,my opinion anyway.

I also don't get how it's all pop-punk ,as i said first they have never been a genre band. I mentioned my weird thought about Brain Stew being sort of metal , i'll go and say Nimrod is not a pop-punk album.Insomniac is not either. I have my reasons to think that way  ,i don't know how pop-punk is defined but it bothers me. nimrod is an album for everybody. For those commentors ,even for old grandpas. But it can only reach to limited people cause it's classified "pop-punk" "made by poseurs " blah blah. I wonder if those people can create something half great as Nimrod. but that's not the subject.

If they are so into metal or punk ,then they should have said something about Cat Stevens getting in. I don't think they like him , however they probably don't even know who he is. Cause they won't get anything from bashing him.

 

i'll admit most famous green day songs are not the best but if people hear their whole discography (let alone hearing epic non-album songs like "J.A.R" ) they will know they are great band that deserves it more than most others.But, people are biased. it's always been unfair ,so i really love the fact that they are in.they deserved it.

 

My thoughts exactly

[PurpleIron1039]

1 hour ago, Private Ale. said:

in my opinion, what makes Green Day special is that they are not only pop-punk whatever. They have almost everything. Rock Hall also inducted Cat Stevens ,S&G which are not rock that much,let alone metal. It's not about a genre .

When it comes to people saying terrible things about GD , they are jealous asses.Take my word,they are. None of them can hear Brain Stew(which is a bit metal, in my humble opinion)  and can deny it's a great song, if they're honest. They are biased,If you ask me this is more unfair than RRHOF thing. 

However,i think sex pistols are horrible band that gets so much plause because they are cool. A green day song made at age 16 is so much better than that fucking band. None of that jaded punks are fair ,they pretend that crap is epic and some famous band is bad. Well,my opinion anyway.

I also don't get how it's all pop-punk ,as i said first they have never been a genre band. I mentioned my weird thought about Brain Stew being sort of metal , i'll go and say Nimrod is not a pop-punk album.Insomniac is not either. I have my reasons to think that way  ,i don't know how pop-punk is defined but it bothers me. nimrod is an album for everybody. For those commentors ,even for old grandpas. But it can only reach to limited number of people cause it's classified "pop-punk" "made by poseurs " blah blah. I wonder if those people can create something half great as Nimrod. but that's not the subject.

If they are so into metal or punk ,then they should have said something about Cat Stevens getting in. I don't think they like him , however they probably don't even know who he is. Cause they won't get anything from bashing him.

 

i'll admit most famous green day songs are not the best but if people hear their whole discography (let alone hearing epic non-album songs like "J.A.R" ) they will know they are great band that deserves it more than most others.But, people are biased. it's always been unfair ,so i really love the fact that they are in.they deserved it.

 

I agree with most of this, so I'd like to address a few points. I agree that GD is not a genre band; I've said it before in the past. However, I think that they didn't truly start to dip their fingers into other genres until Nimrod. They were pretty punk rock (which I don't consider to carry the same meaning as the term "punk") before that, in my opinion. I still think that they have a punk attitude, but that the music played now is not punk rock per se. I'm actually glad about that, because I think that the punk culture can be very stifling sometimes, and I'm talking about the elitists, whom I detest just as much as metal elitists. They can now branch out more because they're free from those shackles that used to bind them to this one genre. The reason that I talk about their influence on pop-punk, even though I don't see Green Day as a pop-punk band (I'd classify them more as melodic punk (earlier) and now arena alt rock), is because the groups that seem to be the most vocal about GD's influence on their music are pop-punk outfits. I think that GD has been pigeonholed into this one genre, and that they've been seen as such by large portions of the music community, hence their strong influence on pop-punk--they're often hailed as originators of the genre, which I think is debatable, but I won't get into that at the moment. Adding a quick note here, I totally agree with you on the Sex Pistols. Most people who are their "fans" are wannabe punks who try much too hard and don't know their origin story. It's not very "punk" at all, by their own standards. I listen to the Pistols some, but most of their music I like to label a whole lot of noise. In my eyes, they weren't musicians, hell, I'm pretty sure that Sid Vicious could barely even play his instrument. Maybe I'm just viewing them with that pretentious "prog rock/metal fan who hates punk (not that I hate punk at all, but I don't enjoy a lot of it anymore)" snobbery that they railed against, but that's just my two cents on the Pistols. 

When it comes to elitist metalheads who like to rag on Green Day for "selling out" and "putting out crap music", I agree that they are probably jealous in some aspects--jealous that their own favorite bands didn't achieve the success that GD did. To an extent, I understand that feeling, being a passionate metal fan myself. I love Judas Priest, as has been established quite a few times on this forum, and I've always thought that they deserved more success than they got, which lasted about three quarters of a decade in the 80s. I believe that they are incredible musicians and that they rank in at least the top 2 metal bands of all time, easily. I could justify those statements, but I won't bore you with a longwinded discussion of their accomplishments. I have envied the success of, say, One Direction as compared to that of Priest's. Silly comparison, I know, but I can't help but feel that a band that has done so much for such an important genre of music deserved to sell more than they did. Both bands have sold about 50 million records apiece, but the difference is that Priest has been around for 46 years and had records out for 42, while One Direction has been on the scene for all of 6. I drew this comparison to illustrate your average metalhead's view on Green Day (I mean, there's a bit more to it, including that a lot of metal fans are conservative and Green Day has always been unapologetically very far-left politically). They view Green Day as the "One Direction" in this example. I don't believe it to be fair, but I think that it's an accurate depiction of their views on GD--young, "poppy" upstarts who became more successful than an older, more established, "worthier" metal band. Plenty of them also hate punk and all its variants for what it did to the metal scene in the mid-late 70s and pop-punk for controlling the mainstream in the 90s, so asking a purist metalhead to respect a punk band with no ties to thrash, and a pop-punk band no less, is very difficult. 

To close out my explanation, I'd like to say that I have definitely seen Cat Stevens' induction ridiculed heavily by the metal community. In fact, I'd say that many metalheads are angrier about the induction of pop stars like Cat Stevens and Madonna (I might even include disco groups here like Bee Gees and ABBA; I have no personal bone to pick with them but I take issue with the fact that they got in before many of the acts that I will later mention) and of rap groups like N.W.A. and Public Enemy than they are about the induction of an actual younger rock band like Green Day. I can't say that I disagree with them on the pop and rap issues, though. I firmly believe that no pop or hip hop acts should be in the RnRHoF, period. It's absolutely insulting to insinuate that Madonna and N.W.A. deserved the nods more than seminal rock and metal outfits like Judas Priest (not even due to my personal bias; they are largely responsible for the sound and look of both later heavy, glam, and extreme metal bands), Iron Maiden, Thin Lizzy, Dio, Rainbow, Mötorhead, Venom (who I believe would decline to attend anyway), Saxon, Megadeth, Anthrax, Exodus, Testament, Slayer, Diamond Head, Uriah Heep, Jethro Tull, Yes, King Crimson, UFO, Budgie, Journey, Blue Oyster Cult, Boston, etc. I could go on; and I think that that list illustrates a huge problem with the Rock Hall. I think that I could easily justify the inclusion of any one of those acts over the ones mentioned earlier on in the paragraph. It's ridiculous if you think about the fact that rock legends like Cheap Trick and Deep Purple got in on the same ballot as N.W.A., who most certainly did not have the influence on rock music that the former two did. I think I'll end the rant here, as it's veering off the topic of Green Day themselves and more into "my general issues with the Rock Hall" territory.

Clarification: When I use the term "pop", I'm referring to our modern definition of pop. I know that plenty of metal groups in the 80s and just popular music in general used to be referred to as "pop".

I don't know where else to stick this, but I'd also like to add that I consider GD a very talented band. Obviously.

Edited June 23, 2016 by PurpleIron1039

[unextraordinarygirl]

Green Day has never claimed to be any genre. They span many genres from punk to pop and that is a good thing. 

[PurpleIron1039]

2 minutes ago, unextraordinarygirl said:

Green Day has never claimed to be any genre. They span many genres from punk to pop and that is a good thing. 

Well, they have indirectly done that before, I think. I recall a few quotes said by Billie that would imply that.

[RedundantIdiot]

Green Day are a bunch of talented musicians who have spanned different genres to show off as many of their talents as possible. They don't follow a rulebook, which is why they have used accordions, harmonicas, and horns.

[unextraordinarygirl]

2 hours ago, a123 said:

Green Day are a bunch of talented musicians who have spanned different genres to show off as many of their talents as possible. They don't follow a rulebook, which is why they have used accordions, harmonicas, and horns.

Well said

[Chin for a Day]

7 hours ago, PurpleIron1039 said:

I may be a bit biased here because, as I think that I've stated, I'm not really into much pop punk---most of it (e.g. Blink-182, Sum 41, etc.) never really appealed to me in the first place, so I may not be able to appreciate the extent of Green Day's influence on a genre. However, I am a very big metal fan, so naturally I don't see much of GD's influence in that genre. I'm trying to look at this from both perspectives, I guess, both as a a huge GD fan and as aa huge metalhead. I can relate to metal fans' anger, frustration, and indignation at the genre's being snubbed (mostly, with the exception of Black Sabbath and Deep Purple, which I consider proto-metal), but I can also understand Green Day fans' reasons for GD's first ballot induction. I'm just not too sure where I fall more on the spectrum of the argument.

 

EDIT: How did I forget that Metallica was inducted???? Silly me.

Whether one band or another doesn't get in really has no bearing on the situation.  Nor does your personal taste matter either.  I am not a huge fan of Blink-182 or Sum 41 either, and that doesn't matter.  What does matter is that GD was highly influential to a generation of bands that followed.  Whether I personally like the bands they have influenced is irrelevant.  I need to look at it that they have influenced them.  This goes for any band and any genre.  To really determine whether a band is worthy you need to put aside your personal tastes and look at what they have done.  There are plenty of artists in the hall of fame that despise but I can understand why they are in because of many factors, the influence they have had being one of them.  

I am not a huge metal fan, so I can't really comment on whether i think metal is snubbed or not.  It may be, I know prog rock is badly snubbed.  Yes, is one of the founding fathers of prog rock and they are not in the hall.  What I can say is that even if metal is snubbed, which it may be, that does not take away from any other artists right to be in the hall.

The rock hall, or any hall of fame for that matter, is not a first come, first served basis.  It is determined by who is most worthy.  And any one persons personal taste is irrelevant in that.         

[PurpleIron1039]

4 minutes ago, JJ1964 said:

Whether one band or another doesn't get in really has no bearing on the situation.  Nor does your personal taste matter either.  I am not a huge fan of Blink-182 or Sum 41 either, and that doesn't matter.  What does matter is that GD was highly influential to a generation of bands that followed.  Whether I personally like the bands they have influenced is irrelevant.  I need to look at it that they have influenced them.  This goes for any band and any genre.  To really determine whether a band is worthy you need to put aside your personal tastes and look at what they have done.  There are plenty of artists in the hall of fame that despise but I can understand why they are in because of many factors, the influence they have had being one of them.  

I am not a huge metal fan, so I can't really comment on whether i think metal is snubbed or not.  It may be, I know prog rock is badly snubbed.  Yes, is one of the founding fathers of prog rock and they are not in the hall.  What I can say is that even if metal is snubbed, which it may be, that does not take away from any other artists right to be in the hall.

The rock hall, or any hall of fame for that matter, is not a first come, first served basis.  It is determined by who is most worthy.  And any one persons personal taste is irrelevant in that.         

Well, I mean, I could also argue that Judas Priest basically created the sonic template and fashion of heavy metal by uniting elements previously incorporated by earlier bands. I use Judas Priest not because I love them, which I do, but because they are the perfect example of the flawed nature of the Rock Hall. I can't think of a single reason, objectively, why they shouldn't be in. Essentially every metal band that came after them cites the band as an influence. I agree with you on prog rock, though. It has most definitely been snubbed by the Rock Hall.

Edited June 23, 2016 by PurpleIron1039

[Chin for a Day]

1 minute ago, PurpleIron1039 said:

Well, I mean, I could also argue that Judas Priest basically created the sonic template and fashion of heavy metal by uniting elements previously incorporated by earlier bands. I use Judas Priest not because I love them, which I do, but because they are the perfect example of the flawed nature of the Rock Hall. I can't think of a single reason, objectively, why they shouldn't be in. Essentially every metal band that came after them cites the band as an influence. I agree with you on prog rock, though. It has most definitely been snubbed by the Rock Hall.

Like I said, I'm not familiar with metal, but I will believe you on Judas Priest.  If what you say is true, then they should be in.  However, because Judas Priest is not in, should not affect another band.  The problem is that metal is snubbed by the rock hall, that does not mean that any other band that is worthy should not be in because Judas Priest is not.  They are totally unrelated issues.

[Private Ale.]

3 hours ago, PurpleIron1039 said:

I agree with most of this, so I'd like to address a few points. I agree that GD is not a genre band; I've said it before in the past. However, I think that they didn't truly start to dip their fingers into other genres until Nimrod. They were pretty punk rock (which I don't consider to carry the same meaning as the term "punk") before that, in my opinion. I still think that they have a punk attitude, but that the music played now is not punk rock per se. I'm actually glad about that, because I think that the punk culture can be very stifling sometimes, and I'm talking about the elitists, whom I detest just as much as metal elitists. They can now branch out more because they're free from those shackles that used to bind them to this one genre. The reason that I talk about their influence on pop-punk, even though I don't see Green Day as a pop-punk band (I'd classify them more as melodic punk (earlier) and now arena alt rock), is because the groups that seem to be the most vocal about GD's influence on their music are pop-punk outfits. I think that GD has been pigeonholed into this one genre, and that they've been seen as such by large portions of the music community, hence their strong influence on pop-punk--they're often hailed as originators of the genre, which I think is debatable, but I won't get into that at the moment. Adding a quick note here, I totally agree with you on the Sex Pistols. Most people who are their "fans" are wannabe punks who try much too hard and don't know their origin story. It's not very "punk" at all, by their own standards. I listen to the Pistols some, but most of their music I like to label a whole lot of noise. In my eyes, they weren't musicians, hell, I'm pretty sure that Sid Vicious could barely even play his instrument. Maybe I'm just viewing them with that pretentious "prog rock/metal fan who hates punk (not that I hate punk at all, but I don't enjoy a lot of it anymore)" snobbery that they railed against, but that's just my two cents on the Pistols. 

When it comes to elitist metalheads who like to rag on Green Day for "selling out" and "putting out crap music", I agree that they are probably jealous in some aspects--jealous that their own favorite bands didn't achieve the success that GD did. To an extent, I understand that feeling, being a passionate metal fan myself. I love Judas Priest, as has been established quite a few times on this forum, and I've always thought that they deserved more success than they got, which lasted about three quarters of a decade in the 80s. I believe that they are incredible musicians and that they rank in at least the top 2 metal bands of all time, easily. I could justify those statements, but I won't bore you with a longwinded discussion of their accomplishments. I have envied the success of, say, One Direction as compared to that of Priest's. Silly comparison, I know, but I can't help but feel that a band that has done so much for such an important genre of music deserved to sell more than they did. Both bands have sold about 50 million records apiece, but the difference is that Priest has been around for 46 years and had records out for 42, while One Direction has been on the scene for all of 6. I drew this comparison to illustrate your average metalhead's view on Green Day (I mean, there's a bit more to it, including that a lot of metal fans are conservative and Green Day has always been unapologetically very far-left politically). They view Green Day as the "One Direction" in this example. I don't believe it to be fair, but I think that it's an accurate depiction of their views on GD--young, "poppy" upstarts who became more successful than an older, more established, "worthier" metal band. Plenty of them also hate punk and all its variants for what it did to the metal scene in the mid-late 70s and pop-punk for controlling the mainstream in the 90s, so asking a purist metalhead to respect a punk band with no ties to thrash, and a pop-punk band no less, is very difficult. 

To close out my explanation, I'd like to say that I have definitely seen Cat Stevens' induction ridiculed heavily by the metal community. In fact, I'd say that many metalheads are angrier about the induction of pop stars like Cat Stevens and Madonna (I might even include disco groups here like Bee Gees and ABBA; I have no personal bone to pick with them but I take issue with the fact that they got in before many of the acts that I will later mention) and of rap groups like N.W.A. and Public Enemy than they are about the induction of an actual younger rock band like Green Day. I can't say that I disagree with them on the pop and rap issues, though. I firmly believe that no pop or hip hop acts should be in the RnRHoF, period. It's absolutely insulting to insinuate that Madonna and N.W.A. deserved the nods more than seminal rock and metal outfits like Judas Priest (not even due to my personal bias; they are largely responsible for the sound and look of both later heavy, glam, and extreme metal bands), Iron Maiden, Thin Lizzy, Dio, Rainbow, Mötorhead, Venom (who I believe would decline to attend anyway), Saxon, Megadeth, Anthrax, Exodus, Testament, Slayer, Diamond Head, Uriah Heep, Jethro Tull, Yes, King Crimson, UFO, Budgie, Journey, Blue Oyster Cult, Boston, etc. I could go on; and I think that that list illustrates a huge problem with the Rock Hall. I think that I could easily justify the inclusion of any one of those acts over the ones mentioned earlier on in the paragraph. It's ridiculous if you think about the fact that rock legends like Cheap Trick and Deep Purple got in on the same ballot as N.W.A., who most certainly did not have the influence on rock music that the former two did. I think I'll end the rant here, as it's veering off the topic of Green Day themselves and more into "my general issues with the Rock Hall" territory.

Clarification: When I use the term "pop", I'm referring to our modern definition of pop. I know that plenty of metal groups in the 80s and just popular music in general used to be referred to as "pop".

I don't know where else to stick this, but I'd also like to add that I consider GD a very talented band. Obviously.

Fair enough , i do agree with unfairness of 1D and judas priest situation.But then add it next to Taylor Swift getting all these awards ,some talented band sucking at sales ,that's how it works.

I know that a lot of people/bands deserve their place . hope they all get in somehow.But it's a voting result ,afterall. If 1D was in poll , be sure they would get in hall of fame.

On the other hand , i voted for Green Day and my intention was not beat "the ones who deserved" whatever , just wanted to see my favourite band having a great moment. Which  -- after all those cancer survivals,rehab stuff --was like a gift and got a tear in my eye when Mike told his wife she kicked cancer's ass on stage.Which i think shouldn't offend people that much ,even they don't like the music or their favourites couldn't make it or what ever is their problem , they need to learn to have some empathy for the band and fans.

[UNICORN VOMIT]

3 hours ago, a123 said:

Green Day are a bunch of talented musicians who have spanned different genres to show off as many of their talents as possible. They don't follow a rulebook, which is why they have used accordions, harmonicas, and horns.

Everyone's else's posts were too long so I agree with you

[Chin for a Day]

3 minutes ago, BillyjoelxkidXx said:

Everyone's else's posts were too long so I agree with you

Damn you are lazy, read my posts, they were good.

[UNICORN VOMIT]

1 minute ago, JJ1964 said:

Damn you are lazy, read my posts, they were good.

But you always hurt my feelings - I will skim them

[Chin for a Day]

3 minutes ago, BillyjoelxkidXx said:

But you always hurt my feelings - I will skim them

You deserve it 

[PurpleIron1039]

1 hour ago, Private Ale. said:

Fair enough , i do agree with unfairness of 1D and judas priest situation.But then add it next to Taylor Swift getting all these awards ,some talented band sucking at sales ,that's how it works.

I know that a lot of people/bands deserve their place . hope they all get in somehow.But it's a voting result ,afterall. If 1D was in poll , be sure they would get in hall of fame.

On the other hand , i voted for Green Day and my intention was not beat "the ones who deserved" whatever , just wanted to see my favourite band having a great moment. Which  -- after all those cancer survivals,rehab stuff --was like a gift and got a tear in my eye when Mike told his wife she kicked cancer's ass on stage.Which i think shouldn't offend people that much ,even they don't like the music or their favourites couldn't make it or what ever is their problem , they need to learn to have some empathy for the band and fans.

I voted for Green Day as well--multiple times, as I believe we were encouraged to do. I just don't know that they should have been first ballot (for that matter, I wasn't happy with Nirvana getting in first ballot, but I understood why. Personally, I think that Nirvana is very overrated but their influence and popularity is undeniable), but you guys have presented some very good arguments that have swayed my opinion slightly. Also, I'm not sure that it came through clearly in my previous posts, but I was attempting to say that I thought that the problem lay with the induction of non-rock/metal artists, not with Green Day, and that those hordes of angry metalheads have it wrong because they should take issue with the fact that there are pop stars and rappers in the rock hall not with the fact that a deserving and influential rock band was inducted. My only problem was with GD's (what I perceived to be) premature induction, but I feel as if I can reconcile that with my other beliefs as well now.

Edited June 23, 2016 by PurpleIron1039

[WhiteTim]

Nevermind

[PurpleIron1039]

45 minutes ago, WhiteTim said:

Nevermind

What? I received a notification informing me that you had quoted me in a post.

[WhiteTim]

10 minutes ago, PurpleIron1039 said:

What? I received a notification informing me that you had quoted me in a post.

I did but I decided rather not get into a debate as it doesn't really relate to GD so it'd derail the thread so I deleted it 

[PurpleIron1039]

2 hours ago, WhiteTim said:

I did but I decided rather not get into a debate as it doesn't really relate to GD so it'd derail the thread so I deleted it 

Ah, makes sense. I can be really argumentative and tend to go on tangents so I hope that I didn't throw the thread too off-topic. I'm sorry if I did, though.

[WhiteTim]

4 minutes ago, PurpleIron1039 said:

Ah, makes sense. I can be really argumentative and tend to go on tangents so I hope that I didn't throw the thread too off-topic. I'm sorry if I did, though.

No you were discussing GD along with the rest your post is all good

[Maddie86]

So while I'm from Binghamton NY, I work in the construction business, which means at times I have to travel to find work. I've been working in Hudson NY for the last month and a half but the hotel I've been staying at is in Saugerties NY. I knew Saugerties was home to Woodstock 94, but I never actually looked up the location of the farm it was held at until tonight. It's pretty much just across the street from my motel. I go back home tomorrow after work, but I'll be back next week so I'm gunna go find the location and get a few pics

[Siddharth_471]

On 6/23/2016 at 10:49 PM, PurpleIron1039 said:

I agree with most of this, so I'd like to address a few points. I agree that GD is not a genre band; I've said it before in the past. However, I think that they didn't truly start to dip their fingers into other genres until Nimrod. They were pretty punk rock (which I don't consider to carry the same meaning as the term "punk") before that, in my opinion. I still think that they have a punk attitude, but that the music played now is not punk rock per se. I'm actually glad about that, because I think that the punk culture can be very stifling sometimes, and I'm talking about the elitists, whom I detest just as much as metal elitists. They can now branch out more because they're free from those shackles that used to bind them to this one genre. The reason that I talk about their influence on pop-punk, even though I don't see Green Day as a pop-punk band (I'd classify them more as melodic punk (earlier) and now arena alt rock), is because the groups that seem to be the most vocal about GD's influence on their music are pop-punk outfits. I think that GD has been pigeonholed into this one genre, and that they've been seen as such by large portions of the music community, hence their strong influence on pop-punk--they're often hailed as originators of the genre, which I think is debatable, but I won't get into that at the moment. Adding a quick note here, I totally agree with you on the Sex Pistols. Most people who are their "fans" are wannabe punks who try much too hard and don't know their origin story. It's not very "punk" at all, by their own standards. I listen to the Pistols some, but most of their music I like to label a whole lot of noise. In my eyes, they weren't musicians, hell, I'm pretty sure that Sid Vicious could barely even play his instrument. Maybe I'm just viewing them with that pretentious "prog rock/metal fan who hates punk (not that I hate punk at all, but I don't enjoy a lot of it anymore)" snobbery that they railed against, but that's just my two cents on the Pistols. 

When it comes to elitist metalheads who like to rag on Green Day for "selling out" and "putting out crap music", I agree that they are probably jealous in some aspects--jealous that their own favorite bands didn't achieve the success that GD did. To an extent, I understand that feeling, being a passionate metal fan myself. I love Judas Priest, as has been established quite a few times on this forum, and I've always thought that they deserved more success than they got, which lasted about three quarters of a decade in the 80s. I believe that they are incredible musicians and that they rank in at least the top 2 metal bands of all time, easily. I could justify those statements, but I won't bore you with a longwinded discussion of their accomplishments. I have envied the success of, say, One Direction as compared to that of Priest's. Silly comparison, I know, but I can't help but feel that a band that has done so much for such an important genre of music deserved to sell more than they did. Both bands have sold about 50 million records apiece, but the difference is that Priest has been around for 46 years and had records out for 42, while One Direction has been on the scene for all of 6. I drew this comparison to illustrate your average metalhead's view on Green Day (I mean, there's a bit more to it, including that a lot of metal fans are conservative and Green Day has always been unapologetically very far-left politically). They view Green Day as the "One Direction" in this example. I don't believe it to be fair, but I think that it's an accurate depiction of their views on GD--young, "poppy" upstarts who became more successful than an older, more established, "worthier" metal band. Plenty of them also hate punk and all its variants for what it did to the metal scene in the mid-late 70s and pop-punk for controlling the mainstream in the 90s, so asking a purist metalhead to respect a punk band with no ties to thrash, and a pop-punk band no less, is very difficult. 

To close out my explanation, I'd like to say that I have definitely seen Cat Stevens' induction ridiculed heavily by the metal community. In fact, I'd say that many metalheads are angrier about the induction of pop stars like Cat Stevens and Madonna (I might even include disco groups here like Bee Gees and ABBA; I have no personal bone to pick with them but I take issue with the fact that they got in before many of the acts that I will later mention) and of rap groups like N.W.A. and Public Enemy than they are about the induction of an actual younger rock band like Green Day. I can't say that I disagree with them on the pop and rap issues, though. I firmly believe that no pop or hip hop acts should be in the RnRHoF, period. It's absolutely insulting to insinuate that Madonna and N.W.A. deserved the nods more than seminal rock and metal outfits like Judas Priest (not even due to my personal bias; they are largely responsible for the sound and look of both later heavy, glam, and extreme metal bands), Iron Maiden, Thin Lizzy, Dio, Rainbow, Mötorhead, Venom (who I believe would decline to attend anyway), Saxon, Megadeth, Anthrax, Exodus, Testament, Slayer, Diamond Head, Uriah Heep, Jethro Tull, Yes, King Crimson, UFO, Budgie, Journey, Blue Oyster Cult, Boston, etc. I could go on; and I think that that list illustrates a huge problem with the Rock Hall. I think that I could easily justify the inclusion of any one of those acts over the ones mentioned earlier on in the paragraph. It's ridiculous if you think about the fact that rock legends like Cheap Trick and Deep Purple got in on the same ballot as N.W.A., who most certainly did not have the influence on rock music that the former two did. I think I'll end the rant here, as it's veering off the topic of Green Day themselves and more into "my general issues with the Rock Hall" territory.

Clarification: When I use the term "pop", I'm referring to our modern definition of pop. I know that plenty of metal groups in the 80s and just popular music in general used to be referred to as "pop".

I don't know where else to stick this, but I'd also like to add that I consider GD a very talented band. Obviously.

1. Talking about GD in Hall of Fame, they 100% deserve to be in there, I say that not just as a fan but there are many reasons for that:- hardly they have sticked to a particular genre and musically they are really versatile, longevity in lineup that is no major changes in lineup throughout, and most important is influence. An album like American Idiot is rare for many classic and metal bands.

2. Many musicians have somewhat liked and appreciated GD like Joey Ramone, Joe Strummer, John Doe, Foo Fighters, Metallica, Ozzy Osbourne, Iggy Pop and many others.

3. I also like metal very much and surprised that Maiden, Priest, Slayer, Megadeth, Pantera are still not there and not to mention many of these have way much influence on music than GD but that doesn't blocks the way for GD to be in RNRHOF, because they brought punk which was (and even is) hardly ever present. The first wave band in 70's created punk rock then in 80's it turned into harcdore punk and finally it's remains got buried in thrash/extreme metal, so bringing back punk in it's finest and original form IS a big deal and so is American Idiot which even has a broadway based on it.

4. Please don't read the hate comments online because they are utter crap and those people who make such comments are try-hard genre police who think "real music" is what only they listen to and act like GD is more of an expeimental band and not punk and all they know is AI and some mere generic songs and nothing about the entire discography hence, they are nothing but poseur themselves. You name me any but there is not even a single band ever of whatever genre that has musically stayed the same throughout their time, so music changes that have occured are very natural with GD and that doesn't mean selling-out, it means EVOLVING. I hope that makes sense. 

[cayo]

Macy's Day Parade is such an underrated song tbh, I mean it's such a meaningful song, I don't get why not that many people acknowledge it.

[Ztt84]

For whatever reason I got really excited and can't wait to hear some new Green Day music.