I'd love to see The Effigies get a spot. They were pretty big in the midwest in the early/mid-80s and had a much deserved reputation as a great live band. I'm a little biased toward them, but I thought I'd throw it out there....

It's not even funny how much better Chemical Ali's list is.

I think The Ramones should be removed from the list entirely.

We get it. The Ramones aren't that good of a band. You're right, but stfu.

They aren't that good of a band, but still popular enough to claim themselves a spot on the list.

No shit. Boo Boo knows their spot is legitimate, unless he actually wants to push that the don't qualify as punk.

Is anybody ever going to change this list? I would also like to know the criteria. If popularity is part of it, Green Day should get a Top 10 entry. They have probably sold more records than all of the artists ahead of them in the list combined. And I believe there are not that many punk bands whose influence can compensate for that huge advantage that GD has in records sales. They are extremely popular around the world and they are awesome.

Criteria: "These 'Punk Artists' were chosen for their for there influence, innovation, origianality and impact on punk music."

Popularity is not part of the criteria and rightfully so since that's essentially what punk isn't about. Also Green Day are not a pure punk band, a lot of their stuff should rather be considered alternative rock. They're at #19 in the revision which suites them quite well. There's no way they should be in the Top 10.

And boo boo's right about The Stranglers. They should definitely make the Top 100, probably even the Top 50.

Well that doesn't make any sense to me. First of all, I don't believe that "punk" thing that they are not about selling records or being popular, any band does music for a lot of people to listen to it and to go to see them live, otherwise they would just record their music for themselves. If a band becomes popular, it's not a bad thing, it's actually a good thing, specially if they're punk, considering how hard it is for that to happen. But ok, it's something I can live with, Punk is not a genre that can be regarded as one of much popularity so it's ok in that way.

Second, what is a pure punk band? Ramones were punk-pop if not pop at all. The Clash? You know, that band that is in the top of this list, how are they pure punk? If there is something about them that makes them different from most other punk bands is that they tried new sounds. How is London Calling (One of the best albums ever) pure punk? It isn't. There is a broader spectrum of punk. Green Day makes Punk Rock music. Not straight punk, sure, but they have quite a lot of the characteristics of a punk band. How can there be any innovation if there is something called "pure punk" and no one is allowed to go outside of that without being considered "not punk"?

One of their albums created a musical in Broadway. Now a movie will be done about it. They are one of the few bands nowadays that puts good guitar music into the mainstream with success (that also has political content). They have influenced a whole new generation of bands (doesn't matter if you like them or not, they did it). That is influence and innovation. Sure, they're not very popular with hardcore fans because most people have the impression that they "sold out". But they didn't. They just changed, which is the obvious step for any band that has 10+ years of history. You can't pretend for a band to be the same for ever.

I would think influence, innovation, and originality are all, more or less, kinda the same thing. I'd probably eliminate the latter two and just go with influence.

Also, I think including popularity in the criteria, even if it wasn't weighted nearly as heavily as the other criteria, wouldn't be a bad thing.

No, probably not. I guess I'd just go with the usual criteria instead of the current ones.

Initially punk attitude was very much about not selling many records but rather appealing to a small subculture only. Soon punk entered the mainstream and you're right that mainstream popularity probably should be acknowledged as well. But as the criteria currently stand it isn't taken into consideration.


Ramones were pretty much the first true punk band. Later they became poppier but in their early years they were pure punk. The Clash similarly started out as a pure punk band. By 1979 they'd begun experimenting with other styles as well, but their debut album is as straightforward as punk gets. Green Day were pretty close to alt-rock right from the beginning.


By the current criteria this is irrelevant.


The first part is completely subjective, the second one is irrelevant.


That's true. It's propbably why they're as high as #19.


This again is irrelevant.

Have you ever heard Green Day's early records? They were a stoner/slacker themed band. Not really that different from a lot of the material the Ramones had. Of course it's different, since time had passed, maybe it's a little poppier, but Ramones were very pop in their very first album too. Of course, for that specific time they were pure punk, but in retrospective they are punk-pop/punk-rock just as Green Day has been forever. That embraces the whole spectrum of rock and integrates it with punk. The thing is that punk started as an answer to prog rock. And that is what it has always been. Ramones saw that most big band were truly music virtuosos and they wanted to make music that any kid could play in their houses, 3 chord songs, no 20-minute instrumental solos, etc. THAT is punk in its essence. Then it evolved into more political and the DIY thing. But in my opinion it was a rebellion in a beginning, wanting to do things differently from how everybody else did it. Popularity was never an issue, that was brought later in the punk movement and most people associate it with being punk. Like you stop being punk if you want to sell records o have huge stadium concerts.

And I can understand that according to a determined criteria (wether its a good or badly chosen criteria) Green Day could be a bit low. But I would also like to see the "credentials" for most bands that are above GD. I don't think they really have much going for them, except not being as mainstream/popular as Green Day.

I admit to not having heard any pre-Dookie Green Day album, but there first two albums went almost unnoticed at the time of their release, and so this period lacks a lot by the criteria anyway. Also punk-pop in general is not very highly respected in punk circles (I know this is not part of the criteria, but the current criteria kinda suck anyway), and so I don't see a problem with it being seemingly underrepresented in comparison to its overall popularity.

I think that at least the current Top 15 should definitely stay ahead of Green Day. Those bands were much more influential and respected in the world of punk than Green Day's work. There are some bands below them that I could see ahead of them and vice versa but all in all their placement looks about right to me. But I'm not the editor of the list and so what I'm saying doesn't actually matter that much.