Some groups staying true to something just so they don't get mainstream sounding sometimes becomes stale....The Clash may have stayed true to punk while their music changed.  It never really got mainstream sounding but it got boring.  However, it never got stale.

I think the word "rebellious" hits it right on the head.  Music that tries to push forward and stir things up.  That tries to rise above what has become ordinary and mainstream.  What was once rebellious becomes the normal.  It can still be good music, but no longer rebellious.  A lot of the pop-punk bands sound good and are exciting to hear, but are not really changing things.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

So how come we use the word "punk" instead of "rebellious" when that's what is implied?

Not that I listen to Classic Rock Radio (Except at Five Guys. It still " beats " the  drum machine driven hip hop  I have to hear every day.), but , I should'nt be surprised......

Hell , "Should I Stay or Should I Go" was one of the only deliberately Garage Rock - inspired hits of the early 80's. If not THE only.     The Clash worked their balls off to make it. I did'nt have a problem with that.   They were'nt even being called"Punk" by that many people by the time "London Calling " came out, never mind "Combat Rock".  By then, they were just called "Rock". They still did several songs from the first album when I saw them in June , '82 , because Terry Chimes was back on drums.
Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Yeah, the two Combat Rock singles and "Train in Vain" still get played on Classic rock stations.

John Battles said:

I just remember that The Clash were very popular , at least , toward the end. They had a top - charting LP , two big hits on the radio and on MTV , and one earlier hit back in rotation. They were playing bigger concerts and ginormous festivals. Of course , that all lasted little over a year.

When Mick Jones got the sack , Strummer carried on like the band was going to get back to square one. Virtually no one admits to liking the resulting album , but , I've been told the revamped lineup was'nt bad, live. Of course , by '82 , the accusations of selling out were on everybody's lips. "Combat Rock" lacked direction , but , I did'nt think there was a hit , there. The album as a whole hardly sounds like a sellout.  I saw them on that tour , and they brought the rock. 

So how come we use the word "punk" instead of "rebellious" when that's what is implied?

Yeah, the two Combat Rock singles and "Train in Vain" still get played on Classic rock stations.

John Battles said:

I just remember that The Clash were very popular , at least , toward the end. They had a top - charting LP , two big hits on the radio and on MTV , and one earlier hit back in rotation. They were playing bigger concerts and ginormous festivals. Of course , that all lasted little over a year.

When Mick Jones got the sack , Strummer carried on like the band was going to get back to square one. Virtually no one admits to liking the resulting album , but , I've been told the revamped lineup was'nt bad, live. Of course , by '82 , the accusations of selling out were on everybody's lips. "Combat Rock" lacked direction , but , I did'nt think there was a hit , there. The album as a whole hardly sounds like a sellout.  I saw them on that tour , and they brought the rock. 

I just remember that The Clash were very popular , at least , toward the end. They had a top - charting LP , two big hits on the radio and on MTV , and one earlier hit back in rotation. They were playing bigger concerts and ginormous festivals. Of course , that all lasted little over a year.

When Mick Jones got the sack , Strummer carried on like the band was going to get back to square one. Virtually no one admits to liking the resulting album , but , I've been told the revamped lineup was'nt bad, live. Of course , by '82 , the accusations of selling out were on everybody's lips. "Combat Rock" lacked direction , but , I did'nt think there was a hit , there. The album as a whole hardly sounds like a sellout.  I saw them on that tour , and they brought the rock. 

That's true in a lot of cases , but , a lot of people who were there , either playing music or going to gigs, in the mid to late 70's , will say the same thing , that it ran out of steam , but morphed into Post punk  , Early 80's UK Punk  and American HC....The younger guy I was talking to , he was way more into the early 80's British stuff than I am. There were still bands doing more or less what they'd done 5 or 6 years earlier , but , it would have been like doing Glam Rock in 1978.
 
Sam Sinister said:

When people say that punk ended in the late '70s/early '80s, I always assume that they only find their music from mainstream sources...

When people say that punk ended in the late '70s/early '80s, I always assume that they only find their music from mainstream sources...

If we're to decide , for ourselves , whether Punk is a style of music or an attitude (I know , I'm tired of that word , too....), or if it is/was a cultural movement , or , all of the above ,then we also need to consider, has  Punk taken itself too seriously , or not seriously enough? Or , I'd wager , both.....I was talking with a younger guy about The MOJO and Uncut special "Punk"issues , released concurrently. He asked me how far the features went , time wise. I said , you know , around '79 , '80 . when it started to go away."WHEN IT STARTED TO GO AWAY?!!!!" , he said , "THIS IS A WAY OF LIFE !!!!". Of course , he was too young to have heard the word on everybody's lips , "PUNK IS DEAD". Not that we cared , in the 80's . If it's good music , which is one of two kinds , you can enjoy it before and after the revival starts.   That said who's to say Leadbelly , John Cage , Screamin' Jay Hawkins , and other , more blatantly obvious examples , like Link Wray , are'nt also Punk?

Hey Sam: well, you kinda nailed the silly argument thang on its head. But, it also depends if you think that Punk is just a style of music, or, if it's something else. And THAT depends on personal opinion and experience. I don't see Punk as just one among many styles of music. Maybe that's the difference between listening to punk, and being a Punk.

Sam Sinister said:

Wow, what a tired old argument/discussion... no disrespect to the OP, but this is really a breeding ground for silly arguments. My opinion? Punk is a style of music, the style doesn't change when notoriety and/or money enter the equation. You either play it or you don't.

What a lot of the "anti-mainstream" sect of punk rockers fail to realize most of the time is, all of those groups (Clash/Ramones/Iggy/Cramps, etc.) strove to achieve commercial success in their lifetimes, but didn't have much luck. Or they just had really bad marketing teams at their record labels. Or the record labels didn't know how to market them.

as opinions are like assholes, "everyone has one". this one would like to add; in the end it really depends on who, and how long, you would like to support a given artist or musician...i.e. Clash/Ramones/Iggy/Cramps. every one has to make a living. i would prefer one to have success during their lifetime not after they are dead. i think Mr. Childish hit upon this with the line: "and Joe Stummer's turning over in his grave"!!!
Sam Sinister said:

Wow, what a tired old argument/discussion... no disrespect to the OP, but this is really a breeding ground for silly arguments. My opinion? Punk is a style of music, the style doesn't change when notoriety and/or money enter the equation. You either play it or you don't.

Just look at Billy Childish, he's more punk than anyone and still plays the same music, same chords and same riffs as he did at the start, he's extremely well known without being famous....his choice! 

Wow, what a tired old argument/discussion... no disrespect to the OP, but this is really a breeding ground for silly arguments. My opinion? Punk is a style of music, the style doesn't change when notoriety and/or money enter the equation. You either play it or you don't.

Excellent examples! Too bad they couldn't make more $, but they stayed true to their roots...

Sean said:

The Cramps managed to pull it off. They sold out, admitted it, but still stayed the same kick ass band. Same with The Ramones. I think The Ramones are the best example of a Punk group becoming one of the most popular and well known Punk groups of all time, but were still a "Punk" group and never changed their ways or style. Their songs did manage to get a bit Poppy over the years, but it wasn't complete shit like how most bands end up. 

The Cramps managed to pull it off. They sold out, admitted it, but still stayed the same kick ass band. Same with The Ramones. I think The Ramones are the best example of a Punk group becoming one of the most popular and well known Punk groups of all time, but were still a "Punk" group and never changed their ways or style. Their songs did manage to get a bit Poppy over the years, but it wasn't complete shit like how most bands end up.