User blog comment:DogDays124/My Little Pony; Friendship is Magic/@comment-69.118.196.87-20120819223828/@comment-3242362-20120823021727

Genreization is hard to explain. It's like that Supreme Court Justice said about obscenity: "I know it when I hear it." As such, I know that Nevermore is Metal from the first listen, and I know that Nirvana is, if not a Punk band, at least supremely Punk-influenced.

Coheed and Cambria do not sound "Punk" to my ears. They sound like they play Prog (is there such a thing as Prog-Punk? I don't think it's possible). They have a metal influence, and a rock influence; to my ears, it's as if Iron Maiden mated with Led Zeppelin III and the kid listened to pretty much nothing but Rush throughout its childhood and adolescence.

However, as to definition, genres are pretty fluid. 1950s rock is not punk, but go to the late 70s, and you'll find the Ramones frequently covering songs from the 50s. In fact, a lot of early punk was influenced by this simplistic music (early rock).

I am not saying that C&C has no punk influence; I am saying that the don't sound punk. They sound like a progressive rock/progressive metal band to my ears. Take Iron Maiden's "Hallowed be thy Name" (Number of the Beast, 1982: Metal) and compare it with, say, the Clash's "White Riot" (The Clash, 1977: Punk). Beyond the basics (Instrumentation, there's a guy singing in English) the songs sound quite different. That is, in essence, the best example of how genre's differ: there will be bands that fit into them cleanly. (Later on, of course, genres may mix; thrash metal has a HEAVY hardcore punk influence, particularly in its fast beat.)

In conclusion, Coheed and Cambria fit much more neatly into a metal or hard rock grouping than they do into punk.