Just watched the documentary American Hardcore

[GaijinGweilo]

Who here likes crust?

 

 

not me. at all.

[EdgeOfDarkness]

I like cheese filled crust...when I order any pizza's that is what i get.

[lndianScout]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUkwo_ht4q4 I guess I posted this in a another unpunk thread. My first band in 82-83. Then I joined Angry Samaoans from 84-89. Memories! I'm on the left playing the SG, Nick(other guitarist)gets more "screen time".

 

Steve they don't remember the scene like we do I guess..

 

"you took your clothes off, I started to laugh, it's when I knew it was thru, guess I'll go take a bath"

 

you stupid asshole lmfao....

[chris_d]

Who here likes crust?

 

 

I like some. The closest i get to it for stuff i really enjoy though, is in bands like His Hero Is Gone. Monuments To Thieves has a {censored}ing brilliantly brutal and fiercely ugly guitar sound on it. I am a big fan of that.

 

I find however that most "crust" is as often even worse than other music scenes for cookie cutter bands and sounds. There is a very small amount of good/interesting stuff and then there is a huge pile of repetitive {censored}, IMO.

 

-chris

[EdgeOfDarkness]

I prefer crossover.

[chris_d]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUkwo_ht4q4 I guess I posted this in a another unpunk thread. My first band in 82-83. Then I joined Angry Samaoans from 84-89. Memories! I'm on the left playing the SG, Nick(other guitarist)gets more "screen time".

 

The Angry Samoans {censored}ing Ruled. I destroyed two copies of Back From Samoa from playing the tape over and over.

 

Actually one of my favorite tapes was a dub i made that was three or four copies of the Circle Jerks Group Sex played back to back on one side, and then three or four copies of Back From Samoa back to back on the other side. I just left it in the tape deck on auto-reverse until it destroyed itself.

 

Good stuff!

 

-chris

[ComingApart]

No Use For A Name or Rancid being like, real punk.

 

 

my mind can't fathom the depths of this FAIL.

[Steve Drojo]

The Angry Samoans {censored}ing Ruled. I destroyed two copies of Back From Samoa from playing the tape over and over. Actually one of my favorite tapes was a dub i made that was three or four copies of the Circle Jerks Group Sex played back to back on one side, and then three or four copies of Back From Samoa back to back on the other side. I just left it in the tape deck on auto-reverse until it destroyed itself. Good stuff! -chris

 

 

Then buy the freakin' CD, it has all the albums and e.p.'s on it:)

[Steve Drojo]

It was a different music scene with different ideals than now. You really can't compare the two!

[chris_d]

Then buy the freakin' CD, it has all the albums and e.p.'s on it:)

 

 

You mean the unboxed set? I already have it. I was speaking of back in the day a bit, when i was more of a young'n. That was like the third tape i ever bought. I think i bought DRI's Dirty Rotten Imbeciles on tape at the same time. That was an effective bit of shopping.

 

-chris

[rockstrongo]

My favorite part is Henry Rollins talking about how punk rock kids are the most narrow minded people on earth. "This song is longer than a minute and a half AND has a solo?!?!? COME ON!!!"

[K.platyops]

And I realized that I am not, nor have I even been "punk." I thought that I used to be punk. I was wrong. The music that I used to listen to that is called punk: MxPx, Blink 182, Green Day, NOFX, Pennywise, Jimmy Eat World, The Living End, The Offspring and up to and including Anti-Flag, are really just power pop . Seems to me that "punk" is more about the scene, dress, attitude, violence, and DIY ethic than anything musical. I guess that the confusion and arguments occur because Punk should never have been a musical genre name to begin with. Having a style of music called "punk" would be like calling jazz "beatnik", classic rock "hippie", or blues "louisiana old black guy music." Anyway, this coming from a person who used to roll my eyes at these types of threads. I now see the light.

 

 

Oh Hell...

 

Actually, this is one of the things I hold American Hardcore responisble for. As much as they tried to be pretty comprehensive, their depiction of what things were like might easily create a tunnel vision effect-like view of what was going on and how people thought about the {censored} going on back then.

 

Another thing that really lacked in the film was more focus on the actual music itself. Make the film less a sociological study of a social movement, and more a work of ethnomusicology. More music focus, more lyrics, more about the lack of division between fan and bandmember, more first hand accounts about people's love and passion for the music.

 

And they should have spread out to the other alternative genres going on at the same time. Hardcore was not a world unto itself, as there was various other thriving genres of music...proto goth, death rock, ska/two tone, doom, thrash punk, crossover thrash metal,post punk- ambient and otherwise, paisley underground and other neo-psychedelia, roots revival, noise music, and yes, power pop, that all fed into one another, or at least led out of the hardcore punk scene proper as time went on.

 

But perhaps they weren't depicted because of the tendency towards revisionist genre and sub-genre defining. For example, is Flipper a punk band? yes. A Hardcore band? yes. Based on their music? Well, maybe no. Or the Minutemen? Or Sacharrine Trust? Or 100 Flowers? If you go back and try to define the genres of these bands by todays standards, like some librarian defining music types, then you'll miss how they were integrally a part of the old punk scene, musically as well as functionally.

 

If there was one thing that oldschool punks called being a poseur for more than anything, it was that dressed or called themselves punk and weren't really passionate about the music involved. Fine, hang out at shows, listen to punk casually, no problem. But if you start dressing 'punk', name dropping bands, acting like a scenester, etc., then you damn better really be into the music, in whatever guise that may be for the individual.

 

There are some books out there that do a better job than the films of getting across the zeitgeist of the times better than the films do.

 

Of course, there's the Decline of Western Civ. part One, which is a lot more band and music centered than American Hardcore. But note that lots of the people in the Decline hated the movie and the way it came out and depicted things when it was first released.

[Steve Drojo]

^^
Basically what we lack now is the diversity of it all(like it was back then).

You could have the Minutemen, Suburban Lawns and X on the same bill even!

Like I said, it was different. Can't really bring it back no more than you can bring back the British Invasion. Just remember it for how great it was and leave it at that!

[newholland]

^^ Basically what we lack now is the diversity of it all(like it was back then). You could have the Minutemen, Suburban Lawns and X on the same bill even! Like I said, it was different. Can't really bring it back no more than you can bring back the British Invasion. Just remember it for how great it was and leave it at that!

man.. i'd be there if that was a bill..

'course, i'd look like the old dude in the room..

i just went to see mission of burma last week, and i seriously felt a bit like the chaperone at a high school dance...

but i sang like a mother{censored}er and came home hoarse!

[Dave Owens]

punk doesnt exsist anymore..

it was the Ramones,Clash Sex Pistols,Dead Boys,etc.

what you have now is some white washed crap calling it self punk.

[rock_warrior]

hardcore music is going through a rough patch right now. with gas prices, downloading, and too many bands touring. it's probably a good thing. and it will come back stronger like it always has.

 

 

I gotta disagree. I think that as of right now there are some really good hardcore bands right now touring. Bands like In Defence from Minneapolis and ANS from Texas are touring together right now and it's pretty traditional 80's hardcore punk. There are also a lot of bands doing the crossover thing that are basically hardcore bands but hardcore has such a bad stigma stuck to the name with all the core bands now.

[newholland]

 

punk doesnt exsist anymore.. it was the Ramones,Clash Sex Pistols,Dead Boys,etc. what you have now is some white washed crap calling it self punk.

 

 

no- punk as a movement doesn't exist in the mind of the MEDIA anymore for selling records.

 

punk as a way of life in the minds of people who realized what it was worth still exists absolutely. besides-- 3 bands.. pfft.. that doesn't mean {censored}. punk goes a far sight further than bands anyhow... and attributing a movement to a couple of bands is like saying modernism WAS jackson pollock. you can't reduce it to the likes of a band or two, a thinker or two, or even things, thoughts, and music accepted and subsumed by the people in it, because it's a broader cultural concept at this point than 'a musical style.' much like modernism isn't painting, music, dance, literary stylings, graphic design, clothing design... it's something that runs through all of them.

 

but as a marketing term... well sure. but then again, the half life of anything in marketing is as short as the attention span as the people you're selling to anyhow..

[GaijinGweilo]

punk doesnt exsist anymore.. it was the Ramones,Clash Sex Pistols,Dead Boys,etc. what you have now is some white washed crap calling it self punk.

 

punk isn't on tv anymore. That's it.

 

If you really think punk doesn't exist then you're just not a part of it.

 

1977 was just when punk was 'popular', since then its gone out of the mainstream (the real punk has) & gone back underground, where it pretty much was meant to stay in the first place, it doesn't last long under the spotlight (but underground punk acts can last for yonks, decades even, with their own cult audience & following. Many have).

 

Even the Ramones were unpopular in the 80's & they were one of the first punk rock bands around (possibly even the first ones to be called 'punk') to get noticed.

 

If you think its dead then it really is dead. For you.

For a whole lot of other people with their local bands & local scenes it is very much alive.

So {censored} you & your miserable-negative attitude

should be an Angry-negative attitude, if anything at all.

 

{censored} All Emos!

[Dave Owens]

if you were there then you would know the difference..

sounds like you wernt...let me know when you saw the Ramones
when they were playing dives in Boston and NYC for 50 people
and you can tell me all about it..im sorry but you dont have a clue.

I grew up on punk ,when the SP or the Clash, the Ramones,etc
all started..


up yours as well..


(what the {censored} has the TV got to do with it... )

punk isn't on tv anymore. That's it. If you really think punk doesn't exist then you're just not a part of it. 1977 was just when punk was 'popular', since then its gone out of the mainstream (the real punk has) & gone back underground, where it pretty much was meant to stay in the first place, it doesn't last long under the spotlight (but underground punk acts can last for yonks, decades even, with their own cult audience & following. Many have). Even the Ramones were unpopular in the 80's & they were one of the first punk rock bands around (possibly even the first ones to be called 'punk') to get noticed. If you think its dead then it really is dead. For you. For a whole lot of other people with their local bands & local scenes it is very much alive. So {censored} you & your miserable-negative attitude should be an Angry-negative attitude, if anything at all. {censored} All Emos!

[GaijinGweilo]

typical 'you had to be there' attitude, elitsm is what killed "Your" punk.

 

& if your idea of 'what punk is' is dead, then it deserved to die.

{censored} you then, you get what you deserve.

[bob the dentist]

sorry guys, my first post in here caused some confusion because i was confused myself

i knew that this movie wasnt the violent one i was thinking of, i just figured that someone around here that would come into a topic about a hardcore documentary would know which movie i was talking about

my bad

[Snax Panther]

[GaijinGweilo]

^why isn't this guy banned yet

 

For all you naysayers (& elistist old cunts) here's a dvd documentary, much like American Hardcore, appropriately titled 'Punks Not Dead', which is a general overview about the state of punkrock today.

 

http://www.mininova.org/tor/1142555 (use utorrent for those of you not familiar with torrent files)

 

Watch that & then you can make an Informed decision on whether you think 'punk is dead' or not,

(as much as a personal philosophy can be dead, ain't nobody saying 'buddhism is dead' all the time now is there?)

 

 

Later pissants.

 

/thread out

[jaytee123]

to me it's all about the attitude. Music is the last thing that makes a person "Punk".

 

 

Punk music IS attitude.

[falsethreats]

And I realized that I am not, nor have I even been "punk." I thought that I used to be punk. I was wrong. The music that I used to listen to that is called punk: MxPx, Blink 182, Green Day, NOFX, Pennywise, Jimmy Eat World, The Living End, The Offspring and up to and including Anti-Flag, are really just power pop . Seems to me that "punk" is more about the scene, dress, attitude, violence, and DIY ethic than anything musical. I guess that the confusion and arguments occur because Punk should never have been a musical genre name to begin with. Having a style of music called "punk" would be like calling jazz "beatnik", classic rock "hippie", or blues "louisiana old black guy music." Anyway, this coming from a person who used to roll my eyes at these types of threads. I now see the light.

 

 

I know elitists will jump on me for saying this, but I still consider bands like Green Day and NoFX to be "punk".

 

I say this, because after being in the scene for a couple years and having listened to punk rock of all eras - from the Ramones to Bad Brains to the Casualties - punk has become nothing more than music to me. Punk ethics and attitude are widespread in these bands, but not every band follow them. The Ramones and Sex Pistols are now mainstream. Many punks bands including Minor Threat were never into punk fashion (Greg Ginn of Black Flag comes to mind). Bad Brains and Anti-Flag are under major record labels. Nowadays, we'll take a band like No Use For a Name and call it "power pop" when it used to be a hardcore punk band in the 80's (NoFX, Green Day, and Offspring were considered to be punk bands back in the day.) We'll call people like Henry Rollins and Keith Morris "sell outs" (I bring Morris up because supposedly he was only interested in profit when asked by Ginn to sing in the Black Flag reunion shows.) It seems to me that punk has stayed consistent with the musical style. Its simplicity and energy has remained the same through the years. These characteristics were what attracted me to punk music when I started playing the guitar (now, after having desired more complex elements of music, I play blues, classic rock, and metal).

 

All these documentaries coming out - including American Hardcore, Punk's Not Dead, and Punk:Attitude - are all great, but punk tends to be subjective. It can be defined as a lifestyle, attitude, style of fashion, style of music, any combination of four, or all four. For me, the music is the only aspect that solidly defines it.