My biggest qualm with this...
Isn't the fact that certain bands were left out, but the fact that many people interviewed state (and the ending note is) that punk is dead. I wasn't there then, but I can attest that it still lives and is reinvented by kids daily who put on house shows, rent out halls, venues (ABC NO RIO or Gilman St anyone?) and play in bands. I imagine people who were there then will say it's not the same thing, but is that only because it's not the same bands, same time, or because you think today's punk is safe in comparison? Just because these people and bands had the first stab at hardcore, doesn't mean it died when their scene did. I'll say there is an over abundance of bands these days (warped tour friendly and not), but a lot of the same crazy s hit happens at shows. Granted a lot of the more mainstream bands today don't sound as pissed and have "sold out" doesn't mean they weren't playing with today's version of Black Flag a couple years ago. I don't mean to go off on a tangent, but I think punk/hc is always going to exist because there is always going to be a need for aggressive music; some of it the mainstream will except, some of it won't. But imagine if hardcore was accepted when it started, would it have gotten written off the way people write off punk today?
share