Anastasia PlatoffMay 2012Locating EthnomusicologyNick Brooke

D.C. Hardcore: Past, Present, and Future

1. Antecedents

Every music subculture originates as a collective reaction against the dominant voices of

a society. Popular musical groups and their commercially successful genre identities function as

prime vehicles for the dominant voice of national institutions. In the mid- to late-1970s, America was

steeped in the massively marketable sounds of disco, arena rock, glam rock, and saccharine power

pop. From the disillusioned recesses of “My Sharona” and “Kung Fu Fighting”, punk rock emerged

in the Western nations as a forum for the alternative, but equally commanding, voice of dissent.

Punk subculture in the late 1970s was naturally heterogeneous, largely due to the

geographically-based development of unique communities or “scenes”. However, this diversity of

musical styles, fashion, attitudes, and social backgrounds were subsidiary components of the

counterculture—most of which stemmed from an initially unifying purpose: to not only eschew, but

to actively challenge, the corrupt practices of prevailing social and political systems. Though the

shared mentality was concerned with change, the conceived means of bringing this desire to fruition

were divergent. The nihilistic attitude of the Sex Pistols and the raw aggression of the Ramones

exemplified the brutal underpinnings of early punk rock. Along with impressively pissed-off bands

like The Cramps, Crass, Misfits, Black Flag, The Damned, and Dead Boys, all formed between 1976

and 1977, the principles of nonconformity, do-it-yourself (“DIY”), and self-definition were

actualized, as well as the groundbreaking sounds of undiluted confrontation, disseminated through

riotous, stripped-down rock’n’roll repetitions and vehement, compelling lyrics. However, this

productivity yielded a negative corollary: based on the histories of certain spearheads, the media

1

propagated punk as the paradigm of a deterministic lifestyle that could lead bored and vulnerable

youths to self-marginalization, self-destruction, bad reputations, and eventual implosion. The

cautionary tale attached to Sid Vicious—his injurious exploits, anti-artistic tendencies, and distinctive

regalia—gave publicity to a highly warped and stigmatized image of “punk rockers” as globally

oppositional junkies whose music typified a lack of meaning.

These instances of vilification implanted an awareness of punk in mainstream society,

ironically facilitating punk musicians’ influence on the objects of their hostility. But once again, this

unintentional entrance into the mainstream had an undesirable consequence in that “punk” became

a catch-all term that incorporated general, superficial characteristics (e.g., safety pins, Dr. Martens,

weird hair, and violence). By normalizing the “punk aesthetic” and defining punk as an “alternative”

to the mainstream (according to the mainstream), the foundational motive of the punk rock

movement—the progressive socio-political statement—was eroded because of its assimilation.

However, the driving forces of punk were not extinguished in the late-1970s; rather, there was

an overwhelming need for adaptations to what had been rendered ineffective through the commercial

system. In 1979, those who were adamantly opposed to (and thus greatly influenced by) the mass

media perceived the current state of punk music as vestigial or barren imitation. They declared it

dead. But other individuals, some of whom had constituted the younger audience members of mid-

1970s punk, continued to view this subculture as an emergent, future-oriented structure, formed and

reformed through necessarily transient permutations. From this perspective, the pertinent concern

was to re-disassemble the scene, un-define the brand name, and to rebuild from there. Many of these

young enthusiasts lived in the nation’s capital.

2. The Emergence of D.C. Hardcore

Don’t care what they may say we got that attitude.

Don’t care what they may dowe got that attitude.

Hey, we got that PMA.

2

— Bad Brains, “Attitude”

“East Coast Hardcore begins with Bad Brains,” writes Steven Blush in American Hardcore.1

Formed in 1977, Bad Brains were made up of four young black men from the D.C. suburbs:

Paul “H.R.” Hudson, Earl Hudson, Gary “Dr. Know” Miller, and Darryl Jenifer. In their music, Bad

Brains implemented the igniting elements of the British punk scene: the raucousness of the Sex

Pistols and the reggae grooves of The Clash, and abandoned the standard, three-chord monotony of

The Ramones et al. in favor of a more dynamic approach to rhythm and melody. Namely, the Bad

Brains thrived on hyperspeed. The feverish pace of their tunes sparked a fresh sonic energy to match

their bold, idiosyncratic message: Positive Mental Attitude (PMA).

Paul “H.R.” Hudson: One day I was sitting at home, laying on the couch in the living room, and my father came in, saw me, and started saying, 'What are you doing w/ your life?' He just went on and on. I said, 'Dad, I'm trying to get involved with music.' He got really angry and said, 'Man, why don't you do something, go read a book or something! . . . I picked up the first book I saw [on the shelf]”2

The book in question was Think and Grow Rich by self-help expert Napoleon Hill. The

central component of Hill’s guidelines for success was to have a positive mental attitude—to rise

above adversity and remain optimistic about one’s endeavors regardless of negative circumstances.

Bad Brains’ embrace of this philosophy made a huge impression on their fans, particularly Ian

MacKaye and Jeff Nelson, who at that time were teenaged skater kids attending Wilson High School

and living in Georgetown, an upper-middle-class neighborhood in DC. Another devotee was Henry

Garfield (later Henry Rollins), who worked with MacKaye at a local Haagen-Dazs. They drank soda

and didn’t shoplift; the vicious, nihilistic attitude that characterized some of the earlier British and

American punk bands did not resonate with these seventeen-year-old males, but political rebellion

and PMA did.

Soon after seeing Bad Brains perform in 1979, MacKaye and Nelson, with their friends

1 Blush, Steven. American Hardcore: A Tribal History. Port Townsend, WA: Feral House, 2001. 116.2 Andersen, Mark and Mark Jenkins. Dance of Days: Two Decades of Punk in the Nation's Capital. New York: Akashic Books, 2003. 28.

3

Geordie Grindle and Nathan Strejcek, decided to start their own band, the Teen Idles (briefly

called The Slinkees). Although the group disbanded after a year, they made a local impression.

They toured in their hometown and in California, opening for the Cramps and Bad Brains much to

the disparagement of older (i.e., 19-to-25-year-old) D.C. punks. Based on their appearances, the

lyrical content of their songs, and the neighborhood they were from, Teen Idles quickly gained a

reputation as “teeny-punks” or “Georgetown punks,” who were trying to revive a dead scene. These

designations, however, were more galvanizing than discouraging when it came to these teeny-

punkers’ productivity.

Ian MacKaye: They started calling us all this shit and I said, "Man, you think you're punk -- well, we're hardcore punks!" That's when the whole hardcore thing started. Before long, we started getting our own identity and were separating ourselves from the older bands. Our whole thing was to bust out in our own way (Andersen, 75). In the summer of 1980, MacKaye and Nelson founded their own label, Dischord Records, a

local, independently-run industry for distribution and promotion. With complete creative control,

they were committed to helping new bands put out records and book shows without contracts or

restrictions on their music. Dischord Records #1 was Teen Idles’ own Minor Disturbance EP, made

in the winter of 1980. Dischord Records #2 was the No Policy EP, released in 1981 by Henry

Garfield’s band, S.O.A. (State of Alert). By this time, Teen Idles had disbanded, largely due to

tensions caused by Grindle’s new girlfriend, a born again Christian. Without much delay, MacKaye

and Nelson formed a new band, Minor Threat, with bassist Brian Baker and guitarist Lyle Preslar.

For many, Minor Threat was and continues to be the emblem of 1980s “harDCore.” While the

Teen Idles were accused of being juvenile poseurs, nostalgic for 1977, Minor Threat conveyed self-

determinism and progression. Their attitudes, behavior, and music flowed from relative affluence,

sobriety, and immense dedication—conditions that, historically, had rarely been associated with punk

music. But this makes sense: their music wasn’t punk, it was hardcore. The aesthetic remained

4

intimidating, but other elements of this subcultural adaptation—the music, the people involved, the

sentiments, and the means of production—had a newfound unpredictability. With local D.C. hardcore

bands like Void, Black Market Baby, Youth Brigade, Government Issue, Faith, Marginal Man, and

Gray Matter, all formed between 1980 and 1983, the harDCore scene encompassed a diverse

amalgamation of individuals. In the early 1980s, while MacKaye liked nothing more than “to bruise

the ego,” the same was not always true of his peers, who were enlivened by the trends of violent slam-

dancing and destruction, inward and outward.3 However, with Reagan’s election into office in

January of 1981, American citizens were subjected to the one of the most conservative regimes of the

century, and the majority of musical participants in hardcore had specific bones to pick with the state

of the nation:

I may be idle but I'm far from stagnantThe thoughts in my head have begun to fragmentI know what I want and I take what I needI'm gonna make their society bleed—Faith, “It’s Time” I'm a person just like youBut I've got better things to doThen sit around and fuck my headHang out with the living deadSnort white shit up my nosePass out at the showsI don't even think about speedThat’s something i just don't needI've got the straight edge—Minor Threat, “Straight Edge” You set the standards of societyBut we don't want to live that waySo we're gonna change 'emWe're the Youth Brigade—Youth Brigade, “Youth Brigade”

Reagan was the unanimous enemy—the negative force that united D.C. hardcore bands into a

purposeful collective, at least provisionally. Just as punk splintered in in the late 1970s, hardcore

began to fissure in the mid-1980s. The creation of a seemingly equitable, apolitical community did

not preclude internal faction: politically indignant skinheads were menacing at shows, disrupting the

social framework of mutual respect that Ian MacKaye had been attempting to establish. At the same

3 Andersen, 75.

5

time, songs like “Straight Edge” precipitated the construction of a hardcore mythology. MacKaye’s

personal decisions—to become a vegetarian, to abstain from drugs and alcohol, to only play shows

that were open to all ages, and to take a stand against slam-dancing and moshing—were interpreted

by many as a self-righteous, puritanical doctrine.4 Moreover, many adolescents who adopted the

straight-edge attitude treated it as a stipulated, elite lifestyle, espousing a dogmatic approach when

audience members at hardcore shows did not conform to “MacKaye’s” code of conduct. The

backlash consisted of “bent-edge,” a movement that advocated all principles antagonistic to straight-

edge (i.e., being macho, getting drunk, smashing equipment at venues, and bruising bodies). Once

D.C. hardcore lost its identity cohesion and became a collection of territorial subgroups with

divergent attitudes, its collective power of external resistance began to dwindle.

1985: Revolution Summer

There’s a hole in the scene where the brain used to be.—Government Issue, “Hole in the Scene”

Revolution Summer was a response to the internal ruptures of the local D.C. scene. Band

members came together to create a new ethos. New bands were formed, including Rites of Spring,

Beefeater, Dag Nasty, Lunchmeat, and Embrace (comprising MacKaye and three members of Faith).

Instead of depleting energy on internal struggles over definition, authenticity, and customary

behavior, these bands encouraged each other and their fans to take an active and personally-driven

role in the D.C. area. The bands formed in 1985 put together benefit concerts, playing most of their

shows at political demonstrations or for volunteer organizations. There was a heightened emotional

intensity at many of these performances. Some authors claim that Rites of Spring, because their

shows were so affecting, spawned the “emo” genre during this time. But Revolution Summer did not

reach its promising potential. For the majority of individuals who had been involved in D.C. hardcore

4 Middleton, Jason. "D.C. Punk and the Production of Authenticity." Rock Over the Edge: Transformations in Popular Music Culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002. 335-356.

6

throughout the ‘80s, Revolution Summer marked the scene’s imminent death. Unsurprisingly,

majority ruled, making 1986 the “official” expiration date of hardcore. Hardcore’s lack of

generalizability led to its lack of public existence; there was no novel fashion to consume and no wild

attitude to commodify. The jaded lost hope in communal revitalization and opted to jump on the

nostalgia train. But the descendents of PMA continued making waves.

3. The 1990s, the Now, and the Future

Life is what you want it to beSo don't get tangled up trying to be free

And don't worry what the other people seeIt's nothing

—Fugazi, “Song #1”

Fugazi was formed in 1987 by Ian MacKaye, Joe Lally, and Brendan Canty and Guy

Picciotto, both of whom had been members of Rites of Spring. Their most recent album, The

Argument, was released in 2004, and they have since been on an indefinite hiatus. They are often

classified as “post-hardcore” or “alternative,” though these designations communicate very little

about their music. With pulsing, dub-style rhythm sections, aggressive and spasmodic guitars, and

clear, upfront, and often political, lyrics, Fugazi have an innovative, multifaceted, and sophisticated

sound. The band have maintained their DIY business practices and uncompromising anti-industry

stance, releasing all of their albums, EPs, and compilations through the Dischord label. They have

never sold merchandise and, until it was no longer feasible, they would only perform at all-ages

venues where tickets could be priced at $5 or $6. Despite selling hundreds of thousands of records,

they have scarcely participated in interviews with nationwide magazines, preferring to conserve their

localism and avoid media assimilation as much as possible, especially during the “alternative music”

craze of the ‘90s. For example, Fugazi declined an invitation to perform at Lollapalooza in 1993

because they thought the ticket prices were too high.

7

Fugazi were one of few bands that tenaciously held on to their options for autonomy in a

hostile context. Bands that took a different route, allowing themselves to be subsumed under the big

business “alternative” scheme for the purposes of popularity and profit—e.g., Nirvana, Jane’s

Addiction, Dinosaur Jr, Green Day, My Bloody Valentine, Bikini Kill, Smashing Pumpkins, Blink-

182, and Butthole Surfers—consequently renouncing the freedom of expression that exists outside of

major labels and the consumer market. Once again, apparel overshadowed ideas and unrelated bands

were forced into a synthesis.

However, in the 1990s, commercial breakthrough was not entirely voluntary; a hesitant

entrance into the realm of public consumption could catapult gullible bands into uncharted, and

sometimes unwanted, territory. Sonic Youth, The Pixies, Modest Mouse, Beck, Tortoise, and

Godspeed You! Black Emperor represent a motley of bands that, throughout the ‘90s, consciously

prolonged relatively “indie” careers (i.e., have released music through independent labels). In the last

decade, most of these bands have taken wider media outlets into consideration when and if they

present themselves.

But where is hardcore? The ephemeral nature of underground music scenes is plain to see, but

signs of continuity via transformation require excavation. The weight of “hardcore” as a meaningful

identification has diminished since 1986, but this is not because the music and driving beliefs have

disappeared. The use of “hardcore” as an umbrella term for vaguely aggressive or bitter music has

occasioned the plague of sub-genre classification, fracturing the innovative and diverse legacy of

hardcore. Post-hardcore, emo, melodic hardcore, math rock, powerviolence, thrashcore, crust punk,

grunge, sludge metal, and other sound/attitude-based hybrid categories present narrowly self-defined,

yet ambiguous demarcations that often obscure musical and social substance. Nevertheless, many

American hardcore bands of the 2000s have risen above these theoretical vagaries, shaping and

reshaping their music based on the sentiments, frustrations, and commitments motivated by present

8

personal and social circumstances.

Sick of drying up in the sun / Sick of this island, sick of fun / Sick of going sober, sick of starting over / Sick of Black Flag, sick of Cro-Mags / Sick of living, sick of people dying / Sick of the buying, sick of trying / Sick of television, sick of telephones / Sick of homophobes, sick of condos / I'm sick! / Sick of the GOP, sick of liberals. sick of me / Sick of Obama, sick of head trauma / So very tired of being sick. I'm sick! / Sick of living in America, sick of mass hysteria / Sick of realism, sick of Buddhism / Sick of long boards, sick of hardcore / Sick of Catholics, sick of atheists / Sick of police, sick of yuppies / Sick of paying rent, sick of being bent / Sick of hearing lies, sick of mankind —Ceremony, “Sick” Since 2001, the dedicated, though geographically-scattered hardcore scene has been the

bedrock for exciting and inventive bands like Ceremony, Pissed Jeans, Product of Waste, Trash Talk,

Rotting Out, Sabertooth Zombie, Punch, Fucked Up, Coke Bust, Full of Hell, Paint it Black, Code

Orange Kids, Lewd Acts, and Raindance. Independent record labels such as Bridge 9, Topshelf,

Matador, and Deathwish Inc. have functioned as supportive, non-coercive networks for these bands

as they continue to development their sounds and tour nationwide. Additionally, volunteer-run

venues such as The Democracy Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts and 924 Gilman Street in

Berkeley, California are actively committed to supporting and promoting existing and upcoming

hardcore bands, offering low and/or donation-based ticket prices and accepting audience members of

all ages.

Present-day hardcore is not localized, and this is one reason why it does not suffer from the

same kind of schisms that characterized subgroups of hardcore bands and audiences in the 1980s. By

virtue of its geographical distribution, many aspects of hardcore that were once commodified and

stereotyped (e.g., the music, aesthetics, ideologies, demographics, and subclassifications) are now

recognized as largely anachronistic—at least by those who are still actively involved in its movement

forward. Moreover, since its rechanneling into the underground, hardcore subculture has been made

relatively undefinable in mainstream terms, which has helped to facilitate its continuation as a

proactive, self-supporting, and inclusive domain for impassioned music and social productivity.

Ceremony is a current band that serves as an excellent illustration of how musical and

aesthetic adaptations within the sphere of hardcore can contribute to richness and depth, rather

9

than “inauthenticity” or destruction. Since their formation in 2005, the five Rohnert Park, CA natives

that make up Ceremony have released four studio albums and three EPs on four different labels (in

chronological order: Malfunction, Deathwish Inc., Bridge 9, and Matador). Their debut album from

2006, Violence Violence, includes 13 songs and runs for about 13 minutes. Every song is its own

brutal paroxysm of rage, but the album as a whole is sonically diverse. These are not what one may

call “typical” hardcore songs. With mutable but precise rhythmic shifts, intricate drum work,

sonorous bass lines, complex and meteoric guitars, vehement vocals, and intelligent lyrics, Violence

Violence is a hard-hitting and sinister approach to hardcore.

Unsatisfied with love and kindnessJust focused on the selfAbsolution reeks of weaknessTemporary culture makeshiftBad will go the time for themA death taking paceI've watched my generation piss themselves again — ”The Difference Between Looking and Seeing,” Ceremony, Still Nothing Moves You

Along with their 2008 album, Still, Nothing Moves You, Ceremony gained their initial

reputation as a “powerviolence” band. However, their two latest albums, Rohnert Park (Bridge

9 Records, 2010) and Zoo (Matador Records, 2012) have transmuted hardcore into a style with

greater breadth. Rohnert Park melds “classic,” fast, thunderous hardcore with songs of a newer,

complementary form: downtempo, ruminative, and resonant hardcore with pulsating rhythms,

incorporating elements of surf rock and post-punk (late-1970s U.K. bands Joy Division and Wire

come to mind). Zoo carries this latter approach even further, offering some songs that have probably

never been woven in hardcore territory. Because Zoo’s instrumentals are characterized by greater

precision and less chaos, and Ross Farrar’s melodies are slow and haunting, with accompanying

lyrics that are more coherent, some fans have ridiculed the newest Ceremony album, going so far

as to deny them any existing association with hardcore. This is a familiar sentiment, expressed by

10

audiences of all music genres. When emerging bands become identified by their distinct musical

sounds, these elements are often treated as immutable qualities. Change is not taken lightly, though it

is inevitable. Furthermore, the changes that have transpired throughout the history of hardcore have

allowed the music to continue. The adaptation that is necessary for musical evolution is a principle

that should not be disregarded in this discourse.

The State of Scholarship and Documentation on D.C. Hardcore

Common to almost all forms of subcultural analysis is the proclivity to ossify, categorize,

and define subcultural movements for the purpose of producing an authoritative encapsulation.

A potential consequence of this approach is that designations of “essence” and “authenticity”

are selectively formed based on the restrictions of time and context, frequently cited events, and

illustrious individuals. In the vast discourse on punk rock as a subculture, these definitions become

especially problematic. While a number of key writers and documentarians have applied an

equitable and well-informed anthropological stance towards the discussion of punk and hardcore

productivity—i.e., the constant flux of the music, politics, and ideologies of a discrete scene—other

writers involved in this discourse have tended to adopt a perspective of immutability when attempting

to describe punk and hardcore subcultures—a perspective that ascribes great meaning to stylistic

trends in music and fashion, to the ostensible pioneers of a generation, and to any other popular

phenomenon or object that fulfills the author’s criteria of a “true” representation of punk.

However, more significant than the judgmental, pedantic, and rigid classifications that

pervade writings on punk rock is the global contradiction entailed in this analytical approach. As

John Goshert writes:

To focus a study of punk on . . . commercially successful supergroups, to repeat [the] proclamation of punk’s demise in 1978 with the breakup of the Sex Pistols, or to point to the continuing influence of punk on youth culture, consumer culture, or the music industry since that time, is to miss what is perhaps the most crucial aspect about punk: that its tendency is a resistance to working within the usual

11

terms of commercial success and visibility.5 Goshert argues that the habit of academic studies has been to employ concepts

of “punk,” “alternative,” and “independent” as they are marketed through mass media, and then to

evaluate the validity and effectiveness of punk as a counterculture, thereby adhering to the dominant,

institutional voice—the antithesis of punk’s subversive foundations. When describing the musical,

social, economic, and political components of the Washington, D.C. hardcore punk scene, a

homogeneous, blanket definition of punk would preclude the exceptional factors that are rooted in

locational specificity and in the unique activities of associated participants. A host of writers and

documentarians have skillfully achieved an advantageous balance: they have allowed those involved

in the D.C. scene to speak for themselves and have then integrated and supplemented these chronicles

with insightful and authoritative commentary.

The crucial absence in the documentation of punk and hardcore, in D.C. and beyond, is much-

needed deliberation on the present and future developments of this complex and adaptive network

of proponents. Studies on the emergent nature of these subcultural principles and their continual

reinventions in society are virtually nonexistent. Despite the socially proactive ambitions that

continue to motivate punk music and production, writings on important forward-looking bands such

as Bad Brains and Fugazi are invariably written as nostalgic retrospectives, as if social change and

political resistance in this generation are unviable without the mobilizing force of Ian MacKaye. The

current state of scholarship and documentation in this field is impressive, but unnecessarily time-

bound—just as punk rock emerged as a resistance to 1970s saccharine pop music, hardcore flows

directly from punk, as its younger, more politically aggressive sibling. It is therefore misleading to

write about the evolution of countercultural music with an assumption of separateness, measurability,

or timescales. The following review of published work on the formation of D.C. punk and hardcore

5 Goshert, John Charles. “‘Punk’ after the Pistols: American Music, Economics and Politics in the 1980s and 1990s.” Popular Music and Society 24.1 (2000): 85-106. 85.

12

will reflect the exigency of future work in this area, which will be discussed in the conclusion of this

paper.

Two of the most significant publications on 1980s and 1990s hardcore in D.C. are Steven

Blush’s American Hardcore: A Tribal History and Mark Anderson’s and Mark Jenkins’ Dance of

Days: Two Decades of Punk in the Nation’s Capital. Both books, each around 400 pages in length,

chronicle the multifaceted growth of hardcore punk, from its embryonic stages in the mid- to late-

1970s with the Slickee Boys and the Bad Brains to its period of disintegration—an asserted point in

time that varies between the authors.6 Nevertheless, by means of subjective narrative, collected

interviews, cultural analysis, and historical records, both works provide an encyclopedic level of

knowledge that proceeds from their direct participation in the D.C. hardcore scene. Blush promoted

hardcore shows and managed tours in D.C. throughout the 1980s. In 1984, Mark Andersen co-

founded Positive Force DC, an organization that has coordinated hundreds of benefit concerts for

community and activist groups in the D.C. area.

The aggregate of documentation on the harDCore scene can be accessed through various

strands of media output. In 1988, photographer Cynthia Connolly et al. published a bountiful

compilation of photos and anecdotes from the D.C. underground, 1979-85.7 A number of books have

focused on the straight edge movement that prevailed in D.C. throughout the 1980s, which was partly

motivated by the personal beliefs of Ian MacKaye, stated in interviews and Minor Threat lyrics.8

Other historians, cultural critics, and punk enthusiasts have written on integral political components

of D.C. hardcore including: race and social prejudices, the influence of the Reagan era, autonomous

and “D.I.Y.” production, global communication, local scenes and cultural hybridity, and theories of

6 Blush writes, “By 1986 Hardcore was over . . . The scene itself committed suicide” (296). Andersen, by contrast, traces the progression of hardcore to its present condition and leave its fate open to question.7 Connolly, Cynthia, Leslie Clague and Sharon Cheslow (Eds.). Banned in DC: Photos and Anecdotes From the DC Punk Underground, 1979-85. Washington, D. C.: Sun Dog Propaganda, 1992.8 See, for example, works by Haenfler and Kuhn in bibliography.

13

authenticity and postmodernity.9 In addition to books and essays, countless interviews conducted

with band members, both in the early days of hardcore and in recent years, can be found in

independent punk zines, national magazines and journals, and online news articles.

Video documentation, taken by amateurs and professionals, has also proven to be a rich

conveyance of the energy and issues of D.C. hardcore. Paul Rachman’s documentary, American

Hardcore, is perhaps the most polished and accessible reference for a general overview of the

contents of Blush’s work. Further video documentation includes work such as Jem Cohen’s

Instrument, which features segments of live Fugazi shows and an intimate look into the practices and

principles of the band and their audience. Additionally, Mandy Stein’s highly anticipated

documentary on Bad Brains, Band in DC, was screened at the 2012 SXSW film festival and will be

released later this year. The most prolific source for archival footage, however, is YouTube, which

contains hundreds of full-length shows and interviews from nearly every performing hardcore band

in the last three decades.

In 2004, Amy Oden, a filmmaker from Washington, D.C., produced the documentary After

the Salad Days. Oden’s intention was to investigate the state of hardcore communities in D.C. and

surrounding areas at the time. For those who are interested in the present and future reinventions of

American hardcore and subcultural activity, this initially resonates as an exciting and necessary

endeavor. However, this short documentary is disappointing on multiple fronts. Oden’s film contains

interviews with twenty to thirty-five year old male musicians and supposed adherents of hardcore, the

majority of whom are either indifferent to the meaning or purpose of hardcore, elitist because of their

participation in the 1980s and 1990s D.C. scene, or boisterous because they buy kegs, proclaim their

total freedom, and get to vent their anger with their fists. This documentary demonstrates how

subcultural productivity is warped by misapprehension. Commodification of style, notions of

9 See bibliography for applicable authors.

14

authenticity being rooted in the past, and the belief that tradition is static and maintained through

imitation are essentially the guidelines for destroying subculture.

The next step that is necessary in the study of punk and hardcore scenes—in D.C., in

America, and worldwide—is to investigate the present condition of hardcore in light of how these

subcultural practices have changed and continue to change over time. In this case, glorification of

history through nostalgic remembrance is a regressive step. Nearly all literature on D.C. punk and

hardcore is curtailed by the time authors’ narratives reach the mid-90s; most of the time, writers

conclude their discussions at the end of the 1980s, as if there was a single, definitive juncture of

implosion.

In 1979, Crass declared: “Punk is dead.” In the same vein, Steven Blush deems 1986 as

the year that hardcore died. Regardless of public opinion—in fact, because of public opinion—I

would suggest these judgments of demise result from a failure to shift focus and adapt to the present

catalysts for subcultural movement. Current writers and documentarians on punk and hardcore

continue to evaluate the present based on past comparison, making generalizations about post-modern

society and the narcissistic, consumption-oriented youth of today. Instead of looking for cohesion that

no longer exists, it is necessary to explore hardcore in its current form: disseminated, diverse, and in

the midst of rearticulation. Through three investigative approaches—first, in attending independently-

run hardcore shows in D.C, Boston, New York, and Los Angeles; second, in interviewing band

members, promoters, and affiliates of these ongoing productions; and third, in exploring the musical,

political, and cultural factors that constitute the edifice of current hardcore—I plan to gather material

for a long-form article, either for publication in a relevant music magazine (e.g., The Wire, Wax

Poetics) or to submit as a hypertext for online publication in a major news forum.

15

Works Cited:

Andersen, Mark and Mark Jenkins. Dance of Days: Two Decades of Punk in the Nation's Capital. New York: Akashic Books, 2003.A comprehensive and insightful cultural report on the rise and fall of Washington, D.C.'s punk underground throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Includes detailed accounts of the development of major artists such as Bad Brains, Henry Rollins, Minor Threat, Fugazi, and Rites of Spring, as well as the infrastructure that supported the ideological evolution of hardcore production in the area -- for example, Positive Mental Attitude (PMA), Revolution Summer, straight edge, and Dischord Records. Incorporates diverse elements of historical narrative, cultural analysis, political discourse, and ethnomusicology to form a cohesive portrayal of this music scene across time and context.

Blush, Steven. American Hardcore: A Tribal History. Port Townsend, WA: Feral House, 2001. Print.Book features thorough written documentation of the American Hardcore scene, 1980 through 1986. Includes primary sources and subjective accounts of the development and eventual demise of the hardcore scene, interviews with members of prominent bands, and an examination of notable localized hardcore scenes, namely the Washington, D.C. area.

Connolly, Cynthia, Leslie Clague and Sharon Cheslow (Eds.). Banned in DC: Photos and Anecdotes From the DC Punk Underground, 1979-85. Washington, D. C.: Sun Dog Propaganda, 1992.An extensive collection of photographs taken by Connolly throughout six years of involvement in the Washington, D.C. punk scene. Includes anecdotes from interviews and dialogues with other participants between 1979-1985.

Duncombe, Stephen and Maxwell Tremblay. White Riot: Punk Rock and the Politics of Race. Brooklyn, NY: Verso, 2011. Web.Chronicles the political discourse and meaning of race as represented in punk music and culture. Extensive ethnographic analysis illustrates how socio-historical and political developments have either facilitated or inhibited the expression of ideas concerning race, and how the freedom and/or restriction of this type of expression has shaped the conditions and trajectories of punk scenes, in local and worldwide dimensions. Dunn, Kevin C. "Never Mind the Bollocks: The Punk Rock Politics of Global Communication." Review of International Studies 34 (2008): 193-210. Web.Analyzes punk rock as a global scene that provides the foundation for exploring multiple circuits of exchange, from lived experience to counter-hegemonic expression within systems of global communication. Discusses punk as a “subversive message in its own right,” and how this message is articulated globally through various channels.

Fairchild, Charles. "'Alternative' Music and the Politics of Cultural Autonomy: The Case of Fugazi and the D. C. Scene." Popular Music and Society 19.1 (1995): 17-35. Web.Uses the band Fugazi as a case study for self-defined musical, political, and social productivity within the larger context of the mainstream music industry. Provides a brief musical history of punk rock, which leads into a discussion of D.I.Y., Washington, D.C., and self-definition, paying mind to their transmutations over time. The last section of the essay is an exploration of the designation of "alternative" and its use as an umbrella term in 1990s popular culture.

Ferguson, WM. "J. Crew Goes Hardcore." New York Times, 27 April 2012. Web. <http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/j-crew-goes-hardcore/>News article announces that the original location of the legendary 9:30 Club in Washington, D.C. is being converted into a J. Crew clothing store. Goshert, John Charles. “Punk After the Pistols: American Music, Economics, and the Politics in the 1980s and 1990s.” Popular Music and Society 24.1 (2000): 85-106.An examination of "punk" as a series of subcultural movements in the 1980s and 1990s. Addresses the problems that emerge in the academic treatment of subcultural analysis, particularly with regard to the scenes deemed "punk"

16

and "alternative." For example, the author discusses cultural critics who attempt to define and ossify "authentic" punk, thereby reinforcing commodified images and ideas that directly contradict the autonomous purpose of subcultural production. The author's primary analysis concerns the shifting relationship between punk music, economics, and politics, especially in the Washington, D.C. area.

Mattson, Kevin. "Did Punk Matter?: Analyzing the Practices of a Youth Subculture During the 1980s." American Studies 42.1 (2001): 69-97. Web.Approaches the ethnography of the 1980-1989 youth subculture from the stance of a cultural critic, focusing specifically on practices of autonomous production in the D.C. and L.A. punk scenes (i.e., Do-It-Yourself, political activism and rebellion, and aesthetic style). Analyzes these practices as counteractions to the corporate powers that prevailed during the Reagan era. Subsequently elucidates how the disaffiliation necessary to the 1980s punk movement eventually led to antagonistic and exclusionary practices within the subculture itself, imposing limits to a purportedly egalitarian social group that eventually precipitated its own demise.

Middleton, Jason. "D.C. Punk and the Production of Authenticity." Rock Over the Edge: Transformations in Popular Music Culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002. 335-356. Print. A discussion of the conflicts and communications of authenticity within members of the D.C. punk scene during the 1980s and early 1990s. For example, Middleton explores the D.I.Y. subculture, Dischord records, straight edge, and other representations of agency in D.C. punk that either facilitated individual and community action or created disparities in ideals that hindered further development of the scene.

Moore, Ryan. "Postmodernism and Punk Subculture: Cultures of Authenticity and Deconstruction." The Communication Review 7 (2004): 305-327. Web.Examines punk subcultures as collective responses to the condition of postmodernity. Outlines the two principal reactions we see in reaction to this condition: the "culture of deconstruction," expressing nihilism, ironic cynicism, and purposelessness, and the "culture of authenticity," which seeks to establish an independent network of media to express artistic sincerity and independence from mainstream modes of commerce. Traces these two cultures and their representations within punk subcultures since the 1970s.

O'Conner, Alan. "Local scenes and Dangerous Crossroads: Punk and Theories of Cultural Hybridity." Popular Music 21.2 (2002): 225-236. Web.Article argues for the continued relevance of regional music scenes. Uses four examples of cities (D.C., Austin, Toronto, and Mexico City) that have and continue to illustrate the social organization of cultural hybridity of punk scenes, youth subculture, and resistance to globalization. Wallace, Amy and Richard Manitoba. The Official Punk Rock Book of Lists. Milwaukee, WI: Backbeat Books, 2007. Web.A diverse collection of over 200 lists relating to punk music, history, style, and associated categories. Topics of lists range from "10 Who Were Punk Before There Was Punk" to "26 Queercore Bands with Cool Names" to "Debbie Harry's List of "People I'd Like to Fuck.""

Discography:

Bad Brains. Bad Brains. ROIR, 1982. CD Black Market Baby. Coulda Shoulda Woulda. Dr. Strange, 2006. CD. Ceremony. Violence Violence. Deathwish Inc./Malfunction Records, 2006. CD.

17

Ceremony. Still, Nothing Moves You. Bridge 9 Records, 2008. CD.

Ceremony. Rohnert Park. Bridge 9 Records, 2010. CD. Ceremony. Zoo. Matador Records, 2012. CD.

Embrace. self-titled LP. Dischord Records, 1987. CD. Faith/Void. Void/Faith Split LP. Dischord Records, 1982. CD.

Fugazi. Repeater. Dischord Records, 1990. CD.

Government Issue. Legless Bull EP. Dischord Records, 1981.

Minor Threat. Complete Discography. Dischord Records, 1989.

Teen Idles, Minor Disturbance EP. Dischord Records, 1980.

Various Artists. 20 Years of Dischord. Dischord Records, 2002. CD.

Various Artists. Flex Your Head. Dischord Records, 1982. CD.

Videography:

After the Salad Days. Dir. Amy Oden. Web. 2004.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHxo29-DMHo American Hardcore. Dir. Paul Rachman. DVD. Sony Pictures, 2006.

Instrument. Dirs. Jem Cohen and Fugazi. Videocassette. Dischord Records, 1999.

Further Reading:

Azerrad, Michael. This Band Could Be Your Life: Scenes from the American Indie Underground, 1981-1991. New York, NY: Little Brown, 2001.Provides histories of some of America's pioneering independent bands of the 1980s and the contexts of their musical production, including Black Flag, Sonic Youth, Minor Threat, Fugazi, Dinosaur Jr, Mudhoney, and Minutemen.

Breihan, Tom. "No Age's Spunt Reissues D.C. Punks Chalk Circle." Pitchfork Media, 11 February 2011. <http://pitchfork.com/news/41549-no-ages-spunt-reissues-dc-punks-chalk-circle/>

Cella, Catherine. "Keith Morris Explains How To 'Un-Define' Punk." Billboard 112.44 (2000): 83. Web.

Haenfler, Ross. Straight Edge: Clean-Living Youth, Hardcore Punk, and Social Change. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2006. Internet Resource.

Kuhn, Gabriel. Sober Living for the Revolution: Hardcore Punk, Straight Edge, and Radical Politics. Oakland, CA: PM Press, 2010. Internet Resource.

18

Mark Prindle. "Guy Picciotto Interview." Prindle Rock And Roll Record Review Site. 2003. Web. <http://www.markprindle.com/picciotto-i.htm>

Moran, Ian P. "Punk: The Do-It-Yourself Subculture." Social Sciences Journal 10.1 (2010): 58-65. Web.

Phillipov, Michelle. "Haunted by the Spirit of '77: Punk Studies and the Persistence of Politics." Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 20.3 (2006): 383-393. Web.

Sanneh, Kelefa. "How Hard Was Their Core? Looking Back at Anger." New York Times, September 2006.

Shana Tino Lipton. "Rekindling the Punk Flame." Web.<http://www.shanatinglipton.com/punk1.html> Sinker, Daniel. "Ian Mackaye." We Owe You Nothing: Punk Planet: The Collected Interviews. New York: Akashic Books, 2007. 3-19. Internet Resource.

Traber, Daniel S. "L. A.'s "White Minority": Punk and the Contradictions of Self-Marginalization." Cultural Critique 48 (2001): 30-64. Web.

Tsitsos, William. "Rules of Rebellion: Slamdancing, Moshing, and the American Alternative Scene." Popular Music 18.3 (1999): 397-414.

Tucker, Brian L. Punk and the Political: The Role of Practices in Subcultural Lives. MA dissertation, The College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University, 2008. Web.

Vannini, Phillip J. and Patrick Williams. "The Ideology and Practice of Authenticity in Punk Subculture." Authenticity in Culture, Self, and Society. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2009. 65-86. Web.

19