American Hardcore

American Hardcore is a new documentary about American Hardcore Punk from 1979-86. So, no Ramones, no Youth of Today, no Dillinger Escape Plan. This is undoubtedly the strength of the film, where almost every book (This Band Could Be Your Life, Dance of Days) or movie about the subject has previously ended up wondering what happened after (and getting it wrong). By not asking Henry Rollins where punk is today, the movie avoids expressing the embarrassing and misinformed post-history which it undoubtedly believes in.

The main problem with the movie is its organization: having bitten off more than could be chewed, you never really get an idea of what any of these bands sounded like (unless you knew already), and while the film changes subject both on topical and geographical/temporal lines (which is smart), but then has NO breaks, which is like reading a novel without paragraphs. The topics, by the way, are: violent dancing, straight edge, police violence, women, DIY, and the end of hardcore. The problem is that, except for Henry Rollins and HR and Ian McKaye, there is a dearth of legitimately charismatic people in the film: the anti-charisma of Harley Flanagan and Vic Bondi are perhaps just as interesting, but then there are a couple dozen uninteresting, washed up weirdos who, despite having 20 years to think about these events, don't have much to say: Brian Baker...Greg Ginn...Dave Dictor...John Bloodclot. As a diehard fan, I still enjoyed hearing them, but cinematically they are dead weight. And because there are no "chapter" breaks, the film begins to seem like one long, unnarratable ramble.

The best aspects of the movie are the footage of Bad Brains, SSD, and the Adolescents, and just seeing what bands like Poison Idea, YDI, Necros, Negative FX, and Flipper looked like playing. The absence of HUGE bands like Husker Du, Misfits and Dead Kennedys from the film is obviously skewing in some way (also missing but less essential: Suicidal Tendencies and Bad Religion), but putting those bands in the movie would probably have crowded out footage of lesser-known bands, so whatever. Still, the film's focus is for the most part what mine would have been: it REALLY IS about American Hardcore, and not about Raybeez or crossover, or SST's indie bands, or how hardcore "grew up" INTO anything. Saying punk or hardcore is "dead" is clearly just a way of owning that memory, so whatever, but the film hedges its bets on that account by staying within the frame of America and 1979-86.

But actually, omissions aside, and a few clunkers (Jack from TSOL, Flea, Duff McKagan, a "hardcore artist" from NYC), the interviewed subjects were the important ones. The movie is funny, and for what it's worth, you'll never see YDI or Poison Idea on a big screen again. My overall review though, is that American Hardcore is best thought of as an advertisement for the new Bad Brains DVD.

little miss sunshine

So I finally got around to seeing this movie that everyone told me I would like, that it was enjoyable and cute, etc. The best review of it that I read compared it to Harold and Maude, which is way off in terms of quality, but pretty accurate in terms of tone: not quite a black comedy, sometimes not a comedy at all, embarrassingly life-affirming, episodic, has great acting. On the other hand, it was fairly predictable, from plot points (will the brother who is not speaking until he gets into the flight academy shockingly speak at some point?!-- will someone abusing heroin possibly die?) to the straw-men topics of motivational speakers, highway patrol cops, and beauty pageants. On the other hand, Steve Carrell is incredible, and the funniest part is this (I cite from another review): He makes the name "Nietzsche" (which he pronounces crisply as "Neet-chah") inexplicably hilarious. There's no way to imagine that, of course, but his whole performance is otherworldly-- and maybe that's the best thing I can say about the film. The desperately peppy and misguided dad, the stressed-out mom, the crude grand father, the stoic brother, the quirky and oblivious sister: they all seem like they came from the same writer's imagination. They fit in suspiciously well as dramatic foils to each other, although this produces surprisingly little comedy. But then Steve Carrell operates as a kind of "reality effect" in this movie (to wildly abuse that term), because structurally, tonally, in every way, he does not fit in to the more conventionally demented proceedings of the family-film that otherwise kind of stutters along.

why "i'm trying to get into that" is the most beautiful phrase in the english language

the reasons may not be what you think!!

How charming and embarrassing is being "open minded"? Is there any other term that is so necessary for our existence as human beings in society and culture that is simultaneously full of cheesy connotations?

That is on a general level. Specifically, is there anything more embarrassing than buying a Bob Marley album?

In one way, I think that being "open minded" (like so many other things in this blog) needs to be kept in quotation marks, because it really is a morally questionable value. I am not a fan (lightly put) of cultural relativism, of the pretense of tolerance, of an undifferentiated taste, etc.

On the other hand, we need to get into new things. We need to find out that certain things are not worth getting into. We need to abandon some things as we get older, and realize what is still cool about the things that will always matter.

I'd like to emphasize "trying" to get into something. Maybe it won't work. It's not even "I want to get into that" or "that's something I want to learn more about." It's already an experiment in taste as an effort, as something acquired.

Now, lest all this sound obvious--which is always the criticism I got from Jeanette-- let me say there is a certain value in these blanket statements which I don't think are *quite* platitudes. I think a platitude is like, "We need to learn to understand each other," or "you never know what is really important until you've lost it." Even worse, and very typical, are mere cliches to which can be produced an equally accurate truth--as is inevitably the case with the proverbial ("two heads are better than one" vs "too many cooks in the kitchen..."). What I think Jeanette was failing to understand, and that it requires a frank unembarrassment to overcome, is the value of a number of very basic propositions, just as a good amount of the supposedly Canonical goes ignored because it is shameful. Now, in this blog at least, I pose as a fairly UNembarrassed person, but I have to resist the tendency to be aloof and superior as regards statements or tastes that, while requiring some deconstruction and qualification, are necessary. Hence, open-mindedness. Open-mindedness to the idea of being open minded.

Now, place all this in the context of what you know about me and those prejudices of mine which I am *not* open to reconsidering, and you will get a fair idea of what I mean here. For example, I think post-Wes Anderson/indie-rock/hipster-lite/20-something/Pitchfork culture offers a great deal to INDUCE VOMITING, ditto the bourgeois and the midwest and LA, and I think that open-mindedness as a variation on pretension is so rampant as to obscure the good faith I am proposing.

I don't like "hard" music

On the radio show which Talya and I did this past summer, I made the mistake of playing the Jesus and Mary Chain single "Sidewalking". Don't try to remember how that song goes, because the important thing is (if I recall) the unnecessary "hard" and "edgy" bass-line, the drum machine, and abrasive (in a bad way) production. Maybe if I listened to it today, it wouldn't strike me at all, but in my expectations of the Jesus and Mary Chain, I was totally unprepared for such an unpleasant and digital experience.

So, over the air, I went on a rant about how I don't like "hard" music, eliciting a giggling response from my mother that "that's what we thought you DID like." But I think having said this, it does require some explanation.

How is "hard" different (and worse) than concepts like "heavy", "aggressive", "brutal", etc., all things that I think can be used postitively?

I think that each of these terms also has a shadow-life, normally in popular music, where its virtues are appropriated, and its identity (negatively) demonstrated. So, real heavy music would be the palm-muted bridge to Judas Priest "beyond the realms of death", and faux heavy music would be the nonsense gurgling riffs of a band like Korn.

Real aggressive music would be the insanely dangerous early Poison Idea, who sound like, if they weren't holding their instruments, would probably leap off the stage and beat you down. Faux aggressive music is the recycled gangster aesthetic of latter-day rap, where there is nothing convincing about the soap opera-esque aggression of the lyrics.

"Brutal" music would be like Fear of God, Think I Care, No Comment, absolutely feral. Faux brutal music is best heard in the senseless high-pitched clicking of the double-bass-drum in modern metal, meant to approximate some unrelenting attack but just sounding detached and having no effect but to clutter the mix.

There is however, no positive side to "hard" music. Hard is inherently a pose, inherently faux. Hard is a production trick, a lyrical pretension, a sleight of hand. Techno's insistence at adding pronounced beats to all music is "hard". Ditto, rap. Metal-core's stance is "hard". It is simply an image, or a knob being turned, or an after-thought. "Hard" is everything that is added between the practice space and the album.

"Hard" is World Burns to Death and post-1988 Metallica. "Hard" is Justin Timberlake and Madball.

suggestions for further listening:
heavy: Candlemass, Celtic Frost, Judas Priest, Joy Division, Assuck, Bastard, Cro Mags, Neil Young
aggressive: Koro, Antidote, Morbid Angel, Sacramentary Abolishment, Earth AD
brutal: Suffocation, Neanderthal, Dark Angel, Das Oath, Blitz "Razors in the Night"
* * * * *
I should also say that while writing this, I was distracted for about 10 minutes by the strangely compelling allmusic.com Recap of the "Rock Star" tv series

grad school- first thoughts

- i don't really have time to listen to music that isn't immediately obvious (Neil Young, Chantal Goya)
- i avoided how "political" Columbia was the first time around, now I see the graduate program is much more so
- i have no time to myself really
- i don't have time to see anyone i know, but there is a lot of talking-with-strangers at parties and in class and generally "around," and I can't tell yet if they will end up being my friends or remain as people i am somewhat indifferent towards
- a LOT of theory in my schedule this year, very little "literature": oops.
- i am in a bad mood all the time
- i like all the people i'm working with, very glad i'm in nyc, otherwise i'd probably be going crazy

three-point turn

About a dozen times in the past week, I've found myself making arguments where either I say something, and then take it back, or I catch someone else doing this, or else I assert something and then there is a "but", but then that is followed by a "still...".

* Austin is supposed to be really cool, and most people would add "for a small city in Texas," but then Austinites want to un-say the middle part and return to being unqualifiedly awesome. Ain't so!

* By conventional wisdom (CW), Bob Dylan is the hugest innovator on the 1960s after the Beatles, and the Velvet Underground are a Warhol-run cult band. The CW "in the know" would, however, use the Velvets' own terms to play up their legacy and experimentation, making them the UR-band for a whole paradigm in rock. But ultimately, don't we feel that Dylan is ultimately LESS conventional, less predicated, more at home in traditions where the Velvets come across stale, and infinitely more subtle? And, if Dylan can be just as inane as the Velvets, his better lyrical moments are far better. It's tricky, but I think, returning to the CW from considering the middle term, Dylan (still) comes out on top.

* My friend was trying to explain why she was going to take a lame class, and the reasoning all sounded solid and professional and everything. But still, I said, you'd be in a lame class.

I guess my point here is to refute the thesis-antithesis-synthesis model, where some third term is produced. It is more like thesis-antithesis-thesis', where thesis' is a particularly insisten form of what you were going-to-do anyways.

the history of punk

While knowing the history of punk is vital, knowing how history works on punk is equally important. It is not the same as for other types of music.

metal develops:
heavy psychedelic rock-->1st wave BHM--> NWOBHM-->thrash metal-->death/black/doom metal
Reggae develops:
ska-->reggae-->dancehall/ragga
Jazz:
dixieland-->big bands/swing-->bebop-->free jazz and/or fusion
Rock:
rhythm and blue-->rockabilly-->Elvis-->The Beatles (early)-->The Beatles (late)

Now, please not the admittedly retarded nature of these statements. For one, dialectically speaking, things don't move in straight lines like this, but require digressions, crises, etc. So, to move from one point to another, there is an infinitely complex, ramifying set of influences and more or less successful alternatives-- paths taken for a while, and abandoned, or continued upon until perhaps separating completely.

Caveats aside, though, I think these are both useful and true. Jazz to this day is STILL very much "post-Davis/Coltrane" to the extent that anyone even cares about nowadays jazz-- Wynton Marsalis being proof that people only care about nowadays jazz to the extent that it is concerned with the canon. Rock has barely moved beyond the Beatles, with the exceptions of punk, no wave, kraut rock, etc. As far as I know, Reggae in its most well-known (1970s) form is no longer popularly produced, and is given over to electronics and ragga. But mostly, the point is not to worry about whether any of this is technically the case, but that very generally, these musics have either left their development behind and moved into new phases, or gotten stuck.

The enduring popularity of the Beatles/Rolling Stones/ Bob Dylan/ Woodstock can surely be traced to it being one of the last moments that rock really was concerned with innovation within a pop context. If the Beatles were innovators, it was as the most popular band in the world. Psychedelia and funk are important developments, and also extremely popular. Sure, there are cult bands from this era, and dialectical divergences, but please keep in mind I am trying to make a point, and not writing a history of the 1960s here.

So, after the Beatles, so the story goes, rock music addresses itself less to a unified audience, and in the terms of its greatest success, has not moved on. See here for a retarded but self-consistent view of the history of rock music from the viewpoint of the 1960s.

Please notice that the above reviewer is INCAPABLE of making sense of Pink Floyd. Arguably the definitive group of the 1970s, from the viewpoint of a Beatles Fan, they potentially make no sense over their career. Moreover, here the Velvet Underground become an interesting sidenote and Black Sabbath are a kind of Led Zeppelin, Jr. Point being, the history of Rock music at this moment is kind of like Thucidydes' History of the Peloponnesian War: since we don't know how it ends, our judgments rarely make sense and usually establish a teleogy that slights some true complexity.

Which brings me to my point: punk doesn't work like this. (And, to create some discussion, I don't think, in 2006, in NYC or among heads in the know, much does--- everything is "back" and everything is new, all at once: girl group revival, early 80s rap, neo-no-wave, etc. But these things are hardly as important as punk, which is going on 30 years. ) There have been attempts, certainly, to make punk work like jazz, and just be a concept or epistemology, instead of a defined style/genre, which have led to many rewarding developments, (most of which I am a late-comer to), but I think the innate charm of punk *as* a style have persisted in keeping punk from going the way of jazz samba or some of the short-lived off-shoots of rock. Perhaps because punk is already post-modern and non-teleological, its importance far outweighing the stature of all but a few of its artists (this being the opposite of hard rock, for instance, where the stature of the most well-known artists accounts for 99% of the genre's presence). Punk is paradoxically a "reaction" (against double-live glam "excess") and a wild new paradigm, definitively "excessive".

Anyways, punk is incredible in that Disclose and His Hero is Gone could share a stage-- one band definitively exploring already-trod territory, and the other being relatively on their own. And this happens *without* feeling that one band is further along in a movement than the other, as would happen if you put a New Wave of British Heavy Metal band alongside a death metal band. Well, now I'm going to go listen to Black Oak Arkansas and think about whether any of this is remotely true.