With you there, Chapter Two. I think the rejection of majors and the embracing of the DIY ethos is what really does it for me aside from the music, though it should be said that this wasn't something exclusive to the US. Now USHC Vs. UK Anarchopunk... that'd be tougher

I guess part of what I'm saying is that the "DIY Ethos" was preceded by bands other than what you consider American Hardcore.

zom-zom wrote:I guess part of what I'm saying is that the "DIY Ethos" was preceded by bands other than what you consider American Hardcore.

oh sure, but its safe to say that they popularised it at least for a generation, dont you think?

I suppose so, but unfortunately there are still thousands of "Hardcore" bands that to my jaded ears all pretty much follow a similar formula whether they're from Finland or Edina, MN. Black 'n White scraggly graphics, samey-sounding names, cloth patches with logos, flyers with bombs and whichever president is in office, etc. etc.

But that’s the same with pretty much any 'genre' music- the vast majority is derivative and self-perpetuating.

zom-zom wrote:American Hardcore with its early narrow set of criteria was the death of Punk Rock. I'll go with the entertainment of British Punk Rock.

Is that a hundred-dollar bill stuck to the ass of zom-zom's pants? Because that's how totally fucking ON THE MONEY zom-zom has been throughout this discussion.

edit: If the question had been 70s British punk vs. 70s American punk (as in Ohio and New York), it would've been a lot harder.

credibility edit: I was 14 years old in 1977.

A lot depends on how much you are willing to stretch your definition of punk.
If you accept a more liberal definition, then I'd say it's 70's British punk by a mile - it produced the earliest super-creative bands: Wire, Stranglers, Joy Division, Magazine, Gang of Four, etc.

Of course, none of these are "traditional" Brit punk bands, so if you want to stick to the "trad" definition, then it's a lot harder for me to answer this one.

Mazec wrote:Wire, Stranglers, Joy Division, Magazine, Gang of Four

I'd say all of those were "post-punk," and I don't think of Gang of Four as "punk" at all. To me "70s Brit punk" means the Sex Pistols, the Damned, the Clash, X-Ray Spex, the Slits, the Buzzcocks, the Adverts, Jilted John, etc etc etc.

I was there - for the USA HC scene in the early 80s. there was a great upwelling of DIY spirit in the beginning, and record labels formed, etc. Everybody seemed to be in a band or two. People were renting out VFW halls and putting on all ages shows.

But: half of the bands (maybe more than half) kind of sucked, and there was quickly a "generic thrash band" element to the whole scene. I was in Boston, so I only knew the locals, plus whatever touring bands came through. But there were a lot of bands whose hearts were in the right place, but who, at the end of the day, did not deliver the quality musical experience.

There were also bands that had 1 or 2 good songs and milked the hell out of the small amount of good will they generated.

Of course, I think the same is true of any music scene. It certainly was the same deal 8 years later in Boston, when I re-engaged.

On the other hand, the 70s Brit Punk scene happened years and miles away. All I know about it is the remaining documentation - books, records, videos. I think by neccessity or happenstance the stuff that found its way onto the documentation is overall higher quality than what I remember of the Boston HC scene. So this is an apples to oranges comparision, but the Brits win.

If I look at the US 80-83 HC scene and the surviving documents, and compare that to the 70s Brit punk, i guess if you take the best HC bands from DC, Boston, New York, Detroit, Ohio, Texas, California, Seattle, then yeah, the USA wins.

ctrl-s wrote:

Mazec wrote:Wire, Stranglers, Joy Division, Magazine, Gang of Four

I'd say all of those were "post-punk," and I don't think of Gang of Four as "punk" at all. To me "70s Brit punk" means the Sex Pistols, the Damned, the Clash, X-Ray Spex, the Slits, the Buzzcocks, the Adverts, Jilted John, etc etc etc.

You're quite correct- that's why I added the "it depends on what you mean by punk" clause right up front. The Gang of Four and most of the other ones I cited were not punk in the classic sense of the word, but all of them did get going in the seventies, and all of them were active in the punk scene, despite not actually being punk in the purest sense of the term.