Quote:
Originally Posted by joy_circumcision
Why did punk die with the hardcore movement? You explicitly acknowledge deathcore, post-hardcore (I would add emo/screamo and others would throw some on, too, I'm sure) so why do these evolutions count less than hardcore? Your subjective taste? That's cool. Then maybe the punk sound that you enjoy is dead. I can see that. The revivals are sorta based around post-punk and sorta silly in general, so that's fair.
But punk is dead discussions are just like rock is dead discussions - yeah, we're not gonna get a bunch of hippies smoking dope and playing sitars on a national or global scale again anytime soon, but that's because the music has evolved with the times.
And why is respect for the old acts the qualifier for good punk? I mean, yeah, for me, a qualifier for good punk is not being a homophobe, so that "gay" used as slur comment is displeasing, but I thought punk has always been about kicking the asses of the old vanguard and making your own. I might not like the sound of the new guys either, but to say that the screamo movement to name just one is not a strong countercultural movement based in the basic ideals (if no
t the sound) of punk rock is just false in my eyes.
|
You're putting quite a bit of words in my mouth don't you think? I never said having respect for old acts was a qualifier for good punk. What I was saying was, is that these kids have no respect for PUNK even though they wouldn't have their ****ty subgenres which are NOT PUNK without it. It's like people who dig Lil Wayne and Drake but think Run DMC are corny because they're old. Also, yeah punk EVOLVED into hardcore and the infinite subgenres that's my point. Whenever a single cellular organism evolves into a multicellular organism, it DOES become less of a single cellular organism because it's not a single cellular organism anymore. That's just common sense.
So your argument doesn't really hold any water bro. As a matter of fact you kind of just stated the same thing I did.