old hardcore v. new hardcore?
 

i'm getting really tired of people saying that recent iterations of "hardcore" music are vastly inferior to "old hardcore", bands like bad brains, minor threat, etc etc.

the first question i'd like to pose is this; what are the staples of "old hardcore", and what makes them so fantastic, according to some, aside from their age?

second; are bands such as daniel striped tiger, l'antietam, capsule, storm the bastille, my america is watching tigers die etc etc, held as so insignificant that they are lumped in with other current era bands who claim to be hardcore?

in essence, i just don't understand the dismissal of the new generation of hardcore bands in favor for older bands of the genre.

I definitely own a lot more old hardcore, but I like both. I think older hardcore tends to have more straight-ahead punk energy to it that I really like, but newer hardcore tends to have more of a complex and experimental edge, which is cool too.

Black flag rulz!!!!11

Im gunna have to agree with this.

it's probably more of a scene thing. there's a bunch of 80s style youth crew kids in a scene who grew up around youth crew hardcore or whatever. that's what they grew up with, that's what they end up putting out. the same way, there's a bunch of emo nerds who grew up on dischord records and fugazi and ended up doing bands that would sound like they're on gravity or ebullition and it all goes downhill from there. either way, all styles of music are rooted in something concretely established in years gone by. some punks stayed with minor threat and ssd whilst some stayed with grey matter or soulside. eventually, these kids' bands influence others; newer, younger generations of punk kids and musicians who are willing to pick up where they left off. now you got all that stuff like have heart and carry on as opposed to i dunno, the plot to blow up the eiffel tower or bands like quebec. all these different subsets of hardcore are merely offshoots of a single branch of music and its companion ethic. if music were europe, then these newer more angular types of hardcore and the more conventional styles from back in the day are different clans/tribes are of equal gravity as part of the same bloodline differing only in the language they speak and develop. these languages are the languages of traditional punk rock opposed to that new fangled screamo/post-hardcore stuff. that's just me talking out of my ass though.

^that. Personally I prefer newer hardcore. There's only so much angry three-chord thrash punk rock you can take. I totally dig the Bad Brains though.

you have to love older hardcore bands who do have the faster punk sound to them. newer hardcore has a little less punk to them...but there are still great hardcore bands today. you just have to keep your ears open

I personally haven't dismissed new Hardcore but I haven't heard a huge bunch to be fair. When asked about hardcore bands then I will say bands such as Agnostic Front, D.R.I, Crumbsuckers etc because that's what I grew up with and when you get to my age, you will probably be saying your favourite hardcore music was from your youth.

I personally don't give two shits whether music is old or new, 'scene' or not. I just listen and if I like it then I like it. Bands such as Appalachian Terror Unit and slightly older stuff like Aus Rotten still get my blood pumping.

I have to say the whole getting my blood pumping thing is kind of a grievance I have with newer hardcore, in that it doesn't generally do the job for me. The emphasis on being more complex gives it a lot less energy than the older, more streamlined variety IMHO.

OK it's grind but Agoraphobic Nosebleed are getting me going at the moment!