Someone just commented on the trailer the other day saying, "I'd like to beat the shit out of the asshole making this documentary.."
All I can say is... let out your aggression in the pit man.
I can't believe this is so controversial... I think I am going to talk more about this hostility towards or against hardcore dancing in the film.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Ok.
It is not that your video is controversial, it is more that a good number of people feel as if it is a misrepresentation of the hardcore world.
The concept of "hardcore dancing" is just a myspace caricature of that it truly is. along with the kids with the odd angular haircurts and fashionable clothes.
Call it what you want, but that is not hardcore.
I will explain it like this, how could the same genre of music back in the 1980's (metal), spawn a band like Posion, and then a band like Slayer?, now fast forward to present, How can a band like Blood for Blood possibly be from the same genre as one of this hair lord bands, that has people dancing in their little personal bubbles, who get pissed when someone invades their personal space and ruins their "sick hardcore dance style"
again, its cool you are doing something, alot of people that are dissing you probably arent, but you are promoting the hair metal version of hardcore.
dude,
the people your interviewing, and you yourself is 150% of what's wrong with the music scene today. Take your fucking bullshit 14 yr old kids wearing prada shirts and stick to your shitty scene bands. You wonder why you get hit....you stand along the sides, dressed like shit and then talk shit and start problems when you get hit....MOVE OR DON'T GO TO SHOWS....it's not hard, you guys are fucking rediculous.
The above posters seem to have presented my point, but I'll put it to you anyways - maybe the hostility you are receiving stems not from the concept of hardcore dancing and the scene you are interviewing within, but more the fact that this scene is constantly thought of as hardcore.
It is true that many bands along the lines of the Devil Wears Prada and Bring Me the Horizon have hardcore influence, but most who know about the subject would say that it stops there - at influence. The true, purist hardcore scene of the 1980's, with Black Flag, Minor Threat and so on has not died as such. Instead, it has morphed into many new incarnations, all just as legitimately called hardcore, such as the Boston hardcore of Have Heart and Bane, or the NYHC of Madball and Sick of It All. The bands in the scene you are documenting definitely took influence from post-hardcore such as Rites of Spring, Embrace or Fugazi, and combined it with heavy, radio-friendly metal.
People always put many titles on things, and they are mostly arbitrary, but perhaps these bands should be called metalcore. Or even melodic metalcore or post-metalcore (haha just kidding) to differentiate them from the first wave of metalcore (metallic hardcore?) with bands like converge, Ringworm and Integrity. Maybe.
Anyways, if you wish to obtain journalistic integrity in your investigation, perhaps you should interview people from a large cross section of the hardcore subculture. Explore different sub-genres and spread your coverage evenly. This would stop the amount of offense you cause to people you cause by referring to your interviewee's whatevercore as hardcore. Because as trivial as simple genre classification may seem, it is important to a lot of people. That is because the music itself is important to many people, at a very deep level - arguably much deeper is the appreciation for the underground scene than the passing teenage fancy that your subjects may have for their genre and its passing embrace with the mainstream.
Hey man, I made a a new post that directly addresses this. I appreciate the comments and in most ways I agree with what you are saying.
Post a Comment