WASSUPWITHTHIS??

[KYLESTYLE]

despite garfunkel's name being spelled wrong, this one is better.

[grind/bro]

[Hollow]

I think that the difference here is that they're both highly recognizable bands. Unbroken did a shirt that prominently featured Morrissey. These bands/artists will still be able to retain their identity. Hardcore can't do that.

[grind/bro]

I think that the difference here is that they're both highly recognizable bands. Unbroken did a shirt that prominently featured Morrissey. These bands/artists will still be able to retain their identity. Hardcore can't do that.

That's just a matter of opinion. Hardcore can and has retained it's identity. Especially with one of the biggest bands in it's genre, Black Flag. I would even go as far as to say Black Flag went outside of hardcore and is really just as identifiable as Run DMC.
I would understand you saying this if it was a smaller band on a shirt, like say Modern Life Is War. But that's completely different.

[Andrew]

Black Flag went outside of hardcore and is really just as identifiable as Run DMC.

Black Flag never did a song with Aerosmith.

[grind/bro]

haha i didn't mean same level and experience, but same cultural signposts for their significant genre.

[Hollow]

I think that the difference here is that they're both highly recognizable bands. Unbroken did a shirt that prominently featured Morrissey. These bands/artists will still be able to retain their identity. Hardcore can't do that.

That's just a matter of opinion. Hardcore can and has retained it's identity. Especially with one of the biggest bands in it's genre, Black Flag. I would even go as far as to say Black Flag went outside of hardcore and is really just as identifiable as Run DMC.
I would understand you saying this if it was a smaller band on a shirt, like say Modern Life Is War. But that's completely different.

This is a fair argument. I mean, I disagree with you, but I see where your coming from.

I don't think that Black Flag have anywhere NEAR as much recognition as Run DMC or any of the other bands stated. I think that in this general area of the world there are quite a few people who know of Black Flag, but I think that this is the exception not the rule. I grew up in a small town in Ohio. I didn't know who Black Flag were until I was 19, and only then because I actively got involved with hardcore.

And no, I'm sorry. Hardcore has been in a fight for it's identity for about ten years now. I think we're winning, but it's slow and requires a lot of perseverance on our end. Do you know how many times I say I listen to hardcore, only to have people think I'm talking about Attack! Attack!, or Winds of Plague, or Suicide Silence? Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with these bands existing (lets be honest, it's how the next wave of hardcore kids are going to get into the music), but they're not hardcore and shouldn't be described as such. I've seen a steady erosion of our community that has only in the past four or five years stopped and begun reversing. This is kinda like Jews for Jesus, albeit far far less horrifying. In the same way that those pricks co-opt Jewish culture for their own profit (that is, elderly converts to Christianity and all those sweet, sweet tithes) so does the mainstream music industry co-opt our culture in order to reap a greater profit under the a facade of credibility.

This is a double standard, though. Of that, your right. As was pointed out earlier, hardcore bands regularly co-opt imagery associated with major label bands (Run DMC, Sonic Youth, Morrisey, etc.). I am absolutely arguing in favour of this double standard. Why? Because as ethically unfair as it may be, we're going up against people with money, lawyers, massive PR machines, publicists, stylists, television stations, and whole wings of corporate executives to go to bat for them. We need to have something to balance it out.

[ZACH ATTACK]

Double standards rule when they work out in our favour!

[ZACH ATTACK]

Punk band logos exist because all bands have logos. Some become more iconic than others, but to fetisize them to the point of being untouchable by anybody who isn't in our clique is kind of silly and elitist.

like andrew joked:

It surprises me how many hc kids get the Tegan and Sara bars tattooed on them.

zach, the black flag logo IS fetishized (how many people have that logo tattooed? and how many bands have stolen it for a shirt?) and if you want to get into a debate about logos, we can because they definitely stand for more than "all bands have to have them", i just think that might take a lot longer...

.
A band logo being fetishized doesn't make it any less silly to do so. At the end of the day, it's just a drawing and it could have been any drawing. That doesn't change who Black Flag were and what they stood for or how they sounded which is what should be important. It's all well and go to have a symbol that's recognizable as being associated with a certain band, but when the imagery takes on a life of it's own separate from them music then that's super lame.

And to be completely fair, that artist who originally drew the black flag bars came to really like how the band used them, so take that for what it's worth.

[grind/bro]

To paraphrase Mos Def:
"If we are doing alright, hardcore is gonna be doing alright
People talk about hardcore like it's some giant livin in the hillside
comin down to visit the townspeople
We (are) hardcore
Me, you, everybody, we are hardcore"

[grind/bro]

In the same way that those pricks co-opt tristan hongian culture for their own profit

hahahah holy shit that is possibly the only good word filter...

[Hollow]

To paraphrase Mos Def:
"If we are doing alright, hardcore is gonna be doing alright
People talk about hardcore like it's some giant livin in the hillside
comin down to visit the townspeople
We (are) hardcore
Me, you, everybody, we are hardcore"

I agree with this to a point, but what I said earlier stands. We must continue to fight to keep our culture both alive, and in our control. It can and should evolve and change, but we should be the ones who dictate how and why that happens.

[Hollow]

In the same way that those pricks co-opt tristan hongian culture for their own profit

hahahah holy shit that is possibly the only good word filter...

OH HOLY FUCK THAT MUST STAY.

[KYLESTYLE]

Punk band logos exist because all bands have logos. Some become more iconic than others, but to fetisize them to the point of being untouchable by anybody who isn't in our clique is kind of silly and elitist.

like andrew joked:

It surprises me how many hc kids get the Tegan and Sara bars tattooed on them.

zach, the black flag logo IS fetishized (how many people have that logo tattooed? and how many bands have stolen it for a shirt?) and if you want to get into a debate about logos, we can because they definitely stand for more than "all bands have to have them", i just think that might take a lot longer...

.
A band logo being fetishized doesn't make it any less silly to do so. At the end of the day, it's just a drawing and it could have been any drawing. That doesn't change who Black Flag were and what they stood for or how they sounded which is what should be important. It's all well and go to have a symbol that's recognizable as being associated with a certain band, but when the imagery takes on a life of it's own separate from them music then that's super lame.

And to be completely fair, that artist who originally drew the black flag bars came to really like how the band used them, so take that for what it's worth.

I agree that because it is fetishized, it doesn't mean it's right, but i also don't think it's wrong. Logos stand for much more than 'any drawing' and i respect design for that.

when did the imagery take on a life of it's own? that part confuses me...

also, if an artist creates something, then decides it has been used in an improper way by a group, company, etc. that doesn't discredit it as a brilliant work.

[ian]

hahahhahahah tristan hongian!!!!!!! thats amazing.

[KYLESTYLE]

hahahhahahah tristan hongian!!!!!!! thats amazing.

[ZACH ATTACK]

Punk band logos exist because all bands have logos. Some become more iconic than others, but to fetisize them to the point of being untouchable by anybody who isn't in our clique is kind of silly and elitist.

like andrew joked:

It surprises me how many hc kids get the Tegan and Sara bars tattooed on them.

zach, the black flag logo IS fetishized (how many people have that logo tattooed? and how many bands have stolen it for a shirt?) and if you want to get into a debate about logos, we can because they definitely stand for more than "all bands have to have them", i just think that might take a lot longer...

.
A band logo being fetishized doesn't make it any less silly to do so. At the end of the day, it's just a drawing and it could have been any drawing. That doesn't change who Black Flag were and what they stood for or how they sounded which is what should be important. It's all well and go to have a symbol that's recognizable as being associated with a certain band, but when the imagery takes on a life of it's own separate from them music then that's super lame.

And to be completely fair, that artist who originally drew the black flag bars came to really like how the band used them, so take that for what it's worth.

I agree that because it is fetishized, it doesn't mean it's right, but i also don't think it's wrong. Logos stand for much more than 'any drawing' and i respect design for that.

when did the imagery take on a life of it's own? that part confuses me...

also, if an artist creates something, then decides it has been used in an improper way by a group, company, etc. that doesn't discredit it as a brilliant work.

When I say that imagery takes on a life of it's own I mean that's held to equal or greater importance than the music it's self. I like Black Flag because of how they sounded and what they stood for, having a cool logo is a just a bonus. I don't place an sort of intrinsic importance on the 4 bars because it could have been other drawing and it would still be associated with black flag by people in the know, and normals still probably wouldn't give it much thought. Maybe this is a case of agree to disagree?

I don't by any means think that if an artist decides that their work is being used in a way that they didn't intend for it takes away from the pieces merit,, but if we're going to talk about Tegan and Sarah misusing the logo then it's probably also worth discussing black flag's use of the logo and the original artis feelings towards it.

[KYLESTYLE]

When I say that imagery takes on a life of it's own I mean that's held to equal or greater importance than the music it's self. I like Black Flag because of how they sounded and what they stood for, having a cool logo is a just a bonus. I don't place an sort of intrinsic importance on the 4 bars because it could have been other drawing and it would still be associated with black flag by people in the know, and normals still probably wouldn't give it much thought. Maybe this is a case of agree to disagree?

This is true, but i don't think the bars are more important than the band, i think, merely the bars represent the band well, which a logo should do. Maybe the logo precedes the band? I think it's a powerful logo and for that reason, people 'get behind it'. anyway, agree to disagree. I don't even think we're disagreeing, actually. I guess maybe we disagree on how great of a logo it is and the design behind it? that's fair.

I don't by any means think that if an artist decides that their work is being used in a way that they didn't intend for it takes away from the pieces merit,, but if we're going to talk about Tegan and Sarah misusing the logo then it's probably also worth discussing black flag's use of the logo and the original artis feelings towards it.

this is true, good point.

[dalamar501]

I don't by any means think that if an artist decides that their work is being used in a way that they didn't intend for it takes away from the pieces merit,, but if we're going to talk about Tegan and Sarah misusing the logo then it's probably also worth discussing black flag's use of the logo and the original artis feelings towards it.

Pretty sure it was Greg Ginn's brother that designed the logo. They asked him (Raymond Pettibon) to design a logo for the band) and also did every record cover. IT gave Black Flag another perspective / image that you could count on besides amazing music. You could just tell it was black flag from the artwork / style of Pettibon

So pretty sure artist was okay with black flag's use of the logo

[ZACH ATTACK]

Pettibon, however, did not always appreciate the band's treatment of his art, which he provided to them largely for free.[31] "To me my work was the equivalent of a band like Black Flag or any other band who was righteously self-protective of recordings. I would give them original art and it would come back to me scrawled upon and taped over or whited out, and I'd always ask nicely, 'Could you please make a copy of this first and then do that?' Their master tapes were deemed sacrosanct, while my work was seen as completely disposable, but I'm not venting or complaining, just stating fact."

So maybe he didn't like it per se, but he didn't really appreciate it either.