EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW AMERICAN HARDCORE AUTHOR/FILMMAKER STEVEN BLUSH

Wednesday, December 8th, 2010 at 5:00pm by

Steven Blush’s American Hardcore: A Tribal History is one of the great rock n’ roll history books. And now it’s bigger. Originally published in 2001, the Feral House book nails the golden age of old-school hardcore, from the movement’s inception to the watershed year 1986. The book inspired a documentary, the 2006 film American Hardcore. The movie is a must-see that has inspired as much griping and controversy as the book.

Blush is a fan, manager and promoter turned journalist. (Metalheads will recognize him as one of the talking heads from Get Thrashed — and if you haven’t seen that either, what’s wrong with you?) American Hardcore is practically an oral history of the movement. Blush conducted well over a hundred interviews, talking to everybody who was anybody: Cro-Mags bassist Harley Flanagan, Henry Rollins, Glenn Danzig, Mike Watt, Meatman Tesco Vee, Minor Threat/Fugazi/Evens’ Ian MacKaye, the Beasties Boys’ Adam “Ad-Rock” Horovitz, photographer Glen E. Friedman – you name it, they’re here.

The book is compulsively re-readable, whether you’re plowing through it or cracking it open to a random page. Its longer chapters present detailed histories of the movement’s key bands, including Black Flag, Bad Brains, Minor Threat, the Misfits, and the Dead Kennedys. Healthy-sized sections spotlight other big groups like Agnostic Front, the Cro-Mags, and Suicidal Tendencies, in addition to lesser-known groups like Boston’s phenomenal SS Decontrol.

Blush covers the entire country by city or region, spotlighting scenes in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, the Midwest, L.A., and others. The book wraps with a detailed harcore discography. Blush writes many a well-informed transition from topic to topic, but he generally lets the people who made history tell the story. There’s not a better single source for a history of hardcore. But it’s not universally beloved. At issue are some of Blush’s facts, conclusions, and general approach.

Blush’s “Hits From Hell” chapter is the definitive history of the original Misfits, but Danzig has said some of the material about the Misfits-Samhain transition is inaccurate and presented out of context. Dropkick Murphys singer Al Barr has blasted the book because the first edition incorrectly identifies his old band, the Bruisers, as a white-power group. (The second edition corrects the error.) Blush says Agnostic Front guitarist Vinnie Stigma doesn’t plug in guitars onstage any more, which Stigma has wholeheartedly denied. They’re entitled to their perspective, but the book is still an amazing piece of work.

Most controversial, however, is Blush’s blanket statement that hardcore ended in 1986, period. His argument makes more sense in context, but not all readers bothered with the subtleties of his thesis. To a lesser degree, readers have also taken issue with Blush’s assertion “most of the information I’ve seen posted on the internet regarding American Hardcore is wrong, so I’ve chosen to ignore it.”

Blush – who also produced the documentary – addresses some of the flashpoint issues in the new second edition. In eighty new pages, he expands old passages, profiles more bands, introduces additional characters and adds an all-new chapter about spirituality in hardcore. Check it out, and come back after the holidays – there will be a quiz.

Blush is also the author of American Hair Metal, which has text, but it’s more of a visual history. He’s appearing in New York City Wednesday, December 15, at the Strand Bookstore (828 Broadway, 7 p.m.), for a roundtable discussion with Dave Smalley (Descendents, DYS, Down By Law) and author Laura Albert (a.k.a. “JT Leroy”).

How long did you spend researching the book?

I may have done the first interview at the end of ’94. When I wrote the thing about the stuff on the internet being wrong, that was 2001. That was still a weird time; the internet was just getting rolling. When I started doing it, there was no information. You didn’t call up information and ask for the number for [DOA frontman] Joey Shithead. You couldn’t track down people. You had to know people. I had to string this together like archeology, finding the artifacts and creating a narrative.

[But since] because of doing the book and making the film and learning so much more throughout all the processes and all the things I’ve picked up and people I’ve met and things I’ve learned on the internet, I really feel like I had so much more to say. Usually, the second edition is the same exact book with a chapter tacked on. I really rewrote the whole thing. And now I feel like I have the combination of the facts and history, with that punk attitude.

How many interviews did you do, total?

In the first edition, I did about 110, 120. And in this one, I include another 25. And stuff I did for the film, that’s another 80 people by the time I was done digging through people’s closets and dusty VHS tapes and 7”s.

The first edition, what cause a lot of unforeseen typos was: I had to cut 16 or 32 pages. This one, I had more expansive ground. This one is another 80 pages, and if you look at the typography we use, it’s really tight.

I’m just starting to dig through the second edition — what are some of the things you changed?

A typical conversation I would get into was: Someone would say, “Oh, man, you said that was ’84. That was ’83!” Or, “You mentioned those four bands, but you didn’t mention this fifth one – you’re an asshole.”

On top of that, I offer up some different views on it. The last chapter of the [previous edition of] the book was kind of unforgiving, admittedly.

The press release that preceded the book says, “Most significant, [Blush] has offered a new conclusion, which is an anomaly in the realm of period studies.” I thought maybe you’d back off the your statement that hardcore ended in 1986. But the book lets that stand.

I can’t speak for the press release, but what I do come away from is: I’m correct about the historical arc, from ’80 to ’86. This was much more than a music. This was a social movement, almost. It came out of bands like Black Flag, the Dead Kennedys, etc. Their entire recording career was exactly those years. ’86 is [Slayer’s] Reign in Blood and the third Metallica record [Master of Puppets] and industrial music and crossover – that’s the end of that. But what I’ve come to learn is that while I’m correct about that, it’s almost missing the point.

I think that if people like what they’re listening to, who am I to bum their trip? I know what I’m talking about, in terms of what this movement was. But like any genre, it’s kind of like saying Eric Clapton is not the blues, only Robert Johnson is the blues. It’s like saying Christianity ended with the death of Christ, right? There’s the believers that come later. That’s what’s happening now: It’s not the pioneers and it’s not the movement — it’s the believers.

It seems to me the most common feedback on hardcore histories is, “It doesn’t concentrate on the era and scene I’m from, so it’s no good.”

I’m totally comfortable with what I said, but what is somebody supposed to say if they were having a great time in a mosh pit in 1997? I mean, I was at Hatebreed shows in the ’90s. I don’t think the music suddenly stopped. But after 1986, everything that came after was music – it wasn’t part of that initial movement that was something new that was being invented as it went on.

You spotlight the handful of big, iconic hardcore groups like Black Flag and the Misfits and Minor Threat. Who’s the best band outside of those big five or six?

SS Decontrol [SSD] in Boston. A band I really like in Akron, Ohio: Zero Defex. The Big Boys in Texas. JFA in Phoenix. Battalion of Saints in San Diego.

I’m based in Cleveland, and it was nice to see you give Zero Defex the extra attention this time.

In ‘84 and ‘85, you had the rise of few bands, a little scene in Cleveland and Akron.

Were the later Cleveland bands on your radar, like Integrity or Face Value?

Yeah. That’s a different book. That’s a different story. My feeling about it is that the definition of hardcore was a way of life, like an ethical code and a way to conduct your life, putting yourself out DIY, during the rise of the Reagan years.

How about Pittsburgh? You doubled the size of that section.

I remember seeing that band Half Life* play, and [its forerunner] Real Enemy. The Real Enemy stuff, I had a second take on. It’s really good. [Pittsburgh punk kings Half life featured Don Caballero drummer Damon Che and Gearhead co-founder Mike LaVella. - Ed.]

What was your involvement in the documentary?

I’m named producer and writer. Paul Rachman directed it. I liked it. It was a hard film to do, because hardcore is something different to everyone.
The approach of the book was to approach it as a social-political history. [With the movie] it’s a story arc, and as a story arc, it’s very strong. If you’re looking for every single band, I couldn’t do that.

I wish there weren’t problems with certain bands that prevented their stories from coming out, [like] the Dead Kennedys. It’s sad for the film, but more sad for history. The story ultimately is not being told because of petty bullshit between the band members.

The Misfits, I have respect for Glenn [Danzig], but Glenn does what he wants to do, and he’s into controlling it. He’s kind of petty in that regard. He should have stayed with [Misfits] Jerry [Only] and Doyle [Wolfgang von Frankenstein], and he should have stayed with [early Danzig group producer] Rick Rubin, and so many things down the line. I talked to all those guys on numerous occasions. So things like that sadden me, because the film could have had another level.

What bands have been happy or unhappy with it?

I don’t have problems with anybody. I hear stuff every now and then. As a writer, you’re an outsider. Ultimately, everybody in the book and the movie was in it because I knew them and contacted them. But no matter what feelings they had after that… anybody I talked to told me they liked it. Jello Biafra doesn’t really like [the book]. But I stayed at his house in 1983. And I told the story of his divorce. It’s embarrassing for him, but I told the story.

You haven’t bumped into anybody like Vinnie Stigma?

I see all the New York guys.

I read an interview where he seemed pretty aggravated about the book saying he doesn’t plug in for live shows.

Yeah, but it’s true. I know because somebody in the band told me. What you’re dealing with — I live in New York, I see these guys, you know what I’m saying? When you’re doing interviews, what are you going to say?

Have you seen any of the other punk histories, like the Punk: Attitude and [the book] Radio Silence: A Selected Visual History of American Hardcore Music?

I haven’t read any of them. I know all this stuff had come. They are riding my coat tails.

Radio Silence is really good. It’s like the picture equivalent of your book.

I don’t see early ‘90s hardcore as a movement like [‘80s] hardcore, as this larger than life thing. I like a lot of the stuff. I love the first Hatebreed record. I’m not ignorant to any of this stuff.

Your Misfits chapter is the Misfits story. Do you think they’re the best band from the era, musically? What or who do you think is the biggest or best talent to come out of hardcore?

Thanks. The Misfits, as I discuss in the book, there are many things about them where you could say they were not a hardcore band, even though they definitely embodied it in some ways. They were melodic compared to their contemporaries. They were this incredible band that was a little more approachable. I go to some of the hip bars in Williamsburg, the capitol of the new indie rock, and on the jukebox, the Misfits play like Led Zeppelin for my generation.

Every scene has one guy or a handful. The most successful is the Beastie Boys, or Henry Rollins. He went all over the world. He got himself out of the hardcore ghetto. Not necessarily in my eyes, but in a general view, he’s an iconic social character. Bad Brains, I see black kids on skateboards, and they still talk about the Bad Brains. That’s not a be-all, but I think that says a lot.

Is there a distinction between a heritage act like the Drifters and a hardcore band like Agnostic Front that’s still recording and touring with different members, or a reunion like Negative Approach, with half the band present?

While I don’t see a fierce political movement going on, I see these guys as the revival. I went to a couple of these hardcore bands, and I do have a moment like when I saw Tony Iommi’s Black Sabbath – like, “Where’s Ozzy Osbourne?” The Cro-Mags now tour without Harley Flanagan, and that’s one of the most important characters in the history of hardcore. But these guys are making money, and they never made a lot of money. It is a revival, make no mistake about it.

-Ferris

Lear more at the book’s website,  which features a pre-programmed playlist of 900 early-80s hardcore songs. Blush appear at Miami’s Sweat Records Thursday, January 13. Saturday, January 19, he’ll visit LA’s Vacation Vinyl for a discussion titled “The Process of Weeding Out: American Hardcore and the Rise of Stoner Rock,” with Kyuss’ Brant Bjork, Black Flag’s Chuck Dukowski and others.

D.X. Ferris is the author of 33 1/3: Reign in Blood, the first English-language book about Slayer, which is available cheap in hard copies and for the Kindle machines. (He’s been know to send bonus swag in exchange for a proof of purchase.) You can friend it on the Facebook, or follow his bullshit daily on the Tweeters: @dxferris and @SlayerBook.

  • niggaplease

    hey, the link to the website isn’t proper.

    good interview. he definitely has mixed reviews from hardcore bands. my high school teacher was in a minor ‘frisco group and he advised me in HS to not take it as the gospel truth, which was smart of him

  • chainchomp

    that book is incredible. when i first bought it, i think the only time i put it down was to piss, shit, or eat.

  • http://twitter.com/stuffuyouwillhate Sergeant D

    Cool interview, thanks!

    “Most controversial, however, is Blush’s blanket statement that hardcore ended in 1986, period. His argument makes more sense in context, but not all readers bothered with the subtleties of his thesis.”

    I only saw the movie, but this was the major criticism I had– I’m sure he has some fine print where he goes into more detail, but from what I saw, he fell victim to the familiar trap of thinking that “[subculture] died in year X” where X = the year the person uttering the sentence stopped being interested in it.

    Again, I’m sure there’s more to it than that, but from watching the movie, that’s what I walked away with.

    • http://twitter.com/stuffuyouwillhate Sergeant D

      “I don’t see early ‘90s hardcore as a movement like [‘80s] hardcore, as this larger than life thing. I like a lot of the stuff. I love the first Hatebreed record. I’m not ignorant to any of this stuff.”

      This kind of statement is EXACTLY what I’m talking about. What an old man.

      • Double D

        Haha, D, so true. Your spirit is an asset to this site.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alex-Carlson/1149750529 Alex Carlson

        Completely agree here. Although so much of this music was about immediacy, I think it’s incredibly arrogant to think that as subsequent generations attempt to progress or reinterpret what is considered “punk”/”hardcore”, the music becomes somehow inauthentic or impure. Hardcore came from a particular time and place in America, but I’m confident kids will continue to keep the spirit alive even as they redefine the sound and aesthetics of the movement.

        • http://twitter.com/stuffuyouwillhate Sergeant D

          Exactly. I mean, I know barely anything about current hardcore, but I’m sure that whatever kids are doing these days is done in exactly the same spirit as what I did when I was their age, and the same as what the previous generation did, ad infinitum.

          As long as the kids are having fun with it, I support it.

    • Jochen

      I think Blush has two points:
      1. By 1985/86 a lot of the people who had built up the scene in the early eighties checked out: Bands had broken up, others had changed their music to college rock or metal and a lot of the local scenes had changed drastically (simple story: people growing up, leaving town, going to high-school, developing new interests …) – So, what definitely took place in the mid-eighties was that the old generation left and a new one arrived.
      2. At the beginning of hardcore everything was quite new, there was no model to follow; the second generation on the other hand, that came up in 84/85 had this strong revivalist trait: A band like Youth of Today basically tried to pick things up where D.Y.S. and S.S. Decontrol had left them when they went hardrock/metal. Within in a few years hardcore became a well-defined subculture with it’s own rules and cliches. – Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that it was inauthentic to be into hardcore in 1995 or that it’s in 2010 (authenticity as a criterion of judgement is best suited for dinosaur-bones and such) – it’s only that hardcore nowadays is something that has an awful lot to do with re-enactment, like 50s rockabilly or 70s punk.

      • http://twitter.com/stuffuyouwillhate Sergeant D

        I can agree with both of those points- they’re accurate and entirely reasonable. Again, I’ve only seen the movie, but if that’s what Blush is trying to say, he should probably say that instead of “HARDCORE DIED IN 1986 EVERYTHING SUCKS BUT THE STUFF I LIKED WHEN I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL!!!!”

        As Gitter pointed out below, you have to stop every book somewhere for purely pragmatic reasons, so I would have been a much less disappointed if Blush had said (in so many words), “I’m going to stop here (1986), because it’s where I stopped being interested, and it’s as good of a stopping point as anything (for the reasons you articulated above).”

        Just my $.02

  • Brock Sterns

    “Blush is also the author of American Hair Metal, which has text, but it’s more of a visual history”

    Anybody else find this to be oddly fitting?

  • Matt

    Brad No Sweat is fuckin’ dead.

    • Brad No Sweat Warner

      No I’m not! That’s Paul McCartney, the bass player for a different band!

  • yzermantiis

    Read the first edition cover to cover, and it floored me! I was born in 85 so obviously I wasn’t involved in that scene whatsoever. But his book introduced me to lesser known bands like Siege, and The Minutemen. Thumbs up!!!

    • Stu

      Siege doesn’t surprise me, but Minutemen does. They’re pretty well known. Also, apparently, the 1st edition had quite a few statements he later retracted, which were quite inflammatory.

  • http://www.countshockula.blogspot.com ezra

    Dave Smalley wasn’t in the Descendents, he was in ALL!
    Don’t mess with my favorite band!

  • Josh

    Blush eats a dick, he completely denies any responsibility for the punk side in the punk/metal fights in the early 80′s in “Get Thrashed.”

    His reasoning for the conflict were, and I quote from the movie, “The punks thought the metalheads looked stupid and the metalheads didn’t understand the nuances of the hardcore scene.”

    How about “The punks were a bunch of fuckheads who started fights with everyone who didn’t conform to their standards, and the punks were too brain dead to appreciate the nuances of the Iron Maiden epic.”

    Fuckhead jackass.

    • Till

      Calm down, buddy, it’s been a long time ago (well, almost thirty years) – time to let go and move on …
      But if you really, REALLY want someone to take the responsibilityfor punk rock atrocities commited against peace- and Iron-Maiden-loving metalheads in the early eighties – I’m sure that somewhere there is some kind of metal-equivalent of Simon Wiesenthal who could investigate these heinous crimes … – Give him a call!

      • Josh

        Not gonna lie, I lol’d.

  • Mike Gitter

    Good interview with Steve and a very solid discussion of how he set his guidelines and timelines for the book. From paging through it at Barnes & Noble and noting that my interview has not been expanded (hahah!!!!), it does seem a lot more evenly balanced and a lot more celebratory in its take on the period it tackles. There’s a bit less focus on the negatives of that time.
    As far as the ’86 cut-off, while I don’t think that was the end of everything, practicality does dictate a certain page length. Plus, it’s another story or that is probably better told through the eyes of others. This, incidentally, is where I give kudos to Radio Silence. It picks up the story and continues the tale: albeit in a more visual way than AH.
    If there’s a fault with Steve’s book, it’s inherent in all history treatises – perspective. Everyone’s going to have a different take on a period. For example, I maintain that SSD is given more credit than is probably due them. They had a brilliant moment (the era of the Get It Away ep) but what was their legacy, really? If you ask some people — particularly a lot of Britishers hardcore fans — they’ll site Siege and Deep Wound as more important.
    Interestingly enough, I feel like the film was a completely balanced take on the same story. The interviews, footage and pictures stood on their own and allowed you to draw your own conclusions.