Publication:
HeartttaCk

Author:
Felix Von Havoc

HeartAttack #18
Top Ten:

Hellnation Lp and 5"
Krigshot 7"
9 Shocks Terror 7" and split
Paindriver-Live
Diskonto/Abuse 10"
Charles Bronson-LP
Funkadelic-early lps
Bauhaus
The Viennese Secession
Any movie with Humphry Bogart and Lauren Bacall


First I'd like to point out a glaring error in my top ten a few issues back. I listed two Motion Pictures in my top ten list. The movies in question were Swing Kids about young Jazz fans in Nazi Germany and Stalingrad about young Nazis in Russia. One of Heart Attack's emo crusaders decided to sabotage my attempt at fronting as a cineste by changing "Swing kids-motion picture" and "Stalingrad-Motion picture" to Swing Kids 7" and Stalingrad-Motion Picture 7". This is just like when the evil Spell-Binder would change Bridge into Ridge. I am not a big fan of emo and I've never heard the band Swing Kids, I was talking about the movie! Stalingrad is a good band, but they never put out a 7" called "motion picture." What's next guys, doctoring photos to show me with a Caesar cut and khaki high waters carrying a backpack?

Speaking of emo, I was there when it started and I could've stopped it but I didn't. Now I'm having some regrets. I was at every Embrace, Rites of Spring and Marginal Man show in the Washington Metropolitan area. I really liked the emotional intensity of Rites of Spring, and I still spin their LP from time to time. In retrospect the crying on stage, and smashing up instruments in fits of angst could have been pre-conceived schtick, but I was willing to believe it was a reflection of the tortured souls of the musicians. What we call emo now has progressed as far from what we used to call "emotional hardcore" as Hellnation has from the Sex Pistols. In fact I'd be startled if many of today's emo kids even knew who Marginal Man or Rites of Spring were. Yes, isn't it wonderful that hardcore can continually re-invent and re-interpret itself. What we used to call "new school" Straight Edge Hardcore is now commonly called "old school" straight edge hardcore. I thought the old school was Minor Threat, Seven Seconds and the Faith not Grudge and Crucial Youth. Will they be calling Monster X old school in five years? "Dude, back in the day, old school 1998 style"? I guess we are lucky that hardcore is so varied and dynamic. Goth, New Romantic, Synth Pop and Speed Metal were pretty big when I was younger but have long ago reached their peak and all but vanished.

The next few columns will deal with my views on and experiences of the American Educational system. As I sat down to write this is started to seem familiar. It occurred to me that I had already written such an article. What follows was originally printed in MAS #9, Feb, 1989. I apologize to those who have already read it. Its not that I'm running out of copy for my column, I just said it better the first time.

Most readers of this periodical are no doubt either in high school, college, or have recently dropped out or graduated from one or the other. In this article I would like to offer some observations and opinions on education, particularly the public schools in America. I would also like to examine some of the alternatives.

In one sense we are lucky to have the educational system which is around today. In many countries education is a privilege of the rich, and in deed, in the past, education was limited to only the rich and the nobility. So we've come a long way to have free education up to the high school level. This is however, a mixed blessing. One should look more closely at why we have nationwide free education. School teaches us the basics we need to know in order to survive in modern society and find a job. That's not so bad, right? But closer examination shows us that it also conditions us to perform our roles in this society. The system ensures that we can be effective soldiers, workers or bureaucrats in a complex modern society, without questioning any inherent flaws in that system.

First, school homogenizes us; it robs us of our individual identity by grouping us with thousands of others our age. Historically public education has been advocated as a method of manufacturing loyal Americans out of disparate ethnic groups. With some, such as Native Americans, by force. Peer pressure and conformity make us try to live up to what is "normal" for fear of being labeled a freak. Any deviation from society's norm is immediately condemned, as individuality becomes deviance. This makes us used to doing what everyone else is doing and blindly going with the flow for fear of stepping out of line and being persecuted.

Second, school teaches us to "respect authority"; we learn to do what we're told or are punished. Strict adherence to stupid and trivial rules like always walking on the right side of the hallway teaches us to obey no mater how stupid the order is. We learn that people who are no smarter than us can have the right to tell us what to do even though we were never consulted in the matter, We are thereby prepared for the world of bosses, cops, politicians, and officers ordering us around.

Third, school teaches us to live "by the clock," we are forced to show up and be on time or be punished. This prepares us for a life in factory or office where "time is money." To our future bosses, we serve as producers like machines. Humans though, are not as obedient and efficient as machines and must be conditioned to act like them. We must learn to be nervous about not showing up on time and subject to an ordered time schedule.

Fourth, school teaches us a value system. The "American Way" is given to us in lofty prose. We are given a view of the world measured against our "superior"" system. We learn that we live in the so-called greatest country on earth, and that in comparison, the rest of the world are backwards peasants or evil communists, We are taught that capitalism is the only economic system that works. Somehow social inequity is blamed on the individual, not society, because capitalism will supposedly give everyone an equal chance to make it rich. This is, of course, rarely true. We learn that our country is so great that it's worth killing and dying for over political abstractions. We are taught that everyone is free and equal under law and our system couldn't possibly be corrupt. Basically, we learn that our system is somehow better and we are somehow superior to other countries and their value systems.

Fifth, school teaches us social stratification. Cliques form often based on income and social group. Working class kids hang out drink beer, listen to heavy metal and work on their cars, Middle class kids become preppies, snort cocaine, drink wine coolers, and listen to top 40. Upper class kids just aren't around because they're all in private schools where they wear suits to class and learn to feel nothing more than contempt for the "other half". Early on some kids are labeled as smart on the basis of test scores or some other arbitrary means. For the rest of their school years these kids will be given he best teachers and facilities. They will be expected to go on to college and be the next generation of middle class. The rest of the students will receive minimal attention in academics and be channeled into vo-tech to become the workforce of tomorrow. Those who are kicked out or drop our are labeled as inferior and told they will never get anywhere in life. Unfortunately, these are all too self-fulfilling prophecies.

School is damaging in other ways as well. School teaches rote memorization and regurgitation of facts instead of creative, investigative, inquisitive, or critical thought. The school structure, sports in particular reinforce sex-role stereotypes. Men are channeled into industrial arts, women into home economics. School itself is pretty boring and tedious and most students windup hating it. Consequently, they are conditioned to dislike anything having to do with learning since it reminds them of the years they spent in school. Most Americans would balk at the idea of reading non-fiction for pleasure or reading at all when they could watch TV. Those students who do seek higher education do so mainly just to get a degree so they can make more money, not actually learn something interesting. Which brings us to the question of what and how much are we really learning? In recent surveys by the National Geographic Society, students demonstrated their absolute ignorance of geography and the world in general. A large percentage were unable to find the Pacific Ocean, Miami or France or and unlabelled map. Even more disturbing, many were unable to identify the country in which the Sandinistas were at war with the Contras. We've no doubt all heard stories of students graduating who are completely illiterate. They were merely pushed through the system without anyone sparing the time to actually educate them.

We see then that our years in school have not only taught us a few things about math and English literature but have conditioned us to be useful workers, soldiers and bureaucrats for the future. Our rulers have done a pretty good jobs of this judging from the way things have gone recently. In the adult post school world we still obey stupid orders from people no better than us; accept whatever the mainstream does. Live within a class society, etc., etc. And still, anyone who questions the system is labeled a smart-ass troublemaker or a subversive, punished and ostracized.

So what can we do about it? My first decision on deciding to "get an education" so that I could better change the system was to drop out of high school. This may not be as much of a contradiction as it would seem. I have since earned and equivalency degree and gone on to college. Although college is part of the education system, it is a great deal freer and less coercive. It may not be the best system, but at least you are relatively free to choose what you will study. You can also learn much more than you could have in school just by going to the library and reading whatever interests you. You'll probably find that the more you learn, the more you'll want to read and investigate as the conditioning of hating school and learning breaks down. There is also, of course the option of attending and alternative school. Many of these aren't very alternative in anything except the name and are usually expensive. I would like to close this article with a quo0te from Francisco Ferrer, an anarchist who wrote a great deal on education around the turn of the century in Spain and was subsequently killed by his government:

"Rulers have always taken care to control the education of the people. They know their power is based almost entirely on the school and they insist on retaining their monopoly. The school is and instrument of domination in the hands of the ruling class."

Some aspects of this article now show their age such as the comment about the Sandinistas and my expression of youthful optimism in "changing the system" however, the main points are still valid, even written in much less dense and unassuming prose than I am given to nowadays. Next time I'll continue on education with the story of my college experience and how college students help and hurt the hardcore scene.

In her column in MRR Sheri Gumption asked readers to dial her in to good female or female fronted bands in punk and hardcore. I've written before about how it seems that there was a breaking down of traditional gender role barriers in the music scene when punk first exploded in 1976-77. Later male domination re-asserted itself and women were relegated in most cases to the traditional positions in the music business. There is a good bit on this in The Boy Looked at Johnny by Julie Burchill and Tony Parsons. (uh, Pluto Press, 1978). Female integration continued (continues) mostly in the peace punk scene where sexism is taken more seriously. I've always felt that labeling bands as "girl bands" helped to ghettoize them and perpetrate their objectification. In most cases girl bands are not taken seriously by male musicians and fans. Marketing always seems to point out if a band is all female or has female members, this is never done when a band is all Black or has Black members? There has always been a trend of having a female singer, who is marketed as a sex object. Frequently whole bands are marketed as sex objects, again something not often done with male bands. This aside, most of the women I know who are into hardcore are really inspired by bands that are all female or have a female singer, or musician. So, for Sheri and whoever else is interested here are my picks for women in punk and hardcore.

Going back to the pre-history of punk I guess we should mention Patti Smith, more of a poet than musician, she was doing her thing, her own way before the rest of the world discovered punk rock. To my mind one of the all time best female fronted groups is of course England's X-Ray Spex. The Germ Free Adolescents album is great, as are the singles, by all means avoid Poly Stryrene's solo work. I still think X-Ray Spex lyrics are some of the best critiques of post modern consumer society and still quite valid twenty years on. Other English bands of the time were of course the Adverts, the Slits, Siouxsie and the Banshees. After the early period of punk in England the scene fractured into what we now call street punk or Oi and the more political peace punk. As I mentioned earlier women were really involved in the peace punk scene: worth checking out are Crass, Fatal Microbes/Honey Bane, Dirt, Lost Cherees etc. All of the Crass and Mortarhate Compilations find women well represented. The Violators and Partisans were two of the best '82 U.K. punk bands with women on vocals and bass. Overlooked but really good were the Expelled who have two really good 7"s and some comp. tracks. On the American scene there was of course Blondie, really more pop than punk. Of much more interest were the Avengers all of whose material kicks ass. The Bags did a great 7" on Dangerhouse. X's early 7"s and first two LP's are classic, and we can't fail to mention the Go-Go's started out punk. I've always been really into the Lewd and we cannot forget the Nuns. One band I just started listening to is Livin' Sacrifice from Sweden, good raw rocking punk. I object though to this part about "all you motorcycle people fuck off" Overlooked by many due to the theatrical front men is the fact that the Cramps and Germs both had female musicians. Poison Ivy doesn't get half the respect she deserves. After hardcore took over we see fewer women involved. And seriously in the Straight Edge Hardcore scene there are almost no women, even as fans. Those of us who grew up in the 80's probably remember that most of the girls back then listened to Goth while the guys were into hardcore. I remember mostly dating and hanging out with Goth girls until I moved up to Minneapolis. Maybe now that Goth has died out more women are taking interest in hardcore? To my mind the best female hardcore band was GASH from Australia, totally raw metallized hardcore. To the best of my knowledge they did two LP's, two 7"s and a split with Depression. My favorite female vocals in hardcore have to go to Tam of Sacrilege on Beyond the Realms of Madness. Within the Prophecy is good too, but after that Sacrilege became far too predictable metal. Definitely seek out the Women's Liberation comp. CD or LP bootleg, all great Japanese punk and hardcore bands. Japankore Omnibus LP is mostly female Japanese bands as well. While we are on Japanese punk who can forget the Comes, their No Side LP was recently bootlegged on CD. In today's era we have the Gaia and Sink, both kick out Japanese style thrash core. As peace punk evolved into crusty punk we had Civilized Society, Nausea, Insurgence, Godless and so on. I don't know how I got this far without mentioning Sin 34, great So. Cal. punk hardcore. One band I don't know much about but I have the 7" here is Tozibabe from Yugoslavia. Sort of punk crossed with Goth, I think they had some tracks on the Hardcore Ljubjana comp. too. Today there are a lot of female fronted bands Naked Aggression, Divisia, Banner of Hope, Detestation, to name a few. I will admit to liking Bikini Kill, especially the stuff Joan Jett produced. Really, to me the best female band around today is Distjej from Sweden, totally crucial fast HC on their split with Diskonto. I'm sure I've overlooked a lot of important bands, I'll try to continue this theme next month as I comb the Havoc record library. Tracking down all the records listed above will take a few months for most of you anyway.


In the hopes of sparking some debate and discussion I'd like to pose the following question to Heart Attack's readers; What role does geography/location play in the punk/hardcore scene?

It seems to be that many great bands get overlooked simply because they live in an isolated area with a small underground scene. Similarly, mediocre bands are elevated to cult status because they are from a city with a big scene or a bandwagon jump onto. For example, if Florida hardcore bands like No Fraud or Fear Itself had been from say New York City or Connecticut they would probably be as well know today as Bold or Murphys Law. If Econochrist had stayed in Arkansas instead of moving to California would they be as well known today? Or would they be as popular as say Trusty or Sobering Consequences? One of my favorite bands of all time NOTA had the misfortune of being based in Tulsa. With European collectors scrambling to unearth the most obscure NYC bands of the 80's (Sluggo, Even Worse etc) This band gets overlooked for lack of a label or bandwagon. Incidentally I hear NOTA is back together. We don't here anyone shouting this good news from the rooftops, but I bet we'd know about it if Youth of Today or Agnostic Front re-formed. Does a band have to move to SF or New York to become known? Is this just a fact of life or the result of the concentration of major labels and fanzines in major cities?


Certain cities get known for a certain style of music. A certain style of music comes to mind when we here the term New York Hardcore or East Bay Punk. But what about the East Bay band that plays hard core or the New York band that plays pop-punk? And again, what about the Lincoln Nebraska or Tampa Florida band which plays "New York" or "East Bay" style music. When we label a scene with a sound we do a great deal to quash diversity within that scene. I noticed a lot of German fanzine reviewers using the term "Minnesota sound" or "Minnesota style" when reviewing records. What the fuck does Minnesota sound like? I've lived here seven years and I can't pin any kind of "sound" on the local scene. Like any city we've had irreverent drunk punk bands, political anarcho bands, straight edge bands, and melodic bands. I think Minneapolis and St. Paul have one of the biggest most diverse underground music scenes going, at least in the midwest. I'd hate to see one style of music eclipse the rest in the eyes of the outside world.

We can add to this the international ramifications of a bands location. There has already been discussion in MRR about the glut of American bands which tour Europe while few European bands make it over here. A number of bands seem to exist mainly for the European market. Is this American cultural Imperialism or just a matter difference in the ease of setting up tours in Europe compared to America? I've been booking a lot of shows in Minneapolis and the European bands command the greatest turn-outs and enthusiasm by far. Chaos UK and Dirt played some of the best shows here in recent memory. It would be great if we could get Swedish or Japanese bands over here too. I think one of the best arrangements is for a bands to tour each others countries in tandem. I'm pretty sure that's how Toxic Reasons got KGB and CCM over. The European band would book a tour of Europe for them and the US band. Then the American band would book a tour of America with the European band. This allows for both bands to tour both at home and away with the away portion booked by people who know the area better. I've got to tip my hat to All You Can Eat in their quest to tour the entire known world through DIY channels.

I think I've raised some valid points here and I think it would be worthwhile to see some opinions from people in Europe, in smaller US cities and in the bigger trendsetting scenes.

In a final aside your columnist who spoke on voting seems to skim over the logic of "Typical Anarcho Argument #2." If you continue to see thing in terms of "liberal" and "conservative" I guess there is a minute difference in a few programs advocated by different branches of the ruling elite. But the analysis that matters in the long run is that of the state vs. society. Whichever party you vote for you get "the system." Both major parties can be characterized not as "left" or "right" but statist. Both seek to expand government power at the expense of individual rights. I've lived under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton and seen no fundamental change in my 25 years. Same economic system, same coercive powers, same ever expanding bureaucracy, same shit. Vote if you like, I think you only decieve yourself if you think a different face on TV is going to alter the status quo. Does it matter if the boot on your neck is the business end of a "liberal" or "conservative" administration?

Felix Havoc/ P.O. Box 8585/ Minneapolis, MN 55408

Publication Date:
January 1, 1988

Previous | All articles in this category | Next