Dear people of Chicago Hardcore message boards:
I have been sent a handful of links today to the messages someone has been posting about the CHXCF2005, and I just wanted to let you know, perhaps just to steal the satisfaction away that no, thats not actually me trying to pick up dudes on your message board. To your right, right under where i misspell the word "yodel" you can email me if you have legitimate questions about my thoughts about hardcore or the fest. The person impersonating me on yr internet community cannot actually write. I can. Also, dead give away - I don't say "privates" - I say "cock"..
2ndly. I did not put in that Rat Bastards were white, that was an editorial descision, but being that RB's, like the vast majority of bands playing the fest, as well as the people in attendance, were white -- mentioning race in that context - in reference to their song about the gentrification of the Cabrini Green Projects -- was offered not to "bring race into it" or even comment on white guilt, but as a further elucidation of a standard hardcore agenda, and how hardcore bands tackle polemics.
3. Feel free to verify this with Anton, the promoter, who had a number of exchanges with me already -- my article for the Reader was initially 1950 words. The version you read was 1/5th that length and was a complete rewrite. My original version will run in the May issue of Hit it or Quit it, or if I feel so inclined, as my column in the June/July Punk Planet. That column is about the experience of the fest, is a first person narrative, reviews the records I bought of the bands at the fest, that I cried during Sin Orden's set I was so moved, and has about 1200 words on race and the legacy of Los Crudos on chicano pride hardcore in Chicago.
3.5 I never said I Accuse were male fronted, I infer they are on a similar aesthetic plane as most of the other bands thats played. C'est vrai.
4. The article was for the Reader. Not MRR. In the context of a publication that is made for the exclusive digestion of the punk community, when you write, certain protocols are attendant -- and appropriate. It is standard to oblige those things - ie big upping the successes, or the promoters, being a bit more scene reporty. When I write for the Reader, I am writing for an audience of several hundred thousand people who do not know Prank Records from Jive Records and probably think Kylesa and Condenada are the polish girls who work at the bakery on Grand. A scene report would have been inappropriate. I'm sorry if you all feel I did not put enough coins in your coifers, but its about writing, for me, not pleasing the jury.
5. You can speculate on my credibility all you want, as well as kick me out of the scene, or suggest that I was never really part of it. I am totes not sweating it.
6. The really really awesome thing about all of this, this sagacious internet thudding and fake me-s, is that it does nothing other than remind me why I started to lose interest in hardcore in the first place: No girls, all white dudes fronting like they are not jocks, spouting empty dogma, and as soon as any girl brings up the alienating factors of the macho-on-macho white boy pittage/aesthetic and the lipservice-only factor of the "conciousness" or that its totes boring being indoors on a Saturday in 2005, watching 11 bands in a row that are pretending like it's 1988 and doing some enmasse dickstroking to the corpse of Uniform Choice -- she's a slut/not credible/ not part of the scene/kicked out of the scene/not being loyal to hardcore, etc. True til death and down for life does not mean blinders on. It does not mean co-signing on bullshit in your own "community". All the bands that played that were honking off about all the people who bailed on hardcore, older people who receeded from the scene, how they weren't "true til death", or even "true til 31" -- my question is, what does hardcore offer to keep people sticking around?