a couple months back, the cover story of the washington citypaper (DC's equivalent of the chicago reader) was a story entitled "In On The Killjoy" which set about the task of trash-talking fugazi for as many pages as possible. the assertion put forth was that fugazi is largely responsible for taking the fun and laughter out of rock and roll music and the DC scene in particular... that rock should really be about getting up on stage and having a fun time and inciting the audience to enjoy themselves as well. and that fugazi's overtly political bent and overall power within the DC music scene have resulted in a legion of local bands that think it's unacceptable for the audience members to move around too much (a la Q&!U playing at Fort Reno this summer, telling some folks in the crowd not to move their elbows around so much because that might upset the person next to them, that the part of the elbow that feels good is the *inside* part, when you give someone a hug. i am *NOT* making this up, i was there, and i was frightened), that it's more important to be politically aware than to enjoy yourself, that rock is a vehicle for increasing intelligence rather than lowering it, etc... it wasn't the greatest article, it may have gone on about 85% longer than it should have, and almost everyone i've encountered seems to be in agreement that in no way did it merit being the cover story... i'm just curious to see if anyone ever heard anything about this article outside of folks here in town... was it even a blip on anyone's radar?

I've never heard of the article until now, but that's not the part that surprises me.

This seems like another 'divide & conquer' scenario: take a group of people actually doing some good and split them from within. Maybe they could convince some Fugazi fans that the band is really not that "cool" and thus remove potential from any movement that might be possible.

i dunno about that. the article itself was written by a local musician, a guy who's been playing here in town for 10+ years, who is the type of guy who, while up on stage performing with his band:

pours diet coke all over himself
smashes twinkies on his chest
bangs on his dick with the mic
climbs on exposed rafters

stuff like that. he wants rock to be a party. there really isn't any kind of secret agena i don't think. i mean, the guy's not a total idiot or anything, but i really don't think he operates on that kinda level. he just wants more fun bands in this town.

personally, i don't think you can blame fugazi for that. i mean, long before i'd blame fugazi, i'd blame political correctness in general. and when it comes to politically correct, DC is like stepford or something. which again, i don't think can or should be pinned on fugazi.

i guess i won't be surprised if nobody even heard about the article. i mean, it's not like i have any idea what one single Reader cover story has been in the past two years. i just wondered, since it was such a viscious attack on such a treasured band, if anybody really talked about it.

toomanyhelicopters wrote: the article itself was written by a local musician, a guy who's been playing here in town for 10+ years, who is the type of guy who, while up on stage performing with his band:

pours diet coke all over himself
smashes twinkies on his chest
bangs on his dick with the mic
climbs on exposed rafters

That DOES sound like fun.

there really isn't any kind of secret agena i don't think. i mean, the guy's not a total idiot or anything, but i really don't think he operates on that kinda level. he just wants more fun bands in this town.

I don't think one precludes the other from being the case. He doesn't have a secret agenda, but it is an agenda. He wants more people to like him rather than them. I've never been to DC more than once, but I never got the feeling that there aren't "fun bands" (whatever that means) there. So, I guess what I'm trying to get at is: what are we blaming or not blaming Fugazi for, anyway?

i think it's mostly about the power and pervasiveness of dischord within the scene. it surely stems from some kind of feeling of being left out, of wishing there was as stong a scene dedicated to fun as there is to ethic. true, there are bands here that aren't at all political, and are much more about just being goofy. there are also bands that do both, probably. i think it's about the fact that in another town, you might have a big and visible scene full of bands that get up and get crazy, versus here there are a much higher proportion of bands that get up and profess. really, why would you want more zany bands if your band *is* zany? less fish in the pond means more of the zany-music-lovers at *your* show, less competition... i dunno. but the number of people who agree with the article's premise seemed to be far outnumbered by those who thought it was rude and uncalled for. the people who did like the article, from what i've heard, are the same people who have been complaining for years that the citypaper has run far too many articles in which matt borlik goes overboard with praising them (fugazi). whatever, i suppose. i dunno what everybody's thinking in the first place, reading. i mean, reading is so last millenium.

This article did get attention outside of DC. I heard about it, tracked it down, and read it.

I didn't have any problem with the premise of the article. If Fugazi/Dischord really is such a sacred cow within DC (and I'm pretty sure it is), it should be challenged for that reason alone. I did have problems with the actual article, for the following reasons:

-The writer made the same point again, and again, and again, and again
-The writer had a very tired third-rate-Lester-Bangs style
-The writer's apparent belief in the liberating power of rock 'n roll through crazy rock 'n roll antics and rock 'n roll excess felt very tired as well

sixteenrev wrote:http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/archives/cover/2003/cover1017.html

As far as I know, fugazi has never claimed to be about what rock'n'roll was about in say, the 70's --
mars bars' or whatever the fuck. This author is trying to make them look like hippocrites. Yes, certain aspects of mackaye's ideology were or are extremely reactionary. it isn't any revelation to point that out.

Much of the hippies' response to the 1960's was just as reactionary, especially in hindsight.. but every cultural movement has such energy with it, which helps define it. Obviously something about fugazi has resonated within our culture. Extreme morality, perhaps has an inherent charm that say, extreme consumerism does not have. in that it strives to bind people together, rather than make them compete with one another. i think fugazi should be commended for starting, or at least energizing such a movement.

Comparing fugazi to john ashcroft is ridiculous. there is only a single logical parallel between them, which is the extremity of their ethos. you could draw any number of such parallels between fugazi and whomever. such a comparison is wildly destructive and only gives ammo to the would-be ashcrofts of the world.

Also, saying that fugazi has lost the essense of rock'n'roll because they aren't self-destructive is totally self-riteous. Why does rebellion have to be accompanied by self-destruction? I mean, it certainly and understandably CAN be, but why does it ALWAYS have to be? Sounds pretty 'fascist' to me.

yeah, good points all. that was definitely a popular watercooler comment on the article... that it was awful fascist and preachy for an article condemning fascist preachiness. and saying "rock should be about partying" is really equivalent to saying "rock should be about serious issues" in that they both profess an urge to shape what rock is, and to get folks on a bandwagon. as opposed to a band that might say "aw hell, we're just here to play our music" and not try and tell anybody "do this, do that" etc.

btw, thanks for digging up the article. i didn't realize it was still available online. ugh, reading!

Thank you for providing a link to the article, sixteenrev. It is impossible to discuss this properly without having the source readily available.

To answer your initial question, toomanyhelicopters, I live in Chicago, and yes, I heard about the article when it was first published a few months ago. It was briefly the topic of conversation between a friend of mine (who also lives in Chicago) and me.

That the article was the cover story of a paper you say is D.C.'s equivalent to the Reader does surprise me. Although the author, Michael Little, raises a couple of interesting points here and there, for the most part, it is one cruddy piece of journalism. He grounds many of his arguments upon the obvious fallacy that Fugazi forces people to do things or force them into particular situations. No matter the obviousness of the following comments, perhaps they need repeating: Mr. Little is, of course, free to do otherwise. He does not have to buy their albums or attend their concerts. If he chooses, he can even start his own band and create the kind of concert environment he sees fit. But wait, you say he has been a musician playing in the D.C. music scene for ten years? He pours Diet Coke on himself during a performance, you say? Then I say this man should be very grateful, for he is part of a very tolerant community - he, this man who in concert pours Diet Coke on his person.

Regards,

Tony