For example, I know of three columnists who are connected. One Magazine columnist wrote about touring as half of Spectre Folk (an avant-underground act with a decent genre profile), another wrote about playing bass during the reunion of former Matador act Chavez, and  David Carr used to be the editor of the Washington City Paper, who were  (and are) very down with the whole Dischord thing.

And if you pay attention, Fugazi’s music hews pretty closely to the genre conventions of U.S. hardcore.  They didn’t play as hard and fast as some other bands and the drumming was usually more complex but otherwise they were a hardcore band.

It’s okay to not like them, but to say they’re mainstream rock seems to miss about every point you could possibly get if you were paying any attention at all in the last 40 years.

And I’m always puzzled by the folk who will take a post like this and say “this band is better than them.” What’s the point of a post like that?

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/07/arts/review-rock-melodies-amid-rant-thoughts-amid-rage.html?scp=9&sq=fugazi&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/13/arts/review-rock-going-beyond-dissonance-in-hardcore-from-fugazi.html?scp=5&sq=fugazi&st=csehttp://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/27/arts/review-rock-an-assaultive-amalgam-of-styles-and-sonic-jolts.html?scp=10&sq=fugazi&st=cse

I’m sorry, but I don’t think you have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

I think the semiotics of the term are quite powerful, actually. But there is a distinction between the “genre” of music and the moral/ethical system that people get hung up on. If the term was meaningless, you wouldn’t be able to label Cash as “punk.” Your use of it signifies some sort of “rebel” attitude…but Cash worked within the mainstream music industry…he was not by any definition a DIY musician. When Lime De Zeze uses the term it seems that is an important part of the meaning of punk…DIY. So was Cash “Punk”?  Sure, why not. I am sure he was called a punk by more established musicians a generation older them him back in the day. But that has nothing to do with musical genre. Genre’s are just recognizable patterns in music. Punk as a genre is recognizable based on the chord progressions, rhythms, and timbre just like other genre’s. The value one puts on that recognizable pattern is a different issue. And on that level, actually, Cash was a big influence on punk. HE didn’t play it, but those who did took a lot of cues from his music. 

and ya can’t blame minor threat for all the stupid shit that happened. i fuckin HATE courage crew and FSU and all the little crews all over, but minor threat’s intentions were good.

Genres mean nothing.  Chord progressions (or lack thereof) have no meaning.  The term “punk” is meaningless.  Johnny Cash possessed fifty times more “punk” ethics in his right ring finger than any 100 no-name bands or Rise Against played for 399 years non-stop.

It would seem Lime D Zeze. 

Second, there is no single definition of “punk” — it means different things to different people. 

True enough…people were, as far as I can tell, communicating how well Fugazi fit into their particular definition of the term.

I happen to consider them the most punk of any band I have ever loved 

Okay. 

But if you want to talk about it, as a musician, I think there is an important difference between “a band that works with a DIY punk ethic” and “a band that plays punk rock.” Fugazi didn’t play punk as the musical genre is generally understood. Their music was very much within the mainstream of rock, good as it was. From my perspective they were more “small business/entrepreneurial musicians” than “punk.” IMHO. And from my perspective that is a bigger compliment.

“Natural’s Not In It”, the Rake’s Remix.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdjkqQ-GhWI

how about we agree they were a kick ass band with DIY punk ethics that everyone associates them with