I know, I just don't really consider them a punk band. Also, I don't want to get in an argument but I don't consider the Sex Pistols punk.
It's impossible to make a statement like that without starting an argument. The Sex Pistols are, or at least were, the EPITOME of punk. They didn't create it, but they codified it much like Robert Johnson did with the delta blues, refining preexisting traditions and distilling them into what became the standard. The Sex Pistols in they're heyday are punk INCARNATE. Theres' no other way to see it. It has nothing to do with liking them or not, thats' just the truth. Moreover, regardless what they might say, Crass owe an ENORMOUS debt to the Sex Pistols, without them, they'd never have existed. You can say you hate the Sex Pistols, I don't care, but they were as punk as it gets. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
There is a good modern hardcore scene, in the more punk/crust/d-beat scale of things, but the metalcore kind of hardcore that scene kids listen to is possibly the worst music known to man.
I don't know anything about the english hardcore scene. But here they have a real elitist disdain for punk, and the music is
awful. I DESPISE heavy metal with all my heart, and these fusion subgenres thrash, death metal, metalcore, are equally atrocious;
horseshit, by any other name...
I agree that anarcho and street punk aren't the same, I was just making a generalization because the two american punks I know thought they were the same, and seeing as classifications are pretty regional I assumed you thought the same. Sorry. I would, however say that Discharge are anarcho more than street.
Lol @ our punk subgenre fascism.
I try to be as technical as possible. It may seem nitpicky, but I think it's important to distinguish. As for Discharge we could debate all day, in fact these particular subcategories are the most difficult to distinguish, that they exist, and that there is a differentiation is sufficient.
Also, I've come to the conclusion I don't like books about punk that much. There's a few really good ones (have you read American Hardcore?) but mainly I'm not that into them. I get my Crass/80s anarcho stories first hand.
I own American Hardcore but it's not a favorite. Steven Blush is clearly a hardcore aficionado and tars everything with that brush, lumping in the Circle Jerks, Dead Kennedys, the Germs, and the Misfits. The hardcore kids would love to put all the cool bands under they're tent, they can cry me a river because it just aint so. One should read all books with a filter, THAT one, especially. Too bad, you're missing out on some great stuff. My personal recommendations would start with "England's Dreaming:
Anarchy, the Sex Pistols, Punk Rock, and Beyond. The titl;e is somewhat misleading, while he devotes a large section of the book to the Pistols, he covers the whole punk rock movement from the New York Dolls to Nirvana, although he spends most of that on 70's britpunk. It contains a discography spanning decades and continents. THE book on punk rock. I would supplement that with "Please Kill Me: The History of New York Punk", and "We Got the Neutron Bomb: the History of LA Punk", although I preferred "Lexicon Devil: The Darby Crash Story", even if it was less broad. I'd follow that up with the well-written, but stupidly titled "My So-Called Punk" which covers modern punk, from the early eighties to today. John Lydon's "Rotten" is also good, there are a few great band biographies, I mentioned the Darby Crash one, I also liked "Heavier than Heaven: The Story of Kurt Cobain", "On The Road With the Ramones" written by Monte Melnick, they're manager, and "The Clash:Return of the Last Gang in Town". If you want to truly understand a thing, you have to do the research. The basic concept and principles of punk rock can be relayed pretty easily, but if you want to really understand the history of it theres' no other way.