The Village Voice: Status Ain't Hood

Henry Rollins vs. Glenn Danzig: Who Would Win the Fight?

posted: 6:48 PM, August 14, 2006 by Tom Breihan

He's a liar. Yeah, he's a liar. He'll rip your mind up. He'll burn your soul.

I spent the entire weekend visiting family in upstate NY, which made for a truly pleasant couple of days but which didn't leave me with a whole lot of music-related experiences to write about here. And there haven't been any major breaking music-news stories worth talking about beyond the Idlewild leak, and I've already made my opinions on that one known. So this seems like a pretty good time to go back and settle probably the most hotly debated question of my eighth grade year: Who would win in a fight between Henry Rollins and Glenn Danzig? Back in 1994, both of them were at their commercial peak, and both were pretty scary and diesel. They're a long way from relevance these days (Rollins is playing the Nokia Theatre with the reconstituted Rollins Band on Wednesday, and Danzig is doing, um, absolutely nothing), but it's still fun to think about what might happen if these two ever threw down. Let's consider the relevant factors.

History: Both of these guys got their starts singing for seminal hardcore bands: Rollins for S.O.A. and Black Flag, Danzig for the Misfits. But the Misfits continued to play straight-up goofy horror-movie punk until they broke up, and Black Flag started to make the transition from no-frills hardcore to awful discordant sludgey art-rock pretty soon after Rollins joined the band. When their hardcore bands broke up, both of them started playing different sorts of arty metal: Danzig honing his horror-movie shit with a heavier stomp in Samhain and Danzig, Rollins making generally terrible jazz-metal with the Rollins Band. "Liar" remains pretty awesome, but Rollins has never participated in the creation of a song anywhere near as great as the Misfits' "London Dungeon" or Danzig's "Twist of Cain," so Danzig wins this battle.

Musical talent: This probably isn't actually a relevant factor at all, since the quality of someone's music says absolutely nothing about their fighting ability, as the dubious rap careers of Roy Jones and Ron Artest will illustrate. But it's worth mentioning that Rollins' voice has always been a strained bark and Danzig is actually a pretty great singer with a wide-open Elvis bellow. Danzig wins again.

Physique: This one is tough, since both of these guys are obsessed with lifting weights and are thus totally jacked even though they're both old. They're also both short. But Danzig is slightly shorter; he's about 5 ft 6 according to Wikipedia. It's tough to find reliable statistics on Rollins' height, but Celebheights.com puts him at about 5 ft. 9. That gives Rollins a slight reach advantage, so he wins this category.

Tattoos: Rollins has a lot more tattoos than Danzig, but one of Rollins' tattoos is the Misfits' skull logo, which you'd have to think would give Danzig the psychological advantage.

Age: They're both really old, but Danzig is (seriously) 51, and Rollins is a relatively fresh-faced 45. Rollins wins.

Literary ambitions: Danzig and Rollins are both independent publishers. Rollins runs the company 2.13.61., which specializes in shitty books of freeform poetry, mostly by musicians including Rollins himself. Danzig founded the terribly named comic book company Verotik, which apparently publishes violent and erotic comics; I don't know if he actually writes any of these comics. These are both pretty lame, so this is a tough category to decide. But Rollins is a touring spoken-word artist; he's spent years going up on stages and reading bad poetry and telling funny anecdotes. As a hybrid slam-poet and stand-up comic, Rollins wins no badass points. If Danzig just signs the checks for his comic-book company, he wins here.

Hollywood resumes: Rollins has spent a lot of time acting in shitty movies. He redeems himself slightly by being responsible for the best moment in Johnny Mnemonic (the part where he says, "He's that guy .... who fucks your mom" and then Dolph Lundgren kills him) and by playing Vanilla Ice in the video for 3rd Bass's "Pop Goes the Weasel." He's also the host of a talk show that I've never seen. Danzig's acting roles have been limited to a voice-acting part in an episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force and a cameo in The Prophecy II, which I haven't seen. Danzig also reportedly made the unbelievably stupid decision to turn down the role of Wolverine in the first X-Men movie, which makes him indirectly responsible for Hugh Jackman's career. For that reason alone, Rollins wins this category.

Fighting experience: Ultimately, this is the only category that matters. Back on the early 80s DC punk scene, Rollins was notorious for wearing a chain around his waist and getting into huge fights with frat-boys in Georgetown for absolutely no reason. That was a long time ago, but Rollins at least has a history. All Danzig has is the videotaped evidence of him getting his ass knocked out. After watching that, it's pretty obvious that Rollins would not have a lot of trouble handling Danzig.

Final result: Rollins wins easily. Still, I would happily pay at least $40 to see this fight. Let's make this happen.

Comments

I agree with you re: Danzig's victory in Hollywood. But would it tip the scales in the other direction if you consider that Rollins not only got his ass kicked pretty easily in Heat (DeNiro?), but also while he (Rollins) was wearing sweatshorts (I think)? I think the dude from Queens of the Stone Age, despite his Conan O'Brien-ness, could flatten some dudes too.

Posted by: eric at August 14, 2006 11:48 PM

why the Jackman hate? "The Prestige" and "The Fountain" might be two of the years best films.

and, c'mon, he made a decent Wolvie.

Posted by: Hiro Protagonist at August 14, 2006 11:48 PM

people actually pay you to write this shit?

Posted by: dockers at August 15, 2006 12:21 PM

This was semi-cute, but it's too bad that when you do finally write about rock-related stuff at some length, it's mostly just to mock it, yet when you write about hip-hop, you take it far more seriously than it often deserves. Danzig in particular has made a lot of great music -- he's far more than just a metalhead, but has been an originator in both the punk, goth, and hard rock genres (the first four Danzig solo albums are awesome). A little respect for the man is in order.

Posted by: DaHata at August 15, 2006 2:05 PM

where can i buy my ticket?

i met them both... a long time ago. when i went to jail with Glen he wasn't even pumped up yet. i'd still put my money on him.

Posted by: P0NE at August 15, 2006 4:41 PM

That was one terrific piece Tom - almost on a par artistically with Black Flag's "art-rock" or Glenn Danzig's Arias. Congratulations, you've made the insightful discovery that once folks hit their 40's and 50's, they are no longer culturally relevant! I'm stunned! How superior you must feel! (and to pre-empt your cheesy "it was just a joke piece" reply, please, I think most readers here like dockers and DaHata see through your mean-spiritedness like cellophane).

Whatsamatter Tom, no beat-downs or gunplay at Vibe HQ this week? Too bad, you could've shown everyone just how "street" you are with the latest verbage you've lifted from http://www.urbandictionary.com.

Posted by: epac at August 15, 2006 8:55 PM

Man, you neglected to bring up the totally relevent anecdote about Rollins and Danzig chasing Vince Neil out of the Whiskey-a-Go-Go.

http://nardwuar.com/vs/glenn_danzig/part_one-p2.html

Posted by: GovernmentNames at August 16, 2006 4:12 PM

Are you aware that this exact piece, in nearly this exact language, appeared on blogcritics.org a year ago by a different writer? I sure as hell hope you aren't, because that is pretty low even as plagiarism goes.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/15/231402.php

Posted by: stackpat at August 17, 2006 12:12 PM

I saw the blogcritics piece after I wrote mine, and it's got the same premise, but explain to me how it's the same piece or the exact same language.

Posted by: Tom Breihan at August 17, 2006 1:07 PM

Your analysis was entertaining, and if you only take the post itself from blogcritics, was far more extensive in its analysis. Yet there's no way to know if it's yours, or if it's all gleaned from the comments section on blogcritics. Had you added some sort of link or disclaimer (even after the fact) it would have made your piece more credible in its originality.

Posted by: stackpat at August 17, 2006 2:41 PM

I don't want to give Tom too much grief over this: it's not "plagiarism" in the strict sense, but it's a strange coincidence that this same theme appears on a blog and then is revisited here: it's not exactly a hot topic. I also realize, regarding my previous remarks, that any music writer on a staff helmed -- if it still is -- by Robert Xgau is going to insist that hip-hop be given reverential treatment, while rock and roll can be bashed and mocked freely. But really now, hip-hop is taken way too seriously by music writers, people who think nothing of mocking "rockist" or "cock rock" posturing by white musicians, yet seem to be oblivious to the blatant misogyny which informs a large part of "hip-hop culture." Is that because black people are sacrosanct when it comes to cultural critique? If so, that's an intellectually dishonest pose that ultimately insults blacks by pandering to them, by pretending that some of the uglier aspects of black / hip-hop culture are acceptable merely because of skin color. Even the satirizing of hip-hop seems to be considered taboo here, never mind an actual critique.

Posted by: DaHata at August 18, 2006 11:16 AM

Posted by: DaHata at August 18, 2006 11:17 AM

I've tried to stay away from commenting here, but I've been reading all of the nonsense that gets posted here for a while now and I just can't (don't want to) hold back anymore. Some people seem to have no understanding of the difference between a BLOG and an ARTICLE. "DaHata" seems to be at the top of that list. Glad you're enjoying your new-found internet access. Who helped you log on, buddy? That's not the only trend I see in DaHata's posts. Seemingly, DH thinks that "Hip-Hop","Hip-Hop Culture" and "Black Culture" (not to mention) "Rock'n'Rol.", "Rock Culture" and "White Culture") are equivalents. But what color is black? DH, I'm not sure if you're stupid or just lazy, but from where I sit, you seem pretty stupid and pretty lazy. Tons of so-called white people listen to Hip-Hop, Rap, Crunk, and all the other titles and subgenres associated with two turntables and a microphone. Tons of so-called white people listen to all of the other genres that you would probably identify as "black music" or as part of "black culture". Just ask Erykah Badu. I'm not saying you're the only dumbass around here that gets too hungup in the false equivalences of race and culture and music, but you seem to be the clubhouse leader. Is Tom Breihan white? Did he need to go to South Paca Street or North Avenue to get his white guy access pass to listen to the music that you clowns criticize him for blogging about? Get over yourselves. It's 2006. There are no "White's Only" jukeboxes. They even make black iPods now.

Posted by: ondioline at August 18, 2006 4:58 PM

Yes, tons of white people listen to hip-hop. But I doubt it would be too well received by the people who care about such things were I to suggest that "hip-hop culture" is anything but a black phenomenon. Then I would be another white boy trying to thieve something black people created, like those devils did with rock and roll, jazz, etc. Right? As for the rest of what I said, ondioline, you didn't really address it, so I take it that it went far over your pointy head and landed in South Paca Street someplace. Maybe you should try listening to some Danzig.

Posted by: DaHata at August 19, 2006 6:49 AM

I didn't address the rest of what you said because it had no validity. Wasn't it you who typed "black people are sacrosanct when it comes to cultural critique"? What? A word of advice: You shouldn't use a thesaurus without knowning what an antonym is, little man. To put it another way: "It's not real to me, therefore it doesn't exist. So *poof*..." You know the rest, right? Hip-Hop culture is only a "black" phenomenon if it exclusively effects "black" people, if it is exclusively accessed by "black" people and if "black" people are the exclusive gatekeepers... Let me know when you build the time machine that puts Russell Simmons and the Jeff Gordon of Rap in charge of all record labels and distribution channels just prior to the ascendancy of Grand Master Flash and his contemporaries. In the meanwhile, maybe you should try listening to some Saul Williams.

Posted by: ondioline at August 24, 2006 12:05 PM

Blacks basically *are* generally sacrosanct when it comes to cultural, and more specifically musical, critique in The Village Voice. And hip-hop music is by and large a "black" phenomenon, regardless of the make-up of its audience or of the few non-black practitioners who break through. To say otherwise is to engage in rhetorical nitpicking in the futile effort to make it seem like you actually have something intelligent to say, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary seen in the rambling incoherencies which comprise your posts here. You seem about as "bright" as a posturing pseudo-intellectual idiot like Michael Dyson, "little man." Now go listen to "Dirty Black Summer" 1000 times until you're cured.

Posted by: DaHata at August 26, 2006 1:35 PM

Sophist calling the kettle rhetorical... Nobody on Mog will play with you, eh little man? I've spent way too much of my life being "dark" to worry about seeming "bright" to you. (I think Neil Young summed my feelings up perfectly in "Old Man" if you're looking for a cultural touchstone.) A couple of notes and then I'll let you have the last tired word: 1. Just because you say *it's so* doesn't make it so. I'm still not sure you actually know what sacrosanct means, but keep trying it on like last year's cocktail dress. It'll fit eventually. 2. I think you must've been smirking, because I can't imagine you could actually disregard the cultural make-up of an art form's audience (or those who perpetuate it through mainstream media access, which you didn't even address) with a straight face. Are you really suggesting that anything can be considered selectively based upon some (but not all) of the individuals who create it and most (but not all) of the individuals who consume it (again, not to mention most (but not all) of the individuals who set the table? Is rock'n'roll a white phenomenon? (Setting aside your earlier comments about accusations of who stole what from whom.) Is basketball a black phenomenon?

Posted by: ondioline at August 29, 2006 5:54 PM

Since you're so exercised about it:

Sacrosanct:

adjective 1. extremely sacred or inviolable: a sacrosanct chamber in the temple.
2. not to be entered or trespassed upon: She considered her home office sacrosanct.
3. above or beyond criticism, change, or interference: a manuscript deemed sacrosanct.

I'd say that meaning #3 comes the closest to what I was referring to, but since you're an idiot, you wouldn't understand.

Of course musical forms are all bastards, ultimately. But that isn't the point here (it may be *your* point, but it wasn't mine). Go and try to tell the people who actually care about such matters that hip-hop is anything but a "black" cultural phenomenon and see what kind of reaction you get. In fact, write an article along those lines and submit it to the Voice for publication. I'd love to see the reaction you get. But of course, they'd never publish it anyway, so it'a a moot point.

Posted by: DaHata at August 31, 2006 8:06 PM

Oh by the way, "Ondioline," I meant to ask: is the heavyweight division is boxing a white phenomenon? Sure seems like one these days!

Posted by: DaHata at September 1, 2006 10:04 AM

Everyone knows Danzig is all talk and no action. You've got the wrong Misfit in the fight. Rollins vs. Jerry or Doyle would be worth watching.

Posted by: HelmetHead at September 28, 2007 5:37 PM

Comments

Post a comment