Talk:Post-hardcore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is related to WikiProject Music genres, a user driven attempt to cleanup and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the project guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Wikiproject_Punk This article is part of WikiProject Punk music, an attempt to improve articles related to Punk rock. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details on the projects.

Contents

[edit] Post-Hardcore = Watered down Screamo LAWL

No it isn't. LOL

Yes it is. LOL

[edit] so there should be light

  • alright, i'm not calling to complain, i'm bringing light on the situation
  • mars volta = prog rock, it's too out there to be post-hardcore.
  • rites of spring = emo (yeah, the first kind),
  • jawbox = good fit
  • but you need elliot and texas is the reason, both post hardcore stalwarts, fugazi is a good fit, same with quicksand.
  • jawbreaker = also maybe...
  • you forgot shellac and unwound and the union of a man and a woman...
  • braid too... sort of...

mmm, i think i'm gonna have a field day here trying to explain the difference between screamo and post-hardcore.


id give rites of spring a hardcore label, though i do agree that they were the first to begin to experiment with the emo sound. Iii9ix3 04:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusions and exclusions

  • Well, Jawbreaker may not obviously be post-hardcore, though I think they are: superficially similar sound to Braid, while just as lashing, heavy, and murky as early At the Drive-In. Though for the Mars Volta, they definitely belong here... as the article says: "At the Drive-In and the two bands that formed after it split up, The Mars Volta and Sparta, are examples of post-hardcore outfits that have both perfected the post-hardcore sound and pushed it into many other musical genres" . . . which acknowledges TMV's post-hardcore origins, and allows for post-hardcore to include sounds not originally part of the Fugazi sound. TMV are in part prog-rock, but not every band needs to be defined by just one genre: e.g. latter-day Refused, or Q and Not U. So it's helpful to have them as part of the list of bands, since they are strongly involved in and related to the genre. --Tarnas 00:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • TMV is one of those cross genre beohemeths. Their magistrial weight, IMO, lies in prog rock and not in post-hardcore, SPARTA on the other hand would belong there, and so does at the drive-in. TMV sounds like a sped up, louder version of Rush with a latin influence. But i don't think that they have enough merit in the Post-Hardcore relm, nor much in common with many of the listed bands. It may have better served as prog-rock/latin/experimental more so than prog-rock/post-hardcore/(one of the other two)... i'll take their word on it as, Progressive / Rock / Experimental [1]... i do agree that they're influenced by bands SUCH AS fugazi... but that doesn't dictate much of anything. I know it kinda sucks that everyone has different definitions of genres, but by looking at the Post-HxC standards, i don't find they have that much in common in this form. ATDI, yes totally. Moving on... Jawbreaker's Bivouac i can see as being closer to Post-HxC than say unfun or 24 hour revenge therapy. i dunno, hence why i'm unsure to put jawbreaker under here because i'd rather be safe and not put them under there than overbearing and put them under there if they don't belong. --Evesummernight 03:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess I'm the opposite, I think when it comes to genres there should be a lot of flexibility. Maybe one of the problems here is that this is just a bare-bones list, there's no notation of how these bands are related to a given genre, what part of their body of work encompasses it.
         With the bands in question though... It's not just what Mars Volta say they are, or that they're being labelled latin because of their second album, it's that they used to be most of At the Drive-In and that they share similar musical threads with their past recordings: the extreme production treatments from Relationship of Command, the vocal theatrics from their whole catalog, and the same taste for both murk (Acrobatic Tenement) and guitar and pacing (compare songs from Vaya, especially "Rascuache", with "Televators", or "Inertiatic ESP" with most of Relationship of Command). The point is, they've got enough claim to the genre that I give them the benefit of the doubt as creators within the genre: they are fashioning new kinds of post-hardcore, just as they did (more slowly) as At the Drive-In. As for Jawbreaker, I'm thinking of their final sound, Dear You: lyrically unlike most post-hardcore, otherwise similarly heavy, abrasive, sharply honed, emotional but not angsty or sacchrine. --Tarnas 04:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • But they're not at the drive in, never will be at the drive in. as much as that saddens me. along the same lines, what would you do with Jawbreaker and Jets to Brazil? Now, as far as Televators go, i don't use that as a reference for anything based on the departure from the sound of most of the album. Inertiatic ESP is similar and different in many ways, mostly in technique. Cedric is essentially the same amazing voice in a longer form and by itself wouldn't determine genre, but in Omar and the rest of the band's instrumentation completely change the sound by their technique, ATDI never needed 40 pedals for 100million different guitar tones. ANYWAYS, this isn't a good sign, i totally would say that the mars volta isn't going to be the standard for post-hardcore, and i'm tired of post-hardcore being the catchall for anything and everything. this page, comes up as the definition for post-hardcore, because i was trying to find other sites opinions on it, and all i got was the wiki here... this is a serious matter. i mean, is it going to be the end of the world if TMV isn't included? because i mean, you won't get a good idea on what it is if you have such a diverse cross-genere spread of sound. the idea is to identify and CONCISELY dictate what post-hardcore is. i have to continue this at another time because i'm currently suffering from vertigo and not the song by u2 although i'd rather be. --Evesummernight 05:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I haven't listened to any Jets to Brazil, so I can't say, but I was thinking about that! :) But like I said before, I have an inclusive understanding of genre: I'm not saying that Mars Volta is the standard for post-hardcore at all, but that's not what the list of post-hardcore bands is about anyway—the list is a lot of bands that fit the post-hardcore genre in various ways. You say: "the idea is to identify and CONCISELY dictate what post-hardcore is", and that's partly what the article does, at the top. You say: "you won't get a good idea on what it is if you have such a diverse cross-genere spread of sound", but I couldn't disagree more, would you know what rock music sounds like if you only listened to the Beatles? Or only to British Invasion bands? Of course not, so why should post-hardcore be restricted to early '90s D.C. hardcore? That would ignore a lot of music history, and a lot of bands involved in the sound.
         But it's inflammatory to say you're "tired of post-hardcore being the catchall for anything and everything" when I want to include Mars Volta in the category, I connected the band to the genre through specific examples and through the band members' history together. I'm not trying to say Madonna is post-hardcore (post-pop?), or that Tortoise is (in this case it doesn't matter that Dave Pajo from Slint was part of the band), or that Television are (post-glam?)... but the shoe fits with Mars Volta, especially since the nature of their relationship with post-hardcore (radical fringes of the genre) is described in the article.
         The Clash, for example, started out as a punk group, but immediately started getting into dub and reggae, and aside from all the other muscial genres they got involved in they created a pretty substantial cache of dub songs: I wouldn't hesitate at all to say the Clash were dub, it doesn't hurt them to say so, it's the reality of their music, even though they are also mostly punk.
         I don't really care about Mars Volta that much, but I do care about the whole idea behind being part of a genre and behind the mechanics of these lists on Wikipedia. I think maybe we got somewhere here: maybe we should make short notes next to the bands in the list to describe how they're related to the overall topic. This problem comes up with all musical genres (especially with the post-punk and post-rock articles). --Tarnas 06:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The last idea would be very good. But we also need a solid definition on what post hardcore is. because, i mean, it's a tricky slope. --Evesummernight 18:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of post-hardcore

  • You don't think the definition in the first paragraph works? That post-hardcore is a "musical offshoot of hardcore punk" and that: "Post-hardcore, as a musical genre, is marked by its precise rhythms and loud guitar-based instrumentation accompanied by vocal performances that are as often sung as shouted. The genre has developed a unique balance of dissonance and melody. It shares with its hardcore roots an intensity and social awareness as well as a DIY punk ethic, yet eschews much of the unfocused adolescent rage and sloppy amatuerisms of punk rock." I think this is a very good definition, similar to other common and complete definitions of the genre (see AllMusic Guide's page on the subject.) --Tarnas 20:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • But there's more to it, it's not always the dissonance, some bands with jazz influences (i.e. Nation of Ulysses and Fugazi) will thrive in the dissonance. more than that it's more of the forwardness of the music, the care for detail. but it's not in comparison to sloppy amatuerism of punk rock, i think that's an overstatement to call it amatuerism, or sloppy in most cases. The opposite of tight (which most post hardcore bands strive for, is that tight well rehearsed chaotic sound) is loose (closer to a mineral and mastadon (neither p-hXc bands, but easier to reference to in my head) not sloppy, regardless on how much i disliked the ramones, they had a tightness in their music that, say, the clash or sex pistols didn't. if that's to say anything at all. saying that it's sloppy and amatueristic is a real harsh criticism that i don't think belongs here. now how i see it "Post hardcore is a musical offshoot of hardcore (not hardcore punk, hardcore punk predated hardcore, and if it was supposed to be post-hardcore punk, it'd be post hardcore punk, sorta like the dc reggae hardcore)." i don't know where i'm going with the end of it.
  • Come on buddy, you're missing your own point: you wanted a concise identification of post-hardcore, and the article already has that going for it. Jazz? That's questionable, but it's not like Fugazi's influence isn't discussed, and there's room to talk about it after the first paragraph if you think it's significant. Care for detail? That's what precise rhythms and The genre has developed a unique balance of dissonance and melody, in part channeling the loud and fast hardcore ethos into more measured, subtle forms of tension and release. and eschews much of the unfocused rage and loose, sometimes amatuerish musicianship of punk rock all get at. I toned down the punk rock bashing, I agree that isn't necessary, but you're splitting hairs with "post-hardcore-punk" and "post-hardcore": of course "post-hardcore" can mean "following hardcore punk", just like "no wave" can mean "anti-new wave" even though it's not written "no new wave". That's just word-coining conventions.
         The whole project of defining a genre is going to be vague as it is: genre is vague, so we attack it from several viewpoints, like from the viewpoint of historical context, of the people involved, of the related genres, as well as from the angle of the basics of the sound (which we've been discussing). I was always pretty happy with this article, when I first came upon it I thought it did a good job of quickly and thoroughly covering the genre—unlike, for example, the muddled post-punk article. --Tarnas 06:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • vague? i'm sorry if i seem a little perturbed about this, i used to work for an e-zine and that was my life was to be definite and succinct about what it was, not willy-nilly and mushy. vague is a sliding scale of definition. i mean, at one end of the spectrum you could call fugazi "music" and have it be correct for the genre, and one end of the spectrum, you have fugazi be dc post-jazzcore. both of which would describe at least 30 similar acts. so vague is subjective. the nice thing about it was that i could assume that i was right all the time and i was an authority because i did my homework. alas, i don't feel comfortable in running my crazy opinions around sometimes if i'm not in control, i know this is a wiki, but i don't wanna get into a revert war over something as minor as this, i mean, the post-punk thing looks like a next project to tackle on my part, but i'm already shaping up emo better than what it used to be. fyi, how many of those bands listed under post-hxc have you listened to? just curious so we can discuss and validated them. --Evesummernight 00:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the genre article agrees with me that genre is "vague". But we agree, a genre isn't undefinable, I just think the defining party has to be flexible about it. Part of it is also concensus: Mars Volta have said in a bunch of interviews that they don't want to be labelled, that they were tired of the At the Drive-In restrictions, but we both know they can be labelled: they are prog-rock, and Frances the Mute has a lot of Latin to it, among other things. But whatever, the post-hardcore article's definition of the genre isn't willy nilly, it's pretty concise and pretty comprehensive.
     As for the bands I've listened to, who I can vouch for being at least significantly post-hardcore-related and worthy of listing:


  • Not a bad list at all to start this off with. But you leave out a few of the huge players in the genre. In all honestly, elliot and Texas is the Reason both, in my eyes dominate one end of post hardcore, while Shellac, Slint, Unwound and Fugazi all take hold of the other end. Check it out, get a full rounded idea of what the sound is, in my eyes. oh... and quicksand and helmet hold another corner?
  • I'll check those out... I don't know anything about Elliot or Texas Is The Reason, though I was going to start exploring Shellac and Rites of Spring. As far as I see it, having listened to (and mostly loved) what I have, Fugazi/Ulysses/other hardcore groups brought the basic sounds common to the first years of post-hardcore; Girls Against Boys/Rodan/Slint/At the Drive-In started exploring the murkier, non-political, quieter and propulsive sounds; At the Drive-In eventually created new sounds, lyrics, and production techniques for post-hardcore, which have been inherited by Mars Volta and Sparta to certain extents; Q and Not U is the most radical revision of post-hardcore, taking the murk and quiet delicacy latent in the genre to extremes. But yeah I guess I'm missing a whole axis of sound that you see in Elliot/Texas Is The Reason. --Tarnas 04:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • oh and Sense Field... forgot about them too... oh, so anyways... as i keep remembering things... the reason why i keep making mention to a tight definition is to separate it from math rock. because Q and Not U, more than post hardcore is math rock... and now that i think of it... shellac is more mathrock too... okay... hold on a second, let me refocus here... shellac is good, but math rock indeed... Epitonic.com's free guide to math rock (including downloadables
  • Well, that's pretty dubious: Q and Not U formed so long after math rock was defined as a genre, and don't sound any more obviously math rock than obviously post-hardcore. They're on Dischord, their first album matched in many ways both the mood of Acrobatic Tenement and the tight musicianship of (select recordings from) Fugazi... their second and third albums have just taken those ideas and the band's particular skills into radical new soundscapes. There's no reason why a genre can't include the art that pushes its limits, especially since that's explained in the article. Plus the Epitonic site you've got there has no listing for "post-hardcore", so there's no reason for me to trust their conception of the genres. I'd sooner go with the much more comprehensive AllMusic Guide, if not my own ear. --Tarnas 05:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It still lists bands as post hardcore (it just doesn't have a tab for all bands that they define as post hardcore). What separates Q and Not U from The Faint and their sound? Just because Q and Not U wasn't part of the "math rock" wave, doesn't not make them math rock. Kluhr, Richards, and Davis were all musicians during the time of math rock and spazcore lead in dc. Frodus was still playing their brand of math rock well into 2001, 3 years after Q and not U formed. Next, just because they're on Dischord doesn't mean all that much. Dischord doesn't just have a "sound" like drive thru or victory, they're too good for that, often diversifying. I don't understand what your point is between Acrobatic Tenement and No Kill No Beep Beep... Q and not U still stays, in my opinion, in the boundaries of math rock and dance punk much like !!! and Minus the Bear... i find them much similar to that than any post hardcore band aformentioned... --Evesummernight 22:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course, they don't have to be part of the first wave—I'm not saying Q and Not U are not math-rock, I'm just saying they're not math-rock to the exclusion of also being radical post-hardcore. In my opinion, Q and Not U are one of the bands pushing post-hardcore into dance-punk. And I also didn't mean to say Dischord only has one sound, but they do have artists with related sounds, and I think it's instructuve to list Q and Not U as practicing a form of post-hardcore: another example of the edges of the genre, in contrast to more straightforwardly post-hardcore groups like Fugazi or Girls Against Boys. Though there's nothing connecting the Faint and Q and Not U as far as I can hear except, maybe, the more electric engineering on Power and the Faint's use of synths: no lyrical similarities, no similarity in attitude or song structure... I wouldn't try to classify the Faint as post-hardcore, new wave / goth revival by way of Sonic Youth's noise innovations is more like it.
         As for my comparison to Acrobatic Tenement, once again, the murk/dissonance surrounding distinctly sharp, memorable melodies; the controlled use of propulsive drumming and guitar/bass crescendos (buildup of tension and release); use of lyrics interplaying with sound build-ups (compare "Initiation" with "We Heart Our Hive" and other moments of staccato quiet drumming); and general song structures (compare "Porfirio Diaz" to "A Line In the Sand": ramp-up, devolve through three sections of distinct instrumentation); aside from the historical similarities (both first albums, both set up the respective band for similarly radical invention of new sounds)... --Tarnas 05:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

One approach would to be to include the genrte/sub-genre on the band article to test responses, e.g., Q and Not U does normantion [[post-hardcore in a cursory glance Paul foord 12:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  • From the first paragraph of Q and Not U: the band went on to record two more critically lauded LPs as a three-piece, exploring aspects of post-hardcore, dance-punk, and other disparate musical styles. --Tarnas 19:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think there are certain musical similarities between post hardcore bands that have not been discussed and would give a better idea as to forming a definition. For one, there is the intertwining guitars, both playing phrases that on their own would make little sense but when combined make an overall melody; there is often a lead line being playd on the bass, as opposed to holding down the root notes as in hardcore; there are the octave interval chords, e.g. third fret A string, 5th fret G string, with the D string muted with the fingering hand, giving an octave C; as has already been stated, there is the angular melodies; and finally, a more progressive and subtle approach to drumming technique than hardcore.Jaworski716 01:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)jaworski716


- i believe one of the problems this section is having is a paradigm shift in terminology. what a lot of people call "post-hardcore", especially the early stuff, was called "emo", before that term was co-opted by a bunch of bands, taken over by popular culture and it's definition basically changed. Since then "post-hardcore" has been used to describe bands that playing in the original emo style, without any of the cultural baggage the the word emo now carries. 9917

[edit] Embrace and Rites of Spring

  • I think it makes good sense to keep including Embrace and Rites of Spring, as they have been all along, given that they are classified as "post-hardcore" by at least some major music press and given their role in driving hardcore into emocore, a definite part of the post-hardcore pool of genres that have gone on to become more self-contained (or which have, more recently, in part reverted into harcore/post-hardcore forms). —Tarnas 08:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

216.16.193.253 07:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)hey i have an idea why dont we make things as convoluted as possible? i took them out along with moss icon.

[edit] Alexisonfire, Refused, Thrice, Underoath

Alexisonfire, Refused, Thrice, and Underoath are each considered to be post-hardcore groups, so I'm not sure why they are being removed as not belonging in this genre... no explanation has been given. Refused might be a special case, since only their last album has been considered "post-hardcore" (not unlike Dillinger Escape Plan's Miss Machine), but the other three are no-brainers. Three band articles state relationships to post-hardcore, and other non-Wikipedia sources list all four as post-hardcore or as belonging to a reasonably close sub-genre of hardcore:

It's not even that I'm a fan of these bands... There's just too much evidence supporting the "post-hardcore" classification. —Tarnas 03:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


see this.--Bouyeeze 16:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New list of bands article created

For future discussion of bands' inclusion or otherwise see Talk:List of post-hardcore bands Paul foord 13:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Three bands

what about bands like the blood brothers, fear before the march of flames, and circle takes the square?

i dont even know WHAT to call them, although i've always heard them referred to as post-hardcore

I'd say they each qualify (The Blood Brothers, Fear Before the March of Flames, and Circle Takes the Square), though I haven't listened to any of them, and FBTMOF and CTTS seem to employ a little less musical variety than Blood Brothers, making them easier to keep in the more particular genres of mathcore and screamo. Of course, a lot of math and screamo/emo crosses over into the more general "post-hardcore" umbrella. I'd add Blood Brothers right off the bat... —Tarnas 01:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd also say they should all be considered. I think they are the best example of how the genre is developing as of this decade. The article seems to focus mainly on post-hardcore in the 90s as of when it was first developing, with very little mention of contemporary post-hardcore music. I think someone should write a section on post-hardcore today incorporating these bands as examples of how the genre has progressed more recently.

[edit] the post hardcore rise to popularity

[edit] lyrical content

The article notes the particular changes in the musical aspect of the genre, but makes little mention of the distinction between hardcore punk lyrics and modern post-hardcore lyrics, which I think is a really distinctive point. Someone perhaps could write a section about how in general lyrical content has become far more sophisticated compared to early hardcore music. As I understand it, hardcore punk lyrics were generally much more straightforward and simplistic whereas post-hardcore bands tend to make frequent use of complicated metaphors, and other devices. A common trend I notice is a lot of bands, such as the Blood Brothers to give an example, like to employ styles of imagery that don't seem to fit together from a conventional literary standpoint which creates a lends a very surreal quality to the lyrics.

[edit] Modern Post-Hardcore vs. Original Post-Hardcore

It seems to me like a lot of the debating going on here is very similar to the progressive rock debates found elsewhere on wikipedia. There was a huge progressive rock insurgence in the 70's and 80's with the likes of Rush, Jethro Tull, King Diamond and others. Nowadays, people have been calling Coheed and Cambria and other modern day, alt rock/metal bands, progressive rock. There is not a huge relation between these modern prog-rock bands, and those of the 70's, but the genre prog-rock itself as evolved into bands such as Coheed.

I would argue this is very much the same as what is happening here with post-hardcore. In the past, post-hardcore was defined by the likes of Fugazi, Shellac, Split Lip, and Sunny Day Real Estate. However I feel the genre is evolving into a more modern sound that, admitedly, seems to be defined more by metal then punk. At the Drive-In is a pivotal crossover band, where they introduced a much more modern and refined sound into the genre of post-hardcore, espcially with their last release Relationship of Command. This lead to the eventuality of bands such as Thrice and Thursday emerging under the post-hardcore flag. I would argue that Thrice's albums The Illusion of Safety and Identity Crisis are punk or hardcore, but their albums The Artist in the Ambulance and Vheissu certainly are post-hardcore. Vheissu in particular follows the post-hardcore article's definition to a T:

"precise rhythms and loud guitar-based instrumentation accompanied by vocal performances that are as often sung as whispered or shouted. The genre has developed a unique balance of dissonance and melody, in part channeling the loud and fast hardcore ethos into more measured, subtle forms of tension and release"

With Thrice and Thursday pioneering the more modern day post-hardcore movement, many bands (albeit some that shouldn't) have been called post-hardcore. There is now a lot of misunderstanding concerning the differences between modern post-hardcore, screamo, hardcore, and even metalcore bands. Post-hardcore is much more subtle than all of the other three genres, and often display a much more mature edge to their musics. However for a real definition of them all, see their respective wiki-articles. As a result, I feel the diehard fans of the 1980's post-hardcore movement have to give a little slack to the genre and realize that it is evolving into something with similar concepts and characteristics, but overall a much more modern and refined sound. --Bouyeeze 16:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, i agree... the post hardcore movement's center of focus is something different... but what is modern post hardcore's center? that's a real tricky question... if you ask me... where is it going so we can put up an umbrella over bands that can be considered phxc... your absolutely correct in saying that ATDI moved the genre into overdrive (not exactly but...) i'm in full agreance with you on the Thursday, Thrice issue... Now as far as 'the list'... i do have some issues with that... Alot of things that i would say fall under emo... fall under the catagory of phxc... most ... Now, you must understand, that so many of these bands have keyboards... and i don't find that to be the 'mark' of phxc... although one might think that... what else... post hardcore should be completely isolated from metalcore, honestly, IMO bands like the bled are directly influenced from hardcore... but that doesn't make anything influenced by hardcore phxc... metalcore is the verified hybrid of both... where as phxc is the hybrid of loads of jazz, blues, hardcore, some metal, some punk, some prog... whatnot... you get all sorts of things from there... but what separates phxc from emo? that's the biggest thing in my book... what separates the two of them... and then you start eliminating things from there... whereas phxc is "precise rhythms and loud guitar-based instrumentation accompanied by vocal performances that are as often sung as whispered or shouted. The genre has developed a unique balance of dissonance and melody, in part channeling the loud and fast hardcore ethos into more measured, subtle forms of tension and release" (i'm not a huge fan of that definition... nor most of all-music's stuff... i think their genre definitions are not only weak, but unreliable... i have found very little i think are actually correct... and then you ask yourself... is it correct? just because they say it's correct, does that make it correct? if so, i might as well point to some articles i've written on the subject (and have printed in magazines and ezines)... because the lack of quality sources are kinda, disheartening..) anyways... where i really get irritated with this definition is that it's way too constricting... i probably said this before... metalcore is totally channeling the loud-fast part of it... which is a good 'gate' if you will for the separation of them... but so many modern bands don't have the rhythmic diversity that comes with anything previous to them... looking at fugazi and quicksand as golden standards for both edges of it (maybe a bit biased, i know but...) precise is a horrid word to use there... because rhythm by its nature should be fairly precise... guitar-based instrumentation is basically a catchall for 'bands' and not orchastral or chamber pieces... "as often sung as whispered or shouted" is vague... "tension and release..." could just as easly describe my bloody valentine (along with all of the OTHER definitions included)... Mogwai (minus the vocals...) basically all of post-rock can fit into that category... and if that can happen... and that's a differently influenced genre (out of hardcore punk, instead of hardcore)... i think we can do better... anyways... --Evesummernight 22:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emo and Post Hardcore connections?

What's the connection between emo and post hardcore?

Basically both are outgrowths of the American hardcore scene. Emo is a particular brand of post-hardcore music that caught on and developed into its own thing. WesleyDodds 03:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

concurred. they play off each other and the same influences and have much in common, hence the difficulty in finding a clear definition between the two. --evesummernight 08:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Emo takes a bit more of a Metal influence sometimes. It may help to tell you that sometimes Post-Hardcore is reffered to as Pre-Emo...not often,but sometimes. haha.172.143.100.113 20:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Hardcore/Math-Rock/Noise-Rock connection

Why is Wikipedia's entry for post-hardcore bands filled with major label MTV2-style mall-punk bands, while the math-rock entry cites bands more accurately described as post-hardcore? Truth be told, post-hardcore bands share the same roots as math-rock and noise-rock groups. All three genres rose to prominence in the late 1980's, all endebted by varying degrees to D.C.'s Fugazi, Louisville's Squirell Bait and Chicago's Big Black & Jesus Lizard. One cannot completely separate post-hardcore from noise-rock or math-rock, thus it should be noted that all three genres draw from the same well.


[edit] Waves and Confusion

Can I just ask why theres seems to be no distinction between the post-hardcore movement that broke off in the 80's and the post hardcore "movement"(I'm not sure if it deserves the term yet) that broke off in the late 90's early 00's. Mentioned above in the origional vs modern comment new post-hardcore is very different to the sound that the term was created for, but in contrast to above I would strongly argue that modern PH is not a descendant of older PH, both are seperate deviants of the two waves of hardcore. Looking at the "definition and controversy" part of the article it beocmes painfully obvious. On one hand you have ATDI and Fall of Troy, two bands with an obvious similarity to old PH and on the other you have Thursday, Alexisonfire and Thrice with more of a simlarity to Emo and modern hardcore. Personaly i think PH as a term of the second wave isnt appropriate, post-emo would be a more accurate one but half the of the reason they call themselves PH is to try and distance themselves from emo. but still i'll attempt a draft rewrite soon using this distinction and whack it up as an alternative for review with an aim of making it the main article later on. and as a side note yes people will come up with examples like hundred reasons who arguably are influenced by both movements but still i think the PH and PE bands should be differentiated. Veridis 11:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why doesn't the article cite a single historical use of the term?

I'd assume anyone who would call Underoath, Thursday, Saosin, etc "post-hardcore" has been listening to indie/punk scene music for less than five years. Speaking as someone who's been listening to that stuff for 10 years, the only times I ever heard the term in the 90s was once in reference to Texas Is The Reason, and then a couple years later in reference to Joshua, both relatively soft bands. Then in the early 2000s the original mp3.com used it as a genre categorization under which many harder rocking young emo/screamo bands charted, and it seems like it snowballed from there. I think the catagorization of late 80s Dischord bands as "post-hardcore" is purely retroactive, and redundant considering Rites Of Spring and Embrace are generally regarded of the forefathers of emo(core). I'd like to see some uses of the term in the late 80s/early 90s cited. I can't believe someone managed to have that entry accepted without citing a single use of the term in reference to those bands by any press at the time. I'm not convinced the term was ever used as anything other than a formal promotional industry press term prior to 2001, and hasn't been used since as anything other than a protective term for bands that don't want to be called emo but are clearly more influenced by Taking Back Sunday or other major-label alternative rock than any bands that actually have anything to do with hardcore. If you want to continue using the term at least define it as "bands that kinda sound like they might possibly have been influenced by hardcore or played it at one time". -Liam

Because it sucks, and was likely written by 14 year olds.Hoponpop69 22:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood Brothers

Today, it was removed. I think it should be re-added. Their page calls it post-hardcore, and while I feel their music is perhaps more schizophrenic then most post-hardcore artists, I still think it should be on here. FerventDove 03:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree and second this movement. SUre they are probably one of the most whacked-out (and awesome) bands out there but they always have their basic post-hardcore sensibility backing up their experimental music. - Gellister

[edit] Added a table

I added a table to the page...just thought i'd point that out. =P

[edit] Butt Coar?

i removed it, seriously, someone needs to grow up. just because you dont like a style of music doesnt mean screw around with it on wiki. There are bands working hard to put Butt Coar on the market. don't deface my butt coar entry ever again, jackass.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/s/Talk%7EPost-hardcore_3acf.html"