Talk:Emo (music)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Emo As A Lifestyle?

I think that emo is more than just a genre of music and fashion; I think of it as a lifestyle as well. I think that a section should be added to reflect this. Does anyone disagree? Theslash 02:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


I do. nightpotato

Emo (slang). If it can be conclusively proven that the term is being used as a lifestyle term, we'll change the title of that article. But, we're trying to keep this article focused on the music, and not so much on the other elements. -- ChrisB 20:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


  • EMO ITS JUST HAPPY PUNK PLAYED FASTER

I really found few diferences , musically speaking, between emo and the happy punk played by disgusting bands like Simple Plan or Blink 182, the sound can be faster, with some rythm changes, with the singer screaming in angst (really pathetic sometimes), but its the same pop-punk sound! Emo as a lyfestyle? Emo , as the happy punk its just for posers--200.95.142.138 11:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)LOPETEGO

  • Not really

Dude, Simple Plan is plain depressing to listen to, and some of their best-known songs (Welcome to my life) epitomize the emo lyrical and singing approaches. Also, they're 20-something guys talking about teen problems, which is a defining characteristic of emo. I have to say blink 182 isn't emo, since they have more frenetic drumming and a different style. Gabriel Texidor 23:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Is it eh-moe? or eee-moe?

I've always heard it pronounced the second way, with a long e sound. --Icarus 19:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
the term is derived from the word "emotional", which itself has a long 'e' sound (though differing with accent) Mwhale 14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It is eee-mo, every time you will ever here it it will be eee-mo. take the emo song for example! emosong.ytmnd.com Emo Song ytmnd -eightballx


EMO is NOT short for emotional! It is pronounced the second way though, but it doesnt stand for EMOTIONAL.. Thats absolutely absurd, if it stood for emotional, ALL bands would be labeled emo.. Emo stands for Emotive Post-Hardcore. Reiver 00:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know which pinhead got this misbegotten concept in their head, but it has ALWAYS stood for "emotional", even in 1985 in DC. I do not know where "emotive" came from, but in no widespread capacity has "emo" EVER been short for "emotive". I can personally vouch for the last twelve years, through the days where "emo-core" was clearly understood as "emotional hardcore". Christ, don't take my word for it, do a Google groups search from 1989-1995 for "emo" and see what comes up. (The first instance of "emotive hardcore" doesn't show up until 1996, and it's in a fucking promo for an indie label.)
Emo standing for "emotional" is precisely the reason there is so much confusion as to what's classified as "emo". Seriously, "emotive post-hardcore" is the most contrived explanation of "emo" that I've ever seen - where the hell did that come from? -- ChrisB 00:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Emo could stand for emotional or emotive. Looking at the dictionary definitions of both, they mean the same exact thing. www.answers.com/emotional Emotional and www.answers.com/emotive Emotive. Which one is more correct for this article? I'd have to stick with emotional as it has persisted the longest. --Klaser 18:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

further additions needed

august 3rd

i realized that there is no mention on the main page of Nation of Ulysses, who are pretty much responsible as an influence for the entire early 90s Gravity/San Diego/chaotic emo scene. they're the connection between classic revolution summer DC and later eras, in that they basically took the more chaotic & rhythmic parts of Rites of Spring and ran with it.

also due to Nation of Ulysses's influence, in the early 90s, before there was "scene hair", there were kids wearing white belts and getting dr. spock haircuts. common nicknames are "spock rockers", "romulans", "white belts". there probably should be further discussion of this aspect of the fashion, as it is what led to the current "fashioncore" trends, otherwise it seems like fashioncore just popped out of thin air. even regarding "scene hair", 5+ years ago this haircut used to be exclusively for girls. at some point it became unisex. i've also heard this haircut referred to as "the turkey cut" or the JFK.

also needing mention in the early 90s is the Ebullition label as well as the trend of creating super-DIY packaging for records including records that were sold in silkscreened paper bags, envelopes, etc. also extreme PC politics, which may have led to the backlash of calling people "emo fags", not only as a blatant insult on a basic level, but to insult the PC sensibilities as well.

there is no discussion of actual elements of what makes a song musically "emo", whether it is pedal points, octave chords, breakdowns, drum builds, drop tuning, harmonies, screamy parts, twinkly intros, etc. certain aspects of which, can define a bands sound and genre classification. chadski

I think thats true.(1 / 2) * a * t2 + v0 * t + s0

Chadski, that was some truth. That's what I said above. -DFelon204409

I also agree that additions need to be made. This article seems to say that the original emo sound has completely dissappeared but the truth is it still exists. There is still an underground scene with many active bands and many active labels (Level Plane, Ebullition, Robotic Empire...) This scene differs in many ways from the mainstream "emo" and I think this is worth mentioning. Many of these bands are very political. They do not have the obsession with fashion that the mainstream scene seems to have. Much of the music is released on vinyl and with super-DIY packaging as mentioned above. There are other differences as well and an addition such as this I feel would make sense to emphasize the difference in the perception of what emo is to the mainstream and to the underground. Also there needs to be a description of the "sound" of emo as mentioned above,because this is REALLY what defines the genre. -xghstst0riesx

Moving page

An anonymous user is attempting to move Emo to emotional hardcore. In order for the page history to be moved as well (which is required under Wikipedia's licenses), the redirect at the latter needs to be deleted first, which can only be done by an admin. In the meantime, why not discuss it here, first? Is there a consensus to move the page and replace Emo with a disambiguation page? --BaronLarf 02:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

This page has seen endless arguments about what emo really is. What it basically boils down to is some people see emo as meaning the original emotional hardcore genre alone, while others recognise that in popular culture, emo is used to describe a far broader cultural phenomenon. Most people who search wikipedia for emo will only have heard of 21st Century Emo, and although emotional hardcore, or "true" emo, is probably more deserving of being called emo than most of the stuff that gets labelled emo by lazy journos and music n00bs nowadays, it's ridiculous to ignore what MOST people think "emo" is. Therefore, I think the only fair thing is to use my disambiguation page that I tried to put here, as it gives both uses of the term "emo" equal standing and makes it clear what both articles refer to. If we don't do this, this article will be disputed till the end of time. --80.4.224.6 02:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Also, there was no consensus on moving all the stuff on modern emo to a subjectively titled page (pop hardcore) in the first place. And the user who made that page coined the terms themselves.

The reason there isn't a consensus is because people aren't looking at history. People think that Dashboard is emo people Rolling Stone said so. I invite anybody who doesn't agree with the page to investigate for yourself. Check out bands like Indian Summer, Hoover, and even some modern bands like Kite-Flying Society, Circle Takes the Square, or Funeral Diner. The truth it out there, you just have to look for it. -DFelon204409

I know all about the history of emo, I just think that it's pretty pig-headed and elitist to ignore what emo has come to mean in popular culture. The meanings of words change. Emo, as in the way the term's used by most music journalists and fans today, is a term that's evolved from an earlier musical genre, but no longer exclusively applies to. And just because the history of one definition stretches further back than another, what gives you or anyone else authority to say whether or not this is the true definition? Language evolves. And I also think, if you take a look at the changes I made to the disambiguation page, anyone who comes across that page will instantly be shown that emo has a history that predates the likes of Thursday and Taking Back Sunday, and "true" emo bands have very little in common with the likes of My Chemical Romance. At the moment though, anyone who doesn't already now a bit about emo will be confused by this article, which I think is pretty un-encyclopedic. --80.4.224.6 15:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Ω Tell me this. If emo has indeed changed over the years to Taking Back Sunday and Get Up Kids, bands who are in no way hardcore, and betray the idea of "emotional hardcore," then how do you explain the path that led through Gravity Records, the Midwest Indie/Emo scene, all the way to modern bands with ebullition and level plane that present modern themes and ideas based on a clear, straightforward (yet diverse) path through the history of emo? How are those bands like City of Catepillar not "modern emo" as you have allowed bands like TBS to be considered to be, only on the virtue of it being popular opinion? Just because Sunny Day Real Estate, Grade, and Braid reminded somebody of the same style that Christie Front Drive did at some point, doesn't mean that the malignant tumor of a genre growing off of it is emo at all. Emo has a modern history as well that most people disregard for the popular notion of emo.

Ω Also, I agree that people will be confused. That's why I think there should be a midwest section here that explains where there was a divergence towards indie. You then disambiguate to a midwest indie page, which leads to a modern pop indie/pop punk/popcore page.

Ω DFelon204409

My point is that most people who search Wikipedia for "emo" will have heard the term in association with acts like Taking Back Sunday, Thursday et al. Basically those bands are just like nu-metal bands, in that they don't really belong to a true genre, it's more of a pop-culture trend than anything. The difference between nu-metal and emo is that lazy journos made up a word to pigeon-hole guitar bands of the late 90s, while in the 21st century they've appropriated the name of an existing genre of music. The use of the word "emo" in this since is now so widespread, and actually more widespread than the term's traditional meaning, that I think it's ridiculous to not feature it in the main emo article. I was personally happy with the balance we had before, were there is a long, in-depth section on the history of emotional hardcore, before an explanation on how the term has come to be an all-inclusive umbrella term popularised by lazy members of the mainstream media and also a pejorative. Before both meanings of the word were given equal standing - maybe the sections on emo criticism and fashion tipped the balance, but they should've been moved to their own seperate pages and the section on emo as a pop culture movement should've been kept as it was. But if you insist on splitting "true" emo and what most people think emo is into seperate articles, then they should be given equal standing on a disambiguation page. --80.4.224.6 16:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

WTF is Emo Anyway...

A more concise version of what I said above - this page should be a disambiguation page with links to "true" emo, the article for which I think should be at the emotional hardcore page, and modern uses of the term, which I think belong under the 21st Century Emo title, since it's a far less provocative term than pop-hardcore. This way anyone who searches wikipedia wanting to find out what emo is should find exactly what they need to know, and since the page will no longer be a constant battle between "real emo" and "MTV emo" or whatever the hell term your using for it this week, vandalism should be cut down considerably. --80.4.224.6 02:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

who decides what true emo is? i vote for it all to be inclusive.

emo is a genre. a long and varied genre, just like Rhythm and Blues. How much in common do you see between the moody blues and alecia keys? R&B encompasses it all (although, the r&b article needs a bit of early history renovation)... i distinctly say, it needs to stay. all of it.

--evesummernight 03:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Having just stepped into this mess, I think pre-2000 emo should be sent to Emocore. Until the late 90s, the term "emo" was used almost exclusively as an abbreviation of the word "emocore". It was only with the advent of mainstream "emo" that the "core" came completely off and "emo" became a term of itself.
Additionally, the split would help calm the controversy between the modern "emo" and the more indie leanings of what came before. However, it's worth it not just for that aspect: it's also historically accurate.
I somewhat mistakenly rewrote the Emocore article (not realizing what was going on), but it might at least serve as a start. Or it could just be wiped and rewritten.
But for the record: at the time, Jawbreaker wasn't considered emocore. Neither was Fugazi. There should be a greater focus placed on Sunny Day Real Estate than as an afterthought as the article currently stands. Sunny Day was the first emocore band to get widespread national attention, to the point of notice by Rolling Stone and company.
At the very least, consideration should be made to create articles such as Emo (90s) and Emo (80s) to help differentiate them from the modern day. -- ChrisB, 07:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ω I can't beleive we're still having problems with this. Look, emo didn't evolve into Dashboard or any of that. Emo evolved by merging the older more clean tone sound with the Gravity sound. Bands starting in 1993-1996 like Saetia and Indian Summer mixed the chaotic with the calm and sent emo in the direction towards emo bands like Kite-Flying Society and Die! Emperor Die! and screamo bands like Kaospilot and pageninteynine. It has since moved towards a more progressive screamo/emo style like Circle Takes the Square, Hot Cross, and City of Catepillar, and the more epic brooding stylings of bands like Funeral Diner and A Day in Black and White. If you would at least listen to this progression you'd realize its validity. Just because Rolling Stone and Spin don't know what the fuck they're talking about doesn't mean that you guys have to as well. If any of you guys want to get some modern emo/screamo songs from me IM me at DFelon204409 or check my soulseek (DFelon204409 as well). Thanks. I appreciate anybody who cares. Ω DFelon204409

Honestly, man, if you truly believe the stuff you're trying to cram into the Emo article, then you should remove yourself from the writing process.
Regardless of what Gravity was doing in the early 90s, it doesn't change the fact that in 1995 and 1996, the indie scene equated Sunny Day Real Estate with emo. And I'm not talking about Rolling Stone. Do a search in Google Groups for newsgroup postings on emo from 1995-1999, and you'll see that the writeup in the article is 100% accurate. (I was there when that stuff happened - I saw it myself.)
The whole point of a Wiki article is to describe the past and reflect the present as accurately as possible. "Grunge" was a word created by the media. Nirvana and Pearl Jam wanted nothing to do with the term. But popular perception was that they were grunge, so they are now permanently listed historically as grunge bands.
You can't coin a new term and force it on people. I agree on your point - I would prefer that people not use the term "emo" to describe the new music. BUT THEY DO. Telling people that they should call it "pop hardcore" because you think they should doesn't work. NOBODY calls it "pop hardcore", so an article on the subject would be entirely invalid from a journalistic standpoint.
EVEN IF YOUR VIEWPOINT IS RIGHT, it's irrelevant. Thousands of kids view "emo" to be exactly what it is today, whether you or I like it or not. Read the Wiki guidelines about an article, and it's pretty clear: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article named 'whatever', ask yourself what a reader would expect under "whatever" in an encyclopedia."
A seventeen year old kid looking for an article on "emo" isn't going to show up looking for an article about Gravity Records and Indian Summer. Having the historical elements about where the term originated is fine. But claiming that emo diverted in the 90s towards some other sound is not relevant when thousands of people use the term to describe something else.
I hate to say it, but you're not only outnumbered by the other contributors, but by civilization itself. All the bands you're describing (Circle Takes the Square, Hot Cross, City of Caterpillar, Funeral Diner, and A Day in Black and White) should do themselves a favor and call themselves something else. Coin a new term that hasn't been destroyed by popular culture. "Emo" isn't something that a Wiki article is going to be able to take back from the masses. -- ChrisB 08:07 23 August 2005 (UTC)

¥ I don't think we should be catering these pages to the expectancies of ill-informed seventeen year olds; rather we should have pages that state the facts so that those ill-informed kids can learn the truth rather than have their misconceptions reinforced. I'm not saying we should attempt to blot out the existance of all the Hawthorne Heights of the world, however we should put them in their proper place. They are not emo bands, they are pop/punk/rock bands that have been erroneously assigned the label "emo" because the corporate world saw there was a buck to be made. We should seperate these two topics, leaving real emo on the emo page and putting the faux-emo on it's own page. Call it "corporate emo" or "pop-core" or something.

¥ I first heard of emo back in the early 90s during a chance encounter with some older kids. It was a one time thing, and it wasn't until almost a decade later that I actually learned more about it. Now, what if I had never gotten into emo music and wanted to look on Wikipedia to find out what the deal was with that "emo" music that I had heard about as a kid? If i found an article that talked about Weezer and Taking Back Sunday as the emo bands of today, that would be like finding an article claiming that Simple Plan is the modern day punk equivalent of the Sex Pistols. Instead, I would hope that the wikipedia emo page would educate me about emo's history, old emo bands, and current emo bands, and then briefly mention that the term is commonly misused today to refer to non-emo bands, providing me a link so I could go read more about Silverstein, wearing my sister's pants, and Fuse if I want.

¥ ChrisB's analogy to Nirvana and Pearl Jam being coined as "grunge" does not hold up either. "Grunge" is a term that was just made up to describe this type of music. It's not like they said "we should call this metal," eventhough there was already type of music called metal. Emo existed long before Victory Records, and there are still emo bands that exist. Bands like Hot Cross and Trophy Scars should be listed as modern emo bands instead of every indie or pop/punk band that happens to say they're sad and don't sound like Linkin Park or Nickelback. Emo has a specific meaning, like banana, not an all-inclusive one, like fruit.

Arcarsenal 24 August 2005

Ω Arcarsenal, I actually agree with ChrisB on one thing. If kids are going to come to this page for info about Funeral for a Friend, information should be provided. However, I'm with you in that there needs to be more of a factual base. How about the page shows where the schism in the idea of emo occurred. Show the side that pop media and journalists take and show the side elitists and historians take. None of this second and third wave stuff. Organize it into popular notion and the historical notion. If you make that battle clear enough, kids who comes for Dashboard etc. will be able to see the way their notion has evolved against a contrary idea of the word. This site is supposed to be neutral and information so it's probably important to explain the difference between the two ideas of emo, etc. - DFelon204409
"Emo has a specific meaning, like banana, not an all-inclusive one, like fruit." I could not possibly disagree more.
It's impossible to split the "historical" and "popular" notions of emo because they're the same thing.
Since my "grunge" example failed, here's another: "Hip hop". In the 80s, "hip hop" described dance-influenced music that featured light-hearted lyrics, as performed by groups like Digital Undergound and DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince. In the 90s, "hip hop" described Gangsta Rap, as performed by Snoop, Dr Dre, and 2Pac. In the 00s, "hip hop" described an R&B-influenced almalgamation of the two, as performed by Nelly and 50 Cent.
Your arguments that the original emo is the only emo is like claiming that Nelly and 50 Cent aren't "hip hop" because their music sounds little to nothing like the 80s version of "hip hop". Instead, "hip hop" of 2005 should be remembered for some NYC underground band whose sound is reminiscent of 80s hip hop.
Here's the key: ask someone in twenty years what "emo" was like in 2005, what bands would you honestly expect them to throw out? Indie bands that few people have heard of, or popular bands like Coheed and Cambria?
Splitting the scenes into "waves" is a perfectly acceptable way to reflect the popularity of "emo" over the years. If you were to ask a random person what emo was in the 80s, they'd probably say Rites of Spring. Ask a random person what emo was in the 90s, they'd probably say Sunny Day Real Estate or Jimmy Eat World. (Don't disagree with this point simply because you would think of someone else first.)
Journalists and record labels didn't decide that the second wave of emo was emo. Fans of the music did. Regardless of how you feel about it, that's what happened. It's historical and 100% true.
No matter who deemed modern emo to be emo, fans have accepted it. End of story.
Encyclopedic articles (and Wiki articles, according to THE OFFICIAL GUIDELINES) are supposed to reflect the historical record shared by the most people. Only a modest handful of people have heard of bands like Hot Cross and Trophy Scars, no matter how much you wish otherwise.
It's perfectly acceptable to include references to bands that still practice original emo. That's a worthy part of the historical record. However, your insistence that modern emo is illegitimate and should not be covered in the same article is a minority POV, which the Wiki rules are explicitly against.
Seriously, don't get me wrong: I'm entirely frustrated that "emo" means something else now than it did ten years ago. Every time I mention to people that I was in an emo band in the late 90s, I basically have to defend myself and go into some long-winded explanation that's completely meaningless to them. BUT THAT'S LIFE. That's how things are now, and how the word "emo" has shifted in the last twenty years. They know "emo" to be something completely different from what it was, and I have to live with that.
And so does everyone else working on this article. -- ChrisB 04:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

¥ I wasn't trying to say that the mainstream perception of emo should be ignored or anything, I just thought it might be easier to seperate the two forms of modern "emo." That doesn't seem to be a viable option, so I would just submit that we keep the history factual rather than interpolated. Although I don't claim to be an authority, I think characterizing popular emo as "illegitimate" may be the best way to put it. I believe that you would be hard pressed to trace the lineage of the Used back to Rites of Spring. Either way, as long as someone could learn about "legitimate" emo if that is what they wanted, that would be good I think. As a side note, the "history is written by the winners" mentality seemingly applied to these topics is an interesting choice.

Arcarsenal 25 August 2005

Article structure and relationships with other articles

Encyclopedic approach would have this as the main article with links (& using template should really be the main article

  • The template is a useful addition.
  • The main article should be this one.
    • Current characteristics of Emo noting that this is different/divergent from earlier style of Emo genre
    • History at Emocore (or new article) maybe with summary here
    • fashion (& scene) at Emo fashion with summary here

To me 21st century Emo somehow does not seem to be an appropriate title

Paul foord 14:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

I think that inisinuting that emo music is similar to the Backstreet Boys and N*Sync is way more POV-loaded than the stuff I added "about Communists and Nazis". --80.4.224.6 22:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Your comment about Communists and Nazi's was inflammatory, period. Ever hear of Godwin's Law?
Regardless, compare the lyrical content of a song like "Screaming Infidelities" and N'Sync's "Tearing Up My Heart". I know, it sounds insulting, but for the sake of intellectual argument, find both songs and read the lyrics. Both songs cover basically the same subject, separated only by language. It's a perfectly legitimate complaint about post-Dashboard emo, and demonstrates the sharp contrast between new and old emo.
Emo of the 90s never covered the "I can't live without you" stylings of Carrabba's music. It was rarely so overtly about love and relationships and heartbreak. And now you've got bands like Funeral for a Friend writing total schlock like: "Sitting halfway, away from nowhere / Praying for our lips to touch / Holding myself for a second / Just to catch you smile on this line". (I've never heard the song, I just picked one at random.)
I'm not going to belabor anyone who loves that music. It's certainly their right to enjoy it, just as people who enjoy Backstreet and N'Sync have every right to enjoy that music. People shouldn't be criticized for liking some kind of music (one reason that I find the criticism section of the "21st Century Emo" article fucking appalling).
But compare those lyrics to these: "I found out the truth / they found nothing / and you can see it in their eyes when they don't speak / The time is rare / when they are silenced / and they ignore all of the rage you've held / Not much believed in / Cause there's no promise in this land / Pray to the gods you've elected / Another unanswered prayer // There's no promise / that can't be broken / one more time / and do it with a smile". NOT about love, not about relationships, and carry a deeper and darker meaning behind the obvious. (Song: "No Promise" by Seven Storey Mountain)
Lyrical content and the emotional state of it is precisely what separates new emo from old. And the genre of music that the lyrical content of a lot of new emo is closest to is straight, pure, unadulterated pop music. -- ChrisB 01:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Well here's some more Funeral for a Friend lyrics for you - "Shove, Momentum drags us under, Your constant disregard, Your constant aggravation, Tell me nothing but home truths, Then you show me starvation, On a black and white screen, This is your movie queen, Stop and think a second, Tune in, Tune out, Nothing more than nothing, Drop in, Drop Out".
Dashboard could be compared to N*Sync and others certainly, but Funeral have lyrics than can easily stand up against those of older emo bands, and nowhere near as many of their songs are about relationships as you'd probably guess. Whoever wrote this section obviously did it to put the music and it's fans down
I wrote the vast majority of the emo critcisms section, because even though I love a lot of that music, when it's so detested on such a large scale, the critcisms can't be ignored, so I tried to put them in context and make defences against them.
I don't know if Godwin's law really applies here - saying emo music is as alternative and thoughtful as N*Sync and the Backstreet Boys is the equivalent of stating that a Republican is a Nazi or a liberal is a Communist or hippy, because it's a hyperbolic, over-the-top statement made for affect rather than because there's any real meaning behind it.
The whole thing being NPOV tagged for one sentence which contributes nothing to the article is pointless anyway, so I'm gonna remove them and refrain from trying to "balance" hyperbole with hyperbole like I did before. --80.4.224.6 23:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I know we're long past this, but I thought it was worth mentioning: the article wasn't tagged NPOV for that sentence. That sentence was written after the article was tagged NPOV. Actually, the NPOV tag came before I did a single edit on the article. That sentence was part of a lengthy re-write to remove NPOV aspects of the article. If you want to see what the NPOV was, hit the history and check the version before my first edit -- ChrisB
It was tagged NPOV, then there was a bunch of rewriting, during which the Communist/Nazi thing was added, then it was un-NPOV tagged, then it got retagged because of the Communist/Nazi thing. In hindsight, NPOV or not, it wasn't exactly the most encyclopedic of additions. --80.4.224.6 23:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


The new version of emo has some similarities in sound to the boybands of the 90s. (It probably doesn't belong in this article though, because I thought this was supposed to be about real emo of the 1980s, which doesn't sound like boybands) - Deathrocker 21:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

redlinks on the template chaotic emo/midwestern emo

What are these? They are on Template:Emo - chaotic emo appears to be a synonym for emo, and most google references are to the wikapedia article(s). midwestern emo appears as if there is substance thoughPaul foord 07:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What's going on?

What's with the massive changes made to the article? Is the 21st Century Emo article supposed to be incorporated back into this one now or what? --82.25.244.27 22:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

This article now contains balance. It addresses EVERY point of view without favoring any one. There is no one singular answer to the question "What is emo?", and it's worth addressing each and every one of them in an objective fashion.
The 21st Century Emo article is a piece of shit that should be wiped off of Wiki. It basically summarizes this article, then adds a completely unnecessary criticism section that takes the viewpoint that nobody could possibly enjoy emo because it's derivative, dominated by fashion-conscious assholes, and is devoid of any musical value.
If you can't be objective about a topic, if your only viewpoint of something is that it sucks and is only worthy of ridicule, then you have no business writing an article about the subject. Period. It's certainly worth including something about emo criticism, but in no way should it be the PROMINENT thread of the article. PEOPLE ACTUALLY DO ENJOY IT. Treating like shit wrapped in a gift bag does nobody any good. -- ChrisB 00:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

--67.167.218.119 04:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

how can a definition of "emo," "emocore," screamo," whatever-the-fuck, be complete without even a mention of indian summer? i don't get what the griping above is about when you miss the major influences? - joshy

Secondary Meanings

Like it or not, the word "emo" applies to more than simply fans of a specific genre of music. I created a paragraph on the subject, but it appears to have been deleted. I don't see how it is offensive to fans of the emo genre of music, since you have to be blind to not notice that the word emo is being applied to things entirely different from it's original meaning. -- 71.114.231.102

For starters, it appears that you didn't bother to actually read the article, seeing as how 97% of the article talks about the music, not the fans.
But there are other problems with what you wrote. First off, if you want to talk about that specific meaning of "emo", you should start an article called "emo (slang)". You'll notice via the disambiguation link that there are already other emo pages concerning meanings other than the specific music one.
Most importantly, however, your paragraph is derogatory POV. "Though their work may be dreadful"? What the hell is that? People are allowed to write what they want to write - it's not the business of someone writing an objective article to judge their work. "Someone who purposefully acts unhappy and depressed all the time for attention or someone who whines about small insignificant things, stereotypically a spoiled teenager"? Garbage. Can you actually confirm that they're purposefully depressed, and not ACTUALLY suffering from depression and simply reflecting it in a seemingly immature? During the early teenage years, people generally do things that other people might find to be immature - it's called "being a teenager".
Seriously, I'm sick of the bullshit that flows around this article. There are seemingly an endless supply of 15- to 17-year-old boys who have issues with "emo" kids and want to pronounce to the heavens how much they fucking suck. And, guess what? Those kids are just as bad as the "emo" kids. They're just as immature, demonstrated by the fact that they're incapable of setting aside their emotions and acting on impulse to deface a Wiki article.
By comparison, the Goth article features none of the animosity of this article (or of the completely redundant and unnecessary 21st Century Emo article), and Goth kids were just as abused and ridiculed as "emo" kids are today. (I'd actually submit that today's "emo" kids are actually Goth kids who have shifted to enjoy modern "emo", given the notable similarities of the so-called "emo fashion" that hadn't previously been a part of the emo scene. -- ChrisB 00:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, that or they stole Goth fashion. Which they did. -- 65.189.233.93

Oh, that makes sense. And I'm suppose you were around in 1999 when Goth kids weren't part of the "emo" scene. The scene was different back then. It was full of straight-edgers and indie rock hipsters. People didn't wear black and talk about wrist-slitting, or whatever retarded stereotype applies to modern emo. -- ChrisB 01:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"Goth kids" were not massively "abused", mallgoth's of the 1990s and early 2000s were. - Deathrocker 21:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Superchunk

Superchunk, the indie rock band from Chapel Hill, North Carolina should probably be listed as an influence on emo. Vocalist Mac McCaughan has always sung in an intense emotional style and there is a stylistic similarity in the sound of The Promise Ring and Jimmy Eat World to Superchunk. Over the years, when I have put on a Superchunk disc at a party I have been asked more than once, "Hey is this some new emo band?" (by the way, liking the band as much as I do, I never know quite how to feel about that question). Buster 15:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that they were never considered emo, even during that 90s indie-rock emo period. If anything, they were considered more of an off-shoot of the Pixies / late-era Husker Du "alternative" sound. More often than not, they were talked about in the same sentence as bands like Pavement, Sebadoh, and Archers of Loaf. That period was weird: some bands were just "indie rock", others earned the "emo" tag, without any particularly obvious reason why. It seemed like it was more or less relegated to scene, and Superchunk was never in that scene.
I found a relevant quote in an citypages.com/databank/20/986/article8128.asp interview with Jim Suptic of the Get Up Kids from 1999: "I always thought we sounded like Superchunk, but nobody ever calls them emo." -- ChrisB 17:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
the Get Up Kids would love to have sounded like Superchunk, unfortunately they possessed so little talent that nobody would ever have thought to compare the two. --84.65.47.198 11:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Your points are well taken.--Buster 16:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

SEAWEED

Seaweed the punk rock band from Tacoma, Washington also needs to be here. Braid, Saves the Day, Promise Ring, among others, have cited them as an influence. Just because they are from the Northwest, do not categorize them as grunge, as that term means nothing: really refers to a period of time and the Seattle geography, rather than a music style.. Seaweed were--in sound and at heart--an energetic, catchy, punk band with loud guitars, intelligent lyrics, and excellent, soaring vocals by Aaron Stauffer. They belong in the same category as contemporaries such as Samiam, Jawbreaker, Lifetime and Knapsack. Leaving them, and Superchunk, off the influences list is insanity.

-Louis

Band inclusions

That is, discussions of bands to be included on the emo list. The Superchunk thread, above, for example, doesn't belong under here.

Neutrality.

The neutrailty of the Emo from 2000-present should be disputed...in my opinion the bands listed are emo and the person who edited the article says they are "incorrectly" classified.

Emo and Goth

Maybe I missed it, but I think there should be a section included about the similarities of the stereotypes against both emo and goth. Many of the stereotype used against modern emo are almost identical as those used against the goths about 10 years ago. For example, I recently heard a friend mention that some kid, running from a fight, "ran faster than eyeliner at an emo concert." I've heard the same thing said years ago, with "goth" substituted for "emo" in that quote.

There are, undeniably, many similarities between the styles of modern emo and modern goth. Black clothes, black eyeliner, black fingernails, and black dyed hair being several. It seems that the past stereotypes of goth scene are being transferred to the emo scene. Ethernaut

It's in the article for Emo (slang). -- ChrisB 17:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is Emo. Emo is just a dulled down version of Goth!!!

Emo really isnt that much like goth or whatever at all... Reiver 00:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ya, emo kids these days are just wannabe goths. lol


ok NO. EMO is very far from goth. most of the time "emo people" are "depressed"

And this is different from goth, how? :) As an 80's goth (before marylin manson, etc.), I find this whole discussion rather amusing. I once figured that emo kids were just another goth variant. I have now been educated that they are (and I quote) "totally different, they have nothing in common, and you just don't understand, besides, I'm not emo, I'm scenester!" I guess age will do that to a guy. Ronabop 03:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh god, that's hilarious. 'Scenester' is supposed to be a pejorative. Now these kids accept the label as a badge of pride. Nova Prime 00:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


Ha ha, exactly. "most of the time 'emo people' are 'depressed.'" lol. That describes goths perfectly.


Goth isn’t about been depressed, infact the first band ever labelled as Goth “Bauhaus” covered “Ziggy Stardust” its probably the least depressive song of all time, the music is also a thousand miles apart from any form of emo. And the new emos aren’t “wannabe goths” because they have no idea (as ChrisB often shows) what is it about. - Deathrocker 20:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, the only fans of Goth Rock bands such as Bauhaus I know are normally more withdrawn and do not wear any 'gothic' clothing. As such, I discard any links between the two genres. - SevenEightTwo

There are people who subscribe to Goth, and people who call themselves "goth". Deathrocker always describes the first bunch, and calls the second batch something like "mallgoth". The problem is that not everyone refers to the latter as "mallgoth".
Fact: many people called Marilyn Manson "goth" in the 90s. Was he Goth? Probably not. But people followed what he did, dressed in gothic fashion and called themselves "goth". It happened. Legit or not, it's "goth".
That type of "goth" was undeniably prevalent in the late 80s and 90s. It's not a coincidence that Matt and Trey parodied it on South Park.
Claiming that 80s Goth is legit and 90s "goth" is "mallgoth" is POV, plain and simple. There is every right to separate the two, just as this article separates 80s Emo from 00s "emo". However, we can't ignore that the word "emo" is used to describe exactly what it is today; denying that it's the case is POV.
The similarities are between "goth" and "emo", not really Goth and "emo". Many of the newer fashion elements of "emo" are similar to the "goth" fashion elements of the 90s.
And not all emo kids are depressed. But it's apparently easier to use stereotypes. -- ChrisB 01:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm the guy that posted, "Ha ha, exactly. "most of the time 'emo people' are 'depressed.'" lol. That describes goths perfectly." For the record, when I say either "goth" or "emo," I'm refering the the most recent incarnations of both. Just to clear that up. ````


It has been a while since I actually looked here, so I'm going to respond to several different responses all at once...

ChrisB said: ":It's in the article for Emo (slang)." My response: The factuality of that topic is disputed. Why should I even give it a second glance?

Reiver said: "Emo really isnt that much like goth or whatever at all..." My response: I never said the genres were alike. I said the stereotypes used against members

Deathrocker said: "Goth isn’t about been depressed, infact the first band ever labelled as Goth “Bauhaus” covered “Ziggy Stardust” its probably the least depressive song of all time, the music is also a thousand miles apart from any form of emo. And the new emos aren’t “wannabe goths” because they have no idea (as ChrisB often shows) what is it about." My response: First of all, goth has changed many times in many ways since the Bauhaus. Secondly, the music of a genre and the appearance of the members of a genre don't always reflect one another. For example, The Crüxshadows, one of the 90's most influential gothic/darkwave bands, don't always have depressing lyrics. In fact, many of their songs are up-beat. (Not "Shiny Happy people" upbeat, more of a subdued form of up-beat.)

SevenEightTwo said: "In my experience, the only fans of Goth Rock bands such as Bauhaus I know are normally more withdrawn and do not wear any 'gothic' clothing. As such, I discard any links between the two genres." My response: I'm a fan of several punk bands, but I am by no means punk. Being a fan doesn't make you the same thing. Not to mention that many people use "withdrawn" and "depressed" synonymously.

As for ChrisB's next post, the big long one, reather than copy and paste I'll just respond directly... Manson fans didn't call themselves goth because they listened to Manson. In fact, a lot of Manson's fans were already goth to begin with. As for whether or not Manson is goth, that's irrelevant. For the next comment, about 80's goth vs 90's goth, it holds no bearing on the topic, which is supposed to be about the similarities in stereotypes of goths and emo kids.

Sorry for the huge post everyone. -- Ethernaut


Goths and emo's are not related... emo's tend to wear band t-shirts, straight legged pants or jeans, and listen to bands like My Chemical Romance, The Used.. etc... Gothic people have a culture behind them. You cant be a Goth poser... a Goth poser is, in fact, an emo. Gothic has the art and the poetry behind it where as emo's are generally depressive people who winge and whine about everything bad in their lives. Goth's and Emo's are drastically different!

Band T-shirts and straight legged pants? How very Damned. And early Cure. And Jesus and Mary Chain. And Sisters of Mercy. It was big in early 80's goth, but most of the modern emo kids were still in diapers then (we're talking 25 years ago, this is not meant as an insult). As far as not being a goth poser, I'll just have to feel old and giggle some more. As far as old Bauhaus fans, yes, Ziggy was "upbeat". Unlike Terror Couple Kill Colonel, or Bela Lugosi's Dead, or The Passion of Lovers, or A Spy In the Cab, or, for that matter, *most* of the classic Bauhaus hits. Best as I can figure, modern emo might be called punk-goth, acousti-goth, 3rd-wave, or some other kind of grouping of new trends and old trends, new sounds and old sounds. This article traces emo back to what we called "nerd punk" (with nerd being a good word) in the mid-to-late 80's, with the 90's and 00's adding in more ballads and emotional screeds. I wonder how people would classify early Jesus and Mary Chain? Early Souixsie Souix? Ronabop 09:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Muse?

Should Muse be listed as a emo band? Sabrebattletank 15:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need to list any more bands within the article. Nobody really cares what bands are in this article, it's just pointless to add more. --crumb(talk) 16:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess my ulterior motive in this question was a personal question: Is Muse and emo band? I had heard them reffered to as emo but wondered if they were generally viewed as one. Sabrebattletank 20:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd say no. At this point, there seems to be more of a guilt-by-association aspect to declaring something "emo", and I think Muse falls outside of that. (In the same way that The Get-Up Kids were considered "indie emo", but the similar-sounding Superchunk were not.) Muse weren't emo when they first arrived on the scene (too theatrical and bombastic for the late 90s indie emo scene) and it feels like they pre-date what's considered modern emo.
The trick is that being emotional doesn't automatically qualify a band as being "emo". It's more than that. Jeff Buckley's music was emotional, but wouldn't, even under the modern definition, fall under "emo". Muse strikes me more as Queen-influenced space rock (for lack of a more intelligent definition). For me, the band's emphasis on synthesizers / keyboards / ambient noise puts it outside the typical "emotional hardcore" definition.
Then again, as vague as the modern definition of "emo" is, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if some people were calling Muse "emo". -- ChrisB 20:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Emotional Metalcore

I've added references to the fusion genre Emotional Metalcore. Is there any reason that it should be removed? 782 Naumova 12:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it belongs here. The article you wrote notes that it's questionable if the genre even exists, and I think that pretty much settles the problem. The basis for Wiki articles is to show the importance of the topic, and I'm not sure that the Emotional Metalcore article succeeds at that, especially since most of the cited bands are Myspace entries. Even beyond the problem of whether it exists or not, it's hard to say that it has any clear relation to "standard" Emo.
I'm not saying it should never be included here. I just think the term and genre need to be in wider use and acceptance before it's included. -- ChrisB 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that you are correct. However, with the prevailance in the Metalcore scene, it shan't be long before the style and it's origins are more widely noticed. I beleive that the style should, however, be noted more in the article Emo slang. In many areas, the style is much more commonly noted than Dark Pop-Punk as being "Emo"; It is the preferrable genre of many Fashioncore kids, whereas Dark Pop-Punk is the style that the masses onlooking Fashioncore Kids beleive to be "Emo".
I have just added Mikoto [www.mikotomusic.com/] to the list. If you are familiar with modern Screamo, you will know that Level-Plane Records are one of the most well-known. Mikoto shows a clear link between the two genres through this.
There are without a doubt much more doubtable subgenres; For examples, see Stachecore and Pirate Rock. There also were a few references to a nonexistant genre called Rastacore that I deleted. While I understand that it is currently appropriate to reference to it in this article, I beleive that there is a strong difference between general Metalcore and Emotional Metalcore. I do beleive that it should be noted that many Emotional Metalcore bands seem to draw their influence from Emo music purely for credibility.
The reason as to why the links are mostly to MySpace pages is that most fans of these bands will visit a MySpace profile much more frequently than use a search engine. Many such bands have websites that contain only a link to their MySpace profile. A good example of this is Freaks Union [www.freaksunion.com/]. Although they are not Metalcore, they are undeniably part of the same group of music listened to by Emotional Metalcore fans. 782 Naumova 10:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Fashioncore doesn't exist. It's just a term. Nobody actually calls themselves "fashioncore", so saying that something is popular among it is just ridiculous.
We don't need a list of every band that "kinda" qualifies. At this point, if the band isn't important enough to have their own Wikipedia page (and there is a specific standard as to who should get them), then they're probably not big enough to be included in this article as a current band. Now, that doesn't mean that they can't be added to the appropriate genre article (ie, Screamo).
And, seriously, you can go for days talking about Emotional Metalcore, but it doesn't change the fact that its existence is debated and its relevance to Emo is completely questionable. (It absolutely does not belong on the Emo disambiguation page, as it doesn't abbreviate to "emo".) These articles aren't here to be link farms, they're here to accurately reflect the subject at hand. And, no offense, but most of what you're saying here has no significant relevance to this article. -- ChrisB 02:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)