Talk:Emo (music)/Archive 3

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.

Wikipedia "containing incorrect information on pretty much everything."

Contents

Someone deleted the page

Please restore the article. There has lots of vandalism and this is not the first time someone has tried to drastically alter/change the premise of the article. I think Wikipedia should put a lock on this page.


Weezer Quotes

Listen, Weezer's 1996 album Pinkerton is mentioned "being considered one of the defining "emo" records of the 90s." Now, I included a quote from the lead singer of that band who was speaking directly about the alleged influence of that album. A point that is DIRECTLY RELEVANT to the mention of the band. The quote is as follows: Rivers Cuomo, the lead singer of the Weezer, has been quoted in the May 2002 issue of Pulse magazine as saying that "For the most part, emo is worthless. Pinkerton is worthless. And all of it is gonna die. It's bad music".

This quote would mean that the lead singer disagrees with the view of critics that Pinkerton was a defining "EMO" record and even a good record.

Please read this before you delete the edit. Articles change. Get used to it.

--Bert bert 19:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


That quote has nothing to do with the influence of the album. The article doesn't say anything about the quality of the album, either. It looks like the quote was rightfully omitted from the article. Cuomo's opinion of the album or the genre has nothing to do with the fact that it influenced later emo bands, is all I'm saying. --Nefitty 12:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

i fail to see how the principal creator of a defining emo record saying that emo is worthless and bad is not relevent. --67.168.139.10 10:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

oops, that was me --dan 10:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Emo is now ambiguous and meaningless

If I may quote:

"Because emo has been used by and defined differently (it has been labeled bands with whiney singers, a fashion trend, the second wave of pop punk, a band with songs lyrics that take self pity upon the lyricists and the band themselves and many more) by so many bands, fans and media outlets, emo is now an ambiguous term which means absolutely nothing. Slapping the label "emo" on something (i.e. "lol ur listning 2 emo!1") without awareness of it's worthlessness as a label (best to put it in air quotes to show you're recognize it as a retarded genre) is pointless because no two people agree on what it means.

The only reason to define something as emo is because other people refuse to recognize the band in question without it."

That's the def I'm sticking to. --86.138.71.132 23:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

- No emo is emotive hardcore. This is how emo evolved

 PUNK < HARDCORE  < EMO
   This whole page is 95% wrong.

this page is not 95% wrong its 100% true emo has died and will never return its all fashionable fags that think its still alive and its not emotive hardcore emotive is NOT a word and should never be used as one just like ain't isnt a word

Chicago Emo Scene

I was suprised to find that no mention of Chicago as a major emo scene is on this page. The Academy Is, Fall Out Boy, June, The Junior Varsity, Rise Against, Ok Go, Alkaline Trio, and others have all made it big out of the Chicago music scene in the past few years. Fuse TV has even compared Chicago's emo scene to the Seattle Grunge of the 1990s.

Surely smoething has to be mentioned about it!

Not a single one of those bands are Emo--Inhumer 04:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

i'm inclined to agree, but nonetheless many people consider them to be emo, and that is what the mainstream meaning of the word is now, pretty much. --dan 10:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah exactly... emo is basically just a catch-all term now for anything pop-punk or hardcore... so i guess maybe a mention on Chicago being a major scene should be made.

The Smiths

Im surpised there is no mention to The Smiths at all in this page. They were one of the first to do rock with depressing dreary lyrics (i.e. Everyday is Like Sunday) They were one of the first ever to do the "emo" thing.

The smiths occured at the same time first wave emo occurred. Concurred that third wave emo takes some cues from Morrissey's idea... for note, third wave emo draw on the smiths occasionally (see, Brand New)... but, as far as the original constructs of emo go, and the influnce it has on what is currently today branded 'emo'... it's primarly relating to the linear pathway instead of the overall influential branchwork of genrefication... More importantly, emo is often sterotyped as being 'depressing'... just as morrissey's lyrics often are as well... more about morrissey is that he's being ironic, facitious, and witty... that's neither here nore there... lyrics lately at least, tend to draw more from gorecore (i.e. the entire slew of bands who have Cattle decapitation written down...) if you take a second and look at some bands pre-third wave listed, you'd find that their lyrics are more correctly introspective than depressing... i.e. mineral, swing kids, evergreen, and to a greater effect rites of spring... --evesummernight 00:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyday is Like Sunday is by Morissey on his own. There was also lots of depressive music way before then, like Leonard Cohen and some Velvet Underground. XdiabolicalX 19:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

backlash section updated

I've updated the backlash section with an attempt to explain WHY emo became a dirty word, in an attempt to understand WHY new emo was disowned by the hardcore community. I feel that this will give people a better understanding, cause let's face it, you can't just say emo became derided because it was crap. any thoughts? artoftheusername 21/4/06

Honestly, I think it's a great effort, but we can't include this kind of thing in articles under Wikipedia's no original research guidelines. Any time we have to resort to "perhaps" or "maybe", it's not a good sign. Those two paragraphs really do constitute an editorial; more of a theory than a citeable series of events. (And, honestly, there are several assertions made in those two paragraphs that I fully disagree with.) -- ChrisB 17:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

deep elm

i think deep elm needs more of a mention here, including also the appleseed cast. remember it was deep elm which first tried to openly publicise the word emo.


Serious Makeover

This page seriously needs a makeover. Emo is not MCR, FOB or anyother "mainstream" band that plays POP music. What we have here, is a classic case of people not knowing what they are talking about. So 99.9% of you need to do the following:

  • 1. Get off the "emo" bandwagon.
  • 2. Learn what "emo" is.

Once again, learn WHAT EMO IS. This article is going to get a serious make over soon.

But that depends on your definition of emo, which I have always taken as meaning the body or work that was a response to the politicism and anti-sociality of punk, without rejecting its spirit of forthrighness and power. Trad punk, especially by the mid-80s, had become singing about what made you angry. The emo movement was intended to cover all other aspects of the emotional range. That's why it is such a broad church, and why the attempts to define one group as emo and another as not is often counter-productive. Like industrial, it's a tag that can be applied to some bands throughout their entire career, through one album or even a single track (for example: Ministry on Land of Rape and Honey? Industrial. Ministry on Houses of the Mole? Metal.)

My Chemical Romance and others

I wouldn't put MCR in as emo, because their new music is simply hardcore, and they deny being an emo band; their style sounds more like hardcore/horror punk like Bad Religion or The Misfits so get your facts straight. FOB isn't emo either, and I have no idea why people automatically assume that they are emo; FOB IS POP, believe me, I have listened to them and they are not emo or pop-punk. AFI is hardcore punk, Thrice is also. A Static Lullaby isn't emo, they are more metalcore. I am inclined to agree with the Coheed and Cambria fan below, they ARE NOT emo. Listen to some of MCR's songs and tell me if their emo, alright? Some bands that you didn't mention to list as emo:

  • Underoath (their new stuff changed from death metal to screamo, go figure)
  • Good Charlotte (yes, they ARE AN EMO BOYBAND)
  • Simple Plan (THEY HAVE A FEW POP-PUNK SONGS, BUT MOST OF THEIR MUSIC IS EMO)
  • Yellowcard (they have a sort of fusion between pop-punk and emocore, but I still consider them more emo-esque)
  • Armor For Sleep (they sound more emo than what they've been described as)
  • The Academy is...
  • Thursday (definitely)
  • Saves the Day
  • 10 Years

Ok, how are 10 Years emo? - Razorhead

I just watched MCR's music vid for Helena and they weere at a funeral and the lead singer almost like broke down crying 4 times while singing, and if you remember correctly this articles definition of emo is when the performers would become emotional while performing.

this guy with the list above is joking i presume
Did you honestly just call underOATH screamo and GOOD CHARLOTTE EMO?!?!! THEY ARE POP; that's what a boyband is. If you consider emo as emotional, then lets label Kanye West and Mayhem emo too. And, MCR being like Bad Religion is a joke. Timeasimperialism, 6 March 2006
I've been waiting for someone to argue that MCR isn't emo. They called themselves emo when they put their 2002 album on CDBaby. See, here's the thing: bands and their labels do the CDBaby listings themselves. So, at least back then, MCR thought they were emo.
Anyway, that's beyond the point. As it says in the editor's note on that paragraph, the list of bands is not a list of "emo" bands. It's a list of bands that are regularly referred to as emo. MCR is regularly referred to as emo, and so are AFI, Thrice, and especially Fall Out Boy.
Personally, I can't figure out how either Good Charlotte or Simple Plan is emo. I get the feeling that some folks dislike the emo tag enough that they like to use it to label music they don't like.
The reality: nobody can say for sure what exactly emo is now. So arguing about whether or not a band is emo is kind of pointless. -- ChrisB 19:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What the unidentified user said was that "their new stuff is hardcore", and in the paragraph "Emo Today", would interpret to anybody as: 'emo as of 2005-2006' with the word 'today'. And you said 'groups normally reffered to as 'emo', MCR is actually more stereotyped as pop-punk than emo, so that's your inaccuracy. And if nobody is sure of what emo is now, then why are there modern bands included? Wouldn't they be considered as an exception since they don't know what they are since 'emo' isn't even a concrete term anymore; tom me that "is kind of pointless"--CagedInsomniak --4.252.64.77 23:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
"Unidentified user"? YOU SUCK. Two IPs using the same Cincinnati dialup service making the same argument, and it's two different people? Shenanigans. Don't try to pull that crap - we're not stupid.
Here's the problem with your argument: "emo" stands for "emotional hardcore". So if their new stuff is "more hardcore", that just makes it MORE emo. The hardcore element is what makes it "emo" in the first place.
Regardless, the whole point of the "Emo today" section is that it's hard to define what it is. And, contrary to your complaint (and the complaints of fans of nearly every band in that list), those bands are REGULARLY referred to as "emo". If a band has to constantly repeat "we're not emo", it's because they're being CALLED emo. And that's what the article is addressing.
I get the feeling that some people are just seriously desperate for their favorite band not to be labelled "emo". -- ChrisB 00:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oohh...you're smart enough to figure out my IP is the same as the unidentified user, gold star for you. That's not the point, I said that MCR's version of hardcore is more punkish than emo. Haven't you heard of Rise Against? They're not emo, but they're considered hardcore punk...so basically this whole article (or at least the modern part) should be merged with hardcore punk. And if the whole point of the emo today section is mentioning that it's hard to define, then wouldn't every modern band be considered emo? Like I said, MCR isn't reffered to as emo as much as pop-punk, believe me, if they are called emo it's just an innaccuracy, not an insult. Listen to their new music and see how emotionally charged it is, it really is a hardcore rock opera type. --CagedInsomniak--4.253.124.184 00:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
You are ENTIRELY missing the point. The band listed in that paragraph are all called "emo". You can call them something else, but they are called "emo". They may not be emo, but people are calling them emo. They may be something else at the same time they are being called emo, but they are also being called emo. People looking for a definition of "emo music" are going to come to this article. What we're presenting is a factually accurate representation of what "emo" music is.
Not all of the bands in that list qualify as "hardcore punk", so merging the modern part with hardcore punk would be unacceptable.
"Wouldn't every modern band be considered emo?" I don't think so. Is every modern band being called emo? All of those bands have been widely called "emo". (And we're not talking about bands who some Joe Schmo on a message board called emo - we're talking about bands that are WIDELY recognized in the music press as being "emo".)
I'll say it like this: it DOESN'T MATTER what kind of music MCR plays. The music media and general public have used the term "emo" to talk about them, and that's ALL that we're claiming in this article. -- ChrisB 02:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid MCR certainly is NOT "hardcore" or "emo", Black Flag are hardcore, Rites of Spring are emo. MCR are pop-rock.. their vocalist calls their music "violent pop".

Also Mallcore bands like Rise Against are not "hardcore punk" either, they are post-hardcore, Simple Plan and Good Charlotte are simply pop-"punk". .- Deathrocker 17:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, end of conversation, but my point was that MCR isn't emo, and is not commonly considered emo, so really, it's a misconception...
does everyone realizse emo is short for emoTIONAL HARDCORE, none of the bands listed up their fall under that category...

Left Shoe 22:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the dumbest discussion ever. That guy has no idea what he is talking about.

I'd never think i would see the day when My Chemical Romance, and the word "hardcore" are used in the same sentence.Jacknife737 21:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Emo actually means "emotional" and Emocore is what means "Emotive Hardcore"...but that's such a small correction that it doesn't really matter. Oh and Emo and Indie are two completely different things. Don't let the line that seperates them fade away, cause that's how people are thinking. Just because a band is mainstream, does not mean that have no right to have the stupid "emo" tag slapped on them. - RandomSomeone

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: the term "emotive hardcore" did not exist until the mid-1990s, and was not in prevalent usage until recently. The most common meaning of emocore was "emotional hardcore" during the 1990s. And Indie and Emo ran along parallel lines during the late 90s.
Look, I understand that people have an idea of what these terms mean in the modern scene. But they can't ignore the history of the terms and redefine them based on faulty information. I've seen teenagers rant about how "emo" has always meant "emotive hardcore" and be very belligerent about it, but their information is false. They don't know what they're talking about. -- ChrisB 21:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand all this backlash against pop. Pop is a way of making music, it's not necessarily "manufactured music". ~Jasontheperson

Coheed and Cambria

They are prog metal, so they should be removed. -- 65.189.233.93

They may not be emo (though they sound like it to me), but they sure as hell aren't, nor ever will be metal. I'd thank you not to blemish the genre with their name again.
Can any of you C&C fans actually read? The whole point of the paragraph is that people are calling a wide range of bands "emo", even if there's no rhyme or reason to it. The truth: SOME PEOPLE CALL C&C EMO. THEY may not, and their fans seem to bend over backwards to make a point about how they are "SO not emo". But there are people out there who call them "emo". It's part of the whole point that the term "emo" has become functionally meaningless because it applies to so many different scenes and styles. -- ChrisB 01:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
But it really doesn't. Coheed and Cambria should be removed because they aren't. They shouldn't be on here because of people who hear Blood Red Summer and because it's mainstream/pop rockish, that makes it emo. I love how people basically hear something like Maroon 5 and be like "oh they must be emotionally-charged hardcore, duh" Timeasimperialism

BFMV

Add Bullet For My Valentine to 'Emo Today'? What do you think about that? I put the list into alphabetical order, I assume none will quarrel with that. I worry about myself sometimes O_O 782 Naumova 14:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

NO. There's no reason to add more bands to the list. (We already have more than we need.) -- ChrisB 02:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Besides their wiki page shows them as metalcore.-SOAD_ROCKS


Gosh guys. i really dont think MCR and panic and fallout boy are emo at all. their look might possibly lean to the emo sides of things but i cant recall having ever cried or become emotional over one of their songs....theyre more pop than anything. hmmmm. well this debate could go on for forever, but im going to bed instead. night my beautiful emo and non emo friends. ur argument still hasnt persuaded me to think that the bands are emo.

Wider Horizon

I've been listening to a lot of older stuff, and to be quite honest none of it is even slightly similar, I'd even go so far as to claim that the genre 'Emo' does not exist. How is it that bands like Antioch Arrow and bands like Still Life could even BEGIN to be classed in the same manner? Many early Emo bands have absolutely nothing in common, and it may be a good idea to expand this article showing that. Also, if bands such as Moss Icon and Still Life are considered Emo, I see no reason that many bands like Sunny Day Real Estate and similar outfits are excluded. They have much more in common with Still Life/Moss Icon/RoS than bands like Antioch Arrow and Angel Hair. 782 Naumova 12:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If you listen to alot of the stuff (as you seem to) for a while, it seems like it's not so much of a cohesive genre as just a series of logical developments in DIY hardcore, and certain bands manage to demonstratively bridge the gap between the hardcore stuff and the midwest stuff. I mean, look at the "We've Lost Beauty" comp LP, which has Mohinder, Current, and Julia right next to Cap'n Jazz. Similarly, Evergreen is a respectable band from back then that was on gravity, just like Heroin, Angel Hair, and Clikitat Ikatowi. I guess that explains why Andy Radin took the approach he did in explaining the whole thing.19:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Emogame significance

How significant was the emogame in terms of the criticism of emo? Did it really have major impact on criticism of the genre? Are there any sources to independently verify this? By including reference to the game in a four paragraph criticism of the genre the suggestion is that the game had major influence, but is this really the case? If there is no argument against it, I am planning to delete the emogame paragraph in a few days' time. Cedars 05:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's significant because it was the first notable representation of criticism of emo. When the first version was released, emo was still relatively underground, so most of it played like inside jokes. The key, though, is that it critiqued the music. Most of the modern backlash is against things only barely associated with "emo", and more often than not has nothing to do with the music itself. (And, annoyingly enough, most of the bands criticized for being "emo" have fans that insist that said bands aren't emo at all.)
That's the main reason that the backlash section is so short here: the criticism is mostly not about the music. It's about a whole ton of stereotypical bullshit that really has no bearing on emo as a music genre. (That's why most of it got moved to Emo (slang).) -- ChrisB 06:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The emo game was more an inside joke then critisim on emo music. The guy who made the emo game has repetedly stated that he likes emo music and likes the bands that he displays within it. Also bands that arn't emo are also made fun of within the game.

My Chemical Romance are emo!

if you've ever tried listening to them you'd understand that they are emo. they're violent pop or rock with emotion whatever you describe emo as My Chemical Romance are deffinately emo

I sooo totally fucking agree!!!!
You're wrong but we have to keep them in the article to represent wide labeling of MCR as emo. They are NOT, because emo is emotional hardcore, not pop.

If you dont think that MCR are emo then u are truly mistaken on the facts, they are an emo band!!! And how dare you say that emo is just emotional hardcore, emo is emotional punk rock, or emotional indie aswell as emotional hardcore.

Person above, please get your facts straight before planning to contribute to an encylopedia. My Chemical Romance is not emo; they don't consider themselves that, either. Also, emo IS emotional hardcore; you're wrong. --Jaden 04:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

no, emo WAS emotional hardcore. that is mentioned in the article, as is the evolution of the term since then. --67.168.139.10 10:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

oops, that was me --dan 10:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Screamo

The article says that screamo *was* used to identify a different genre of music in the early 90s, but there are still bands of that original genre still in existence. Shouldn't it we change it to "is used" so that the article is more precise? I'm not trying to start another argument about what counts, but it seems wrong to limit out those other screamo bands from this article, especially if we're making a big deal that those bands that aren't considered emo by purists be called emo in this article. Shouldn't the purists get the same respect in regards to what they believe is screamo, especially when the wiki article about screamo is about the original type? ~Zombies!!!

I agree, screamo is still just as strong as it was back in 98. The person below me claims that screamo is only used for underOATH and MCR, but just look at Level-Plane Records, etc. It's huge in France and Italy now too. Timeasimperialism, 6 March 2006
The screamo article notes that the term is currently being used to describe something other than the original screamo, which is exactly what this article says.
But, contrary to your assertion, there is no widely-accepted old-school screamo scene at this moment, just bands here and there emulating the style. The original screamo scene was known nationally, the bands playing old-school screamo now are not. The word "screamo" is in far greater use now to describe bands like Thrice and Glassjaw, and majority rules, regardless of how "right" or "wrong" it is. Wiki is here to describe reality, not the wishes of the minority.
Your argument is identical to those who wish for "emo" to solely describe the 80s DC version. There are currently a handful of bands out there still playing that style of music. But I would readily venture that none of them call themselves "emo" now that the term is more popularly used to describe something else.
If you want to beef-up the screamo article and talk about some of the modern bands emulating the old screamo sound, have at it. -- ChrisB 09:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This article says " The term screamo, however, was used to describe an entirely different genre in the early 1990s," when in reality screamo is still being used to describe new bands of this same sound. You're right, the majority thinks that Thursday et al, are screamo, and I'm not disputing this fact.

what i'm trying to get at is that in the discussion for this article it seems that an agreement was reached that all three types of emo (hardcore, indie, new) would be represented in this article, something that I'm willing to agree with. However, this agreement should apply to screamo, especially since the wiki article on screamo talks about the original genre and not the new interpretation of it.

if anything, what you're saying about majority rule contradicts itself as if one was to click on the screamo link they would be reading about something that was completely different than what they think screamo is.

I'm only saying that we should point out that the word screamo has the same type of debate surrounding it as the word emo. It only serves to show how there is a difference between the mainstream interpretation and the underground one. I'm not trying to force my definition onto the article, that's why I posted before editing. I always thought the point of wikipedia was education, and people need to know that just like how there are many definitions of emo, as outlined in this article, that there are multiple defs of screamo. We just need to add another sentence and this article is pretty much fine by my standards~ Zombies!!!

Okay, fine, but I hope you realize the can of worms this is opening. Because of this, we're going to have to update the screamo article to more accurately reflect the term's current usage, and I'm already anticipating the screaming pinhead thirtysomethings whinging about how "THAT'S NOT SCREAMO" and wiping it out. In other words: don't disappear. I'm expecting you to go to bat for this when it happens. ("Education" goes both ways, mind you.) -- ChrisB 09:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


That might be a mess. especially since I would agree with them and not you. I guess it doesn't really bother me if this article stays the way it is. I think having a section about this here in the discussion area is good enough. We can keep it the same unless other people object.Zombies!!! 00:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Backlash" Section

My edits to this section of the article have been reverted for the 3rd time now, and I think it's about time I explained why I edited it in more detail.

A certain user (I don't keep track of names) has said the material I add to the Backlash section is POV. I have an objection to that, that exsisting part of the article IS POV. It sounds like it could have been written by the members of My Chemical Romance or The Used or something, that's how pro-emo sounding it is. You can't get an anti-emo perspective from that. This part of the article is supposed to be about why a lot of people (including myself) HATE emo, not an entire paragraph on how great emo is and how it will persist for years to come. Talk about POV, seriously.

Please tell me how my edits were "POV" in anyway. I could write a very long and one sided view on how much I hate emo and why if it was permitted by wikipedia. I did do my best to put my information on a "nuetral" standpoint, and if that seemed too POV, don't delete everything I said, just make it sound more NPOV if you think it's too POV. Once again, the exsisting section of the article seemed very pro-emo to me and did not get in depth about why so many people hate the subgenre, which is what you want to hear in a "Backlash" section of an article.

That is all I want to say for now, the person who has been reverting me edits please respond to this imeadiatly, I look forward to contradicting you further. Thank you

~~Protozoic Waste~~

90% of what you wrote is unverifiable bullshit. Wiki calls it original research. Assertions included in a Wiki article have to be supported by verifiable sources, and none of what you wrote can be.
For specific example: "many emo people live in rich neighborhoods and have it better than most other people". Are you kidding me? What the fuck is that? For starters, "emo people" constitutes a slang term, unacceptable for this article. But that stereotype is insanely specific, far beyond what would be acceptable for a general discussion of the stereotypes.
Regardless, this article is about THE MUSIC, not "emo kids". There's an article for that, it's called Emo (slang), where we talk about all of the crap stereotypes. All of the "self mutilation" bullshit is already discussed there BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE IT BELONGS. It has nothing to do with the music itself.
Anyway, which emo music are you talking about? The article states the truth: nobody can say for sure what exactly constitutes "emo music" at this point, given that most bands called "emo" refuse to accept the designation.
Worse, you've lumped in all emo music as not being technically challenging, but what songs are you talking about? What bands are you referring to? You're making a broadbased generalization that could be readily disproved if you bothered to name the bands and songs you're talking about.
"Emo is also criticized for it's very simple song structure." Yeah, because songs like this are easy to play: [1]
You're adding a series of gross generalizations about emo music, and you're surprised that someone is complaining? -- ChrisB 20:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow wow wow! I didn't realize I was talking to a toddler here, I appologize for sounding a bit harsh at times, I know people like you can be a bit upsettable, I suggest a therapist.


Just because I band doesn't want to be called emo doesn't mean they aren't, these bands KNOW emo has such a bad reputation, and they don't want kids to think their lame-ass posers (which they are), so they come up with bullcrap excuses for sub-genres instead of emo, but lets face it, everyone knows they are.
Finally, regardless of who's revisions are correct or incorrect, the exsisting section of the article sounded very POV and from a one sided emo perspective. People aren't going to understand why emo is backlashed if you talk about how great it is. Have you forgotten the whole purpose of this website, TO EDUCATE PEOPLE! People can not be educated on how emo is backalshed if you go on talking about how emo will likely persist for years to come, among other things that do not belong in a nuetral encyclopedia. That's just as bad as telling people that all emo kids slit their wrists and all the other generalizations.


As is, the backlash section is lacking. I don't know how it'd be possible to even include it without either needless bashing the genre or glorifying it as you do now.

If it's going to exist, the backlash section needs to be more nuetral. I do feel that there are fair criticisms against emo that are not represented in this section. while a lot of it is considered original research, which is why I haven't made any edits to the article. After reading the article, it almost implies that because I have criticism against emo that I'm a homophobic masculine jerk. I don't think that's a very neutral claim to make. I don't know how this is relavent to the article anyway since it's about the so-called emo culture and not the music itself.Zombies!!! 07:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)07:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sexism/Emo

So if i wanted to add a section about new emo being sexist and can cite a source on it does it go here or in the other section? I'm not sure I even want to post it because it'd start a huge edit war, but I was just wondering about where criticism of the genre would go...or is that even allowed?Zombies!!! 00:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Here, probably, but I would readily suggest writing it and posting it here before throwing it into the article, as I genuinely believe that the topic will need to be heavily vetted in order to achieve some kind of consensus.
Okay, that's my "official" answer. My opinion is that it shouldn't go in the article at all because the theory doesn't hold up.
Most of the discussion is sourced from Jessica Hopper's article in Punk Planet from three years ago. The article completely fails to make the case, as it doesn't cite specific songs or lyrics as sexist. Her case is that it's sexist because a whole ton of bands have generic songs about how they've been wronged in a relationship. Because it's almost entirely guys singing about what (to her) are generic women, taken as a whole, it's sexist. Which is a flawed argument, given the lack of specifics and the absurd generalizations she makes.
She makes the case that bands like Jawbox, SDRE, and Jawbreaker used to sing similar songs, but they were about specific women, so they were okay. That argument fails completely. If Jawbreaker released Dear You today, by her argument, a song like "Bad Scene, Everyone's Fault" would meet her exact argument as a generic breakup song written from the point of view of a male. It's not about anyone specific. Yet she gives them a pass.
How does she know that those bands' songs were about specific women? By and large, those songs didn't name names. She's making an assumption that doesn't hold up to journalistic integrity - she believes that they're about specific women, but has absolutely no proof that it's the case.
She's appalled because women go to emo shows and sing along to songs that to her sound sexist. It's the "they don't know any better" argument. Maybe to those women, those songs have meaning and are about someone specific - the same generalization that Hopper made about those Jawbox, SDRE, and Jawbreaker songs.
"The ones who are young, for whom this is likely their inaugural introduction to the underground, who’s gateway may have been through Weezer or the Vagrant America tour or maybe Dashboard Confessional’s Unplugged sesh on the MTV." And what's the difference between that and girls who know all the lyrics to the latest teen pop thing? I'd like for them to listen to better music, too, but that doesn't support her argument - it just explains why she's making it.
She quotes Andy Greenwald's book Nothing Feels Good: PUNK ROCK, TEENAGERS, AND EMO that bands "revel in their misery and suffering to an almost ecstatic degree, but with a limited use of subtlety and language. It tends to come off like Rimbaud relocated to the Food Court." What? Emo is sexist because it's badly written? Again, it doesn't support her argument.
I won't even go into her ranting about how the songs don't discuss women as women, simply as vehicles for angst. That's just ridiculous. She's basically complaining that the songs aren't about people she can relate to. That the songs are about "Muses at best. Cum rags or invisible at worst." is just hyperbole.
To be honest, the article sounds more like the viewpoint of a thirtysomething who felt strongly about a specific genre of music that now means nothing to her. Instead of moving on, she's trying to figure out why it means nothing to her, and blames rampant sexism. Given that I'm a thirtysomething who felt strongly about a specific genre of music that now means nothing to me, I'm familiar with the problem - I just react to it differently. I think modern emo entirely misses the point and is far too overwrought. The 90s emo scene was all over the map in terms of sound and style. Most bands (save the singer of Mineral sounding like a Jeremy Enigk clone on Power of Failing) came to the table with something unique. Many of the modern emo bands sing songs about the same subjects with the same guitar sounds and the same vocal style. And it's so entirely overproduced, it's not funny. But I'm not going to trash it just because I don't "get" it.
Anyway, Alternative Press posed the "is emo sexist" question to their readers, and 76% believed that emo wasn't a boys club. That's kind of a large percentage.
The real problem isn't intrinsic to emo, it's just rock in general. Since the beginning of the genre, rock has had issues with sexism. 90s alternative rock was the most balanced in terms of gender involvement, and even it wasn't removed from the argument. Take Nine Inch Nails' "Closer" as one example.
I don't believe this argument belongs in this article because a) the sources that exist now don't hold up to journalistic scrutiny and b) the problems that do exist are not unique to emo as a genre. To make the case that emo is sexist, one would have to resort to original research. Someone tried to include this subject in an earlier incarnation of the Emo (slang) article, and it failed for all of the same reasons.
As one person noted in the AP article: "If anything is sexist, it's the music industry." And I think that says it all. -- ChrisB 02:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Taking a more general view of the comment presented, I do feel the criticism of emo section is a weak point of the article and that improvements to it should be welcomed. I am still uncomfortable with the inclusion of the emogame. I believe it overemphasizes the significance of the game (which is now not mentioned by the other emo article) and while I accepted Chris' comment above, the fact that there is no authoritive reference for the emogame content means I would still like to see it removed from the article. Cedars 07:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Emogame was mentioned in the New York Times, as well as practically every music-related zine and blog in 2003. I'm not sure what you're looking for as far as a reference.
If they adaquately reflect the relevance of the game and have a significant readership then any of those are fine but I am looking for an actual written citation.
To solve the criticism question, you need to determine the following:
1) What does the criticism of "emo" target? Is it the music or the clothes and fashion sense? If it's the music, it belongs here. If it's the rest, it belongs in Emo (slang).
Presumably in an article titled "Emo (music)" it's the music.
You entirely missed my point. "Emo music" isn't necessarily the same thing as music that's labelled "emo". Some people said that Stone Temple Pilots were a grunge band. It doesn't automatically mean that they were a grunge band. (More often than not, they're simply labelled "alternative rock", which is probably the most appropriate designation for reasons I won't get into.)
2) If it's criticizing the music, what music are they criticizing? If it's bands like My Chemical Romance, why include the criticism here? They say they're not "emo", we can't say conclusively that they are, so how does the criticism relate to emo music?
You already addressed the My Chemical Romance issue. If you recall you said, "I've been waiting for someone to argue that MCR isn't emo. They called themselves emo when they put their 2002 album on CDBaby. See, here's the thing: bands and their labels do the CDBaby listings themselves. So, at least back then, MCR thought they were emo". If you scour the web and beyond you'll find most of the bands mentioned in the third wave section have denied being emo at one time or another but that's not the point.
The problem with my MCR note was that on further review, I can't guarantee that the band wrote the intro. I checked out the CDBaby entries of people that I'm personally familiar with, and the intros say things that I can't fathom those people actually saying about themselves. I'm starting to suspect that CDBaby's editors write the intros, while the bands write the descriptions.
3) To what degree does criticism of emo affect the rest of the genre? I've seen people criticize albums like Sunny Day Real Estate's Diary simply because they're associated with "emo", even though those albums don't even remotely resemble the "emo" that they complain about. Which addresses:
And you feel the emogame reflects a broad criticism of the emo genre so much so that it deserves literally 37% of the criticism section (even if there is not a single cited source for it)?
AGAIN: WHAT KIND OF CITED SOURCE ARE YOU LOOKING FOR? What are you expecting the cited source to say?
I want a source that verifies the game embodies some really exceptional criticism of the genre and wasn't just some Internet fad. That said, I'll probably settle for one that says a lot less and is included in the article.
Several of the following are simply excerpts, but it can be readily confirmed that the entire articles exist:
Alternative Press
SPIN
Magnet
New York Times
Rolling Stone
In particular, you can purchase the entire NYT article from their website. The Rolling Stone one should also be on their website. There are more out there, but it's not worth my time to go hunt them down.
If you can't verify what you're saying then let it be removed from the article - this article explains how to cite a source.
4) Do people really know what they're criticizing? Okay, so they hate emo dress and hate Hawthorne Heights. They level charges like the unfounded crap that Protozoic Waste was trying to squeeze into the article. Is that relevant to Emo music? Or are they stereotyping everything that looks emo into one "emo" package? And if they don't know what they're talking about, just making criticisms, why should we dignify it by including it here?
The problem is not that the article doesn't include everything or does not include everything every casual observer thinks about emo. The problem is this article has problems that are evident to people who know nothing about the genre. It's good to keep a level of control especially on articles as vandalism-prone as this but even without the vandalism problems this isn't a near-feature quality article - change should be invited not discouraged. Some superficial problems include the two sentence paragraph that initiates the article and the heading that breaks up the third wave section.
Widespread criticism of "emo" stereotypes DOES NOT BELONG HERE. Again, this isn't the article about "Emo the trend". Any criticism included here should address the bands that are actually (willingly) considered emo, not the ones that people are trying to cram in as "emo".
Agreed but the criticism section needs work. Even if you feel a mention of the emogame is worth it why do we need to know that the game "included pop culture references such as R2-D2 from Star Wars" and "eventually spawn[ed] multiple sequels". The "as the chorus of detractors increased" statement is also weak, isn't there a better way to pinpoint the time when "emo became more and more a target of derision"?
No on the latter, because there was no identifiable point at which the derision increased. The most obvious correlation is that it increased as the genre became more popular.
The problem with the sentence is that it states something which is a near certain consequence of the condition that precedes it. For any noun, the sentence "As the chorus of detractors increased, <<NOUN>> became more and more a target of derision" would be weak writing. It has nothing to do with emo and everything to do with good writing.
I geniunely believe that we don't need to overemphasize the criticism. Nearly every popular music genre of the last twenty years has been a target of widespread criticism from some group. Hip-hop, teen pop, hair metal, you name it. Even grunge was widely criticized for being "overly serious" and "pointing people towards drugs and suicide". Most of the people levelling the criticism cared nothing about the music itself and were criticizing the stereotypes.
Agreed keep it short, removing the emogame section would cut literally over one-third of the section.
Read the article for hip hop music to see how the criticism should be addressed. There are a ton of people who think that hip hop and rap aren't music, but that's a viewpoint that doesn't need to be addressed. The legitimate criticisms that do exist are discussed in a thoughtful manner that doesn't demean the subject. I suspect that a number of those seeking to enhance the backlash section are doing so because of personal distaste of it, not for any noble reason. -- ChrisB 08:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't have all the answers but there is substantial room for improvement in this article. Improvement shouldn't mean accepting changes that reduce the article but it does mean considering alternative viewpoints and welcoming change. Criticism of the genre is a minor point of the article but if we're going to deal with it we should deal with it right. Cedars 14:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with other viewpoints, but, so far, nobody has offered anything other than the suggestion that other viewpoints be considered and the kind of unsubstantiated garbage that Protozoic tried to jam into the article. (I pointed him to a song that included more than three chords, but he apparently didn't bother to listen to it.) Okay, so emo is criticized: name some criticisms. Don't just offer the suggestion that more needs to be said, get into the specifics. -- ChrisB 11:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
What worries me is that you seem so focused on protecting this article you can't see past its flaws. You're so focused on justifying what you wrote and not changing anything that the article gets stuck in this state of mediocrity. Cedars 12:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I wrote the above before I realized the emogame section had been trimmed by two sentences. I'm now much more content with the emogame sentences. Cedars 12:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure bashing punk planet's article as not being a bad piece of journalism and then pointing to a survey in AP as proof that emo isn't sexist really works out. I realize that there are flaws in the piece you're referring to, but that can be made about any criticism of just about anything. I highly doubt the AP survey was scientific and therefore it's not journalistic either. Even with the arguments you made against the article in PP, I still feel that Emo is sexist because 1) it reflects the sexist leanings of rock and roll 2)for the reasons the article point out (minus the argument that emo is poorly written because I do like some of the newer bands even though they're nowhere near "true" emo.) I just think posting that some people believe that emo is sexist because it focuses on breaks up that often times demonize women might be in order. I'm definately all about you posting a counterargument attacking the warrants of the PP article to make it more neutral and let people decide for themselves if emo is or is not sexist.Zombies!!! 07:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Grunge

Shouldn't grunge be added as an influence to Emo because in the nineties, grunge differed from the more evil and mean sound of hardcore punk and metal, being more emotional. I think grunge should be included as an emo root.

Emo - 1980s DC, Grunge - 1990s Seatlle --Goldendata 23:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • No. They are completely different. Bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam are grunge and bands like My Chemical Romance and Fall Out Boy are emo. If you listen to the music, you'll find that they are incomparable. Emo bands sing about cutting themselves and choose to wear black eyeliner and whatnot, whereas you won't find that sort of behavior in a grunge band. Besides, emo music is a thousand times better than grunge music. --Thebends 22:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but bands like Nirvana also have greatly influnced bands like My Chemical Rmance and Hawthorne Heights. Look at a emo band's influnce list it has Nirvana on it every time. Besides just because a band doesn't sound emo doesn't mean they haven't influnced it in some form. For example Led Zepplin are a huge influnce on Hawthorne Heights. Grunge and modern "emo" are both terrible.

Of course it's an emo root. The idea that one cannot see a clear connection between Soundgarden, Pearl Jam and Thursday is quite frankly inexplicable.

Inexplicable? Try this: you can't go Soundgarden / Pearl Jam -> Rites of Spring. There was emo before grunge, so grunge can't possibly be an emo root. Newer "emo" bands (ie, Thursday) may be able to credit grunge as an influence, but the genre cannot. It's chronologically impossible.
Not true. Emo began with Rites of Spring in 1985, while grunge started with Green River in 1983.--B o b b y 4 05:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Grunge and emo share the same root, hardcore punk. They're branches of the same tree; neither was a root of the other. -- ChrisB 04:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Except that Grunge is more a time and place than a genre. GD 04:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
That's what I think emo is too. It's just happening right now.--69.118.39.194 02:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't really say that Indie Rock is emo music- Emo music is more like depressenging hard core metal rock. User:cjmcgreevy
READ THE ARTICLE. Chris Berry 03:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


hate to admit it but when grunge hit mainstream it becamee a fad just like the third wave of emo music== This is a pointless article ==

I think that this article should either be merged with the slang defintion of emo or deleted. Emo is such a vague/ambiguous term, and most of the bands most commonly noted as emo are noted as other genres as well. I think it needs to be moved altogether, plus, we need an NPOV on here please. Barfing Rabbit 02:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Pointless article"? So the twenty years of emo music that took place before the term became vague/ambiguous don't matter? -- ChrisB 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me restate that: the modern emo section should not be there, there are so many bands labelled emo that are labelled something else and blah blah blah. 4.253.124.46 02:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the current usage needs to be noted. The term "emo" is being used now, so pretending that it's not being used would be fallacious and POV. The whole point of Wiki is to accurately reflect a topic as it exists. So that's what we're trying to do here - point out that the term is being used, but in a vague, nonspecific way.
Which is why I keep getting pissed off at people flying in and removing bands from the list. It very clearly says "Correctly or not" - those bands have all at one point been referred to as "emo", even if they aren't emo and personally insist that they aren't emo. -- ChrisB 05:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It needs an NPOV, screw you.

the article on new emo music is far too debated and unclear to have in an encyclopidia. there has to be rock hard evidence on a subject to write an article about it. most genres of music are too foggy to have a good article on.~emokid~

oh hell

My Chemical Romance is NOT hardcore. Not at all

Emo music involves bands that wear mostly black clothes, sing about breaking up with a girl, heartache, etc.

Newer Emo music usually sounds like pop but with a little stronger guitar (Fall Out Boy, Panic! At The Disco, etc.)

Older Emo bands such as Hawthore Heights and Taking Back Sunday are still emo, they set the standard.

Emo bands have no fans over the age of 15, that also groups them with pop bands like N'Sync, Backstreet Boys, bands only young people like.

Good Charlotte, Simple Plan, Blink 182, AFI are not emo, they are punk rock.

UnderOATH, The Fall of Troy and bands like them are screamo.

Screamo is the EXACT same thing as emo, except there is more screaming in the music (as the name implies)


When calling a person emo, one simply means that the person dresses like a member of an emo band.this is wrong hen someone is called emo they mean emotional and scene is when they dress like a band!!!!!

  • Good Charlotte, Simple Plan, Blink 182, AFI are not emo, they are pop music. ~~


thats my thoughts

03:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)03:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)03:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)03:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)03:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)~~


Uh, Screamo is a lot different than "emo". i.e. Circle Takes The Square, You And I, Pg.99, City Of Catepillar, Majority Rules, and Hott Cross.

MCRemoboy 17:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)first of all emo screamo and hardcore are all different subcatagorys of emo..emo in general is very melodic and poppish like "fall out boy" and "panic at the disco".........screamo is melodic but has alot of screaming for example "hawthorne hights" and "silverstien"........then theres hardcore with a rougher harder tone with melody but not alot like "from first to last" and most of all "my chemical romance".....theres 2 things these bands have in common they are all emo and they wanna make you cry....

also when you refer to someone as being emo its her emotions and the music you listen to not the way they dress!!! the style most emo people are is called "scene"...

Too bad when you call someone emo, you are calling them a music genre, people can't be emotionally driven hardcore punk rock. Hawthorne heights and silverstein aren't emo, and true emo does have fans over the age of 15, but you see, you're just to busy watching mtv to do a little research and find out wut true emo is : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.107.150 (talk • contribs)

Ah, but it has become a label through use, so it is misleading to say that you're calling them a "genre of music". It has become a stereotype of a person, referring to the original fans of "emo" music, and the definition expanded to include those people themselves. ForbiddenWord 14:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats it, im fed up of people who think that emo is a fashion style, or a haircut. Emo comes from its name, EMOTIONAL. I'm going to be 16 this year and i have listened to emo, emotional punkrock, screamo, and emotional hardcore for almost 2 years now. I would like to take this oppertunity to also say that MCR, Good Charlotte, and AFI are emo bands! Go and look for the lyrics to the music and read it, that will show u reall emo music. Stop thinking u no wat emo is cuz all you do is sit and watch MTV or THE HITS. These channels are notlikely to show you the true emo music. Emo is putting your emotion through song, I'm fed up of all these people who dress like us and dont understand what emo is about. If you were to go up to someone who you thought looked emo and asked them what emo was they would most likely say that it was a haircut or a dress sense, hardley any of them would say that it was all about putting your emotions accross through song!! Please take my advice and read the lyrics and find out what the writer really wants you to hear, the drums, guitar, bass and whatever additional instraments played are there to help the lyrics flow not to make you ignore the writers effort. EMO MUSIC IS NOT IN THE SAME CATAGORY AS NSYNC OR BACKSTREET BOYS!!!. Also blink 182 have songs that i would catagorise as emotional punk-rock and also they do have music that I would catagorise as emo. So if you disagree then to bad because coming from many of my emo friends this is true emo. So if you don't like it then to bad! This is an emo speaking about emo. Face it if you think that emo is listened to by people under 15 then you thought wrong, and if you think that emo is in the same catagory ans the likes of NSYNC or BACKSTREET BOYS then you have lost you mind and dont no what you are speaking about.81.153.243.45 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Owen Moxey

Get your facts strait!!!!!!

First of all emo screamo and hardcore are all different subcatagorys of emo..emo in general is very melodic and poppish like "fall out boy" and "panic at the disco".........screamo is melodic but has alot of screaming for example "hawthorne hights" and "silverstien"........then theres hardcore with a rougher harder tone with melody but not alot like "from first to last" and most of all "my chemical romance".....theres 2 things these bands have in common they are all emo and they wanna make you cry....

Also when you refer to someone as being emo its her emotions and the music you listen to not the way they dress!!! the style most emo people are is called "scene"...

                my chemical roamce is a GREAT emo band                                  ~MCRemoboy

or you could just get something worth talking about...? for the record, we're on Wikipedia, so i'm sure you've all been on wikipedia's page for the definition of emo and the whole D.C. scene of emo, well, do the new bands (MCR, fall out boy, C&C) sound like those bands listed? Well? There's your answer... these new bands are offshoots of emo... Secondly, emo is a style of dress and music. For example, the anit-conformists (who all look the same...anti-conformists? Pffft!) who call themselves emo and dress emo (whether it be studded belts, guys in eyeliner, certain hair styles) considers themselves emo for a reason... because emo is a new style of dress, like punk. Generally if you dress emo you like the ascendants of emo (the new bands, i'm talking about, because who the hell has heard of the original emo?). Emo, i suppose, could also be a mindset. Such as, you cry when your girlfriend breaks up with you, or anything else that could be considered an 'emo' mindset... i don't caim to know everything about emo, or every mindset and every band, but hey. Whoa, i can't believe i bothered to type this up... hmmm... by the way.... 'strait' should be spelled 'straight'...

24.241.238.186 00:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)autumnangel

Well, I'm an anti-conformist but I wear studded belts and wear eyeliner...but I ain't emo. I just think it looks good on me. - Guest

I think that you have got mixed up somewhere because loosing a girlfriend is real life, and EMO IS NOT A FASION SENSE!!! emo is where a writer puts his feelings accross in song.


Posts like these should just be deleted. This is unbelievable how brainwashed some people can be. --Jaden 04:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A new link should be added

I believe the site emoholic.net should be added to the link section. I personally would appriciate it because that site give a great definition of what emo is and also intends to offer some samples of the music/dress/actions of "emokids" from an outsiders standpoint. Personally, I love the music by have my own style. Personally, I don't think you would know I listen to bright eyes if you looked at me. I am pretty much the antithisis of the commonly defined emokid (head of a fraternity, in student government, and I love sports). I think these people need to be just as represented as the 'emos' so people dont have such a negative take on the whole topic. Any comments - pgrit154@uwsp.edu (Emoholic 04:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

Whoever started this page- get yor spelling Straight- Randomer

Is "emo" really music?

Bands are normally categorized by their MUSIC, not the lyrics. If being an "emo" band means being a hardcore or post-hardcore band with a certain style of songwriting, then emo isn't a music genre at all, right? That would go back to simply saying they are a hardcore or post-hardcore band.

Get what i'm saying?

Musicians are frequently categorized by their lyrics. Salsa romantica, gospel/soul, protest song, alternative hip hop, CCM, Christian rock, Christian hip hop (et al), gangsta rap, nerdcore hip hop and ragga are all lyrically characterized. Tuf-Kat 17:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
i think of modern emo grouping as something like grunge -- the first huge bands sounded nothing alike (nirvana, alice in chains, soundgarden, pearl jam), but somehow most of the bands that poppped up to copy their style sounded all the same, and the signifiers of the grunge genre basically came from those. --dan 19:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

All the categories you just named have their own sort of sound. That's how they are categorized. Christian music for example....I don't understand. Rock bands easily use words like "God" or "Lord" in their music and not be categorized as Christian rock.

Well, think about it. Christian music can be called Christian music just by its lyrics because its all praising Christianity, Jesus, and God. Rock music can have the words "God", "Jesus", "Lord", etc in it but not use it in a religious sense. For example, a Christian band says, "Praise Christ," and a rock band also uses "Christ", but like this: "Fuck Christ." Also, with this, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying all rock music is anti-Christian. Just using it as an example. - Guest

All Christian Rock songs are about religion, while regular rock bands have few, if any songs that mention religion.--B o b b y 4 05:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

emo is a subgenre of hardcore (its proper term is emotional hardcore), and is based on slower, more melodic duet guitars in addition to its more emotional lyrical tendencies, especially as time progressed. As with the end of the hardcore movement, emo went with it. What I am trying to say here is that emo's relationship to hardcore is the same as post-hardcore's, they were just formed at different times. Iii9ix3 21:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Picciotto interview

This doesn't make ANY sense where it's placed in Backlash. The backlash is about modern emo, aka, what's going on now. His comment is about the ENTIRE GENRE. He's not talking about this era or the previous eras, he's dismissing it ALL. That doesn't relate to the backlash against modern emo.

Furthermore, the placement between a paragraph about sexism (of the music) and the increasingly generic nature (of the music) is incoherent. His comment has nothing to do with either of those topics - it dismisses the entire genre, and not on either of those grounds.

I get that you might want it to sound like a backlash, but it fits much more succinctly when compared to the fragments of people who adhere to a particular era. Each group sees "their" emo as the only emo, yet Picciotto dismisses the entire thing. It ties into the article instead of being a random statement placed in a random location. -- ChrisB 07:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Can anyone whose read all those books and articles listed proved some inline citations? That might help clear up a lot of the debate (I'm hoping). WesleyDodds 06:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Re: Antioch Arrow quote and the greater half of the 1st wave section

Needs to be re-written. Hands down... the timeline jumps around alot... you start off in dc... go to ny/nj/ct to sf/oakland and then back around the country again... what i was trying to do was to basically signify... 'emo is dead'.... the 94 striking of the hammer that signifies the transition between hoover to sunny day real estate... because there's three phases to this, as we've deliniated... i don't think that the section is clear enough...--evesummernight 18:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The timeline of that section is intentional. It starts with the original DC scene, and talks about it in its entirety through the dissolution of Hoover. (Notice that it says "the original wave of DC emo", not "the original wave of emo".) Then we switch to the other scenes that were influenced by the DC scene. We're separating the scenes, as they tended to vary by sound.
The trick is that the "return to DC" is simply there to be the lead-in to the 1994 section. Fugazi was not considered emo until they were lumped in retroactively for their influence on "indie emo", so talking about them in the "correct" chronological moment wouldn't make sense.
And, honestly, I don't think there's such a clear transition from Hoover to SDRE that it should be split up like you're describing. Original emo hung around a few years longer as the "indie emo" scene developed, even if the main DC scene was already toast.
If it were me, I'd put a break after the paragraph explaining the origins of emo and split the DC scene from the rest of the first wave. But that may be a little redundant. -- ChrisB 06:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


I removed Alexisonfire from the list of third wave emo bands because I could find no credible source when they have been categorized in that genre. Could someone provide a source to me? I feel it may have been added with some other intention.

--Confero 5:49, 29 April 2006
Are you kidding? How hard did you look? Do a Google search for "alexisonfire" and "emo" and start poking around.[2] There are a ton of articles that link the two (again, correctly or not), though you may have to go a few pages into the search to get past the crap. Here's one, for the sake of providing a source: Spin.com -- ChrisB 02:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop being emoturds

Hello, little emokids. I have some new, REFRESHING information and a taste of reality FOR YOU ALL. Emo is also known as "emotive hardcore", not pop-punk--

  • AFI, Alexisonfire, A Static Lullaby, Brand New, Coheed and Cambria, Fall Out Boy, Finch, From Autumn To Ashes, From First To Last, Funeral for a Friend, Hawthorne Heights, Matchbook Romance, My Chemical Romance, Silverstein, Something Corporate, The Starting Line, Taking Back Sunday, The Used, and Thrice.
  • Not progrock: AFI, Alexisonfire, A Static Lullaby, Brand New, Coheed and Cambria, Fall Out Boy, Finch, From Autumn To Ashes, From First To Last, Funeral for a Friend, Hawthorne Heights, Matchbook Romance, My Chemical Romance, Silverstein, Something Corporate, The Starting Line, Taking Back Sunday, The Used, and Thrice
  • Not metalcore: AFI, Alexisonfire, A Static Lullaby, Brand New, Coheed and Cambria, Fall Out Boy, Finch, From Autumn To Ashes, From First To Last, Funeral for a Friend, Hawthorne Heights, Matchbook Romance, My Chemical Romance, Silverstein, Something Corporate, The Starting Line, Taking Back Sunday, The Used, and Thrice

This leaves the ONLY possible groups: AFI, Alexisonfire, A Static Lullaby, Brand New, Coheed and Cambria, Fall Out Boy, Finch, From Autumn To Ashes, From First To Last, Funeral for a Friend, Hawthorne Heights, Matchbook Romance, My Chemical Romance, Silverstein, Something Corporate, The Starting Line, Taking Back Sunday, The Used, and Thrice; get real you idiots, 85% of the bands listed are pop-punk, metalcore, and progrock.

  • Emoturds, there should be something listed about the COMMON misconceptions about emo and pop-punk (if emo is hardcore, then it can't be pop.).
If you're so knowledgable about this, how about the fact that nobody called it "emotive hardcore" before 1996, and yet the genre's been around since the 1980s? And you did see "correctly or not" at the beginning of that sentence about bands, yes? We're not the "emoturds" fucking this up - music fans and the media are screwing it up. But thanks for the oh-so eloquent contribution.
For the record, read the ENTIRE article before criticizing. We already talk about the shift away from "hardcore" in the second wave. -- ChrisB 18:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, stop being an emo stuffed shirt, you're super-annoying with your "OVERINTELLIGENCE" and backing up your claims with the innaccuracy of this article.


putting music in genres

before you make a post here, or worse, make an edit to the page because __ is totally pop and not emo and ___ is totally screamo and not emo and then that other band is completely pop punk and not emo and oh sweet jesus how could you get that wrong? - take a second:

there is no definition of what emo is. i'm glad you think you have some absolute idea of what it is. maybe it works for you and your friends. its pointless, though, to use your personal definition as fact in a wikipedia argument and become angry at those who say otherwise. ChrisB said it best: "The reality: nobody can say for sure what exactly emo is now. So arguing about whether or not a band is emo is kind of pointless."

But bands are usually grouped by sound, most scene kids listen to Fall out Boy and go that's emo, but Fall out boy sounds more like pop punk, listen to antioch arrow and angel hair and Cap'n Jazz or other emo bands, they don't sound like MCR or Hawthorne Heights, compare them to other bands of the genre before you start labeling left and right.

I agree with you both, emo is too much of a generic thing and broad genre that is often stereotyped; alot like rap music, most people think that any music with beats and fast vocals is just "rap", but really, there is gangsta rap, rapcore, etc.; something should be put about emo being too widely used and innaccurate--to the point of idiocy. Rabid coathangers eat da world 01:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

why are Dropkick Murphys there they are like the most un-emo band ever this page sucks

the genre emo is too generic because MTV made it that way. As emo died, emo bands that survived changed their music to continue to make a living off playing music. MTV labeled these bands on what they were, and not what they changed into. Then you hear music that sounds like these bands new sound, and MTV goes, thats emo too. Iii9ix3 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The fabricated "emo."

I just wanted to put this out here... emo is such an overused phrase by now that it pretty much has no meaning. Also, many people define what an emo band is by eliminating bands that are any other genre. This doesn't really work, because the same band could be described as a couple different genres. Having said this, this is what I believe:

Emo IS:
-Sub genre of punk/ hardcore.
-Est. early 90's.
-Abbreviation of &formerly known as "emotive hardcore"
-Unwed Sailor, Appleseed Cast, Cursive, Sunny Day Real Estate, A Day In Black And White, etc...
Emo ISN'T:
-Hawthorne Heights, Senses Fail, From First To Last, My Chemical Romance, The Used, etc...

Thank you. jf 03:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, if you're going to act like you're all-knowledgeable about something, at least pretend to be knowledgeable about it.
Emo was:
  1. Established in 1985.
  2. An abbreviation of "emotional hardcore". The term "emotive hardcore" didn't even exist until 1996, and was never a widely-used abbreviation.
There was an entire generation of emo before the bands you listed, including Rites of Spring and Embrace.
Oh, and, more often than not, "emo" has been used by others to describe music, rather than being a defined music genre. Right now, "emo" is being used to describe all of the bands you say emo isn't. Not a whole lot that can be done about it.
All of this is covered in Emo (music), if you'd spent a couple of minutes reading it.
You know what constantly kills me? The part about "emotive hardcore". I've seen so many high school age folks scream at other people that "emo" means "emotive hardcore". They have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
Pass the word around - anyone who says "emo" has always meant "emotive hardcore" is just as stupid as the folks who claim that My Chemical Romance is the best emo band in the world. -- ChrisB 05:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your correction, although I must say that I resent being called stupid. This is just what I've always learned.
By the way, I just noticed some discussion on the other topics in my list and put them up so I could see what others thought, even though they were covered in the article.jf 21:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Emo as an umbrella term

It seems like a big problem is that people are using emo to define one kind of music, but it isn't. Emo is more of an umbrella term. It includes emo hardcore, screamo, indie emo, and emo violence. This could also include new emo (AFI, my chemical romance, The used). The main point is that emo is more then one thingDlime16 18:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Panic! At the Disco

Given the band has been added several times over the past week by several different users and is popularly associated with modern emo, is there any compelling reason not to include Panic! At the Disco in the list? Cedars 15:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There isnt a good reason not to throw them under the "emo" banner, a quick glipse at what they wear and the songs they sing seem to be stereotypical emo to me. Whether its indeed correct is irrelevant, most people not in the "know" would consider them emo. (Cablebfg 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

They are very "emo". Over-the-top lyrics, plus their appearance, would lead one to no other conclusion.Di4gram 18:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


I dont think P!ATD are Emo, I am a fan so maybe I am biased but I am certainly not Emo and dont want to be associated with it. The lyrics are sometimes emotional but they are not deep and meaningful like a proper Emo Band, the music is also a lot about sex and love but not in such an emotional way. They look Emo but that is the market they are aiming at, I do not think that they are Emo, since the music is very dance-like and simply fun rather than heavy serious listening...

Panic! is not emo. Listen to them, then to a real emo band and you will know what im talking about. Real Emo: Still Life, Sunny Day Real Estate(or any of its clones, such as mineral), moss icon, swing kids, boys life, christie front drive. www.fourfa.com

From a NPOV perspective, they definately belong in Emo (slang). While they do have emotions in their music (lets not go there), their style of music is a punk-influenced dance rock. The band is a part of the current emo music scene - they are punk and they have played at a few different 'emo' venues - but their actual genre is not emo. As an interesting side note, in a recent issue of Blender magazine they were quoted to have said that they had "far exceeded emo" and that the current emo bands "have no originality." 68.219.188.246 08:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
based on the 2 songs i've heard (so this is obviously a very scientific opinion) they sound more like a dancey parody of emo than of anyone seriously joining that genre/scene/club/whatever. but of course, what it sounds like to me or anyone here is totally not at issue. if a good amount of people consider them emo, if any music magazines/websites/other bands call them emo, then they're on the list whatever we may think. --dan 19:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Origins

Some mention needs to be made of pre-Revolution Summer influences on Emo. Reading the article, one gets the impression that Emo arose spontaniously in 1985. While true to a certain extent as the article discusses, someone needs to do some research into what influenced the first Emo bands. I'd be happy to take this task up to some degree. Ilikeartrock 18:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A new 'Emo' music article

Emo Pop - settled? We use THAT one for 'new emo'

No. --emc! ╬ (t a l k) 21:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I don't care if you're a mod or anything but this is WIKIpedia, the public encyclopedia. It's not wholly ONE person's opinion. That's a dictatorship --Scorpiusdiamond 21:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)



A new 'Emo' music article is needed -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpiusdiamond (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. By the way, you did say that Wikipedia "wasn't wholly ONE person's opinion", right? -- ChrisB 00:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the unsigned thing, but um, yeah it does, if you were looking for 'Emo' in the sense that you were wrong you would like to see an article about wrong 'Emo'. Thus another article should be made as it is two different genres of music. It's not a branch off of Punk Emo, nor is it the same, so it should have it's own article as every major genre does. --Scorpiusdiamond 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
You have to understand - everything talked about in this article was called "emo". Not "punk emo" or "post-hardcore" or "hardcore pop" or "emo pop" or any other random genre name that somebody came up with because they don't want to call it "emo". ALL of it was called "emo". Splitting the article would be disingenuous and would not reflect what actually happened.
It's not Wikipedia's job to create differentiation - it's to document exactly how things are and were. The early DC scene was called "emo". The 90s indie scene was called "emo". The new stuff is called "emo". Whether or not there's a direct correlation between the three doesn't matter. AllMusic doesn't differentiate them, either.
And, just to vent, this isn't directly aimed at you as I have no idea what your background is:
I'm incredibly tired of seeing folks who are high school or college age driving through Wikipedia and claiming to have all-encompassing knowledge about "emo", yet say thing like "emo has always stood for 'emotive hardcore' or 'post-hardcore punk'" or some other bullshit that just isn't true. They're always emphatic about how "right" they are, yet all of that crap is patently false. They've created their own history and are trying to ram it down everyone else's throats. Everything in this article is as close to the actual history of emo as anything I've seen. Maybe if they took a few moments to read the article and understand it, they'd see that "emo" existed before it became the generic overwrought mess that they see now. -- ChrisB 22:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm incredibly tired of seeing folks who are high school or college age driving through Wikipedia and claiming to have all-encompassing knowledge about "emo"

Like you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.118.28 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 26 June 2006

Wow, that's comedy gold. I'm older than "high school or college age". And, unlike most of the people claiming first-hand knowledge of 90s emo (ie, all of that "emotive hardcore" bullshit), I actually owned many of those records and saw many of those bands play live. That's a little different from the so-called "experts" that were in elementary school at the time. -- ChrisB 18:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sure that you're not the only one on here who weren't in elementary school at the time. Plus, I wasn't trying to make that comment sound funny, and I'm sorry for the inaccuracy about your age.

claiming to have all-encompassing knowledge about "emo" is what I was meaning to emphasize. Hey, if you don't want people trying to f*ck with the article, then don't include the "modern emo" list--that should lower the amount of 'annoyances' on here.