Since when was "Emo" a bad thing huh?!?!?

Post Reply New Topic

yes.
Fall Out Boy and Hawthorne Heights and My Chemical Romance are to emo as Good Charlotte and Simple Plan are to punk.

I must congratulate you, that is an extremely well-reasoned way to write a bunch of elitist clap-trap.

Music is subjective. What you perceive as 'great' is not great, it is what you perceive as great. No music is by definition great because there is no objective definition of it. And it is a work of total hypocrisy to say that it is simple minded to consider The Ramones influential and yet say Bob Dylan is clearly great, even though if anything he had less musical talent than the Ramones.

Since when did work = greatness? REM put more work into their most recent album than any of their previous, and just about everyone including them thinks it was s**t. Do all covers instantaneously lose any merit because that person didn't write the song, and as such hasn't put in the maximum work?

Since when did we all have to use every ounce of creativity to write music? I write in surely a dozen different ways, and sometimes the song just comes to me easily. Should I therefore throw that song away because it has to have been worked on for longer?

I adore Dylan. He is a genius, without doubt. But saying that he is somehow making a purer musical statement than the Ramones, with no other motivation than you personally can identify with it, is as ignorant as you claim others are being.

In fact, if you don't like the Ramones, how about The Beatles? Their chords were often ridiculously easy. 'Revolution' was just blues chords, or even power chords, is their musical statement less pure than Dylan?

Some modern pop/punk that sometimes gets the "emo" label is marginally interesting to me, but mostly in their self-deprecating lyrics (Say Anything, Brand New). Then there's Rites of Spring, early Unwound and Fugazi, but they're a whole other kettle of fish. I never thought that label was all that meaningful to begin with.

I kinda miss the times when angsty teenagers had long hair, a Nirvana hoody and baggy pants.

Now it's emo this and that.. I'd even take mallgoth over that :p

I've still seen quite a few around who do. I suppose there will always be teenagers with Nirvana shirts just like there will always be teenagers with Led Zeppelin shirts.

Im not a fan of the emo music old or new......

And most of the ppl that are in to new emo music are prats and that is why I dislike them


new emo is a fad that will blow over in time

Last edited by Afroman on 14 Mar 2008, 5:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

There's still plenty of long-haired Nirvana kids where I come from. I was certainly one myself seven years ago.

You actually misunderstood what I said in a number of ways. I never actually said Bob Dylan wrote great music, I specifically stated that the music he wrote itself was unimpressive, but that the way he was able to convey a message in a plain sort of way was. So in a way his music was great, but not on a pure and basic level i. e. the notes and their phrasing. My entire point was that there is a difference between influence and greatness. To put things in a basic logical perspective; if one does not understand a thing about music and does not put out the time to achieve relative greatness, one is literally incapable of writing great music. Note that I never made a statement about the Ramones, and in fact I would put them in a similar category to Dylan, though I do not find them as impressive in the aforementioned way. I own a few of their records, fyi.

Last edited by PowersOfTen on 13 Mar 2008, 2:42 pm, edited 3 times in total.

*gasp* dont roll your eyes at me ! !

@ JohnHopkins, please tell me you where originally complaining about those idiots who create identitys out of nothing except "im a [musician, metalhead, emo, indie kid, ect.]" even though they spend more time carrying a guitar around than playing it or have been "meaning to start practicing" for 3 years, only listen to the bands that all their friends listen to, who will have competitions about who is the bigger fan of whatever band, and look down on anyone who has different musical tastes?


and @ fogman what don't you like about people wearing shirts for old bands?

Most of the music that's considered emo pretty much has bupkis to do with real emo.

Emo:







Not emo:

I always hated the term 'emo' itself, though I like bands like Rites of Spring, Embrace, early Fugazi (first wave emo, mid '80s), Sunny Day Real Estate (second wave, early-mid '90s). The third wave of 'emo' (late '90s) had some fun bands, like the Promise Ring or Jejune, but this is where it all started to go downhill. Now I guess it's the fourth wave we see and yeah, it sucks, big time.

And what about screamo, eh ? Swing Kids, Mohinder, Palatka, as*hole Parade etc. These were great bands (or at least I liked them when I was a teenager. Since then I got more sophisticated ).

I said this here just a few days ago: "new" emo is to emo what Good Charlotte is to punk. It's a watered down version of emo that people like Conor Oberst and Iassac Brock and Ian McKaye hate. I mean Modest Mouse started out as an emo band, but by todays standards aren't, same with Straylight Run or Bright Eyes or Jimmy Eat World or Blood Brothers. Fugazi were emo. Yes, that Fugazi.

Oh, I do apologise then, I withdraw everything I said except the part about you being elitist and narrow minded, which you blatantly are.



Please rewrite this in more than one sentence so I can figure out what this means, because I honestly can't tell.

Real Screamo died when the Blood Brothers broke up last year (they were quite possibly the most polarizing band i've ever seen in my life).

For one here's what the timeline of Emo is (this doesn't include every band but gives you a good idea):

1st Wave: Rites of Spring, Fugazi
2nd Wave: Sunny Day Real Estate, Pinkerton era-Weezer (unconsciously), early Modest Mouse, Cursive MK1 (1995-1998), Texas is the Reason
3rd Wave: Jimmy Eat World, Promise Ring, Braid, Cursive MK2 (1999-present), pre-CassadagaBright Eyes, At the Drive-In, Piebald
4th Wave: Blood Brothers, The Starting Line, Say Anything, Straylight Run, Sparta, Get Cape. Wear Cape. Fly.
"Emo" (around the same time as 4th wave and makes it hard to distinguish between the two. This is the fake emo that most people identify as being apart of the genre): My Chemical Romance, Senses Fail, Hawthorne Heights, Fall Out Boy, The Spill Canvas, Madina Lake, The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus
Under debate: Taking Back Sunday, Dashboard Confessional,
Not Emo: Panic at the Disco (this of course doesn't mean they're any good), Coheed & Cambria (are a prog rock band), Modest Mouse after The Moon & Antarctica

The "emo" bands are similar to the numerous post-grunge acts that flooded alternative rock airwaves after the success of Nirvana, Screaming Trees, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains and Pearl Jam (the big 5 of Seattle). These "post-grunge" bands are bands like Candlebox, Live, Collective Soul and other bands that mean absolutely nothing today (and some like The Toadies and Cake that survived and proved to be successful and critically acclaimed). What happened was that after Jimmy Eat World's Bleed American became huge, labels snapped up every band that sounded similar to them. This is how Fall Out Boy - whose first two albums were alright - suddenly made a huge jump to fake emo. The same thing happened to "grungy" sounding acts after Nirvana hit in '91, Pop-punk acts after Green Day hit in '94, and in Britian (with better results), "britpop" acts after the success of the Stone Roses in '89 (this of course gave rise to Oasis, Blur, Pulp, Radiohead and Supergrass. Great bands all. This is basically the only time that a rush like this resulted in a good thing in the past 20 years).

yea im sorry i don't know anymore, it didn't have much to do with the thread anyway