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

Post Reply New Topic

Seems people are missing somehting important...

Embrace - Ian Mckaye pre-Fugazi, Emo band #1.

I mentioned Embrace in my comment Only one album, but that one is excellent. Oh, and Gray Matter, also on Dischord, was a great band too.


I guess I was kinda right with the timeline, though I mixed up what you call 4th wave and "emo", because the two were/are parallel. I also share your opinion on Jimmy Eat World and how they (or their Bleed American album) contributed to what we see now as "emo".

Indeed. This is a very thin line to walk. Because Straylight Run, a definite member of the 4th gen of emo (and a brilliant live band) include former members of Taking Back Sunday who are under debate.

Y'see, I like Jimmy Eat World. They're one of the last emo bands that are fully embraced by most alt rock fans. But they spawned a generation of - basically - Candlebox-quality bands. To put it like this; Jimmy Eat World is not the best emo band, but they're the ones who rocketed to superstardom first and caused label attention (and yes, I am making the suggestion that "The Middle" is the "Smells Like Teen Spirit" of emo because of chart position and the fact it "got there" before "Sugar We're Goin' Down" did. And similar to the post-grunge explosion where Collective Soul and Silverchair buried brilliant American bands like Flaming Lips (despite the fact they're now one the most critically beloved bands on the planet), and British expatriates Spacehog (despite the fact that their singer is now married to Liv Tyler) in one-hit-wonderland, there's still some wonderful emo bands getting buried by this fake crap. Remember when every band tried to be punk after blink182 had a hit with "All the Small Things" (a song that was a satire of pop crossovers. apparently no one got the joke)? bands like Good Charlotte (who've transformed into a bad disco band), New Found Glory (who's videos were always stunning, but there music was lame) or A Simple Plan (who need to go away. Forever and ever) were big and Avril Lavinge (or however you spell her last name) was attempting to be punk despite the fact she clearly was not (and not to mention the fact that - possibly because of her - Sum41's last album "Underclass Hero" sucked, which is as a shame because "Chuck" was their best album yet). Thankfully bands like Against Me! and Rise Against came around and put a fine line on what was punk (them, Vans, colored vinyl) and what wasn't (chicks who wear neckties to "rebel" for some reason, Hot Topic, Simple Plan's appearance in a Scooby-Doo cartoon). My prediction is that real emo will return with force (or if Ian Mckaye is involved by force) sometime late this year or early 2009.

here is something i come into contact alot with as i am identified in the emo/goth subcultures,
how can any 1 genre of music be classified as emo? ALL music is based on an emotion of some kind so in retrospect ALL music would be emo, lol mouthfull and a half there
and as for the whole scene of it? why should anyone give a a s**t about wat others look like? i mean, sitting at home all day i look like an emo, whenever im going out and dress up i look full fledged scares the f**k outa your mother gothic, but it just depend on what im doin that day, like today, it was so hot i was in board shorts and a blacki (black singlet)

and as for the music i listen to? my fav bands are Atreyu Aiden Slipknot Tool Live Evanescence Metallica Korn Cradle Of Filth Angelspit Juke Kartel DJ Starscream Darude

so although i mainly listen to metal of one kind or another ill listen to johnny cash and stuff like him wen i feel like it so i want people to stop saying s**t like "ohh they all depressed people who want to kill themselves and s**t like that, i also hate the drug stigma that goes with the way i look

as for the hardcore debate thingy, yeah things have tuned down alot, more than my liking in fact but here and there ill find a good concert somewhere where s**t happens, i mean at the taste of chaos, all i got was a massive blood nose, but at a local gig, i came out with 3 broken ribs a fractured fibia and a tooth knocked out, so dont bag em unless you know it all.

This kind of "emo" is a derivative of punk rock read the Wikipedia entry or at least the entry on All Music Guide. I actually enjoy the real genre, not the pop-emo that's been masquerading around as the genre.

As you can clearly see, we're not talking about "killing ourselves" or whining. We actually believe that is not emo, but basically a pop derivative of the genre (see my last few comments) that has given the genre a bad rap it doesn't deserve in recent years.

It's not the music that annoys people: It's the mindset. Whining crying cutting sighing. . .Schopenhauer was more fun!

Mate, where the hell have you been? Virtually every music scene ever has cared about the way you look so you fit into that scene. Even grunge was originaly about wearing old torn jeans and sh***y flannel shirts, and then those same things were ending up in designer magazines for like, $80. Image has ALWAYS been a part of this.

yeah, but out side the group you identify with is what i ment, i mean even though i look emo/goth i still have friends who are gangster, muzza, in fact a couple of my best friends are people who you would think hate me just due to the way we look

I'd say that you're making the assumption that others are automatically going to be close-minded.

I find it ironic when people who have exposed themselves to a tiny fraction of the music that I have, are not musicians themselves, and have no knowledge whatsoever of music theory or history call me narrow minded.

I don't see why the music you like should make any difference to how you express yourself or dress. It's just music. I like lots of music but I can't say that I 'identify' with much of it, for sure it has an impact on me but it doesn't make me want to go out and emulate the singers who create such music.

What if you like lots of types of music? I don't think it's possible to deck yourself out in gold chains, hoodies (hip-hop, rap), straw hats, faded jeans (country), black makeup, spiked collars (goth) simultaneously if you happen to like several musical genres. Besides, even if you tried you'd look quite stupid and invite the ridicule of people from all three musical sub-cultures.

And for those who were thinking about it don't bother pointing out the irony of me saying this and having a different album cover as my avatar weekly, I'm aware of the irony.

Yes! Thank you! Actually, I would add at least one wave between your first and second. What about stuff like Heroin? I would also put Rites of Spring before Fugazi. Rites of Spring was basically the first emo band. They inspired some good DC bands that sounded like them but no so much like Fugazi. Personally, I only like Rites of Spring and similar bands.




That's a pretty good description, except that Pulp actually formed in 1978. Their influences were David Bowie, The Cure, The Beatles and The Kinks. They didn't really have that Brit pop sound until the 1990's, though, imo.

Does your definition of 'musician' only apply to how much theory we know as well? Because I've played guitar for the last twelve years, lap steel and mandolin for the last six months, bass for the last seven or eight years, piano for the last four, and been what I would consider a more than competent vocalist for the last two years after training myself extensively. My musical theory knowledge goes a reasonable distance, I know keys and relative minors and diminished chords and allsorts of stuff along those lines - but honestly, I've never needed it. I've only ever learned it so that I can go against it, use non diatonic chords and discordant notes in the way that Sonic Youth do, for example - change tunings, know how to create a sus4; invent a chord fingering and then figure out what the hell it actually is afterwards so I can write a countermelody over it. I figure out harmonies for vocals and anything else in my head, rather than writing them down, because writing it down has always been a tad sterile for my taste. I am a journalist, I write about music, it is what I want to do, and what I have been doing for the website www.rockmidgets.com for going on three years.

Whilst I do not hold a lot of classical or jazz in my musical knowledge - something I am currently working on, at the moment via Coltrane, Prokofiev and Beethoven - I have extensive knowledge of a great deal of music. I obsess over the minutae about the music I care about (take any of my CDs off my wall and I can tell you what rating I'd give it out of five stars, the year it was released, and my track of preference) and even the music I don't care about - I've given away maybe three CDs ever, and I miss all of them even though I wouldn't listen to them any more.

And yes, you are elitist, because of your attitude that only a certain level of musical theory knowledge can ever equal 'great' music, and that - to paraphrase an old fart - three chords and the truth isn't enough (and, for that matter, your immediate assumption that my differing opinion, or the differing opinion of others can only possibly be because of a lack of credibility). Is there a specific moment where one has exactly enough knowledge to suddenly become creditable? Do you have a scale from 1-10, or a list of artists? I'm genuinely curious how you can possibly define it. Is there a specific level of competence required on record? Does a live album with more than three bad notes on it not count as great any more because they clearly can't play their instrument properly?

What exactly makes you more qualified than I am?

I'm a bit drunk at the moment due to St. Patrick's Day, but I will attempt a retort.

This quote points out exactly what I have been saying. Three chords and the truth. Great musicians understand how to evoke emotion, express truth with their chords.

If you want to hear a simple demonstration of what I'm talking about, listen to Prelude No. 1 in C by J.S. Bach. Here's a link to a crappy sped up midi version: http://www.8notes.com/scores/9458.asp?ftype=midi Note how in every single measure a different sort of emotion is intentionally evoked. The man had an almost incomprehensible grasp on how to use sound. That is the sort of thing that impresses me when I hear music, that is what I consider great. Great music requires great effort, and the same can be said for all art forms. Comparing some pop emo band to Allan Holdsworth for example, is the equivalent of comparing a Nickelodeon cartoonist to Van Gogh. The difference is that people make the sort of argument you are now for the first comparison.

I obviously know Pulp formed in 1978, but I didn't feel like explaining that (and the fact that they languished in almost total obscurity until His 'n' Hers). They did get signed to Island as a result of the success of the Stone Roses along with the moderate underground success of Seperations. The band didn't become "Pulp" Pulp until at least when Candida Doyle came in (but of course it would take a while until they made the first song that sounds like Pulp - "Countdown"). I'm basically saying that Pulp would've gotten nowhere without the success of the Stone Roses. I also totally forgot about Suede, but I didn't want it to become one big list.

I always also hate when people proclaim groups like The Shins, Death Cab for Cutie and Tokyo Police Club are emo. They're not even real emo. They're indie rock. Ditto with Vampire Weekend, a band that isn't emo at all, but because the first word in their name is "Vampire" people automatically think they're emo (they're a mix between Graceland-era Paul Simon, The Police, Beck and The Strokes).

Since that scene in Spiderman 3, jeez.

I was ready to slit my wrists then, thanks Sam Raimi.