Emo

[that_punk_guy]

Right, I suppose I should elaborate on why I asked this question.

The actual "trigger", what got me thinking about it, was a disagreement I had with Vincent about the Foo Fighters and whether they had become more emo. The first problem with using the word "emo" is that it doesn't describe the music's style at all. I think the guitar sounds and songwriting style on 'The Colour And The Shape' are reminiscent of "real" emo bands (ie. bands that were labelled so before it became trendy.) Vincent said the new stuff is emo.

I don't the kind of ego that would have me believe I'm right about it just because I listen to more of that stuff than he does, so I sat down and thought about it, and in the meantime started this thread.

I totally identify with Cyberus' frustration at the trendy kids, although I differ in that he lays the blame at Bad Religion for depoliticising punk rock. The first bands to break away onto the (yet to be labelled) emo path around the mid-eighties actually made a conscious decision to write about personal experiences instead of politics, because as Cyberus points out, political punk/hardcore was already done to death. This happened in parallel with Bad Religion's own "revolution", which is said to have saved the LA punk scene from falling apart in the midst of violence and stabbings at shows.

This was the point at which the punk/hardcore and modern indie-rock scenes amalgamated. It's pretty much all the same scene now.

I lay the blame at major labels. The music marketed as punk and emo in major magazines - Kerrang!, melody Maker/NME etc - just isn't punk and emo (indie). They're pop-bands, venture capitalists with stupid sweeping fringes. But of course, the major labels also pay for much of the advertising space in Kerrang!, so what they say is cool is cool, and people stupid enough to buy Kerrang! and not read the (usually still fairly honest) reviews will go into record shops and ask for "emo" CDs. This is why the real emo kids hate emo ;-)

Because while at first, it was just exceptionally well-written melodic independantly produced rock music, it's become a sound and a look. (Someone came on the Get Up Kids forum the other day and asked about getting an emo haircut. And he wasn't joking.) And everyone seems to have an opinion on it... even though no-one's sure what it even means anymore.

[Vincent]

that_punk_guy wrote:
Right, I suppose I should elaborate on why I asked this question.

The actual "trigger", what got me thinking about it, was a disagreement I had with Vincent about the Foo Fighters and whether they had become more emo.

Handbags at 10 paces? :-P

The first problem with using the word "emo" is that it doesn't describe the music's style at all. I think the guitar sounds and songwriting style on 'The Colour And The Shape' are reminiscent of "real" emo bands (ie. bands that were labelled so before it became trendy.) Vincent said the new stuff is emo.

I don't the kind of ego that would have me believe I'm right about it just because I listen to more of that stuff than he does, so I sat down and thought about it, and in the meantime started this thread.

Looking into the word/classification/whatever of emo has got me thinking.  I only really know emo from the rag mags.  I'd been hearing it over the past 5 or so years, but never really knew what it was until maybe 2 years ago.  Well, I thought I knew anyway.

I lay the blame at major labels. The music marketed as punk and emo in major magazines - Kerrang!, melody Maker/NME etc - just isn't punk and emo (indie). They're pop-bands, venture capitalists with stupid sweeping fringes. But of course, the major labels also pay for much of the advertising space in Kerrang!, so what they say is cool is cool, and people stupid enough to buy Kerrang! and not read the (usually still fairly honest) reviews will go into record shops and ask for "emo" CDs. This is why the real emo kids hate emo ;-)

I take it you haven't picked up a copy of Kerrang! recently then?  The only honest reviews I've seen in there recently was the whole issue with the 110 greatest albums.  And even then, some of the reviews were utter balls that only served to lick up to certain bands.

Kerrang is no longer a music magazine, it hasn't been for quite some time.  It's now the music equivalent of the Daily Sport.

And everyone seems to have an opinion on it... even though no-one's sure what it even means anymore.

Guilty as charged :-)

[CU_AMiGA]

This happened in parallel with Bad Religion's own "revolution", which is said to have saved the LA punk scene from falling apart in the midst of violence and stabbings at shows.

When i see you mention this why did i think of "Losing My Religion" - By REM?  :-?

[that_punk_guy]

Vincent wrote:

that_punk_guy wrote:
Right, I suppose I should elaborate on why I asked this question.

The actual "trigger", what got me thinking about it, was a disagreement I had with Vincent about the Foo Fighters and whether they had become more emo.

Handbags at 10 paces? :-P

:lol:

Nah, like I said that's what got me thinking about it, but that's not really the reason I asked. :-)

The first problem with using the word "emo" is that it doesn't describe the music's style at all. I think the guitar sounds and songwriting style on 'The Colour And The Shape' are reminiscent of "real" emo bands (ie. bands that were labelled so before it became trendy.) Vincent said the new stuff is emo.

I don't the kind of ego that would have me believe I'm right about it just because I listen to more of that stuff than he does, so I sat down and thought about it, and in the meantime started this thread.

Looking into the word/classification/whatever of emo has got me thinking.  I only really know emo from the rag mags.  I'd been hearing it over the past 5 or so years, but never really knew what it was until maybe 2 years ago.  Well, I thought I knew anyway.

What are your ideas on what it is? I'd really like to know, doesn't matter what they are. :-)

I lay the blame at major labels. The music marketed as punk and emo in major magazines - Kerrang!, melody Maker/NME etc - just isn't punk and emo (indie). They're pop-bands, venture capitalists with stupid sweeping fringes. But of course, the major labels also pay for much of the advertising space in Kerrang!, so what they say is cool is cool, and people stupid enough to buy Kerrang! and not read the (usually still fairly honest) reviews will go into record shops and ask for "emo" CDs. This is why the real emo kids hate emo ;-)

I take it you haven't picked up a copy of Kerrang! recently then?  The only honest reviews I've seen in there recently was the whole issue with the 110 greatest albums.  And even then, some of the reviews were utter balls that only served to lick up to certain bands.

Kerrang is no longer a music magazine, it hasn't been for quite some time.  It's now the music equivalent of the Daily Sport.

I thought about that after I submitted the post but I couldn't clarify 'cause I had to rush off for an interview. Last Kerrang! I picked up was #991. That's the first issue in about six months, a stopped reading it regularly a couple of years ago when it ceased to be at all relevant to anything I was listening to. I occasionally leaf through it at ASDA out of half-arsed interest but it's just so blah, besides if I want to know when the next Deicide or Deftones record is out, I can look on the web.

The smaller reviews aren't so bad, IMO. (Although one suspects favours might even be given just to appear in the reviews pages... There's no way they only get 30 CDs a week sent for review.) Of course, that amounts to one page out of 74 that's worth even looking at.

I guess what gives me the impression that the reviews are more honest is that they seem fairly happy to stick artists on the cover when they've just slated the new record, just because it's popular regardless.

[uncharted]

Oh, and I'm probably not the first person to get sick of classifications. I remember when I helped out at the shop after I left, and I had people come in and ask for 'Emo-core' or some such - I just told them where to go...

OT RANT!

I hate trying to classify music.  If anyone now asks me what type I like, I just say "Electronica" as it's so wide ranging from Gary Numan stuff in the 70's to Pet Shop boys, to Rave to The Prodigy to Sneaker Pimps, Massive Attack and Roni Size.  Even then that doesn't take into account stuff like Fleetwood Mac, UB40, Dire Straits or TRex.

I tend to go on a song by song basis rather than a group or whole Genre, I just like what I like.  

It also makes it harder to find out songs that I might like. My 2 younger brothers have it easy, one likes Drum and Bass, the other likes this Emo "Punk Rock" nonsense, and can find out new tracks through certain channels (sites, magazines, friends). Me, I hear something I like and spend 3 years trying to find out what it is... :-(

[Vincent]

What are your ideas on what it is? I'd really like to know, doesn't matter what they are.

I'd rather not say :oops: ;-)

But I will say this: I had no idea it was punk based!

[Methuselas]

Funny, I always thought emo kids where the people that hung out at this afterhours club I used to hang at YEARS back called, ironically, Emos.


Never missed much with it. It wasn't that great...


Personally, I think all music sucks nowadays, 'cos you get one shot at an album and if it doesn't do good enough for the parent company, the artist is cut. That's SO fair, after all, since they're losing SO much money to mp3s, blah blah....

You know, I remember in the mid-late 80's/early 90's, when the record companies were complaining about bootleg 'tape' recordings. You know, don't go out and buy a high quality tape, so you can copy your friend's cassette. Not to be an @ss, but isn't that WHY they made dual cassette. I'm sure it wasn't so you could put two tapes in your box to play one after the other.

It's just a prime example of how businessmen operate. A good example would be Clear Channel. They OWN every radio station in my home town, which, seeing as they probably have done this in EVERY city they have stations in, would be classified as a monopoly, yet it's not as the gov't doesn't think there's such a thing as a monopoly in media markets. Line the right people's pockets with money and you're without want.