Talk:Emo

Emo vs. Art Rock

Any of you here who are more familiar with emo rock...I was just wondering..would you consider emo and art rock to be very similar?? For example: Conor Oberst from Bright Eyes was mentioned under "Emo" and "Art Rock" in Wikipedia. I am so confused! From my listening experience...I'd say his style is more art rock because of his poem-like,lyrical genius and intense emotionally charged singing. But one of the definitions for "emo" given here is identical/very similar to how art rock is perceived. Any input?? THANKS.

                                 --User:GUEST 00:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For earlier discussion see Talk:Emo/Archive 1

Pronounciation

Is it eh-moe? or eee-moe?

I've always heard it pronounced the second way, with a long e sound. --Icarus 19:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the term is derived from the word "emotional", which itself has a long 'e' sound (though differing with accent) Mwhale 14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cleanup

If someone is really bored, they should attempt to organize this discussion page, because there's absolutely no coherence to any of these discussions. If you edit this page, please, for the love of music, sign your posts, separate posts, use bullets, and make it NCO (which is NEAT CLEAN AND ORDERLY).

THANK YOU. --evesummernight 04:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Dispute

I've marked the article as disputed, because it seems to me to have some pretty serious neutrality and lack of citation issues. I'm not an expert by any means on emo - I actually came here to find out more about it, because I had heard the word kicked around a lot but hadn't heard a very good definition about what it was all about and its background and whatnot. The article seems pretty biased against emo. In the criticisms section it basically disses on emo, but none of the criticisms are sourced - it just says people think this or that. Who specifically dislikes emo, and cite a source to where they criticize it. Also find where emo people have responded to the criticism! (and include and cite that)

The "sexism" section was particuarlly problematic. It givees three examples of supposed sexism in emo culture:

I hope the next boy that you kiss has something terribly contagious on his lips Brand New - Jude Law & A Semester Abroad
You can lead a whore to water and you can bet she'll drink and follow orders Glassjaw - Pretty Lush
I'm too fly and shy, like no other guy, I'm too fly and shy just for you Glassjaw - Lovebites and Razorlines

But only the middle one could you make much of a case that it was actually sexist. The first example sounds spiteful and vindictive, but there's nothing particuarly sexist about it. The third lyric sounds like someone who's just being a weirdo/show-off, but where's the sexism?

Then there's this long sentece/paragraph:

"However, more are begining to understand that using the simple observation that most emo artists identify as male as the basis for the cause of sexist undertones in emo culture and songs is actually heterosexist."

That's 1. an assertion of (not presentation of) an opinion/belief, and 2. assumes as give the truth of the belief that there are actually "sexist undertones in emo culture and songs."

Blackcats 23:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reply. i think that this whole entire article contradicts itself. in the beginning the view of emo is that of emotional hardcore, a genre that started in the 80s, and long since its scene has been exhuasted. but everything else pretty much, for instance emo fashion, and critism, its all based on a meaning of emo that is not being defined on the top of the page, but instead the extremely distorted and wrong mainstream view of emo.

aug. 1st 2005

I'd like to see you guys make the needed edits, rather than disputing the article. I agree w your complaints, but I'd rather see you get down to business, clean up the article, and remove the dispute header. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

id gladly clean up the article. infact i have before, however every time i do some one seems to put it right back.

august 2nd replies

i agree that the article somewhat contradicts itself - but that has to do with the nature of the genre itself and what has happened over the years to what has been an ill-defined term in the first place. what people call "emo" these days is not what i personally consider to be real emo. i consider the real emo to be like, from 1985 (rites of spring, embrace) up to the late 90s, maybe ending with Lifetime, when the "faux-emo" mtv bands started co-opting lifetime's sound, and the 97 youth crew revival started. there are very very few bands out there playing that revolution summer emo sound these days, and i just can't accept that all these mainstream bands on Fuse, M2, and warped tour are "emo" (in the traditional sense). anything but -- call 'em pop- hardcore, pop-punk, faux-emo, all those labels i can accept. however, who is to say where "real emo" ends and something else begins? a fan of the new bands would most likely take offense at having their favorite music being labelled "fake" anything.

it would be great to somehow split this article in two to describe the schism between the two scenes, but there is no alternate label for what is being labled by everyone (especially clueless mainstream press) as "emo" these days. i personally call it "faux-emo" because it's... well, fake emo. it's pop-hardcore (likening it to to pop punk), it's pretty much everything BUT real emo. however, a possible solution would be to have some kind of rigid timeline that breaks everything down in order and discusses the evolution of the sound based on sets of years and important bands/records of those eras?

as far as citation issues on criticisms of certain bands and whatnot... how can you cite something like popular opinion? do i need to dig thru 10 years worth of 90s fanzines to find snippets of commentary on specific bands? or locate offhand comments on 20 different messageboards around the internet (whose contents are transitory at best)? i do think that some citations from the book Dance of Days would beef up the historical roots section and give some definitive authority to the roots of the genre - which would also by contrast make a good case for the illegitimacy of mainstream "emo".

in commenting on the other discussion about sexism, i personally don't understand the contentions that emo (or at least the current bands, as much as i dislike them) are sexist. i don't see it. the early to mid 90s PC crowd that followed emo was anything but - the scene was made up of PC police that would jump on you for even looking at a girl wrong or attempting to "score on chicks" at shows. the current lyrics that are claimed as sexist with screamo and mainstream faux-emo pop-hardcore bands are basically "stabbed in the back" hardcore lyrics re-written to be about boy-girl relationships, written from the boy point of view. chadski

Better example lyrics need to be used but the accusations have been made. Also, maybe emo fashion should be a page unto itself. Ditto emo criticisms. --80.4.224.6 21:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or even add several slashes (-) as the last line of your post.

further additions needed

august 3rd

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

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

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

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

I think thats true. $(1/2)*a*t^{2}+v0*t+s0$

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

"Emo Music" box

I looked at the Grunge Music page and quite liked the box that gave a few key points about the genre of grunge and I was thinking it would be a good idea for someone else to add one for emo. I would do it myself but I'm not totally sure on a few of the details to include.

i looked at the grunge page, and i agree. it's the same as for the metal genres (check those out as well for examples) -- there are like 50 different genres and offshoots of metal (from 80s hair to death metal to troll metal, etc etc). so what needs to be done is to make the emo genre match the overall wikipedia style, we need to add a box at the top of the page that associates emo with hardcore, as well as listing its influences and various sub-genres, and then create pages for all the various sub-generes, and probably a separate page for the emo fashion since that seems to be a whole other thing. maybe even add emo fashion to the emo disambiguation page.

the only problem with this is what should the the new-school form of mtv style emo be called, so as to make a page for it? i have previously called it faux-emo, pop hardcore, etc, but those are just my own inventions. -chadski

Edit - Hey, this is the person who originally suggested the music box. I'd also suggest Washington State as a key area in the formation of modern day emo. The band Sunny Day Real Estate almost make this a worthy addition on their own then you consider all the other bands and you realise how influential it is as a region. I won't add it til there's some feedback or if someone else wants to add it.

yes, SDRE are hugely influential... HUGELY. but the thing is, it's not like they came from a whole scene of similar bands in seattle, they were pretty much the only band that sounded like that that sort of emerged from seattle's HC scene. they were highly unique and didn't even have any bands from the region that then followed their sound... it's almost like they were an anomaly. -chadski

Someone added Long Island to the origins. I removed it because there are no references to it. Unless I overlooked something.. --Klaser 06:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

long island has nothing to do with emo's origins. bands like Glassjaw and The Movielife hail from there, but they both started out as hardcore bands anyway --chadski

Page Vandalized

looks like someone who has no idea what they are talking about went thru and vandalized the entries, AGAIN. i guess since this is wikipedia there is not much that can be done about stopping this kind of behavior... not only is the vandalism against wikipedia's policy, the information that replaces the original information is OPINION, not an encyclopedic-style entry. i am too much of a retard to figure out how to get the pages to revert to where they were a few days ago.

i also think that since we have added a genre box, emo fashion should be moved to its own separate page. maybe this would help cut down on vandalism? i also think that pages need to be created for genres like melodic hardcore (which a band like Dag Nasty solidly belongs in, not emo) as well as pages for the modern incarnation of misnomer emo as that seems to be the kind of stuff people are most interested in putting down when they vandalize the page. --chadski

Hey chad, you seem to know what you're talking about. If you don't mind please IM at DFelon204409 or go here http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=93. I've been compiling list of emo bands by scene and general timeline. Once I've done that I'm going to compose a truly proper write up about the history of emo but I need some help from a lot of different people. I'm no expert in any individual scene so it's going to be tough to research. Also, a word I've ended up using to denote all those bands that mix pop punk with mild flares of hardcore is "popcore." The world doesn't need any more bullshit "-core" genres but this sort of sums up a lot of ideas I've had about that genre. Anyway, ya I'd like to hear from you some time and once I know more about editing Wikipedia pages, I'll make some addition of my own. I just don't want to gunk up this page until I get the coding. - DFelon204409

8.15.05 -

i fixed the vandalized page. it's not perfect and parts still need re-writing but i can't do the whole thing myself. i feel this page should be about the emo music genre only, starting with DC and ending in the late 90s when pop hardcore took over, so i made some edits. emo that follows the earlier models still exists and it should be mentioned, but there are only so many hours in my day...
created a pop hardcore page (for lack of a better term... dfelon thinks that popcore is a good one too, and i pretty much agree, but i am loathe to coin another "-core" genre, when there are so many journalistically lazy ones out there.. afraid that popcore would just get lost amongst the other "slowcore" "cuddlecore" "kindercore", etc).
i moved emo fashion to it's own page (dfelon thinks it should be retitled to "scene fashion" - opinions?), because this topic is big enough and removed enough from the music genre itself to warrant separate documentation.
created a separate page for melodic hardcore. some bands are unjustly lumped into emo that are actually just melodic HC bands - Dag nasty is a prime example.
edited the disambiguation page to point to some of these new pages, i am hoping it will cut down on the vandalism

--chadski

scene fashion sounds good
- see Emo fashion
pop-hardcore is a good idea as well, fashion-core should redirect to there... lol.
pop hardcore didn't "take over" in the late 90's...
dag nasty is borderline. melodic hardcore definately defined the emo movement. my personal opinion is that they are influential in the actual construction of the emo genre. rites of spring and
there ARE so many hours in a day, and so many wiki's to work on. and this is a very, very difficult one to work on. imo.
i dissent on 21st century emo. wherever that was posted. whatever is directly related and the norm among the pseudo-mainstream should be put up there. aka the pop-hardcore-er's of the world, the softcore-ers, the dinosaur-core-ers, they should be at least discussed in concise detail relating to their relevance and impact on the whole scheme. meaning, emo's gotten a bit of jazz lately. (and by jazz i mean buzz). and that's so terribly important to touch on at the end. (and also in the intro, i negelcted to do that when i updated the intro.) even though the disamb is changed, we really need to demarcate the paces of emo.

Moving page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ω DFelon204409

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

WTF is Emo Anyway...

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

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

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

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

Having just stepped into this mess, I think pre-2000 emo should be sent to Emocore. Until the late 90s, the term "emo" was used almost exclusively as an abbreviation of the word "emocore". It was only with the advent of mainstream "emo" that the "core" came completely off and "emo" became a term of itself.

Additionally, the split would help calm the controversy between the modern "emo" and the more indie leanings of what came before. However, it's worth it not just for that aspect: it's also historically accurate.

I somewhat mistakenly rewrote the Emocore article (not realizing what was going on), but it might at least serve as a start. Or it could just be wiped and rewritten.

But for the record: at the time, Jawbreaker wasn't considered emocore. Neither was Fugazi. There should be a greater focus placed on Sunny Day Real Estate than as an afterthought as the article currently stands. Sunny Day was the first emocore band to get widespread national attention, to the point of notice by Rolling Stone and company.

At the very least, consideration should be made to create articles such as Emo (90s) and Emo (80s) to help differentiate them from the modern day. -- ChrisB, 07:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Honestly, man, if you truly believe the stuff you're trying to cram into the Emo article, then you should remove yourself from the writing process.

Regardless of what Gravity was doing in the early 90s, it doesn't change the fact that in 1995 and 1996, the indie scene equated Sunny Day Real Estate with emo. And I'm not talking about Rolling Stone. Do a search in Google Groups for newsgroup postings on emo from 1995-1999, and you'll see that the writeup in the article is 100% accurate. (I was there when that stuff happened - I saw it myself.)

The whole point of a Wiki article is to describe the past and reflect the present as accurately as possible. "Grunge" was a word created by the media. Nirvana and Pearl Jam wanted nothing to do with the term. But popular perception was that they were grunge, so they are now permanently listed historically as grunge bands.

You can't coin a new term and force it on people. I agree on your point - I would prefer that people not use the term "emo" to describe the new music. BUT THEY DO. Telling people that they should call it "pop hardcore" because you think they should doesn't work. NOBODY calls it "pop hardcore", so an article on the subject would be entirely invalid from a journalistic standpoint.

EVEN IF YOUR VIEWPOINT IS RIGHT, it's irrelevant. Thousands of kids view "emo" to be exactly what it is today, whether you or I like it or not. Read the Wiki guidelines about an article, and it's pretty clear: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article named 'whatever', ask yourself what a reader would expect under "whatever" in an encyclopedia."

A seventeen year old kid looking for an article on "emo" isn't going to show up looking for an article about Gravity Records and Indian Summer. Having the historical elements about where the term originated is fine. But claiming that emo diverted in the 90s towards some other sound is not relevant when thousands of people use the term to describe something else.

I hate to say it, but you're not only outnumbered by the other contributors, but by civilization itself. All the bands you're describing (Circle Takes the Square, Hot Cross, City of Caterpillar, Funeral Diner, and A Day in Black and White) should do themselves a favor and call themselves something else. Coin a new term that hasn't been destroyed by popular culture. "Emo" isn't something that a Wiki article is going to be able to take back from the masses. -- ChrisB 08:07 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Arcarsenal 24 August 2005

Ω Arcarsenal, I actually agree with ChrisB on one thing. If kids are going to come to this page for info about Funeral for a Friend, information should be provided. However, I'm with you in that there needs to be more of a factual base. How about the page shows where the schism in the idea of emo occurred. Show the side that pop media and journalists take and show the side elitists and historians take. None of this second and third wave stuff. Organize it into popular notion and the historical notion. If you make that battle clear enough, kids who comes for Dashboard etc. will be able to see the way their notion has evolved against a contrary idea of the word. This site is supposed to be neutral and information so it's probably important to explain the difference between the two ideas of emo, etc. - DFelon204409

"Emo has a specific meaning, like banana, not an all-inclusive one, like fruit." I could not possibly disagree more.

It's impossible to split the "historical" and "popular" notions of emo because they're the same thing.

Since my "grunge" example failed, here's another: "Hip hop". In the 80s, "hip hop" described dance-influenced music that featured light-hearted lyrics, as performed by groups like Digital Undergound and DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince. In the 90s, "hip hop" described Gangsta Rap, as performed by Snoop, Dr Dre, and 2Pac. In the 00s, "hip hop" described an R&B-influenced almalgamation of the two, as performed by Nelly and 50 Cent.

Your arguments that the original emo is the only emo is like claiming that Nelly and 50 Cent aren't "hip hop" because their music sounds little to nothing like the 80s version of "hip hop". Instead, "hip hop" of 2005 should be remembered for some NYC underground band whose sound is reminiscent of 80s hip hop.

Here's the key: ask someone in twenty years what "emo" was like in 2005, what bands would you honestly expect them to throw out? Indie bands that few people have heard of, or popular bands like Coheed and Cambria?

Splitting the scenes into "waves" is a perfectly acceptable way to reflect the popularity of "emo" over the years. If you were to ask a random person what emo was in the 80s, they'd probably say Rites of Spring. Ask a random person what emo was in the 90s, they'd probably say Sunny Day Real Estate or Jimmy Eat World. (Don't disagree with this point simply because you would think of someone else first.)

Journalists and record labels didn't decide that the second wave of emo was emo. Fans of the music did. Regardless of how you feel about it, that's what happened. It's historical and 100% true.

No matter who deemed modern emo to be emo, fans have accepted it. End of story.

Encyclopedic articles (and Wiki articles, according to THE OFFICIAL GUIDELINES) are supposed to reflect the historical record shared by the most people. Only a modest handful of people have heard of bands like Hot Cross and Trophy Scars, no matter how much you wish otherwise.

It's perfectly acceptable to include references to bands that still practice original emo. That's a worthy part of the historical record. However, your insistence that modern emo is illegitimate and should not be covered in the same article is a minority POV, which the Wiki rules are explicitly against.

Seriously, don't get me wrong: I'm entirely frustrated that "emo" means something else now than it did ten years ago. Every time I mention to people that I was in an emo band in the late 90s, I basically have to defend myself and go into some long-winded explanation that's completely meaningless to them. BUT THAT'S LIFE. That's how things are now, and how the word "emo" has shifted in the last twenty years. They know "emo" to be something completely different from what it was, and I have to live with that.

And so does everyone else working on this article. -- ChrisB 04:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arcarsenal 25 August 2005

Change

I added a Daria pic, i believe she is the iconoclic personality of Emo culture. If anyone would like to add something towards go ahead.

Though it's not there now, thanks for the reference. I've been hearing the term "emo" a lot lately (web comics like Sinfest and Questionable Content), but haven't been able to get a sense what it is. (And "emotional" doesn't explain anything to a newcomer. I haven't heard of any of these bands. Sorry.) Daria has a strong and consistent personality. If she really is representative of the Emo scene, she should (IMO) be mentioned in the article. -- Chris (24.5.12.147 18:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Organization

I've excepted the new change. it seems to have the same info on what emo is and less clichy trendy stuff on it. but sersiously, it need to be organized, i can hardly tell what im looking at. -Aug.18

It makes sense to me. I believe chadski is working on that. When my work ends next Tuesday I'll be fixing a lot of stuff up. I'll write out the modern emo information, etc. -DFelon204409

Article structure and relationships with other articles

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

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

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

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

NPOV?

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

Your comment about Communists and Nazi's was inflammatory, period. Ever hear of Godwin's Law?

Regardless, compare the lyrical content of a song like "Screaming Infidelities" and N'Sync's "Tearing Up My Heart". I know, it sounds insulting, but for the sake of intellectual argument, find both songs and read the lyrics. Both songs cover basically the same subject, separated only by language. It's a perfectly legitimate complaint about post-Dashboard emo, and demonstrates the sharp contrast between new and old emo.

Emo of the 90s never covered the "I can't live without you" stylings of Carrabba's music. It was rarely so overtly about love and relationships and heartbreak. And now you've got bands like Funeral for a Friend writing total schlock like: "Sitting halfway, away from nowhere / Praying for our lips to touch / Holding myself for a second / Just to catch you smile on this line". (I've never heard the song, I just picked one at random.)

I'm not going to belabor anyone who loves that music. It's certainly their right to enjoy it, just as people who enjoy Backstreet and N'Sync have every right to enjoy that music. People shouldn't be criticized for liking some kind of music (one reason that I find the criticism section of the "21st Century Emo" article fucking appalling).

But compare those lyrics to these: "I found out the truth / they found nothing / and you can see it in their eyes when they don't speak / The time is rare / when they are silenced / and they ignore all of the rage you've held / Not much believed in / Cause there's no promise in this land / Pray to the gods you've elected / Another unanswered prayer // There's no promise / that can't be broken / one more time / and do it with a smile". NOT about love, not about relationships, and carry a deeper and darker meaning behind the obvious. (Song: "No Promise" by Seven Storey Mountain)

Lyrical content and the emotional state of it is precisely what separates new emo from old. And the genre of music that the lyrical content of a lot of new emo is closest to is straight, pure, unadulterated pop music. -- ChrisB 01:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well here's some more Funeral for a Friend lyrics for you - "Shove, Momentum drags us under, Your constant disregard, Your constant aggravation, Tell me nothing but home truths, Then you show me starvation, On a black and white screen, This is your movie queen, Stop and think a second, Tune in, Tune out, Nothing more than nothing, Drop in, Drop Out".

Dashboard could be compared to N*Sync and others certainly, but Funeral have lyrics than can easily stand up against those of older emo bands, and nowhere near as many of their songs are about relationships as you'd probably guess. Whoever wrote this section obviously did it to put the music and it's fans down

I wrote the vast majority of the emo critcisms section, because even though I love a lot of that music, when it's so detested on such a large scale, the critcisms can't be ignored, so I tried to put them in context and make defences against them.

I don't know if Godwin's law really applies here - saying emo music is as alternative and thoughtful as N*Sync and the Backstreet Boys is the equivalent of stating that a Republican is a Nazi or a liberal is a Communist or hippy, because it's a hyperbolic, over-the-top statement made for affect rather than because there's any real meaning behind it.

The whole thing being NPOV tagged for one sentence which contributes nothing to the article is pointless anyway, so I'm gonna remove them and refrain from trying to "balance" hyperbole with hyperbole like I did before. --80.4.224.6 23:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know we're long past this, but I thought it was worth mentioning: the article wasn't tagged NPOV for that sentence. That sentence was written after the article was tagged NPOV. Actually, the NPOV tag came before I did a single edit on the article. That sentence was part of a lengthy re-write to remove NPOV aspects of the article. If you want to see what the NPOV was, hit the history and check the version before my first edit -- ChrisB

It was tagged NPOV, then there was a bunch of rewriting, during which the Communist/Nazi thing was added, then it was un-NPOV tagged, then it got retagged because of the Communist/Nazi thing. In hindsight, NPOV or not, it wasn't exactly the most encyclopedic of additions. --80.4.224.6 23:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

redlinks on the template chaotic emo/midwestern emo

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

What's going on?

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

This article now contains balance. It addresses EVERY point of view without favoring any one. There is no one singular answer to the question "What is emo?", and it's worth addressing each and every one of them in an objective fashion.

The 21st Century Emo article is a piece of shit that should be wiped off of Wiki. It basically summarizes this article, then adds a completely unnecessary criticism section that takes the viewpoint that nobody could possibly enjoy emo because it's derivative, dominated by fashion-conscious assholes, and is devoid of any musical value.

If you can't be objective about a topic, if your only viewpoint of something is that it sucks and is only worthy of ridicule, then you have no business writing an article about the subject. Period. It's certainly worth including something about emo criticism, but in no way should it be the PROMINENT thread of the article. PEOPLE ACTUALLY DO ENJOY IT. Treating like shit wrapped in a gift bag does nobody any good. -- ChrisB 00:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Secondary Meanings

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

For starters, it appears that you didn't bother to actually read the article, seeing as how 97% of the article talks about the music, not the fans.

But there are other problems with what you wrote. First off, if you want to talk about that specific meaning of "emo", you should start an article called "emo (slang)". You'll notice via the disambiguation link that there are already other emo pages concerning meanings other than the specific music one.

Most importantly, however, your paragraph is derogatory POV. "Though their work may be dreadful"? What the hell is that? People are allowed to write what they want to write - it's not the business of someone writing an objective article to judge their work. "Someone who purposefully acts unhappy and depressed all the time for attention or someone who whines about small insignificant things, stereotypically a spoiled teenager"? Garbage. Can you actually confirm that they're purposefully depressed, and not ACTUALLY suffering from depression and simply reflecting it in a seemingly immature? During the early teenage years, people generally do things that other people might find to be immature - it's called "being a teenager".

Seriously, I'm sick of the bullshit that flows around this article. There are seemingly an endless supply of 15- to 17-year-old boys who have issues with "emo" kids and want to pronounce to the heavens how much they fucking suck. And, guess what? Those kids are just as bad as the "emo" kids. They're just as immature, demonstrated by the fact that they're incapable of setting aside their emotions and acting on impulse to deface a Wiki article.

By comparison, the Goth article features none of the animosity of this article (or of the completely redundant and unnecessary 21st Century Emo article), and Goth kids were just as abused and ridiculed as "emo" kids are today. (I'd actually submit that today's "emo" kids are actually Goth kids who have shifted to enjoy modern "emo", given the notable similarities of the so-called "emo fashion" that hadn't previously been a part of the emo scene. -- ChrisB 00:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Superchunk

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

The problem is that they were never considered emo, even during that 90s indie-rock emo period. If anything, they were considered more of an off-shoot of the Pixies / late-era Husker Du "alternative" sound. More often than not, they were talked about in the same sentence as bands like Pavement, Sebadoh, and Archers of Loaf. That period was weird: some bands were just "indie rock", others earned the "emo" tag, without any particularly obvious reason why. It seemed like it was more or less relegated to scene, and Superchunk was never in that scene.

I found a relevant quote in an interview with Jim Suptic of the Get Up Kids from 1999: "I always thought we sounded like Superchunk, but nobody ever calls them emo." -- ChrisB 17:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Your points are well taken.--Buster 16:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

?

Why do people hate emo some much anymore? All of these new pop crap bands are mildly emo, like GC or FOB. I suggest that some people get their facts straight.

What happened to all the "emo kids are fags" content? It used to say emo girls liked gay guys, and etc... Sam Spade 22:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs merged w 21st Century Emo

They should not have been separated in this way. Please merge 21st Century Emo ASAP. Sam Spade 23:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Band inclusions

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

Coheed and Cambria

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

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)[reply]

Green Day and Linkin Park

These bands were added to the list of bands that are called emo, and I know that list is not calling the bands emo, per se, but frankly, people don't really call those bands emo. Green Day is called punk, or pop-punk, maybe, and Linkin Park is called crap most of the time :). But in any case, those bands have not been called emo often enough to merit inclusion on this list. --ParkerHiggins 01:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of either Green Day or Linkin Park refered to as "emo."

Neutrality.

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

Emo/Homo rhyme

Did you realize that emo and homo rhyme?? I'm just saying.

Emo and Goth

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

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

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

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