"Real" emo.

[deeplyinept]

i'm sick of people complaining about what real emo is
we all know what it used to be

but come now
words evolve and definitions change
"nice" comes from a latin word meaning ignorant

today, the popular emo culture consists of my chemical romance listeners
therefore, the popular definition for 'emo' should describe people that listen to that genre of music

i'm not trying to stick up for these bands, i don't even listen to them or consider myself emo
but this slavish devotion to keeping the word emo the same frankly annoys the fuck out of me
and it's turning into such a stupid argument on this website

[Genuma]

Oh hello there!

[AP_Punk]

nice.

[Until The Bombs]

The longer I've been here, the more I believe you shouldn't be able to start threads until you've reached a certain post count.

[Until The Bombs]

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh172/jthees/lolcats/Serious-Cat-Joker.jpg

[shit stroll]

rad.

[Genuma]

nice.
ignorant.

[Genuma]

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh172/jthees/lolcats/Serious-Cat-Joker.jpg
Aw, I want that cat.

[AP_Punk]

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=166516

[x togepi x]

i'm sick of people complaining about what real emo is
we all know what it used to be

but come now
words evolve and definitions change
"nice" comes from a latin word meaning ignorant

today, the popular emo culture consists of my chemical romance listeners
therefore, the popular definition for 'emo' should describe people that listen to that genre of music

i'm not trying to stick up for these bands, i don't even listen to them or consider myself emo
but this slavish devotion to keeping the word emo the same frankly annoys the fuck out of me
and it's turning into such a stupid argument on this website

we're not talking about the definition of the word emo, we're talking about the genre. yes, the definition of the word changes. the genre, however, does not.

[kearn1tm]

I hear those Fall Out Kids invented the emo.

[Yes. And?]

:yawn:

[x togepi x]

I hear those Fall Out Kids invented the emo.

right after pete quit his black power band.

[kearn1tm]

:yawn:

Don't you know yawning is contagious. Thanks, now I did it.

[kearn1tm]

right after pete quit his black power band.

Yeah man, but that shit was a fad.

[x togepi x]

whatever. racetraitor was for life

[kearn1tm]

whatever. racetraitor was for life

Yeah man, and that shit's making him millions no...well, that shit's allowing him to knock up the B-List uggo sister of a 'tard celeb...Racetraitor was for life, duder.

[chokeychicken]

no, i dont think you get it.

just because the origin of nice meant something different doesn't mean the definition of emo changes.

EMOTIONAL HARDCORE.

its dead. the genre is dead. anybody who tries to say that a modern day band is emo is fucking retarded.

there is no scene.

[Ryannn]

livejournal?

[deeplyinept]

it's definition HAS changed though
if emo were dead, we wouldn't be having this conversation
the new style probably shouldn't have been associated with emo in the first place
but it was
and now emo means something else

you can make the argument that old school emo is better
but making the argument that the current emo genre isn't emo would be wrong

[EchoPark]

emo died with Elliot Smith

[kearn1tm]

i'm sick of people complaining about what real emo is
we all know what it used to be

but come now
words evolve and definitions change
"nice" comes from a latin word meaning ignorant

today, the popular emo culture consists of my chemical romance listeners
therefore, the popular definition for 'emo' should describe people that listen to that genre of music

i'm not trying to stick up for these bands, i don't even listen to them or consider myself emo
but this slavish devotion to keeping the word emo the same frankly annoys the fuck out of me
and it's turning into such a stupid argument on this website

Sick and tired of hearing all these people talk about
"what's the deal with this pop stuff and when is it going to fade out?"

[Hey Kevin]

it's definition HAS changed though
if emo were dead, we wouldn't be having this conversation
the new style probably shouldn't have been associated with emo in the first place
but it was
and now emo means something else

you can make the argument that old school emo is better
but making the argument that the current emo genre isn't emo would be wrong

ok so I say Bob Marley is still alive and im sick of all you kids on absolutepunk thinking he is dead

[deeplyinept]

ok so I say Bob Marley is still alive and im sick of all you kids on absolutepunk thinking he is dead

but bob marley was a physical being
and a definition is an intellectual thought

[Hey Kevin]

but bob marley was a physical being
and a definition is an intellectual thought
not if i say its not and im sick of you absolutepunk kids saying it is

[deeplyinept]

oh ok
i thought that was a serious refute
haha

[fadedmemories]

Sick and tired of hearing all these people talk about
"what's the deal with this pop stuff and when is it going to fade out?"

yup

[Hey Kevin]

oh ok
i thought that was a serious refute
haha

yeah i thought what you said was stupid and hard to take seriously too

[deeplyinept]

yeah i thought what you said was stupid and hard to take seriously too
i guess we'll never be allowed to end a sentence with a preposition
i just wish i could understand british literature

[TheBaroness]

no, i dont think you get it.

just because the origin of nice meant something different doesn't mean the definition of emo changes.

EMOTIONAL HARDCORE.

its dead. the genre is dead. anybody who tries to say that a modern day band is emo is fucking retarded.

there is no scene.

um, yes there is...

[lawofaverages]

ugh give it a fucking rest people

[Fuckmaxbemis]

i'm sick of people complaining about what real emo is
we all know what it used to be

but come now
words evolve and definitions change
"nice" comes from a latin word meaning ignorant

today, the popular emo culture consists of my chemical romance listeners
therefore, the popular definition for 'emo' should describe people that listen to that genre of music

i'm not trying to stick up for these bands, i don't even listen to them or consider myself emo
but this slavish devotion to keeping the word emo the same frankly annoys the fuck out of me
and it's turning into such a stupid argument on this website
How about you leave then. There's people like my self who are passionate about it because it's what matter.s Find some where else with your interests. If this isn't the place, you can go. easy.

[KatieKutthroat.]

Sick and tired of hearing all these people talk about
"what's the deal with this pop stuff and when is it going to fade out?"

N'sync?

[Yes. And?]

livejournal?
We don't need more of his shit over there! :nono:

[Anthony Lutz]

The longer I've been here, the more I believe you shouldn't be able to start threads until you've reached a certain post count.

What he said.

[kearn1tm]

N'sync?

Think they need to realize what we're doing is not a trend
We got the gift of melody, we're going to bring it 'till the end

[KatieKutthroat.]

Think they need to realize what we're doing is not a trend
We got the gift of melody, we're going to bring it 'till the end

Hahaha. Good old N'sync.

[thespearkid]

it's definition HAS changed though
if emo were dead, we wouldn't be having this conversation
the new style probably shouldn't have been associated with emo in the first place
but it was
and now emo means something else

you can make the argument that old school emo is better
but making the argument that the current emo genre isn't emo would be wrong
Just because the definition of emo has been bastardized, doesn't mean the genre has changed. By your logic, if everyone started calling Nickelback psychedelic, they would be psychedelic. That's wikiality bullshit (circa Stephen Colbert).

Sick and tired of hearing all these people talk about
"what's the deal with this pop stuff and when is it going to fade out?"
That song was the shit.

[mht]

no, i dont think you get it.

just because the origin of nice meant something different doesn't mean the definition of emo changes.

EMOTIONAL HARDCORE.

its dead. the genre is dead. anybody who tries to say that a modern day band is emo is fucking retarded.

there is no scene.



Wat. There are tons of emo bands still making music today. Also emotional hardcore could be argued as melodic hardcore.

[SickOfStars]

ugh give it a fucking rest people

plz listen to this ^

[deeplyinept]

How about you leave then. There's people like my self who are passionate about it because it's what matter.s Find some where else with your interests. If this isn't the place, you can go. easy.
That's a tad extreme, don't you think? It's not like I'm crying myself to sleep because of the misuse of a word. This doesn't even have anything to do with my interests.

Just because the definition of emo has been bastardized, doesn't mean the genre has changed. By your logic, if everyone started calling Nickelback psychedelic, they would be psychedelic. That's wikiality bullshit (circa Stephen Colbert).
The genre 'alternative' has achieved a certain vagueness to where any given band and my mother could be categorized under the alternative style without a second thought. Emo probably evolved when bands like Jimmy Eat World changed their sound. When "The Middle" was being played on the radio, people probably said, "Jimmy Eat World is an emo band, so this is what emo must sound like." Any open-minded person could see how ties were made between Bleed American and Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge. This is only one example. So really, if there was a transition that linked Nickelback and psychedelic music, it could theoretically happen. It never will because obviously Nickelback and psychedelic music are more contrasting than emo and alternative/pop punk. You must be a ridiculous person if you don't understand the point that I'm trying to make.

[Yes. And?]

Mmm, I foresee a tl;dr argument coming up.

[Getup and Dance]

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c267/evandodson/Gif/whatlj6.gif

[deeplyinept]

The longer I've been here, the more I believe you shouldn't be able to start threads until you've reached a certain post count.
elitism at its finest

[Getup and Dance]

elitism at its finest

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c267/evandodson/Gif/9800.gif

[deeplyinept]

lol nice

[Until The Bombs]

elitism at its finest

How was what I said at all elitist?

[deeplyinept]

How was what I said at all elitist?
elitism (n.) The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

[Until The Bombs]

elitism (n.) The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

No. What I said was a reflection of seeing this same thread for nth time in the relatively short period of time that I've been here.

[deeplyinept]

No. What I said was a reflection of seeing this same thread for nth time in the relatively short period of time that I've been here.
i stand corrected
but from what i've searched i have only found arguments going in the other direction

[x togepi x]

i stand corrected
but from what i've searched i have only found arguments going in the other direction

except you never really responded to my argument about how genres don't really evolve and that there's two different ways you could be using the word emo. when an "elitist" is saying a band isn't emo, they're not talking about it in the popular/social context, since in that contest "real emo" bands are punk. in this context, punk and emo are two distinct entities.

however, when we're talking about a genre, emo is what emo was in the 1986. a genre can't "evolve" because it's a classification. for it to evolve, we would have to change the parameters in which something gets classified as an "emo band", which is impossible since there are other genres like post-hardcore, "midwest emo", that are defined partially in relation to emotional hardcore. to say MCR or whatever is an emo band in this case makes no sense.

it is much like the taxonomic system used to classify animals. just because domesticated dogs evolved from a common ancestor with wolves doesn't mean i can call my friend's dachsund a wolf. much like this example, while music itself is always evolving, the classification system stays static. your argument for changing this classification system rests on the idea that because a bunch of people say these popular bands are emo, they are.

the problem with this logic is that "the masses" who think depressing pop rock bands that kind of scream count as emo really have no understanding of what genres are or even care about genres at all. If we're going to be talking about what "emo" means on a lingusitic level, we have to realize the difference between a common place definition and technical jargon. Genres are technical jargon that musicians, music jounrnalists, promotors, basically anyone involved in music use. They aren't based on what the general public thinks. While I'm sure a poll of people involved in the industry wouldn't exist on this manner, I'm pretty sure most are going to say that this definition of emo is fucking stupid, merely because it is based on the "emotional" quality of the bands in question, which is a poor standard. For proof of this sentiment just look at how "emo" gets trashed by the media, by musicians, journalists, whatever. Hardly anyone thinks this is a legit genre. On the other hand, people hardly ever condemn "elitists" for labeling super obscure hardcore bands as emo. (aside from Ian Mackaye, who was really commenting on the stupidity of the name emo, which I think everyone involved in music can agree was a stupid name).

[deeplyinept]

except you never really responded to my argument about how genres don't really evolve and that there's two different ways you could be using the word emo. when an "elitist" is saying a band isn't emo, they're not talking about it in the popular/social context, since in that contest "real emo" bands are punk. in this context, punk and emo are two distinct entities.

however, when we're talking about a genre, emo is what emo was in the 1986. a genre can't "evolve" because it's a classification. for it to evolve, we would have to change the parameters in which something gets classified as an "emo band", which is impossible since there are other genres like post-hardcore, "midwest emo", that are defined partially in relation to emotional hardcore. to say MCR or whatever is an emo band in this case makes no sense.

it is much like the taxonomic system used to classify animals. just because domesticated dogs evolved from a common ancestor with wolves doesn't mean i can call my friend's dachsund a wolf. much like this example, while music itself is always evolving, the classification system stays static. your argument for changing this classification system rests on the idea that because a bunch of people say these popular bands are emo, they are.

the problem with this logic is that "the masses" who think depressing pop rock bands that kind of scream count as emo really have no understanding of what genres are or even care about genres at all. If we're going to be talking about what "emo" means on a lingusitic level, we have to realize the difference between a common place definition and technical jargon. Genres are technical jargon that musicians, music jounrnalists, promotors, basically anyone involved in music use. They aren't based on what the general public thinks. While I'm sure a poll of people involved in the industry wouldn't exist on this manner, I'm pretty sure most are going to say that this definition of emo is fucking stupid, merely because it is based on the "emotional" quality of the bands in question, which is a poor standard. For proof of this sentiment just look at how "emo" gets trashed by the media, by musicians, journalists, whatever. Hardly anyone thinks this is a legit genre. On the other hand, people hardly ever condemn "elitists" for labeling super obscure hardcore bands as emo. (aside from Ian Mackaye, who was really commenting on the stupidity of the name emo, which I think everyone involved in music can agree was a stupid name).

What you're saying is that we could break anything considered emo today into hundreds of subgenres which means that nothing is truly emo because what we listen to today is merely a branch off of the original emo. But the problem with this is that these subgenres are never in context. When you're talking in a forum, you rarely see people talking about "mid-west emo" or "post-hardcore". Although you might find a handful of these threads, it's normally a thread about emo in general. And frankly all of these subgenres are almost redundant because they are too hard to keep track of. If you believe in evolutionism, then you believe that humans derived from gorillas, who derived from chimpanzees, who derived from orangutans, and so on. And all of these different beings are classified under monkeys, or mammals. Orangutans represent a band like Rites of Spring and humanity represents Fall Out Boy or Green Day. I know everybody will agree that MCR or Panic are a completely different style of emo, but you have to accept its progression and understand that it derived from somewhere. If you take a look at Saves The Day's progression (degression, really) from Can't Slow Down to In Reverie, Saves The Day kept their emo label while changing their music in all shapes and forms. So call MCR any goofy subgenre you want, they are still emo.

[thespearkid]

What you're saying is that we could break anything considered emo today into hundreds of subgenres which means that nothing is truly emo because what we listen to today is merely a branch off of the original emo. But the problem with this is that these subgenres are never in context. When you're talking in a forum, you rarely see people talking about "mid-west emo" or "post-hardcore". Although you might find a handful of these threads, it's normally a thread about emo in general. And frankly all of these subgenres are almost redundant because they are too hard to keep track of. If you believe in evolutionism, then you believe that humans derived from gorillas, who derived from chimpanzees, who derived from orangutans, and so on. And all of these different beings are classified under monkeys, or mammals. Orangutans represent a band like Rites of Spring and humanity represents Fall Out Boy or Green Day. I know everybody will agree that MCR or Panic are a completely different style of emo, but you have to accept its progression and understand that it derived from somewhere. If you take a look at Saves The Day's progression (degression, really) from Can't Slow Down to In Reverie, Saves The Day kept their emo label while changing their music in all shapes and forms. So call MCR any goofy subgenre you want, they are still emo.
No, just no. Bands like My Chemical Romance being inspired by the bands who were inspired by the original emo movement represents an influence, not a progression of the genre as a whole.

[x togepi x]

What you're saying is that we could break anything considered emo today into hundreds of subgenres which means that nothing is truly emo because what we listen to today is merely a branch off of the original emo.

I didn't actually say that at all since, as other people pointed out, there are bands that are still playing the same style of music that was created in the 80s. It wouldn't really be a branch at all, it'd be bands sticking in the same genre, much like we do with punk and hardcore.

but there is still a huge problem with your logic here: why does it matter if we break things down into tons of subgenres? We do that with music anyway. I'd wager that 90% of the music people here listen to is basically a subgenre of rock and roll. I mean seriously: post punk, punk, metal, glam rock, alternative, grunge, pop punk, power pop, doom metal, are all subgenres in a sense but you hardly ever see people being like arguing about these other genres (besides punk and pop punk), so why are you singling out emo here? Why not start genre arguments about every genre ever? It's just poor logic.

but besides, the bands the media and you claim are emo are not branches of real emo anyway. that's the problem. this is a commercially created trend lumping tons of bands that don't really belong together under the tree of "emo". Are you seriously going to tell me that Dashboard Confessional, The Spill Canvas, Coheed and Cambria, Fall Out Boy, Jimmy Eat World, Thursday, Senses Fail and Bright Eyes all fit in the same genre/scene? They really don't. While I can see links from emo to a band like Thursday, there really isn't one from Rites of Spring to Dashboard Confessional or Fall Out Boy (at least one that wouldn't also apply to any band ever).

But the problem with this is that these subgenres are never in context.

says who? There's always a context to any word you use. I know that when a 15 year old girl or my roommates or some random person in class talk about emo, they're talking about it in the social/popular context. Likewise, when the members of my band, or the dudes that work at the record store i frequent use the word, I know they're talking about it in the genre context. Neither group is wrong when speaking within their own context. It's just when you hear people saying "Emo is (insert random pop band here)" that they're completely off because they're talking about genres, and misusing them.

When you're talking in a forum, you rarely see people talking about "mid-west emo" or "post-hardcore".

People here use those terms all the time. I've also heard people use these genres in real life. Just because you haven't doesn't mean they don't. Besides, the rarity of people using these genres has absolutely no factor as to what the genre means. Emo is an obscure genre. Most midwest emo bands broke up like a year into their existence, of course very few people talk about them. You can't just abitrarily decide to redefine a genre just because the bands within it are obscure. Doing so is actualy more elitist because you're presupposing that these obscure bands don't have as much merit as a band that got popular.

Although you might find a handful of these threads, it's normally a thread about emo in general. And frankly all of these subgenres are almost redundant because they are too hard to keep track of.

and this quoted portion is merely personal opinion. it has no bearing in a discussion about what really is emo. I think there aren't enough genres really. but that's irrelevant.

If you believe in evolutionism, then you believe that humans derived from gorillas, who derived from chimpanzees, who derived from orangutans, and so on. And all of these different beings are classified under monkeys, or mammals. Orangutans represent a band like Rites of Spring and humanity represents Fall Out Boy or Green Day. I know everybody will agree that MCR or Panic are a completely different style of emo, but you have to accept its progression and understand that it derived from somewhere. If you take a look at Saves The Day's progression (degression, really) from Can't Slow Down to In Reverie, Saves The Day kept their emo label while changing their music in all shapes and forms. So call MCR any goofy subgenre you want, they are still emo.

Here is where you go way, way off base. The logic behind your statements is sound, but the argument you make is factually incorrect. There is really no link between Rites of Spring and MCR or Fall Out Boy or Green Day or Saves The Day. You have the burden of proof to show how it exists in a theory sense. The pop bands you listed don't even share common infuences with Rites of Spring. Saves The Day isn't emo either, it's influenced by Lifetime which was a hardcore band. If anything, the STD throws back to the Jersey hardcore scene, not emo.

What you're doing here is you're saying "well, because some people classify these bands as emo, there must be a link" but unless you can actually show the link, you can't have an evolution here. To use an evolutionary set of logic, you have to show some sort of common ancestor. MCR et al, do not use Rites of Spring as their musical ancestor, they throw back to completely different scenes. You only think there's a common ancestor because people in the media have told you there is, but there really isn't. I mean, feel free to show me a link here.

[deeplyinept]

No, just no. Bands like My Chemical Romance being inspired by the bands who were inspired by the original emo movement represents an influence, not a progression of the genre as a whole.
What I said was that by being inspired by these bands, they are creating a new subgenre which is more vaguely described as emo. Humans haven't developed scales and transformed into reptiles, if that makes sense.

[x togepi x]

What I said was that by being inspired by these bands, they are creating a new subgenre which is more vaguely described as emo. Humans haven't developed scales and transformed into reptiles, if that makes sense.

except they weren't inspired by those bands...they're inspired by Lifetime, which was not an emo band but Jersey hardcore band. It's a completely different scene.

[thespearkid]

except they weren't inspired by those bands...they're inspired by Lifetime, which was not an emo band but Jersey hardcore band. It's a completely different scene.
Ah, my mistake. I made an assumption.

What I said was that by being inspired by these bands, they are creating a new subgenre which is more vaguely described as emo. Humans haven't developed scales and transformed into reptiles, if that makes sense.
No, it doesn't make sense, to me at least haha. The music My Chemical Romance makes isn't emo just because it's been referred to as emo. Bands like Fall Out Boy, Panic, and MCR not only have nothing in common with the original emo movement, but have very little in common with each other so it's unreasonable to say they're all part of the same genre.

[x togepi x]

Ah, my mistake. I made an assumption.


No, it doesn't make sense, to me at least haha. The music My Chemical Romance makes isn't emo just because it's been referred to as emo. Bands like Fall Out Boy, Panic, and MCR not only have nothing in common with the original emo movement, but have very little in common with each other so it's unreasonable to say they're all part of the same genre.

Did you make the assumption? i thought you were just going off what he said.

[thespearkid]

Did you make the assumption? i thought you were just going off what he said.
I assumed what he was saying was right. To be honest, I've never put much thought into MCR's influences.

[thesafeword]

We should've dropped this word when its genre dropped off.

[deeplyinept]

I didn't actually say that at all since, as other people pointed out, there are bands that are still playing the same style of music that was created in the 80s. It wouldn't really be a branch at all, it'd be bands sticking in the same genre, much like we do with punk and hardcore.

but there is still a huge problem with your logic here: why does it matter if we break things down into tons of subgenres? We do that with music anyway. I'd wager that 90% of the music people here listen to is basically a subgenre of rock and roll. I mean seriously: post punk, punk, metal, glam rock, alternative, grunge, pop punk, power pop, doom metal, are all subgenres in a sense but you hardly ever see people being like arguing about these other genres (besides punk and pop punk), so why are you singling out emo here? Why not start genre arguments about every genre ever? It's just poor logic.

but besides, the bands the media and you claim are emo are not branches of real emo anyway. that's the problem. this is a commercially created trend lumping tons of bands that don't really belong together under the tree of "emo". Are you seriously going to tell me that Dashboard Confessional, The Spill Canvas, Coheed and Cambria, Fall Out Boy, Jimmy Eat World, Thursday, Senses Fail and Bright Eyes all fit in the same genre/scene? They really don't. While I can see links from emo to a band like Thursday, there really isn't one from Rites of Spring to Dashboard Confessional or Fall Out Boy (at least one that wouldn't also apply to any band ever).



says who? There's always a context to any word you use. I know that when a 15 year old girl or my roommates or some random person in class talk about emo, they're talking about it in the social/popular context. Likewise, when the members of my band, or the dudes that work at the record store i frequent use the word, I know they're talking about it in the genre context. Neither group is wrong when speaking within their own context. It's just when you hear people saying "Emo is (insert random pop band here)" that they're completely off because they're talking about genres, and misusing them.



People here use those terms all the time. I've also heard people use these genres in real life. Just because you haven't doesn't mean they don't. Besides, the rarity of people using these genres has absolutely no factor as to what the genre means. Emo is an obscure genre. Most midwest emo bands broke up like a year into their existence, of course very few people talk about them. You can't just abitrarily decide to redefine a genre just because the bands within it are obscure. Doing so is actualy more elitist because you're presupposing that these obscure bands don't have as much merit as a band that got popular.



and this quoted portion is merely personal opinion. it has no bearing in a discussion about what really is emo. I think there aren't enough genres really. but that's irrelevant.



Here is where you go way, way off base. The logic behind your statements is sound, but the argument you make is factually incorrect. There is really no link between Rites of Spring and MCR or Fall Out Boy or Green Day or Saves The Day. You have the burden of proof to show how it exists in a theory sense. The pop bands you listed don't even share common infuences with Rites of Spring. Saves The Day isn't emo either, it's influenced by Lifetime which was a hardcore band. If anything, the STD throws back to the Jersey hardcore scene, not emo.

What you're doing here is you're saying "well, because some people classify these bands as emo, there must be a link" but unless you can actually show the link, you can't have an evolution here. To use an evolutionary set of logic, you have to show some sort of common ancestor. MCR et al, do not use Rites of Spring as their musical ancestor, they throw back to completely different scenes. You only think there's a common ancestor because people in the media have told you there is, but there really isn't. I mean, feel free to show me a link here.

If you've ever played the Kevin Bacon game, then you'd know that there is a connection somewhere. Wikipedia is down and I'm too lazy to manually make a specific connection right now. But let's break down the term emotive-hardcore. We have emo. And HARDCORE. Which means Saves The Day must have been influenced by the same type of hardcore bands that influenced the orginal emo bands. So perhaps hardcore should be the base of our whole argument.

But who said anything about influence in the first place? I guess I need to digress to the media/audience and definition stance. When these original emo bands formed, do you think that they sat down saying "We're going to revolutionize music forever and they shall call it: emotive-hardcore!!!"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that PEOPLE gave them this label. The reason why the label emo evolved isn't because of band's influences - bands have no control of what label the public gives them.

As older emo bands changed their music, their fanbase were opened up to a new style of music while the band kept their emo label. I'll use Jimmy Eat World as an example because they are widely accepted as emo by the hardcore "emo" fanbase. As JEW went from Static to Clarity to Bleed American, they took their fanbase and extended the sound of their music. Now songs like The Middle and Sweetness are classified under emo although they are completely different than Claire and Digits. Influences have nothing to do with this. You can take an album like Stay What You Are and say, "this has the same feel as Bleed American". I know that's probably a flawed example, but I'm sure you get the point. So if you want to blame anybody for this, blame the bands that explored into something new. Emo doesn't have a style, it has a sound. And when bands expanded the sound, they expanded what emo is.

[theguy77]

fuck, you'd have thought this was me arguing things in here. this is like me vs ben on politics.

[x togepi x]

If you've ever played the Kevin Bacon game, then you'd know that there is a connection somewhere.

I was talking about a meaningful connection, not "Fall Out Boy once listened to Rites of Spring in Pete's apartment."

Wikipedia is down and I'm too lazy to manually make a specific connection right now.

so basically you don't know what you're talking about. cool.

But let's break down the term emotive-hardcore. We have emo. And HARDCORE.

You can't break down the term "emotive hardcore" and use it as a basis to explain what emo is. The reasoning is that the modifier "emotive" really has no bearing on what makes an emo band emo. It's based on differences between emotive hardcore and 80s hardcore, which had to do with a more experimental approach, a rejection of the simplicity of hardcore in terms of musical theory, etc. It really has nothing to do with "emotional" at all.

we connect this to your later example of saves the day, which lacks this experimental approach, which shows there's no real connection to them.

Which means Saves The Day must have been influenced by the same type of hardcore bands that influenced the orginal emo bands. So perhaps hardcore should be the base of our whole argument.

not so fast, the bands that saves the day are influenced by are basically real pop punk bands like the descendants and hardcore, plus lifetime. None of those bands carry through the emotive hardcore approach. we can't use "hardcore" as the base for our argument because emo rejects many of the tropes of the hardcore scene. they're diametrically opposed at points. Your logic is like saying "well, fascism and democracy both evolved from monarchies so they're the same, even though we both know that isn't true." the scene STD evolves from was a straight up hardcore scene, much like 80s hardcore. You can trace their influences back to hardcore, but you can't trace emo's influence to saves the day because they're two different branches of the punk tree.

But who said anything about influence in the first place? I guess I need to digress to the media/audience and definition stance.

which i covered earlier, merely that in the case of the "definition of the word emo" we're actually talking about a word with two distinct definitions: a genre, and a cultural trend. The media/audience is merely talking about the cultural trend, and not the genre. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand.

it's like with the word "punk". There's at least three distinct definitions for the word: there's the genre, the subculture/countercultural movement, and the fashion. The difference between the three is there's different parameters to fit each definition, like you can dress completely normally and not fit into the genre but still be punk in the subcultural sense.

When these original emo bands formed, do you think that they sat down saying "We're going to revolutionize music forever and they shall call it: emotive-hardcore!!!"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that PEOPLE gave them this label.

Actually they did. It was called "revolution summer." Only they didn't call their music emo, it was a derogatory term put on them by meathead hardcore fans.

The reason why the label emo evolved isn't because of band's influences - bands have no control of what label the public gives them.

Once again you're confusing the "cultural" conotation of the word with the genre one. The original use of the word had to do with the genre that was created around this music. Since the genre was made, its meaning as a genre is static. Music evolves but genres don't.

The form of the definition you're talking about wasn't decided by "people" in some grand sense, it was a term created by the media in the late 90s to describe the "next new cool music". Somewhere on the internet there's that infamous 1998 issue of Teen People that backs up my point. I might give you view some more respect if people themselves chose the word, but they didn't. When the labels starting pushing certain bands, like Jimmy Eat World, they were pushing them under the label of "emo", regardless of what they sounded like, which is why I'm saying you can't draw a line back to emo from these new bands.

As older emo bands changed their music, their fanbase were opened up to a new style of music while the band kept their emo label. I'll use Jimmy Eat World as an example because they are widely accepted as emo by the hardcore "emo" fanbase.

no. they weren't. their old stuff was obviously influenced by midwest emo, but their new stuff is generic pop rock.

As JEW went from Static to Clarity to Bleed American, they took their fanbase and extended the sound of their music. Now songs like The Middle and Sweetness are classified under emo although they are completely different than Claire and Digits. Influences have nothing to do with this.

This is a case of a band completely changing scenes though. They left the emo scene after Clarity and became a pop rock band. This explains partially why they're classified as "emo" (once again, this was a media creation, I'm fairly certain the band rejected that label) after Clarity even though they aren't). Following your logic, if a band starts out playing hardcore and ends up playing pop rock at the end of their career, then they're a hardcore band.

that's stupid. This is just like what happened with the Replacements, who started their career playing hardcore/punk influenced music before rejecting that sound and becoming poppier until they played what's considered some of early indie/alt rock. In your view, they're always a "hardcore band", because you won't realize that bands can change their genre, leave scenes, etc. In my view, they started out as hardcore and became something else. This is the same as Jimmy Eat World. The difference between our two views is that you are labeling a band into a certain scene solely because people told you that's what they are, where as I'm actually using some sort of logic to define them.

You can take an album like Stay What You Are and say, "this has the same feel as Bleed American". I know that's probably a flawed example, but I'm sure you get the point. So if you want to blame anybody for this, blame the bands that explored into something new.

These sound like pop rock/pop punk albums, not emo. That's the point of where I pointed out their influences come from different scenes. You really have no idea what you're talking about at all. You probably shouldn't be starting threads like this acting like you have prophetic knowledge to drop on us all.

Emo doesn't have a style, it has a sound. And when bands expanded the sound, they expanded what emo is.

This right explains why you don't know what you're talking about. You won't accept that words can have multiple contexts/definitions. Emo does have "a style", it does have a sound. The "style" and the "sound" are completely different and come from different contexts. Orchid does not sound like My Chemical Romance at all. They also didn't dress like them (or their fan base). Until you understand the difference between the genre and the trend, you're always going to be basically forcing your definition onto everyone else (which is what you basically started accusing everyone here of doing).

Any "elitist" is basically going to agree that there are different ways you can use the word. Why can't you? If you're going to come in here and be like LOL WORDS EVOLVE SO I'M RIGHT, then you probably should pay more attention in your Linguistics 101 class because any good teacher is going to explain that a word can have millions of definitions based on the contexts in which they are used in.


but seriously, you really shouldn't have started a new thread on this. basically everyone's tired of these arguments.

[marsvoltamcr]

MCR's my favorite band, but emo kids and modern emo culture are retarded. Stop associating MCR with emo. They're much too original to be grouped with shit like Fall out boy and The Used

[Nevuk]

MCR's my favorite band, but emo kids and modern emo culture are retarded. Stop associating MCR with emo. They're much too original to be grouped with shit like Fall out boy and The Used
Did you read any of the posts in this thread?

[thespearkid]

MCR's my favorite band, but emo kids and modern emo culture are retarded. Stop associating MCR with emo. They're much too original to be grouped with shit like Fall out boy and The Used
My Chemical Romance aren't original.

[Regards]

MCR's my favorite band, but emo kids and modern emo culture are retarded. Stop associating MCR with emo. They're much too original to be grouped with shit like Fall out boy and The Used
Greatest post ever.

[deeplyinept]

I was talking about a meaningful connection, not "Fall Out Boy once listened to Rites of Spring in Pete's apartment."



so basically you don't know what you're talking about. cool.



You can't break down the term "emotive hardcore" and use it as a basis to explain what emo is. The reasoning is that the modifier "emotive" really has no bearing on what makes an emo band emo. It's based on differences between emotive hardcore and 80s hardcore, which had to do with a more experimental approach, a rejection of the simplicity of hardcore in terms of musical theory, etc. It really has nothing to do with "emotional" at all.

we connect this to your later example of saves the day, which lacks this experimental approach, which shows there's no real connection to them.



not so fast, the bands that saves the day are influenced by are basically real pop punk bands like the descendants and hardcore, plus lifetime. None of those bands carry through the emotive hardcore approach. we can't use "hardcore" as the base for our argument because emo rejects many of the tropes of the hardcore scene. they're diametrically opposed at points. Your logic is like saying "well, fascism and democracy both evolved from monarchies so they're the same, even though we both know that isn't true." the scene STD evolves from was a straight up hardcore scene, much like 80s hardcore. You can trace their influences back to hardcore, but you can't trace emo's influence to saves the day because they're two different branches of the punk tree.



which i covered earlier, merely that in the case of the "definition of the word emo" we're actually talking about a word with two distinct definitions: a genre, and a cultural trend. The media/audience is merely talking about the cultural trend, and not the genre. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand.

it's like with the word "punk". There's at least three distinct definitions for the word: there's the genre, the subculture/countercultural movement, and the fashion. The difference between the three is there's different parameters to fit each definition, like you can dress completely normally and not fit into the genre but still be punk in the subcultural sense.



Actually they did. It was called "revolution summer." Only they didn't call their music emo, it was a derogatory term put on them by meathead hardcore fans.



Once again you're confusing the "cultural" conotation of the word with the genre one. The original use of the word had to do with the genre that was created around this music. Since the genre was made, its meaning as a genre is static. Music evolves but genres don't.

The form of the definition you're talking about wasn't decided by "people" in some grand sense, it was a term created by the media in the late 90s to describe the "next new cool music". Somewhere on the internet there's that infamous 1998 issue of Teen People that backs up my point. I might give you view some more respect if people themselves chose the word, but they didn't. When the labels starting pushing certain bands, like Jimmy Eat World, they were pushing them under the label of "emo", regardless of what they sounded like, which is why I'm saying you can't draw a line back to emo from these new bands.



no. they weren't. their old stuff was obviously influenced by midwest emo, but their new stuff is generic pop rock.



This is a case of a band completely changing scenes though. They left the emo scene after Clarity and became a pop rock band. This explains partially why they're classified as "emo" (once again, this was a media creation, I'm fairly certain the band rejected that label) after Clarity even though they aren't). Following your logic, if a band starts out playing hardcore and ends up playing pop rock at the end of their career, then they're a hardcore band.

that's stupid. This is just like what happened with the Replacements, who started their career playing hardcore/punk influenced music before rejecting that sound and becoming poppier until they played what's considered some of early indie/alt rock. In your view, they're always a "hardcore band", because you won't realize that bands can change their genre, leave scenes, etc. In my view, they started out as hardcore and became something else. This is the same as Jimmy Eat World. The difference between our two views is that you are labeling a band into a certain scene solely because people told you that's what they are, where as I'm actually using some sort of logic to define them.



These sound like pop rock/pop punk albums, not emo. That's the point of where I pointed out their influences come from different scenes. You really have no idea what you're talking about at all. You probably shouldn't be starting threads like this acting like you have prophetic knowledge to drop on us all.



This right explains why you don't know what you're talking about. You won't accept that words can have multiple contexts/definitions. Emo does have "a style", it does have a sound. The "style" and the "sound" are completely different and come from different contexts. Orchid does not sound like My Chemical Romance at all. They also didn't dress like them (or their fan base). Until you understand the difference between the genre and the trend, you're always going to be basically forcing your definition onto everyone else (which is what you basically started accusing everyone here of doing).

Any "elitist" is basically going to agree that there are different ways you can use the word. Why can't you? If you're going to come in here and be like LOL WORDS EVOLVE SO I'M RIGHT, then you probably should pay more attention in your Linguistics 101 class because any good teacher is going to explain that a word can have millions of definitions based on the contexts in which they are used in.


but seriously, you really shouldn't have started a new thread on this. basically everyone's tired of these arguments.

I'm not going to waste my time writing a long reply. I KNOW the music is different. Don't insult my intelligence by trying to prove this to me. This is almost a completely different argument now. I don't listen to this music and I don't have superior knowledge on it, so thank you for correcting me in certain areas. But I do have an understanding of words and how they evolve, however. I never made the argument that the current emo should be considered emo, I am talking about why it is. It's coming from labels and the media (who are PEOPLE might I add) and not the artists. Once the public agrees on a term, it is adopted and accepted. If you've ever used the word gay and didn't mean happy, you're guilty of this. Therefore, you cannot be wrong by calling this new music emo.

If you must bring influence into this, I guess I subtly mentioned it. Old school Jimmy Eat World brought emo influence into their new music and then influenced other bands, creating a watered down version of emo, This new music, although completely different than an oragnutan, has evolved into a human. If you can't accept this fact, then we can't expand this conversation because it construes the sole means of how a term changes.

[theguy77]

Mmm, I foresee a tl;dr argument coming up.

you're psychic?!

[deeplyinept]

MCR's my favorite band, but emo kids and modern emo culture are retarded. Stop associating MCR with emo. They're much too original to be grouped with shit like Fall out boy and The Used
Panic is much more original than MCR dude

[x togepi x]

I'm not going to waste my time writing a long reply. I KNOW the music is different. Don't insult my intelligence by trying to prove this to me. This is almost a completely different argument now. I don't listen to this music and I don't have superior knowledge on it, so thank you for correcting me in certain areas. But I do have an understanding of words and how they evolve, however. I never made the argument that the current emo should be considered emo, I am talking about why it is. It's coming from labels and the media (who are PEOPLE might I add) and not the artists. Once the public agrees on a term, it is adopted and accepted. If you've ever used the word gay and didn't mean happy, you're guilty of this. Therefore, you cannot be wrong by calling this new music emo.

Once again, if you're going to act like you have an "understanding of words and how they evolve", then you have to accept that there are specific contexts to words. Like i've pointed out with my punk example, there's different definitions for emo depending on the context in which it is used in, so the general public can be wrong when one is speaking in a different context. When you are talking about emo as a genre then you're wrong unless the band you're talking about is a hardcore band. As i've pointed out, the general public's definition of the word emo has nothing to do with a genre of music, but rather a cultural/social trend in youth. Thus, to them, JEW, Dashboard, P!ATD, whatever are emo bands, but this is because they're not speaking about emo in the genre sense, but are rather classifying these bands as the type that people within this specific trend listen to.

If you're talking about a genre of music, then the bands within the genre must sound the same in some relevant way, yet P!ATD, Bright Eyes, Thursday and Jimmy Eat World really sound different from each other. The general public realizes this, and that's why they're talking about emo in a different sense than someone like I would.

so please, drop the misunderstanding of linguistics if you're not willing to admit that words can have different meanings based on specific contexts. yes the word "gay" can mean happy or it can mean homosexual, but those meanings are based on the context in which they are used. Any linguist is going to tell you that words don't exist in a vaccuum and have no objective meaning, rather, it's based on the context in which a group uses them. We have your context, we have our context. You can't really come in here and tell us that we're wrong in this case because this website is geared towards talking about music, which is why the "emo as a genre context" iis insisted upon by many people here.

If you must bring influence into this, I guess I subtly mentioned it. Old school Jimmy Eat World brought emo influence into their new music and then influenced other bands, creating a watered down version of emo

here is more proof that you're basically arguing that bands are emo because someone said they were and not based on an understanding of what makes a band fit in a specific genre.

You ignore the fact that New Jimmy Eat World and Old Jimmy Eat World are basically two different bands; Bleed American was a shift for the band away from their old emo influenced music to pop rock influenced by pop punk. Most bands being influenced by JEW are more influenced by the new stuff, so they aren't influenced by the emo-influenced stuff. It's a completely different style of music.

That's the thing, what you're calling emo isn't "watered down". It's a completely different style of music. That's like saying Bob Dylan is a watered down version of Mozart. It's completely illogical.

This new music, although completely different than an oragnutan, has evolved into a human. If you can't accept this fact, then we can't expand this conversation because it construes the sole means of how a term changes.

If we're going to use an evolution example, it'd be like you saying great white sharks are going to evolve into kittens. You can't take forms of music that evolved completely separately and distinctly from each other and say "MUSIC EVOLVES LOL", because the evolution in the emo scene hasn't been in a pop direction: it's either become harder and faster (the opposite of what you're saying) or it's incorporated post-rock influences.

Even if I grant that you're correct in saying the music evolved into what you call emo, you're still missing the point that when music evolves away from a certain genre, that it becomes a completely different genre. To use your evolution example: humans and orangtuans are two seperate species. Likewise, what you're calling emo is a seperate genre from emo, which was my entire point here. You can't really use a "music evolves" example and then turn around and say the classification system evolves with it, because in doing do, you wreck the entire idea of a musical classification system. The whole point of a genre is to classify similar sounding bands together so that you can talk about them without having to describe the kind of music you're talking about. This is why genres stay static and don't evolve with music because it would defeat the purpose.

So even if you're right that Rites of Spring evolved into Panic! at the disco, which they didn't at all, you're wrong that P!ATD is emo. They would be different genres. But this misunderstanding of how genres work goes back to how I was talking about how there are different contexts for the word. You're understanding of the word is still based on the general public's "emo as a trend" definition, it's not based on genre.

I'm not saying "these bands aren't emo" in a social/trend sense. I'm saying they're not emo in genre (since emo in a social context is punk rock).

[Pluto.]

I'm just curious, somebodies post made me kinda wonder about this. But the most common argument I've seen when it came down to emo, is that, "it's dead." But can't this be debatable with any genre? Like Jazz? Or Country, even? I don't know, just wonderin'.

[x togepi x]

I'm just curious, somebodies post made me kinda wonder about this. But the most common argument I've seen when it came down to emo, is that, "it's dead." But can't this be debatable with any genre? Like Jazz? Or Country, even? I don't know, just wonderin'.

sure. i've heard people say country is dead and what passes for country now is basically just pop that's influenced by southern rock. you could also say some of the old forms of jazz are dead because nobody's really making music like them anymore.

[Pluto.]

sure. i've heard people say country is dead and what passes for country now is basically just pop that's influenced by southern rock. you could also say some of the old forms of jazz are dead because nobody's really making music like them anymore.


Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. What I've noticed is when I'm reading/lurking around other forums and such, people commonly use the argument that "emo's dead." I'm kind of bad with wording things so bare with me. I just feel that it's such a weak argument in a way. It's not going to live forever, eventually it'll die off and new things and sounds will be introduced just like it has for Country, Jazz, etc. I suppose they mean it's dead in the sense that it's considered mainstream and misinterpreted a lot of times. But how is emo specifically dead exactly? I just see that argument as a cheap shot I guess.

Maybe the scene isn't like it was then, but there are bands that I'd typically call emo out there with its roots carried on. Like for ex. ...Who Calls so Loud. Didn't they form in 07? And they have the ex members of I think, don't quote me on this, funeral diner and portraits of past, and some other bands. I hope I'm making sense. I just don't understand that I guess.

[x togepi x]

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. What I've noticed is when I'm reading/lurking around other forums and such, people commonly use the argument that "emo's dead." I'm kind of bad with wording things so bare with me. I just feel that it's such a weak argument in a way. It's not going to live forever, eventually it'll die off and new things and sounds will be introduced just like it has for Country, Jazz, etc. I suppose they mean it's dead in the sense that it's considered mainstream and misinterpreted a lot of times. But how is emo specifically dead exactly? I just see that argument as a cheap shot I guess.

Maybe the scene isn't like it was then, but there are bands that I'd typically call emo out there with its roots carried on. Like for ex. ...Who Calls so Loud. Didn't they form in 07? And they have the ex members of I think, don't quote me on this, funeral diner and portraits of past, and some other bands. I hope I'm making sense. I just don't understand that I guess.


I think people who say Emo is dead are just saying that because they've never heard of any current bands. ...Who Calls So Loud formed pretty recently (either '08 or late '07) and Europe's scene is going crazy. I've played a fest of mostly screamo bands. it's totally still going but the newer bands haven't made a splash like the old ones did yet.

I mean, Bob (SickofStars) is in an emo/screamo band. I think he'd say it's not dead.

[BlinkinDuke]

I believe the context that "emo is dead" is used in is more of a deterioration of the DIY values and the scene being filled with preppy assholes as opposed to the lack of new music being released

[x togepi x]

I believe the context that "emo is dead" is used in is more of a deterioration of the DIY values and the scene being filled with preppy assholes as opposed to the lack of new music being released

not really, since a lot of the people saying it really don't care about "DIY values". I mean this phrase is all over VLV, and those people really don't give a shit about anything.

[BlinkinDuke]

Now you're just being difficult because I'm pretty sure we just had this discussion in the Emo thread not too long ago

[SickOfStars]

I believe the context that "emo is dead" is used in is more of a deterioration of the DIY values and the scene being filled with preppy assholes as opposed to the lack of new music being released

with all due respect, I should be able to wear a collared shirt and beige shorts if I want to

[x togepi x]

Now you're just being difficult because I'm pretty sure we just had this discussion in the Emo thread not too long ago

We had a discussion like this but it wasn't really about the community and more about some people saying they grew out of it, which i mean is cool, but not all scenes are like the ones they had to put up with. I still contend that the problems that make "emo dead" in your view apply to basically any underground scene.

[theguy77]

is this the thread where i got "owned like dred scott"

i still vividly remember blinkinduke saying that. i told everyone "the early november are emo" just to see what the reaction would be. it was like one of my first posts.

[Pluto.]

I think people who say Emo is dead are just saying that because they've never heard of any current bands. ...Who Calls So Loud formed pretty recently (either '08 or late '07) and Europe's scene is going crazy. I've played a fest of mostly screamo bands. it's totally still going but the newer bands haven't made a splash like the old ones did yet.

I mean, Bob (SickofStars) is in an emo/screamo band. I think he'd say it's not dead.

Oh, okay! Gotcha, danke:-). On the ...Who Calls So Loud note, they're actually pretty good! I don't really know a lot about the European scene though at the moment. Maybe I'll look into to that later tonight.

Yeah! I remember that guy!

[Pluto.]

I believe the context that "emo is dead" is used in is more of a deterioration of the DIY values and the scene being filled with preppy assholes as opposed to the lack of new music being released

You had me until the bolded.

[deeplyinept]

Once again, if you're going to act like you have an "understanding of words and how they evolve", then you have to accept that there are specific contexts to words. Like i've pointed out with my punk example, there's different definitions for emo depending on the context in which it is used in, so the general public can be wrong when one is speaking in a different context. When you are talking about emo as a genre then you're wrong unless the band you're talking about is a hardcore band. As i've pointed out, the general public's definition of the word emo has nothing to do with a genre of music, but rather a cultural/social trend in youth. Thus, to them, JEW, Dashboard, P!ATD, whatever are emo bands, but this is because they're not speaking about emo in the genre sense, but are rather classifying these bands as the type that people within this specific trend listen to.

If you're talking about a genre of music, then the bands within the genre must sound the same in some relevant way, yet P!ATD, Bright Eyes, Thursday and Jimmy Eat World really sound different from each other. The general public realizes this, and that's why they're talking about emo in a different sense than someone like I would.

so please, drop the misunderstanding of linguistics if you're not willing to admit that words can have different meanings based on specific contexts. yes the word "gay" can mean happy or it can mean homosexual, but those meanings are based on the context in which they are used. Any linguist is going to tell you that words don't exist in a vaccuum and have no objective meaning, rather, it's based on the context in which a group uses them. We have your context, we have our context. You can't really come in here and tell us that we're wrong in this case because this website is geared towards talking about music, which is why the "emo as a genre context" iis insisted upon by many people here.



here is more proof that you're basically arguing that bands are emo because someone said they were and not based on an understanding of what makes a band fit in a specific genre.

You ignore the fact that New Jimmy Eat World and Old Jimmy Eat World are basically two different bands; Bleed American was a shift for the band away from their old emo influenced music to pop rock influenced by pop punk. Most bands being influenced by JEW are more influenced by the new stuff, so they aren't influenced by the emo-influenced stuff. It's a completely different style of music.

That's the thing, what you're calling emo isn't "watered down". It's a completely different style of music. That's like saying Bob Dylan is a watered down version of Mozart. It's completely illogical.



If we're going to use an evolution example, it'd be like you saying great white sharks are going to evolve into kittens. You can't take forms of music that evolved completely separately and distinctly from each other and say "MUSIC EVOLVES LOL", because the evolution in the emo scene hasn't been in a pop direction: it's either become harder and faster (the opposite of what you're saying) or it's incorporated post-rock influences.

Even if I grant that you're correct in saying the music evolved into what you call emo, you're still missing the point that when music evolves away from a certain genre, that it becomes a completely different genre. To use your evolution example: humans and orangtuans are two seperate species. Likewise, what you're calling emo is a seperate genre from emo, which was my entire point here. You can't really use a "music evolves" example and then turn around and say the classification system evolves with it, because in doing do, you wreck the entire idea of a musical classification system. The whole point of a genre is to classify similar sounding bands together so that you can talk about them without having to describe the kind of music you're talking about. This is why genres stay static and don't evolve with music because it would defeat the purpose.

So even if you're right that Rites of Spring evolved into Panic! at the disco, which they didn't at all, you're wrong that P!ATD is emo. They would be different genres. But this misunderstanding of how genres work goes back to how I was talking about how there are different contexts for the word. You're understanding of the word is still based on the general public's "emo as a trend" definition, it's not based on genre.

I'm not saying "these bands aren't emo" in a social/trend sense. I'm saying they're not emo in genre (since emo in a social context is punk rock).

You're missing the point. When any band has an official emo label, that's what they are. You personally can call it fake emo, second wave emo, third wave emo, it doesn't matter. I hate using subgenres but if you must be technical about it, then you can. Let's say that I wanted to start a ska band with a violin and moog and I named the genre Baby Shampoo. If it is publicly accepted, then my official genre is... Baby Shampoo. That doesn't mean that I don't have a ska band.

If you won't accept my theory on the evolution emo as term, then you must believe that it was recreated. The word bat has two meanings: a cylindrical club, or a mammal that flies. So emo could have two meanings: emotive-hardcore, or pop-punk emo. Either way it is emo. If the public has accepted the term, it would be dumb to discredit the dictionary, dude. Or in this case, an encyclopedia.

I don't agree with that theory because I believe that it derived from somewhere. You act like old school emo is unknown to these new bands. If you don't think that Jimmy Eat World is not influenced by themselves in creating a new style of emo, you must be a ridiculous person. Chris Carrabba, singer for Dashboard Confessional is the original singer of Further Seems Forever. This band was influenced by........ Sunny Day Real Estate! Under their myspace, Further Seems Forever classified themselves as Rock / Other / Emo. They are publicly accepted as emocore. Thus being an emo band. Therefore, anybody that sounds like Further Seems Forever or Dashboard Confessional could be considered emo.

All I wanted to do was stick up for everybody who gets flamed on these forums when they are technically correct for calling most of these bands emo. I agree that these bands are more pop-punk than hardcore by a landslide. But ska has a reggae style and a punk style. Emo in this case has a pop-punk style and a hardcore style.

[partyboi009]

All I can say is that Sunny Day Real Estate is original emo and bands like fall out boy and My Chemical Romance bear no resemblance to them.

[BlinkinDuke]

with all due respect, I should be able to wear a collared shirt and beige shorts if I want to

Wasn't intended as an attack on polo shirt and beige shorts, just the attitudes and mannerisms of many kids who consistently wear those.

We had a discussion like this but it wasn't really about the community and more about some people saying they grew out of it, which i mean is cool, but not all scenes are like the ones they had to put up with. I still contend that the problems that make "emo dead" in your view apply to basically any underground scene.

The fact that it applies to every underground scene doesn't really make its application to the emo scene any less valid. Granted I haven't lived in any areas with any real emo scenes so I can't give any first-hand knowledge about any of this.

is this the thread where i got "owned like dred scott"

i still vividly remember blinkinduke saying that. i told everyone "the early november are emo" just to see what the reaction would be. it was like one of my first posts.

Might have said that, I really don't remember.

You're missing the point. When any band has an official emo label, that's what they are. You personally can call it fake emo, second wave emo, third wave emo, it doesn't matter. I hate using subgenres but if you must be technical about it, then you can. Let's say that I wanted to start a ska band with a violin and moog and I named the genre Baby Shampoo. If it is publicly accepted, then my official genre is... Baby Shampoo. That doesn't mean that I don't have a ska band.

You still don't get the point that emo is a subgenre of hardcore. In your analogy you would be right because Baby Shampoo would then be a subgenre of ska. Just as your band would be a ska band, any emo band could rightfully be classified as hardcore. Now if you started a ska band, yet claimed you were a post-rock band, no matter if the public acknowledges you are a post-rock band, you are still a ska band.

[Yes. And?]

Mmm, I foresee a tl;dr argument coming up.
I was right!
MCR's my favorite band, but emo kids and modern emo culture are retarded. Stop associating MCR with emo. They're much too original to be grouped with shit like Fall out boy and The Usedheehee, I agree.
My Chemical Romance aren't original.
:-p

Greatest post ever.
Oh c'mon, you can find better ones.
you're psychic?!
:irule:
Panic is much more original than MCR dude
:goodpost:
------

Carry on. God, I'm bored. Who wants to talk to me on MSN?

[Hey Kevin]

All I can say is that Sunny Day Real Estate is original emo and bands like fall out boy and My Chemical Romance bear no resemblance to them.
i was always more about Rites of Spring and Husker being the orginal emo because of their heavy 80s hardcore sound but i think sunny day had the more common emo of the 90s sound and what more influenced screamo

[x togepi x]

You're missing the point. When any band has an official emo label, that's what they are. You personally can call it fake emo, second wave emo, third wave emo, it doesn't matter. I hate using subgenres but if you must be technical about it, then you can. Let's say that I wanted to start a ska band with a violin and moog and I named the genre Baby Shampoo. If it is publicly accepted, then my official genre is... Baby Shampoo. That doesn't mean that I don't have a ska band.

Once again, you are confusing the public/social context with the genre definition. I don't understand why you aren't getting this. The general public doesn't set genres. Genres are a form of technical jargon; a classification system based on musical theory. The general public, does not define genres, because the general public doesn't even care about them. Most people will say "who cares about what this music is classified as, i listen to what's good and i don't listen to what's bad".

You haven't at all responded to this point at all. You just keep repeating the same inane assertion that confuses these definitions. This is like arguing with a brick wall. Don't respond unless you have some sort of meaningful response because you're wasting everyone's time.

If you won't accept my theory on the evolution emo as term, then you must believe that it was recreated.

This is a false dichotomy. Nowhere have you explained why I "must" believe it was recreated. I can and do easily believe that emo was mislabled as a genre by a few label executives and that's why the cultural trend took off because a bunch of 15 year old kids don't know any better.

The word bat has two meanings: a cylindrical club, or a mammal that flies. So emo could have two meanings: emotive-hardcore, or pop-punk emo. Either way it is emo. If the public has accepted the term, it would be dumb to discredit the dictionary, dude. Or in this case, an encyclopedia.

No. Emo as a genre has one distinct meaning: emotive hardcore. I've already covered the other definition of the word: the trend. Here's how i know you're wrong here. Emo can't mean "either emotive-hardcore" or "pop punk emo" because those definitions don't fit all the bands that would fall under the emo trend. Example: Thursday is neither emotive hardcore in the classical sense, neither are they "pop punk emo". Another example, Bright Eyes, also neither emotive hardcore in the classical sense nor "pop punk".

That's the problem with your trying to use the genre context here, a genre has distinct boundaries. you can easily say why X band doensn't fit in the genre. For example, Bright Eyes doesn't fit in emo because they're not a hardcore band. That's easy and simple. Your definition of the genre is quite vague and nebulous. You can't explain how the genre encompasses everything from Thursday to Circle Takes the Square to Bright Eyes to Panic! At The Disco without appealing to some vague standard like "emotional lyrics" or "they come from the same scene (which is clearly wrong)".

So to sum up this part, you're seriously arguing that we should accept a vague definition that's functionally meaningless, that shifts to encompass all sorts of bands arbitrarily over a definition that is set in stone and easy to differitate emo bands from bands that dont' fit in the genre. This is completely stupid.

I don't agree with that theory because I believe that it derived from somewhere. You act like old school emo is unknown to these new bands.

Aside from Jimmy Eat World and Thursday, I would contend that it basically was. I seriously doubt Panic! At The Disco or My Chemical Romance knew anything about Revolution Summer. Just like you don't.

If you don't think that Jimmy Eat World is not influenced by themselves in creating a new style of emo, you must be a ridiculous person.

Or someone who knows what they're talking about. They completely shifted away from this form of music in their musical evolution. You can't seriously tell me that "Chase this Light" is totally influenced by "Clarity" or fuck even "Static Prevails" because it's not at all. One's pop rock and the other isn't. Likewise, that's the direction Jimmy Eat World moved in.

But, like i said before, I'm pretty sure during this musical evolution to pop rock the band itself has rejected being "emo" which means nobody can claim to have "emo influences" if they're referencing Jimmy Eat World unless they stopped listening to the band after 1999.

Chris Carrabba, singer for Dashboard Confessional is the original singer of Further Seems Forever. This band was influenced by........ Sunny Day Real Estate!

Once again, just the fact that Chris Carrabba heard SDRE in someone's dorm room once doesn't mean he was actually influenced by them. The music itself isn't isn't influenced by SDRE at all. It sounds completely different. One's a mixture of post-hardcore and emo (SDRE) the other is mopey acoustic rock. Following your logic here, because I'm influenced by some hip hop artists, my band is a rap group, even though it's clearly not.

To be influenced by a band in a meaningful sense, your band has to have some sort of aspect of shared sound, and there isn't one here.

Under their myspace, Further Seems Forever classified themselves as Rock / Other / Emo.

This is also irrelevant because its presupposing that Further Seems Forever can't be wrong. I would contend that they didn't know what they're talking about.

They are publicly accepted as emocore. Thus being an emo band. Therefore, anybody that sounds like Further Seems Forever or Dashboard Confessional could be considered emo.

Except the people calling them "emocore" are the same people that don't actually care about genres are are still using the emo as a trend definition.

but even then, the problem with this definition of "Dashboard being emo" is that Thursday sounds absolutely nothing like either of these bands. Neither does Coheed and Cambria, yet both were lumped under the emo trend. This just further goes to show how meaningless your definition is when you try to apply it to a genre.

All I wanted to do was stick up for everybody who gets flamed on these forums when they are technically correct for calling most of these bands emo.

well you failed, hardly anyone talks about emo here except for people who are actually into real emo. the people you're whining to only mock people who are basically joke accounts anyway. You're like two years late for this.

The problem with everything you're saying is that you're basically just making blind assertions with no logic backing them up, and then you don't even respond to my argument. I, however, respond to the premises, show why they're full of crap, and give my own analysis which is much more detailed and relies on things other than "well people told me this band is emo so they are". I've even shown you through different examples how the word has completely different connotations but you're just continuing to repeat yourself and ignoring every word I said. seriously, just stop.

[x togepi x]

The fact that it applies to every underground scene doesn't really make its application to the emo scene any less valid. Granted I haven't lived in any areas with any real emo scenes so I can't give any first-hand knowledge about any of this.


People aren't running around saying "noise music is dead!" "indie is dead!" Hell half the time I see people saying "people into emo now are just a bunch of elitist snobs" the person making that statement turns around and becomes a snob about something else like noise music or doom metal. it's the same thing. and no, i'm not talking about anyone here. I'm still referring to people on VLV who claimed the genre died last year.

[EchoPark]

fascinating posts all around.

[deeplyinept]

Once again, you are confusing the public/social context with the genre definition. I don't understand why you aren't getting this. The general public doesn't set genres. Genres are a form of technical jargon; a classification system based on musical theory. The general public, does not define genres, because the general public doesn't even care about them. Most people will say "who cares about what this music is classified as, i listen to what's good and i don't listen to what's bad".

You haven't at all responded to this point at all. You just keep repeating the same inane assertion that confuses these definitions. This is like arguing with a brick wall. Don't respond unless you have some sort of meaningful response because you're wasting everyone's time.



This is a false dichotomy. Nowhere have you explained why I "must" believe it was recreated. I can and do easily believe that emo was mislabled as a genre by a few label executives and that's why the cultural trend took off because a bunch of 15 year old kids don't know any better.



No. Emo as a genre has one distinct meaning: emotive hardcore. I've already covered the other definition of the word: the trend. Here's how i know you're wrong here. Emo can't mean "either emotive-hardcore" or "pop punk emo" because those definitions don't fit all the bands that would fall under the emo trend. Example: Thursday is neither emotive hardcore in the classical sense, neither are they "pop punk emo". Another example, Bright Eyes, also neither emotive hardcore in the classical sense nor "pop punk".

That's the problem with your trying to use the genre context here, a genre has distinct boundaries. you can easily say why X band doensn't fit in the genre. For example, Bright Eyes doesn't fit in emo because they're not a hardcore band. That's easy and simple. Your definition of the genre is quite vague and nebulous. You can't explain how the genre encompasses everything from Thursday to Circle Takes the Square to Bright Eyes to Panic! At The Disco without appealing to some vague standard like "emotional lyrics" or "they come from the same scene (which is clearly wrong)".

So to sum up this part, you're seriously arguing that we should accept a vague definition that's functionally meaningless, that shifts to encompass all sorts of bands arbitrarily over a definition that is set in stone and easy to differitate emo bands from bands that dont' fit in the genre. This is completely stupid.



Aside from Jimmy Eat World and Thursday, I would contend that it basically was. I seriously doubt Panic! At The Disco or My Chemical Romance knew anything about Revolution Summer. Just like you don't.



Or someone who knows what they're talking about. They completely shifted away from this form of music in their musical evolution. You can't seriously tell me that "Chase this Light" is totally influenced by "Clarity" or fuck even "Static Prevails" because it's not at all. One's pop rock and the other isn't. Likewise, that's the direction Jimmy Eat World moved in.

But, like i said before, I'm pretty sure during this musical evolution to pop rock the band itself has rejected being "emo" which means nobody can claim to have "emo influences" if they're referencing Jimmy Eat World unless they stopped listening to the band after 1999.



Once again, just the fact that Chris Carrabba heard SDRE in someone's dorm room once doesn't mean he was actually influenced by them. The music itself isn't isn't influenced by SDRE at all. It sounds completely different. One's a mixture of post-hardcore and emo (SDRE) the other is mopey acoustic rock. Following your logic here, because I'm influenced by some hip hop artists, my band is a rap group, even though it's clearly not.

To be influenced by a band in a meaningful sense, your band has to have some sort of aspect of shared sound, and there isn't one here.



This is also irrelevant because its presupposing that Further Seems Forever can't be wrong. I would contend that they didn't know what they're talking about.



Except the people calling them "emocore" are the same people that don't actually care about genres are are still using the emo as a trend definition.

but even then, the problem with this definition of "Dashboard being emo" is that Thursday sounds absolutely nothing like either of these bands. Neither does Coheed and Cambria, yet both were lumped under the emo trend. This just further goes to show how meaningless your definition is when you try to apply it to a genre.



well you failed, hardly anyone talks about emo here except for people who are actually into real emo. the people you're whining to only mock people who are basically joke accounts anyway. You're like two years late for this.

The problem with everything you're saying is that you're basically just making blind assertions with no logic backing them up, and then you don't even respond to my argument. I, however, respond to the premises, show why they're full of crap, and give my own analysis which is much more detailed and relies on things other than "well people told me this band is emo so they are". I've even shown you through different examples how the word has completely different connotations but you're just continuing to repeat yourself and ignoring every word I said. seriously, just stop.

I don't want to mess shit up by organizing this all fancily
so if somebody wants to teach
that would be helpful I guess...

Anyway


Your argument is parallel to "hardcore ska ain't ska because reggae ska came first". Emo has never been a generic, steady genre. The genre is extremely vague to begin with. Most of the original emo bands don't even consider themselves emo. They categorize themselves punk or indie or hardcore, etc. The original emo label was undoubtably tagged to these old school bands by the same record companies that tagged the label on the new ones. Rites of Spring isn't correct for unwillingly being given this title because they are further left on the timeline.

This is a false dichotomy. Nowhere have you explained why I "must" believe it was recreated. I can and do easily believe that emo was mislabled as a genre by a few label executives and that's why the cultural trend took off because a bunch of 15 year old kids don't know any better.

The reason why I assumed that you didn't believe this is because you've been arguing against this for like 10 posts. You just proved my point that the public adopted and accepted the term. It doesn't matter how ignorant the public is.

(As a personal defense, somebody might say that I am just as ignorant as the public for accepting this. But I understand how fucked the genre is and I understand how fucked the pop knowledge is. I don't conform to their ignorance, but I must conform to their knowledge for conscious sociological reasons. Sorry, but I could see this coming from a mile away)

I didn't limit emo to having two styles. It is just as vast as alternative. Or any of these other unreliable genres. The reason why I have neglected to get into the whole genre argument is because I believe that genres are colossal bullshit. Every genre is essentially boundless. The genre indie has almost zero terminology. If you are not signed to a major record label, then you are fundamentally an indie band. But wait, Death Cab For Cutie is considered indie. Your emo supergods, Sunny Day Real Estate, call themselves indie. Modest Mouse was once considered indie until one day they magicly changed into alternative while still sounding the same. Or maybe they are still indie? Hmmmm. Well Nirvana kind of sounds like emo but, wait, they are actually grunge. Nirvana is another band who felt that the genre that was handed to them is utter bullshit. Blink 182 sounds pop-punk to me. But hold on, so do the Matches and they are a completely different sound. And what you are saying that that Aiden being called emo instead of something else is a mockery of music? Genres in general are a mockery of music. And you don't think there are enough of them? This is open for debate and it's really a different topic altogether because I didn't come here to argue about this. But I really want to know why you think more confusion needs to be involved with labeling music.

Anyway, you are right that genres have some musical theory associated with it. Just enough for hip hop to not be the same thing as country. But besides the limited amount of theory involved, a genre is mostly decided by what the public wants. Record labels created emo. They created grunge. They created everything that is not underground. Any underground band's movement is defined by their following. You can't get away from public influence in this argument. No matter what you say, popular influence defines any given movement and you will never be able to suade me to think otherwise.

Aside from Jimmy Eat World and Thursday, I would contend that it basically was. I seriously doubt Panic! At The Disco or My Chemical Romance knew anything about Revolution Summer. Just like you don't.

This is the most ignorant statement you could have written. You're really just claiming yourself an empowered individual over people who made it big in the same music industry that you sit down and talk about. Do you seriously believe that these music writers have no knowledge on the genre they are classified as? Or that because a certain band doesn't sound like a another band, this means that they don't understand a musical revolution relevent to their everyday lives? I haven't read about it because it's not my profession. But they sure as hell know what it is if you do. And again you are saying that Further Is Forever is wrong by calling themselves emo. They know what they are much more than you do. I can't believe that you think that your opinion overpowers people who are involved in the music.

You are basicly saying genre, genre, genre over and over again in this argument. Like a robot, you are trying to convince me that genres never change because 20 years ago some progressions were used alot and this defined the genre, was set in stone, and then died. You aren't accepting any open ideas. At least when I know that when I made a mistake, I accept it and credit you. But you have so much of an ego, you cannot accept that genres are a fucked idea if they are written in a book never to be touched again. Music changes rapidly and constanty. Just like terms. All a genre is, is a term.

[deeplyinept]

You still don't get the point that emo is a subgenre of hardcore. In your analogy you would be right because Baby Shampoo would then be a subgenre of ska. Just as your band would be a ska band, any emo band could rightfully be classified as hardcore. Now if you started a ska band, yet claimed you were a post-rock band, no matter if the public acknowledges you are a post-rock band, you are still a ska band.
This wouldn't happen because post-rock currently has a following. Baby Shampoo does not.

[Angylion Gefell]

In my experience, the best way to convince people to stop abusing something that they don't abuse is to not shut up about it.

[theguy77]

togepi, how many new kids get into an argument like this with you? i remember i was making the same exact argument to the issue with you when i had first joined.

[ForeverDelayed]

Well Nirvana kind of sounds like emo but, wait, they are actually grunge. Nirvana is another band who felt that the genre that was handed to them is utter bullshit. Blink 182 sounds pop-punk to me. But hold on, so do the Matches and they are a completely different sound. And what you are saying that that Aiden being called emo instead of something else is a mockery of music?

Anyway, you are right that genres have some musical theory associated with it. Just enough for hip hop to not be the same thing as country. But besides the limited amount of theory involved, a genre is mostly decided by what the public wants. Record labels created emo. They created grunge. They created everything that is not underground. Any underground band's movement is defined by their following. You can't get away from public influence in this argument. No matter what you say, popular influence defines any given movement and you will never be able to suade me to think otherwise.


Well just about everything that needs to be said has already been said by x togepi x, but I thought I'd add a few things about the statements in bold here.....

First, how exactly does Nirvana sound like emo? Whether you're using the old school definition or the new one you're trying to use, they sound nothing like emo to my ears. And the grunge tag was bullshit from the start. Anyone who has actually listened to the music could tell you that none of the "grunge" bands sounded even remotely alike. Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, etc, all sound completely different. But grunge never was a genre, it was a scene. These bands played the same clubs, shared bills, hung out, drank coffee together, partied together, etc. Their styles were completely different aside from the fact that they were loud, so what defined grunge was not the sound but the scene. I'm sure some will disagree with me on this, but anything that wasn't from the Seattle scene in the late 80's/early 90's I don't consider to be grunge, even if it sounds like one of those bands. Bush sounded a lot like Nirvana, but they came from a totally different scene, so calling them grunge would be stupid, especially considering that they didn't sound like other "grunge bands" like Pearl Jam. This is the same thing that's going on with emo today, these bands come from different scenes, and even if they sound remotely like something that was once called emo, they're no more emo than Bush is grunge.

Second, and perhaps most importantly... Aiden being called music is a mockery of music :P

And now for the emo. Your last two bolded statements completely contradict each other and reality. Record labels did not create emo, the name came from the scene. Just like you said, any underground movement is defined by its followers. But get this - emo started as an underground movement. And it never really left. Record labels might have used the term incorrectly to a new generation of bands, but they did not create the term, it came from the scene. You can't have it both ways. But you probably think emo was always a mainstream cultural phenomenon, hence why you sound like you're trying to have both. Emo was underground, and the above ground stuff that is called emo isn't emo, it's a creation of the record labels. You can either accept that as fact, or you can continue to argue and try to have it both ways, but that really makes no sense.

[BlinkinDuke]

People aren't running around saying "noise music is dead!" "indie is dead!" Hell half the time I see people saying "people into emo now are just a bunch of elitist snobs" the person making that statement turns around and becomes a snob about something else like noise music or doom metal. it's the same thing. and no, i'm not talking about anyone here. I'm still referring to people on VLV who claimed the genre died last year.

I get what you're saying. I'm sure it was Mike who said emo was dead and knowing him those would have been his reasons. I honestly could care less about this shit

This wouldn't happen because post-rock currently has a following. Baby Shampoo does not.

Just like emotive hardcore could never be lumped in with pop rock.

[deeplyinept]

Just like emotive hardcore could never be lumped in with pop rock.


This isn't relevant because in the example I used I created a completely new genre.

[x togepi x]

Your argument is parallel to "hardcore ska ain't ska because reggae ska came first".

There's nothing wrong with this argument at all since "hardcore ska" isn't really ska, but the thing about this example is one can easily draw a line from the original ska bands to "hardcore ska" in a sense that you can't do, and still haven't done with emo and this new music.

Emo has never been a generic, steady genre.

Yes it is. that's the thing about most of your arguments. You aren't sourcing them with any logic or analysis so i can just respond like this. Every genre is steady. That's the point of them. You have to have steady standards for any classification system to work.

The genre is extremely vague to begin with.

Nope. There's nothing really vague about saying "is band X a hardcore band? No? well they're not emo then". There's a clear standard here.

Most of the original emo bands don't even consider themselves emo. They categorize themselves punk or indie or hardcore, etc.

That's because real emo is punk music. They never really said they "weren't emo" but rather that "emo is a dumb name for a genre" (which it is.) But based on genre, they were because that's what the scene was called at the time the genre was made.

The original emo label was undoubtably tagged to these old school bands by the same record companies that tagged the label on the new ones. Rites of Spring isn't correct for unwillingly being given this title because they are further left on the timeline.

This makes absolutely no sense, as the labels that tagged the label on the new bands were major labels, whereas Rites of Spring and basically every other emo band was signed to an indie label or put out their own music. A lot of the early stuff comes from Ebullition/Dischord/Gravity Records, not Island/Warner/Sire/Sony.

The reason why I assumed that you didn't believe this is because you've been arguing against this for like 10 posts. You just proved my point that the public adopted and accepted the term. It doesn't matter how ignorant the public is.

I haven't "proved" any of your points, since we're talking about genres here and not some wide social trend. Nobody cares what the public thinks, ignorant or not, about emo as a genre because the general public doesn't care about genres. So when they use the word, they use it in a completely different context. I don't understand why you can't get this. I've explained time and time again why people use it in different ways and you just keep trying to ramrod your point here after your logic continually gets destroyed.

(As a personal defense, somebody might say that I am just as ignorant as the public for accepting this. But I understand how fucked the genre is and I understand how fucked the pop knowledge is. I don't conform to their ignorance, but I must conform to their knowledge for conscious sociological reasons. Sorry, but I could see this coming from a mile away)

This is a cop out. All of your arguments basically boil down to a bandwagon fallacy "well EVERYONE ELSE says this is emo so this is emo" and now you're trying to explain that away by using some vague notion of "sociology". So basically you can't argue from a linguistic perspective anymore, so you're going to move to sociology.

That's cool. Anyone in sociology is going to tell you that specific subcultures construct their realities in specific ways. Thus my arguments about linguistic context apply to sociology. example: Hippies have constructed a completely different perception of the war on drugs than someone raised in a small conservative city. Likewise, a group of people who come together to speak about music is going to be talking about emo as a genre and not as wide social trend (at least when talking about music). So the context still matters here. What's next, are you going to say "well physics means emo is my chemical romance"?

I didn't limit emo to having two styles. It is just as vast as alternative.

Alternative isn't a genre...it isn't really a style...It's a marketing scheme.


Or any of these other unreliable genres. The reason why I have neglected to get into the whole genre argument is because I believe that genres are colossal bullshit.

You haven't "neglected" to get into a genre argument at all. Your first post was "the word emo has evolved". You mocked the idea of "real emo". You're trying to call into question us claiming certain obscure bands fit in this genre while popular bands don't.

Every genre is essentially boundless.

No genres are essentially boundless. They all have set standards based on musical theory/how music sounds. It's quite easy to say why Fall out Boy isn't a metal band, for example.

The genre indie has almost zero terminology. If you are not signed to a major record label, then you are fundamentally an indie band.

Indie isn't a genre, it's a commentary based on the process in which the music is made. it carries over to movies, book publishing, etc. People misuse indie as a genre much like people misuse emo as a genre.

But wait, Death Cab For Cutie is considered indie. Your emo supergods, Sunny Day Real Estate, call themselves indie. Modest Mouse was once considered indie until one day they magicly changed into alternative while still sounding the same. Or maybe they are still indie? Hmmmm. Well Nirvana kind of sounds like emo but, wait, they are actually grunge. Nirvana is another band who felt that the genre that was handed to them is utter bullshit. Blink 182 sounds pop-punk to me. But hold on, so do the Matches and they are a completely different sound. And what you are saying that that Aiden being called emo instead of something else is a mockery of music?

So basically your argument here is "genres are stupid because a bunch of people don't understand how to use them and misuse them in all of these examples"? That's stupid. I guess quantum mechanics or basically any scientific theory invented in the 20th/21st centuries are stupid because most people don't understand them.

Genres in general are a mockery of music.

You're an idiot. I would say deferring to the what the labels tell you is punk/indie/emo is making a mockery of music.

Anyway, you are right that genres have some musical theory associated with it. Just enough for hip hop to not be the same thing as country.

this applies to shitty pop punk bands being called emo. the standard is fairly clear just like in your country v. hip hop example.

But besides the limited amount of theory involved, a genre is mostly decided by what the public wants.

nope. the public doesn't speak in genres. they speak in trends. most people are stil going to say that they "listen to good music" or "i listen to everything". besides, genres are a form of technical jargon. Technical jargon is not created by the public, but rather people working within a certain area. The major labels labeling emo aren't talking about it as a genre, but as a way of marketing a group of bands to the general public.

You are once again, assuming that everyone speaks within the same context of the word, which I've shown time and time again, they don't.

Record labels created emo. They created grunge. They created everything that is not underground. Any underground band's movement is defined by their following. You can't get away from public influence in this argument. No matter what you say, popular influence defines any given movement and you will never be able to suade me to think otherwise.

This is completely nonsensical. You're ignoring the fact that the "public" is not made up of the same individuals as "the subculture". Punk is not really defined in opposition to the general public. It has its own certain values/ethics/standards that separate it from other subcultures and the mainstream. The "public influence" is irrelevant because Punk wouldn't change if the movement became truly mainstream. If the general public decided to adopt punk's values/ethics/standards, then punk wouldn't change.

You're saying the general public defines everything about everything, which makes no sense. I'm sorry, but people that aren't apart of my subculture punk, don't get to define what that subculture is. The people in the specific community does.

This is the basic tenet of what a subculture is: a group of people defining themselves in a way different from the general public. The italicized portion is most important. The public doesn't define the subculture at all. If they did, we wouldn't have subcultures at all because the general public misunderstands everything different from the mainstream.

This is the most ignorant statement you could have written. You're really just claiming yourself an empowered individual over people who made it big in the same music industry that you sit down and talk about.

uh... at the time Panic! got signed, I had played way more shows than they have (since they got signed before playing a show). This is what separates me from you: I book shows, I've played in bands for almost a decade, I tour, I'm going to school to produce music. To sum up, I actually know what i'm talking about.

I never claimed to "know more" about music than "those in the industry", but I do think that most people "in the industry" who are talking about emo the way you do aren't talking about it as a genre of music but as a social trend. and guess what? I've already agreed with you that emo as a trend is what the general public says it is.

Do you seriously believe that these music writers have no knowledge on the genre they are classified as?

Since most music writers talking about emo the way you do are talking about emo as a trend instead of thinking in terms of genres, what I think about them is irrelevant.

Or that because a certain band doesn't sound like a another band, this means that they don't understand a musical revolution relevent to their everyday lives?

Never said this either. But if My Chemical Romance seriously thinks they're carrying on in the spirit of the '86 emo bands then they're completely wrong. It's like how I have a pretty good understanding of the musical revolution of rap, but that doesn't make my band hip hop.

I haven't read about it because it's not my profession. But they sure as hell know what it is if you do. And again you are saying that Further Is Forever is wrong by calling themselves emo. They know what they are much more than you do. I can't believe that you think that your opinion overpowers people who are involved in the music.

This right here is also a logical fallacy: just because a band put out some shitty albums, doesn't mean they know what they're talking about when it comes to genres. I'm fairly certain when they sat down to make their myspace (if they even made it themselves and it wasn't made by some random fan), they weren't really thinking about getting the genre correctly since genre on myspace really means nothing.

I'm sorry, I've heard everything FSF did and most of dashboard. If they seriously think they fit in that genre, then they're wrong. It doesn't take years of experience to know that they aren't a hardcore band.

You are basicly saying genre, genre, genre over and over again in this argument.

This is because we're talking about genres. once again: there's a differecen between emo as a trend and emo as a genre. we don't care about emo as a trend because it's bullshit. it won't mean anything more than a joke in a few years. so yeah, My Chemical Romance, Panic! At the Disco, Aiden, they're all emo bands in this sense, because they're all bullshit music for whiny white kids who don't understand what having problems is really like. They perfectly fit into that trend, but not the genre, and that's the difference.

Like a robot, you are trying to convince me that genres never change because 20 years ago some progressions were used alot and this defined the genre, was set in stone, and then died.

That's how genres were created.

and emo didn't die. If you actually read this thread you'd see where I've said otherwise.

You aren't accepting any open ideas.

I'm not accepting any stupid ideas. You act like everything you're saying is new and original but i've heard if many many times by people way more articulate than you.

At least when I know that when I made a mistake, I accept it and credit you. But you have so much of an ego, you cannot accept that genres are a fucked idea if they are written in a book never to be touched again. Music changes rapidly and constanty. Just like terms. All a genre is, is a term.

Once again, we get the lame ass linguistic argument from you. Yes "terms' change. Unfortunately for you, when we speak of "terms", we have to realize that there are many different contexts in which a term is used; genres are technical jargon whose meanings cannot change because if they did, then they'd render the entire classification system meaningless and useless. This is like how the definition of one species doesn't change when that species evolves into another. If genres changed everytime new music developed, we'd have no way of describing a set of bands without describing what they sound like, which means we'd have no use for genres since genres exist so we don't have to continually describe how specific bands sound.

While the general public's use of the word is a new phenomenon and one with a specific meaning, you can't readily discount and gloss over a subculture's use of the word just because a lot more people use it in a different way. The logical way to handle this would be to say: well obviously there are different contexts in which this word can be used, explain their meanings and then see how things fit into those contexts.

This isn't some elitist bullshit. If we're talking about the trend, then the bands I call emo don't really fit in. If we're talking about the genre, they do and the bands you're defending don't. It's a two way street, but it's defined by who you're talking to and how they're using the word. I don't talk to people about "emo" in the trend sense because I'm not in high school anymore.

[x togepi x]

This isn't relevant because in the example I used I created a completely new genre.

His statement is very relevant. The only reason you "created a new genre" was so you could ignore his point about musical evolution. It's intellectually dishonest, and fairly meaningless.

[theguy77]

There's nothing wrong with this argument at all since "hardcore ska" isn't really ska, but the thing about this example is one can easily draw a line from the original ska bands to "hardcore ska" in a sense that you can't do, and still haven't done with emo and this new music.



Yes it is. that's the thing about most of your arguments. You aren't sourcing them with any logic or analysis so i can just respond like this. Every genre is steady. That's the point of them. You have to have steady standards for any classification system to work.



Nope. There's nothing really vague about saying "is band X a hardcore band? No? well they're not emo then". There's a clear standard here.



That's because real emo is punk music. They never really said they "weren't emo" but rather that "emo is a dumb name for a genre" (which it is.) But based on genre, they were because that's what the scene was called at the time the genre was made.



This makes absolutely no sense, as the labels that tagged the label on the new bands were major labels, whereas Rites of Spring and basically every other emo band was signed to an indie label or put out their own music. A lot of the early stuff comes from Ebullition/Dischord/Gravity Records, not Island/Warner/Sire/Sony.



I haven't "proved" any of your points, since we're talking about genres here and not some wide social trend. Nobody cares what the public thinks, ignorant or not, about emo as a genre because the general public doesn't care about genres. So when they use the word, they use it in a completely different context. I don't understand why you can't get this. I've explained time and time again why people use it in different ways and you just keep trying to ramrod your point here after your logic continually gets destroyed.



This is a cop out. All of your arguments basically boil down to a bandwagon fallacy "well EVERYONE ELSE says this is emo so this is emo" and now you're trying to explain that away by using some vague notion of "sociology". So basically you can't argue from a linguistic perspective anymore, so you're going to move to sociology.

That's cool. Anyone in sociology is going to tell you that specific subcultures construct their realities in specific ways. Thus my arguments about linguistic context apply to sociology. example: Hippies have constructed a completely different perception of the war on drugs than someone raised in a small conservative city. Likewise, a group of people who come together to speak about music is going to be talking about emo as a genre and not as wide social trend (at least when talking about music). So the context still matters here. What's next, are you going to say "well physics means emo is my chemical romance"?



Alternative isn't a genre...it isn't really a style...It's a marketing scheme.




You haven't "neglected" to get into a genre argument at all. Your first post was "the word emo has evolved". You mocked the idea of "real emo". You're trying to call into question us claiming certain obscure bands fit in this genre while popular bands don't.



No genres are essentially boundless. They all have set standards based on musical theory/how music sounds. It's quite easy to say why Fall out Boy isn't a metal band, for example.



Indie isn't a genre, it's a commentary based on the process in which the music is made. it carries over to movies, book publishing, etc. People misuse indie as a genre much like people misuse emo as a genre.



So basically your argument here is "genres are stupid because a bunch of people don't understand how to use them and misuse them in all of these examples"? That's stupid. I guess quantum mechanics or basically any scientific theory invented in the 20th/21st centuries are stupid because most people don't understand them.



You're an idiot. I would say deferring to the what the labels tell you is punk/indie/emo is making a mockery of music.



this applies to shitty pop punk bands being called emo. the standard is fairly clear just like in your country v. hip hop example.



nope. the public doesn't speak in genres. they speak in trends. most people are stil going to say that they "listen to good music" or "i listen to everything". besides, genres are a form of technical jargon. Technical jargon is not created by the public, but rather people working within a certain area. The major labels labeling emo aren't talking about it as a genre, but as a way of marketing a group of bands to the general public.

You are once again, assuming that everyone speaks within the same context of the word, which I've shown time and time again, they don't.



This is completely nonsensical. You're ignoring the fact that the "public" is not made up of the same individuals as "the subculture". Punk is not really defined in opposition to the general public. It has its own certain values/ethics/standards that separate it from other subcultures and the mainstream. The "public influence" is irrelevant because Punk wouldn't change if the movement became truly mainstream. If the general public decided to adopt punk's values/ethics/standards, then punk wouldn't change.

You're saying the general public defines everything about everything, which makes no sense. I'm sorry, but people that aren't apart of my subculture punk, don't get to define what that subculture is. The people in the specific community does.

This is the basic tenet of what a subculture is: a group of people defining themselves in a way different from the general public. The italicized portion is most important. The public doesn't define the subculture at all. If they did, we wouldn't have subcultures at all because the general public misunderstands everything different from the mainstream.



uh... at the time Panic! got signed, I had played way more shows than they have (since they got signed before playing a show). This is what separates me from you: I book shows, I've played in bands for almost a decade, I tour, I'm going to school to produce music. To sum up, I actually know what i'm talking about.

I never claimed to "know more" about music than "those in the industry", but I do think that most people "in the industry" who are talking about emo the way you do aren't talking about it as a genre of music but as a social trend. and guess what? I've already agreed with you that emo as a trend is what the general public says it is.



Since most music writers talking about emo the way you do are talking about emo as a trend instead of thinking in terms of genres, what I think about them is irrelevant.



Never said this either. But if My Chemical Romance seriously thinks they're carrying on in the spirit of the '86 emo bands then they're completely wrong. It's like how I have a pretty good understanding of the musical revolution of rap, but that doesn't make my band hip hop.



This right here is also a logical fallacy: just because a band put out some shitty albums, doesn't mean they know what they're talking about when it comes to genres. I'm fairly certain when they sat down to make their myspace (if they even made it themselves and it wasn't made by some random fan), they weren't really thinking about getting the genre correctly since genre on myspace really means nothing.

I'm sorry, I've heard everything FSF did and most of dashboard. If they seriously think they fit in that genre, then they're wrong. It doesn't take years of experience to know that they aren't a hardcore band.



This is because we're talking about genres. once again: there's a differecen between emo as a trend and emo as a genre. we don't care about emo as a trend because it's bullshit. it won't mean anything more than a joke in a few years. so yeah, My Chemical Romance, Panic! At the Disco, Aiden, they're all emo bands in this sense, because they're all bullshit music for whiny white kids who don't understand what having problems is really like. They perfectly fit into that trend, but not the genre, and that's the difference.



That's how genres were created.

and emo didn't die. If you actually read this thread you'd see where I've said otherwise.



I'm not accepting any stupid ideas. You act like everything you're saying is new and original but i've heard if many many times by people way more articulate than you.



Once again, we get the lame ass linguistic argument from you. Yes "terms' change. Unfortunately for you, when we speak of "terms", we have to realize that there are many different contexts in which a term is used; genres are technical jargon whose meanings cannot change because if they did, then they'd render the entire classification system meaningless and useless. This is like how the definition of one species doesn't change when that species evolves into another. If genres changed everytime new music developed, we'd have no way of describing a set of bands without describing what they sound like, which means we'd have no use for genres since genres exist so we don't have to continually describe how specific bands sound.

While the general public's use of the word is a new phenomenon and one with a specific meaning, you can't readily discount and gloss over a subculture's use of the word just because a lot more people use it in a different way. The logical way to handle this would be to say: well obviously there are different contexts in which this word can be used, explain their meanings and then see how things fit into those contexts.

This isn't some elitist bullshit. If we're talking about the trend, then the bands I call emo don't really fit in. If we're talking about the genre, they do and the bands you're defending don't. It's a two way street, but it's defined by who you're talking to and how they're using the word. I don't talk to people about "emo" in the trend sense because I'm not in high school anymore.

jesus bannana batman this is long as fuck. i just wanted to quote it.

hahaha im spamming this thread so bad

[Yes. And?]

omg what. Crazy ass posts. My Chem is not bullshit music for whiny white kids, how dare you. :redcard:


I CAN'T WAIT TO START TAKING SOCIOLOGY NEXT YEAR! BEST MAJOR EVER.

[x togepi x]

sociology is about as useless of a major as philosophy

[Yes. And?]

sociology is about as useless of a major as philosophy
I know, I know. But it's pretty much the only major I find interesting. I can't major in business or engineering just because they're more marketable. I will fail college or at least hate the next four years of my life.

[x togepi x]

I know, I know. But it's pretty much the only major I find interesting. I can't major in business or engineering just because they're more marketable. I will fail college or at least hate the next four years of my life.

major in leisure studies. we have that major here. i don't know what it is but it's always enticed me.

[Yes. And?]

Wow, there were so many typos in that post. I need to go eat something. And you know what? I miss being bitchy and argumentative. I want to get into another 20 page spat with someone. I've lost all my game.

:sadangel:

[Yes. And?]

major in leisure studies. we have that major here. i don't know what it is but it's always enticed me.
lol, that sounds like the biggest bullshit major ever. I doubt Marymount even carries that. I got to see Marymount in person, by the way. God, it's by all these high end stores. Everyone in that area looks like a million bucks. Or old.

[Yes. And?]

"Leisure Studies is a branch of the social sciences and academic major (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_major) that focuses on understanding and analyzing leisure. Tourism, Outdoor Recreation (Parks), and Healthy Leisure Practices are common topics of leisure research."

lol

[deeplyinept]

Well just about everything that needs to be said has already been said by x togepi x, but I thought I'd add a few things about the statements in bold here.....

First, how exactly does Nirvana sound like emo? Whether you're using the old school definition or the new one you're trying to use, they sound nothing like emo to my ears. And the grunge tag was bullshit from the start. Anyone who has actually listened to the music could tell you that none of the "grunge" bands sounded even remotely alike. Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, etc, all sound completely different. But grunge never was a genre, it was a scene. These bands played the same clubs, shared bills, hung out, drank coffee together, partied together, etc. Their styles were completely different aside from the fact that they were loud, so what defined grunge was not the sound but the scene. I'm sure some will disagree with me on this, but anything that wasn't from the Seattle scene in the late 80's/early 90's I don't consider to be grunge, even if it sounds like one of those bands. Bush sounded a lot like Nirvana, but they came from a totally different scene, so calling them grunge would be stupid, especially considering that they didn't sound like other "grunge bands" like Pearl Jam. This is the same thing that's going on with emo today, these bands come from different scenes, and even if they sound remotely like something that was once called emo, they're no more emo than Bush is grunge.

Second, and perhaps most importantly... Aiden being called music is a mockery of music :P

And now for the emo. Your last two bolded statements completely contradict each other and reality. Record labels did not create emo, the name came from the scene. Just like you said, any underground movement is defined by its followers. But get this - emo started as an underground movement. And it never really left. Record labels might have used the term incorrectly to a new generation of bands, but they did not create the term, it came from the scene. You can't have it both ways. But you probably think emo was always a mainstream cultural phenomenon, hence why you sound like you're trying to have both. Emo was underground, and the above ground stuff that is called emo isn't emo, it's a creation of the record labels. You can either accept that as fact, or you can continue to argue and try to have it both ways, but that really makes no sense.

The Nirvana section was just part of a rant on the common misinterpretations and vagueness of genres. It was sarcastic and shouldn't be taken seriously for factual information. It was only an example. If you read this whole thread you know my argument for your whole first paragraph and I'm sick of reiterating it.

You aren't bringing anything new to this debate with your second paragraph either. I know the fundamental roots of emo or I wouldn't have the audacity of arguing about it. I might not have read a book but I understand its origin. Record labels and the public work hand in hand. Without the public, record labels don't make money. The same public that originally defined emo merely redefined emo. Any given style of music sounded different in its roots, as well. You haven't answered any questions.

[Yes. And?]

'scuse me, this thread is now about leisure studies.

[SickOfStars]

no, this thread is now about bad spin-offs


http://www.fpsmagazine.com/blog/uploaded_images/batman-beyond-768862.jpg

http://superyo.nuxit.net/forum_agu/templates/agu/images/logo_agu.gif

[hailthewarrior]

I miss the Rugrats.

Get on AIM and we'll talk, Bobert, haha.

[SickOfStars]

I miss the Rugrats.

Get on AIM and we'll talk, Bobert, haha.

I'm on, you just have to IM the super secret screen name that isn't in your PM's

[x togepi x]

no, this thread is now about bad spin-offs


http://www.fpsmagazine.com/blog/uploaded_images/batman-beyond-768862.jpg

http://superyo.nuxit.net/forum_agu/templates/agu/images/logo_agu.gif

so we can keep talking about my chemical romance since they're a bad spin of of Queen...amirite?

[Yes. And?]

UM EXCUSE ME BATMAN BEYOND WAS AWESOME.

I can't believe they canceled it for being "too dark" for kids. Bitch ass kids.

[Yes. And?]

so we can keep talking about my chemical romance since they're a bad spin of of Queen...amirite?
har har har har har har har har har

[SickOfStars]

UM EXCUSE ME BATMAN BEYOND WAS AWESOME.

I can't believe they canceled it for being "too dark" for kids. Bitch ass kids.

the uncut version of the batman beyond movie was awesome.

[hailthewarrior]

I'm on, you just have to IM the super secret screen name that isn't in your PM's

*opens inbox*

Speaking of bad spin-offs, Joey was terrible.

[SickOfStars]

*opens inbox*

Speaking of bad spin-offs, Joey was terrible.

so was friends, but that's another story :-)

[Yes. And?]

the uncut version of the batman beyond movie was awesome.
Yep, I was watching Return of the Joker yesterday. That flashback to the final fight between the first batman and the Joker was scary as hell.

[hailthewarrior]

so was friends, but that's another story :-)

i liked friends! haha.

i think the office spin off will be one of the few worth talking about in good tones.

[SickOfStars]

i liked friends! haha.

i think the office spin off will be one of the few worth talking about in good tones.

I really, really, really hope so!


MOAR AMY ADAMS

[hailthewarrior]

I really, really, really hope so!


MOAR AMY ADAMS

isnt Amy Poehler in it, too?

[SickOfStars]

isnt Amy Poehler in it, too?

http://mikevogel.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/amy_poehler_2.jpg

http://images.askmen.com/galleries/actress/amy-adams/pictures/amy-adams-picture-1.jpg

DO YOU SEE WHY I ASKED FOR AMY ADAMS INSTEAD?

[hailthewarrior]

http://mikevogel.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/amy_poehler_2.jpg

http://images.askmen.com/galleries/actress/amy-adams/pictures/amy-adams-picture-1.jpg

DO YOU SEE WHY I ASKED FOR AMY ADAMS INSTEAD?

ill take them both, as they both make me laugh.

[Hey Kevin]

so we can keep talking about my chemical romance since they're a bad spin of of Queen...amirite?
you are correct sir!

[Yes. And?]

:-(

[theguy77]

http://images.askmen.com/galleries/actress/amy-adams/pictures/amy-adams-picture-1.jpg

DO YOU SEE WHY I ASKED FOR AMY ADAMS INSTEAD?

hsadtjaitwaegtihtwiuatweiah fuckkk hahaha

[Yes. And?]

Meh.

[SickOfStars]

hsadtjaitwaegtihtwiuatweiah fuckkk hahaha

boy, sounds like someone dun split your oreo and licked the cream off

[SickOfStars]

Meh.

redheads, cute semi-nerdy girls, and brunettes with freckles are my weaknesses.

if you have a problem, you are more than welcome to "bring it"

[gfl1996]

i guess i agree with u. :-p

[Yes. And?]

redheads, cute semi-nerdy girls, and brunettes with freckles are my weaknesses.

if you have a problem, you are more than welcome to "bring it"
I like red hair, brunettes, and freckles, too! :-)

She's still meh, though.

[Yes. And?]

hahah, the bonus track on The Red Album is so fucking bad.

[SickOfStars]

I like red hair, brunettes, and freckles, too! :-)

She's still meh, though.

I dig her still, but we can agree to disagree.

Since we seem to have similar taste, please, show me up :-)

[theguy77]

brunettes with brown eyes or otherwise unusually deep blue eyes, wearing summer dresses. cute face >>>>>> seductive face. totally skinny is fine but i prefer them to be like, natural, like in between skinny and thick. thick is sometimes a stretch but in a lot of cases it doesnt matter if she has a cute face that lights up when she smiles or blushes.

[SickOfStars]

brunettes with brown eyes or otherwise unusually deep blue eyes, wearing summer dresses. cute face >>>>>> seductive face. totally skinny is fine but i prefer them to be like, natural, like in between skinny and thick. thick is sometimes a stretch but in a lot of cases it doesnt matter if she has a cute face that lights up when she smiles or blushes.

YOU CANNOT HAVE MY GIRLFRIEND SHE IS MINE

[theguy77]

I SHALL STEAL THEE.

x

[Yes. And?]

I dig her still, but we can agree to disagree.

Since we seem to have similar taste, please, show me up :-)
http://juggalette-twiggi.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/dscf0313.jpg.w300h400.jpg

[Yes. And?]

COME PICK UP YOUR NEW GIRLFRIEND BOB.
x

[SickOfStars]

http://juggalette-twiggi.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/dscf0313.jpg.w300h400.jpg

I'm not into the image hosted by tripod logo :-)

[theguy77]

i dunno, shes got an o in her. who cares if she has three legs.

[SickOfStars]

COME PICK UP YOUR NEW GIRLFRIEND BOB.
x

new? what? lost!

[Yes. And?]

I'm not into the image hosted by tripod logo :-)
:hitself:

[Yes. And?]

new? what? lost!
You would have fallen in love with the picture I posted. If you could see it. :-(

[SickOfStars]

You would have fallen in love with the picture I posted. If you could see it. :-(

quit pouting and find another one

[theguy77]

bobert post pic plz

[Yes. And?]

http://z.about.com/d/teenfashion/1/7/Q/4/-/-/jc_smockedtunic.jpg

Eh?

[SickOfStars]

http://z.about.com/d/teenfashion/1/7/Q/4/-/-/jc_smockedtunic.jpg

Eh?

oh my, who is this?

[theguy77]

http://z.about.com/d/teenfashion/1/7/Q/4/-/-/jc_smockedtunic.jpg

Eh?

too makeupy. and like i said cute face >>>>>>>>> seductive face.

EDIT: but im not that picky haha shes fucking attractive nonetheless.

[Yes. And?]

oh my, who is this?
Heck, if I know.
too makeupy. and like i said cute face >>>>>>>>> seductive face.

EDIT: but im not that picky haha shes fucking attractive nonetheless.
NOT FOR YOU.

[SickOfStars]

I agree. I'm not big on lots and lots of make-up, but honestly, at that point, WHATEVER

[theguy77]

this girl is far closer to my "type"

http://photos-f.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v307/120/50/763304480/n763304480_561565_454.jpg

[SickOfStars]

let's just hang this up and amaze ourselves at what a studmuffin I am


http://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-snc1/v263/227/43/11011887/n11011887_34455801_8763.jpg

[theguy77]

let's just hang this up and amaze ourselves at what a studmuffin I am


http://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-snc1/v263/227/43/11011887/n11011887_34455801_8763.jpg

fuck you i may not have the facial hair but i have that "im from florida so im automatically sexy vibe." and sunburst looks better on my brown skin. yeah, how do you like them apples? how do those raisins taste?

http://a153.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/3/l_b76262049d880dada8d6909896063548. jpg

[SickOfStars]

http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v238/227/43/11011887/n11011887_34123099_8308.jpg
sorry, can't hear you: too busy being mysterious

[ForeverDelayed]

The Nirvana section was just part of a rant on the common misinterpretations and vagueness of genres. It was sarcastic and shouldn't be taken seriously for factual information. It was only an example. If you read this whole thread you know my argument for your whole first paragraph and I'm sick of reiterating it.

You aren't bringing anything new to this debate with your second paragraph either. I know the fundamental roots of emo or I wouldn't have the audacity of arguing about it. I might not have read a book but I understand its origin. Record labels and the public work hand in hand. Without the public, record labels don't make money. The same public that originally defined emo merely redefined emo. Any given style of music sounded different in its roots, as well. You haven't answered any questions.
If you knew the fundamental roots of emo, then why did you say that record labels created it? And for the majority of its existence, the original emo movement was a very DIY movement, most records were put out either by the bands themselves or on little labels run by people in emo and hardcore bands. So with that in mine, I think it would be pretty hard to say that record labels and the public worked hand in hand, seeing as how these records weren't reaching a very large chunk of the public at all. And again, the public did not define emo, those within the scene defined it. If you had played an emo record for a very knowledgeable music fan in the 80's who wasn't a part of the emo scene, they would probably say it was hardcore or punk. The general public probably wouldn't have bothered to listen and would have called it noise. But to those in the scene, it was emo.

And we're not talking about a style of music sounding different "in its roots." We're talking about two different styles of music that are not and never were related, that somehow got called the same thing because of a bunch of bratty scene kids. I guess I must have missed the part where I was supposed to be answering questions here, because there really aren't any to answer, just a bunch of circular arguments and denial coming from your posts. And you're right, I haven't brought anything new to this debate. Everyone already knew you were just throwing out circular and self contradicting arguments, I just felt like pointing out a few, hope you don't mind.

[ForeverDelayed]

http://images.askmen.com/galleries/actress/amy-adams/pictures/amy-adams-picture-1.jpg


Best thread hijacking EVAR!!!!12! God she's gorgeous. I actually watched a few minutes of that stupid Disney movie she was in just because, well, she was in it.

[Yes. And?]

this girl is far closer to my "type"

http://photos-f.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v307/120/50/763304480/n763304480_561565_454.jpg
mehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhh

[theguy77]

mehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhh

who are you to judge? unless you're lesbian and i didnt know

[Yes. And?]

who are you to judge? unless you're lesbian and i didnt know
lol, I'm kidding and hating. She's cute.

Sorry, I am straight. :-(

[theguy77]

lol, I'm kidding and hating. She's cute.

Sorry, I am straight. :-(

haha aw man i sort of hoped you were bi or something. you are a pretty unique character in so many other repsects, it kind of fit haha.

[Yes. And?]

Maybe I should hijack this thread and start posting dudes. Sounds like a plan? :-)

[theguy77]

Maybe I should hijack this thread and start posting dudes. Sounds like a plan? :-)

whatever no n00dz. my personality is more attractive than any of theirs' anyway. ;-)

[Yes. And?]

haha aw man i sort of hoped you were bi or something. you are a pretty unique character in so many other repsects, it kind of fit haha.
Psshhhhh, you were just hoping for some girl-on-girl e-action or something.

[Yes. And?]

whatever no n00dz. my personality is more attractive than any of theirs' anyway. ;-)
WHATEVER, MY BABY HAS THE PERSONALITY OF AN ANGEL OK.
x
http://www.juggaloworld.net/paintup/J/JawsJuggalo01.jpg
:redlove:

[theguy77]

Psshhhhh, you were just hoping for some girl-on-girl e-action or something.

this isnt PL forum.

though i must admit i only ever visit that forum cause they're always posting picks of cuties and hotties there.

yes there is a huge difference between cuties and hotties. cuties are special and for dating, hotties are just for physical admiration.

[Yes. And?]

Hotties > cuties. Cuties shop at Hollister.

[theguy77]

WHATEVER, MY BABY HAS THE PERSONALITY OF AN ANGEL OK.
x
http://www.juggaloworld.net/paintup/J/JawsJuggalo01.jpg
:redlove:

haha noice. but how do you know the personality of an angel? you're not even religious. are you saying he doesnt exist?

[Yes. And?]

haha noice. but how do you know the personality of an angel? you're not even religious. are you saying he doesnt exist?
Who says I'm not religious! I prayed two nights ago.

[theguy77]

Hotties > cuties. Cuties shop at Hollister.

so not [always] true. boring people shop at hollister. cuties wear summer dresses and/or have a conservative "indie" dress style. bobert could better explain what im getting at because on AIM we discussed this and agree with each other.

[theguy77]

Who says I'm not religious! I prayed two nights ago.

haha oh?! i thought ive seen you mocking religious people before.

[Yes. And?]

so not [always] true. boring people shop at hollister. cuties wear summer dresses and/or have a conservative "indie" dress style. bobert could better explain what im getting at because on AIM we discussed this and agree with each other.
I'm going to be a creeper here and ask if you think most of the people on this page are hotties/cuties/none of the above.

http://empirethings.livejournal.com/1957.html Unless it's friends only, which means you're SOL and can't view it. :-p
haha oh?! i thought ive seen you mocking religious people before.
I'm not very religious, rarely go to church, but I was brought up Baptist. Meh. Religion doesn't play a big part in my life, overly religious people kind of suck, but I still hold that belief. I suppose.

[theguy77]

I'm going to be a creeper here and ask if you think most of the people on this page are hotties/cuties/none of the above.

http://empirethings.livejournal.com/1957.html Unless it's friends only, which means you're SOL and can't view it.

i found give or take half of the girls attractive. but yeah thats pretty much exactly what im getting at when i say a conservative indie dress, except for the ones with outstanding facial piercings (im not hardcore enough to appreciate that haha) and strange colored lipstick (but im not a fan of lipstick in general). i prefer minimlaistic approaches to makeup and just a natural beauty.

I'm not very religious, rarely go to church, but I was brought up Baptist. Meh. Religion doesn't play a big part in my life, overly religious people kind of suck, but I still hold that belief. I suppose.

thats almost exactly like me. i believe there is a God and that jesus wasnt a liar or insane, but i also believe God expects humans to do a lot of things for themselves, and the notion that pleasure is sin is fucking retarded to me. i also refuse to believe atheists automatically go to hell, because they are for the most part good people regardless of faith.

[FayeQC]

I'm going to be a creeper here and ask if you think most of the people on this page are hotties/cuties/none of the above.

http://empirethings.livejournal.com/1957.html Unless it's friends only, which means you're SOL and can't view it. :-p

I'm not very religious, rarely go to church, but I was brought up Baptist. Meh. Religion doesn't play a big part in my life, overly religious people kind of suck, but I still hold that belief. I suppose.

oh god i've seen so many ads for that ratings comm haha

also,where is this thread topic wise atm?

[Yes. And?]

i found give or take half of the girls attractive. but yeah thats pretty much exactly what im getting at when i say a conservative indie dress, except for the ones with outstanding facial piercings (im not hardcore enough to appreciate that haha) and strange colored lipstick (but im not a fan of lipstick in general). i prefer minimlaistic approaches to makeup and just a natural beauty.
I see.



thats almost exactly like me. i believe there is a God and that jesus wasnt a liar or insane, but i also believe God expects humans to do a lot of things for themselves, and the notion that pleasure is sin is fucking retarded to me. i also refuse to believe atheists automatically go to hell, because they are for the most part good people regardless of faith.
Sounds about right.

[theguy77]

I see.

Sounds about right.

but nothing wrong with hollister girls though as long as they dont fit the personality cliche

[Yes. And?]

but nothing wrong with hollister girls though as long as they dont fit the personality cliche
I hate that store, everyone around here dresses in nothing but Hollister. It's ridiculous to look around your tiny english class and see four of the guys wearing a Hollister shirt. One of whom is wearing a Hollister jacket on top. Then, you walk into the hallway and see more Hollister. Shirts, bags, jackets, whatever whatever. Preps, 'gangstas', spanish kids. No one shops anywhere else????

[theguy77]

I hate that store, everyone around here dresses in nothing but Hollister. It's ridiculous to look around your tiny english class and see four of the guys wearing a Hollister shirt. One of whom is wearing a Hollister jacket on top. Then, you walk into the hallway and see more Hollister. Shirts, bags, jackets, whatever whatever. Preps, 'gangstas', spanish kids. No one shops anywhere else????

haha it does get annoying after awhile. but as long as she isnt dressed too OTT in anyway (including the typical way because that means a lot of makeup) it doesnt matter so much to me.

[chipdip18]

I hate that store, everyone around here dresses in nothing but Hollister. It's ridiculous to look around your tiny english class and see four of the guys wearing a Hollister shirt. One of whom is wearing a Hollister jacket on top. Then, you walk into the hallway and see more Hollister. Shirts, bags, jackets, whatever whatever. Preps, 'gangstas', spanish kids. No one shops anywhere else????


Hollister does suck. It's too dark. too creepy and terrible music is played. Not to mention the people who work their lurk in the shadows, pop out and prep their hair then talk to you about random junk.

[Hey Kevin]

Hollister does suck. It's too dark. too creepy and terrible music is played. Not to mention the people who work their lurk in the shadows, pop out and prep their hair then talk to you about random junk.

but who doesnt like going to the clerk and saying "Hey since these pants have a hole in them do i get them half price?"

[chipdip18]

but who doesnt like going to the clerk and saying "Hey since these pants have a hole in them do i get them half price?"


Hahaha true story.

[Yes. And?]

but who doesnt like going to the clerk and saying "Hey since these pants have a hole in them do i get them half price?"
haha

[absolutecrunk]

I like whomever will sell me clothes for cheap. I'll buy my clothes from the grocery store if I have to.

Shopping anywhere is exactly the same, nowhere is any more establishment or anti-establishment than the next company. If you want integrity and credibility make your own clothes and don't brag about making your own clothes.

NOW IF YOU'LL EXCUSE ME I HAVE TO PICK UP SOME MILK AND JEANS BRB

[lawofaverages]

wow at this thread.

anyone want my emo records?

[SickOfStars]

I'm going to be a creeper here and ask if you think most of the people on this page are hotties/cuties/none of the above.

http://empirethings.livejournal.com/1957.html Unless it's friends only, which means you're SOL and can't view it. :-p

I wouldn't even want to be friends with most of these girls. Aside from the fact that they're all probably 16, nothing makes me want to punch children more than scene-y girls.

wow at this thread.

anyone want my emo records?

if they're free and classic.

Best thread hijacking EVAR!!!!12! God she's gorgeous. I actually watched a few minutes of that stupid Disney movie she was in just because, well, she was in it.

I'm really glad I'm not the only one that sees it

[kearn1tm]

MCR's my favorite band, but emo kids and modern emo culture are retarded.

Emo is a "culture" now?

[bowl of oranges]

Emo is a "culture" now?Apparently. People are ridiculous.

[SickOfStars]

shush, no more emo talk here

[bowl of oranges]

Cap'n Jazz!

[Xxpunk_rockerxX]

cool.....hi

[Xxpunk_rockerxX]

cool.....hi

[deeplyinept]

Once again, you are confusing the public/social context with the genre definition. I don't understand why you aren't getting this. The general public doesn't set genres. Genres are a form of technical jargon; a classification system based on musical theory. The general public, does not define genres, because the general public doesn't even care about them. Most people will say "who cares about what this music is classified as, i listen to what's good and i don't listen to what's bad".

You haven't at all responded to this point at all. You just keep repeating the same inane assertion that confuses these definitions. This is like arguing with a brick wall. Don't respond unless you have some sort of meaningful response because you're wasting everyone's time.



This is a false dichotomy. Nowhere have you explained why I "must" believe it was recreated. I can and do easily believe that emo was mislabled as a genre by a few label executives and that's why the cultural trend took off because a bunch of 15 year old kids don't know any better.



No. Emo as a genre has one distinct meaning: emotive hardcore. I've already covered the other definition of the word: the trend. Here's how i know you're wrong here. Emo can't mean "either emotive-hardcore" or "pop punk emo" because those definitions don't fit all the bands that would fall under the emo trend. Example: Thursday is neither emotive hardcore in the classical sense, neither are they "pop punk emo". Another example, Bright Eyes, also neither emotive hardcore in the classical sense nor "pop punk".

That's the problem with your trying to use the genre context here, a genre has distinct boundaries. you can easily say why X band doensn't fit in the genre. For example, Bright Eyes doesn't fit in emo because they're not a hardcore band. That's easy and simple. Your definition of the genre is quite vague and nebulous. You can't explain how the genre encompasses everything from Thursday to Circle Takes the Square to Bright Eyes to Panic! At The Disco without appealing to some vague standard like "emotional lyrics" or "they come from the same scene (which is clearly wrong)".

So to sum up this part, you're seriously arguing that we should accept a vague definition that's functionally meaningless, that shifts to encompass all sorts of bands arbitrarily over a definition that is set in stone and easy to differitate emo bands from bands that dont' fit in the genre. This is completely stupid.



Aside from Jimmy Eat World and Thursday, I would contend that it basically was. I seriously doubt Panic! At The Disco or My Chemical Romance knew anything about Revolution Summer. Just like you don't.



Or someone who knows what they're talking about. They completely shifted away from this form of music in their musical evolution. You can't seriously tell me that "Chase this Light" is totally influenced by "Clarity" or fuck even "Static Prevails" because it's not at all. One's pop rock and the other isn't. Likewise, that's the direction Jimmy Eat World moved in.

But, like i said before, I'm pretty sure during this musical evolution to pop rock the band itself has rejected being "emo" which means nobody can claim to have "emo influences" if they're referencing Jimmy Eat World unless they stopped listening to the band after 1999.



Once again, just the fact that Chris Carrabba heard SDRE in someone's dorm room once doesn't mean he was actually influenced by them. The music itself isn't isn't influenced by SDRE at all. It sounds completely different. One's a mixture of post-hardcore and emo (SDRE) the other is mopey acoustic rock. Following your logic here, because I'm influenced by some hip hop artists, my band is a rap group, even though it's clearly not.

To be influenced by a band in a meaningful sense, your band has to have some sort of aspect of shared sound, and there isn't one here.



This is also irrelevant because its presupposing that Further Seems Forever can't be wrong. I would contend that they didn't know what they're talking about.



Except the people calling them "emocore" are the same people that don't actually care about genres are are still using the emo as a trend definition.

but even then, the problem with this definition of "Dashboard being emo" is that Thursday sounds absolutely nothing like either of these bands. Neither does Coheed and Cambria, yet both were lumped under the emo trend. This just further goes to show how meaningless your definition is when you try to apply it to a genre.



well you failed, hardly anyone talks about emo here except for people who are actually into real emo. the people you're whining to only mock people who are basically joke accounts anyway. You're like two years late for this.

The problem with everything you're saying is that you're basically just making blind assertions with no logic backing them up, and then you don't even respond to my argument. I, however, respond to the premises, show why they're full of crap, and give my own analysis which is much more detailed and relies on things other than "well people told me this band is emo so they are". I've even shown you through different examples how the word has completely different connotations but you're just continuing to repeat yourself and ignoring every word I said. seriously, just stop.

You made mistakes interpreting my last post but it really doesn't matter. I understand where your point is, I just don't agree with it. I feel that if emo is considered a genre today, it must have been readapted or duplicated as a term. I reread this whole thing and realized how off base I got. The real difference is that I feel like genres are vacuous and you don't. It's really based on an opinion that neither of us are going to change. If we both accept my original argument, I don't know why I keep trying to defend my position. Thanks for opening my mind to new ideas but I think that we have to agree to disagree unless you can show me a useful application for the use of genres and classifying music.

[x togepi x]

one useful application of genres:

John likes fast heavy music, but he hates metal.
Kevin found out about a really sweet metal band, but Kevin isn't very good worth words.
In describing said band to John, Kevin would probably say they are really fast and heavy. At first, this would seem to be up John's alley, but when John listens to them, he realizes they're metal and hates them, which wastes his time, maybe even pisses him off.

If Kevin had just used a genre term like metal to describe the band, John wouldn't have had to listen to them, and the ambiguity would have disappeared.

That's one reason we use genres, to talk about bands that each party in the conversation haven't necessarily heard.

[chipdip18]

wow at this thread.

anyone want my emo records?


which ones?

[Angylion Gefell]

Who the fuck cares about emo.

[chipdip18]

Who the fuck cares about emo.


Fugazi is good.

[BlinkinDuke]

Fugazi isn't emo.

[chipdip18]

Fugazi isn't emo.


Then what is my good sir.

[Nevuk]

Then what is my good sir.
Rites of Spring... members of which went onto play in Fugazi. There are similarities (Look at the track "End on End" for an example of post-hardcorish work in an emo song) but there is a clear distinction between them. Fugazi had reggae influences, etc.

[chipdip18]

Rites of Spring... members of which went onto play in Fugazi. There are similarities (Look at the track "End on End" for an example of post-hardcorish work in an emo song) but there is a clear distinction between them. Fugazi had reggae influences, etc.

Gosh it dang it i was either going to say Fugazi or Rites of Spring and look where i am now.

[Nevuk]

Gosh it dang it i was either going to say Fugazi or Rites of Spring and look where i am now.
Haha, the answer is always Rites of Spring. Or any of the other revolution summer bands, although the others aren't as well known. Gray Matter, Fire Party, etc.

[chipdip18]

Haha, the answer is always Rites of Spring. Or any of the other revolution summer bands, although the others aren't as well known. Gray Matter, Fire Party, etc.


Yeah, i don't know those bands, (the two other you mentioned.)

[SickOfStars]

BACK ON TOPIC

http://upload.moldova.org/movie/actors/a/amy_adams/thumbnails/tn2_amy_adams_1.jpg

[theguy77]

BACK ON TOPIC

http://upload.moldova.org/movie/actors/a/amy_adams/thumbnails/tn2_amy_adams_1.jpg


ashjthsatwa YES PLZ for serious very close to my type

[chipdip18]

BACK ON TOPIC

http://upload.moldova.org/movie/actors/a/amy_adams/thumbnails/tn2_amy_adams_1.jpg



Cuuuuuuuuute

[ForeverDelayed]

BACK ON TOPIC

http://upload.moldova.org/movie/actors/a/amy_adams/thumbnails/tn2_amy_adams_1.jpg

Amy Adams >>>>>>>>>> emo >>>>>>>>>> MCR.
[/thread]

[ForeverDelayed]

Just doing my part to further the cause.....

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_ds1ca8v-Scc/R9OBO_20VDI/AAAAAAAAF5k/rnpD0t7OcvE/amyadams191024x768.jpg

[Hey Kevin]

Haha, the answer is always Rites of Spring. Or any of the other revolution summer bands, although the others aren't as well known. Gray Matter, Fire Party, etc.
gray matter are a great band

and i wouldnt really call fugazi emo but they were definitely influenced by those other bands to for their sound, as well as reggae and hardcore and whatever.
they are unique and not really anything but rock and roll

[lawofaverages]

which ones?

pm me if you want a list

[SickOfStars]

ashjthsatwa YES PLZ for serious very close to my type

Randall, you dink! that's the same girl I posted before that you were all whiny about.

[Nevuk]

gray matter are a great band

and i wouldnt really call fugazi emo but they were definitely influenced by those other bands to for their sound, as well as reggae and hardcore and whatever.
they are unique and not really anything but rock and roll
I love Thog

[Fuckmaxbemis]

What you're saying is that we could break anything considered emo today into hundreds of subgenres which means that nothing is truly emo because what we listen to today is merely a branch off of the original emo. But the problem with this is that these subgenres are never in context. When you're talking in a forum, you rarely see people talking about "mid-west emo" or "post-hardcore". Although you might find a handful of these threads, it's normally a thread about emo in general. And frankly all of these subgenres are almost redundant because they are too hard to keep track of. If you believe in evolutionism, then you believe that humans derived from gorillas, who derived from chimpanzees, who derived from orangutans, and so on. And all of these different beings are classified under monkeys, or mammals. Orangutans represent a band like Rites of Spring and humanity represents Fall Out Boy or Green Day. I know everybody will agree that MCR or Panic are a completely different style of emo, but you have to accept its progression and understand that it derived from somewhere. If you take a look at Saves The Day's progression (degression, really) from Can't Slow Down to In Reverie, Saves The Day kept their emo label while changing their music in all shapes and forms. So call MCR any goofy subgenre you want, they are still emo.

Are you fucking stupid? MCR isn't influenced by Rites of Spring or any thing legit. So it's not a progression, just a random name drop, end of fucking story.

[Pluto.]

gray matter are a great band

and i wouldnt really call fugazi emo but they were definitely influenced by those other bands to for their sound, as well as reggae and hardcore and whatever.
they are unique and not really anything but rock and roll

Your avatar is making me hungry. :-(

[x togepi x]

Are you fucking stupid? MCR isn't influenced by Rites of Spring or any thing legit. So it's not a progression, just a random name drop, end of fucking story.

dude's logic is "mtv told me this band evolved from this band. mtv knows more about music than you do. so they're right". it's funny

[Hey Kevin]

Your avatar is making me hungry. :-(

your pretzels are making me thirsty

[theguy77]

Randall, you dink! that's the same girl I posted before that you were all whiny about.

haha i wasnt whiney about that girl? i was whiney about the one y.a? posted

[ForeverDelayed]

BACK ON TOPIC

For some reason the pic I posted last night has disappeared from my post. But I'll try once again to get things back on track here...

http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Amy_Adams/amy_adams.jpg

[Pluto.]

^Wow, she's gorgeous.

[Yes. And?]

For some reason the pic I posted last night has disappeared from my post. But I'll try once again to get things back on track here...

http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Amy_Adams/amy_adams.jpg
She's pretty. I love red hair!

[Yes. And?]

haha i wasnt whiney about that girl? i was whiney about the one y.a? posted
That girl was fine, you're crazy.

[Cheesus]

She's pretty. I love red hair!

Red hair= Red pubes

[Yes. And?]

http://aycu29.webshots.com/image/25668/2003347089089580565_rs.jpg

I BET THIS IS TOO MAKEUP-Y FOR YOU. x
:rolleyes:

[Yes. And?]

Red hair= Red pubes
I'll never have to worry about that. :shrug:

[deeplyinept]

Are you fucking stupid? MCR isn't influenced by Rites of Spring or any thing legit. So it's not a progression, just a random name drop, end of fucking story.

You're right. The current use of the word gay wasn't a random name drop either.

....Yes it was.

You use it because some form of media made it popular. It is the same exact thing. Emo as a genre used to have specific qualities just like the word gay. Shit changes. Sorry.

I don't want to debate this anymore but it seems like you still don't understand my argument.

one useful application of genres:

John likes fast heavy music, but he hates metal.
Kevin found out about a really sweet metal band, but Kevin isn't very good worth words.
In describing said band to John, Kevin would probably say they are really fast and heavy. At first, this would seem to be up John's alley, but when John listens to them, he realizes they're metal and hates them, which wastes his time, maybe even pisses him off.

If Kevin had just used a genre term like metal to describe the band, John wouldn't have had to listen to them, and the ambiguity would have disappeared.

That's one reason we use genres, to talk about bands that each party in the conversation haven't necessarily heard.

I think it's much more useful to describe music by comparing one band with another. ie: The singer sounds like the singer from this band. The drummer is also amazing. He uses same style as the drummer for this other band. If you like (insert band name here), you'll definately like these guys.

If Kevin isn't good with words, then there's no way he'd be able to keep up with all of the genres. If referring to genres like alternative, you are probably too vague because there are so many different sounds combined within one genre. And keeping track of a specific genre within alternative, like post-rock or something, isn't helpful because the typical person, like Kevin, is not smart enough to keep track of this plethora of words, shit, and confusion. I dislike just as many alternative bands as I like. And you also have to deal with people who aparently don't know the difference between one style of music and another.

It's impossible to keep track of bands, like Jimmy Eat World or The Descendents, because music constantly changes and according to you, they move in and out of genres like it ain't no thang.

When describing music, I think we should be relative instead of trying to fit every single band into a set of fascist genres. Every band is different. And if genres can't expand, circa you, then we'd either have too many genres to keep track of, or inacuracy and vagueness within the genres themselves.

[theguy77]

man who the fuck cares how many people are using the word "emo" in its current context? it's current context is an abomination -- for fucks sake it applies to:

1) "pop-punk" (note the quotation marks) "artists" (note those too) which have nothing in common aside from a farce of melodrama and pussy angst which they apply to a marketability scale of people under the age of 17
2) even worse, cliques of people who piggyback their personas onto the corporate facade of this melodramatic music, moping around in emotions that arent even real or honest, with the hypocrisy and audacity to demand respect as artistically unique individuals, yet without realizing they are a bastardization of the very principles they attempt to portray.

the fact you expect us to appraise, respect, or even acknowledge such ludicrosity as the new definition of what once possessed far more integrity and conceptual validity is beyond me. your entire argument is constructed on a foundation of the "50 million people cant be wrong" rhetoric, which is never valid considering easly 5 times that number of americans are downright ignorant and without the desire to be enlightened by more reliable sources. yet you defend their perspective and wonder why none of us take your argument seriously.

[AP_Punk]

are those lyrics to a say anything song?

[x togepi x]

You're right. The current use of the word gay wasn't a random name drop either.

....Yes it was.

You use it because some form of media made it popular. It is the same exact thing. Emo as a genre used to have specific qualities just like the word gay. Shit changes. Sorry.

actually the current use of gay was picked by the homosexual community, which is the opposite of what you're talking about. in the 1800s when being homosexual wasn't as accepted, many people decided to speak in code, saying they were "gay". to the uninitiated, one thought that meant "i'm happy" but to people who were homosexual, that meant "i am a homosexual." eventually, the code was cracked and straight people began using the term.

this is completely unlike people thinking emo is emo because they were told by tv. i'

I think it's much more useful to describe music by comparing one band with another. ie: The singer sounds like the singer from this band. The drummer is also amazing. He uses same style as the drummer for this other band. If you like (insert band name here), you'll definately like these guys.

That's what genres do, only in less words. Instead of saying " Orchid is alot like Union of Ulysses", you say "Orchid is screamo".

If Kevin isn't good with words, then there's no way he'd be able to keep up with all of the genres.

It's a lot easier to remember one simple genre term than it is to remember an entire description of what the genre is. besides, just because one isn't able to describe things very well doesn't assume that they can't memorize a few simple genres.

If referring to genres like alternative, you are probably too vague because there are so many different sounds combined within one genre.

as stated before, alternative isn't a genre. it's a marketing scheme. so this premise is false.

And keeping track of a specific genre within alternative, like post-rock or something, isn't helpful because the typical person, like Kevin, is not smart enough to keep track of this plethora of words, shit, and confusion. I dislike just as many alternative bands as I like. And you also have to deal with people who aparently don't know the difference between one style of music and another.

Just because the genre-classification system isn't perfect, doesn't mean it's a reason to reject it. The problem here is, I can always show why it's easier to memorize what "emo" or "post-rock" means than to describe what a post rock or emo band sounds like. It's less words.

You're presupposing people who lack musical description words aren't smart enough to describe, which simply isn't always the case.

It's impossible to keep track of bands, like Jimmy Eat World or The Descendents, because music constantly changes and according to you, they move in and out of genres like it ain't no thang.

How is it "impossible?"

A band doesn't have to be tied to specific genres, but that doesn't kill our ability to classify them since we can talk about how they fit certain genres at certain time periods. For example, I can easily keep track of Jimmy Eat World by saying a simple sentance: "Jimmy Eat World was a band that started out playing midwest emo influenced music but evolved into a pop rock band".

When describing music, I think we should be relative instead of trying to fit every single band into a set of fascist genres

There's nothing "fascist" about genres since genres aren't the only way of talking about music. Actually, you're conception of "emo" is infinitely fascist as it assumes that it is the will of the masses, as well as, it is the definition major corporations use.

Fascism would force you to accept our classification system. We do not, however, if you're using the word genre, then you have to accept it. That doesn't mean, however, that you're forced to speak of music in genres.

[quote=deeplyinept Every band is different. And if genres can't expand, circa you, then we'd either have too many genres to keep track of, or inacuracy and vagueness within the genres themselves.[/quote]

Just because you yourself can't keep track of genres, doesn't mean that we have "too many". Likewise, genres aren't vague because being vague makes it so that they can't describe anything. Genres are quite specific. This means that we have many genres, though there aren't really enough.

[chipdip18]

are those lyrics to a say anything song?

:rotfl:

[thesafeword]

I'm tired of this elitists vs. idiots argument.

[theguy77]

I'm tired of this elitists vs. idiots argument.

theres nothing elitist about this particular argument. the sides are 1) those who do some research (or at least learn from a valid source) and 2) those who follow the mainstream cult.

[thesafeword]

I wasn't saying just this thread, but overall.

[deeplyinept]

man who the fuck cares how many people are using the word "emo" in its current context? it's current context is an abomination -- for fucks sake it applies to:

1) "pop-punk" (note the quotation marks) "artists" (note those too) which have nothing in common aside from a farce of melodrama and pussy angst which they apply to a marketability scale of people under the age of 17
2) even worse, cliques of people who piggyback their personas onto the corporate facade of this melodramatic music, moping around in emotions that arent even real or honest, with the hypocrisy and audacity to demand respect as artistically unique individuals, yet without realizing they are a bastardization of the very principles they attempt to portray.

the fact you expect us to appraise, respect, or even acknowledge such ludicrosity as the new definition of what once possessed far more integrity and conceptual validity is beyond me. your entire argument is constructed on a foundation of the "50 million people cant be wrong" rhetoric, which is never valid considering easly 5 times that number of americans are downright ignorant and without the desire to be enlightened by more reliable sources. yet you defend their perspective and wonder why none of us take your argument seriously.

Unlike togepi, this is mostly opinion based. I know what emo stands for and I don't even care. I am not a part of that movement. The answer to any argument that you throw at me is already out there. You don't have to accept it because I don't accept yours. Yes, I do believe that the masses can't be wrong because the masses define every word that we use. Emo is nothing different.

The root to all evil is the use of the word genre. I don't have time right now because I have to go to class. But I just looked up the fucking word. genre(n.) a vague category with no fixed boundaries. Togepi, are you really trying to tell me that alternative isn't a genre? This must be the reason why we can't agree on anything.

Fuck I have to go. I'll expand later.

[kearn1tm]

I've loved Emo ever since Pete Wentz invented it.

[allhourcymbals]

I'm going to be a creeper here and ask if you think most of the people on this page are hotties/cuties/none of the above.

http://empirethings.livejournal.com/1957.html Unless it's friends only, which means you're SOL and can't view it. :-p

I'm not very religious, rarely go to church, but I was brought up Baptist. Meh. Religion doesn't play a big part in my life, overly religious people kind of suck, but I still hold that belief. I suppose.
jesus christ. the first girl in that post, colleen, i used to talk to her all the time and then she made this jewlery business thing and it was ridiculous, but they were cute so i bought one, and she never sent it to me. lost $8. fucking whore.

[x togepi x]

Yes, I do believe that the masses can't be wrong because the masses define every word that we use. Emo is nothing different.

This is completely wrong. As i've pointed out, the masses don't define technical jargon. People in specialized fields do. The way we use emo is as jargon. Nobody cares about your cute little trend.

The root to all evil is the use of the word genre.

Why are you being such a fascist about this? You come in here, say "I KNOW WHAT EMO IS. AND YOU DON'T", I explain how there are multiple contexts, and now you're whining about the context we use it in, as if we should just accept yours, and like the brown shirt you are, you're just going to keep repeating yourself. meh. you're really living up to your screenname.

I don't have time right now because I have to go to class. But I just looked up the fucking word. genre(n.) a vague category with no fixed boundaries.

I'm going to steal a page from your book and point out how words evolve, so a simple dictionary definition isn't going to capture the true essence of a word. In music, genres are very specific. If you're going to come in here and be like "lol words evolve" you can't turn around and just pick up a dictionary and think that makes you correct. Especially since, I'm sure the dictionary you used isn't musically based, meaning that its definitions for the words within it were meant for "common use" and the specialized way that I am talking about.

Your definition is bullshit anyway. "a vague category with no fixed boundaries" can mean basically anything. One could say that even the specific rules that define what a genre is are "vague" or "no fixed boundaries" since they don't stop bands from being progressive within their genre.

Togepi, are you really trying to tell me that alternative isn't a genre? This must be the reason why we can't agree on anything.


The reason we can't agree on anything is you think "because MTV told me Alternative was a genre and Fall out Boy is Emo, they have to be".

Alternative isn't a genre. It's a marketing scheme. It's basically a way to market music that isn't super-polished pop music to disaffected teens who aren't smart enough to realize that they're not listening to cool and subversive music, but are actually just listening to another form of pop rock. It was created by record companies in the late 80s/early 90s as a way to market music that wasn't hair metal or pop singers, but none of the bands that fit within it ever really rallied behind it as it wasn't a real movement.

This is why "alternative rock stations" generally play music that's super popular, and ignore the underground completely.

[ForeverDelayed]

Your definition is bullshit anyway. "a vague category with no fixed boundaries" can mean basically anything. One could say that even the specific rules that define what a genre is are "vague" or "no fixed boundaries" since they don't stop bands from being progressive within their genre.


Actually his definition is a lot more bullshit than you realize. I don't know what dictionary he got it from, but every dictionary on the web says just the opposite. Here's what dictionary.com has to say:

1.a class or category of artistic endeavor having a particular form, content, technique, or the like: the genre of epic poetry; the genre of symphonic music. 2.Fine Arts. a.paintings in which scenes of everyday life form the subject matter. b.a realistic style of painting using such subject matter. 3.genus; kind; sort; style. –adjective 4.Fine Arts. of or pertaining to genre. 5.of or pertaining to a distinctive literary type. I wasn't aware that "particular" and "distinctive" meant the same thing as "vague" and "having no boundaries." I think this kid needs to go back to school.


But anyways, enough of this. I vote we change the title of this thread to "Amy Adams (Official thread)" :-p

[x togepi x]

Actually his definition is a lot more bullshit than you realize. I don't know what dictionary he got it from, but every dictionary on the web says just the opposite. Here's what dictionary.com has to say:

I wasn't aware that "particular" and "distinctive" meant the same thing as "vague" and "having no boundaries." I think this kid needs to go back to school.


But anyways, enough of this. I vote we change the title of this thread to "Amy Adams (Official thread)" :-p

Oh i'm sure he just googled the word and picked the one definition that fits what he was saying. haha.

[ForeverDelayed]

Oh i'm sure he just googled the word and picked the one definition that fits what he was saying. haha.
Exactly. These kids these days have grown up surrounded by the internet, and any nutjob can make a website, so they've come to believe that just because someone else on teh interwebz agrees with them then they MUST be right. Probably the most annoying thing about arguing with members of this current generation.

[Nevuk]

Exactly. These kids these days have grown up surrounded by the internet, and any nutjob can make a website, so they've come to believe that just because someone else on teh interwebz agrees with them then they MUST be right. Probably the most annoying thing about arguing with members of this current generation.
I blame high school research papers. Dictionaries are fairly unreliable tools as well, as a definition to a word should give a detailed history as to its meaning, eytomology, and the context it should be used in. Nothing really does that.

[x togepi x]

Exactly. These kids these days have grown up surrounded by the internet, and any nutjob can make a website, so they've come to believe that just because someone else on teh interwebz agrees with them then they MUST be right. Probably the most annoying thing about arguing with members of this current generation.

that and their lack of understanding how to make an argument. it's not as easy as saying "look, wikipedia says X" when one is not agreeing that X is true. my logic class was full of people like this, it was horrible.

[Yes. And?]

jesus christ. the first girl in that post, colleen, i used to talk to her all the time and then she made this jewlery business thing and it was ridiculous, but they were cute so i bought one, and she never sent it to me. lost $8. fucking whore.
Really? Wow, that sucks. Reminds me of the time I paid $18 for this really cool shirt. Never came. Fucking internet.

[deeplyinept]

Actually his definition is a lot more bullshit than you realize. I don't know what dictionary he got it from, but every dictionary on the web says just the opposite. Here's what dictionary.com has to say:

I wasn't aware that "particular" and "distinctive" meant the same thing as "vague" and "having no boundaries." I think this kid needs to go back to school.


But anyways, enough of this. I vote we change the title of this thread to "Amy Adams (Official thread)" :-p

I actually used my encyclopedia. And my quote was the first line. Aparently whoever wrote on wikipedia has the same encyclopedia because they used the same definition. Thanks.

[deeplyinept]

This is completely wrong. As i've pointed out, the masses don't define technical jargon. People in specialized fields do. The way we use emo is as jargon. Nobody cares about your cute little trend.



Why are you being such a fascist about this? You come in here, say "I KNOW WHAT EMO IS. AND YOU DON'T", I explain how there are multiple contexts, and now you're whining about the context we use it in, as if we should just accept yours, and like the brown shirt you are, you're just going to keep repeating yourself. meh. you're really living up to your screenname.



I'm going to steal a page from your book and point out how words evolve, so a simple dictionary definition isn't going to capture the true essence of a word. In music, genres are very specific. If you're going to come in here and be like "lol words evolve" you can't turn around and just pick up a dictionary and think that makes you correct. Especially since, I'm sure the dictionary you used isn't musically based, meaning that its definitions for the words within it were meant for "common use" and the specialized way that I am talking about.

Your definition is bullshit anyway. "a vague category with no fixed boundaries" can mean basically anything. One could say that even the specific rules that define what a genre is are "vague" or "no fixed boundaries" since they don't stop bands from being progressive within their genre.



The reason we can't agree on anything is you think "because MTV told me Alternative was a genre and Fall out Boy is Emo, they have to be".

Alternative isn't a genre. It's a marketing scheme. It's basically a way to market music that isn't super-polished pop music to disaffected teens who aren't smart enough to realize that they're not listening to cool and subversive music, but are actually just listening to another form of pop rock. It was created by record companies in the late 80s/early 90s as a way to market music that wasn't hair metal or pop singers, but none of the bands that fit within it ever really rallied behind it as it wasn't a real movement.

This is why "alternative rock stations" generally play music that's super popular, and ignore the underground completely.

So how widespread is pop-punk? It seems like everything to you is pop-punk. You're telling me that We The Kings is the same genre as The White Stripes. But emo stays in its own little corner where nobody can touch it.

Nonetheless this turning into a cut-throat which wasn't my intention. Let's just chill.

Sooooo.. Hi there. I'm RJ. Nice to meet you. How are you? That's good.

Sometimes when both sides aren't agreeing on anything it's best to make sense of the situation metaphorically. I was thinking about this metaphor while I was jacking off at work today.

And I'll write the metaphor tomorrow because something just came up and I gotta go.

But here's a prologue.

Me and my friends made a peanut butter and jelly sandwich but added hot sauce and lettuce and named the sandwich "Dookie". It is semipopular throughout bars in the midwest. 5 years later, Budweiser makes a beer called Dookie, with hot sauce added for an extra kick.

[theguy77]

Unlike togepi, this is mostly opinion based. I know what emo stands for and I don't even care. I am not a part of that movement. The answer to any argument that you throw at me is already out there. You don't have to accept it because I don't accept yours. Yes, I do believe that the masses can't be wrong because the masses define every word that we use. Emo is nothing different.

The root to all evil is the use of the word genre. I don't have time right now because I have to go to class. But I just looked up the fucking word. genre(n.) a vague category with no fixed boundaries. Togepi, are you really trying to tell me that alternative isn't a genre? This must be the reason why we can't agree on anything.

Fuck I have to go. I'll expand later.

you're the one who made this thread with the intention of convincing us to acknowledge the mass definition, and i just explained to you why hardly any of us will. you can if you want but there's no convincing others who know what it was meant for in the first place. id rather not fuel the flame of ignorance, especially when its implifications are so repulsive. if you want me to be totally honest with you i wish the word emo would just go away since nobody even liked it in the first place, and that people would just use skramz to classify emotive hardcore and make up a new word for the other stuff.

[x togepi x]

So how widespread is pop-punk? It seems like everything to you is pop-punk.
Throughout this entire thread i have been using the term "pop-punk" to denote what you're calling emo should be called because I'm not entirely sure what you would call this kind of music, some of it would fit into power pop, some pop rock, but it's a lot easier to use a placeholder term. Since most people here think Fall out Boy/All Time Low are pop punk bands, i decided, for the sake of argument, to go with that nomenclature.

but in all reality, pop punk is a really small genre itself made of punk bands that have slight pop sensibilities like the descendants or the ergs. as a genre, pop punk is just as bastardized as emo nowadays.

You're telling me that We The Kings is the same genre as The White Stripes. But emo stays in its own little corner where nobody can touch it.

If you honestly believe you're not putting words in my mouth with this statement, then I really hope you haven't finished your basic elementary school reading class, since I've never suggested such a thing.

Me and my friends made a peanut butter and jelly sandwich but added hot sauce and lettuce and named the sandwich "Dookie". It is semipopular throughout bars in the midwest. 5 years later, Budweiser makes a beer called Dookie, with hot sauce added for an extra kick.

don't bother typing it out. it's just one false analogy. You're ignoring the subcultural aspects of the use of the word emo as a genre, as well as the fact that in this argument, we're using the same word to denote music in two different contexts, where in your analogy we're talking about the same word to mean two different foods.

[joss d.]

worst thread ever, the new raein however is fucking awesome.

[x togepi x]

so its' worth downloading?

[joss d.]

definitely worth it, i think all the songs are streaming on their myspace if you wanna check it out before hand.
watch out though the tags were complete and udder shit on the one i downloaded.

[x togepi x]

i'll have to check it out. i haven't listened to them in awhile.