If you haven't been keeping up with Dan Ozzi's columns on VICE's Noisey, you should perhaps start doing that. Today's writeup is about the "emo revival" and how it doesn't exist – people just started paying attention again. Feel free to agree or disagree in the replies...do you think we've entered a specific new "golden age" for the genre or is it just a perceived increase in interest from a new crop of listeners? A clip of the blog is below.
Emo’s current situation can all be traced back to the early 2000’s when whatever dumb, lazy music journalist was the first person to start calling MTV-friendly bands like My Chemical Romance, The Used, and Fall Out Boy “emo.” For the record: they are not. No, let me write that again in all caps. THEY ARE NOT. God, that felt good. Really, someone should have coined a new genre for those bands years ago. (Is it too late to suggest “Your Little Sister’s Favorite Band-Core” or “Hot Topic Rock”?) Because by lumping those bands in with emo by default, you are pissing into the emo river and poisoning the genre, giving it the awful stigma that emo is nothing more than a bunch of eyeliner-wearing goth teens with stupid swoopy haircuts and black nail polish.
Disagree. I never stopped paying attention but the quality of bands in this scene putting out music today is much, much higher than it was a few short years ago. Curious to read other people's thoughts though.
I agree with the premise (for some listeners paying attention again - around here, most fans never went away), but why trash another genre at the same time? The paragraph mocking other bands (and their listeners) is no better and does nothing to strengthen the thesis of the article.
To refute the examples he gives:
1. Don't care for Owen, so I guess that one holds.
2. Jimmy Eat World hardly counts as "emo" anymore; love them but they're a pop-rock band now
3. Chris Carrabba/Dashboard kinda blows a lot--yes I'm prepared for flames--and has no correlation to the classic nineties emo sound
4. Sure Evan Weiss has been putting out music for a long time but his output in the last couple of years is way, way better than anything he's done previously. Particularly the new album, was pretty mehhhh on II.OI. before this record personally.
Also I hate the way that guy writes, really bugs me.
Part of me thinks this is the same story as pop-punk's "revival" in 2009. The genre had its mainstream days in the early and mid 2000s then people think that it dropped off some sort of cliff...but it's not like there weren't any good pop-punk records between 2005 and 2008. There are plenty. In 2009 we just got an influx of cool new bands doing cool things on cool new record labels like Run For Cover and No Sleep – which were at the time, still up-and-coming labels – and people became obsessed with that as a "movement" of some sort. I think the emo thing is sort of the same story...we're just seeing a bunch of bands coming together and growing up and getting the attention they deserve because the record labels that we now like are putting out their records. Like Evan's quote in the article says...it's all a cycle.
I agree with the premise (for most listeners - around here, most fans never went away), but why trash another genre at the same time? The paragraph mocking other bands (and their listeners) is no better and does nothing to strengthen the thesis of the article.
Agreed. Just makes him sound like an elitist/genre-purist.