Talk:Emo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Weezer

Whether Weezer is an emo band is debatable; but it is certainly not representative of emo music and does not belong under Essential Records. I've removed it. --cprompt 23:23, 30 March 2003 (UTC)

Cleanup

This is an elaboration of my request for cleanup. The first sentence says that emo is short for emocore, but the rest of the article (as well as the Emocore article) seem to disagree. If some fan said "you're emo", how could that be short for emocore? This sentence especially makes no sense: "Just as emo added a new found intensity to the original emocore style, the style of hardcore emo brought the intensity to a climax." --Resister 00:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reverting "again"

Again, when was the first time? And what POV? I was talking with someone about Emo, and decided to being up the wiki article. When we discussed that particular edit we were both suprised it had been removed, and he said something like "I don't know much of anything else about emo." He has a good friend who was in a punk band, and which he left when it started to become "emo" and pop-punk, etc... I know loads of people in small hardcore / punk / metal bands, and they all have the same sort of opinion of "whiney pop punk" or whatever. I never presented it as anything other than a perjorative, but its common and noteworthy, fair or not. I also think emo fashion (large hornrimmed black glasses and dyed black hair) deserves more mention in the article. --Sam Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 00:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about the "again" comment. I misread the edit summaries...should have checked. (Basically I took it that the anon that TUF-KAT reverted had inserted the sentence, and that you had re-inserted it. My apologies.) I'm not particularly fond of the wording in that sentence. It irks me, seeing "fag" in a (vaguely) formal encyclopedia. It may be popular opinion, but I'm sure we could express the idea in a less hostile manner. "Fag" is just one of those words that should really be avoided unless its absolutely necessary and in this case I don't think it is. (As for emo fashion, yes, we definitely need a section on emo fashion. I know next to nothing about it aside from the glasses, so I'll leave it be.) --PMC 01:10, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree on a section about fashion, but wouldn't know what to put there. As far as the statement about stereotypes go... I probably wouldn't have reverted, but I don't like it and don't think it should be there (in that form). First of all, I doubt the stereotype is all that "common" in the grand scheme of things. The vast majority of people in the world don't know anything about emo, and couldn't care less about the people that listen to it. Even among those who have a stereotype, I tend to think of emotionally fragile, sensitive, weak and shy before fag-like... Of course, to some degree those things are also stereotypes of gays. It would be far better sourced anyway. Surely there's a page or two on the web making fun of emo-kids, perhaps we could describe how they do so and link to it. --Tuf-Kat 01:53, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

I don't have time to be thorough right now, but here's two: [1] and [2]. The second one of which also goes into a bit of fashion, coincidentally enough. This google search looks like it might turn up some other sites containing stereotypes of emokids. --Tuf-Kat 01:57, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Mmmkay...I'll have a closer look when it isn't 11 in the evening and I'm not falling asleep on the keyboard. --PMC 07:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Emo is obscure, but not in the punk rock / hardcore genre, which is the group I was refering to making these comments. You have to understand, your average hardcore music listener/band has alot of differences w your average Emo listener/band, and yet they all go to the same venues (generally on different nights). The end result is that they form opinions. I added that word because I've heard it many times in reference to Emo, but I understand thats original research. I'll see what I can turn up as far as references, but the fact that non-emo punk rock and hardcore fans tend to view the Emo crowd as sentimental, fashion-conscious and non-tough (fag in the usage not specifically refering to homosexuality) isn't disputed here, I hope. Also we need alot more on Emo fashion, which is fairly noteworthy. --Sam Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 11:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is what I was talking about. Its a catch-phrase. --Sam Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 11:34, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We could do a "subculture/fashion" section, talk about the current emo subculture and its trendiness, fashions, etc...and then have a bit in there about the punk and hardcore crowd's general opinion of them. I'm definitely not disputing the view of emo kids as being "wussy", that's common knowledge. It was a hasty revert on my part and I apologize for that. --PMC 23:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for the catch-phrase, I hang around with a lot of hardcore types and I've never heard that in my entire life. Lots of fantastic descriptive phrases, yes, but never specifically "emo fag". --PMC 23:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Its not a big deal about the fag thing, and you've been more than gracious enough to dispell any antimosity regarding the revert. i do think we need to incapsul how other, related sub-cultures view emo-kids, and what emo-kids look like. Yhis won't be done by me however. Absolutely everything I know about emo is negative, they arn't well liked by people I have known, and I have only known 1 guy w the emo fashion type. I think there may be a certain amount of defensiveness towards emo w people feeling like emo is "taking over the punk scene", or some such. Certainly there is a tendancy to view emo as more pop-music than punk. --Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 23:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I could do a little...not right away, I'm sort of overloaded with stuff at the moment, but I could take a look around and write at least a little bit of content. --PMC 01:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, I don't think its a particularly high priority for anybody, I just wanted to accentuate what needed done. Cheers, --Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 13:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

emotional hardcore

Emo is an abbreviation for "emotional hardcore". Not just "emotional" as the article says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.57.87 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, look here, emo edit 26 Apr 05. Somebody completely destroyed the emo article and it hasn't been properly restored. They obviously don't know anything about emo, they even changed every reference to 'punk' to 'rock.' The downside to wikipedia. I hadn't been back here for over a month and when I did I was shocked at how much it was changed. Before this change, the emo article was far better. I suggest we restore it to a version sometime around here. Especially the emo glasses pic, and the "emotional hardcore" definition. People can then ADD to it the more modern emo stuff without deleting the excellent summary we had before. C'mon, people, this is shocking. We've let a few kids with bad writing skills destroy this article. SP 27May05 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.46.190 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

There have been almost 100 edits (albeit a good few of those are vandals/reverts) since the first diff. link you posted, and probably at least that many again since the second link you posted. It seems that it might be better to just rewrite the parts that were wholly changed, using the older version you point to as a guide. --Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Emo Example image?

Does anyone actually feel that image adds anything to the article? It looks like a low quality shot of a bored kid in a classroom, maybe just someone trying to put their pic in the Wikipedia. It certainly isn't a good enough image to inform about emo fashion, is it? --Paige 20:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Emo fashion, according to its proponents, is deeply rooted in a "being proud of who you are", anti-consumer subculture. Oh the irony! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.144.210 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 29 March 2005 (UTC)

Here is a good drawing of an emo, but I'm unsure wether or not it is copyrighted. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.21.247 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Unless it says you can use it (under the wikipedia acceptable licenses), you cannot use it. -- Refrozen 22:49, 25 June 2005 (UTC)

removal of POV section

Below is a section I removed from the article that an anon had posted. While, it's got some good info (kinda) it's not written encyclopedically (is that a word?) and had a blatently POV title. If someone wants to clean it up and put it back in the article, be bold. Lachatdelarue --(talk) 3 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)

Extended content

Emo is a blatant, shameless thief Not a lot of people seem to have noticed the fact that the alternative youth subculture of Emo has "borrowed" many elements from punk rockers and Goths. We can analyse the sterotypical "Emo kid" from head to toe and identify the parts that have been stolen from which cultures. The hair, first of all, for males. Many followers of Emo fashion have what has been nicknamed a "scene" haircut. This involves the hair to be cut short and spiked out at the back, but leaving the top and fringe longer to droop forward over the eyes. The hair is usually dyed black. Now, let us mention three bands here. The Cure, AFI and The Misfits. During the mid-80s, Robert Smith of The Cure had his long hair drooping over his eyes, buthad the back slightly shorter and spiked out. Jerry Only of The Misfits invented a haircut in the late 70s/early 80s known as a "devilock" which involved the hair to be cut short, but leaving the fringe to grow very long and to be combed forward over the eyes Only, guitarist Doyle and former lead singer Glenn Danzig all wore the stlye and dyed their hair black. Most members of The Misfits have sported the style or one similar at one point or another. During the "All Hallows EP" and "The Art of Drowning"-era, AFI frontman Davey Havok used to have a haircut that mixed these two styles together, cutting his hair short by way of the standard hardcore punk shirt and spiky haircut, but left only his immediate fringe to grow long, at least down to his chin. He also dyed his blond hair black from a very young age. Since the appearance of this variation of the devilock, the two have been given names: The Only Devilock and The Havok Devilock. These two, and in particular Havok's variation, are an obvious precursor to what has become known as "scene" hair. Moving down to the face, black eyeliner and sometimes eyeshadow is applied, regardless of gender. This in itself is a blatant rip off of the early 80s British Goth bands, including The Cure, Bauhaus and Siouxsie & The Banshees. The Misfits' Jerry Only and AFI's Davey Havok and Jade Puget also do this. Also, the tunnel style ear piercings and side of lip ring have been borrowed from Havok again.

what's your point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.215.194.208 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Embrace?

I was a bit surprised to noticed that there wasn't any mention of Ian MacKaye's band Embrace anywhere in the article. Almost every other source (including the Embrace and Ian MacKaye Wikipedia articles) recognize Rites of Spring and Embrace as being the first emo bands, or at least the two that got the ball rolling on the emo movement. I think Embrace at least deserves a mention, moreso than Fugazi since Embrace was directly involved in the movement while Fugazi's influence was peripheral. --Mouseclicker 20:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Done That... i totally agreed... i attempted to fix some of the history last night, i may clean it up a little bit more... because i thought the 1984-1992 was lacking, especially with geographical detail... all things aside, as much as husker du was an "emo" album, it didn't "start" the emo engine. the DC hardcore scene did... so i edited it. July 15, 2005 --evesummernight 00:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

1998 on

Okay, so i see that there needs to be a greater in depth look at bands from 1998 on, underground, above ground, all around, because it's kinda lacking and sucky, imo. am i the only one who feels that way? July 15, 2005 --evesummernight 00:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Emo-fag

We really need to address the level of dislike of the emo community. The perpetual vandalism of this page for example, or the fact that I have never heard the term in any way other than in a perjorative. Most of the times I've heard it, it was coupled w "fag", I shit you not. --Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 20:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have to agree with this, I would also like to see this rewritten again due to the fact I think the neutrality is close to constantly being disputed. Massive imbalance. --Boochan 12:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Now on the other hand, i am in total disagreence with the current placement of the discussion of the term emo. Any Backers? --evesummernight 00:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Emotive hardcore

Soemthing that I noticed wasn't mentioned or must have been incorrectly stated is that Emo is short for "emotional" which is not at all. It is actually short for "emotive hardcore". Unfortunately MTV has made people nowdays think it means emotional to get all the kids to listen to what are actually indie bands such as Dashboard. Most real Emo bands today tend to have more of a metal-core/math-core sound compared to how they sounded when the term "Emo" was coined by other hardcore bands to make fun of emotive-hardcore. This may explain the reason the term "Emo" is thrown around alot. Since many "Emo" bands sound like hardcore/metal-core at first listen many have just lumped them into hardcore which left the term "Emo" ripe to be basically stolen by another genre of music that had actually very little to do with or even influenced by Emo. Many of what non-hardcore listeners think is Emo is really just pop-indie, glorified by MTV. Unfortunately most people will never know the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.119.116 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Good edit

Good edit, Icarus3, thanks. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:-) Thanks. I figured the pics might not have been all that great, but there's no need to lose the links. I'm somewhat confused as to how I ended up watching and occasionally editing this article, seeing as I'm not emo, and have too little familiarity with it to have a strong opinion on it either way. Hey, now I've finally figured out what to put on my user page! Yay! --Icarus 04:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm certainly not emo either, in fact it was only after reading this article that I discovered an aquintence of mine had been / is one. I probably know more about elmo than emo, but that doesn't make us worse editors, it simply makes us better at neutrality / formatting stuff than bulk content contributions :) I also helped out regarding anti-emo sentiment awhile back, as that had been lacking. Pretty much everything I've ever heard about emo (before reading this article) was from punk rockers and skinheads who hated emo kids passionately ;) Anyways, I agree very much w both the substance of, and the sentiment behind your edit. Glad to see you have a user page too, that red user name makes some people think your too fresh to be trusted ;) Cheers, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Division of Real Emo and Misnomer Emo

I think the page needs to have a better division between true emo from each era (From Rites of Spring to Antioch Arrow to Rockets And Blue Lights to Saetia to Circle Takes the Square) and the bands that improperly get labelled emo today (Weezer? Who suggested including them?). I think the fact that the fairly in depth emo history and definition sections immediately blend into the emo fashion and haircut and fashioncore BS makes it confusing to discern what is actually emo and what the page sort of labels scene emo. I think the page should really be twofold: Emo Use and Abuse.

I have started editing a timeline of this on this forum I frequent. Feel free to make comments and suggestions about the list as I don't have every emo band ever, nor do I know exactly what time period each belongs in. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by DFelon204409 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Truth in music is a hard road to haul... check out death metal sometime ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Hobbies Section

This section was recently added. I'm not sure if it is of any merit, but even if it is, the quality needs improvement. Cheers! Sophrosune (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I was going to work on the capitalization and punctuation, but since it doesn't seem to be the final version, I'll leave it be, seems like much work is needed on it. --Font 03:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Some of that info may have legitimate places throughout the article, but lumping it all together as 'hobbies' is ridiculous. Anyone who can figure out a decent way to work in the better parts of that list, and do so in a way that doesn't make it sound like all emo fans fit all of them, is free to do so. But the way it was before was just a big list of stereotypes and generalizations. --Icarus 14:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Revolution summer

hi, i recently edited the page and added a lot of stuff to the "revolution summer" era (ie 1985 and on - embrace, rites etc). i would like to add relevant parts from Dance of Days as well since that is more of a direct authority on the subject (including parts on the official origin of the term), but i just haven't gotten around to it. i also added a bunch of info to the 90s section, as i actually am old enough to have lived thru that entire era (88ish to now) AND did a hardcore fanzine from 91 to 2000. i did reviews of all those bands (still have about 90% of all the records), interviewed bands like Lifetime and saw the whole thing progress and develop firsthand. july 29, 2005 --Chadski 07:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Definitive records

I removed the definitive records. Let the article itself do that. If it becomes necessary to have something similar, there are much better ways to do it.

Definitive Records:

• Bright Eyes: Fevers and Mirrors
• Dag Nasty: Can I Say, Wig out at Denkos.
• Embrace: Embrace.
• The Get Up Kids: Four Minute Mile, Get Up Kids/Anniversary Split 7".
• Heroin: Heroin.
• Hot Water Music: Fuel For the Hate Game.
• Hüsker Dü: Zen Arcade, New Day Rising.
• Indian Summer: Discography, Indian Summer/Embassy Split 7".
• Jawbreaker: Unfun, Bivouac.
• Jets to Brazil: Orange Rhyming Dictionary
• Jimmy Eat World: Static Prevails, Clarity.
• Julia: Julia, Julia/Sunshine Split 7".
• Lifetime: seveninches.
• Mineral: The Power of Failing.
• Moss Icon: Lyburnum Wit's End Liberation Fly.
• Onesidezero: Is This Room Getting Smaller?
• Planes Mistaken For Stars: Planes Mistaken For Stars, Knife in the Marathon.
• Rites of Spring: End on End.
• Still Life: From Angry Heads with Skyward Eyes.
• Sunny Day Real Estate: Diary.

--TUF-KAT 07:08, 27 April 2003 (UTC)

Would you object to an article called "List of definitive emo records"? --cprompt 15:11, 27 April 2003 (UTC)

Not necessarily... But I think there are better ways to do the same. How about a few paragraphs in the main article which explains why these are definitive. For example, something similar to the following (except better-written):

"Early recordings in what would later become known as emo include Embrace's Embrace and Hüsker Dü's Zen Arcade. In the late 1990s, emo gained greatly in popularity, with albums like The Get-Up Kids' Something to Write Home About, becoming extremely popular." --TUF-KAT 15:22, 27 April 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, I could see the value of having such a separate article. I will play around at User:TUF-KAT/List of hip hop albums —Preceding unsigned comment added by TUF-KAT (talk • contribs) 09:30, 28 April 2003 (UTC)

While the principle of a list of definitive records may fall flat in genres more defined, I do feel that in a genre as loose and ambiguous as emo, something along the lines of the list would be a great supplement to the page. --idp 19:51, 28 April 2003 (UTC)

The problem is that a list would be a potentially contentious topic. According to NPOV, the Wikipedia can't take any positions, it can only describe others' positions. I've done something at User:TUF-KAT/List of grunge music albums and User:TUF-KAT/List of hip hop albums. Do you think something along those lines will work for emo? --Tuf-Kat 10:44, 3 May 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm a year late in my response. ;-) Since the page doesn't exist anymore, I'm unable to comment. :-) What I can say is, I agree with your now-ancient removal of the "Definitive records", and that a separate article could of course work, but would be prone to dispute (which doesn't make it any worse than some other articles <g>). --cprompt 02:32, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Funny you should re-bring this up now. I've been retooling an attempt at lists of definitive albums in Wikipedia, accomplished neutrally by combining published lists by professionals (e.g. 100 best rock and roll albums). I had previously done the same, including both professional and amateur lists, but I decided to stick with only professionally done lists. List of hip hop albums and list of rock and roll albums are switched over, but list of grunge albums still includes amateur lists. The same thing could be done for emo, though I'm not sure there are enough such lists to do so. Tuf-Kat 04:33, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

The emo list might be more subjective than other lists. The "What the heck is emo anyway?" site provides a good starting point. All in all, I think the lists are fairly useful. (Useful enough for me to use them.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprompt (talk • contribs) 17:06, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

Hindsight is always 20/20. Maybe we should wait until the "emo trend" is over to have a list of definitive albums. --dawhitfield 12:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Use of quotes

Throughout the article, emo is used with and without quotes numerously, shouldn't they either be all quoted, or all not quoted...? --Klaser 05:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Without. i say without quotes, quotes shoule be used for other things, if not, italics and bolded. --evesummernight 04:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

reply. i think the quoted emo and unquoted emo words represent two different things. unquoted is the genre discribed, and quoted is the word that means emotional or w/e the heck people say it means today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.90.64 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur with the reply, though I don't know that this is done with 100% accuracy. --dawhitfield 12:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Power pop

This article refers to Jimmy Eat World and The Get Up Kids as power pop. Am I the only one who has a problem with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.134.248 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 12 June 2005 (UTC)

Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.85.64 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Jimmy Eat World and Get Up Kids started at as being labelled "emo" bands because at that time in the post youth-crew hardcore scene, people called anything that wasn't straight up HC "emo". Jimmy Eat World did do a split 7" with Christie Front Drive, who are totally in that twinkly mid-western Sunny Day Real Estate mode. However, they weren't always "emo", if you've heard the 1st Jimmy Eat World cd (pre-Static Prevails), they were a pretty average pop punk band. And post "Clarity", they have started playing an emotive form of pop rock, but i don't know if could quite call it "emo" either, but is it really "power pop"?

"Power Pop" is a tricky term to use because it has been used over the years to describe bands as diverse as The Cars, Cheap Trick, Blondie and The Jam all the way up to Gameface (who self labeled themselves as "O.C. Power Pop" on their 1st 7" - probably an effort to avoid being labeled either pop punk or hardcore although at the time they almost exclusively played hardcore shows).

Get Up Kids first 7"es were released by Contrast records in Rhode Island, which was basically a hardcore label that took a chance on an unknown melodic band. People also called them "emo" at the time as well, but stylistically history has shown they are really more of just a straight up indie pop band. I think they were labelled "emo" at the time purely because of context. --Chadski 08:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Context has a lot to do with "genres" of any band. If what-his-face from Dashboard hadn't been in Further Seems Forever first, do you really think his band would be considered emo?? If guys from Shai Hulud and Coalesce hadn't graced the line-up of NFG, do you think anyone would refer to them as emo-CORE! I have at least one other example off the top of my head, but two is good I think. While I'm typing, it's important to note how much 'hardcore' has changed since the early 80s too. This is probably part of the problem in calling current emo emotional hardcore. What hardcore are we refering to? A Bad Brains reggae song that is somehow "hardcore," something from the NYHC scene like Sick of It All or a band like Black Flag (you know, just to throw a third scene in there). I don't mean to hate on the Bad Brains, but not all there songs are hardcore, by any stretch. --dawhitfield 13:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. context is everything. it seems that the closer an "emo" band falls to the hardcore tree, in terms of its roots (ie past members etc), then the more likely they will be branded as an "emo" band as opposed to merely "indie rock/pop". conversely, if a band never has HC roots, then they are always labeled as just "indie rock/pop". who knows what people would label dashboard confessional if there wasn't that HC connection. for example, a band like Jealous Sound (or Knapsack before them) have a very "emo" sound in terms of being that sort of Jimmy Eat World style, but i never heard them once described as "emo", it was always just "indie rock", even though they did ocassionally play shows with bands that had more direct HC connections. on the flip-side, a band like Get Up Kids who had HC connections, but arguably sound just as "indie rock" as knapsack were always branded as "emo". ultimately, as stated in the main wikipedia entry "emo" as a term doesn't really mean that much these days but unfortunately it has been taken by the mainstream and they are running with it. Emo is not alone in this though, similar things have happened with terms in other musical genres as well. Just look up the history of the term "IDM" and you'll see what i mean.

(/flame on) what's even more galling about the underlying HC roots (whether they know it or not) of these faux-emo mtv bands is that it is taking so many things about a sincere underground scene like hardcore and cheapening it thru mindless emulation. much like "moshing" and crowd surfing was taken from HC in the early 90s and lollapalooza-ized, same thing is happening now with everything else on mtv via labels like victory records. (/flame off) --chadski 07:20, 3 August 2005

Emo Fashion and Definition

the emo fashion section is terrible... --Xsharksx 3 July 2005 10:27 (UTC)

emo fashion section is WAY wrong. emo fashion is supposed to be ANTI-consumer, not commercialized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.90.64 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it depends on what variety of emo you look at. Hot Topic is pretty commercial and it definitely does emo....--dawhitfield 12:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Whether it's supposed to be anti-consumer or not, the fact is it's become a big business. And the description in this article (especially of "fashioncore") is all but identical to the "emo kids" I know. It's also just about the only thing you see when you go to Warped Tour here (Detroit area). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.61.148 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

post-hardcore vs emo vs indie rock

in going along with my post above, and thinking about this more and reading the post-hardcore wikipedia entry, it seems as there is a lot of overlap between the two genres. by definition, every traditional emo band (85-9x) is post-hardcore, in that they are evolving past HC. however, post-hardcore has been a pretty well defined sound, with most bands in the category either following the Fugazi model or the Quicksand model. maybe this should go on the post-hardcore discussion page, but there were bands listed over there that i always considered 100% emo (ie Texas Is The Reason or Elliott), and some bands there i always thought of as indie rock (Jets To Brazil, despite the HC pedigree of certain members - they just didn't have enough of that Quicksand sound for me to call them post-hardcore). good topic for discussion over here as well, as Nation Of Ulysses is listed there as being post-hardcore, but on the NOU page are referred to as indie/emo.

also somewhat tough to define (although i attempted on the main page) is the intersection of pop punk, emo and hardcore in late 80s, early 90s melodic bands like Jawbreaker and Samiam. I remember Jawbreaker in the early 90s initially being described as pop-punk, then mid 90s as indie rock and then somewhere along the line they got tagged with the ol' "emo". same with Samiam, they were always called "pop-punk" in fanzines but in retrospect they have plenty of emo influences as well. --chadski 09:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

In reference to the Jets to Brazil mention; I mentioned the same thing about a few other bands that get lumped into genres simply due to the members of the band. Since it has come up, I'll mention one other instance. Lead singer of Millencolin Nikola released a solo album that was folk-pop or acoustic rock, or something (let's not get into THAT genre discussion). Anyway, it wasn't punk by just about any stretch and yet Yahoo! put it in punk, presumably because of Nikola. Another example is the Weakerthans (some guy from Prophaghandi is the lead singer of that band), though the Weakerthans album is closer to punk than Nikola's album.Dawhitfield 03:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

"Emo Music" box

Main page: Template:Emo

I looked at the Grunge Music page and quite liked the box that gave a few key points about the genre of grunge and I was thinking it would be a good idea for someone else to add one for emo. I would do it myself but I'm not totally sure on a few of the details to include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.170.123 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

the only problem with this is what should the the new-school form of mtv style emo be called, so as to make a page for it? i have previously called it faux-emo, pop hardcore, etc, but those are just my own inventions. --chadski 00:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit - Hey, this is the person who originally suggested the music box. I'd also suggest Washington State as a key area in the formation of modern day emo. The band Sunny Day Real Estate almost make this a worthy addition on their own then you consider all the other bands and you realise how influential it is as a region. I won't add it til there's some feedback or if someone else wants to add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.170.123 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

yes, SDRE are hugely influential... HUGELY. but the thing is, it's not like they came from a whole scene of similar bands in seattle, they were pretty much the only band that sounded like that that sort of emerged from seattle's HC scene. they were highly unique and didn't even have any bands from the region that then followed their sound... it's almost like they were an anomaly. --chadski 02:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Page Vandalized

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

i also think that since we have added a genre box, emo fashion should be moved to its own separate page. maybe this would help cut down on vandalism? i also think that pages need to be created for genres like melodic hardcore (which a band like Dag Nasty solidly belongs in, not emo) as well as pages for the modern incarnation of misnomer emo as that seems to be the kind of stuff people are most interested in putting down when they vandalize the page. --chadski 02:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey chad, you seem to know what you're talking about. If you don't mind please IM at DFelon204409 or go here http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=93. I've been compiling list of emo bands by scene and general timeline. Once I've done that I'm going to compose a truly proper write up about the history of emo but I need some help from a lot of different people. I'm no expert in any individual scene so it's going to be tough to research. Also, a word I've ended up using to denote all those bands that mix pop punk with mild flares of hardcore is "popcore." The world doesn't need any more bullshit "-core" genres but this sort of sums up a lot of ideas I've had about that genre. Anyway, ya I'd like to hear from you some time and once I know more about editing Wikipedia pages, I'll make some addition of my own. I just don't want to gunk up this page until I get the coding. --DFelon204409 04:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

i fixed the vandalized page. it's not perfect and parts still need re-writing but i can't do the whole thing myself. i feel this page should be about the emo music genre only, starting with DC and ending in the late 90s when pop hardcore took over, so i made some edits. emo that follows the earlier models still exists and it should be mentioned, but there are only so many hours in my day...

• created a pop hardcore page (for lack of a better term... dfelon thinks that popcore is a good one too, and i pretty much agree, but i am loathe to coin another "-core" genre, when there are so many journalistically lazy ones out there.. afraid that popcore would just get lost amongst the other "slowcore" "cuddlecore" "kindercore", etc).
• i moved emo fashion to it's own page (dfelon thinks it should be retitled to "scene fashion" - opinions?), because this topic is big enough and removed enough from the music genre itself to warrant separate documentation.
• created a separate page for melodic hardcore. some bands are unjustly lumped into emo that are actually just melodic HC bands - Dag nasty is a prime example.
• edited the disambiguation page to point to some of these new pages, i am hoping it will cut down on the vandalism

--chadski 09:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• scene fashion sounds good
  • see Emo fashion
• pop-hardcore is a good idea as well, fashion-core should redirect to there... lol.
• pop hardcore didn't "take over" in the late 90's...
• dag nasty is borderline. melodic hardcore definately defined the emo movement. my personal opinion is that they are influential in the actual construction of the emo genre. rites of spring and
• there ARE so many hours in a day, and so many wiki's to work on. and this is a very, very difficult one to work on. imo.
• i dissent on 21st century emo. wherever that was posted. whatever is directly related and the norm among the pseudo-mainstream should be put up there. aka the pop-hardcore-er's of the world, the softcore-ers, the dinosaur-core-ers, they should be at least discussed in concise detail relating to their relevance and impact on the whole scheme. meaning, emo's gotten a bit of jazz lately. (and by jazz i mean buzz). and that's so terribly important to touch on at the end. (and also in the intro, i negelcted to do that when i updated the intro.) even though the disamb is changed, we really need to demarcate the paces of emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evesummernight (talk • contribs) 04:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Moving page

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

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

P.S. Also, there was no consensus on moving all the stuff on modern emo to a subjectively titled page (pop hardcore) in the first place. And the user who made that page coined the terms themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.224.6 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason there isn't a consensus is because people aren't looking at history. People think that Dashboard is emo people Rolling Stone said so. I invite anybody who doesn't agree with the page to investigate for yourself. Check out bands like Indian Summer, Hoover, and even some modern bands like Kite-Flying Society, Circle Takes the Square, or Funeral Diner. The truth it out there, you just have to look for it. --DFelon204409 02:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Ω Also, I agree that people will be confused. That's why I think there should be a midwest section here that explains where there was a divergence towards indie. You then disambiguate to a midwest indie page, which leads to a modern pop indie/pop punk/popcore page. --DFelon204409 05:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

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

Organization

I've excepted the new change. it seems to have the same info on what emo is and less clichy trendy stuff on it. but sersiously, it need to be organized, i can hardly tell what im looking at. -Aug.18 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.90.64 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. I believe chadski is working on that. When my work ends next Tuesday I'll be fixing a lot of stuff up. I'll write out the modern emo information, etc. --DFelon204409 07:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Article structure and relationships with other articles

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

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

To me 21st century Emo somehow does not seem to be an appropriate title --Paul foord 14:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

WTF is Emo Anyway...

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

who decides what true emo is? i vote for it all to be inclusive. emo is a genre. a long and varied genre, just like Rhythm and Blues. How much in common do you see between the moody blues and alicia keys? R&B encompasses it all (although, the r&b article needs a bit of early history renovation)... i distinctly say, it needs to stay. all of it. --evesummernight 03:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Ω I can't beleive we're still having problems with this. Look, emo didn't evolve into Dashboard or any of that. Emo evolved by merging the older more clean tone sound with the Gravity sound. Bands starting in 1993-1996 like Saetia and Indian Summer mixed the chaotic with the calm and sent emo in the direction towards emo bands like Kite-Flying Society and Die! Emperor Die! and screamo bands like Kaospilot and pageninteynine. It has since moved towards a more progressive screamo/emo style like Circle Takes the Square, Hot Cross, and City of Catepillar, and the more epic brooding stylings of bands like Funeral Diner and A Day in Black and White. If you would at least listen to this progression you'd realize its validity. Just because Rolling Stone and Spin don't know what the fuck they're talking about doesn't mean that you guys have to as well. If any of you guys want to get some modern emo/screamo songs from me IM me at DFelon204409 or check my soulseek (DFelon204409 as well). Thanks. I appreciate anybody who cares. --Ω DFelon204409 06:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¥ ChrisB's analogy to Nirvana and Pearl Jam being coined as "grunge" does not hold up either. "Grunge" is a term that was just made up to describe this type of music. It's not like they said "we should call this metal," eventhough there was already type of music called metal. Emo existed long before Victory Records, and there are still emo bands that exist. Bands like Hot Cross and Trophy Scars should be listed as modern emo bands instead of every indie or pop/punk band that happens to say they're sad and don't sound like Linkin Park or Nickelback. Emo has a specific meaning, like banana, not an all-inclusive one, like fruit. --Arcarsenal 15:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ω Arcarsenal, I actually agree with ChrisB on one thing. If kids are going to come to this page for info about Funeral for a Friend, information should be provided. However, I'm with you in that there needs to be more of a factual base. How about the page shows where the schism in the idea of emo occurred. Show the side that pop media and journalists take and show the side elitists and historians take. None of this second and third wave stuff. Organize it into popular notion and the historical notion. If you make that battle clear enough, kids who comes for Dashboard etc. will be able to see the way their notion has evolved against a contrary idea of the word. This site is supposed to be neutral and information so it's probably important to explain the difference between the two ideas of emo, etc. --DFelon204409 22:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¥ I wasn't trying to say that the mainstream perception of emo should be ignored or anything, I just thought it might be easier to seperate the two forms of modern "emo." That doesn't seem to be a viable option, so I would just submit that we keep the history factual rather than interpolated. Although I don't claim to be an authority, I think characterizing popular emo as "illegitimate" may be the best way to put it. I believe that you would be hard pressed to trace the lineage of the Used back to Rites of Spring. Either way, as long as someone could learn about "legitimate" emo if that is what they wanted, that would be good I think. As a side note, the "history is written by the winners" mentality seemingly applied to these topics is an interesting choice. --Arcarsenal 16:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

redlinks on the template chaotic emo/midwestern emo

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

Cleanup talk page

If someone is really bored, they should attempt to organize this discussion page, because there's absolutely no coherence to any of these discussions. If you edit this page, please, for the love of music, sign your posts, separate posts, use bullets, and make it NCO (which is NEAT CLEAN AND ORDERLY). THANK YOU. --evesummernight 04:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

What's going on?

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

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

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

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

how can a definition of "emo," "emocore," screamo," whatever-the-fuck, be complete without even a mention of indian summer? i don't get what the griping above is about when you miss the major influences? - joshy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.71.62 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Change

I added a Daria pic, i believe she is the iconoclic personality of Emo culture. If anyone would like to add something towards go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raddicks (talk • contribs) 03:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

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

Emo vs. Art Rock

Any of you here who are more familiar with emo rock...I was just wondering..would you consider emo and art rock to be very similar?? For example: Conor Oberst from Bright Eyes was mentioned under "Emo" and "Art Rock" in Wikipedia. I am so confused! From my listening experience...I'd say his style is more art rock because of his poem-like,lyrical genius and intense emotionally charged singing. But one of the definitions for "emo" given here is identical/very similar to how art rock is perceived. Any input?? THANKS. --User:GUEST 00:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

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

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

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

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

Then there's this long sentece/paragraph:

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

That's 1. an assertion of (not presentation of) an opinion/belief, and 2. assumes as give the truth of the belief that there are actually "sexist undertones in emo culture and songs. --Blackcats 23:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

reply. i think that this whole entire article contradicts itself. in the beginning the view of emo is that of emotional hardcore, a genre that started in the 80s, and long since its scene has been exhuasted. but everything else pretty much, for instance emo fashion, and critism, its all based on a meaning of emo that is not being defined on the top of the page, but instead the extremely distorted and wrong mainstream view of emo. aug. 1st 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.90.64 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

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

id gladly clean up the article. infact i have before, however every time i do some one seems to put it right back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.90.64 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

in commenting on the other discussion about sexism, i personally don't understand the contentions that emo (or at least the current bands, as much as i dislike them) are sexist. i don't see it. the early to mid 90s PC crowd that followed emo was anything but - the scene was made up of PC police that would jump on you for even looking at a girl wrong or attempting to "score on chicks" at shows. the current lyrics that are claimed as sexist with screamo and mainstream faux-emo pop-hardcore bands are basically "stabbed in the back" hardcore lyrics re-written to be about boy-girl relationships, written from the boy point of view. --chadski 07:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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

Or even add several slashes (-) as the last line of your post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.80.23 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

male-homoeroticism

There has been alot of fuss about my recent edit @ Wikipedia:Policy_enforcement_log#Sam_Spade. Let me point out that I like the current version by User:Icarus3 better than my own, and agree it is more accurate. Yes, there are non-emo women who find gay men to be great (fag hag comes to mind as another "subculture"). However some have been wanting a citation, and if the article is wanting to suggest this is a widespread fetish (on the level of say... lesbian eroticism), which is the #1 male fantasy) I would certainly want one as well. So, lets leave it how it is, or find a cite, ok? Cheers, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, what about my version, you didn't say anything about that, huh? You get something against blue fur? --Uncle Ed 03:53, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

The previous version had a link to Slash_fiction as an example of other straight women fetishizing gay men. It's not a perfect example, but it's better than no citing at all. How about putting a link to that article back in this one? --Icarus 04:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

If you can find a way to do it, that would be fine, It was the wording that was a problem, not the link. I know nothing about slash tho, so I don't think I can put it back very well... would you mind? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

everyone's fighting all over the place... SPEAKING of male-homoeroticism, shamless plug moment to.... http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=404 ... lol... i know very little on the situation... i live in a hole in cornfields... but i do say that there should be SOME mention of this topic somewhere... beecause it's kinda a trend? --Evesummernight 04:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree, I know of a total of 1 emo couple (a guy and a girl), and they keep hinting (more than hinting actually) that he is bi-curious, and that she thinks thats great, and that she wears the pants, and etc... Thats my only experience w emo whatsoever, so... whatever thats worth. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd think that he'd be wearing the girl pants in the relationship? --Evesummernight 06:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 14:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

So much for neutrality, eh Sam? Exploding Boy 20:45, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This article needs merged w 21st Century Emo

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

Neutrality.

The neutrailty of the Emo from 2000-present should be disputed...in my opinion the bands listed are emo and the person who edited the article says they are "incorrectly" classified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.142.179.152 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Appearances on The Daily Show?

In the article under the Second Wave section, it says the growing popularity of emo enabled it to be featured as performances on The Daily Show, but I could have sworn Jon Stewart said the White Stripes where the first musical group to ever perform on the show. Can someone verify? --BoomBox 19:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is talking about an entirely different show, not the Daily Show. It was the John Stewart Show. It was a nightly variety show (like Letterman and Conan O'Brien) that initially ran on MTV, then shifted to syndication. 1994-1995 or so. Stewart regularly had bands on, like Bad Religion, Letters to Cleo, Love Spit Love, etc. --ChrisB 19:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for the clear up. --BoomBox 19:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Long Island

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

long island has nothing to do with emo's origins. bands like Glassjaw and The Movielife hail from there, but they both started out as hardcore bands anyway --chadski 02:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Long island is just an extention on the NJ/NY scene of old. --evesummernight 14:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is it eh-moe? or eee-moe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigen III (talk • contribs) 07:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

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

It is eee-mo, every time you will ever here it it will be eee-mo. take the emo song for example! emosong.ytmnd.com Emo Song ytmnd -eightballx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.91.207 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

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

EMO is NOT short for emotional! It is pronounced the second way though, but it doesnt stand for EMOTIONAL.. Thats absolutely absurd, if it stood for emotional, ALL bands would be labeled emo.. Emo stands for Emotive Post-Hardcore. --Reiver 00:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know which pinhead got this misbegotten concept in their head, but it has ALWAYS stood for "emotional", even in 1985 in DC. I do not know where "emotive" came from, but in no widespread capacity has "emo" EVER been short for "emotive". I can personally vouch for the last twelve years, through the days where "emo-core" was clearly understood as "emotional hardcore". Christ, don't take my word for it, do a Google groups search from 1989-1995 for "emo" and see what comes up. (The first instance of "emotive hardcore" doesn't show up until 1996, and it's in a fucking promo for an indie label.)

Emo standing for "emotional" is precisely the reason there is so much confusion as to what's classified as "emo". Seriously, "emotive post-hardcore" is the most contrived explanation of "emo" that I've ever seen - where the hell did that come from? --ChrisB 00:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Emo could stand for emotional or emotive. Looking at the dictionary definitions of both, they mean the same exact thing. [5] Emotional and [6] Emotive. Which one is more correct for this article? I'd have to stick with emotional as it has persisted the longest. --Klaser 18:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know we're long past this, but I thought it was worth mentioning: the article wasn't tagged NPOV for that sentence. That sentence was written after the article was tagged NPOV. Actually, the NPOV tag came before I did a single edit on the article. That sentence was part of a lengthy re-write to remove NPOV aspects of the article. If you want to see what the NPOV was, hit the history and check the version before my first edit --ChrisB 00:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

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

The new version of emo has some similarities in sound to the boybands of the 90s. (It probably doesn't belong in this article though, because I thought this was supposed to be about real emo of the 1980s, which doesn't sound like boybands) --Deathrocker 21:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Secondary Meanings

Like it or not, the word "emo" applies to more than simply fans of a specific genre of music. I created a paragraph on the subject, but it appears to have been deleted. I don't see how it is offensive to fans of the emo genre of music, since you have to be blind to not notice that the word emo is being applied to things entirely different from it's original meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.232.19 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that or they stole Goth fashion. Which they did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.233.93 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

"Goth kids" were not massively "abused", mallgoth's of the 1990s and early 2000s were. --Deathrocker 21:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Muse?

Should Muse be listed as a emo band? --Sabrebattletank 15:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need to list any more bands within the article. Nobody really cares what bands are in this article, it's just pointless to add more. --crumb^(talk) 16:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess my ulterior motive in this question was a personal question: Is Muse and emo band? I had heard them reffered to as emo but wondered if they were generally viewed as one. --Sabrebattletank 20:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no. At this point, there seems to be more of a guilt-by-association aspect to declaring something "emo", and I think Muse falls outside of that. (In the same way that The Get-Up Kids were considered "indie emo", but the similar-sounding Superchunk were not.) Muse weren't emo when they first arrived on the scene (too theatrical and bombastic for the late 90s indie emo scene) and it feels like they pre-date what's considered modern emo.

The trick is that being emotional doesn't automatically qualify a band as being "emo". It's more than that. Jeff Buckley's music was emotional, but wouldn't, even under the modern definition, fall under "emo". Muse strikes me more as Queen-influenced space rock (for lack of a more intelligent definition). For me, the band's emphasis on synthesizers / keyboards / ambient noise puts it outside the typical "emotional hardcore" definition.

Then again, as vague as the modern definition of "emo" is, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if some people were calling Muse "emo". --ChrisB 20:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Emotional Metalcore

I've added references to the fusion genre Emotional Metalcore. Is there any reason that it should be removed? --782 Naumova 12:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it belongs here. The article you wrote notes that it's questionable if the genre even exists, and I think that pretty much settles the problem. The basis for Wiki articles is to show the importance of the topic, and I'm not sure that the Emotional Metalcore article succeeds at that, especially since most of the cited bands are Myspace entries. Even beyond the problem of whether it exists or not, it's hard to say that it has any clear relation to "standard" Emo.

I'm not saying it should never be included here. I just think the term and genre need to be in wider use and acceptance before it's included. --ChrisB 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that you are correct. However, with the prevailance in the Metalcore scene, it shan't be long before the style and it's origins are more widely noticed. I beleive that the style should, however, be noted more in the article Emo slang. In many areas, the style is much more commonly noted than Dark Pop-Punk as being "Emo"; It is the preferrable genre of many Fashioncore kids, whereas Dark Pop-Punk is the style that the masses onlooking Fashioncore Kids beleive to be "Emo".

I have just added Mikoto [www.mikotomusic.com/] to the list. If you are familiar with modern Screamo, you will know that Level-Plane Records are one of the most well-known. Mikoto shows a clear link between the two genres through this.

There are without a doubt much more doubtable subgenres; For examples, see Stachecore and Pirate Rock. There also were a few references to a nonexistant genre called Rastacore that I deleted. While I understand that it is currently appropriate to reference to it in this article, I beleive that there is a strong difference between general Metalcore and Emotional Metalcore. I do beleive that it should be noted that many Emotional Metalcore bands seem to draw their influence from Emo music purely for credibility.

The reason as to why the links are mostly to MySpace pages is that most fans of these bands will visit a MySpace profile much more frequently than use a search engine. Many such bands have websites that contain only a link to their MySpace profile. A good example of this is Freaks Union [www.freaksunion.com/]. Although they are not Metalcore, they are undeniably part of the same group of music listened to by Emotional Metalcore fans. --782 Naumova 10:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Fashioncore doesn't exist. It's just a term. Nobody actually calls themselves "fashioncore", so saying that something is popular among it is just ridiculous.

We don't need a list of every band that "kinda" qualifies. At this point, if the band isn't important enough to have their own Wikipedia page (and there is a specific standard as to who should get them), then they're probably not big enough to be included in this article as a current band. Now, that doesn't mean that they can't be added to the appropriate genre article (ie, Screamo).

And, seriously, you can go for days talking about Emotional Metalcore, but it doesn't change the fact that its existence is debated and its relevance to Emo is completely questionable. (It absolutely does not belong on the Emo disambiguation page, as it doesn't abbreviate to "emo".) These articles aren't here to be link farms, they're here to accurately reflect the subject at hand. And, no offense, but most of what you're saying here has no significant relevance to this article. --ChrisB 02:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Superchunk

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

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

I found a relevant quote in an citypages.com/databank/20/986/article8128.asp interview with Jim Suptic of the Get Up Kids from 1999: "I always thought we sounded like Superchunk, but nobody ever calls them emo." --ChrisB 17:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

the Get Up Kids would love to have sounded like Superchunk, unfortunately they possessed so little talent that nobody would ever have thought to compare the two. --84.65.47.198 11:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Emo as a Lifestyle?

I think that emo is more than just a genre of music and fashion; I think of it as a lifestyle as well. I think that a section should be added to reflect this. Does anyone disagree? --Theslash 02:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I do. --nightpotato 03:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Emo (slang). If it can be conclusively proven that the term is being used as a lifestyle term, we'll change the title of that article. But, we're trying to keep this article focused on the music, and not so much on the other elements. --ChrisB 20:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"Make Emo History" ?

What is the motivation for the grafiti slogans depicting "Make Emo History" ? --Drstorage 19:51, 19 January 2006

Based on the "Make Poverty History" campaign. In response, people are swapping "poverty" for things they don't like. --ChrisB 20:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

further additions needed

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

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

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

there is no discussion of actual elements of what makes a song musically "emo", whether it is pedal points, octave chords, breakdowns, drum builds, drop tuning, harmonies, screamy parts, twinkly intros, etc. certain aspects of which, can define a bands sound and genre classification. --chadski 09:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think thats true.$(1/2)*a*t^{2}+v0*t+s0$ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.141.232 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Chadski, that was some truth. That's what I said above. --DFelon204408 19:43, 13 August 2005(UTC)

I also agree that additions need to be made. This article seems to say that the original emo sound has completely dissappeared but the truth is it still exists. There is still an underground scene with many active bands and many active labels (Level Plane, Ebullition, Robotic Empire...) This scene differs in many ways from the mainstream "emo" and I think this is worth mentioning. Many of these bands are very political. They do not have the obsession with fashion that the mainstream scene seems to have. Much of the music is released on vinyl and with super-DIY packaging as mentioned above. There are other differences as well and an addition such as this I feel would make sense to emphasize the difference in the perception of what emo is to the mainstream and to the underground. Also there needs to be a description of the "sound" of emo as mentioned above,because this is REALLY what defines the genre. --xghstst0riesx 22:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Seaweed

Seaweed the punk rock band from Tacoma, Washington also needs to be here. Braid, Saves the Day, Promise Ring, among others, have cited them as an influence. Just because they are from the Northwest, do not categorize them as grunge, as that term means nothing: really refers to a period of time and the Seattle geography, rather than a music style.. Seaweed were--in sound and at heart--an energetic, catchy, punk band with loud guitars, intelligent lyrics, and excellent, soaring vocals by Aaron Stauffer. They belong in the same category as contemporaries such as Samiam, Jawbreaker, Lifetime and Knapsack. Leaving them, and Superchunk, off the influences list is insanity. -Louis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.68 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Emo and Goth

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

There are, undeniably, many similarities between the styles of modern emo and modern goth. Black clothes, black eyeliner, black fingernails, and black dyed hair being several. It seems that the past stereotypes of goth scene are being transferred to the emo scene. --Ethernaut 10:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

I don't think this is Emo. Emo is just a dulled down version of Goth!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.195.31 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Emo really isnt that much like goth or whatever at all... --Reiver 00:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ya, emo kids these days are just wannabe goths. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.80.23 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

ok NO. EMO is very far from goth. most of the time "emo people" are "depressed" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.148.180 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

And this is different from goth, how? :) As an 80's goth (before marylin manson, etc.), I find this whole discussion rather amusing. I once figured that emo kids were just another goth variant. I have now been educated that they are (and I quote) "totally different, they have nothing in common, and you just don't understand, besides, I'm not emo, I'm scenester!" I guess age will do that to a guy. --Ronabop 03:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ha ha, exactly. "most of the time 'emo people' are 'depressed.'" lol. That describes goths perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.229.124 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Goth isn’t about been depressed, infact the first band ever labelled as Goth “Bauhaus” covered “Ziggy Stardust” its probably the least depressive song of all time, the music is also a thousand miles apart from any form of emo. And the new emos aren’t “wannabe goths” because they have no idea (as ChrisB often shows) what is it about. --Deathrocker 20:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, the only fans of Goth Rock bands such as Bauhaus I know are normally more withdrawn and do not wear any 'gothic' clothing. As such, I discard any links between the two genres. --SevenEightTwo 18:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

(outdent) There are people who subscribe to Goth, and people who call themselves "goth". Deathrocker always describes the first bunch, and calls the second batch something like "mallgoth". The problem is that not everyone refers to the latter as "mallgoth".

Fact: many people called Marilyn Manson "goth" in the 90s. Was he Goth? Probably not. But people followed what he did, dressed in gothic fashion and called themselves "goth". It happened. Legit or not, it's "goth".

That type of "goth" was undeniably prevalent in the late 80s and 90s. It's not a coincidence that Matt and Trey parodied it on South Park.

Claiming that 80s Goth is legit and 90s "goth" is "mallgoth" is POV, plain and simple. There is every right to separate the two, just as this article separates 80s Emo from 00s "emo". However, we can't ignore that the word "emo" is used to describe exactly what it is today; denying that it's the case is POV.

The similarities are between "goth" and "emo", not really Goth and "emo". Many of the newer fashion elements of "emo" are similar to the "goth" fashion elements of the 90s.

And not all emo kids are depressed. But it's apparently easier to use stereotypes. --ChrisB 01:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm the guy that posted, "Ha ha, exactly. "most of the time 'emo people' are 'depressed.'" lol. That describes goths perfectly." For the record, when I say either "goth" or "emo," I'm refering the the most recent incarnations of both. Just to clear that up. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.229.124 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It has been a while since I actually looked here, so I'm going to respond to several different responses all at once...

ChrisB said: ":It's in the article for Emo (slang)."

My response: The factuality of that topic is disputed. Why should I even give it a second glance?

Reiver said: "Emo really isnt that much like goth or whatever at all..."

My response: I never said the genres were alike. I said the stereotypes used against members

Deathrocker said: "Goth isn’t about been depressed, infact the first band ever labelled as Goth “Bauhaus” covered “Ziggy Stardust” its probably the least depressive song of all time, the music is also a thousand miles apart from any form of emo. And the new emos aren’t “wannabe goths” because they have no idea (as ChrisB often shows) what is it about."

My response: First of all, goth has changed many times in many ways since the Bauhaus. Secondly, the music of a genre and the appearance of the members of a genre don't always reflect one another. For example, The Crüxshadows, one of the 90's most influential gothic/darkwave bands, don't always have depressing lyrics. In fact, many of their songs are up-beat. (Not "Shiny Happy people" upbeat, more of a subdued form of up-beat.)

SevenEightTwo said: "In my experience, the only fans of Goth Rock bands such as Bauhaus I know are normally more withdrawn and do not wear any 'gothic' clothing. As such, I discard any links between the two genres."

My response: I'm a fan of several punk bands, but I am by no means punk. Being a fan doesn't make you the same thing. Not to mention that many people use "withdrawn" and "depressed" synonymously.

As for ChrisB's next post, the big long one, reather than copy and paste I'll just respond directly... Manson fans didn't call themselves goth because they listened to Manson. In fact, a lot of Manson's fans were already goth to begin with. As for whether or not Manson is goth, that's irrelevant. For the next comment, about 80's goth vs 90's goth, it holds no bearing on the topic, which is supposed to be about the similarities in stereotypes of goths and emo kids.

Sorry for the huge post everyone. --Ethernaut 10:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Goths and emo's are not related... emo's tend to wear band t-shirts, straight legged pants or jeans, and listen to bands like My Chemical Romance, The Used.. etc... Gothic people have a culture behind them. You cant be a Goth poser... a Goth poser is, in fact, an emo. Gothic has the art and the poetry behind it where as emo's are generally depressive people who winge and whine about everything bad in their lives. Goth's and Emo's are drastically different! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackGothic1234 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Band T-shirts and straight legged pants? How very Damned. And early Cure. And Jesus and Mary Chain. And Sisters of Mercy. It was big in early 80's goth, but most of the modern emo kids were still in diapers then (we're talking 25 years ago, this is not meant as an insult). As far as not being a goth poser, I'll just have to feel old and giggle some more. As far as old Bauhaus fans, yes, Ziggy was "upbeat". Unlike Terror Couple Kill Colonel, or Bela Lugosi's Dead, or The Passion of Lovers, or A Spy In the Cab, or, for that matter, *most* of the classic Bauhaus hits. Best as I can figure, modern emo might be called punk-goth, acousti-goth, 3rd-wave, or some other kind of grouping of new trends and old trends, new sounds and old sounds. This article traces emo back to what we called "nerd punk" (with nerd being a good word) in the mid-to-late 80's, with the 90's and 00's adding in more ballads and emotional screeds. I wonder how people would classify early Jesus and Mary Chain? Early Souixsie Souix? --Ronabop 09:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh god, that's hilarious. 'Scenester' is supposed to be a pejorative. Now these kids accept the label as a badge of pride. --Nova Prime 00:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Backlash" Section

My edits to this section of the article have been reverted for the 3rd time now, and I think it's about time I explained why I edited it in more detail.

A certain user (I don't keep track of names) has said the material I add to the Backlash section is POV. I have an objection to that, that exsisting part of the article IS POV. It sounds like it could have been written by the members of My Chemical Romance or The Used or something, that's how pro-emo sounding it is. You can't get an anti-emo perspective from that. This part of the article is supposed to be about why a lot of people (including myself) HATE emo, not an entire paragraph on how great emo is and how it will persist for years to come. Talk about POV, seriously.

Please tell me how my edits were "POV" in anyway. I could write a very long and one sided view on how much I hate emo and why if it was permitted by wikipedia. I did do my best to put my information on a "nuetral" standpoint, and if that seemed too POV, don't delete everything I said, just make it sound more NPOV if you think it's too POV. Once again, the exsisting section of the article seemed very pro-emo to me and did not get in depth about why so many people hate the subgenre, which is what you want to hear in a "Backlash" section of an article.

That is all I want to say for now, the person who has been reverting me edits please respond to this imeadiatly, I look forward to contradicting you further. Thank you --Protozoic Waste 20:28, 28 February 2006

90% of what you wrote is unverifiable bullshit. Wiki calls it original research. Assertions included in a Wiki article have to be supported by verifiable sources, and none of what you wrote can be.

For specific example: "many emo people live in rich neighborhoods and have it better than most other people". Are you kidding me? What the fuck is that? For starters, "emo people" constitutes a slang term, unacceptable for this article. But that stereotype is insanely specific, far beyond what would be acceptable for a general discussion of the stereotypes.

Regardless, this article is about THE MUSIC, not "emo kids". There's an article for that, it's called Emo (slang), where we talk about all of the crap stereotypes. All of the "self mutilation" bullshit is already discussed there BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE IT BELONGS. It has nothing to do with the music itself.

Anyway, which emo music are you talking about? The article states the truth: nobody can say for sure what exactly constitutes "emo music" at this point, given that most bands called "emo" refuse to accept the designation.

Worse, you've lumped in all emo music as not being technically challenging, but what songs are you talking about? What bands are you referring to? You're making a broadbased generalization that could be readily disproved if you bothered to name the bands and songs you're talking about.

"Emo is also criticized for it's very simple song structure." Yeah, because songs like this are easy to play: [7]

You're adding a series of gross generalizations about emo music, and you're surprised that someone is complaining? --ChrisB 20:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow wow wow! I didn't realize I was talking to a toddler here, I appologize for sounding a bit harsh at times, I know people like you can be a bit upsettable, I suggest a therapist.

Anyway, if you actually paid attention to my revisions you would notice I mentioned many times that all those things you see as POV were STEROTYPES and are NOT AT ALL necessarily true. That would be like saying just because I'm a metalhead it means I'm a satanic Nazi (I'm not, but that seems to be what you and other emo losers seem to think).

As for emo not having simple strong structure, LISTEN TO ANY EMO SONG IN THE KNOWN WORLD! If an emo subgenre called "progressive emo" or something in the vein comes around, then we'll talk, but for now all I hear in emo are simple, 3 chord songs with whining lyrics. You want complicated strong structure, go listen to some Dream Theater, then maybe you'll change your mind about the difference between simple and complicated song structure (then again, maybe Dream Theater isn't whiny or simple enough for you).

Just because I band doesn't want to be called emo doesn't mean they aren't, these bands KNOW emo has such a bad reputation, and they don't want kids to think their lame-ass posers (which they are), so they come up with bullcrap excuses for sub-genres instead of emo, but lets face it, everyone knows they are.

Finally, regardless of who's revisions are correct or incorrect, the exsisting section of the article sounded very POV and from a one sided emo perspective. People aren't going to understand why emo is backlashed if you talk about how great it is. Have you forgotten the whole purpose of this website, TO EDUCATE PEOPLE! People can not be educated on how emo is backalshed if you go on talking about how emo will likely persist for years to come, among other things that do not belong in a nuetral encyclopedia. That's just as bad as telling people that all emo kids slit their wrists and all the other generalizations.

Anyway, had it not been for that disgusting section of the article I wouldn't have bothered with this article. Emo is a sorry excuse for a PMS outburst in rock music form that will be dead within the next 5 years. I was just trying to make a positive contribution to this encyclopedia, that's all. I leave in peace. --Protozoic Waste--

P.S. Once again, get a therapist to control that anger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.103.52 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As is, the backlash section is lacking. I don't know how it'd be possible to even include it without either needless bashing the genre or glorifying it as you do now.

If it's going to exist, the backlash section needs to be more nuetral. I do feel that there are fair criticisms against emo that are not represented in this section. while a lot of it is considered original research, which is why I haven't made any edits to the article. After reading the article, it almost implies that because I have criticism against emo that I'm a homophobic masculine jerk. I don't think that's a very neutral claim to make. I don't know how this is relavent to the article anyway since it's about the so-called emo culture and not the music itself. --Zombies!!! 07:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)07:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sexism/Emo

So if i wanted to add a section about new emo being sexist and can cite a source on it does it go here or in the other section? I'm not sure I even want to post it because it'd start a huge edit war, but I was just wondering about where criticism of the genre would go...or is that even allowed? --Zombies!!! 00:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Here, probably, but I would readily suggest writing it and posting it here before throwing it into the article, as I genuinely believe that the topic will need to be heavily vetted in order to achieve some kind of consensus.

Okay, that's my "official" answer. My opinion is that it shouldn't go in the article at all because the theory doesn't hold up.

Most of the discussion is sourced from Jessica Hopper's article in Punk Planet from three years ago. The article completely fails to make the case, as it doesn't cite specific songs or lyrics as sexist. Her case is that it's sexist because a whole ton of bands have generic songs about how they've been wronged in a relationship. Because it's almost entirely guys singing about what (to her) are generic women, taken as a whole, it's sexist. Which is a flawed argument, given the lack of specifics and the absurd generalizations she makes.

She makes the case that bands like Jawbox, SDRE, and Jawbreaker used to sing similar songs, but they were about specific women, so they were okay. That argument fails completely. If Jawbreaker released Dear You today, by her argument, a song like "Bad Scene, Everyone's Fault" would meet her exact argument as a generic breakup song written from the point of view of a male. It's not about anyone specific. Yet she gives them a pass.

How does she know that those bands' songs were about specific women? By and large, those songs didn't name names. She's making an assumption that doesn't hold up to journalistic integrity - she believes that they're about specific women, but has absolutely no proof that it's the case.

She's appalled because women go to emo shows and sing along to songs that to her sound sexist. It's the "they don't know any better" argument. Maybe to those women, those songs have meaning and are about someone specific - the same generalization that Hopper made about those Jawbox, SDRE, and Jawbreaker songs.

"The ones who are young, for whom this is likely their inaugural introduction to the underground, who’s gateway may have been through Weezer or the Vagrant America tour or maybe Dashboard Confessional’s Unplugged sesh on the MTV." And what's the difference between that and girls who know all the lyrics to the latest teen pop thing? I'd like for them to listen to better music, too, but that doesn't support her argument - it just explains why she's making it.

She quotes Andy Greenwald's book Nothing Feels Good: PUNK ROCK, TEENAGERS, AND EMO that bands "revel in their misery and suffering to an almost ecstatic degree, but with a limited use of subtlety and language. It tends to come off like Rimbaud relocated to the Food Court." What? Emo is sexist because it's badly written? Again, it doesn't support her argument.

I won't even go into her ranting about how the songs don't discuss women as women, simply as vehicles for angst. That's just ridiculous. She's basically complaining that the songs aren't about people she can relate to. That the songs are about "Muses at best. Cum rags or invisible at worst." is just hyperbole.

To be honest, the article sounds more like the viewpoint of a thirtysomething who felt strongly about a specific genre of music that now means nothing to her. Instead of moving on, she's trying to figure out why it means nothing to her, and blames rampant sexism. Given that I'm a thirtysomething who felt strongly about a specific genre of music that now means nothing to me, I'm familiar with the problem - I just react to it differently. I think modern emo entirely misses the point and is far too overwrought. The 90s emo scene was all over the map in terms of sound and style. Most bands (save the singer of Mineral sounding like a Jeremy Enigk clone on Power of Failing) came to the table with something unique. Many of the modern emo bands sing songs about the same subjects with the same guitar sounds and the same vocal style. And it's so entirely overproduced, it's not funny. But I'm not going to trash it just because I don't "get" it.

Anyway, Alternative Press posed the "is emo sexist" question to their readers, and 76% believed that emo wasn't a boys club. That's kind of a large percentage.

The real problem isn't intrinsic to emo, it's just rock in general. Since the beginning of the genre, rock has had issues with sexism. 90s alternative rock was the most balanced in terms of gender involvement, and even it wasn't removed from the argument. Take Nine Inch Nails' "Closer" as one example.

I don't believe this argument belongs in this article because a) the sources that exist now don't hold up to journalistic scrutiny and b) the problems that do exist are not unique to emo as a genre. To make the case that emo is sexist, one would have to resort to original research. Someone tried to include this subject in an earlier incarnation of the Emo (slang) article, and it failed for all of the same reasons.

As one person noted in the AP article: "If anything is sexist, it's the music industry." And I think that says it all. --ChrisB 02:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Taking a more general view of the comment presented, I do feel the criticism of emo section is a weak point of the article and that improvements to it should be welcomed. I am still uncomfortable with the inclusion of the emogame. I believe it overemphasizes the significance of the game (which is now not mentioned by the other emo article) and while I accepted Chris' comment above, the fact that there is no authoritive reference for the emogame content means I would still like to see it removed from the article. --Cedars 07:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Emogame was mentioned in the New York Times, as well as practically every music-related zine and blog in 2003. I'm not sure what you're looking for as far as a reference.

To solve the criticism question, you need to determine the following:

1) What does the criticism of "emo" target? Is it the music or the clothes and fashion sense? If it's the music, it belongs here. If it's the rest, it belongs in Emo (slang).

2) If it's criticizing the music, what music are they criticizing? If it's bands like My Chemical Romance, why include the criticism here? They say they're not "emo", we can't say conclusively that they are, so how does the criticism relate to emo music?

3) To what degree does criticism of emo affect the rest of the genre? I've seen people criticize albums like Sunny Day Real Estate's Diary simply because they're associated with "emo", even though those albums don't even remotely resemble the "emo" that they complain about. Which addresses:

4) Do people really know what they're criticizing? Okay, so they hate emo dress and hate Hawthorne Heights. They level charges like the unfounded crap that Protozoic Waste was trying to squeeze into the article. Is that relevant to Emo music? Or are they stereotyping everything that looks emo into one "emo" package? And if they don't know what they're talking about, just making criticisms, why should we dignify it by including it here?

Widespread criticism of "emo" stereotypes DOES NOT BELONG HERE. Again, this isn't the article about "Emo the trend". Any criticism included here should address the bands that are actually (willingly) considered emo, not the ones that people are trying to cram in as "emo".

I geniunely believe that we don't need to overemphasize the criticism. Nearly every popular music genre of the last twenty years has been a target of widespread criticism from some group. Hip-hop, teen pop, hair metal, you name it. Even grunge was widely criticized for being "overly serious" and "pointing people towards drugs and suicide". Most of the people levelling the criticism cared nothing about the music itself and were criticizing the stereotypes.

Read the article for hip hop music to see how the criticism should be addressed. There are a ton of people who think that hip hop and rap aren't music, but that's a viewpoint that doesn't need to be addressed. The legitimate criticisms that do exist are discussed in a thoughtful manner that doesn't demean the subject. I suspect that a number of those seeking to enhance the backlash section are doing so because of personal distaste of it, not for any noble reason. --ChrisB 08:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Emogame was mentioned in the New York Times, as well as practically every music-related zine and blog in 2003. I'm not sure what you're looking for as far as a reference.

If they adaquately reflect the relevance of the game and have a significant readership then any of those are fine but I am looking for an actual written citation.

• 1) What does the criticism of "emo" target? Is it the music or the clothes and fashion sense? If it's the music, it belongs here. If it's the rest, it belongs in Emo (slang).

Presumably in an article titled "Emo (music)" it's the music.

• 2) If it's criticizing the music, what music are they criticizing? If it's bands like My Chemical Romance, why include the criticism here? They say they're not "emo", we can't say conclusively that they are, so how does the criticism relate to emo music?

You already addressed the My Chemical Romance issue. If you recall you said, "I've been waiting for someone to argue that MCR isn't emo. They called themselves emo when they put their 2002 album on CDBaby. See, here's the thing: bands and their labels do the CDBaby listings themselves. So, at least back then, MCR thought they were emo". If you scour the web and beyond you'll find most of the bands mentioned in the third wave section have denied being emo at one time or another but that's not the point.

• 3) To what degree does criticism of emo affect the rest of the genre? I've seen people criticize albums like Sunny Day Real Estate's Diary simply because they're associated with "emo", even though those albums don't even remotely resemble the "emo" that they complain about. Which addresses:

And you feel the emogame reflects a broad criticism of the emo genre so much so that it deserves literally 37% of the criticism section (even if there is not a single cited source for it)?

• 4) Do people really know what they're criticizing? Okay, so they hate emo dress and hate Hawthorne Heights. They level charges like the unfounded crap that Protozoic Waste was trying to squeeze into the article. Is that relevant to Emo music? Or are they stereotyping everything that looks emo into one "emo" package? And if they don't know what they're talking about, just making criticisms, why should we dignify it by including it here?

The problem is not that the article doesn't include everything or does not include everything every casual observer thinks about emo. The problem is this article has problems that are evident to people who know nothing about the genre. It's good to keep a level of control especially on articles as vandalism-prone as this but even without the vandalism problems this isn't a near-feature quality article - change should be invited not discouraged. Some superficial problems include the two sentence paragraph that initiates the article and the heading that breaks up the third wave section.

• Widespread criticism of "emo" stereotypes DOES NOT BELONG HERE. Again, this isn't the article about "Emo the trend". Any criticism included here should address the bands that are actually (willingly) considered emo, not the ones that people are trying to cram in as "emo".

Agreed but the criticism section needs work. Even if you feel a mention of the emogame is worth it why do we need to know that the game "included pop culture references such as R2-D2 from Star Wars" and "eventually spawn[ed] multiple sequels". The "as the chorus of detractors increased" statement is also weak, isn't there a better way to pinpoint the time when "emo became more and more a target of derision"?

• I geniunely believe that we don't need to overemphasize the criticism. Nearly every popular music genre of the last twenty years has been a target of widespread criticism from some group. Hip-hop, teen pop, hair metal, you name it. Even grunge was widely criticized for being "overly serious" and "pointing people towards drugs and suicide". Most of the people levelling the criticism cared nothing about the music itself and were criticizing the stereotypes.

Agreed keep it short, removing the emogame section would cut literally over one-third of the section.

• Read the article for hip hop music to see how the criticism should be addressed. There are a ton of people who think that hip hop and rap aren't music, but that's a viewpoint that doesn't need to be addressed. The legitimate criticisms that do exist are discussed in a thoughtful manner that doesn't demean the subject. I suspect that a number of those seeking to enhance the backlash section are doing so because of personal distaste of it, not for any noble reason. --ChrisB 08:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have all the answers but there is substantial room for improvement in this article. Improvement shouldn't mean accepting changes that reduce the article but it does mean considering alternative viewpoints and welcoming change. Criticism of the genre is a minor point of the article but if we're going to deal with it we should deal with it right. --Cedars 14:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure bashing punk planet's article as not being a bad piece of journalism and then pointing to a survey in AP as proof that emo isn't sexist really works out. I realize that there are flaws in the piece you're referring to, but that can be made about any criticism of just about anything. I highly doubt the AP survey was scientific and therefore it's not journalistic either. Even with the arguments you made against the article in PP, I still feel that Emo is sexist because 1) it reflects the sexist leanings of rock and roll 2)for the reasons the article point out (minus the argument that emo is poorly written because I do like some of the newer bands even though they're nowhere near "true" emo.) I just think posting that some people believe that emo is sexist because it focuses on breaks up that often times demonize women might be in order. I'm definately all about you posting a counterargument attacking the warrants of the PP article to make it more neutral and let people decide for themselves if emo is or is not sexist. --Zombies!!! 07:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Presumably in an article titled "Emo (music)" it's the music.

You entirely missed my point. "Emo music" isn't necessarily the same thing as music that's labelled "emo". Some people said that Stone Temple Pilots were a grunge band. It doesn't automatically mean that they were a grunge band. (More often than not, they're simply labelled "alternative rock", which is probably the most appropriate designation for reasons I won't get into.)

• You already addressed the My Chemical Romance issue. If you recall you said, "I've been waiting for someone to argue that MCR isn't emo. They called themselves emo when they put their 2002 album on CDBaby. See, here's the thing: bands and their labels do the CDBaby listings themselves. So, at least back then, MCR thought they were emo". If you scour the web and beyond you'll find most of the bands mentioned in the third wave section have denied being emo at one time or another but that's not the point.

The problem with my MCR note was that on further review, I can't guarantee that the band wrote the intro. I checked out the CDBaby entries of people that I'm personally familiar with, and the intros say things that I can't fathom those people actually saying about themselves. I'm starting to suspect that CDBaby's editors write the intros, while the bands write the descriptions.

• And you feel the emogame reflects a broad criticism of the emo genre so much so that it deserves literally 37% of the criticism section (even if there is not a single cited source for it)?

AGAIN: WHAT KIND OF CITED SOURCE ARE YOU LOOKING FOR? What are you expecting the cited source to say? Several of the following are simply excerpts, but it can be readily confirmed that the entire articles exist:

• Alternative Press
• SPIN
• Magnet
• New York Times
• Rolling Stone

In particular, you can purchase the entire NYT article from their website. The Rolling Stone one should also be on their website. There are more out there, but it's not worth my time to go hunt them down.

• Agreed but the criticism section needs work. Even if you feel a mention of the emogame is worth it why do we need to know that the game "included pop culture references such as R2-D2 from Star Wars" and "eventually spawn[ed] multiple sequels". The "as the chorus of detractors increased" statement is also weak, isn't there a better way to pinpoint the time when "emo became more and more a target of derision"?

No on the latter, because there was no identifiable point at which the derision increased. The most obvious correlation is that it increased as the genre became more popular.

I'm fine with other viewpoints, but, so far, nobody has offered anything other than the suggestion that other viewpoints be considered and the kind of unsubstantiated garbage that Protozoic tried to jam into the article. (I pointed him to a song that included more than three chords, but he apparently didn't bother to listen to it.) Okay, so emo is criticized: name some criticisms. Don't just offer the suggestion that more needs to be said, get into the specifics. --ChrisB 11:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• You entirely missed my point. "Emo music" isn't necessarily the same thing as music that's labelled "emo". Some people said that Stone Temple Pilots were a grunge band. It doesn't automatically mean that they were a grunge band. (More often than not, they're simply labelled "alternative rock", which is probably the most appropriate designation for reasons I won't get into.)

All I have said so far is that the criticism section needs to be trimmed, removed or transformed. Any of those would be fine but right now it doesn't work.

• AGAIN: WHAT KIND OF CITED SOURCE ARE YOU LOOKING FOR? What are you expecting the cited source to say?

I want a source that verifies the game embodies some really exceptional criticism of the genre and wasn't just some Internet fad. That said, I'll probably settle for one that says a lot less and is included in the article.

• In particular, you can purchase the entire NYT article from their website. The Rolling Stone one should also be on their website. There are more out there, but it's not worth my time to go hunt them down.

If you can't verify what you're saying then let it be removed from the article - this article explains how to cite a source.

• No on the latter, because there was no identifiable point at which the derision increased. The most obvious correlation is that it increased as the genre became more popular.

The problem with the sentence is that it states something which is a near certain consequence of the condition that precedes it. For any noun, the sentence "As the chorus of detractors increased, <<NOUN>> became more and more a target of derision" would be weak writing. It has nothing to do with emo and everything to do with good writing.

What worries me is that you seem so focused on protecting this article you can't see past its flaws. You're so focused on justifying what you wrote and not changing anything that the article gets stuck in this state of mediocrity. --Cedars 12:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I wrote the above before I realized the emogame section had been trimmed by two sentences. I'm now much more content with the emogame sentences. --Cedars 12:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)