Talk:Emo/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Subgenre of 'hardcore punk'?

Come on, that is just wrong. To say emo is a subgenre of punk...perhaps. Buts its well on the pop punk end of the scale rather then hardcore. --Josquius 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There was emo before 1999. Emo began as a subgenre of hardcore punk. --ChrisB 19:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

exactly. josquius is exactly right. minor threat = hardcore. embrace = emo. if you think embrace is a subgenre of minor threat then you have no business editing this page. starightede is a subgenre of hardcore just like powerviolence. emo is not. HOWEVER, there is hardcore emo that would be considered a subgenre of both hardcore and emo. so im tempted to say youre both right but youre not. --216.16.193.253 07:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Hardcore punk" = "hardcore". "Emocore" = "emotional hardcore". I don't understand why this is so difficult to comprehend. This isn't about one person's opinion - emo is widely recognized as being a form of hardcore punk. Read any summary of the early DC years, and you'll find people noting that what separated Rites of Spring (et al) from the rest of the DC hardcore scene was the more personal nature of the lyrics and singing - it was "emotional" hardcore.

If the intro needs to be changed, it should be discussed here and not unilaterally changed by one editor. If we're having factual issues, then they should be solved by providing sources, not unsubstantiated opinion. --ChrisB 05:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is you are talking about a completely different genre to what is generally classed as 'emo' today. Old American emo being hardcore. Maybe. I don't know, I'm not too interested in it. Modern emo that you hear on the radio like panic at the disco and all? The stuff that most people know as emo? No way. It needs to be made clearer that there are totally different genres here. --Josquius 17:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the modern stuff even a genre? That's been asserted, and is covered in the "third wave" section. As a musical genre, emo is a subgenre of hardcore punk. The use of the term nowadays doesn't affect the twenty years of emo that came before it. Remember: this article covers ALL of emo, not just the current stuff. The music of Rites of Spring and Sunny Day Real Estate is still emo, even if the bands are no longer active. Seriously, we can't even confirm that the music called "emo" now is even Emo, considering that most of the bands categorically deny it. This article does a more than adequate job explaining the issues of the term - there's no reason to jacknife the introduction. --ChrisB 01:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It covers ALL of it, not just the stuff of 20 years ago. It needs to be made clearer from the get go that modern emo is very different to the old stuff. And 'jack knife the introduction'? Huh? Its a simple change which clarifies things. --Josquius 13:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Alexisonfire?

I'm sorry but I've never heard anyone call Alexisonfire emo. This isn't just a personal opinion matter on my behalf, I just honestly have never heard anyone refer to them as emo. I'm gonna remove them from the list of bands who are labeled emo until I hear someone tell me that they have heard the emo label attributed to Alexisonfire. --Razorhead 10:08, 27 March 2007

Come on now. How hard is it to do a Google search for Alexisonfire and emo? --ChrisB 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm new to editing wiki, but did someone revert the page? I signed up to get rid of the paragraph of yelling at "Emo" people, under the headline section, now its gone? --Nichkoi 08:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, people who patrol recent changes on Wikipedia pretty much catch things rather quickly. --¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 08:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good job to whoever beat me to fixing the page. Anyways, I think that this page should probably be better protected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.58.105.30 (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Various arguments

Emo began is emotional hardcore. Those are its roots. It retains many characteristics of emotional hardcore. Emotional hardcore retained many characteristics of hardcore punk. There is a direct and linear connection there, whether the people here like it or not. I'm not entirely sure why a few people are angry with this connection anyway, because emotional hardcore was undoubtedly more about the music and less about selling a product than what's around today. As far as I know, music was never meant to be about making money, which is what the third wave of emo has become.

As far as emo being a misnomer... that's ridiculous. Does heavy metal sound like lead? It's a name, for goodness' sake. I've heard the argument that all music is emotional, so no music can be described as emo. Well, by that logic, I can say that all music has a beat, so calling speed metal by that name is stupid because of that. I could say that just because it's faster, doesn't mean you should name its genre based on that. That's stupid. It's very stupid. All rocks are made of minerals, so why are there different types of rocks? All juice has suger, so why are there different types of juice? Do you see how stupid that argument is?

Finally, a link to art rock doesn't make sense. Emo music isn't art rock. Emo's roots were innovative. It might make sense to call the first wave of emo art rock, but everything after that wasn't experimental at all. The third wave is anything but experimental. I'm not going to bash emo music, but I can tell you right now, I can't tell My Chemical Romance from Fall Out Boy from Panic! At the Disco. I just cannot find any significant factors that distinguish them. I'm sure some of you could and would argue that YOU can tell the differences. But take two bands that fall into the same genre umbrella, The Smashing Pumpkins and Rage Against the Machine (both alternative rock). They're very easy to tell apart. Extremely easy to tell apart, even. But the point is, emo hasn't been doing anything radical, nor is it a characteristic of that genre. Again, the roots may have been experimental, but every genre's roots are experimental, and that doesn't make every genre art rock. I'm removing that link. --Missle-aneous 06:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

this article needs some open minded ness

"At the end of the 1990s, the underground emo scene had almost entirely disappeared", who ever wrote this is having a laugh, who says the underground emo scene has dissapeared, it's still going strong, perhaps the reason you didn't notice is because it's underground...PLEASE SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY KNOWS ABOUT EMO EDIT THIS ARTICLE AND STOP ACTING LIKE THE ONLY "EMO" AROUND TODAY IS ON THE RADIO. geez... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eweyewewe (talk • contribs) 17:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Proper abbreviation of D.C.

Though I doubt this will be read:

The official version contains the periods. DC is the postal code.

Sources for "D.C.": various dictionaries (Websters, Random House, American Heritage), various encyclopedias, AP Style Guide (view how the Washington Post abbreviates it for a good example).

A unilateral change of this type is not acceptable without prior discussion. If you feel this change is necessary, you MUST provide adequate sources (e.g., official documentation) and enter discussion. However, given that nearly all available sources include the periods, you'd have to make a very convincing argument to see the change through. --ChrisB 05:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to edit summary: NYC is not a fair comparison, as "N.Y.C." is not an official abbreviation. "D.C." is an official abbreviation. Additionally, "everybody uses DC" is original research. While DC is commonly used, it's widely used because it is the postal code. Again, this change should not be made without WIDE consensus - it affects countless pages on Wikipedia. And this article should not be the first place to see this change - the change should be handled on the pages for Washington, D.C., etc, in order to establish the precedent. At the moment, Wikipedia's standard is "D.C.", and this page should reflect the standard. --ChrisB 23:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Emo Metalcore

Some time ago, heard 'bout some genre called "Extremo" (I guess it's som mix between Mathcore an death metal). Why don't we create an article for the emo/Metalcore bands (like thrice, underoath, across five aprils, and a little less, eyes set to kill), and maybe name it Extremo? Zhiro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.158.130 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't just make up genres and present it as fact. All the bands you listed are Post-Hardcore/Metalcore. --Manupod 22:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well we actually use the term in the emo scene of my city (as you said, those bands cross genres and that was the reason for it) , but yes, it's kinda made up heehee, thanks anyway, peace =) Zhiro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.52.211.52 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can someone please revert back to the last edit by Aiyda? I tried about 10 times and my browser is malfunctioning. Chubbles 19:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. I see what happened. Doh! Chubbles 19:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The page's been vandalised. I tried to change it but, since I don't have an ID, I couldn't do anything. Could someone who is authorised please do something about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.169.242 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Chubbles 16:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone wrote "I hate my dad" at the beginning of the page, as is evident. Ugh, someone, please help! --TehQuail 17:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. --User:Rock2e ^{Talk - Contribs} 17:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

two small changes

"Many involved in the independent nature of both 80s and 90s emo are upset " changed to "Many involved in the independent nature of emo are upset"

reason changed: because the independant emo scene is still alive and well, same reason for changing the POV entry at the atrt of "third wave which staes that the "independant scene had almost entirely dissapeared". Please leave these changes, the underground emo scene is still around. Also why did soemone delete the tiny bit on European bands such as raein? underground emo is now a big part of the european scene and someone feels like this isn't worthy. please explain why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eweyewewe (talk • contribs) 20:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. The 80s and 90s underground scene was notable because that all that emo was during those years. There may be a current underground, but it is not nearly as notable - the current usage in the mainstream supercedes all else (for reasons given previously). We can (and do) mention bands that attempt to adhere to the old model, but their notability pales in comparison. And, according to Wikipedia guidelines, notability is the rule.

Apart from that, my own opinion stands as follows: "emo" has been a popularly-recognized term for the past decade. Underground bands that choose to adopt the term "emo" to describe themselves know what they're getting into - the term cannot be reacquired from the mainstream. The persistent attacks on this article by those who want to "take back" the term are misguided (and are violating numerous Wikipedia guidelines). If you want to start a revolution from the underground, establish a new term - don't adopt one that already means something else to a majority of the population. --ChrisB 04:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Right ok then sorry i was mistaken, i thought wikipedia was concerned with the truth. my apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.68.224 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

if there enough space to put in a bit about dashboard confessional then why not a bit about the underground scene of the 21st century? we're not trying to say that emo hasn't changed and that you should take down the list of bands, but this one person is being closed minded here and alienating a population all over the world who are invloved with emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.68.224 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"i thought wikipedia was concerned with the truth." Um: WP:V, first sentence: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

"alienating a population all over the world"? How big is this population? Millions, thousands, hundreds, or tens?

There's no excuse for getting grandiose about this. If published sources are talking about emo the way you are, then there's not a problem. But before going any further, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines: WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V. You can't just write a paragraph espousing "the truth" and jam it into the article. --ChrisB 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article needs to be rewritten. It cites some good references and some of the facts / history put forth are accurate, and it is by no means terrible; considering the commonplace misuse of the term "emo" in today's vernacular this article is a good starting point for those wanting to learn about emotional hardcore, however there is so many "black holes" of missing history, and most importantly, SO MANY emo bands that are simply not mentioned. The "2nd" and "3rd" waves are also extremely inaccurate and need to be rewritten. As I am not an "established user" I do not know how I will go about this, but I have a lot of information I am willing to add. I am in contact with a few dudes who were in emo bands back in the early and mid '90s who can offer some first hand insight into the music and its culture.

Also a merge with "screamo" would seem appropriate as it is just another "joke" term coined by emo listeners to describ more abrasive bands in the '90s (Honeywell, Antioch Arrrow, Portraits Of Past, Shroomunion and later on Reversal Of Man, Jerome's Dream, The Kodan Armada.

This page has the potential to be a great resource of accurate and helpful information and it is part of the way there but it just needs more attention from those who are passionate about this style of music. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheGhostOfPastMistakes (talk • contribs) 14:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

No offense, but we've been through this before. Despite the fact that a certain contingent insists that post-1994 emo was not actually emo, the term was (and is) used precisely how this article describes it, and there are numerous sources confirming it. It doesn't matter how the term "screamo" started - it was not seen that way in the years after the term was coined.

We do not have the right to judge the "misuse" of the term emo. All that we're allowed to do is write how it IS used. --ChrisB 01:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If the term does not accurately define what is actually emo music, then it becomes redundant and misleading. The term "screamo" is still largely seen as a comical term by those in the emo community. Denying people who listen to emo a voice in favor of the "majority" is folly. It makes no logical sense. If 50 people told you a giraffe was a monkey, and 1 zoologist who had been studying animals for 30 years swore black and blue that the animal was a giraffe, would you just listen to the "vast majority"? --TheGhostOfPastMistakes 10:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Zoologists have degrees conferred on them that prove they are experts in their field. "Emo experts" are self-declared - there is no qualification that makes one an expert, other than their own self-insistence. That's not even close to the same thing.

Plus, your argument is absurd. Nine people say the sky is blue. One guy insists the sky is purple and claims that he's an "expert" in the "sky community". Even if he's right, the viewpoint of the nine trumps the viewpoint of the one.

Wikipedia's rules are specific: claims must be cited in independent, reliable, published sources. Neither you nor any "community" insistence meets that requirement.

Several published sources have used the term screamo in serious, non-condescending manner. According to Wikipedia policy, that trumps all else. --ChrisB 19:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Numerous published sources have used the term screamo in a non-serious, joking manner. So what's the stipulation, that a magazine like HeartattacK does not count because it does not have a barcode yet a magazine like Rolling Stone counts because of its readership, even though it has been shown time and time again that magazine knows nothing about hardcore and punk? Majority does not rule. Simply put, most people think emo bands are mainstream rock bands. This is incorrect because emo always was and always will be a DIY subculture; none of those bands embrace a DIY ethic. How is any magazine or website you have referenced a.) Independent? b.) Reliable? There are gaping flaws in your logic and argument. Either way, there is a plethora of emo bands I will be adding to this article, along with information on the emo scenes outside of the U.S. --TheGhostOfPastMistakes 12:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You're still failing to understand this: THEY'RE BOTH RIGHT. You can't say that Rolling Stone is wrong because they use the term in a way other than the way you want them to use it. That is SPECIFICALLY against Wikipedia guidelines: WP:NPOV. Rolling Stone is using the term that way, others are using the term that way, and this article should reflect that. We are specifically disallowed from judging the usage of a term - all we are allowed to do is explain the usage in its entirety.

You also cannot give weight to independent publications just because you believe them to be right. Again, WP:NPOV. Countless publications (e.g., NME, numerous major-market newspapers - see Google News for specifics, widely-read reviewers including Jim DeRogatis) have used the term "screamo" in a non-joking manner. You cannot decide on your own that the usage is incorrect and report it on Wikipedia as such.

We welcome any information that you can contribute about other emo scenes. However, any information you provide which fails these specific Wikipedia guidelines - WP:V, WP:NPOV - will be immediately removed. The bands and scenes you add must be confirmable via notable reliable sources. And, keep in mind, if you try to FORCE unacceptable changes into this article, be aware of WP:3RR. --ChrisB 17:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." TheGhostOfPastMistakes should be able to write a section about the independent/underground side of the term "emo", under a subheading of emo, including ethics, musical style, terminology etc. Within this section, he should be free to express the feelings of the underground/independent emo scene toward the current mainstream adaption of emo, provided he has reliable sources. Correct me if I'm wrong? --charmed. 11:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's neutral, well supported, and not redundant, that's fine. --Chubbles 12:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

i notice chrisb hasn't replied to this. I think this is a great idea and would solve a lot of argument. a Piece after the "third wave" section titled Underground Emo (or whatever). can we agree please? eweyewewe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.68.224 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't reply because he's right. If it's neutral, well-supported, and not redundant, it's fine. But I cannot fathom that you'll be able to support it with documented (and published) reliable sources, per guidelines. --ChrisB 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

ok but sometimes the sources will be the mere fact that the band exist on wikipedia on the mere fact that there are distros out there that sell all this stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.68.224 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Emo Messenger

Theres some sort of "Emo" messenger which isn't related to the American "slang" emo. Does anyone know much about this or willing to write an article on it? Heres a link, theres very little data about it that I can dig up myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiranak (talk • contribs) 18:05, June 9, 2007 (UTC)

bright eyes

It seems like this article is focusing a lot more on the punk-rock emo genre, and Bright Eyes is included in the list for the third wave, which seems quite out of place. And futhermore, Bright Eyes has been around for quite a while, and had success in the "second wave", I don't think Bright Eyes should be included in that list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.81.76 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not an "official" list; in fact, it's not even a list of actual emo bands. It's clearly stated that this category of "third wave emo" isn't related to early emo, nor does it have definition. It's simply a label applied to hundreds of bands for about as many different reasons. That list is a more-or-less arbitrary set of a few bands that are called emo these days. That's all. --Cheeser1 21:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it still shouldn't be in third wave --204.210.81.76 00:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

afi are listed in the third wave and they have been around for 16 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.203.61 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Bright Eyes have been around for a while. According to their wikipedia article, since 1995. But I totally disagree with their inclusion in the list of bands in the "second wave" as well as being referenced in this Emo article to begin with. First off they only released their first studio LP Fevers and Mirrors in 2000, which is well after the second wave ended, and certainly not during it's heyday. Second, none of their music, including Fevers and Mirrors, contain any elements of punk, which is a requirement for emo whether it be first wave or third wave. Third, their are signed to Saddle Creek, a record label not known for it's emo bands; and in fact I believe Cursive is the only band that qualifies as emo in all of Saddle Creek's roster. Third, and most convincingly, even the article for Bright Eyes in wikipedia does not reference them in the emo genre (on the right side where it says "Genre(s)". I therefore submit that this Emo article should not reference Bright Eyes at all, and certainly not within the list of bands that "emerged from the (second wave) scene". I could also say, although I won't bother "verifying" it that Bright Eyes does not even draw from similar influences as the other second wave bands as they are not influenced by (in my humble opinion) Sunny Day Real Estate, Fugazi, Husker Du, etc. Nor were they related to any of the midwest-emo bands of the 90s. Even though Conor Oberst is from the same geographical area, this does not mean he was in any way related to the second wave emo scene. --Silas, 29 June 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elros14 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Recently, User:ChrisB reverted my edit to the lead sentence. It now reads "Emo is a genre of rock music." My revision read "Emo is a style of rock music, and was a genre of hardcore punk in the late 1980s and early 1990s" or something like that. My wording is more precise and more correct, as I read it. ChrisB refuses to answer my message on his talk page, so I am going to propose the change here. Precise leads are always better than imprecise ones - that can't possibly be in question - and thus if no one has any substantive objection, I will be changing it back. Below is my original message to ChrisB. --Cheeser1 22:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your contributions to the article, I have to disagree with your reversion of my edit. Because of the ambiguity of the term, we have to consider the two changes I made. (1) I said "style" instead of "genre" of rock. This is clearly delineated in the article and elsewhere, because the more general and more recent interpretation of the word most certainly does not define a genre. (2) However, it is highly important to precisely and immediately note that it was a genre, but a particular kind of genre. The first sentence of the article should be concise and precise, and I believe your version sacrifices the latter for the former. It indicates nothing about the stylistic roots for two of the three "waves" of emo, and furthermore, it completely belies the fact that the "new" definition of emo is actually confused for a genre when it has come to describe an ambiguous and ubiquitous style of rock music. All of that is clearly outlined in the article, and should be reflected in the introductory sentence. "Emo is a genre of rock music" is highly uninformative and could easily stand to be more precise without being too much longer. That introductory paragraph is way too vague. --Cheeser1 05:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings on this matter because emo's connection to hardcore punk is mentioned in the second paragraph. But, if I had to choose, I would agree that it should be mentioned in the first paragraph. For example, "Emo is a genre of rock music that evolved from hardcore punk." That said, some context is needed: This article gets a lot of flak. First, it is vandalised by those who don't appreciate emo at all. Second, it is edited by those who don't accept that the third wave of emo should be mentioned at all. Throughout these constant attacks, ChrisB has kept this article together for well over a year. When you compare this article to the emo (slang) article (which is a terrible mess) that is quite an achievement. Unfortunately, ChrisB is sometimes a little too conservative when it comes to worthwhile edits by other Wikipedians but, sadly, such edits are few and far between. I am sure ChrisB will comment here soon to offer his opinion on this particular matter and if not I will contact him in a few day's time. Until ChrisB comments, I would suggest leaving the lead as is. --Cedars 02:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My initial objection was that the new first sentence was almost a verbatim repeat of the first sentence of the second paragraph. I don't see how it benefits the article to specifically mention the subgenre of hardcore punk, then immediately mention it again. The current first paragraph covers everything mentioned in the ensuing three paragraphs, giving (moderately) equal weight to all of the definitions. Specifically mentioning hardcore punk in the first sentence torques that balance, and I just don't see how that's an improvement. And that's especially true in that the paragraph already notes "common ancestry" - aka hardcore punk.

The current wording was intentional - even the first scene denied that they played "emo". (Just look up the YouTube video of MacKaye ranting to the crowd about it in 1986.) The hardcore punk came first, then the word "emo" was attached to it. "Since its inception, emo has come to describe several independent variations of music." That's one the major similarity shared by all three waves - the music came first, then it was called "emo". The genre came afterward - once other folks decided that that particular style of music was "emo".

I can see the argument as to how emo isn't a genre, or at least should not be defined as such. I'm back and forth on it. Part of me thinks that changing it to "style" or "type" is just wimping out. There is a significant contingent that sees Emo as a genre, particularly among those who still adhere to the older waves. I also keep staring at Punk rock. There, they define punk rock for its earliest incarnation, and count nearly every sub-element as a "genre" or "subgenre". One notable exception: New Wave music, and I think someone could argue that "emo" as a term is similar to the usage of "new wave". The situation here is unique enough that I don't know if we can follow any of the paths taken there, though.

But I do take exception the idea of burying "emo" as a genre if the only reason is the uncertainty of the current model. Punk rock does not do that, and it could. That "emo" is being used to describe something other than a genre doesn't mean that the genre(s) ceased to exist. If it's that big a problem, I'd sooner move everything post-Dashboard to Emo (slang). But I don't think that's necessary. --ChrisB 19:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, I've seen the documentaries and watched the old videos, and of course, there's always firsthand experience (not WP:RS, but I know what you mean). My point is this: emo, in its usage now, describes several different things. It can't be a genre if it describes independent and more-or-less unrelated musical phenomena. I also think you'd be hard pressed to really establish that "emo" as it describes contemporary music really describes a genre so much as a style, fashion, mood, set of lyrics, or amount of scene points. I mean, it doesn't seem to be a well defined genre. Regardless, if it is, it should still say "several genres" or something to that effect. You know what I mean? --Cheeser1 04:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

ChrisB - I would like to continue this discussion, and not have it end without resolving this issue (and thus keeping the lead as you've left it, without my contribution). Thanks. --Cheeser1 06:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I will continue to elaborate and await a response. WP:LEAD indicates that there should be "no surprises." This means that any substantial content in the article must be mentioned in the lead. So to say that it's repetitious or redundant to mention the particular origin of emo (80s/90s hardcore) is not supported by policy or guidelines, but contradicted by them. It would be like if the article Calculus started with "Calculus is about derivatives." An exaggerated example, but my point stands: you can't over-simplify things in the lead. If it's more than one genre or style, say so. If it has a particular origin, say so. Details, citations, etc, those can wait, but to say "emo is a genre of rock" is highly misleading, if not factually incorrect for several reasons. --Cheeser1 10:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

But that's exactly what AllMusic does: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:4525

It's sourced and verifiable, which means there isn't a guideline-related reason to change it.

Your reading of WP:LEAD isn't right - it says nothing specific that would require us to mention hardcore punk in the first paragraph. Hardcore punk is mentioned in the second paragraph, which is well within the confines of what WP:LEAD describes. The first paragraph summarizes the rest of the lead, where everything detailed in the article is explained. There are no surprises.

Furthermore, this is the music article. The emo elements relevant to "a style, fashion, mood", etc, don't belong here. They're intentionally excluded - combining the music and the slang would turn this article into a complete clusterfuck.

I intentionally stalled out on responding. Wikipedia is guided by consensus. More people should weigh in on this so that we can have some kind of idea as to what to do. Neither your conviction nor mine should overrule that.

The article is presently written under the following scope: Emo is a genre. It includes two largely separate styles. There is also a third style that's being called "emo" despite the general inability to determine what exactly it is.

Changing the first sentence to open the definition changes that scope. If we want to change that scope, there should be an overriding (and notable) reason to do so (ie, consensus). --ChrisB 18:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus? The only two people who seem to care at all about this are you and me. Well, and one other person, who agrees with me. AllMusic, by the way, mentions 80s/90s hardcore in the first sentence. Furthermore, the structure of that website does not encompass anything but genres (it's the structure of the site), and it is not necessarily relevant to point to allmusic - they do not place the same kind of emphasis or perspective on this "third wave." The structure of allmusic.com cannot capture subgenre structure, convergent evolution of musical styles, or anything like that.

If the first paragraph summarizes the rest of the lead, why is it so vague that it so vague? I'm trying to make the intro more precise, without making longer (or not substantially longer, anyway). That's what people do to improve articles. I see absolutely no reason to insist on vague language. Just because it's a summary does not mean it has to be vague or, as far as I'm concerned, misleading.

And please, do not mince words. Style of music and style of personal conduct are not the same thing. Don't accuse me of pushing this article towards becoming a "complete clusterfuck" (I'll thank you to be civil and speak nicely next time too - I've made my share of good faith assumptions, but that's out of line). "Style," in fact, is more or less the same thing as "genre" except that it carries a connotation appropriate to this article - one of a disunified and uncohesive set of musicians and music. It's exactly the right word.

If you do not appreciate my attention to precise and concise language, that's fine, but don't make this an issue it isn't. I'm not advocating merging the other emo article here, nor changing the scope of the article. I'm not attempting to act unilaterally. I'm merely inserting a more precise language into the lead because it is vague and misleading/confusing (depending on how far and how carefully a reader reads).

So that's my case. More precise language. Would you care to comment as to how you oppose such an improvement (without referring to irrelevancies like the "scope" of the article)? Since you've finally explained yourself, and I see no argument against what amounts simply to more precise wording, I am going to include my revision again. Feel free to revert it if you plan on explaining why more precise language is not helpful, but if you are not prepared to do so, I would suggest you not revert without such an explanation. --Cheeser1 18:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll add that mentioning the hardcore punk subgenre in the first sentence seems essential because it was, at one time, the definition of emo. It's like when a word in the dictionary has two definitions: one in common use, and one in recent, but past, common use. Considering the two definitions are separated by a span of only a few years, I'd say they are both worth mentioning. --Cheeser1 18:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So the solution is to just jam your version in there anyway? Do you not read guidelines like WP:DR? The goal is to find a balance that people can agree with, not disregard "unconvincing arguments" and unilaterally decide that your version is the right one. --ChrisB 19:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained myself, and addressed exactly these concerns. Feel free to yell at me all you want, I'm not the one who started this whole thing by "jamming" my old version of the lead back in there and refusing for weeks to discuss it. That was you. I waited for you to completely explain yourself, and when you finally did, nothing you said was relevant to my point - that the language you propose is unnecessarily vague and imprecise. Insisting on more precise language is hardly a unilateral attack on the article, nor an attempt to open it to invasion by Emo (slang) as you claimed. Precision in the language of an article, especially the lead, is always beneficial. My edits, on those grounds, could be contested if there were any rationale at all for imprecise language. There is none. And for the record, Dashboard is not part of some contemporary subgenre of hardcore punk. You're not fooling anyone by insisting that the current use of "emo" has any specific meaning as a well-defined subgenre of hardcore punk. I'm not going to debate that with you, since it should be blatantly obvious, but if you insist on snipping out important details from the lead sentence, fine. Consider that settled. I will not, however, be at all resigned to letting vague, imprecise, or misleading language be used, in spite of my more precise version. --Cheeser1 23:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You wrote all of that up and gave me an hour to respond before deciding that you were going to do it anyway. You already accused me of spending "weeks" delaying on this: since when is the time between June 25th and July 1st "weeks"? It's only been 11 days since the first time you introduced that text.

The way you handled this was absolutely not the way this should have been handled. Read WP:DR and WP:COOL (especially #3 of the latter) and try and understand the problem.

I have no problem with the text as it stands now, but we shouldn't have had to through this to get there. --ChrisB 02:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Then don't accuse me of "clusterfucking" articles. If you don't want a conflict, you should do more than revert people's edits wholesale and then wait, without discussion your deletion of others' contributions, for some consensus (which obviously wasn't happening, given the lack of contributions to the discussion), while the version you prefer sits as precedent. I'm glad your idea of keeping the article clean is not changing anything unless it meets some standard - I just find it interesting that the base version that you would keep just happens to be the one that your "personal" opinion agrees with, regardless of published opinions otherwise (regardless of their allegedly dubious verifiablity - a pubished music critic's opinion, of course, can be verified). And 11 (more like 12) days is essentailly 2 weeks, as far as I'm concerned. --Cheeser1 (not signed in a.t.m.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.43.41.5 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Another topic

This whole page can be succinctly summarized as saying ChrisB will not listen to advice nor verifiable references (HeartattacK, Maximum Rock N' Roll, countless articles in other zines, oral accounts from people that were there) about the origins of emo. This article was REALLY good 14 or 15 months ago. It was accurate and whilst not in depth was a great primer for those wanting to know about the emo subgenre. Now, it is vague and kowtowing to the mainstream mass media's (incorrect) use of the word "emo" to describe something totally different and not even related to emo. --TheGhostOfPastMistakes 14:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Splitting this because it has nothing to do with the Lead.

Go here - WP:NPOV - and read the second paragraph. Then read it again. Rinse and repeat until it sinks in.

Annihilating the mainstream view of "emo" from this article would be a gross violation of that guideline. And, as mentioned in the first paragraph of the guideline: NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." --ChrisB 18:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

of course eliminating the "mainstream emo" wuld be silly. but then again what would not be silly would be to have different interpretations aswell. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eweyewewe (talk • contribs) 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

2 problems with the The third wave (2000-present) section

1. Direct quote "Where Jimmy Eat World had played emocore-style music early in their career, by the time of the release of their 2001 album Bleed American, the band had almost completely removed its emo influences."

But this is in direct confliction with source 11: DeRogatis, Jim. "Emo (The Genre That Dare Not Speak Its Name)" which states "To my ears the 'emo guitar sound' is often characterized by a lot of arpreggiation (some say this came from Mineral), power chords and the octave chords (this definitely came from Rites of Spring)..."

Songs on Bleed American are still influenced by this style of guitar playing with songs like "Your House" and "Hear You Me", which arpreggiation of major triads is very noticeable. The statement reads as if their is a clear bias towards Jimmy Eat World, and how the author does not believe they are emo. Some of the songs on that record do of course reflect normal pop tunes, but it is more of a fusion between pop music and their emo influences. A point made in source 11 also points out that the band Sunny Day Real Estate was referred to as emo by some, but also was not considered by emo as well. This band however is very influential to the later groups in the emo subgenre. A revised statement for the one in question could bring up something like this because Jimmy Eat World is a band that has influenced emo music of today.

2. There is no mention of the band Refused in this article. In fact this whole article has an American bias. The Refused album "The Shape of Punk to Come" is influential of many bands not just emo bands. According to the Refused page on www.allmusic.com (sorry I don't know how to directly link to it) bands that are followers of Refused are: Saves the Day, Minus, Recover, Between the Buried and Me, Sincebyman, The Bled, Straylight Run, and the Fall of Troy. In my opinion that Refused album also can be heard in great detail in many foreign screamo bands such as Envy or Angora Static as well as many pop bands such as Thursday or Brand New.

I believe it should at least get a name drop because I do believe "The Shape of Punk to Come" in fact reflects the shape of punk today. Whether you call it that or not, or whether you like it or not. --Ed likesparties 23:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

1) The point of the Jimmy Eat World piece is the way the term shifted. People called Jimmy Eat World "emo" because of their earlier works, but newcomers to the term assumed that "emo" was describing songs like "The Middle" or "Sweetness". It was a turning point which helped to spawn the confusion as to what was or wasn't "emo".

It might be worth pointing out their influence. However, since it's nearly impossible to point out a band that we can conclusively cite as an "emo" band, it's hard to conclusively claim that Jimmy Eat World influenced modern emo.

2) It has an American bias because all the important developments in emo music took place in America. While there were definitely foreign bands who followed or shared the same styles, they're just another subset of bands influenced by the sound. Nothing emo-related was pioneered abroad.

I've seen people try and draw a connection between The Shape of Punk to Come and modern emo, but I personally disagree. Several of the bands you listed formed prior to the release of that album - particularly Saves the Day (1994) and Thursday (1997). Both of those bands formed in New Jersey, where there was a particularly strong hardcore punk /indie rock scene in the 1990s. (It actually spanned most of the northeast US.) Those bands and their styles came from those scenes, not from being directly influenced by Refused. It's an after-the-fact conclusion drawn by those hearing similarities in the sound.

It's not out of the question that Refused influenced some of the most recent versions of "emo", but it was nothing close to the way that Sunny Day Real Estate's Diary influenced the second wave - particularly in the immediacy. Short of a bunch of modern emo bands personally citing it as an influence (as many second wave bands did with Diary), I don't know that it's something we can include. (And I don't feel that AllMusic's "followers" tag can be used as a source - those are conlusions drawn by editors hearing similiarities, not by band members citing their influences.) --ChrisB 03:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it funny how Chris thinks that his opinion and your opinion, neither having any sourcing, are somehow on unequal footing? As if his notion of foreign emo is in any way informed. Chris, you have to admit that basically everything you said about point 2 is entirely speculation/OR. That's fine, say what you will, but I don't see how you're making a point with any authority behind it. And I'll thank you not to patently dismiss allmusic. You cite these allegedly uninformed editors in one argument and discredit them in another? That's not fair. --Cheeser1 04:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I offered my opinion. I never said it was anything more than that - in fact, I specifically said "I personally disagree," with intentional inclusion of the word "personally".

AllMusic offering their opinions about X belonging in Y genre or "similar artists" is hardly controversial. They are considered a reliable source for that information. But they can't put their opinions into the mouths of the bands. The bands are freely capable of offering up the names of the bands who influenced them.

Seriously, AllMusic has Sunny Day Real Estate listed as being influenced by the Smashing Pumpkins. You would agree with that? Or how about this: Texas Is the Reason is not listed as a Follower (and, conversely, TITR doesn't have SDRE listed as an influence), despite the fact that members of TITR are specifically on record citing SDRE as an influence.

Again, I specifically didn't say that we couldn't use AllMusic as a source for that. I just personally believe that they are not a reliable source for that information (for reasons stated).

BTW - would it be worth me setting up a separate page somewhere where people can take potshots at me, so as to keep it out of article discussions? --ChrisB 05:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Enigk of SDRE has never made it a secret that Sunny Day Real Estate were influenced by the "alternative" scene of the late '80s and early '90s. It is only natural that, being signed to a lable like Sub-Pop, their work would have large traces of alt and grunge sounds. The only thing in the minds of many people that makes them NOT grunge is the more tuneful quality of their vocals when compared to bands like Mudhoney and Alice In Chains. Texas Is The Reason are indiemo, with little similarities to bands that were actually called emo at the time. Bands like Current and Second Story Window and in particular, Shotmaker and Closure, were those often referenced as "that emo band" or the like, circa 1993 / 1994. --TheGhostOfPastMistakes 10:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to set up such a page. My point, however, was that your admittedly personal opinions seem to play quite a role in the discussions on this page - when it suits you. Whenever there's a difference of opinion, it always seems like somehow, the de facto presumption is that your version should, for some reason, stand until a reliable source is found. And since when is a reliable source only reliable when you feel like it? If you disagree with something a reliable source says, you'll have to find a different reliable source to the contrary, Chris, because this is not the Chris's-opinion-of-emo article, regardless of how correct you (or I) think your opinion might be. --Cheeser1 14:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that the entire Wikipedia process - taking all opinions into account and then writing the text to accommodate? You're taking this stance that I'm somehow holding my opinions over everyone else, but that's not what's going on at all. My opinion is EQUAL to EVERYONE ELSE'S. You jamming your text into the article placed your opinion above mine, which is precisely what you're accusing me of doing. You justified it by claiming that I was lording over the article - but that doesn't mean your action was any less inappropriate. All opinions should be taken at equal value. That's what the dispute resolution process is all about, and precisely why Wikipedia has numerous methods of resolution.

My personal conviction as far as Wikipedia goes is that status quo should be maintained unless an edit is a clear improvement. Otherwise, the article sees massive shifts for no good reason. One editor adding their favorite band to a list serves a personal interest, not necessarily the best interests of the article. However, if said editor wants to make a case, the greater editor base can hear it and make the call.

Stop harping on me. This isn't about me, and my behavior is not something you should be focusing on, particularly when your behavior is at least as questionable. WP:NPA is pretty clear: Comment on content, not on the contributor. If someone asks a question about content, I am here to offer my opinion. I harbor no illusions - my opinion may be completely off. But it's up to someone else to comment on my statements and tell me why I have it wrong, rather than write a paragraph telling me why I'm wrong for stating my opinion in the first place.

And, yes, we do get to judge the reliability of a source. There are two steps in the process: reliability and verifiability. The Associated Press is a reliable source. However, an AP article containing information that can be proven to be false is not. AllMusic is a reliable source for genre information, tracklistings, and credits. However, there are instances where their information is inaccurate - in those cases, we simply switch to another verifiable source (eg, the actual liner notes of the album). And that's the issue - AllMusic cannot be a reliable source for the Refused influencing Thursday or Saves the Day because their assertion is not verifiable (per WP:V). We need another supporting source for that statement. --ChrisB 19:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to "1) The point of the Jimmy Eat World piece is the way the term shifted. People called Jimmy Eat World "emo" because of their earlier works, but newcomers to the term assumed that "emo" was describing songs like "The Middle" or "Sweetness". It was a turning point which helped to spawn the confusion as to what was or wasn't "emo"."

My problem was with the statement "the band had almost completely removed its emo influences". There is no evidence that they almost completely removed emo influences that is a question of opinion. The problem are the words "almost completely" because what does that mean? Does it mean 90% or does it mean 60%, how can someone judge that. If your intentions were to show a shift into modern emo than say that (in fact say what you said in response to me), but "almost completely" has no empirical evidence to prove the initial statement. Give a number, leave it out, show both sides of the argument, or rephrase it so that it does make sense. The only cite near that statement is to the same article that I cited when I proposed a problem making there a direct contradiction.

I can settle for your explanation on Refused. Except for the statement "It has an American bias because all the important developments in emo music took place in America." You just admitted to a bias. Not cool. I am sure you didn't mean this, but if this is true than you should at least state this in the article. Even if it is what you said "It has an American bias because all the important developments in emo music took place in America." There is not even mention of Canada.

The reason why I made the conclusion about Refused is because they are even copied down to look. Also http://www.dobi.nu/emo/girls.htm shows influence of Refused in emo style. FYI the liner notes of The Shape of Punk to Come both thank The Promise Ring as well as Lifetime. http://www.epitaph.com/artists/album/193 It is too hard to prove, and it is based on many peoples' opinion without enough documented evidence behind it to make it worth fighting for. --Ed likesparties 05:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly, yes - SDRE were influenced by 80s and 90s alternative. But AllMusic choosing the Smashing Pumpkins as a specific influence when the band never made such a claim just doesn't work. U2 - absolutely - Enigk specifically noted Bono's "lyrical honesty" as an influence. (In one interview, Enigk even called U2 his favorite band.) But nothing about the Pumpkins. --ChrisB 06:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

1) Re: Jimmy Eat World. I see what you mean - I think you're right. Maybe "downplayed"?

2) I didn't mean "bias" that way. Bias has two definitions - one of them carries negative connotations (as in, "this article is horribly biased"), the other simply denotes giving greater focus to a particular element. I meant that in the latter - the article places more focus on the American aspects because the first two scenes originated there - everything outside the US followed what was going on there. That doesn't mean that there aren't other scenes or that there aren't emo bands outside of the US. But there's a point where notability becomes a factor, and there aren't any specifically notable scenes outside the US when it comes to the development of the genre. If you've got sources, by all means, please provide them so that we can try to add them. If there's something notable to be said, it definitely should be. But I think we need to avoid mentioning bands just for the sake of being mentioned, ie, "Other emo bands include {x} and {y} from {city}," which I think we're somewhat overusing already. --ChrisB 06:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean as well. I don't know much about foreign emo music, but I know it exists and although it hasn't had much of an influence in the United States it shows the influence the United States has on other countries, which I think is kind of a cool thing. I don't think there are many sources to prove this yet, but down the line I would not be surprised that it will appear in the article. I also agree that avoiding mentioning bands is important, to an extant, because everyone has their opinion, and it would just get too messy. Plus it sounds really dorkish/naive when someone boasts about a band that they think should be put on the page. Although if the Sound Opinions episode with the interview Paul Westerberg was still available I would also argue on his behalf.

As for the Jimmy Eat World thing I think it should express something along the lines that although it contains emo influences musically, the emo influence is also downplayed due to Jim Adkins desire to be more of musician rather than just a member of an emo band. All which can be cited to the Jim DeRogatis. The wording is a little rough, but I think it captures what you wanted to say as well as what I wanted to say. Ed_likesparties --76.217.95.178 21:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Meatspin

Vandalism my friends, somewhere toward the middle of the page, meatspin.com is added in arbitrary fashion. Please delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.3.91 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done --SteinAlive | ☎ | ☉ 06:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Green Day?

I would just like to point out the fact that Green Day was not pointed out once in this article as being a huge contributor to mainstream Emo. Does anyone not remember Dookie? What happened? Now they're 40 year-old men playing for 14-15 year old boys and girls who are having a hard time going through adolescence. They so obviously changed their image from punk to emo (much like many others) mostly by only wearing black clothes and wearing eyeliner. This no doubt revived Green Day's career but they lost most of their loyal followers from the 90's because of their drastic change of appearance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SilverTen (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Green Day are known for popularizing pop-punk, NOT emo. Their style has changed a little over the years, but a band dressing up differently does not change their style of music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relyt22 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Green day WAS known for popularizing pop-punk. Now they are known as that band that went from punk to emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.35.32 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Green Day is in no way emo, in any sense of the word. They are pop punk. Their sound has changed slightly since dookie, but they are clearly the same genre and have nothing to do with emo. --Manupod 22:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Broken Dreams? How is that not emo? --Ninjanity 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This article lists Green Day as one of many bands that are called emo, based on the poorly-defined and ubiquitous use of the term. Please read more carefully. --Cheeser1 01:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The article shouldn't mention Green Day at all and presently doesn't. --Cedars 11:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Broken Dreams"? An emo would have said "Black Street of Nightmares". Besides, Green Day sounds a lot like basic punk, unlike emo, which sometimes breaks the "three cord" barrier punk usually follows --Gabriel Texidor 22:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

this article obviously needs re written :p

ok so not completly rewritten and chrisb should be appreciated for keeping this page together, but there are some major problems. If everyone lists what they think needs changing then we might be able to discuss this between us and come to a consensus. this page isn't owned by one person but all of us. if everyone lists their problems, we can discuss them and hey maybe even like change this article for the better.

1. "waves" I have never heard emo referred to in three seperate waves apart from wikipedia. This surely presents a misleading view to the uninitiated. more preferably would be a classification by styles of music. this would resolve a lot of arguments and stop the misleading view that hardcore emo stopped after 2000.

2. the way the article is presented appears to show that emo as a style of music follows a linear pattern and has got progressivly popular. while this is true for some styles (i.e poppunk style emo) it doesn't really apply to the more underground scene. This article needs acknowledgement of the underground emo scene which still continues today. As far as i am concerned, this is paramount and will solve so many arguments.

3. dashboard confessional. i don't hate this band/guy i think i have his first coupla albums. I know the word "emo" was bandied around when he first arrived. but this was slang, (i.e. the emo=pussy type thing) not really a description of the music, he's the mould of a singer songwriter/indie surely!!??? In my opinion (yeah i said it) all the modern day "emo" is called emo more to do with slang than music. this is not to say we should remove it though because even though i don't like it it still counts. I propose getting rid of Dashboard Confessional and creating a seperate paragraph for the modern day "popular emo.

4. This list is very American-centric. an argument was made that nothing notable happened outside america. this is POV and surely including the european scene will give some weight to the genre and is part of it's history. the european scene has been active since the 90s and works mutually with the american scene. one is not better than the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eweyewewe (talk • contribs) 21:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to completely come down on you, but do you have sources for claims, like when you say we need to "stop the misleading view that hardcore emo stopped after 2000"? Further, I'd remind you that it's not up to Wikipedia to validate genres, fads, fashions, trends, or hallmarks of popular culture. I'm not saying emo is or isn't any of those things, but we're not here to "give some weight" to anything. We shouldn't argue for inclusion of content based on how it portrays emo as in a positive or important light.

I do agree quite a bit that we should not throw around terms like "waves" when they are not in use. I would mind that improving the language in this article may result in conflict, as evidenced above (although I can't fathom why it would or did). --Cheeser1 02:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

well there are loads of online distros selling emo. I don't agree that everything has to be sourced especially something as obvious as this, but if you wanted sources they are there. so can we agree to get rid of the "WAVES" sections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eweyewewe (talk • contribs) 12:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether you've heard of it or not is irrelevant. "Wave" is a very common term in music journalism, used to denote different iterations of the same genre. (See Punk rock as one example.) It's all emo, even if one is more "indie rock" than another, so describing it by the "associated genre" would not be appropriate.

"Wave" is just a word. It wouldn't be any different if the word were "iteration" or "period". In the case of "wave", not only is it a term commonly used in music journalism, we can also cite its use with emo, e.g., "the first wave of emo". --ChrisB 17:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Chris, you can't just call something waves and that makes it so. It is a very common term used to describe certain related forms of music. But since no sources are provided that establish that these three types of emo are related in that way, use of the term qualifies as OR. Waves of feminism or punk, for example, can be established in primary and secondary sources (you know, books and academic papers). The ones in this article cannot. And while I know Google is not the be-all-end-all of inclusion, a quick search of "the first wave of emo" spits out nothing but blogs, reviews, etc, most of which cite this article as their reason for calling things first wave (most quote sentences from here wholesale). That doesn't make sense - Wikipedia is not supposed to be a primary source, and use of this term qualifies as OR. There are plenty of other ways to word this article, and indeed, it would be simply enough in the headings to just use the year labels that are already there.. --Cheeser1 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What? It's one thing if we called it "First Wave" (capitalized) as a term. But we're not. It's like in a band article - calling one section "early years". You're implying that we have to source the term "early years". "First wave" is used in precisely the same context as "early years". We are freely allowed that kind of editorial latitude. We have to split the three periods - no matter what term we use, it could readily be argued to be "unsourced". Remember - all three periods were called "emo", not anything else.

And, seriously, the dates are even worse than "first wave" and are just as "unsourced". It's not like the first wave actually ended in 1994. That just happens to be the most approximate time that the first wave transitioned to the second wave.

If there really are "plenty" of other ways to word it, feel free to throw out some so we can discuss them. --ChrisB 20:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

third wave emo

Dashboard Confessional are not emo. Emo bands that still exist today would be: Circle Takes The Square, City of Caterpillar, Antioch Arrow etc. Yet these have not been mentioned. The Dashboard section should be removed and reference should be made to bands that really are emo that are still going today. --Davidtakesthesquare 18:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to suspect that there's a conflict of interest in all of this bickering; almost everyone who comes to this page to fight over "what emo means" mentions the band Circle Takes the Square. Sounds like publicity-hounding to me. --Chubbles 19:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved with the band in any way and their publicity means nothing to me., (although I admit I am a fan).

However, they are an emo band and are still playing together to this date, which makes them relevant in an article on emo music today, does it not? --Davidtakesthesquare 20:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't even read the article, did you? All three of those bands are mentioned. The trick is that they are not notable in the current emo scene. Their notability is solely that they reflect the first wave style of emo.

And, unfortunately for you, a number of reliable (and published) sources cite Dashboard as emo. That people disagree is irrelevant. They have been widely reported as emo, AllMusic has them listed as emo, and that's all that matters. Wikipedia guidelines are specific - it's not about "truth", it's about verifiability, and all of that is verifiable. --ChrisB 23:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I was meaning that they should be in the place of the bands that are in the third wave section that don't really have much to do with emo as it began, as they still play '2000-present'. Although that would mean quite a lot of the article being rewritten. --Davidtakesthesquare 09:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I honestly doubt CTTS care about publicity --Inhumer 22:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

seriously, the guy above, you bascially assume that all media is reliable. this is the fallacy of wikipedia; subcultures such as emo, which are underground, are defined by those very aspects which they try to stay away from. dashboard confessional is relevant only as an example of how emo became associated with a mindset (i.e sentimentality, which to be fair it has always had in any genre of the style. --eweyewewe 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia guidelines require that any information included in an article be attributed to a reliable source. Elements of the "subculture" cannot supercede the more widely acknowledged (and sourced) definitions. --ChrisB 19:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay for me there are mainly two types of Emo, 90's and now. Now I know that some may not like that, but it seems quite true. The difference between the two is that 90's emo, early 90's is more about the sound the combination of hard songs with "emotional" lyrics or "soft-esq" lyrics, but still pretty damn hard-core because it was done as "here I am, take it or leave it"; and the more recent emo is more of an image of pure immitation of a depression or emotions, the people who play the now emo are more like the dicks that you find trying to get the record label, with a rich family, spoiled, and still find a way to complain about how no one loves them or how they never get what they want. And 90's emo was known for a metal or core-grunge while the emo of now is more of a pop rip-off of the revolution of the 90's while trying to be "punk" by copying what they've seen on t.v. or magazines. --Enthnd03 22:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

While your input is appreciated, you should know that contributions to Wikipedia must be verifiable. Your opinion or understanding of a subject may be well informed, but you are not a source of verifiable information. Thanks, and happy editing. --Cheeser1 03:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This Article Has So Many Mistakes

1. Emo is short for emotive hardcore, not emotional hardcore. 2. It's the people who actually listen to this music genre that don't want bands like Fall Out Boy considered emo, not the other way around. Why? Because it was obviously co-oped by the mainstream music industry, something that the original "first wave" bands were trying to avoid with the popularity of their DIY ethic. 3. As far as being verifiable, not truthful, I think that's just bullshit (and I can verify that's what I think); it doesn't make sense that something which aims to inform would cease to care about truth information. Just another reason why there are stupid people walking around all over the world... If I ever go crazy and shoot 20 people, I'm blaming Wikipedia. --68.74.124.27 15:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Read wikipolicy (WP:V) and check the dictionary... Emotive: characterized by or pertaining to emotion. Emotional: pertaining to or involving emotion. They're the same word. Deal. People work really hard to make articles that are truthful (as much as objective truth can be ascertained), verifiable (as much as it can be verified), and unbiased (as much as an article could be). Sure, they're never perfect in any respect, those three included, but anonymously pissing and moaning and threatening to shoot people (what the fuck??) will not get you anywhere. --Cheeser1 01:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I always enjoy it when people claim that we don't "know the truth", and then proceed to misstate said truth. The term "emotive hardcore" didn't even EXIST before 1996, and, even then, it wasn't prominently used. In fact, it wasn't used in any regular capacity until (very) recently. (And, as a reminder, "emo" started in 1985.) So if you want to step in and tell us "the truth", make sure you know what that truth actually is. --ChrisB 17:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay for me there are mainly two types of Emo, 90's and now. Now I know that some may not like that, but it seems quite true. The difference between the two is that 90's emo, early 90's is more about the sound the combination of hard songs with "emotional" lyrics or "soft-esq" lyrics, but still pretty damn hard-core because it was done as "here I am, take it or leave it"; and the more recent emo is more of an image of pure immitation of a depression or emotions, the people who play the now emo are more like the dicks that you find trying to get the record label, with a rich family, spoiled, and still find a way to complain about how no one loves them or how they never get what they want. And 90's emo was known for a metal or core-grunge while the emo of now is more of a pop rip-off of the revolution of the 90's while trying to be "punk" by copying what they've seen on t.v. or magazines. --User:Enthnd03 03:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

While your input is appreciated, you should know that contributions to Wikipedia must be verifiable. Your opinion or understanding of a subject may be well informed, but you are not a source of verifiable information. Thanks, and happy editing. --Cheeser1 03:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Distinction from punk and other similar genres

How is Emo different from other punk genres? If anyone can tell, please write it down. If not, tell me so I may attempt at a neutral classification. --Gabriel Texidor 21:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Emo is different from other punk genres in that the lyrics are often more introspective, as they were a reaction to hardcore punk's straightforward ranting. Many of the early "emo" bands (quotations because if you talk to any member of those bands, they will probably detest the term) started out in hardcore punk bands but decided to go in other musical directions. Please note that I am referring to what is known as emo's "first wave", and not the dreck that it's often labeled as today. If you want more info, see Fourfa, as this site has the best categorization and analysis of this music that I (and many others) have seen. --TheLetterM 16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this talk page is not a forum for discussion of the topic of this article, as indicated clearly at the top of the page, in bold. --Cheeser1 18:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Emotive not Emotional

"Emo" is not emotional rock, because all music has some kind of emotion it is expressing. The original post-hardcore music that was referred to as "emo" (which was a name given to these bands by other hardcore punk bands such as minor threat as a joke) was called emotive hardcore which meant describing "the process by which emotions are managed and shaped, not only by society and its expectations but also by individuals themselves as they seek to express the inexpressible" so it was just another way of punk music critisizing society. Then almost 9 years ago people started using "emo" to describe the girly crying kids that were coming around and MTV then picked it up and "emo" was given a whole new definition entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizardking69zoso (talk • contribs) 02:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can find one source from the 1980s that uses the phrase "emotive hardcore" rather than "emotional hardcore", then a change is in order. Otherwise, this is just speculation. --Chubbles 02:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Though Emo most likely did stand for Emotive Hardcore, I can find no reference to say so. The most refutable reference on Emo music is Fourfa, which says Emotional, so it could be kept as is. --Manupod 22:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything you say here is correct except for the "most likely" part. Speaking as someone heavily involved in the emo scene of the mid-to-late 90s, the term "emotive hardcore" simply was not used. There is not even room for "could have been" - it simply was not. It became a "popular" term only in the last few years. My take is that "emotive hardcore" is being pushed by the more elitist members of the current scene to separate themselves from the pop culture confluence of the terms "emo" and "emotional". And I think that's proven by the arrogance and belligerence of those folks on the issue, despite the fact that the evidence clearly does not support their insistence. --ChrisB 00:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

These days, the term emo is used to describe any band playing guitar-based music that is emotional either in approach, lyrical focus or affect. 2003 brought the diary-like hit Dashboard Confessional and since then, indie-rock cross-overs Bright Eyes and Death Cab For Cutie have become successful pop acts while maintaining -- if erroneously -- the label emo. In addition, more emotional pop punk bands like Brand New, Avenged Sevenfold, Taking Back Sunday and Thursday are all ascribed the label regardless of whether they claim it for themselves. Today, "emo" can describe almost anything emotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.91.204 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Having been around the scene since the late 80's I have to agree that the term wasn't in common usage on the east coast until late '92 or early '93 and I have never heard anyone (until just now) refer to the DC scene as the birthplace of emo. There were a lot of bands from everywhere that all popped up around the same time that got the "emo" label and no one back then saw it as a "DC style." In fact, all of the "emo" bands I knew of were from Syracuse, NY down to Philadelphia including NYC and NJ. Outside of that there were a handful of bands from California. And as the music started to get down tempo with bands like Texas Is The Reason and Kill Holliday '94 or '95 is the first time i remember hearing the term "screamo" which was used to identify similarly inrtrospective lyrics but with screaming vocals and normally harder music. As well no one ever called it emo because people were emotional onstage. It's punk/hardcore, people have always been emotional. It was called emo because the songs, the lyrics that is, were about emotions and relationships and looked at the usual punk issues through the lens of one's own emotions. I had never heard anyone say that it was called "emo" because the bands were made up of particulalry emotional people until 1999 or 2000, and that was only from people who were 19-21 at the time which means they would've been 12-14 years old when the term "emo" was first getting tossed around. It was also understood, by the mid to late 90's, that people in the DIY punk scene were abandoning the genre because of the "Mall kids" it was attracting. By the late '90's "emo" bands had become to the east coast what pop punk bands are to the west coast. The sounds are slightly different but the issues and the fan base are mostly the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.5.95 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Death cab for cutie is Indie Rock and the music is not emotive in a depression form. Death Cab and the other Indie Rock Bands are NOT EMO and this should be summed up... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skankyyoda (talk • contribs) 06:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

stereotype?

isnt emo a stereotype??? -- ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 10:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

yes look at Emo (slang) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.174.165 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is, but this is talking about the genre of music, as stated above, look at Emo (slang) --Iluvmesodou 07:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sub Genre of Rock? No.

Emo is it's own genre. It isn't a subgenre of Rock, if anything it's a subgenre of Pop. Most emo songs are softer and don't compare to Rock, as established by AC/DC, Lynard Skynard, Iron Maiden, Ozzy Osbourne, Black Sabbath, Poison, Metallica, Van Halen and others. It compares more to pop bands of the mid to late nineties. Calling emo a subgenre of Rock is a slap in the face to the above mentioned Rock Bands and to the whole Genre of Rock. --Raditude 00:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of what you mentioned is metal or hard rock. Those bands are from different subgenres of rock, and are thus not exactly the same as emo - that doesn't mean both can't be rock. You really, really have no idea what you're talking about. If you did, you could find sources these claims. You can't, and thus we cannot include it in Wikipedia. Unsourced claims have no place here. --Cheeser1 02:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any sourced claims that it is rock. --Raditude 03:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What is LiveJournal? I thought it was an online newspaper or something. Then again Wikipedia isn't a source since people can just go in and randomly change and vandalize stuff. --Raditude 03:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have no idea what Wikipedia is or how information in Wikipedia is sourced. See: WP:RS, WP:REF, WP:OR, WP:NOT, and WP:A. --Cheeser1 04:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And live journal is a blog. --Zazaban 01:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Punk is a subgenre of rock music. Hardcore is a subgenre of Punk music. Emo is a subgenre of Hardcore Punk music. Emo doesn't just simply come straight out of rock and roll. There's a long list of transitional genres that built up to its influence. --Relyt22 22:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Come now, Reylt22, if X is a subgenre of Y, and Y is a subgenre of Z, then X is a subgenre of Z. Logic! Good heavens, what do they teach them in schools these days? --Cheeser1 01:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL (no mockery intended), interesting Cheeser1, but when I thought about what you said, that equation on how "a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square" came up. --Iluvmesodou 07:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

dashboard confessional

have made a small change to the bit on dbc, making clear that his music was vastly different to second wave and first wave emo. the previous edit didn't say this so this was confusing. new bit reads: "2003 saw the success of Chris Carrabba, the former singer of emo band Further Seems Forever, and his project Dashboard Confessional. Despite musically being more aligned to the singer songwriter school, Carraba found himself part of the emerging "popular" emo scene. Carrabba's music featured lyrics founded in deep diary-like outpourings of emotion. While certainly emotional, the new "emo" had a far greater appeal amongst adolescents than its earlier incarnations. [12]" --eweyewewe 20:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Emo" song

Is there really a song named "Emo" by Death Cab For Cutie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.23.180 (talk • contribs)

Apparently not; i removed the entry, for now. --Piet Delport 15:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a song called "Emo" by Blink 182. Emo stands for Emotional Rocker, get it right before you talk about it, please. I, and my friends, may be offended by what you say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.53.93 (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)}}}

Question?

This answer to this question is probably false, but I would just like to clarify it a little bit, but is blink-182 in any what way Emo? I've asked this question simply out of curiosity. --Iluvmesodou 07:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Though blink might have had the slightest bit of contact with the San Diego emo bands (like Drive Like Jehu et al), they themselves were just a straight-ahead pop-punk band, nothing remotely "emo" about them. Also, keep in mind Cheeser's comment above- talk pages aren't meant for discussion of the article's subject as one would discuss on a message board. --TheLetterM 14:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Something else sort of on this topic, Emo stands for Emotive Hardcore, not Emotional Hardcore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.243.38 (talk) 16:32, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Emotive and emotional have exactly the same definition. There is no "official" name for it; use of either is perfectly appropriate. Since "emotional" is a more common word, it stands to reason that we might want to use it. --Cheeser1 18:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Metalheads hate Emo

Is emo vs. metalheads mention spam or actually needed mention. I thought, because, allways when i go to, forums (topics), youtube, last.fm, i see many, metalheads, wroted hatefull comments, about emo, like "Emo Sucks!", "Emos, should be dead after, mighty vikings come to slaying them down! Stop being Emo!", or Emo bands, tagged as "Emo Shit", "Teen Emo crap", or contest, between Emos and Metalheads, when metalheads win. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.0.131 (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If there's any actual Reliable Sources about this derision between the two subcultures, it certainly could have a place in the article. That being said, while it's certainly noticeable, anything sourced to sites like forums or youtube which thrives on user-provided content is no source that can be relied on. See WP:OR. --TheLetterM 18:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not emo.

I had posted a topic about a band that has been labeled emo, only for someone to delete it. Stating that "it is completely off topic, unproductive, unrelated to this article, and that belongs in a discussion forum" Hello, this is a discussion forum for the emo page, if we have an issue with something on it, it's suppose to be displayed here and talked over. Do not delete peoples post because YOU think it doesn't fit to YOUR standards, it's for people to talk on.

With that, I repost my statement to WHY Coheed and Cambria are not emo.

First off, I'd like to take the time to say. Read this, and don't reply UNLESS you are agreeing, or are going to change this matter. If you are just going to sit there and whine because you are wrong about something, I don't want to hear it.

So here we begin...

Each song that Coheed and Cambria has made, has gone in flow with a comic that Claudio Shanchez (Lead Singer) has thought of in that brilliant mind of his. Some might claim some of the songs emo due to a few lyrics. Well, how else would you explain a painful moment, or happy moment in a story? A rhyme about whatever the heck "junk in a trunk" is? No, you'd have an explanation of the characters pain and happiness.

Perhaps you should read some stuff from wiki itself. Within The Amory Wars page, (The comic made by Claudio)

"The story follows the adventure of Claudio Kilgannon across the fictional solar system, far in the past known as Heaven's Fence, in an attempt to seek help from his Uncle, after his parents are tricked into murdering Claudio's siblings, and then murdered themselves by the Supreme Tri-Mage and ruler of Heaven's Fence, Wilhelm Ryan."

All of their songs came from a point in the story, if you had known the story, you'd not tag them as emo at all. Because in fact they are not, it's a story. Get over it and stop with all of this "scene" stuff.

It's all a story, unlike other bands that cry and scream about "I want to die, no one understands me, I have it so bad, My girlfriend left me because I am whiny"

Understand what I am pointing out?

Emo is the most ridiculous label ever, yet sadly it is here and people wont let it die willingly. So, why not research bands before you label. While you are at it, read the Coheed and Cambria comics, they are quite the epic. This now ending my humble opinion on this matter of why they shouldn't be in this "Emo label" scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunynrae (talk • contribs) 21:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if they are or aren't emo. They're listed here as a band that has been called emo. In fact, that's the point of the paragraph - to demonstrate how nebulous the term is.

If you want the related Wikipedia guidelines - all we have to do is supply a reliable source (per WP:RS) that confirms that C&C have been called emo. Source. That's it. That's all we need. Any amount of rambling about how they are or aren't emo is irrelevant. --ChrisB 23:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And you trust MTV? The people that don't even play music anymore, pathetic. Well, I counter your source with mine. Source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunynrae (talk • contribs) 00:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you really read what I wrote? It doesn't matter if they're emo or not. We're not using C&C as an example of an emo band, we're using C&C as an example of a band that's been called emo. They've been called emo, so they're mentioned. Period.

(BTW - click on the "tag" page of your "source".) --ChrisB 00:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I read it. But I don't give a damn what you wrote. Apparently you are one of those "I must be right, or heaven shall fall" type of people. But, yet again. So you're making your own rules for Wikipedia now? You know, the public place? ....Cute.

But, as always there is that one prick in the crowd. You know what though, KoRn sings about sad matters, about how they are lonely and scared little boys and no one gets them. Maybe they should be on that list of "exmaples", I've heard them be called emo before. (This is a retort, personally I like KoRn) With that. I am done talking over the matter, continue to go on your own about it, I wont answer back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunynrae (talk • contribs) 01:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The previous contribution was removed because it was a rambling post that asserted nothing but someone's opinion of why one particular band might not be emo. This constitutes original research, and is in no way contributive to the article. All it amounts to is a discussion of the band and its relationship to this genre, based on people's opinions or thoughts. Such discussions do not belong on Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 01:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's fine for you to not know the policies of this encyclopedia, but refusing to acknowledge them does not go over very well. You've insisted that it's okay to violate WP:RS becuase you don't "don't give a damn." You've assumed bad faith and have been very uncivil. Wikipedia, despite what happens sometimes, is supposed to be a place where people collaborate to produce neutral, well sourced, verifiable articles that do not contain personal opinions or ideas, or bias. Please be sure to keep this in mind - even if you refuse to follow these rules, they are still the rules. Wikipedia isn't a place for you to do and say whatever you please. --Cheeser1 02:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Move

Based on discussion at Emo (slang), there is a consensus that the article be redirected here (with a small amount content merged into this article). It seems quite apparent that this would allow a sensible move from "Emo (music)" to simply "Emo." This may happen - just wanted to give you guys a heads up. To talk about the pseudo-merge / move / etc. see Talk: Emo (slang). --Cheeser1 02:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to make the move, and I've got the talk page from where this article's about to go below, so that it isn't lost. --Cheeser1 22:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The bands in the "emo waves" section

As I understand it, there is a category for Emo musical groups, but why do the avid Emo article watchdogs see it necessary to add bands to the article that aren't emo in any way? Especially in a section that is reserved for the description of emo bands of that period.

I believe that bands and the dispute over their emo status should be in the criticism section. We should try to keep the criticism of the bands/genre/stereotype in its own section rather than have it strewn all through the article. --Jonathontree 11:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I am planning to remove the stereotype paragraph from the fashion section. First, I have a problem with the notion that the stereotype is associated with the fashion. Second, I take issue with the credibility of the source for that paragraph. --Cedars 00:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

When your bold edits are reverted, you are supposed to wait until consensus is established. You are not supposed to revert a revert, except in cases like vandalism or blatant copyright violations. Note that I even explicitly told that I would be perfectly happy to discuss it in my edit summary. I do realize that this small paragraph could use a little work, but it's hardly an over-the-top or highly dubious claim. "I have a problem with the notion that the stereotype is associated with the fashion" - that's all well and good, but you did more than delete that part of the first sentence. There is obviously a great deal of ambiguity surrounding this stereotype, but there is one. It exists. Just because we need a better source doesn't necessarily mean it's not verifiable. --Cheeser1 04:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

An opinion piece is not a reliable source, see WP:RS. Because of this, the section has been removed for not being properly sourced. If you find one that works, you can re-add it, of course. --Gscshoyru 04:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You just reverted a revert, again. Can you take the time to read the policy please, before you keep edit warring? Also, please note that I have not based my argument solely on the fact that the current source is reliable. --Cheeser1 04:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

All articles are written from a POV, the source is completely verifiable and is a good citation for the paragraph. Please do not remove it again or it will be considered disruptive editing. Gaming the system by misrepresenting wikipedia guidelines is also bad etiquette. If you would like to explain why the UK's second biggest selling national newspaper which has been in publication for over 100 years is not verifiable then do so here. --Neon white 14:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Err...

Now please don't shout at me for this, but I am a regular user of Wikipedia. I saw this article as it stands now, and I saw the Emo (slang) article before it was presumably deleted. If one is going to have an article describing a label that can be applied to both fashion and music, one must at least do something about the presentation; I find the Emo article at the present moment, including both the fashion and the music, to be extremely messy, and I propose it be cleaned up. Wikipedia isn't paper, after all.

Now for a suggestion that will really make everyone shout at me. I think that, as Wikipedia has a section on fashion and stereotype, and no-one can find any good academic papers published in third-party sources, Wikipedians should instead scour the forums and newspaper columns. At the end of the day, emo is to do with society and society will define what constitutes emo, not the intellectuals whose views you seek. Of course, you are allowed to ignore everything I have just said and denounce me as an ignorant, time-wasting oik/vandal. I would, in fact, prefer that to being shouted down thoughtlessly. I admit that you may find my logic holey, but please take the time to think about what I have said and rebutt me in full instead of answering with a big, fat, unexplanatory no. I will now leave the talk page, as I have aired my views. --91.106.20.100 19:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is this business about how we're all going to "shout you down"? Starting a discussion by presuming that we are hostile or in the business of attacking you is not very productive. I'm not sure what you mean by "forum" but web-based forums are not reliable sources (they are self-published and generally first-person accounts). There are several citations of journalistic sources in that section (small as it is). I don't see what your complaint is. The problem with academic sources had to do with academic claims. The stuff presented here is not academic, and relies on perfectly good news sources. Also, do you have some sort of complaint about the merge? There was a tiny' section created near the end, with only a couple paragraphs, and as far as I can tell it integrates pretty fine with the rest of the article (which was unchanged). --Cheeser1 23:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources and such

We are having some difficulties. There is a lot of background to this issue. Including a number of complaints from an editor, Cheeser1, about the quality of sources me and a couple of other Wikipedians provided at the now defunct Talk:Emo (slang). I can't help but feel a little cheated that he is now trying to add content citing a Daily Mail article that is widely acknowledged to be alarmist. At a deeper level, there seems to be concern about whether, apart from the music, emo is just a stereotype or whether there is something more substantive to talk about in the article. I'm not good with RfCs and I don't want to get drawn into some lengthy discussion/mediation. So please post thoughts on how we can move forward and improve this article here. --Cedars 16:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There are two sources for a single sentence which makes a non-analytical statement about the fact that emo is associated with depression and/or suicide. That tiny part of that small section is more than adequately sourced, especially given its size and the non-analytical nature of the statements. --Cheeser1 17:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles are both verifiable, your personal opinion about them has no baring here, neither do things that are 'widely acknowledged' yet have no sources. Emo (slang) was a completely different case, this is not about points scoring. If a citation is verifiable it stays, if it is not it goes regardless of who wrote and who removed it. --Neon white 23:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The simple fact here is that the paragraph in question is stating info about a popular stereotype and those sources back up the existence of such a stereotype. By definition stereotypes are often inaccurate. What is notable is the fact that the stereotype was reported. I have added the term 'in the popular media' as i think this might enable a consensus to be reached, it makes the paragraph more accurate by specifying where the stereotype exists. --Neon white 23:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Something more about the stereotypes...

does anyone want to mention in the stereotype section about Rob Dobi's illustrations? (maybe it was already mentioned i dont know) but here's a link.. [1] and the new book that came out, Everybody Hurts: An Essential Guide to Emo Culture ... I apologize if someone already mentioned this stuff.. --Hairsprayqueen 15:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can comment on these images unless they've received significant third-party coverage. We also can't include these images, say, to illustrate some sort of stereotype because they're copyrighted. --Cheeser1 21:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Major problem

so the protectors of this page want everything to from a source? Someone please tell me where the terms First, Second and Third Wave came from? as Wikipedia is the only place I have heard them. eweyewewe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.68.224 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice that "first wave" (etc) isn't capitalized. Those aren't terms - they're markers to distinguish the different (cited) periods of emo. We are allowed this kind of leeway, in the same manner that band articles are often split by headings such as "early years", "popular era", etc. What would you recommend instead: "first period"? "First era"? --ChrisB 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

to be fair it would probably be better to do it by genre (very roughly e.g hardcore, indie and pop variations), as one of the problems this site has is people arguing about what emo is, or disagreeing with the bands, if ther bands wre clearly lined in genres then no one is gonna complain that taking back sunday are listed as a pop-emo band. though this is all speculation and a huge task to undertake. though the way the article is set up makes it seem as though once one wave had finished, that was it for the style of music, which isn't true at all. would be hard to cite, but i don't think it's going against the spirit of wiki to tweak it slightly to remedy this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.68.224 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm going to try to edit this. I don't want to see all my changes deleted because this will take a long time to work on and it definatly will organize this article a lot better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.4.101 (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.6.76 (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Post-hardcore a sub-genre of Emo?

That is totally wrong, I'm absolutely sure that Emo evolved from post-hardcore. --The-15th 18:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fashion/Culture

This sections is pretty bad. The fashion listed is very poorly chosen. Even if these articles of clothing are what the emos are wearing, it is not indicative of the lifestyle...

Tight Jeans (men & women) Tight t-shirts (men & women) Belt Buckles Tightly Fitting Sweaters (Men & Women) Button-down Shirts Trackjackets Hoodies

Those are ridiculous, because that type of clothing is worn by probably the majority of the United States. They shouldn't be listed when personifying a specific group. It's like saying pedophiles wear Cotton Dockers. One would be harder pressed to find a person who doesn't wear those items of clothing...

If it isn't reworded within a few days, I'm cutting the entire section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.38.49 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be new to Wikipedia, so I'll give you a few pointers. Sign your posts by typing ~~~~. Place new comments at the end of a talk page. And as for your comments, while your input is appreciated, you shouldn't be making an ultimatum. If you want to reword it, reword it. If you want to cut it, cut it. Be bold, but if your changes are reverted, you'll have to build consensus. Demanding that people change it based on your (flawed) analysis is inappropriate. I say flawed because nowhere in the article does it say that these clothes are "indicative of the lifestyle" or that any such "lifestyle" exists. It's simply a short section on fashion associated with this music and the young people associated with it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The section is about a popular stereotype (as the title suggests) and is sourced thoroughly and properly according to wikipedia guidelines, there is no mention in the article that the stereotype is indicative of anybodies lifestyle or indeed mentions any individuals or groups. It is purely about a stereotype associated with a style of music and no more. --Neon white (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but it is certainly a part of youth culture. I think that it should therefore be included, just as we have articles for various fads. --Dark Green (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And when it's verifiably a "culture" then we can talk about that. The fact that some unqualified people think that "preppy" and "punk" and "emo" fashions among high-schoolers all constitute youth cultures does not make it an encyclopedic fact. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Listed bands

It seems people are getting the wrong idea. The bands listed near the end of the article (AFI< MCR< FOB, etc) are there because they're often called emo, not because their music style is emo. Which is why I'm removing Coheed & Cambria, and putting in the list Linkin Park, Lostprophets and 30 Seconds to Mars --Titan50 (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Who changed it back? They're always classified as emo, morons --Titan50 (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note strongly worded indication that this list of bands is not around for people to tweak or play with whenever they feel like it. Calling people morons for following the consensus-established guideline concerning this list (which is in ALL CAPS, how can you overlook it?) is not going to help anyone resolve this issue. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

K, I see what you're getting at, sorry. I'll leave this here for debate and for people to respond. --Titan50 (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

new bands

you need to add Silverstein, Aiden, Bayside, Atreyu, Anime Fire, On the Last Day thx --Kelzarrak (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. --Neon white (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Invalid sources for "emotive hardcore"

1) [2] This article cannot be used as a source. Seriously, it says, "Emo actually stands for "emotive", coined by Ian McKay." First, it's spelled MacKaye. Second, MacKaye reviled the term. He had NOTHING to do with its coining.

2) [3] This is essentially a high school newspaper. It fails WP:RS: "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight."

Furthermore, the author of the article failed to do enough research. Sources contemporary to the establishment of "emo" refer to it as "emotional hardcore". In fact, the first usage of "emotive hardcore" that we've been able to find is from a 1996 newsgroup posting by a record label.

I cannot comprehend the driving need by some people to rewrite history. But the historical record is irrevocable - the term originated as "emotional hardcore". The usage of "emotive hardcore" only came within the last decade. --ChrisB (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Barb Wired is an online newspaper for New Zealand secondary school students. It is produced by Cognition Consulting Ltd and is edited by Phil Coogan., it has an editorial policy and therefore is verifiable. There is enough use of the term for it to be noted regardless of when you consider it to be have been first used. It isn't given any more prominence over the term you favour. You are missing the point. We do not get to decide what is true. Some other sources [4][5][6][7], there are also a good few record labels using the term and i think the most verifiable has to be the warped tour. --Neon white (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Having an editor and having an "established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight" are two entirely different things. Considering the nature of the site (and the nature of the newspaper - which is to provide an open forum for high schools to see their work published), there's no evidence of any fact-checking of the articles whatsoever. Providing a source is not enough - the source has to meet the threshold of the claim.

That doesn't even touch the problem of using that source in that sentence. The term "emotive hardcore" WAS NOT USED within the DC scene of the 1980s, which is specifically what that sentence is describing. Even if "emo" now "stands" for "emotive hardcore", it's irrelevant to the opening paragraph, which is talking about the 1980s DC scene that spawned the genre. --ChrisB (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant when or where you think it was used or first used, we have multiple sources that prove it is in common use as an alternative phrase. Barb Wired is no different to any other newspaper or journal, it has an editor and a policy. What exactly do you think an editor's job is? An editor is a fact checker. The text does not attempt to specify when various terms were used it merely states what emocore can be short for. The bottom line is there are two alternatives and there is no reason why the article should not include both, it does not not give either unnecessary prominence. If you like we can clarify the emotive hardcore is only known in more recent times. --Neon white (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

While I tend to be very open to sources that make claims that require little to no authority, I feel like presenting the two "alternatives" as equal or synonymous might be dubious but more importantly, that source is seriously unreliable. WP:RS gives us wide latitude to evaluate the reliability of a source, regardless of if it claims to have an editorial process. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also add that "emotive" and "emotional" are synonyms - the fact that the use of the term "emotional" is well documented would mean we should say "emotional." The fact that another word, with the same meaning, can also be shortened in the same way is interesting, but hardly important. "Emo" is not a standard abbreviation, but we don't need to list all possible things that can abbreviated to "emo." --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And one final comment: let's not stoop to reverting each other with "RVV" (or the like) as our edit summary. It's really inappropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point there are many sources that use the term 'emotive hardcore' so there's no real reason to not include it as an alternative. The fact that it is clearly in use is what is important not it's accuracy. Some sources are more reliable than others and considering the lack of written info on this subject, you aren't going to get scholarly sources on this, they are about as reliable as you're going to get. Please remember WP:RS is only a guideline, having an editorial policy is a big factor in verifiabilty, it means it's not self-published and has been checked by at least one person and let's face it, there's no source for 'emotional hardcore' either or in fact all the intro. Actually there aren't exact synonyms, although they may be incorrectly used as such, emotional properly means of emotions whereas emotive properly means stimulating an emotion. I fail to see the problem with many of the sources. I would consider punknews.org to be the most reliable in terms of the subject and i believe i has seen it accepted as reliable elsewhere. They prove, in the context of this discussion that the term is in use and i think a consensus to include it in some way can be formed. It was my suggestion to include specifically as a more recent alternative --Neon white (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't explode at me, I offered a few comments with the intent of calming this discussion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, i was just trying to explain myself clearly. --Neon white (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Emo Subculture

Can a mention of the subculture be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skrayl (talk • contribs) 16:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources on any subculture of this type - it's exitence cannot be verified. So in short, not really (unless you have a wealth of sociology sources tucked away that none of us have seen). --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the article needs to talk about somewhat "emo-indie" bands, such as "Camber", "Emerson" and "Ariel Kill Him"...they remind me of "Christie Front Drive" and "Sunny Day Real Estate". I think the article needs to show all the true "emo genre" fans that the indie emo is still alive and moving on this last years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.234.184.30 (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is what an encyclopedia is for. --Neon white (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Rearranging article and adding a differenciation

I'm fine with you talking about what the media shows as emo but you should add what emo is nowadays and depict that the media is just being ignorant inside the article. There are lots of bands that actually play real emo music in the present, I'm talking about bands like Love Like... Electrocution, Life Is A Fight, Kite Flying Society, The Kodan Armada, asamblea internacional del fuego, Noisy Sins Of The Insect, Toru Okada, Suis La Lune, GO! with fourteen o, Amalthea, Québec, The Spirit Of Versailles, Zombie Zombie, Green Is Mean, Sinking Steps...Rising Eyes, mr. willis of ohio, The Khayembii Communique, Only for the sake of aching, Portrait, Et tu Brute, Scraps of Tape, A Petal Fallen, With Horses In Her Eyes, Nitro Mega Prayer, Kias fansuri, Santo Caserio, Raein, Aghast, Saetia, Cobra Kai, Belle Epoque, Petethepiratesquid, La Quiete, departure from apathy, Bravo Fucking Bravo, Men As Trees, EVA-01, Ache:emelie, Love Lost but Not Forgotten, Archer in jeopardy, Mesa Verde, I Wrote Haikus About Cannibalism in Your Yearbook, etc, etc, etc. In my opinion what the media says should be under a sub-title like "Actuall bastardization of the term" or something like that (probably something a little bit less subjective) and the part of the article where you talk about emo should be almost completely rewritten as the article talks a 90% of the time about what MTV wants you to believe is emo. I'd do it but my english is really poor as you can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norestforendimion (talk • contribs) 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, just to explain a little how it works, wikipedia isn't a blog or a message board, it's not a place where one can publish original thought on a subject, it is a collation of information gathered from reliable and verifiable sources, many of which may be articles in the media, especially in an article about pop culture. As far as wikipedia is concerned they are the reliable source for what 'real' emo is considered to be. Take a look of this page to find out more. --Neon white (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition of an external link

I added an external link that was removed and I was sent a message about spamming. I am fully aware that wikipedia links are nofollow and etc etc

I was thinking that adding a link to emobucket.com may be helpful for people researching the Emo genre and culture, as there are some articles regarding emo there, and a forum that would allow people to see what actual emo people think of the term. --Fordpp (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You should read the policy in question. There's really no way that site could be considered a meaningful external link. It's hardly a place to do legitimate research or anything of the sort. It's just a web-forum, and there's really no reason to link to web-forums all the time. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe i was the one who removed it, i checked the site and considered it to be largely a social networking/group site. I also considered that, the links inclusion might have been intended to promote the website, it didn't contain any real information of value to the article and, other than in naming, i dispute whether the site has any real link to the subject of the article. Points 4, 11 & 14 of links normally to be avoided on WP:EL --Neon white (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Popularity?

I think the emo style is more popular than emo music as of 2007. --83.228.121.186 (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Most definitely. Someone needs to edit it to show --81.129.214.72 (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Song Titles

I tried looking throught the archive so forgice me if this has been discussed before, but I think it should be noted many emo songs have long nonsensical titles. See I'm Like a Lawyer with the Way I'm Always Trying to Get You Off (Me + You) and The Only Difference Between Martyrdom and Suicide Is Press Coverage. I think it would be interesting to note. --BioYu-Gi! 19:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

i'm sorry, but you have no clue. Fall Out boy and Panic! at the disco are NOT emo. they are an insult to it. emo bands are like Alexisonfire, Scary Kids Scaring Kids, etc. but yes, some emo bands do have random song names, like Waterwings (and Other Poolside Fashion Faux Pas), and I've Got Ten Friends and A Crowbar That Says you ain't Gonna Do Jack. fall out boy somewhat ripped off this title with their song I've got a Dark Alley and A Bad Idea Which Says you Better Shut Your Mouth —Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinGOLDENEYE (talk • contribs) 20:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to interject my personal opinion into this section (that none of the bands mentioned in this section are "emo" at all, oh wait...). Then again, the article does make the distinction that the bands listed on the page are those that have been considered "emo", regardless of whether or not such a mention is valid. Still, long song titles really aren't that that much a defining characteristic of Emo bands.

For example:

• None of the song titles on Universal Order of Armageddon's retrospective discography go past four words.
• Neither does Rites of Spring's End on End.
• If you consider Drive Like Jehu to be emo (fourfa.com does so), their song titles never went past five words.

Also:

• Have you cracked open an Of Montreal or Sufjan Stevens album recently? The song titles on their recent albums get confoundingly ridiculous.
• The Smiths definitely have long-ish, erudite song-titles (tellingly so since Fall Out Boy love to ape them)

So essentially, this kind of thing seems to largely be a latter-day phenomenon by bands with no contextual link to the 80s/90s bands, and plus, without a source, mentioning that some bands in this genre had abnormally long song titles doesn't really seem that notable. --TheLetterM 21:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A good emo example of this would be Boys Night Out's first album, Make Yourself Sick, which included songs like; "I Got Punched in the Nose for Sticking My Face in other Peoples' Business", and "The Subtleties That Make Mass Murderers Out of Otherwise Decent Human Beings". --Pwnage8 14:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bands to be added to the list

A Day To Remember[8], Boys Night Out[9], Silverstein[10]. --Pwnage8 15:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason to add them? Allmusic categorization is not the criterion for this list. --Cheeser1 16:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Allmusic is usually considered a reliable source however this article is not a list of emo bands and the number should be limited to notable bands. Maybe a seperate list article is required? --Neon white (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Allmusic is notoriously willy-nilly about fact-checking in my experience. There's been ongoing debate (although I haven't participated in it) about whether it can be considered reliable at all. The list is there to illustrate a few bands that are popularly called emo. Not every possible band we can think of. The list was declared static by consensus, to avoid constant editing by SPAs/IPs/whoever to try to make the list be whatever it was they want. Hence the gigantic all-caps warning. Changing the list requires at least some motivation besides "well this website says they're emo," I'd say. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the site they have an editorial staff consisting of 'hundreds of expert contributors', this would suggest a high level of reliability. I don't think there need be a list at all. It should be a seperate article. --Neon white (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean a separate list? As for allmusic.com, that's not an issue we need to settle here. Suffice it to say, I have time and again found egregious errors all over that site. Errors that are contradicted in other more reliable and reasonable sources. Especially in terms of their liberal and non-standard (mis)application of genres. But honestly, it doesn't matter. The tiny list here is simply to give a few examples. It's not meant to be everchanging or exhaustive. Such a list would actually make a much better category (we probably already have one). --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This won't be the only case you'll find of reliable sources that contradict each other but that doesnt make allmusic less reliable than any other reliable source. Whether facts are incorrect is largely subjective and, as it's produced primarily by music journalists, my perosnal view is that it can be regarded as reliable as any source. But anyway back to the point, most genres seem to have a list artcile so it wouldn't be out of the ordinary, plus i think the term is used to describe plenty of bands and it might stop the constant tampering if we replace the list here with a link to the proposed article. --Neon white (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)