Talk:List of emo artists

What is the point of this page?

The lead says "This is a list of notable musical artists who have been referred to or have had their music described as emo". What purpose does that serve? It'd be one thing if you were going to list bands based on a genre because that's what they are. But listing them because someone (that may not know what they're talking about or are just stating an opinion) describes them as something? If I describe a female celebrity as being "ugly", does that mean she belongs on a list of "ugly female celebrities"? Someone else may think she's beautiful, and someone else may say she's just okay. I thought an encyclopedia was for referencing verifiable facts, not a list of opinionated poppycock.

I guess I wouldn't mind if the list wasn't done so poorly with bands that don't belong and many other bands, who are properly defined as being emo bands on this very site by the way, are missing.

It needs work, if it even belongs at all. Fixing the lead may be a start. Smk42 (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You are editing heavily based on your own point of view, and I must insist that you stop. Your recent edits removed a number of referenced artists, and added a bunch without citing any sources. If you continue to edit in this fashion I will have to issue you warnings for knowingly violating our core policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Inclusion on this list is based on an artist or their music being described as emo by reliable sources in the field of music, including journalists, historians, and critics. That is not "opinionated poppycock". --IllaZilla (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, Hitler (and I'll keep calling you that until you stop deleting without first debating), it's not my point of view. You either are or you're not. And sometimes it's more gray than that, but at least it's close enough to where you still belong in the conversation. This crap like Lostprophets, it's not even in the conversation. You find one little blurb about it some guy throwns in an article that four people read and you think that proves something? I wrote stuff on sports before, and have it published on a website, which is sourced on this website. It's not that hard to do. Of course with sports, you can present empirical evidence that is not up for debate. Music, it's different. It's tougher to classify things. But you have to at least be in the ballpark with something, and some of these choices were downright laughable to have on here. The fact that there's a lengthy Linkin Park discussion is a joke. Anyone that took part in that should be ashamed of themselves.

And no, you really don't need to add references to a list. The whole point of something being on a list is that it belongs there in the first place. When you click on that entry, you'll immediately see why it is there on the list. You can't say that's not the case for anything I add and didn't feel like adding a reference for now. Anyone that really knows emo would know why that band is there. Which brings me back to the point, what purpose is this even serving when you're throwing out wrong, opinionated info and leaving out the bands that really belong here? This article serves no use and I think it should be up for deletion unless it's cleaned up. Smk42 (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_rock_musicians_by_subgenre - if you click on some lists of a similar nature there, you'll see many do not include a citation for each and every band. Many have not one citation listed. If you feel so insecure about a band being on a list that you have to dig up a reference for them to appear, then maybe it's not worth doing in the first place. Smk42 (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Essentially this list makes no sense. Instead of scouring the net for that one silly article that will drop the emo buzzword in reference to a band that has nothing to do with it (that's what is going on in some cases), shouldn't this be relying on more of a consensus for whether or not a band is emo? You may find one article to call AFI emo, but for every one of those, you can find hundreds that wouldn't dare throw them into that. That doesn't mean the consensus is right 100% of the time, but there's something wrong with the idea of trying to find one person dumb enough to call a band emo so they can be included on some list. Smk42 (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

A month later and still no mention of AFI's absurd listing. Smk42 (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The listing of AFI in this list was indeed absurd, considering it is not well sourced, and the fact that I am a huge AFI fan and NOT an emo fan doesn't help at all. But I think a lot of people consider them emo, after DU. -.- 97.137.139.33 (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont know who wrote this page, but you should stop writing wikipedia articles about stuff you know nothing about. less than half of these bands could even remotely be thought of as emo. Jimmy eat world? really? come on!! i would like to bet that you have listened to few if any of these artists yourself. Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.191.71 (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Whine, whine, whine... There are plenty of highly-reliable sources describing Jimmy Eat World as emo. Their Clarity album is widely cited by critics as one of the most significant emo albums of the '90s, and their Bleed American album (particularly the hit "The Middle") is often credited with helping bring emo into the mainstream in the early '00s. Clearly you didn't even read the references. Every artist on this list is referenced to sources describing them or their music as emo. That is the inclusion criteria. "Emo" has a nebulous and ever-changing definition: What it meant to someone in the mid-late '80s (Rites of Spring, Embrace, et al) is completely different to what it meant to a lot of people in the mid-90s (Jawbreaker, Sunny Day Real Estate, etc.), which again is different from what it became in the late-'90s/early '00s (Jimmy Eat World, The Get Up Kids, etc.) and even that is quite different from the meaning it has taken in the last 5 years (My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, yadda yadda yadda). The list is not based on what you personally define as emo or not, it is based on how reliable sources have chosen to describe these artists. Some of the sources are weaker than others, yes, and there is some weeding out we could do with a critical eye to the quality of the sources, but Jimmy Eat World would uncontestably stay on there, I guarantee you, because there are multiple highly reliable sources describing their importance to emo. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.38.115.218, 20 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

take out Simple Plan off the list of emo bands cause Simple Plan are not emo 72.38.115.218 (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Simple Plan are not emo" is entirely your own opinion and not a valid reason for removal. Inclusion on this list is based on references to reliable sources describing an artist as emo. The Simple Plan entry is referenced to Rolling Stone. The problem is that RS's recent horrendous redesign of their website has rendered the reference a dead link. I can no longer find a profile for Simple Plan on the (awful) new RS site. Since whoever added the source did not give an accessdate, I do not know where to look in an internet archive to try to repair the dead link. Unless someone can supply an alternate source for Simple Plan, I would support their removal from the list (on the basis of sourcing, not on the basis of opinion). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The existing Rolling Stone reference is a dead link, but I found this from their Indian website. Based on that, I'm not inclined to change the list unless a reliable source establishes otherwise. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

what about all time low

if you just listen to their music they sound "emo" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenhamlin (talk • contribs) 05:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What about no original research. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

[1] list them as emo. NoremacDaGangsta (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Merely having "emo-pop" on the bullet-point list of genres is insufficient. The biography does not mention emo at all and does not describe how the band's music might fit that description. The biography itself firmly describes them as a pop-punk act (and is in fact the only genre mentioned in the text). --IllaZilla (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

All Time Low isn't emo, they're pop rock, and most artists listed in the List Of Emo artists page is actually just al ist of pop rock, metalcore, deathcore, and electropop. A few things about the artists listed there, a vast majority of the artists there are actually part of other genres, and not actually emo. -Jerard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinoyjer13 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Each artist on the list is accompanied by sources specifically referring to them or their music as emo. That they are "not actually emo" is your own opinion, and trumped by the existence of sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, every article about them on allmusic refers to them as emo pop at least once. I only haven't added them yet because I wasn't sure which of the five sources was most specific (although three of them are by the same author, so that should narrow it down a bit). Unless anyone objects, I think that's more than enough sources to add them.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of AFI

I am not saying that AFI isn't emo(which they aren't but oh well) I am suggesting that someone add This link into their section, because that one page that references them isn't THAT reliable and the link I added is a review by Allmusic that states so. I don't agree but this isn't a talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.137.139.33 (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Another artist

I think Jena Lee, should be added to the list, she has herself declared her music as Emo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrkFrdric (talk • contribs) 05:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]}, and we rely on secondary sources as opposed to the artists themselves. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

30 Seconds to Mars

I don't understand why after this long discussion ended with a consensus to remove them 30 Seconds to Mars are still on the list. The sources used are the same with another one added recently. That is a review of This Is War and it doesn't describe 30 Seconds to Mars music as emo. They need removed from the list and that sources need to disappear.--Trandingbrights (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I happen to share the opinion that 30 Seconds to Mars is not an emo act, but all 3 sources explicitly describe them and/or their music as emo:

• [2] "this is as earnest as an emo record gets."
• [3] "the latest emo, screamo, rock outfit to come storming out of the States" / "a three-minute emo classic."
• [4] "When they were mining a post-grunge or nu metal or emo vein, this was a liability"

While you're entitled to disagree with the opinions expressed in the sources, saying that they "don't describe 30 Seconds to Mars music as emo" is obviously false. I don't see your point when you say "That is a review of This Is War"...This Is War is a 30 Seconds to Mars album, so if the source says that the album is emo then they are describing 30 Seconds to Mars' music as emo.

Also, if you're going to notify other editors who took part in last year's discussion, you should notify all of them. I notice that you conveniently only notified those who agree with your point of view (Smk42, Albert Mond, and Strawberry Slugs), while neglecting to notify those who disagreed (Nouse4aname and myself). That smacks of canvassing. If you read the entirety of last year's discussion you will see some very strong arguments put forth by Nouse4aname that the requirements of WP:V and WP:NPOV are clearly being met, in the face of some rather opinionated rants.

"Emo" is a nebulous term and its usage/definition has adapted, flexed, and been used variably over the course of the last 25 years. Many of the acts that have been described as emo in the music press within the last 10 years (even those held up as exemplars of the style) would not been seen as such by purists beholden to definitions they established for themselves 2 decades ago. As encyclopedia editors it is not our place to endlessly debate who is and is not emo; rather, it is our job to accurately describe, through sources, the historical evolution of the term's usage and the changing musical styles that it has been applied to. That 30 Seconds to Mars has been described this way is indicative of the wildly disparate usage of the term in the 21st century. Whining that particular sources "need to disappear" makes it clear that you are approaching the subject from an opinionated rather than academic stance, and claiming that sources don't describe a particular act as emo when they clearly do is indicative that you are arguing your own point of view rather than arguing from sources. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts, and it is a fact that these sources describe the music of 30 Seconds to Mars as emo. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I stopped following this garbage because I saw no point in keeping up with pages run by a clueless dictator. This whole page should be deleted because it's a waste of time, listing bands that have nothing to do with emo and ignoring many that do. 30STM was already determined by consensus to be removed, so how in the world did that not happen? Those references are invalid and contradictory. You can't define a band's style of music by one single, so that's invalid. Then, how can you use allmusic.com when the site itself lists them as a pop/rock band and their only styles as prog-rock, post-grunge and neo-prog? Not to mention their list of similar bands aren't even close to being anything that belongs here. Anyone with common sense knows 30STM is not emo. This list is an embarrassment, and it's mostly because of one person that makes all the mistakes to keep it that way. --Smk42 (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the same POV-based rant you've made several times before. There are 2 separate reviews of 2 separate albums, and a third review of a single, describing the band's music as emo. All 3 are reliable sources. Your claim that they are "invalid and contradictory" is completely baseless. Just because you disagree with a source does not make it invalid. Were this my personal, POV-based list of emo bands, there are many I would remove, 30STM included. I don't even like 'em...in fact I'm not even sure I've ever heard 'em. But it's not. It's a list of artists who have been described as emo, or had their music described as emo, in reliable sources. 30STM passes that criteria, as there are 3 different reliable sources describing their music as emo. You are free to consider whomever you want to be emo or not emo, but you can't rule out sources as "invalid and contradictory" just because they don't suit your POV. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Except it's a fact those references are bunk that contradict themselves. If you want to be accurate, then change the name of the damn article to "List of bands that have been referred to as emo by at least one potentionally idiotic person in the world that somehow got paid to write it", because that's all this is. And I'd like to think we both know how pointless of an article that would be (i.e. how worthless this thing is). This list is useless in it's current form to anyone that's actually looking for a list of emo bands that happen to have an article on here. Why is every other list of bands on this site better than this one? Hmm, must be because they don't have one person trying to control everything that goes on it, and they actually use common sense and put bands on there that (usually) actually belong to said genre. --Smk42 (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Rant, rant, rant... As usual you care only about your own opinions and don't give a flip for our core policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV. The sources are not "bunk", nor do they "contradict themselves", you merely keep whining that they do because you don't agree with what they say. The claim that "every other list of bands on this site better than this one" is also complete garbage, as the vast majority of "list of genre artists" are completely unsourced and not a single one is even GA. You merely think they're "better" because most of them aren't sourced, so you're free to add or remove whatever artists you see fit without caring a whit about sources, and most of them also aren't watched or maintained, so nobody bothers to oppose you. Your "arguments" are petulant and you've yet to make a single one that has a basis in Wikipedia policy. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Now I remember why I stopped following this. People like you make the world dumber. As long as that has been your goal, then you've succeeded. If you ever wanted to do the right thing, you change the article's title or at least add a disclaimer that a lot of the bands listed aren't actually---screw it. We already know you'll continue to make this an insult to logic and intelligence. --Smk42 (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It's telling that you find Wikipedia's core policies, and any point of view that doesn't agree with your own, to be "an insult to logic and intelligence." --IllaZilla (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything to really add to this "debate" that hasn't already been explained time and again by IllaZilla. This isn't a list of bands that have been described as emo by reliable sources that members of the public and wikipedia editors/readers agree with. It is simply a list of bands that at some point in their career have been described as emo by one or more reliable sources. The fact that you or anyone else may disagree with such descriptions is irrelevant. IllaZilla should be applauded for his work on this list. He has dug out citations for virtually all of the bands on the list, formatted them properly, and maintains the list to a high standard. This is an essential requirement for such lists as random IPs and editors have a tendency to bulk add or delete bands that they don't agree with, thus destroying any sense of reliability of the article. 30STM may or may not be considered an emo band now, but their music (and thus they, as a band) have been described as emo in several reliable sources in the past. That is all that matters. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The band genre can't be described emo by a single review or a source that states the album is prog rock or that the band has moved out of the emo genre. These sources aren't used well.--Trandingbrights (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(A) There are 3 reviews cited, not just one. (B) They can't have moved out of the emo genre if they weren't there to begin with. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but these reviews aren't used well. The first review calls the group a metallic post-grunge quartet and only at the last sentence is written 'this is as earnest as an emo record gets'. One silly sentence at the end of an album review doesn't define a band's genre (that is post grunge for the reviewer). The second source is a single review so here is useless. And, as wrote Strawberry Slugs, it seems an unreliable source. The third source states that the band has moved out of the emo genre. There is no reason to keep 30 Seconds to Mars in this list.--Trandingbrights (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources are used perfectly well. The first flat-out calls the album an emo album: the reviewer clearly considers the album to be emo. Therefore, it is calling the band's music emo. The fact that the second source is a review of a single in no way makes it "useless"; I don't see your reasoning there at all. The criteria, as stated at the top of the page, is that the artist or their music has been described as emo in reliable sources. Whether the sources are talking about a song, an album, or the artist's entire repertoire is irrelevant. As for the third, as I already stated they can't have moved out of the emo genre if they weren't there to begin with. To have "moved out" of the genre they must have been making music that fit the genre at some point in the past. That's just common sense. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)