Talk:Emo

Notes on "Nothing Feels Good" by Andy Greenwald

In looking at the sources that Cedars refers to in the above "Emo subculture" section, I wanted to discuss one in particular. The sources can be seen here, and most of them have been discussed ad nauseum in those archives as well as the ones for this talk page, but there is one that has not been much discussed that I would like to touch on, which is Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo by Andy Greenwald. This is really a great source for tracing the history of emo. It covers all the waves of the genre from its origins in early-80s DC to the book's publication date of 2003, as well as many of the cultural, fashion, and other aspects related to it (including several chapters exploring the relationship between teenagers and emo). (From the jacket:) Greenwald himself is a senior contributing writer at Spin whose writing has also appeared in The Village Voice and The Washington Post, and he has made numerous appearances on MTV, VH1, the BBC, and ABC Radio. He is definitely a reliable, published source in this field (his website is here). I've read the book 2 or 3 times in the last few years, and when I have more time on my hands I will certainly try to use it as a source to improve this article.

That said, the archived discussions focus on 2 passages from the book in an attempt to make the case that it is a source for emo being a "subculture", and I feel that this is taking the source out of context. The 2 passages referred to are:

• But over the course of getting to know them I discovered an entire subculture-and that's what I came to see emo as. It's not a genre. It's a subculture. (p. 37)
• ...what was once a subculture...is now something completely new and unexplored: a national subculture dominated by those too young to have their voices heard, but savvy enough to make their presence felt. (p. 58)

Now it's pretty obvious to me that someone who was looking to make the case for emo as a subculture simply did a Google book search for "emo+subculture" and found these passages. But in doing so they are being taken out of context, because in the book (which is sitting open in front of me right now) the first passage is not attributed to Greenwald but to a person he is interviewing, and the second refers not to emo but to punk rock. Here are the passages in context, somewhat abbreviated for length:

• Chris Ryan was 19 years old when he moved from Philadelphia to Boston in 1996 to attend college..."When I got to Boston," he remembers, "I was entirely by myself. Eventually, I met a couple of guys in classes and we bonded over music...I remember walking down the street one day and they were talking about the Promise Ring, who I had never heard of. They told me it was an emo band and I was like, 'What's an emo band?' and they didn't know! Even then you couldn't say what it was. But over the course of getting to know them I discovered an entire subculture–and that's what I came to see emo as. It's not a genre. It's a subculture." (p. 37)

Note that this statement cannot be attributed to Greenwald, but to Ryan, and that he is talking about 1996 rather than the present. However, according to the rest of the passage Ryan is now a rock critic in New York, so futher searching may be able to turn up more of his thoughts on emo.

• Punk rock has changed the internet and the internet has fundamentally changed punk rock. What was once a subculture, dominated by regionality, is now something completely new and unexplored: a national subculture, dominated and defined by those too young to have their voices heard, but savvy enough to make their presence felt. (p. 58)

This statement is attributable to Greenwald himself, but note that he is explicitly talking about punk rock, not emo. Now, the book as a whole discusses emo largely in the context of punk rock, but I think taking this passage to state that "emo is a subculture" is not entirely genuine. He is saying that punk rock as a whole, thanks to the internet, is a "national subculture" whereas it was previously defined by regional scenes.

Now, it's been a while since I read the book through so I'm not sure if it mentions "subculture" anywhere else, but i'm pretty certain that if it did then whoever did the Google book search originally would have found some more quotes to that effect. I still intend to use it as a source to improve the article (not right now, but when I have more time), and there may be more material in it that discusses emo in the context of a subculture, but I feel that using the 2 passages above to simply state that "emo is a subculture" is taking them out of context and is incorrect for the reasons I have explained. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the book again, and I found another reference to subculture right in the introductory chapter. This is pretty solidly against the case for labeling emo as a subculture, as Greenwald specifically says that emo is "too far-reaching to be a subculture":

In short, everyone has their own emo. It's too contentious, too stylistically and generationally diverse to be a genre, too far-reaching to be a subculture. Emo is an essential element of being a teenager. It is the sound of self-making. Emo—or whatever you call it—doesn't happen on the stage and it doesn't happen in the diary. It happens somewhere between the two. It is the act of reaching out towards something larger to better know yourself. It's the desire to make yourself bigger by making yourself part of something bigger. (p. 5)

Keep in mind this was published in 2003. If emo was "too far-reaching to be a subculture" then, I'm certain we can agree it's even farther-reaching now. It's kind of hard to argue for current emo being a subculture when the bands most often branded with the label—ie. Fall Out Boy and My Chemical Romance—are multi-platinum, world-reknowned acts. Even if you go back 6 years to the time of Greenwald's writing, Jimmy Eat World and Dashboard Confessional were platinum sellers (hence his whole impetus for writing the book). And if you're arguing it based purely on fashion & aesthetics, that's pretty shaky ground. I can't think of a mall (at least in the US) that doesn't have a Hot Topic in it, or a public place/event (school, concert, movie theater, stadium, theme park) that I've been to in the last couple of years where there haven't been at least a dozen people sporting the "emo look". But I digress...my point is that the book Nothing Feels Good is not a good source for claiming that emo is a subculture, because it in fact says the exact opposite. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Grunge?

I think emo was possibly influenced by grunge (or vice versa) - they both emerged from hardcore punk and they both have emotional lyrics, to name a few similarities. However, this may be inaccurate, and I fail at finding sources, so I am hesitant about adding this. Discuss? SobaNoodle^ForYou 01:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, without getting into too much detail, yes grunge had an influence upon emo, but not exactly in the way you're thinking of. There was a definite line of development from early-'80s hardcore to "alternative rock" and on through to grunge, encompassing musical style, lyrical themes, general aesthetics, touring routes, independent record labels, etc. There's a traceable evolutionary line from Minor Threat & Black Flag to Nirvana; in fact that's pretty much the whole thesis of Azerrad's book Our Band Could Be Your Life: tracing the lines of musical development from the end of first-wave punk to Nirvana's explosion into the mainstream. Because of that explosion, underground music was dragged into the limelight & that paved the way for the early-'90s emo bands to gain some national exposure (ie. Jawbreaker getting signed to Geffen & Sunny Day Real Estate getting their video played on MTV). Greenwald's book covers this.

However, I haven't come across anything suggesting that the 2 genres are related by lyrical themes. Yes they both have "emotional" lyrics, but on some level almost all music is "emotional" and the lyrics in grunge really aren't any more or less emotional (in an introspective sense) than those in punk or hardcore. The emotions in grunge are most often angst & anger, whereas the overriding themes in emo are the introspection (ie. "applying big questions to small scenarios"), the deeply personal suject matter, and the connection between the artist & audience on a very basic emotional level. You can see it by looking at some of the albums that were out at the same time: Superunknown, one of the definitive grunge albums, was released the same year as Diary, by the same label (Sub Pop), and both bands (Soundgarden & Sunny Day Real Estate) were from the Seattle area, but the lyrical themes are drastically different. See Superunknown#Music and lyrics...it deals a lot with substance abuse, suicide, and depression. Whereas Diary is about throwing torment to the winds & Jeremy Enigk subsuming himself in something greater. He sings about talking to angels & "losing myself in you" & "in the shadows buried in me lies a child's toy" (tellingly, this prefaces Enigk becoming a born-again Christian). In fact Greenwald's book has a really interesting bit about the members of Sunny Day being backstage at a Nirvana show & being totally bored & unimpressed. At the same time, while Pearl Jam was singing about the pressures of fame and dealing with the resulting loss of privacy (see Vitalogy#Music and lyrics), Jawbreaker was singing "Do you still hate me?" and about being "too old not to get excited about rain and roads, Egyptian ruins, our first kiss" on 24 Hour Revenge Therapy.

So yeah, grunge had an impact on emo, but mainly to the effect of making underground music mainstream. I don't think they were all that similar lyrically & I haven't come across any sources that'd make a strong case for that position. Of course the emo bands of the late '90s & early '00s, who grew up with grunge on the radio, may have drawn mroe influence from it. But I still doubt there are many lyrical similarities. I can't think of many lyrical themes from grunge bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam & Soundgarden that are terribly similar to those in emo bands like the Get Up Kids, Dashboard Confessional, Jimmy Eat World, or Taking Back Sunday. But that's just my own analysis; there may be sources that draw those connections. But if there are I haven't read them. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I second what IllaZilla said, though I'd also like to add that early emo had a notable effect on grunge acts like Nirvana (Kurt Cobain has openly cited Rites of Spring as an influence). In addition, both were primarily Seattle-based music scenes, with the first emo predating the first grunge by only a few years.(Albert Mond (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

"both were primarily Seattle-based music scenes"? The only Seattle-area emo band I've read about are Sunny Day Real Estate. Emo, or emocore, was DC-based & spread west from there. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry. Guess I got my Washingtons mixed up for a moment there. Don't know what I was thinking.(Albert Mond (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

I disagree with what you have said. I see no grunge influence in any emo music that I hear. It has mostly Pop influence and Punk influence. Emo music sucks. Its so overrated --75.139.103.133 (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In spite of the irrelevance of your last three sentences, in which you unknowingly stated that you've mistaken pop punk (or "emo pop") for emo, I'd like to repeat what I said previously, this time mostly for the sake of argument. Kurt Cobain listed Rites of Spring as the creator of one of his favourite songs. Indeed, there's a resemblance between Bleach-era material and material from Rites (particularly in vocal performance). (Albert Mond (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Needs proofing & editing

This article needs serious proofing and editing. It is very poorly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.244.6 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you be more specific (ie. give examples of which parts are poorly written)? I'm afraid this comment isn't very helpful. As you can see, the article is in the middle of a major expansion/revamp. I've been focusing on the lead & History section, and I feel that those are pretty well-written (sans the last 4 paragraphs of the history which I haven't gone over yet). The rest I can't vouch for. But it would help if you could be more constructive with your feedback. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Illa. I'd actually go as far as to say much of the article is both outstanding, and well-sourced. (Albert Mond (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

More sources needed

Adding Greenwald's _Nothing_Feels_Good_ is a vast improvement of this article, but we need to include some other reliable sources by notable writers. Qu1et (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, unfortunately Greenwald's book is the only comprehensive source I have available at this time. Can anyone recommend any other thorough sources? --IllaZilla (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the Bibliography mentions Our Band Could Be Your Life, but I don't see it actually cited anywhere. Is there any applicable material in there? Does Greenwald mention any other books in his bibliography? I'll keep my eyes and ears open, and let you know as soon as I come across anything! Qu1et (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There is the book POST - A Look at the Influence of Post-Hardcore 1985-2007. I haven't read it yet (and I really want to), but hopefully if someone were to find this book it could fill in some of the other spaces in the article. Most likely it would have information pertinent to Post-hardcore as well. TheLetterM (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to add some stuff from Our Band Could Be Your Life once I finish adding from Greenwald, but with regard to emo it only covers the '80s DC stuff ie. Rites of Spring. It doesn't cover the later history. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary

The OED is a reliable source. If you don't have a subscription, go to your local library; if they don't have a subscription (unlikely), they'll probably have the print version in their reference stacks. Also, it doesn't really contradict the other quotation at all. That source refers to when certain people remember *hearing* the term first used; the OED is only concerned with when a word first appears *in print* (even electronically).

If you can find earlier evidence of the term appearing in print, that can be reliably dated, feel free to cite it! I think lots of people (myself included) would be very interested in that video evidence you mentioned as well. Meanwhile, I can see no reason not to cite the OED in this article.

Respectfully yours,

Webbbbbbber (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

According to this the term does not appear in any form in the OED (that link was provided to me by User:Neon white), so I'm confused. In any case I think I'm going to reword it because where you put it it interrupts Greenwald's analysis of the term's origins. As for the video evidence, here is a clip of Embrace from 1986 in which Ian MacKaye talks about "emocore" and "emotional hardcore". He claims to have read the term in reference to his band in an issue of Thrasher. Unfortunately I don't think that's citeable, since it's on Youtube and we don't know the original source of the video, but some digging might be able to find a print interview w/ MacKaye from that period, or possible the Thrasher article he refers to. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans on the video find! Hopefully we can find a citeable copy somewhere. In regard to to not being able to find the term on askoxford.com, I went to that website and discovered that it searches the compact OED. You'll need to search the full-on OED to find the entries I found. Your local library should have access--if not, you might need to find a college student somewhere.  :-) You can also find it on the Merriam–Webster website here, but it doesn't provide any information on where they found it.

Hey, let me know if you unearth that Thrasher article! I'll bet the OED editors would be interested! Webbbbbbber (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a grad student, so I'll see if I can check my university's access, or better yet a physical copy. I'd be interested to see that '93 NME article that they say is the first print appearance. Thrasher does have scans online of some of their old issues [1], unfortunately not the ones from '85/'86 which is where I imagine I'd find the article in question. However, here is an article, vetted by MacKaye, which supports the claim that Thrasher first called Embrace "emo-core" and cites the Youtube video as a source. Michael Azerrad also traces use of the term back to '85 in Our Band Could Be Your Life (p. 380), saying that "the term and the approach thrived for at least another fifteen years". He doesn't give an account of where it first appeared in print, but it's clear from these sources (Azzerad, Greenwald, MacKaye) that it was in use as far back as '85 (and had been in use for up to 7 years before the first print usages the OED is giving). --IllaZilla (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten/rearranged the paragraph, with additional citations to Azerrad & the MacKaye source. With all respect to the OED and Merriam-Webster, they appear to be incorrect in dating the terms to '92/'93. It's a term that's only come into popular usage in the last 8 or 9 years, so it's not hard to see how there could be confusion about its origins. However a number of primary and secondary sources date it to the mid-1980s. Some of the misconception on the OED end may be from the fact that for at least its first decade of existence the "emo" style was confined to the American underground music scene (at least according to every source I've read...they all place it squarely in the American underground and never mention the UK), so it probably would not have made print usage in the UK until later (Thrasher and other 'zines of the time being produced in limited quantites and now long out of print). Without access to these print media, it's easy to see how they could think its first use was in NME in '95. NME just happened to be a decade late to the game with that particular slang term. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work! I'm actively hunting down that ellusive Thrasher article, but as you say, it's difficult to find issues from that time period. Webbbbbbber (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hardcore Emo needs mentioning

The early to mid 90's mostly West Coast Hardcore Emo of Heroin, Antioch Arrow, Mohinder, See Saw (westcoast), Honeywell, Swing Kids, and others needs mentioning. Here's a quote from a website that seems to have a logical inclusion of the sub-genre (fourfa.com):

"Heroin, Antioch Arrow, Mohinder, Honeywell, Reach Out, early Portaits of Past, Assfactor 4, Second Story Window, End of the Line, Angel Hair, Swing Kids, Three Studies for a Crucifixion, John Henry West, Guyver-1, Palatka, Coleman, Iconoclast, some Merel, some Clikatat Ikatowi, etc.

-Hinted at in New Jersey in 1990 (Merel, Iconoclast). Starts for real in San Diego in 1991 with Heroin, comes to SF Bay in 1992 (Reach Out, Mohinder, Honeywell, Portraits of Past, John Henry West), hits Philly, Florida, New York, and the rest of the East Coast a little bit.

-Similar to punk vs. hardcore punk - faster, louder, harder, much more intense and single-minded. Most of these bands play extremely fast, and introduce the "chaos" concept to hardcore. This is extremely abrasive music, with vocals screamed at the physical limit of the vocal chords. The guitars are distorted to the point that notes and chords are hard to recognize - although often the guitarists don't even play notes, instead making piercing, staccato bursts of noise, squeals of deafening feedback, or a wash of strummed dissonance. The bass often has quite a bit of distortion as well, unlike straight emo. This is everything emo done more so - sometimes so totally over the top that the band 's songs are not even recognizable when performing live. Antioch Arrow, for instance, thrashed about so much on stage that they sounded less like a band than a giant amplified blender. After each song, they had to retune every string, and usually had knocked over a good fraction of their equipment. These shows tended also to be quite short for reasons of the band's physical endurance.

-All the other notes about emo records, shows, economics, etc. apply to hardcore emo too. It's very much simply a subset of emo. In my eyes, this was the ultimate expression of the form. There was a frantic, primal quality to a band like Heroin that could just reach through your ribcage and squeeze your heart like in the Temple of Doom. I never found that in any of the other types."

It is a very influential and important underground form of music. Basically the a dominant part of the underground soundtrack to DIY artists/writers/student youth of the period. Fused jazz, hard rock, even prog, and punk through emo. At times it sounds like the NYC "no-wave" of the 90's.

These bands and their records need mentioning, is my point. Mostly instigated by Gravity Records with the "gravity sound" gravityrec.com I'm just a fan and not related to any record labels. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.244.97 (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fourfa.com has been used in this article before. Unfortunately, it is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia (or academic) standards because it's a personal website and does not have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. While it is an interesting read, it is nonethless merely a collection of the author (Andy Radin)'s opinions, and he is not considered an authority on the subject (I can find no record of any other music-related writings of his, nor any of his writings that have been published other than on that site; he appears to be mainly a photographer). Wikipedia has rules about using self-published sources (see WP:SPS, which is part of our verifiability policy). Fourfa.com does not pass the criteria for reliablity by these standards. I'm not saying that the bands, albums, etc. you are describing aren't important (as a San Diego native I'm particularly fond of the Gravity stuff myself, esp. Clikatat Ikatowi), but unless there are more reliable, third-party sources describing their significance to emo then this info can't be included. For more information, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

The "hardcore emo" tag, by the way, is simply what Mr. Radin is choosing to call it. You'd have to find at least several other sources describing it as such in order to be able to label it that. Emo originated from hardcore punk, after all...I think it would be rather silly to be calling similar bands only a few years later "hardcore emo". If anything, it's the later bands (mid-'90s etc) that moved it away from hardcore, so the phase you're describing is still the emotional hardcore, or "emocore" that originated in the mid-'80s. It's later on that the "hardcore" bit started to get dropped as the music moved away from HC and more towards pop. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Great Criticism section

This article has a great criticism section, but it makes me wonder why other articles of other musical genres do not have criticism sections comparable to the one in this article. The criticism section in this article takes up approximately 40% of the space in this whole article! I suppose that someone should go onto the "alternative" article, and add a huge criticism section, which makes up at least 40% of that article?

If you do not get my sense of humor, I am trying to say that this article is EXTREMELY BIASED. I suggest that someone change this article to pertain to the views of all people, and not just those that hate this genre of music. --71.199.5.214 (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism section needs an overhaul. I recently rewrote most of the history section, and planned to go through the rest of the article, but other projects/commitments/life got in the way. I plan on returning to work on it when I have ample time to spend on it. In the meantime, if you would like to work on it, please go right ahead. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

fake emo???

alright, i know that emo is hardcore punk with emotional lyrics and later more indie rock because of sunny day real estate. But im always hearing about how all these bands are not emo (for ex: my chemical romance). but didnt jimmy eat world do the same thing that sunny day did but instead of indie influences but more pop-punk influences. so in my opinion, alot of people are being hypocrites.