Talk:Emo

link to confessional?

I think the first sentence should link to confessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booboo cam (talk • contribs) 06:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be incorrect. "Confessional" in that sentence is used as an adjective, not a noun. That is, it refers to the practice of confessing, not to a confessional booth. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! I mean Confession, of course.Booboo cam (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that might just be overlinking. Most readers know what's meant by the adjective, just as they know what's meant by "melodic" and "expressive" (we don't have to link melody or expression to drive home the point). Plus, the confession article is about the religious rite, whereas here we're just talking about the open bearing of feelings. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree completely, IMHO most people don't know what any of those terms are - even those in the music industry don't always know. I wasn't sure that's why i tried to see what confessional was all about.Booboo cam (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Even so, it wouldn't link to the right concept. Confession links to an article about the religious rite. What you're looking for are dictionary definitions, which isn't what internal links are for. If readers need to know the dictionary defintion of "expressiveness" or "confession", they can go to Wiktionary or any other dictionary source. We generally don't link common terms or dictionary definitions. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This whole article is bullshit

Emo was a derogatory term used for some old dc bands, probably first appeared in print in thrasher. Later it referred to a kind of DIY hardcore related to, but very much departing from straight edge and new york style hardcore. Jawbreaker was not emo at all. Wheezer? Are you high? Mainstream success with screamo? You are trying to tie together all this desperate forms under the tile emo, but its a revisionist history.

Emo was akin to hardcore that stretched from Lifetime, to Frail, to Heroin and the Ebullition bands. It is not related to indie rock, college rock, and especially not the stuff now called emo, which is just the recycling of an old term.

You can ask for sources, but this is where encyclopedias fall down, because the source is being there, is late night conversations, is being in that scene, its all primary with no documentation that anything except a anthropological study (digging up correspondence etc) could do. Even a million people involved in underground music at the time didn't know what emo was, because its also a term of dismissal. Read all the old old heart attack zines and then re-write all of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.242.6.175 (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No thanks. This is the same opinionated ranting we see here all the time. Clearly you've never tried to actually research the subject in any sort of academic way, by looking for reliable sources and basing your claims on those. No, you're only interested in your own narrow-minded definition and things that you did/saw/listened to, without any tolerance or regard for anyone else's views. This is an encyclopedia: the source is not "being there", it's "reliable, published, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The article is based on these kinds of sources—music journalists, historians, and critics—not rants by anonymous internet people who "were there". If you don't like that, then Wikipedia probably isn't the best resource for you. You'd be better off at a messageboard forum or blog, where opinions rule rather than reliable sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I found research I would like to do... --Guerillero | My Talk 18:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Emo pop

After a reversion of my expansion of the emo pop redirect into a full article, I developed a section for the style here on the emo page as a starting point to get more sources. I have since found several sources beyond the one source I had for the initial expansion, and I am starting this talk section as a place to discuss the state of the emo pop section and whether it should be its own article. Please give me comments. Thanks, --3family6 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The main problem I see here is the level of repetition, particularly between this section and the mainstream popularity section. I am sure there is something that reliable sources indicate is emo pop, but at the moment I cant see how to differentiate this from the genre as a whole.--SabreBD (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the sources I found, namely allmusic and Trinity News, discuss how the emergence of emo pop coincided with the mainstream popularity of emo, so it makes sense that there would be some repetition between sections, but this could be sorted out with editing. But I know what you mean, the two subjects are very intertwined, and it is difficult to tell the difference with the sources on hand. Thanks, --3family6 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Just found this source which discusses how emo bridged into pop music. A few more like these would really help clarify.--3family6 (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the two subjects are somewhat inextricable: "Emo pop" is essentially mainstream recognition of emo in the form of popular circa-2000 acts (Dashboard, Jimmy Eat World, Get Up Kids, Saves the Day, et al) indebted or tangentially related to prior emo waves. For most (mainstream music publications included), this is/was emo, since the style had not received mainstream attention/exposure in the preceding 25 years that "emo" as a term/style had been around. With the emergence of popular emo-esque acts around the turn of the millennium (Taking Back Sunday, Thursday, Thrice, etc), the mainstream media picked up on the term and began applying it somewhat willy-nilly to very disparate acts that fit the general bill of "punky-ish music appealing to teenagers" (My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, Coheed & Cambria, Paramore, Panic at the Disco, etc). All of these acts were/have been, at one time or another, declared emo in the mainstream music press (Rolling Stone, Spin, Alternative Press, etc). However, with the rise in popularity of the term came mainstream scholarship (Greenwald, etc) that traced it back to its origins, leading to recognition that what was branded emo in the 2000s was vastly different from what was considered emo in previous decades. Simultaneously, the mass application of the term "emo" to describe any sort of music popular amongst angsty teens (everything from Good Charlotte to Atmosphere) sufficiently diluted the meaning of the term (inasmuch as it ever had a definition) so as to be relatively indistinguishable from general popular rock music. Hence the emergence of the retcon-ish term "emo pop".

It's telling that what Allmusic is retroactively labeling "emo pop" (Pinkerton, The Get Up Kids, Panic at the Disco) are all all things that other sources described as just plain "emo" for years before Almusic invented the "emo pop" tag and began sticking it in their "style" sidebar. Heck, even Allmusic themselves called most of the stuff "emo" before they thought up "emo pop": [1] [2] [3] [4]. I know all of this must sound like just a rant of opinion, but it's based on following "emo" as a term/style for over a decade in the music press and reading multiple published sources about it (Greenwald's book, American Hardcore, Everybody Hurts, countless issues of Spin and Alt Press). In all that time, and with all that reading, I have only seen the term "emo pop" spring up in the last couple of years, and it seems to have been primarily cooked up and advanced by Allmusic who, like I said, are retroactively applying it to artists and albums that they themselves, along with most other mainstream sources, lumped in with emo over the course of the last 10-15 years. Pinkerton, for example, is cited in multiple sources as a landmark emo album of the 1990s, not as "emo pop": the Spin article calling it "a groundbreaking record for all the emo-pop that would follow" is from this year, in reference to the deluxe re-issue that was recently released. Pinkerton's importance to emo ("emo", not "emo pop") was discussed in other sources for over a decade before the term "emo pop" started to be bandied about. It's a bit like pop punk: If looked at in retrospect, through today's lens, the Ramones seem more pop punk than punk rock, because their music has more in common with Blink-182 or Green Day than it does with the Germs or Dead Kennedys. Yet from a historical perspective, the Ramones are considered the first verifiable punk rock group and that's what they were called at the time. Similarly, it seems wrong for us to be retroactively labeling things like Pinkerton and Fall Out Boy as "emo pop", a term that has only recently appeared, when they were described as just plain "emo" during their time and for years afterward. Much of the "emo pop" section seems to be revisionist history in that regard.

This reply has gotten much longer than originally intended. I'm basically saying that "emo pop" is a recently-invented term, and as a topic it seems to be inextricable from emo and is probably best discussed here, in the context of emo as a whole. I think it should be integrated into the history section so that it all flows as a chronological history, in much the same manner as the punk rock article presents its subgenres within the larger history of the parent genre. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You make a very good point. I myself was thinking that working "emo pop" into the discussions of emo into the mainstream might be best. I've been doing exhaustive google searches for almost two days now, and the style seems to be scattered references here and there. From what I've gathered, emo pop is a stylistic approach that slowly emerged as emo became more mainstream. In a few years, it might be considered a style in its own right, as it's pretty close to being that now in terms of sources, but it isn't quite there yet, so right now, I think you are right, it should be worked into the existing sections.--3family6 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Emo "subculture"?

I think there should be a seperate article for the emo subculture, instead of just emo music. It seems the prevalent styles among emo people and their typical behavioral traits are already covered in the article Goth subculture, but I believe, I myself bieng what you could call a "casual emo" and not a "stereotypical emo", that the emo subculture has enough differences from the "goth" subculture to be granted its own article. That's just what I think. Just a proposition. Any comments? 97.96.65.123 (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Articles on "emo subculture" (and similar titles) have existed in the past but were eventually either deleted or merged here, as (A) they consisted mostly of original research, (B) there doesn't appear to be enough to say about the so-called "subculture" to warrant an independent article, and (C) the idea of a "subculture" is somewhat ludicrous, as emo reached international mainstream popularity in the 2000s (music and styles that top the charts, are played on MTV, and are displayed in the windows of Hot Topic stores at malls across America can hardly be said to be "sub"culture...they're simply mainstream culture). --IllaZilla (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well, okay then. 97.96.65.123 (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Kingface

Not damning anything here, first time suggesting an edit on Wikipedia, seems a good place to put it. I played guitar in the band Kingface reference in the opening History section. We would appreciate being removed as a emo-related band reference. We were certainly related inasmuch we were another DC-based band on the scene, but that's about it. As our bassist put it when we heard about this last week: We did a cover of La Grange once with little to no irony. We're probably not emo. Thank you. Pbobst (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source (Blush) mentions Kingface in connection with emo and the "Revolution Summer" movement, which is what's discussed in those sentences. Here's the full quote:

During the "Revolution Summer" of '85 many harDCcore types reinvented themselves. "Emo," for emotional post-hardcore, described the move to softer, more emotive music, embodied in Ian's project Embrace, Brian Baker's Dag Nasty, Tomas Squip's Beefeater, Kingface with Mark Sullivan, Bobby Sullivan's Lunchmeat, and Rites of Spring with Guy Picciotto and Eddie Janney.

All that the article mentions regarding Kingface is their connection to "Revolution Summer". It never calls them an emo band: "Similar bands soon followed in connection with the "Revolution Summer" of 1985, a deliberate attempt by members of the Washington, D.C. scene to break from the rigid constraints of hardcore in favor of a renewed spirit of creativity.[2] Bands such as Gray Matter, Beefeater, Fire Party, Dag Nasty, Lunchmeat, and Kingface were connected to this movement.[2][6]"

Sorry, but Wikipedia content is based on reliable secondary sources, which support mentioning Kingface among the Revolution Summer bands. I don't really see what a ZZ Top cover has to do with that. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Very US-centric

I don't claim to know much about emo pedigree other than the word coming into widespread use in the early-90s. I noticed there are few references to bands outside the US in the article - surely other countries must have produced some emo bands? Additionally, it doesn't take an expert to see that certain 80s bands from the UK must have had a massive influence - "maudlin bands like The Smiths, Joy Division & The Cure" seems a little lacking. Not sure that The Cure should be in there, but early Simple Minds, The The, The Cult, The Mighty Lemon Drops seem like possibilities. Also on the subject of The Smiths, granted it's retroactive labelling, but I defy you to find anyone in the world that emboys the 'spirit of emo' more than Morrissey. He did gut-exposing, awkwardness-exploring and poetic angst better than anyone before or since. Just my cheeky opinion but, the power of Morrissey's lyrics along with the often haunting, always exquisite music of Johnny Marr - frankly, I'm not sure why later bands bothered to turn up! --Yickbob (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Having done a lot of reading on the subjects of emo and punk rock over the last decade, I can tell you it's definitely an American phenomenon (as far as the music is concerned). It originated from the Washington, D.C. hardcore scene and all the most notable artists of each "wave" of emo have been American. In fact I don't think I've read about a single one from Europe or the UK. The bands you mention (Smiths, Joy Division, Cure) are all generally considered part of the post-punk or New Wave movements (post-punk was largely a British phenomenon at first, & Joy Division in particular are usually cited as one of the early and most significant post-punk acts). Most of the emo bands of the first wave (1980s) were firmly rooted in the American hardcore punk scene. The Smiths influence didn't start to set in until the early 1990s (evident in bands like Sunny Day Real Estate and Jawbreaker), and the even more maudlin influences (JD/Cure) didn't start to rear their heads until the turn of the millennium in the form of Thursday and other screamo acts. Most of the '90s emo bands were taking influence from each other, the grunge/alternative movement, and the U.S. punk rock revival rather than from the Brits.

P.S. "I defy you to find anyone in the world that emboys the 'spirit of emo' more than Morrissey." — Blake Schwarzenbach is more or less an emo god. If anyone ever built a Temple of Emo he'd be the statue on the front steps. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hardcore punk?

I'm wondering why the emo article is tagged with hardcore punk. I see little similarity to hardcore punk in emo music. The fashion might be borrowed from hardcore punk but that's about the only similarity I see. 22:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)