Talk:Emo/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Emo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Screamo

The article says that screamo *was* used to identify a different genre of music in the early 90s, but there are still bands of that original genre still in existence. Shouldn't it we change it to "is used" so that the article is more precise? I'm not trying to start another argument about what counts, but it seems wrong to limit out those other screamo bands from this article, especially if we're making a big deal that those bands that aren't considered emo by purists be called emo in this article. Shouldn't the purists get the same respect in regards to what they believe is screamo, especially when the wiki article about screamo is about the original type? ~Zombies!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombies!!! (talk • contribs) 06:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The screamo article notes that the term is currently being used to describe something other than the original screamo, which is exactly what this article says.

But, contrary to your assertion, there is no widely-accepted old-school screamo scene at this moment, just bands here and there emulating the style. The original screamo scene was known nationally, the bands playing old-school screamo now are not. The word "screamo" is in far greater use now to describe bands like Thrice and Glassjaw, and majority rules, regardless of how "right" or "wrong" it is. Wiki is here to describe reality, not the wishes of the minority.

Your argument is identical to those who wish for "emo" to solely describe the 80s DC version. There are currently a handful of bands out there still playing that style of music. But I would readily venture that none of them call themselves "emo" now that the term is more popularly used to describe something else.

If you want to beef-up the screamo article and talk about some of the modern bands emulating the old screamo sound, have at it. --ChrisB 09:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This article says " The term screamo, however, was used to describe an entirely different genre in the early 1990s," when in reality screamo is still being used to describe new bands of this same sound. You're right, the majority thinks that Thursday et al, are screamo, and I'm not disputing this fact.

what i'm trying to get at is that in the discussion for this article it seems that an agreement was reached that all three types of emo (hardcore, indie, new) would be represented in this article, something that I'm willing to agree with. However, this agreement should apply to screamo, especially since the wiki article on screamo talks about the original genre and not the new interpretation of it.

if anything, what you're saying about majority rule contradicts itself as if one was to click on the screamo link they would be reading about something that was completely different than what they think screamo is.

I'm only saying that we should point out that the word screamo has the same type of debate surrounding it as the word emo. It only serves to show how there is a difference between the mainstream interpretation and the underground one. I'm not trying to force my definition onto the article, that's why I posted before editing. I always thought the point of wikipedia was education, and people need to know that just like how there are many definitions of emo, as outlined in this article, that there are multiple defs of screamo. We just need to add another sentence and this article is pretty much fine by my standards~ Zombies!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombies!!! (talk • contribs) 07:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fine, but I hope you realize the can of worms this is opening. Because of this, we're going to have to update the screamo article to more accurately reflect the term's current usage, and I'm already anticipating the screaming pinhead thirtysomethings whinging about how "THAT'S NOT SCREAMO" and wiping it out. In other words: don't disappear. I'm expecting you to go to bat for this when it happens. ("Education" goes both ways, mind you.) --ChrisB 09:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That might be a mess. especially since I would agree with them and not you. I guess it doesn't really bother me if this article stays the way it is. I think having a section about this here in the discussion area is good enough. We can keep it the same unless other people object. --Zombies!!! 00:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, screamo is still just as strong as it was back in 98. The person below me claims that screamo is only used for underOATH and MCR, but just look at Level-Plane Records, etc. It's huge in France and Italy now too. --Timeasimperialism 00:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Serious Makeover

This page seriously needs a makeover. Emo is not MCR, FOB or anyother "mainstream" band that plays POP music. What we have here, is a classic case of people not knowing what they are talking about. So 99.9% of you need to do the following:

1. Get off the "emo" bandwagon.
2. Learn what "emo" is.

Once again, learn WHAT EMO IS. This article is going to get a serious make over soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoRenGo (talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

But that depends on your definition of emo, which I have always taken as meaning the body or work that was a response to the politicism and anti-sociality of punk, without rejecting its spirit of forthrighness and power. Trad punk, especially by the mid-80s, had become singing about what made you angry. The emo movement was intended to cover all other aspects of the emotional range. That's why it is such a broad church, and why the attempts to define one group as emo and another as not is often counter-productive. Like industrial, it's a tag that can be applied to some bands throughout their entire career, through one album or even a single track (for example: Ministry on Land of Rape and Honey? Industrial. Ministry on Houses of the Mole? Metal.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmwhittaker101 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Emo as Hardcore

The validity of a lot of the latter day indie rock sounding 'emo' bands is strongly questioned. The term emo is derived from "emotional hardcore", many of these bands are certainly not hardcore, and it could be argued pseudo-emotional especially when compared to some of the classic artists like Rites of Spring, Moss Icon, Navio Forge, Indian Summer, Julia, Current, Shotmaker, Anasarca, Constatine Sankathi, Portraits of Past, Antioch Arrow, and others. While bands such as Taking Back Sunday and Thrice may be considered emo to large numbers of people today, those who took part in the early waves of emo, do not recognize these bands as such. These kind of bands are too distant from the original intent and purpose of emo to retain virtually any of the qualities that were endemic to bands of the early waves of emo.

Emo was about not only sound, but the aesthetic. Emo bands had a peculiar tendency to play live barefoot (often not facing the crowd), and put out records (always vinyl, virtually without exception) that would go out of print (or become nearly impossible to find) almost as soon as they were released. Additionally, emo bands might go into long often poetic diatribes when performing, refuse to play on stages, work to break down the barrier between audience and performer (including objecting to slam dancing and other types of violent moshing), wear beads and/or canvas patches (also black framed glasses), and play free or very low cost all ages shows at houses, vfw halls, cafes, and other random d.i.y. spaces. The anti-commercialism and politicism (often not overt) of the early waves of emo seems to be largely missing from what is often described as contemporary 'emo' today.

I wrote up this section to be added. I would prefer that it goes into the main area, but I just want this to be in the record. The whole piece on emo really misses a good deal of what emo was about, I humbly tried to capture some of what it didn't include.

I saw there are wikipedia entries for hardcore emo and screamo (I don't like this term) so this can probably go into one of those (although I think emo on it's own encapsulates these genres). Many of the bands mentioned as emo in the main 'emo' page are not considered emo by many (accept for industry publications that have little idea of what emo is about). It seems not in the spirit of what I thought Wikipedia is about to deny this information. If you want to have people that know emo look at it before publishing fine. To some extent what I have written here is subjective, but I can tell you I was heavily into the emo scene (mid 90s to early 00s) I know what I'm talking about and I can tell your emo entry has major problems and perhaps even inaccuracies. If you want to get this right you will consider adding this. thanks. --User: Morpheus12 03:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be original research and thus can't be incorporated into any Wikipedia article. --Tuf-Kat 22:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Picciotto interview

This doesn't make ANY sense where it's placed in Backlash. The backlash is about modern emo, aka, what's going on now. His comment is about the ENTIRE GENRE. He's not talking about this era or the previous eras, he's dismissing it ALL. That doesn't relate to the backlash against modern emo.

Furthermore, the placement between a paragraph about sexism (of the music) and the increasingly generic nature (of the music) is incoherent. His comment has nothing to do with either of those topics - it dismisses the entire genre, and not on either of those grounds.

I get that you might want it to sound like a backlash, but it fits much more succinctly when compared to the fragments of people who adhere to a particular era. Each group sees "their" emo as the only emo, yet Picciotto dismisses the entire thing. It ties into the article instead of being a random statement placed in a random location. --ChrisB 07:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

deep elm

i think deep elm needs more of a mention here, including also the appleseed cast. remember it was deep elm which first tried to openly publicise the word emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftheusername (talk • contribs) 13:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

backlash section updated

I've updated the backlash section with an attempt to explain WHY emo became a dirty word, in an attempt to understand WHY new emo was disowned by the hardcore community. I feel that this will give people a better understanding, cause let's face it, you can't just say emo became derided because it was crap. any thoughts? artoftheusername 21/4/06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftheusername (talk • contribs) 11:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it's a great effort, but we can't include this kind of thing in articles under Wikipedia's no original research guidelines. Any time we have to resort to "perhaps" or "maybe", it's not a good sign. Those two paragraphs really do constitute an editorial; more of a theory than a citeable series of events. (And, honestly, there are several assertions made in those two paragraphs that I fully disagree with.) --ChrisB 17:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Can anyone whose read all those books and articles listed proved some inline citations? That might help clear up a lot of the debate (I'm hoping). --WesleyDodds 06:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Antioch Arrow quote and the greater half of the 1st wave section

Needs to be re-written. Hands down... the timeline jumps around alot... you start off in dc... go to ny/nj/ct to sf/oakland and then back around the country again... what i was trying to do was to basically signify... 'emo is dead'.... the 94 striking of the hammer that signifies the transition between hoover to sunny day real estate... because there's three phases to this, as we've deliniated... i don't think that the section is clear enough... --evesummernight 18:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The timeline of that section is intentional. It starts with the original DC scene, and talks about it in its entirety through the dissolution of Hoover. (Notice that it says "the original wave of DC emo", not "the original wave of emo".) Then we switch to the other scenes that were influenced by the DC scene. We're separating the scenes, as they tended to vary by sound.

The trick is that the "return to DC" is simply there to be the lead-in to the 1994 section. Fugazi was not considered emo until they were lumped in retroactively for their influence on "indie emo", so talking about them in the "correct" chronological moment wouldn't make sense.

And, honestly, I don't think there's such a clear transition from Hoover to SDRE that it should be split up like you're describing. Original emo hung around a few years longer as the "indie emo" scene developed, even if the main DC scene was already toast.

If it were me, I'd put a break after the paragraph explaining the origins of emo and split the DC scene from the rest of the first wave. But that may be a little redundant. --ChrisB 06:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed Alexisonfire from the list of third wave emo bands because I could find no credible source when they have been categorized in that genre. Could someone provide a source to me? I feel it may have been added with some other intention. --Confero 5:49, 29 April 2006

Are you kidding? How hard did you look? Do a Google search for "alexisonfire" and "emo" and start poking around.[1] There are a ton of articles that link the two (again, correctly or not), though you may have to go a few pages into the search to get past the crap. Here's one, for the sake of providing a source: Spin.com --ChrisB 02:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop being emoturds

Hello, little emokids. I have some new, REFRESHING information and a taste of reality FOR YOU ALL. Emo is also known as "emotive hardcore", not pop-punk--

AFI, Alexisonfire, A Static Lullaby, Brand New, Coheed and Cambria, Fall Out Boy, Finch, From Autumn To Ashes, From First To Last, Funeral for a Friend, Hawthorne Heights, Matchbook Romance, My Chemical Romance, Silverstein, Something Corporate, The Starting Line, Taking Back Sunday, The Used, and Thrice.

Not progrock: AFI, Alexisonfire, A Static Lullaby, Brand New, Coheed and Cambria, Fall Out Boy, Finch, From Autumn To Ashes, From First To Last, Funeral for a Friend, Hawthorne Heights, Matchbook Romance, My Chemical Romance, Silverstein, Something Corporate, The Starting Line, Taking Back Sunday, The Used, and Thrice

Not metalcore: AFI, Alexisonfire, A Static Lullaby, Brand New, Coheed and Cambria, Fall Out Boy, Finch, From Autumn To Ashes, From First To Last, Funeral for a Friend, Hawthorne Heights, Matchbook Romance, My Chemical Romance, Silverstein, Something Corporate, The Starting Line, Taking Back Sunday, The Used, and Thrice

This leaves the ONLY possible groups: AFI, Alexisonfire, A Static Lullaby, Brand New, Coheed and Cambria, Fall Out Boy, Finch, From Autumn To Ashes, From First To Last, Funeral for a Friend, Hawthorne Heights, Matchbook Romance, My Chemical Romance, Silverstein, Something Corporate, The Starting Line, Taking Back Sunday, The Used, and Thrice; get real you idiots, 85% of the bands listed are pop-punk, metalcore, and progrock.

Emoturds, there should be something listed about the COMMON misconceptions about emo and pop-punk (if emo is hardcore, then it can't be pop.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.127.205 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're so knowledgable about this, how about the fact that nobody called it "emotive hardcore" before 1996, and yet the genre's been around since the 1980s? And you did see "correctly or not" at the beginning of that sentence about bands, yes? We're not the "emoturds" fucking this up - music fans and the media are screwing it up. But thanks for the oh-so eloquent contribution.

For the record, read the ENTIRE article before criticizing. We already talk about the shift away from "hardcore" in the second wave. --ChrisB 18:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, stop being an emo stuffed shirt, you're super-annoying with your "OVERINTELLIGENCE" and backing up your claims with the innaccuracy of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.68.194 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a pointless article

I think that this article should either be merged with the slang defintion of emo or deleted. Emo is such a vague/ambiguous term, and most of the bands most commonly noted as emo are noted as other genres as well. I think it needs to be moved altogether, plus, we need an NPOV on here please. --Barfing Rabbit 02:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Pointless article"? So the twenty years of emo music that took place before the term became vague/ambiguous don't matter? --ChrisB 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me restate that: the modern emo section should not be there, there are so many bands labelled emo that are labelled something else and blah blah blah. --4.253.124.46 02:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the current usage needs to be noted. The term "emo" is being used now, so pretending that it's not being used would be fallacious and POV. The whole point of Wiki is to accurately reflect a topic as it exists. So that's what we're trying to do here - point out that the term is being used, but in a vague, nonspecific way.

Which is why I keep getting pissed off at people flying in and removing bands from the list. It very clearly says "Correctly or not" - those bands have all at one point been referred to as "emo", even if they aren't emo and personally insist that they aren't emo. --ChrisB 05:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It needs an NPOV, screw you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.68.215 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

the article on new emo music is far too debated and unclear to have in an encyclopidia. there has to be rock hard evidence on a subject to write an article about it. most genres of music are too foggy to have a good article on.~emokid~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.21.134.154 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wider Horizon

I've been listening to a lot of older stuff, and to be quite honest none of it is even slightly similar, I'd even go so far as to claim that the genre 'Emo' does not exist. How is it that bands like Antioch Arrow and bands like Still Life could even BEGIN to be classed in the same manner? Many early Emo bands have absolutely nothing in common, and it may be a good idea to expand this article showing that. Also, if bands such as Moss Icon and Still Life are considered Emo, I see no reason that many bands like Sunny Day Real Estate and similar outfits are excluded. They have much more in common with Still Life/Moss Icon/RoS than bands like Antioch Arrow and Angel Hair. --782 Naumova 12:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If you listen to alot of the stuff (as you seem to) for a while, it seems like it's not so much of a cohesive genre as just a series of logical developments in DIY hardcore, and certain bands manage to demonstratively bridge the gap between the hardcore stuff and the midwest stuff. I mean, look at the "We've Lost Beauty" comp LP, which has Mohinder, Current, and Julia right next to Cap'n Jazz. Similarly, Evergreen is a respectable band from back then that was on gravity, just like Heroin, Angel Hair, and Clikitat Ikatowi. I guess that explains why Andy Radin took the approach he did in explaining the whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherKilbourn (talk • contribs) 19:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The fabricated "emo."

I just wanted to put this out here... emo is such an overused phrase by now that it pretty much has no meaning. Also, many people define what an emo band is by eliminating bands that are any other genre. This doesn't really work, because the same band could be described as a couple different genres. Having said this, this is what I believe:

Emo IS:

-Sub genre of punk/ hardcore.

-Est. early 90's.

-Abbreviation of &formerly known as "emotive hardcore"

-Unwed Sailor, Appleseed Cast, Cursive, Sunny Day Real Estate, A Day In Black And White, etc...

Emo ISN'T:

-Hawthorne Heights, Senses Fail, From First To Last, My Chemical Romance, The Used, etc...

Thank you. --jf 03:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, if you're going to act like you're all-knowledgeable about something, at least pretend to be knowledgeable about it.

Emo was:

Established in 1985.
An abbreviation of "emotional hardcore". The term "emotive hardcore" didn't even exist until 1996, and was never a widely-used abbreviation.

There was an entire generation of emo before the bands you listed, including Rites of Spring and Embrace.

Oh, and, more often than not, "emo" has been used by others to describe music, rather than being a defined music genre. Right now, "emo" is being used to describe all of the bands you say emo isn't. Not a whole lot that can be done about it.

All of this is covered in Emo (music), if you'd spent a couple of minutes reading it.

You know what constantly kills me? The part about "emotive hardcore". I've seen so many high school age folks scream at other people that "emo" means "emotive hardcore". They have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

Pass the word around - anyone who says "emo" has always meant "emotive hardcore" is just as stupid as the folks who claim that My Chemical Romance is the best emo band in the world. --ChrisB 05:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your correction, although I must say that I resent being called stupid. This is just what I've always learned.

By the way, I just noticed some discussion on the other topics in my list and put them up so I could see what others thought, even though they were covered in the article. --jf 21:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A new link should be added

I believe the site emoholic.net should be added to the link section. I personally would appriciate it because that site give a great definition of what emo is and also intends to offer some samples of the music/dress/actions of "emokids" from an outsiders standpoint. Personally, I love the music by have my own style. Personally, I don't think you would know I listen to bright eyes if you looked at me. I am pretty much the antithisis of the commonly defined emokid (head of a fraternity, in student government, and I love sports). I think these people need to be just as represented as the 'emos' so people dont have such a negative take on the whole topic. Any comments - pgrit154@uwsp.edu --Emoholic 04:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoever started this page- get yor spelling Straight- Randomer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmcgreevy (talk • contribs) 15:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Emogame significance

How significant was the emogame in terms of the criticism of emo? Did it really have major impact on criticism of the genre? Are there any sources to independently verify this? By including reference to the game in a four paragraph criticism of the genre the suggestion is that the game had major influence, but is this really the case? If there is no argument against it, I am planning to delete the emogame paragraph in a few days' time. --Cedars 05:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's significant because it was the first notable representation of criticism of emo. When the first version was released, emo was still relatively underground, so most of it played like inside jokes. The key, though, is that it critiqued the music. Most of the modern backlash is against things only barely associated with "emo", and more often than not has nothing to do with the music itself. (And, annoyingly enough, most of the bands criticized for being "emo" have fans that insist that said bands aren't emo at all.)

That's the main reason that the backlash section is so short here: the criticism is mostly not about the music. It's about a whole ton of stereotypical bullshit that really has no bearing on emo as a music genre. (That's why most of it got moved to Emo (slang).) --ChrisB 06:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The emo game was more an inside joke then critisim on emo music. The guy who made the emo game has repetedly stated that he likes emo music and likes the bands that he displays within it. Also bands that arn't emo are also made fun of within the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.148.179 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Emo as an umbrella term

It seems like a big problem is that people are using emo to define one kind of music, but it isn't. Emo is more of an umbrella term. It includes emo hardcore, screamo, indie emo, and emo violence. This could also include new emo (AFI, my chemical romance, The used). The main point is that emo is more then one thing --Dlime16 18:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

oh hell

My Chemical Romance is NOT hardcore. Not at all. Emo music involves bands that wear mostly black clothes, sing about breaking up with a girl, heartache, etc. Newer Emo music usually sounds like pop but with a little stronger guitar (Fall Out Boy, Panic! At The Disco, etc.). Older Emo bands such as Hawthore Heights and Taking Back Sunday are still emo, they set the standard. Emo bands have no fans over the age of 15, that also groups them with pop bands like N'Sync, Backstreet Boys, bands only young people like. Good Charlotte, Simple Plan, Blink 182, AFI are not emo, they are punk rock. UnderOATH, The Fall of Troy and bands like them are screamo. Screamo is the EXACT same thing as emo, except there is more screaming in the music (as the name implies). When calling a person emo, one simply means that the person dresses like a member of an emo band. thats my thoughts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.226.89 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, Screamo is a lot different than "emo". i.e. Circle Takes The Square, You And I, Pg.99, City Of Catepillar, Majority Rules, and Hott Cross. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatchet (talk • contribs) 05:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Charlotte, Simple Plan, Blink 182, AFI are not emo, they are pop music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.185.247 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

this is wrong hen someone is called emo they mean emotional and scene is when they dress like a band!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.110.226 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

first of all emo screamo and hardcore are all different subcatagorys of emo..emo in general is very melodic and poppish like "fall out boy" and "panic at the disco".........screamo is melodic but has alot of screaming for example "hawthorne hights" and "silverstien"........then theres hardcore with a rougher harder tone with melody but not alot like "from first to last" and most of all "my chemical romance".....theres 2 things these bands have in common they are all emo and they wanna make you cry.... also when you refer to someone as being emo its her emotions and the music you listen to not the way they dress!!! the style most emo people are is called "scene"... --MCRemoboy 17:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Too bad when you call someone emo, you are calling them a music genre, people can't be emotionally driven hardcore punk rock. Hawthorne heights and silverstein aren't emo, and true emo does have fans over the age of 15, but you see, you're just to busy watching mtv to do a little research and find out wut true emo is : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.107.150 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but it has become a label through use, so it is misleading to say that you're calling them a "genre of music". It has become a stereotype of a person, referring to the original fans of "emo" music, and the definition expanded to include those people themselves. --ForbiddenWord 14:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats it, im fed up of people who think that emo is a fashion style, or a haircut. Emo comes from its name, EMOTIONAL. I'm going to be 16 this year and i have listened to emo, emotional punkrock, screamo, and emotional hardcore for almost 2 years now. I would like to take this oppertunity to also say that MCR, Good Charlotte, and AFI are emo bands! Go and look for the lyrics to the music and read it, that will show u reall emo music. Stop thinking u no wat emo is cuz all you do is sit and watch MTV or THE HITS. These channels are notlikely to show you the true emo music. Emo is putting your emotion through song, I'm fed up of all these people who dress like us and dont understand what emo is about. If you were to go up to someone who you thought looked emo and asked them what emo was they would most likely say that it was a haircut or a dress sense, hardley any of them would say that it was all about putting your emotions accross through song!! Please take my advice and read the lyrics and find out what the writer really wants you to hear, the drums, guitar, bass and whatever additional instraments played are there to help the lyrics flow not to make you ignore the writers effort. EMO MUSIC IS NOT IN THE SAME CATAGORY AS NSYNC OR BACKSTREET BOYS!!!. Also blink 182 have songs that i would catagorise as emotional punk-rock and also they do have music that I would catagorise as emo. So if you disagree then to bad because coming from many of my emo friends this is true emo. So if you don't like it then to bad! This is an emo speaking about emo. Face it if you think that emo is listened to by people under 15 then you thought wrong, and if you think that emo is in the same catagory ans the likes of NSYNC or BACKSTREET BOYS then you have lost you mind and dont no what you are speaking about. --81.153.243.45 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Owen Moxey

Origins

Some mention needs to be made of pre-Revolution Summer influences on Emo. Reading the article, one gets the impression that Emo arose spontaniously in 1985. While true to a certain extent as the article discusses, someone needs to do some research into what influenced the first Emo bands. I'd be happy to take this task up to some degree. --Ilikeartrock 18:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Get your facts strait!!!!!!

First of all emo screamo and hardcore are all different subcatagorys of emo..emo in general is very melodic and poppish like "fall out boy" and "panic at the disco".........screamo is melodic but has alot of screaming for example "hawthorne hights" and "silverstien"........then theres hardcore with a rougher harder tone with melody but not alot like "from first to last" and most of all "my chemical romance".....theres 2 things these bands have in common they are all emo and they wanna make you cry....

Also when you refer to someone as being emo its her emotions and the music you listen to not the way they dress!!! the style most emo people are is called "scene"... ~MCRemoboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by MCRemoboy (talk • contribs) 17:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

or you could just get something worth talking about...? for the record, we're on Wikipedia, so i'm sure you've all been on wikipedia's page for the definition of emo and the whole D.C. scene of emo, well, do the new bands (MCR, fall out boy, C&C) sound like those bands listed? Well? There's your answer... these new bands are offshoots of emo... Secondly, emo is a style of dress and music. For example, the anit-conformists (who all look the same...anti-conformists? Pffft!) who call themselves emo and dress emo (whether it be studded belts, guys in eyeliner, certain hair styles) considers themselves emo for a reason... because emo is a new style of dress, like punk. Generally if you dress emo you like the ascendants of emo (the new bands, i'm talking about, because who the hell has heard of the original emo?). Emo, i suppose, could also be a mindset. Such as, you cry when your girlfriend breaks up with you, or anything else that could be considered an 'emo' mindset... i don't caim to know everything about emo, or every mindset and every band, but hey. Whoa, i can't believe i bothered to type this up... hmmm... by the way.... 'strait' should be spelled 'straight'... --24.241.238.186 00:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC) autumnangel

my chemical roamce is a GREAT emo band —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.133.189 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm an anti-conformist but I wear studded belts and wear eyeliner...but I ain't emo. I just think it looks good on me. - Guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.179.208 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that you have got mixed up somewhere because loosing a girlfriend is real life, and EMO IS NOT A FASION SENSE!!! emo is where a writer puts his feelings accross in song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.243.45 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Posts like these should just be deleted. This is unbelievable how brainwashed some people can be. --Jaden 04:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Band inclusions

That is, discussions of bands to be included on the emo list. The Superchunk thread, above, for example, doesn't belong under here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParkerHiggins (talk • contribs) 01:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Coheed and Cambria

They are prog metal, so they should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.233.93 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

They may not be emo (though they sound like it to me), but they sure as hell aren't, nor ever will be metal. I'd thank you not to blemish the genre with their name again.

Can any of you C&C fans actually read? The whole point of the paragraph is that people are calling a wide range of bands "emo", even if there's no rhyme or reason to it. The truth: SOME PEOPLE CALL C&C EMO. THEY may not, and their fans seem to bend over backwards to make a point about how they are "SO not emo". But there are people out there who call them "emo". It's part of the whole point that the term "emo" has become functionally meaningless because it applies to so many different scenes and styles. --ChrisB 01:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

But it really doesn't. Coheed and Cambria should be removed because they aren't. They shouldn't be on here because of people who hear Blood Red Summer and because it's mainstream/pop rockish, that makes it emo. I love how people basically hear something like Maroon 5 and be like "oh they must be emotionally-charged hardcore, duh" --Timeasimperialism 00:48, 6 March 2006

Green Day and Linkin Park

These bands were added to the list of bands that are called emo, and I know that list is not calling the bands emo, per se, but frankly, people don't really call those bands emo. Green Day is called punk, or pop-punk, maybe, and Linkin Park is called crap most of the time :). But in any case, those bands have not been called emo often enough to merit inclusion on this list. --ParkerHiggins 01:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard of either Green Day or Linkin Park refered to as "emo." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.80.23 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

i actually heard (in spin, silly enough (i think it was refering to the uh, summer sanatarium tour (or some major tour)) of them being emo-something... green day, never... but linkin park... i have... --evesummernight 14:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Linkin Park simply doesn't fit in any form of emo music, whatever spin may suggest. --Mwhale 04:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The only reasons Green Day is considered emo is because of their new fashion statements that either mock emo or mark their changes, but Boulevard. is considered emo-ish by alot of people, but I really think it is just a rock song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.68.223 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My Chemical Romance and others

I wouldn't put MCR in as emo, because their new music is simply hardcore, and they deny being an emo band; their style sounds more like hardcore/horror punk like Bad Religion or The Misfits so get your facts straight. FOB isn't emo either, and I have no idea why people automatically assume that they are emo; FOB IS POP, believe me, I have listened to them and they are not emo or pop-punk. AFI is hardcore punk, Thrice is also. A Static Lullaby isn't emo, they are more metalcore. I am inclined to agree with the Coheed and Cambria fan below, they ARE NOT emo. Listen to some of MCR's songs and tell me if their emo, alright? Some bands that you didn't mention to list as emo:

Underoath (their new stuff changed from death metal to screamo, go figure)
Good Charlotte (yes, they ARE AN EMO BOYBAND)
Simple Plan (THEY HAVE A FEW POP-PUNK SONGS, BUT MOST OF THEIR MUSIC IS EMO)
Yellowcard (they have a sort of fusion between pop-punk and emocore, but I still consider them more emo-esque)
Armor For Sleep (they sound more emo than what they've been described as)
The Academy is...
Thursday (definitely)
Saves the Day
10 Years

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.118.120 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been waiting for someone to argue that MCR isn't emo. They called themselves emo when they put their 2002 album on CDBaby. See, here's the thing: bands and their labels do the CDBaby listings themselves. So, at least back then, MCR thought they were emo.

Anyway, that's beyond the point. As it says in the editor's note on that paragraph, the list of bands is not a list of "emo" bands. It's a list of bands that are regularly referred to as emo. MCR is regularly referred to as emo, and so are AFI, Thrice, and especially Fall Out Boy.

Personally, I can't figure out how either Good Charlotte or Simple Plan is emo. I get the feeling that some folks dislike the emo tag enough that they like to use it to label music they don't like.

The reality: nobody can say for sure what exactly emo is now. So arguing about whether or not a band is emo is kind of pointless. --ChrisB 19:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What the unidentified user said was that "their new stuff is hardcore", and in the paragraph "Emo Today", would interpret to anybody as: 'emo as of 2005-2006' with the word 'today'. And you said 'groups normally reffered to as 'emo', MCR is actually more stereotyped as pop-punk than emo, so that's your inaccuracy. And if nobody is sure of what emo is now, then why are there modern bands included? Wouldn't they be considered as an exception since they don't know what they are since 'emo' isn't even a concrete term anymore; tom me that "is kind of pointless"--CagedInsomniak --4.252.64.77 23:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Unidentified user"? YOU SUCK. Two IPs using the same Cincinnati dialup service making the same argument, and it's two different people? Shenanigans. Don't try to pull that crap - we're not stupid.

Here's the problem with your argument: "emo" stands for "emotional hardcore". So if their new stuff is "more hardcore", that just makes it MORE emo. The hardcore element is what makes it "emo" in the first place.

Regardless, the whole point of the "Emo today" section is that it's hard to define what it is. And, contrary to your complaint (and the complaints of fans of nearly every band in that list), those bands are REGULARLY referred to as "emo". If a band has to constantly repeat "we're not emo", it's because they're being CALLED emo. And that's what the article is addressing.

I get the feeling that some people are just seriously desperate for their favorite band not to be labelled "emo". --ChrisB 00:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oohh...you're smart enough to figure out my IP is the same as the unidentified user, gold star for you. That's not the point, I said that MCR's version of hardcore is more punkish than emo. Haven't you heard of Rise Against? They're not emo, but they're considered hardcore punk...so basically this whole article (or at least the modern part) should be merged with hardcore punk. And if the whole point of the emo today section is mentioning that it's hard to define, then wouldn't every modern band be considered emo? Like I said, MCR isn't reffered to as emo as much as pop-punk, believe me, if they are called emo it's just an innaccuracy, not an insult. Listen to their new music and see how emotionally charged it is, it really is a hardcore rock opera type. --CagedInsomniak--4.253.124.184 00:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You are ENTIRELY missing the point. The band listed in that paragraph are all called "emo". You can call them something else, but they are called "emo". They may not be emo, but people are calling them emo. They may be something else at the same time they are being called emo, but they are also being called emo. People looking for a definition of "emo music" are going to come to this article. What we're presenting is a factually accurate representation of what "emo" music is.

Not all of the bands in that list qualify as "hardcore punk", so merging the modern part with hardcore punk would be unacceptable.

"Wouldn't every modern band be considered emo?" I don't think so. Is every modern band being called emo? All of those bands have been widely called "emo". (And we're not talking about bands who some Joe Schmo on a message board called emo - we're talking about bands that are WIDELY recognized in the music press as being "emo".)

I'll say it like this: it DOESN'T MATTER what kind of music MCR plays. The music media and general public have used the term "emo" to talk about them, and that's ALL that we're claiming in this article. --ChrisB 02:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid MCR certainly is NOT "hardcore" or "emo", Black Flag are hardcore, Rites of Spring are emo. MCR are pop-rock.. their vocalist calls their music "violent pop".

Also Mallcore bands like Rise Against are not "hardcore punk" either, they are post-hardcore, Simple Plan and Good Charlotte are simply pop-"punk". --Deathrocker 17:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, end of conversation, but my point was that MCR isn't emo, and is not commonly considered emo, so really, it's a misconception... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.119.33 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you honestly just call underOATH screamo and GOOD CHARLOTTE EMO?!?!! THEY ARE POP; that's what a boyband is. If you consider emo as emotional, then lets label Kanye West and Mayhem emo too. And, MCR being like Bad Religion is a joke. --Timeasimperialism 00:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

does everyone realizse emo is short for emoTIONAL HARDCORE, none of the bands listed up their fall under that category... --Left Shoe 22:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I just watched MCR's music vid for Helena and they weere at a funeral and the lead singer almost like broke down crying 4 times while singing, and if you remember correctly this articles definition of emo is when the performers would become emotional while performing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lysowski (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the dumbest discussion ever. That guy has no idea what he is talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatchet (talk • contribs) 21:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd never think i would see the day when My Chemical Romance, and the word "hardcore" are used in the same sentence. --Jacknife737 21:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

this guy with the list above is joking i presume —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.165.67 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Emo actually means "emotional" and Emocore is what means "Emotive Hardcore"...but that's such a small correction that it doesn't really matter. Oh and Emo and Indie are two completely different things. Don't let the line that seperates them fade away, cause that's how people are thinking. Just because a band is mainstream, does not mean that have no right to have the stupid "emo" tag slapped on them. - RandomSomeone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.214.216.159 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: the term "emotive hardcore" did not exist until the mid-1990s, and was not in prevalent usage until recently. The most common meaning of emocore was "emotional hardcore" during the 1990s. And Indie and Emo ran along parallel lines during the late 90s.

Look, I understand that people have an idea of what these terms mean in the modern scene. But they can't ignore the history of the terms and redefine them based on faulty information. I've seen teenagers rant about how "emo" has always meant "emotive hardcore" and be very belligerent about it, but their information is false. They don't know what they're talking about. --ChrisB 21:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand all this backlash against pop. Pop is a way of making music, it's not necessarily "manufactured music". ~Jasontheperson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.135.106 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how are 10 Years emo? --Razorhead 09:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A new 'Emo' music article

Emo Pop - settled? We use THAT one for 'new emo' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpiusdiamond (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No. --em c ! ╬ ^{(t a l k)} 21:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I don't care if you're a mod or anything but this is WIKIpedia, the public encyclopedia. It's not wholly ONE person's opinion. That's a dictatorship --Scorpiusdiamond 21:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A new 'Emo' music article is needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpiusdiamond (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. By the way, you did say that Wikipedia "wasn't wholly ONE person's opinion", right? --ChrisB 00:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the unsigned thing, but um, yeah it does, if you were looking for 'Emo' in the sense that you were wrong you would like to see an article about wrong 'Emo'. Thus another article should be made as it is two different genres of music. It's not a branch off of Punk Emo, nor is it the same, so it should have it's own article as every major genre does. --Scorpiusdiamond 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to understand - everything talked about in this article was called "emo". Not "punk emo" or "post-hardcore" or "hardcore pop" or "emo pop" or any other random genre name that somebody came up with because they don't want to call it "emo". ALL of it was called "emo". Splitting the article would be disingenuous and would not reflect what actually happened.

It's not Wikipedia's job to create differentiation - it's to document exactly how things are and were. The early DC scene was called "emo". The 90s indie scene was called "emo". The new stuff is called "emo". Whether or not there's a direct correlation between the three doesn't matter. AllMusic doesn't differentiate them, either.

And, just to vent, this isn't directly aimed at you as I have no idea what your background is:

I'm incredibly tired of seeing folks who are high school or college age driving through Wikipedia and claiming to have all-encompassing knowledge about "emo", yet say thing like "emo has always stood for 'emotive hardcore' or 'post-hardcore punk'" or some other bullshit that just isn't true. They're always emphatic about how "right" they are, yet all of that crap is patently false. They've created their own history and are trying to ram it down everyone else's throats. Everything in this article is as close to the actual history of emo as anything I've seen. Maybe if they took a few moments to read the article and understand it, they'd see that "emo" existed before it became the generic overwrought mess that they see now. --ChrisB 22:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm incredibly tired of seeing folks who are high school or college age driving through Wikipedia and claiming to have all-encompassing knowledge about "emo"

Like you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.118.28 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's comedy gold. I'm older than "high school or college age". And, unlike most of the people claiming first-hand knowledge of 90s emo (ie, all of that "emotive hardcore" bullshit), I actually owned many of those records and saw many of those bands play live. That's a little different from the so-called "experts" that were in elementary school at the time. --ChrisB 18:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that you're not the only one on here who weren't in elementary school at the time. Plus, I wasn't trying to make that comment sound funny, and I'm sorry for the inaccuracy about your age.

claiming to have all-encompassing knowledge about "emo" is what I was meaning to emphasize. Hey, if you don't want people trying to f*ck with the article, then don't include the "modern emo" list--that should lower the amount of 'annoyances' on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.118.24 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations/bibliography

Over the past couple of days, I've started adding direct citations to the article where possible as per WP:Verifiability. Whilst previous versions of the article had referred to sources such as Jessica Hopper's article on sexism, DeRogatis' "Screamo", etc, the references were either non-wikified or merely paraphrases with a note at the end.

Where the article refers directly to another source, I've replaced the previous citation with a footnote as well as having added a few of my own (e.g. for 'revolution summer', articles where bands have cited fugazi as an influence, etc). Before making any more drastic changes with the references, I wanted to see if there was a consensus on style - as it stands now, where there are direct cites those are in footnote format and where a source is more generally referred to, it's left in the old format as a Bibliography.

I'm anticipating adding more references to the article, particularly from Greenwald's book - in light of that, does anyone have any objections to getting entirely rid of the old format of general referencing and moving the article to the more specific footnote style? --Idp 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Post-emo article?

I was plannig on fulfilling a request for a post-emo article but most of the information that I was going to include seems to be under the "Second Wave" part of this article. I'm not sure it'd be appropriate to create it as post-emo seems(at least from my understanding) essentially the same as the indie-rock/midwestern emo sub-genres. I didn't see any mention of post-emo in this article so I'm not sure as to what I should do. Redirect post-emo to emo, create a new article, add the term or what? This site makes the post-emo/indie-rock/midwestern connection. I know it's not a reliable reference but it's content at least makes some kind of point to consider. --Nefitty 12:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

BFMV

Add Bullet For My Valentine to 'Emo Today'? What do you think about that? I put the list into alphabetical order, I assume none will quarrel with that. I worry about myself sometimes O_O --782 Naumova 14:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

NO. There's no reason to add more bands to the list. (We already have more than we need.) --ChrisB 02:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Besides their wiki page shows them as metalcore.-SOAD_ROCKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.164.225 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Gosh guys. i really dont think MCR and panic and fallout boy are emo at all. their look might possibly lean to the emo sides of things but i cant recall having ever cried or become emotional over one of their songs....theyre more pop than anything. hmmmm. well this debate could go on for forever, but im going to bed instead. night my beautiful emo and non emo friends. ur argument still hasnt persuaded me to think that the bands are emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.160.248 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Grunge

Shouldn't grunge be added as an influence to Emo because in the nineties, grunge differed from the more evil and mean sound of hardcore punk and metal, being more emotional. I think grunge should be included as an emo root. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.70.46 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Emo - 1980s DC, Grunge - 1990s Seatlle --Goldendata 23:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No. They are completely different. Bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam are grunge and bands like My Chemical Romance and Fall Out Boy are emo. If you listen to the music, you'll find that they are incomparable. Emo bands sing about cutting themselves and choose to wear black eyeliner and whatnot, whereas you won't find that sort of behavior in a grunge band. Besides, emo music is a thousand times better than grunge music. --Thebends 22:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but bands like Nirvana also have greatly influnced bands like My Chemical Rmance and Hawthorne Heights. Look at a emo band's influnce list it has Nirvana on it every time. Besides just because a band doesn't sound emo doesn't mean they haven't influnced it in some form. For example Led Zepplin are a huge influnce on Hawthorne Heights. Grunge and modern "emo" are both terrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatchet (talk • contribs) 21:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's an emo root. The idea that one cannot see a clear connection between Soundgarden, Pearl Jam and Thursday is quite frankly inexplicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmwhittaker101 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Inexplicable? Try this: you can't go Soundgarden / Pearl Jam -> Rites of Spring. There was emo before grunge, so grunge can't possibly be an emo root. Newer "emo" bands (ie, Thursday) may be able to credit grunge as an influence, but the genre cannot. It's chronologically impossible.

Grunge and emo share the same root, hardcore punk. They're branches of the same tree; neither was a root of the other. --ChrisB 04:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Except that Grunge is more a time and place than a genre. --GD 04:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't really say that Indie Rock is emo music- Emo music is more like depressenging hard core metal rock. --User:cjmcgreevy 15:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

READ THE ARTICLE. --Chris Berry 03:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Not true. Emo began with Rites of Spring in 1985, while grunge started with Green River in 1983. --B o b b y 4 05:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I think emo is too. It's just happening right now. --69.118.39.194 02:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

hate to admit it but when grunge hit mainstream it becamee a fad just like the third wave of emo music —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.120.75.198 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The Smiths

Im surpised there is no mention to The Smiths at all in this page. They were one of the first to do rock with depressing dreary lyrics (i.e. Everyday is Like Sunday) They were one of the first ever to do the "emo" thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.25.243 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The smiths occured at the same time first wave emo occurred. Concurred that third wave emo takes some cues from Morrissey's idea... for note, third wave emo draw on the smiths occasionally (see, Brand New)... but, as far as the original constructs of emo go, and the influnce it has on what is currently today branded 'emo'... it's primarly relating to the linear pathway instead of the overall influential branchwork of genrefication... More importantly, emo is often sterotyped as being 'depressing'... just as morrissey's lyrics often are as well... more about morrissey is that he's being ironic, facitious, and witty... that's neither here nore there... lyrics lately at least, tend to draw more from gorecore (i.e. the entire slew of bands who have Cattle decapitation written down...) if you take a second and look at some bands pre-third wave listed, you'd find that their lyrics are more correctly introspective than depressing... i.e. mineral, swing kids, evergreen, and to a greater effect rites of spring... --evesummernight 00:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyday is Like Sunday is by Morissey on his own. There was also lots of depressive music way before then, like Leonard Cohen and some Velvet Underground. --XdiabolicalX 19:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

putting music in genres

before you make a post here, or worse, make an edit to the page because __ is totally pop and not emo and ___ is totally screamo and not emo and then that other band is completely pop punk and not emo and oh sweet jesus how could you get that wrong? - take a second:

there is no definition of what emo is. i'm glad you think you have some absolute idea of what it is. maybe it works for you and your friends. its pointless, though, to use your personal definition as fact in a wikipedia argument and become angry at those who say otherwise. ChrisB said it best: "The reality: nobody can say for sure what exactly emo is now. So arguing about whether or not a band is emo is kind of pointless." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apexcp (talk • contribs) 05:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

But bands are usually grouped by sound, most scene kids listen to Fall out Boy and go that's emo, but Fall out boy sounds more like pop punk, listen to antioch arrow and angel hair and Cap'n Jazz or other emo bands, they don't sound like MCR or Hawthorne Heights, compare them to other bands of the genre before you start labeling left and right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.107.150 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you both, emo is too much of a generic thing and broad genre that is often stereotyped; alot like rap music, most people think that any music with beats and fast vocals is just "rap", but really, there is gangsta rap, rapcore, etc.; something should be put about emo being too widely used and innaccurate--to the point of idiocy. --Rabid coathangers eat da world 01:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

why are Dropkick Murphys there they are like the most un-emo band ever this page sucks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.148.1 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

the genre emo is too generic because MTV made it that way. As emo died, emo bands that survived changed their music to continue to make a living off playing music. MTV labeled these bands on what they were, and not what they changed into. Then you hear music that sounds like these bands new sound, and MTV goes, thats emo too. --Iii9ix3 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My Chemical Romance are emo!

if you've ever tried listening to them you'd understand that they are emo. they're violent pop or rock with emotion whatever you describe emo as My Chemical Romance are deffinately emo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Rotten (talk • contribs) 17:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I sooo totally fucking agree!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.80.108 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong but we have to keep them in the article to represent wide labeling of MCR as emo. They are NOT, because emo is emotional hardcore, not pop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeasimperialism (talk • contribs) 15:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you dont think that MCR are emo then u are truly mistaken on the facts, they are an emo band!!! And how dare you say that emo is just emotional hardcore, emo is emotional punk rock, or emotional indie aswell as emotional hardcore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.243.45 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Person above, please get your facts straight before planning to contribute to an encylopedia. My Chemical Romance is not emo; they don't consider themselves that, either. Also, emo IS emotional hardcore; you're wrong. --Jaden 04:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

no, emo WAS emotional hardcore. that is mentioned in the article, as is the evolution of the term since then. --67.168.139.10 10:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

oops, that was me --dan 10:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Weezer Quotes

Listen, Weezer's 1996 album Pinkerton is mentioned "being considered one of the defining "emo" records of the 90s." Now, I included a quote from the lead singer of that band who was speaking directly about the alleged influence of that album. A point that is DIRECTLY RELEVANT to the mention of the band. The quote is as follows: Rivers Cuomo, the lead singer of the Weezer, has been quoted in the May 2002 issue of Pulse magazine as saying that "For the most part, emo is worthless. Pinkerton is worthless. And all of it is gonna die. It's bad music".

This quote would mean that the lead singer disagrees with the view of critics that Pinkerton was a defining "EMO" record and even a good record.

Please read this before you delete the edit. Articles change. Get used to it. --Bert bert 19:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That quote has nothing to do with the influence of the album. The article doesn't say anything about the quality of the album, either. It looks like the quote was rightfully omitted from the article. Cuomo's opinion of the album or the genre has nothing to do with the fact that it influenced later emo bands, is all I'm saying. --Nefitty 12:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

i fail to see how the principal creator of a defining emo record saying that emo is worthless and bad is not relevent. --67.168.139.10 10:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

oops, that was me --dan 10:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

hoobastank/blue october

here is the line i just snipped from the article: "This is displayed by pitiful lyrics such as: "How could this happen to me?" from Simple Plan, "And the reason is you" by Hoobastank, and "Hate me" by Blue October." without getting into pointless debates of what emo means this week, i'll just point out that i have never in my life heard the latter two bands called emo and the word is not anywhere on either of their pages. and while pitiful in this context could mean "full of self-pity", it also could be (and would probably be read as, in either case) very POV. --67.168.139.10 10:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC) oops, that was me --dan 10:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Emo Scene

I was suprised to find that no mention of Chicago as a major emo scene is on this page. The Academy Is, Fall Out Boy, June, The Junior Varsity, Rise Against, Ok Go, Alkaline Trio, and others have all made it big out of the Chicago music scene in the past few years. Fuse TV has even compared Chicago's emo scene to the Seattle Grunge of the 1990s.

Surely smoething has to be mentioned about it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.203 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a single one of those bands are Emo --Inhumer 04:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

i'm inclined to agree, but nonetheless many people consider them to be emo, and that is what the mainstream meaning of the word is now, pretty much. --dan 10:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah exactly... emo is basically just a catch-all term now for anything pop-punk or hardcore... so i guess maybe a mention on Chicago being a major scene should be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.17.200 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Emo is now ambiguous and meaningless

If I may quote:

"Because emo has been used by and defined differently (it has been labeled bands with whiney singers, a fashion trend, the second wave of pop punk, a band with songs lyrics that take self pity upon the lyricists and the band themselves and many more) by so many bands, fans and media outlets, emo is now an ambiguous term which means absolutely nothing. Slapping the label "emo" on something (i.e. "lol ur listning 2 emo!1") without awareness of it's worthlessness as a label (best to put it in air quotes to show you're recognize it as a retarded genre) is pointless because no two people agree on what it means.

The only reason to define something as emo is because other people refuse to recognize the band in question without it."

That's the def I'm sticking to. --86.138.71.132 23:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No emo is emotive hardcore. This is how emo evolved

PUNK < HARDCORE < EMO

This whole page is 95% wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoRenGo (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

this page is not 95% wrong its 100% true emo has died and will never return its all fashionable fags that think its still alive and its not emotive hardcore emotive is NOT a word and should never be used as one just like ain't isnt a word —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.83.2 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Panic! at the Disco

Given the band has been added several times over the past week by several different users and is popularly associated with modern emo, is there any compelling reason not to include Panic! At the Disco in the list? --Cedars 15:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There isnt a good reason not to throw them under the "emo" banner, a quick glipse at what they wear and the songs they sing seem to be stereotypical emo to me. Whether its indeed correct is irrelevant, most people not in the "know" would consider them emo. --Cablebfg 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

They are very "emo". Over-the-top lyrics, plus their appearance, would lead one to no other conclusion. --Di4gram 18:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont think P!ATD are Emo, I am a fan so maybe I am biased but I am certainly not Emo and dont want to be associated with it. The lyrics are sometimes emotional but they are not deep and meaningful like a proper Emo Band, the music is also a lot about sex and love but not in such an emotional way. They look Emo but that is the market they are aiming at, I do not think that they are Emo, since the music is very dance-like and simply fun rather than heavy serious listening... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monty2002 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Panic! is not emo. Listen to them, then to a real emo band and you will know what im talking about. Real Emo: Still Life, Sunny Day Real Estate(or any of its clones, such as mineral), moss icon, swing kids, boys life, christie front drive. www.fourfa.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iii9ix3 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

From a NPOV perspective, they definately belong in Emo (slang). While they do have emotions in their music (lets not go there), their style of music is a punk-influenced dance rock. The band is a part of the current emo music scene - they are punk and they have played at a few different 'emo' venues - but their actual genre is not emo. As an interesting side note, in a recent issue of Blender magazine they were quoted to have said that they had "far exceeded emo" and that the current emo bands "have no originality." --68.219.188.246 08:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

based on the 2 songs i've heard (so this is obviously a very scientific opinion) they sound more like a dancey parody of emo than of anyone seriously joining that genre/scene/club/whatever. but of course, what it sounds like to me or anyone here is totally not at issue. if a good amount of people consider them emo, if any music magazines/websites/other bands call them emo, then they're on the list whatever we may think. --dan 19:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Is "emo" really music?

Bands are normally categorized by their MUSIC, not the lyrics. If being an "emo" band means being a hardcore or post-hardcore band with a certain style of songwriting, then emo isn't a music genre at all, right? That would go back to simply saying they are a hardcore or post-hardcore band. Get what i'm saying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.214.212.202 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Musicians are frequently categorized by their lyrics. Salsa romantica, gospel/soul, protest song, alternative hip hop, CCM, Christian rock, Christian hip hop (et al), gangsta rap, nerdcore hip hop and ragga are all lyrically characterized. Tuf-Kat 17:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

All the categories you just named have their own sort of sound. That's how they are categorized. Christian music for example....I don't understand. Rock bands easily use words like "God" or "Lord" in their music and not be categorized as Christian rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.241.119 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, think about it. Christian music can be called Christian music just by its lyrics because its all praising Christianity, Jesus, and God. Rock music can have the words "God", "Jesus", "Lord", etc in it but not use it in a religious sense. For example, a Christian band says, "Praise Christ," and a rock band also uses "Christ", but like this: "Fuck Christ."

Also, with this, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying all rock music is anti-Christian. Just using it as an example. - Guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.179.208 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

All Christian Rock songs are about religion, while regular rock bands have few, if any songs that mention religion. --B o b b y 4 05:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

emo is a subgenre of hardcore (its proper term is emotional hardcore), and is based on slower, more melodic duet guitars in addition to its more emotional lyrical tendencies, especially as time progressed. As with the end of the hardcore movement, emo went with it. What I am trying to say here is that emo's relationship to hardcore is the same as post-hardcore's, they were just formed at different times. --Iii9ix3 21:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

i think of modern emo grouping as something like grunge -- the first huge bands sounded nothing alike (nirvana, alice in chains, soundgarden, pearl jam), but somehow most of the bands that poppped up to copy their style sounded all the same, and the signifiers of the grunge genre basically came from those. --dan 19:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted the page

Please restore the article. There has lots of vandalism and this is not the first time someone has tried to drastically alter/change the premise of the article. I think Wikipedia should put a lock on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.17.200 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

3rdwave consensus?

Can we gain consensus that the 3rd wave of emoness (sorry, I suck at terminology) is a genuine part of the Emo subculture? Because it would seem to me that the anti-emo crowd will use the "modern emo isn't REAL emo" excuse to vote for removal of that part of the article, simply because they hate "modern emo". Consensus would help us fight this kind of dispute in future, once and for all ending the question of whether or not it has a right to be included in this article (we would be able to just cite this discussion in whatever archive it ends up in each time it crops up, saving hours of arguing with stubborn people who have closed minds). I'd like to hear your views, whether you're for/against inclusion, and some supporting facts or evidence. Thanks. --91.84.32.248 07:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, apparantly my browser signed me out for no reason. The above message was by me: --▫Bad▫harlick♠ 07:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Project Emo Music

I've been following alot of wiki articles on bands in any way related to emo, and the way their pages are edited is not just sad - it's malicious. One second Underoath is post-hardcore, then it's rock, then grindcore with elements of emo - and so forth. I have deliberately started the project on Emo Music aside from already existing project on Punk Music, and within the first week wikipedia regulators brought up if it's relevant and necessary. The final result was "yes" and I was advised to create and post a banner on the top of Wiki article on Emo Music, because the project needs more members and contributors. If you're interested in participating, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Emo, the basic idea is already summed up on the front page. --Iceness 14:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

More info

Looking through my back issues of Guitar World today I came across the Fugazi interview. Ian MacKaye talks about emo for a bit:

Guitar World: Rites of Spring and Fugazi are considered to be the fathers of emocore. Do you feel comfortable with that notion?

MacKaye: To be honest with you, it's not a term we use. I actually know its roots. It was originally derogatory--it was used as a straight-up insult. The "emo" tag was short for "emotional hardcore," but somehow it evolved into a legitimate form of music. I mean, the word "punk" was an insult, too, but eventually people started using it because it made sense to them. "Emo" didn't make any sense to us, but later on, bands identified with it. (Perlah, Jeff. "The Independent". Guitar World. March 2002.)

Don't know if this can be worked in, but if you find a place, you can cite it with the information I've provided. --WesleyDodds 12:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's something else. [2] --Phil, 16 Oct 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.151.9 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of misinformation

Alot of these discussions lead me to the conclusion that alot of you are either fed definitions and opinions by the media and or just like to make up some silly ideas and conclusions by yourself ignoring nearly 15+ years of history in punk rock. Emo is not any of the pop-punk bands you see on MTV, such as MCR, Fall Out Boy, Hawthorne Heights. None of them. Nor are bands like Sunny Day Real Estate, The Appleseed Cast and Mineral, they all more or less funnel into Indie Rock. They have very little to do with the genre, aside from the fact that they were influnenced by it. Labels such as Gravity Records, Ebullition and Dischord are largely responsible for most of it's developement. Starting as early as the late 80's with acts such as Moss Icon, Heroin and most commonly asserted the Rites Of Spring. All these bands took Hardcore Punk and shifted it to a more intelligent direction; adding screamed vocals, socio-political lyrics, more intricate guitar work and song structures. As such, all of these bands will more or less remain in obscurity for a number of reasons. A few of which are due to limited record pressings which were done on vinyl and are now out of print and hard to find, little if any promotion by the band's label and their short lived timespans. This still carries on even untill today. Gravity and Ebullition still put out releases as well as somewhat newer labels such as Alone and Waking Records. If you found this enlightening at all feel free to check out these bands to see what it's really about: Heroin, Rites Of Spring, Honeywell, Republic Of Freedom Fighters, Portraits Of Past, The Pine, Shotmaker, Navio Forge, Yage, Funeral Diner, Antioch Arrow, Daitro and Still Life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.82.170 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for recapping emo in the 1980s. Unfortunately for you, the term continued to be used in the years after that scene died out. And the first shift had nothing to do with MTV. Sunny Day Real Estate was emo, even if they didn't fit the original emo scene. Poke around on newsgroup posts from the 1990s (via Google Groups) and you'll see what I'm talking about. Emo is and was more than just that original scene, and trying to "purify" the term to describe one thing is disingenuous.

Emo is what it is. It is what people call it. You can wish that we could travel back to 1992 and do it all over again, but that's unfair to the actual history of what actually happened.

And I wish people would stop trying. --ChrisB 13:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Just please take the damn list of bands that are considered emo, it's causing more trouble than it is and is stupid. --4.252.68.213 02:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There is punk, and then there is punk rock. Punk rock is the typical lead male singer voice, backing guitar, drums, bass, etc., usually geared toward younger audiences, with messages that much of their audience can relate to (possibly a source of their popularity). Don't mistake this for punk/ska. Emo is a branch of punk rock in that it generally has a softer, more vocal-driven property to it, and drives toward love/hate and stuff like that. Also, I don't see why people removed my edit on clothing. --Di4gram 18:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between "your opinion" and "fact". The difference is, one means nothing, the other is the reason this website exists. There are many phases of the genre. What ties them together is the fact that all the phases of the genre have been as a subgenre of punk rock, and rooted in punk rock culture. What sets them apart is that the followers of the "first wave" were stuck up assholes who got mad if more than 20 people liked the same bands they did, where as the second and third wave were at least socially bareable and didn't write long diatribes on an internet encyclopedia whining and bitching about how, like, emo is soooo sold out these days, and how bands that are like so gay are using the term to describe their awful music to which my musical tastes are like so far superior. Get over yourself. Jeez look what you made me do, I went and broke all the civility rules. --▫Bad▫harlick♠ 09:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional External Link

Ok, I added an external link for emoscene.com, but was told to bring it up in discussion to gain approval before adding it, so I am going through the proper channels.

It's a free website, sort of a DIY alternative to Myspace. It offers blogs and is a community site exclusively for emo kids. I don't know of any other site that does this, so I think it's an appropriate resource to be included in this article. So I'm opening to discussion whether or not to include it. Thank you for your time. --68.82.246.123 03:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC) slipxaway

It's not about emo music itself, so it doesn't belong. --WesleyDodds 09:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's not a notable website regarding the subject. As I've mentioned several times, check WP:EL to see what Wikipedia allows as far as external links are concerned.

In particular, from "links normally to avoid":

1) A page which only provides information already in the article, or which does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.

3) A page that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked.

5) Links intended to promote a site...

7) Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself.

Wikipedia articles are not intended to be used as directories of related websites. WP:EL is specific about this. --ChrisB 17:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination

This article is promising, but is not yet at GA quality. My main reason for failing it is that it is very myopic -- while it's great as a detailed guide to all the bands involved in emo music, it's pretty uninformative about anything besides certain bands. It really needs more context on the culture and criticism associated with emo, and above all, the sound of the music! There's hardly a word in here about what characterizes emo musically, which makes it pretty confusing for someone not already immersed in the genre.

Vandalism

Hi, i just reverted the vandalism on this by a private ISP. I reccomend that this article be locked. For some reason somebody with a private ISP is raging against emo --Doc Strange 14:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

People connect emo with suicide etc

I was surprised not to read anything about how emo music got connected to suicide and other stereotypical nonsense. I know it's not true, but after some record company giving away razors to people who bought two emo albums it's important enough as a stereotype to make it into this article, no? -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 17:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Relevant article: Emo (slang). --ChrisB 00:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Listing bands without citing sources

For the list of bands that are popularly regarded as Emo, the standard should be that if the band's entry doesn't list it as Emo genre, some verifiable citation should be given to list it here, instead of just having a blanket comment that says all of them are verifiable without giving a citation. --JHunterJ 17:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break. AllMusic covers every one of these with the exception of From First to Last. AFI and Hawthorne Heights don't have their profiles listed as "emo", but they each have albums that are. Whether or not AFI is considered emo is one of the biggest ongoing debates within their fanbase.

I mean, seriously - is that hard to go to Google, type in the band's name and "Emo", and find sources? Do we really need to cite each and every one of these? Do we then need to go through and cite every OTHER band in this article for being emo? --ChrisB 02:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point of WP:CITE, especially if some editors want to delete something other editors want to keep. AllMusic would be a good cite, it sounds like. --JHunterJ 02:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations are generally a good thing in my opinion. I've added a note with some external links so I could remove the unsightly tag. Feel free to improve it. I used last.fm but allmusic should work as well. --Cedars 07:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is named after a short "nick-name" used orally, I think it should be called Emo-Rock to be more precise. --Septentrion 10:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, "emo" is the commonly-used genre term. I don't know anyone who calls it "emo-rock". --WesleyDodds 19:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Allmusic.com is a better cite, because genre terms on last.fm are selected by users, sometimes indiscriminantly. --WesleyDodds 19:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Are we just naming random bands and adding them to the list of "emo bands?" Bowling for Soup? Sum 41? Are you serious? --Spuddy 17 06:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"New" emo

I know this sounds a bit radical, but I suggest we "create" a new genre/term, tentatively called "Emo-pop" or "Bubblegum Emo" or some such thing to describe songs that have more recently become associated with the term emo - pop-punk inspired songs with poignant lyrics and rich, sometimes whiny vocals. I hope that this would provide a way to clear up a lot of confusion, and also inspire music websites to consider using the term in order to differentiate. Download.com, for example, has a section for emo that includes an music that could be described by the term, thus it is quite diverse and hard to find a certain type. --Kame2000 19:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... maybe. --íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 _(samtal) 19:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm agree ,the emopop sounds really accurate, it takes account of the pop and the emo part of the music, I will like to see to some kind of sub-genre for the second wave emo, maybe indie-emo ?, this way we will have emo -> indie emo -> emopop --200.116.17.142 04:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I think that, if we can, we should create articles for Indie Emo, and non-pop punk related bands and songs would fit into emo metal. Or we could also create an emo punk page and this could be the main page summarizing all of them. --íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 _(samtal) 14:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Out of respect for the original style of emo music and so as not to mess up all sorts of so-far correct categorization, I would think that "Emo" should continue to be defined as emotional hardcore and that Indie-emo and Emo-punk would be subgenres of indie, emo, and punk. --Kame2000 18:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The history?!

Who wrote that crap? something about cutting (which is a huge problem and needs to be discussed elsewhere) and someone being "stupip" I needs changed. chris shepherd (12-6-06) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christofershepherd (talk • contribs) 02:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Oberst/Hot Topic/Goth

I think some "credit" should be given to Bright Eyes for popularizing it. Also someone should consider including the Hot Topic stereotypic fasion and Emo's connection to gothica. Discuss. --User:Girls gone docile 15:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've noticed that this site has been updated, particularly in the 90's explanations. A lot of it makes a lot more sense now, so well done whoever did that. however, the post 2000 part is still confusing. while it notes that emo became more than just a music style, it still has this ridiculous bit on Dashboard Confessional. Yes i know he has been called "emo" but this surely more than anything shows the disambiguation of the word. This isn't explained properly, and perhaps need clarification, though anytime i have tried to clarify in the past, someone has reverted it. Also this page is on Emo as music, so i would recomend we see more acknowlegdement of the non major label emo bands, especially the European scene, who contrary to the opinion in this article, are still very much around. -- ewe 17/11/06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.3.18 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

ok when dashboard confessional came out the word "emo was bandied about, but seriously, who actually calls him "emo" now? it's pretty obvious he is a singer songwriter. this article has some serious problems. it basically acts like since 2000, the only "emo" has been the mtv stuff, this is simply not true, there are many distros and a still thriving emo scene, which has nothing to do with fashion and everything to do with music. I know that some of the close-minded editors of this page want to keep bands that have been reffered to as emo on the site, and thats fair enough, but the fact remains that this is telling only one side of the story. --Blue-ewe 11:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This Page in General

Personally, as an opinionated young man, I think the page for Emo is very bad and misinforming. The "waves" of emo, post-emo etc. Emo is a specific genre of music, just like Hardcore Punk is. The idea that both Swing Kids and Weezer are emo is terrible, considering they are two very different bands, playing two very different styles of rock. Ian Mackaye and Guy Piccioto established what emo was, separating themselves from the violence of yesterday's hardcore and writing personal lyrics to play along with the obvious hardcore sound. Emo has evolved since just like hardcore, but the sound and ethics are relatively the same. Taking Back Sunday is a modern alternative band classified as emo. Hot Cross are a modern emo band retaining the same fast, hardcore punk sound with passionate and thoughtful lyrics to run with the music. Do you understand? Bands like Taking Back Sunday, Weezer, and Jimmy Eat World are all modern, mainstream alternative bands, not to be confused with a word already defining a genre. It is misclassifications like these that make people like myself who actually do listen to emo scratch our heads and think "What on Earth?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.221.43 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Emo by today's standards

The "Emo" music of today is considered the whiney crap about life. The mellow rock is actually post-emo indie rock, that's what is now associated with Emo. In all truth the original Emo is a Hardcore punk offspin we now refer to as screamo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gellister (talk • contribs) 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Emo should not be a music genre!!!!!

Emo as a term for music is the stupidest thing I've ever heard!It is so stupid because everyone sings, writes, and plays with emotion! So what if someone sings, writes, or plays it a little more than someone else.Some bands are also criticized cause they sing about wrist cutting. Their bringing awareness to it and their experiences just like someone who writes a song about being an alcoholic or druggie or abuse. And some bands are called emo for having a certain style of cothing or wearing makeup and are criticized for it. Has anyone ever heard of fricken glam metal!!? they wore makeup and womanly clothes at times(some still do). But they're not called emo. They're looked up to by millions of people and different generations of fans. Not one band or singer, sings without emotion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.65.141 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Emo is a long dead style of emotional hardcore punk dumbass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.88.32 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh. Say what you want, but Emo *is* a music style, simply because people use it to name some kind of music. The word "emo" doesn't only mean it's emotional, but as the previous unsigned comment points out, "Emo is a long dead style of emotional hardcore punk". Over the "long dead" one might argue, but the rest is fact. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 10:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism problem: semi-protection

This page seems to vandalized on an almost daily basis. It's hard to spot any legitimate edits in the history.

I'm strongly considering putting a request up for semi-protected status, seeing that:

Practically all vandalism is in the form of once-off anonymous edits.
Conversely, practically all anynomous edits are vandalism.
This is a fairly stable disambiguation page, so legitimate changes tend to be:
- infrequent, and
- not of a nature you'd expect from new editors

In other words: semi-protection should be appreciably less invasive to this article's editing lifecycle than it is to regular articles.

I believe strongly in keeping Wikipedia as open as possible to anonymous editors, but in this case, weighing the constant drain of devandalizing against the impact of semi-protection, i would prefer semi-protection.

Any objections? --Piet Delport 00:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put a request up. --Piet Delport 15:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Request denied: not enough recent activity to justify protection. Oh well. --Piet Delport 21:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

After the most recent spate of vandalism, a second request has been granted! --Piet Delport 06:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been un-semi-protected, from the looks of it, and now vandalised:

"In its original incarnation, the term emo was used to describe the music of the mid-1980s Washington, DC scene and its associated bands. It is now ruining the music scene as a whole and infesting the world with transvestites. In later years, the term emocore, short for "emotional hardcore", was also used to describe the DC scene and some of the regional scenes that spawned from it."

Being a newbie to Wikipedia, I can't seem to figure out how to get rid of the fairly obvious piece of vandalism (Or, at least, comment requiring a citation). --124.178.196.10 09:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Errr... It seems to have vanished now. Possibly problems on my end - the internets are being sporadic and strange today. --124.178.196.10 09:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

last fm as a reference? is this a joke

last fm is hardly a site to be taken seriously, and much vandalism and mislabeling goes on there. just look at the page for Kevin Federline, it's been tagged by numerous people as "brutal death metal"

i don't think the last fm reference should be included in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laggedbehind (talk • contribs) 01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

That's the whole point, that people are calling stuff Emo that isn't. It can clearly be seen that people are tagging Federline as Death Metal as a joke. --Diabolical 02:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the difference is the Kevin Federline tags are obviously jokes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.191.246 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics

I just realized why emo has been disputed alot when put on a band here (particularly third wave bands since emo is currently an insult in modern days) . Since there are no clear characteristics currently, anyone who understands what makes a song emo or not better than me, up for making a section on characteristics. --67.190.8.155 03:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Weezer

Personally I think Weezer should be given more credit for what they've done for basically creating the blueprint for the "emo-pop" sound with Pinkerton, and even some of The Blue Album (Say It Ain't So, Only In Dreams). Rivers' confessional, sensitive and honest lyrics on that album along with its raw, punk-ish powerchord driven sound can be heard in every modern "emo-pop" band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockOutMahn (talk • contribs) 14:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I know "emo" is usually viewed as a deragotory term nowadays and I'm sure theres tons of Weezer fans who will disagree with what I've said. But I don't see whats so bad about saying that a great band basically shaped a form of popular music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockOutMahn (talk • contribs) 14:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We can't give that credit unless someone else (ie, a reliable source) did. And I would personally challenge that assertion - Weezer (and specifically Pinkerton) were lumped into emo because it sounded similar to the indie emo of the period, not because it defined or established a particular brand of emo. --ChrisB 17:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisB. --Diabolical 17:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Weezer? Emo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.29.223 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Should this genre even exist??

Seriously, every band article that I have visited says somwhere in it that that group is classified as emo, but whenever I look at the disscusion page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subway2008 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

When ever you look at the discussion page what? --Diabolical 22:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about not finishing my argument. What I ment to say was that when I look at a so called "emo" band's disussion page there is always someone who says that that perticular band is in fact not emo, and wants to have that title removed. --Akamaru Toshibo 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Band Examples

A lot of the sources used for genre shouldnt be used, bc it is only the opinion of that sight. A proper source to use could be a band site or myspace where they label their own genre. --DevelopmentArrested 22:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole point is that most bands that are labelled "emo" are done so against their wishes. That's been the case with the genre from its inception in 1985. Just because a band says they aren't "emo" doesn't make it so. The point is that the term is a media label more than anything else, and every one of those bands has been referred to as "emo". --ChrisB 04:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy?

I find it fanciful to include the 1985-1994 period inclusively as 'emo music' given that the bands mentioned were not labelled as such. The label came into being at what date exactly? That should be the start period of the genre in the right hand side music-genre table bar, not neo-emo bands that later came to also be classified as 'pioneers' of the genre. --211.30.71.59 12:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Rites of Spring were specifically asked about being called "emo" in a 1985 interview with Flipside Magazine. And there's a fantastic piece of video on Youtube from an Embrace show in 1986 where Ian rants about how stupid he thinks the term "emocore" is.

To answer your question, the label came into being in 1985. --ChrisB 02:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Um

Why is Coheed & Cambria listed on the page? They're not emo at all lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pewpz (talk • contribs) 08:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

More Emo bands

4 more emo bands to add onto the list of emo band at the moment. 30 Second to Mars, Atom and his Package, Yellow Card (in a magazine they called them emo), Alkaline Trio, Hot Water Music, At the drive-in, Cursive, Mineral and Matchbook Romance. Also is HIM emo? --Bombtom 11:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Alkaline Trio is pop punk. --A LARGE STUPID SIGNATURE! 01:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That paragraph doesn't need any more bands. We're simply offering examples, not compiling a list of every possible emo band. And most of the bands you've mentioned are already noted elsewhere in the article. --ChrisB 02:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Link to "Art Rock"

I removed it, as I don't see similarities at all, and emo is not really a form of art rock. --62.136.186.141 19:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothings wrong with "emo rock". its just music. ....

some people make a big deal about "emo music" but it is just music with a litle more emotion. Rock and hip hop/ rap arent that much different, one just has guitars, basses, and drums, instead of a dj. People freak about how guys dress "emo" but why not freak about how some rappers have guns and act like arrogant byotches. Rock is just music and people need to shut up about how it sucks. everyone can enjoy rock if they have had a shitty life and "emo rock" helps figure things out for abnormal and normal teenagers. ♥ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.223.46.229 (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

What to add to emo list

I say add Severity! I dont not like severity! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.168.87 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Charlotte --Pwnage8 20:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Subgenre of Hardcore Punk?

The beginning statement of the article calls this a "subgenre of Hardcore Punk"

While I agree there are similarities, if only that during their times they were considered "fringe," but listening to the two may change the mind of whomever decided emo was the subgenre of punk.

Punk has a more aggressive, sort of violent sound. That was the defining characteristic, the angst.

But emo lacks the same aggression, and indeed many lyrics in the music even talk of shying away or breaking under pressure and aggression.

Also, punk was highly notable for its lack of mainstream success (rather its off shoots of metal and hardcore were more successful and notable), emo has a very broad audience.

In that same light, we have to take into account the people of the music (which really is what creates the genre). Punk was made up of, in terms of both musician and audience, "outcasts and low-lifes." Generally they were people to be repulsed. Parents shunned Punk rockers and society never gave punk a mainstream success.

Emo, on the other hand, can be described as people "imitating" punk rock. The popular joke goes that emo kids (as indeed, the broad audience is very young) believed in Fight Club a little to much and WANT to be called outcasts or different. The musicians are either typed as being "money-whores" (some of the bands are nothing but MTV prop-ups for money, as it were), or kids who make believe serious problems and angst.

Punk rockers actually HAD those problems, or they were "real" in terms of severity. Emo on the other hand see's bands creating these problems for themselves, TRYING to sound like Punk.

Maybe I have misunderstood the definition, but since when were imitaters a "subgenre" of anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.212.92 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Emo's success has only come in recent years, and bands like Rites of Spring could be pretty visceral. Emo is clearly descended from hardcore punk, as the connections to the DC hardcore scene described in the article illustrate. --WesleyDodds 04:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

People seem to just reject the facts that emo was directly birthed by hardcore punk. When Ian Mackaye wanted to form Embrace he wanted to write lyrics on a more personal level than all of the other hardcore bands out at the time. The music was the same. He was just smarter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.187.254 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, emo is NOT a subgenre of hardcore. it is a subgenre of punk. straightedge is a subgenre of hardcore. power violence is a subgenre of hardcore. could someone please tell me how in the world Embrace sounds like Minor Threat?! --Androol 04:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

octave chords

do you people not know anything about emo at all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Androol (talk • contribs) 05:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

cited example of emotive hardcore before 1996

from the bleed/portraits of past 7": my emotions are what make me human. music of the punk or hardcore variety is human music, and as fantastic as it may seem to some of us, emotions are an inseparable part of us. i don't think that labels such as "emo" benifit anyone, but perhaps the proliferation of that term indicates that many realize how emotional hardcore can and must be. emotion is not simply a style of hardcore. music can be emotional and lyrics can be emotional, but the songs make up only part of the hardcore punk experience. trying to develop alternatives to the negative conventions of our society, meeting caring people with interesting ideas and being able to express yourself in a safe and thoughtful environment are other extremely important aspects of hardcore. all those actions are fundamentally emotional. hardcore has the potential to change things, to burn things down and build things up. emotion adds that potency to what would otherwise be harmless. emotion that is untapped is a benifit to none and an injustice to all. that emotion is the key to action, political or personal. that emotion is what defines the music i love.

circa '93 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Androol (talk • contribs) 04:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

so go ahead and make the changes since the article is locked for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Androol (talk • contribs) 05:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles of Faith

you people do not know what youre doing. Articles of Faith (band) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Androol (talk • contribs) 12:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Rorschach

LMFAO you people are insane. substitute that with Iconoclast from New Jersey, the first hardcore emo band, and you'll be fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Androol (talk • contribs) 12:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hoover end of DC emo?

Joseph P McRedmond frequents music message boards and i've talked to him numerous times and he vehemently denies that Hoover was an emo band. It is undeniable that they wrote seminal emo songs but I agree with him that they were a post-hardcore band not emo. I'm leaving that in for now because while they werent an emo band their breakup could still signal the demise of DC emo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.16.193.253 (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Read half of this article and you'll find one prevailing theme about emo bands - nearly all of them deny being emo. Most of the declarations come from listeners, and there are NUMEROUS sources calling Hoover (and other post-hardcore bands that people keep trying to remove) emo. We CANNOT use the band's own insistence to exclude them from the genre, since, in most cases, it wasn't their call. (Mackaye and Picciotto have both decried the term "emo", yet they were both part of bands that have been widely considered the first emo bands.) --ChrisB 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

nation of ulysses and quicksand

thanks chris :)

i knew that was gonna happen with nou and fourfa

that isnt really the strongest reference with quicksand but as long as youve got conviction thats what matters because i am definitely not an expert by any means on quicksand.

i just wrote andy radin and asked him to get on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Androol (talk • contribs) 07:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

RE: see also:Hardcore Emo

forms a linking loop that re-directs back to the page it should be removed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.110.14 (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

yeah wtf --Androol 09:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardcore Emo/Emocore?

I would challenge the existence of so-called "Hardcore Emo" or "Emocore" music. It strikes me as a ridiculous concept, taking the already-too-common method of applying a new name to every slight variation of a genre too far. As far as I can tell, that which is termed "Emocore" fits into other existing musical genres without problem, for example Funeral For A Friend: They fit just fine into one of Metalcore, Hardcore or Rock, there's no need to apply a new term to them. If the term "Emocore" is to justify itself there has to be a clear definition of it. It's not fair to term music "emo" just because it has lyrics about emotions: if this is the case, a good 90%+ of all music is "emo". The term emo, as used to describe a musical genre, describes more than just the basic lyrical focus, it describes a specific kind of sound. And that kind of sound doesn't mesh with typical "Hardcore", thus I would say that the two are mutually exclusive: if something is Hardcore, it isn't Emo (and I use those terms in a pure musical sense). If someone can give good reason otherwise, then fair enough, but if not I'd move for removal of the terms "Emocore" and "Harcore Emo", and just relacing them with something more definite and appropriate. --Prophaniti 12:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

How much does it even matter? To WP, it exists because people use it. It's a commonly used term, notable, ergo wikipedia-worthy. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 14:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but this point requires some indiciation of this (i.e. some evidence that it is commonly used) as well as some more definition. Currently there's not much of a solid definition, something that is required for the term to actually mean anything. --Prophaniti 22:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)