Talk:Emo/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 3

→

Stereotypes

The section on criticism notes that "Male fans of emo found themselves hit with homosexual slurs". This seemed to me like it also belonged in the "Fashion and stereotype" section, and I made a note in that section mentioning the sexual stereotypes that go along with the emo fashion (as referenced in the song parody: "can't two...or four guys make out without being 'gay'?"). This was deleted as "OR". Debatable, but let that stand for argument's sake. At least be honest and delete the similar remark in the "Criticism" section. Either it should be mentioned, or it shouldn't. My edit was only duplicating information already included (without apparent controversy) elsewhere in the article. To say that it's too contentious for one section but not another is self-contradicting. --Carolynparrishfan (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't comment on the content at hand, but keep in mind that if you add content, people will notice and possibly revert. The existing content may have gone unnoticed by the people who reverted your duplicating it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It may have been removed as original research because you not did copy the citation as well. in this case it is sourced from this article [1] so it isn't original research but could easily have looked like vandalism if the text was added without the source. --neonwhite user page talk 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am changing this slightly as "Homosexual slur" gives the impression that it is a slur to be called homosexual. I think that this should be rectified --liambennett (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologists

I read the wikipedia article for "emo" several months ago, and found it to be much more accurate then than it is now. For one thing, this article has clearly been rewritten by a flood of what I'd call "emo apologists", and now completely disregards the original article's discussion on the quality of "emo" songwriting. For example, "emo" is not simply "emotional rock" or "emotive rock" or anything of the kind, because ALL music contains emotion! In reality, "Emo" is most readily distinguished from other musical forms by the extremely basic rhymes of its lyrics, often including cliche or implausibly emotional imagery, designed to appeal to a young (early teens) audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.117.37 (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's some interesting analysis. Unfortunately, your commentary is not a source of information for an encyclopedia. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is an "emo apologist". It's a music genre, what's it supposed to have done? --neonwhite user page talk 00:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing apologist with someone who apologizes. --Apofisu (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Which doesn't change the fact that this is a nonsense accusation/rant by an IP user who doesn't seem to either understand the article's content nor its subject. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, i'm not confusing anything. An apologist is someone who apologizes for the actions of another. The phrase makes no sense whatsoever. --neonwhite user page talk 02:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you are. Try apologist: Apologists are authors, writers, editors of scientific logs or academic journals, and leaders known for taking on the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that are either placed under popular scrutinies or viewed under persecutory examinations.. The IP is ranting that we're taking some popular-opinion approach to things, rather than exposing emo for being what s/he thinks it is (some sort of cliché rhyming teenager music). --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is a misuse. Aplogist is one who apologizes. --neonwhite user page talk 18:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not, that is the definition of "apologist." Look, there's no reason for you to argue this - what the guy said was nonsense even though he used the term "apologist." Let's go to the OED, the most reliable dictionary I know:

Apologist - One who apologizes for, or defends by argument; a professed literary champion.
Apologizer - One who apologizes (in modern usage for a fault or offence; in early use = APOLOGIST).

As you can see, the first makes use of the Greek root apology to mean "a spoken defense" - it does not use the English "apology" as its root, and is not "one who apologizes." That is "apologizer." But like I said, there's no reason for you to argue about this. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you both please apologize (or at least offer an apologia) for this off-topic "horse hockey"? --99.147.219.154 (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It's not off topic - it relates to a misunderstanding regarding a legitimate topic of discussion (although the initial comment by 68.51.117.37 may not be valid, it is germane). If you don't like the tangent we've gotten onto, why are you making it worse? --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what i said, you're just looking at it from a different perspective, an apologist is someone who apologizes for an action by someone or a belief etc. The english apology and the greek apology are the same root, if you argue in defence of something or someone you are apolgizing for it. See Apollonius the Apologist. The reason the comment was inane was that how can one apologize for a genre of music, it's not a religion or cause? --neonwhite user page talk 00:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The English "apology" and "apologize" do not mean the same as the Greek "apology" or the English "apologism" anymore. (Again, per the OED.) His use of "apologist" was correct (although his assertion was ludicrous). --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Source for it is in Time Magazine; the lineage is more along the lines of aesthetics. Contemporary EMO is more in line with a subculture than this other definition of the term which loosely was based on Hardcore Punk music in D.C. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Post-punk connection?

Despite emo's roots in the hardcore scene, when one looks at the "emo" themes of today, it seems to me that there's also some kind of lineage back to "post-punk" bands like Joy Division and even The Cure and Depeche Mode. I don't know even remotely as much about emo as most contributors here, but am I completely tripping by seeing this connection? --76.197.242.108 (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you maybe correct. The problem is whether there is a source for it. --neonwhite user page talk 00:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As I attempted to say before, there is a source for this and its in Time Magazine; contermporary EMO is a fashion/subclutre; once again, the sources are in LA Weekly and Time Magazine; and I am sure we can dredge up many others that are being regularly suppressed. Contemporary Emo is more about aesthetics and lifestyle; and has only tenuous roots with the Hardcore Punk scene of D.C. of the mid 80's. The subculture/fashion is so radically different. But one can see the similiarty or lineage in the fashion of the Post-Punk, New Wave, Goth, Indie styles. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

NME comment

The comment at the bottom of the article about the NME needs to be rephrased as it implies that the NME had accused 'emo' of promoting self harm, which is far from the truth, as the magazine has done nothing but support the subculture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.143.228 (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Post-hardcore merger

I think that the whole term of post-hardcore was built by emo bands trying to evade the term and I therefore propose a merge with post-hardcore. --MOTE Speak to me 10:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Post-Hardcore is a legitimately extant term outside of emo. Bands like Fugazi, Drive Like Jehu, Jawbox etc., while possibly having some degree of influence on today's emo bands, otherwise don't have a whole lot to do with emo. --TheLetterM (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSE per above. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is badly sourced, whether it can be sourced will probably decide it's fate, though i think deletion is more likely as this article doesn't mention the term. I think it is correct to say it lacks a defintion. --neonwhite user page talk 16:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I have heard the original statement above before. It is likely the bands you are thinking of are only bands which became famous in the past 5 years. These bands have been called both by media. What they call themselves I don't know. Older bands who get called both genres are not usually called the other though. As examples, Helmet is not emo and Sunny Day Real Estate is not post hardcore. --Munci (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Maybe I should take this to AfD. This article has no clear definition. --82.45.7.211 (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it just needs a cleanup and sources. It's difficult to make a decision on a merger with so much of the article unsourced. --neonwhite user page talk 16:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I agree it dosent have enough sourceing and I believe it is just a name fiddled around with to be called .. not emo... However if we can find more sources I will change my decicion --XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Question, which article is badly sourced? Emo or Post-Hardcore? --71.179.227.101 (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

oopps I posted on that on the wrong topic my bad --71.180.33.165 (talk)(xXxChriscorexXx Signed out) 19:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Is the fact that All Music Guide recognizes Post-Hardcore as a genre not enough to even take it to a stub? If anything, this revision was the essentially the last one before an editor took it upon himself to revamp the article. While I agree with the spirit of those edits, the editor did not add any sources that necessarily back them up. Thus, if Post-Hardcore goes to AFD, I will oppose deletion, but I would rather see the article rolled back to a lower-class article that nevertheless has sufficient sources for the amount of content, than to see it deleted. --TheLetterM (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with TheLetterM --SilverOrion (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Comment If Post-hardcore was a term created by Emo bands to escape the term Emo, then why should we merge Emo into Post-hardcore? Shouldn't that be the other way around (if what you say is true)? --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Post-hardcore should merge to Screamo. Because it is the same thing, just listen to post-hardcore songs. --189.26.90.118 (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with 13Tawaazun14, it's an absurd claim made with no reasons whatsoever. Even so, it should be the other way around as Emo started being as Post-hardcore and then it began to be called "Emo" (for the introspective lyrics) by the music press. There are various interviews out there with people like Guy Picciotto and Ian MacKaye (yes there is a video of Ian MacKaye with Embrace on YouTube calling Emo pure press BS), where they reject the term. Even so, Emo and Post-hardcore are not the same thing unless proved wrong (Allmusic guide even has Post-hardcore and Emo pages by theirselves in a separate way). --The-15th (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Post-hardcore would be a more general term like post-punk, it is essentially a term for a number of genres including emo, screamo etc in the same way that post-punk includes new wave, goth rock etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon white (talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There was already a merger attempt between those two articles which failed, in no small part due to the fact that the genres in question are aesthetically different from each other, and both articles cover very different information. You'll have to do better than "just listen to post-hardcore songs" in order to prove your point. --TheLetterM (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Well you've got it incredibly wrong, there are two uses of the term Post-Punk. The First one being the one you're talking about, the periodical time in music (everything that came after punk) and the actual genre which is even more clearly defined in the 21st century. Post-hardcore and Post-punk are both genres on their own, both being transitional stages for genres like industrial, alternative and "emocore" but it doesn't mean that Post-hardcore refers to everything that came after Hardcore, it IS a genre on it's own and it is also as diverse as Post-Punk (for example, Big Black compared to let's say Fugazi). --The-15th (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I only agree because post hardcore dosent have enough sources and one good source dosent make an article it takes multiple. And that is because it dosent exist that is why they are the same thing. Sorry for the late resonser --71.180.33.165 (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC) (xXxChriscorexXx Signed out)

Oppose' Emo is a term far more used, especially in the U.S., and while the two are indeed related, Post-hardcore and emo are not the same thing. Each deserves its own article. In addition, my understanding of Post-Hardcore is that it includes several categories of music, one of which is Emo, but is not exclusive to Emo. Therefore, since the two articles are related, but not exactly the same, I say we keep the current format, assuming that Post-Hardcore is mentioned in the See Also section. --Matt White (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose' Many people get the misconception that post-hardcore is Emo. If you look carefully, many "Post-Hardcore" bands scream, but that doesnt make them necessarily emo. Emo in this perspective is characterized by indeed screaming in music, but they also contain lyrics that would describe suicide, producing pain to one's self (such as self mutilation), or getting overly emotional in the song. In addition, though some so-called Emo bands like Fall Out Boy, Hawthorne Heights, or Panic at the disco would contain a vocalist that would possess a high voice, the lyrics would commonly describe a girl in the song. Some people would percieve this as a sign of depression because, the song would contain a sense of want for a personal relationship with this girl described. In today's pop culture, if these bands were Emo, youths would then show signs of this "emo" epidemic. Though there are many causes, music is one of the factors that affect the lives of many teenagers everyday. It would impact their personality, character, behavior, and psychology. Coming under direct influence of these bands, Emo would not be the correct term for these bands. Post-Hardcore would have a twist of Hardcore Punk and Pop punk. Speaking in terms of these two genres, characteristics from both of them would be a very heavy factor in molding Post-Hardcore. Hardcore Punk would offer the element of screaming and a thicker, heavier, faster rythm. Pop Punk would usually have a general rythm that would be appealing among most punk fans. According to Hardcore Punk it would say that the songs would focus mainly on the issues in today's world. When this element is combined with Pop Punk,Post-Hardcore would be misconcieved as Emo. This is where the general public would use the screaming in this genre as an excuse to classify the Post-Hardcore band Emo. However, screaming is a key element that consolidates many musical genres today, especially Metal. Children of Bodom, Slipknot, and Disturbed would have a more angry mood to their songs making them "Metal." However, because Post-Hardcore possesses the Pop Punk characteristic, Emo is first concieved. In addition, the majority of Post-Hardcore bands do not have and members that are depressed or have thoughts of self inflicting pain, or suicide. Also, the way they dress also has very little to do with who's Emo or not. Behavior and Psychology are usually the parts that are not put into enough perspective. Therefore, there shouldn't be a combined article for Emo and Post-Hardcore are different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim2Sung (talk • contribs) 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

America-centric?

Firstly, I'd dispute the idea that the genre comes from exclusively American roots, and that instead, there is a British element. Secondly, the idea that it is "hardcore" flies in the face of hardcore. It is somewhat like saying that Beck is a heavy metal artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.219.206 (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you back up your assertion with sources? There are definitely reputable sources that say the first few waves of Emo evolved from Hardcore Punk (read: not "is Hardcore Punk"), but I don't know any saying that it had formative roots in the UK. From my understanding, Emo started out as a purely American phenomenon. --TheLetterM (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Spam at bottom of article

There's some spam at the very bottom of the article. Could someone remove it? --81.226.252.221 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hannah Bond inquest

we cant say the inquest 'stated' because it didn't the witnessed did, so we need to say the inquest 'heard'. however because it was stated in a court and therefore under oath, i think it is fair to say that is verifiable and can be stated as fact. The source is [2] and also [3] which isnt used in the article. --neon white talk 16:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, I agree that "heard" is better to make it clear it's what the witness said, not the inquest. Just to be sure though - do we have a source that tells us that the word "cult" came from a witness statement? (The claim of "self-harming emo cult" has been thrown around the media, but I haven't seen an article which directly attributes this to a statement given at the inquest - given the sensationalism and dubious claims being thrown around by the media, I think we need to be careful here.) --Mdwh (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't really matter if the word was used in court or not, as long as it comes from second party sources, it should be fine. The Telgraph source writes "A popular and fun-loving schoolgirl killed herself after becoming involved in a self-harming youth cult which glamorises death, an inquest has heard." whereas The Sun writes "A girl of 13 hanged herself after leading a secret double life on the internet as a member of a self-harming "emo" cult." suggesting that it was testimony. --neon white talk 22:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a big difference between saying that an inquest has heard this, and a newspaper has branded something a cult. Whether something is a cult or not is obviously a highly POV issue. Attributation is important, and I don't think the fact that more than one newspaper uses the word "cult" is evidence (newspapers often pass similarly worded articles around, and branding something a "cult" is an obvious thing to do, whether or not the claim was heard at the inquest). Even if the claim was made at the inquest, it is still useful to know who made this claim. Otherwise we just participate in spreading the claim of some "Internet Emo Cult" without knowing where this claim started from. --Mdwh (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as we have a reliable source saying that the inquest heard she was part of a cult, which is the case here. We can write that fact. The claim comes from The Sun and The Telegraph both verifiable sources. --neon white talk 13:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This particular section of the article also labels My Chemical Romance as an emo band, which isn't exactly true. Could someone fix that? --69.92.43.59 (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"defended accusations"

I'm not quite sure how to properly add things to the talk page, if there's any sort of formal structure as to how to do this. I apologize if I'm doing this wrong. This article is locked, so I'm unable to make a minor edit. At the end of the "criticism" section, it states that fans defended accusations that it promotes self-harm. This should be "defend against accusations", unless they were trying to confirm that emo does indeed encourage self-harm and suicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.171.113 (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I've made the change. --Mdwh (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Melodic Hardcore

in the infobox it says that emos stylistic origan is from Hardcore punk and more specificly Melodic Hardcore... I'm not ging to debate whether or not it's from Hardcore Punk because that's a no brainer (we know it is and it's sourced), but may I see the source that says it's from Melodic Hardcore? --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Emo has no roots

so i saw that alot of people say that emo is a subgenre of hardcore punk!!?? Ok maybe some people know this better then me but still i find this claim insulting to everything punk stands for!!! Punk is an anti-astablishment form of music that talks about the problems of the people (not like martin luther king but still...) on the other hand emo is more personal and talks about teenage issues of soe kid who is thinking about killing himselfe!!! il be honest with you i dont respect emo people or their music. now before you stic me on a cross listen to my thoughts. i feel like they are chooseing the easyer way out of their teenage problems! they have problems and they solve them by cutting their veins and not talking or when they talk they say things lik:"i hate this life" or "i wish i was dead"!!! OMG!!!!! people wake up and smell the joy of life and youth!!! And now to return to the topic at hand. emo is an insult to all music genres and when you compare it to punk u just make a fool out of your selfe!!! i hope that people dont get toooo ofended by this little tekst and if they do dont send f..k u messeges and dont expect an apology because im not apologizeing for saying what i think soo.... oh an btw sry about the spelling and grammar im not a native speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.128.61 (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There are roots for the subgenre and it is proven to exist you are commiting POV in the most obvious manner. It is a subgenre that dosen't mean it has to be like Punk or it would be PUNK. And before you insult emo do some research as your claims are not accurate to any extent. And also the fact you stereotype the kids obviously shows you have never met one and you are going with the establishment called "The Media". If you cant except someone for there diffrences you wont get far in life. --XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I have anything to do with anything, nor is this the right place to bring this up, but I know a lot of emo kids that actually do cut themselves. Evaunit♥666♥ 23:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No you're wrong dude, you're taking the modern post-hardcore for the true emo, true emo is as punk as hell, while the new "emo" scene shit ain't at all -- Sheish 04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, i know you dont want the way you are and act like to be thinked of as a simple genre that has “gotten expanded on” or “was derived by” but you have to admit that it has vast similarities to goth,punk and and other variations of these genre's --Grimmjow E6 (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

@ Evaunit: Correct this is not the place to bring it up. See WP:NOT. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

@ Sheish: No he is correct. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

@ Grimmjow: As has been stated, wikipedia is based on varifiable and reliable sources. Emo has it's roots in hardcore punk, however emo has evolved as most genres do, this is why it sounds very little like the original punk. Hell, modern emo bands sound little like Rites of Spring just like modern Pop punk bands sound very little like The Ramones. Genres evolve. Sources state that it's roots are in hardcore punk, thus it stays that way on wikipedia. See WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Emo is not connected to Punk

I repeat, Emo is NOT connected to punk. Emo is a virus that claims deep songs from the punk era as Emo. Emo is about as Punk as an Orange is Lettuce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AkumaTrypp (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes it is. So says all sources and anyone with a knak for the obvious. Don't claim this because you don't like Emo. --[Special:Contributions/71.179.227.101|71.179.227.101]] (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

as above, you're taking the modern post-hardcore for the true emo, true emo is as punk as hell, while the new "emo" scene shit ain't at all --Sheish 04:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And you don't have a damn source to back up your claim do you? Read WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V. All sources say it is so as far as wikipedia is concerened, it is. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OH-KAY, what is your defination of a TRUE EMO? I can bet that your answer has no source or accuracy only it being your opinion in which it doesnt count according to the rules of wikipedia. Simply put you have no factual claim,no source and no truth to what you are saying only your opinions,Grimmjow E6 (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC).

Who, me or him? --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheish and others that keep using that as a way to make simple discussions longer than it should be not you...... --Grimmjow E6 (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC).

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

other media

Is there any significant media related to emo other than music? For example, emo related movies? --herorev (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Time, LA Weekly Criticisms should be included

I was wondering why the 'criticisms' within the Time Magazine article were not included within the wiki criticism section for EMO? LA Weekly summarizes the criticisms itself, here: [4] It makes the statement that this trend is mostly an Internet generated phenomena; and that it is something that which only has become known at all within the last 3 or 4 years; and that EMO as we know it today, especially in foreign countries is mostly a fashion fad. It also has criticism of pre-existing "subcultures", i.e. punk, goths, and their dislike for EMO for reasons mentioned above; and there's also the criticism, referencing a professor, that most of the EMOS, in Mexico in particular, come from the upper middle-class, etc. I linked to the LA Weekly article. So I would like the editors of the Wiki Emo page to take a look at it. I would summarize it myself, but no one is allowed to edit the Emo page anymore, it seems. LA Weekly has always been a hub for Indie music news, information; a very credible publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.187.71 (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been a few days now and I'm wondering when there's going to be a response to the questions I posed above. The wiki criticism section on this EMO page is really, really short. It even cites a very obscure, esoteric reference to EMO being "sexist..." Shouldn't the criticisms within two major publications, one being Time Magazine itself and the other LA Weekly get actual mention with regard to EMO? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.187.71 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude, those are good sources. Get a username (it costs nothing btw) and add them. And also sign your posts by typing 4 tildes (~). --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I will sign up later on when I have more time behind a computer. I just want to point out that the "editors" of the Emo page are responding to other topics on this discussion page while ignoring this particular thread. And I notice that other posters here are continually butting heads with them over precisely the points confirmed in the sources I scite above. I said, Time Magazine is undoubtedly the most important publication to do on article on Emo, and the article actually contains valid criticisms; the same applies to the LA Weekly article. --206.170.104.56 (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Sam

There has been speculation about mexico's serious class divide but we have to careful not to go off topic. --neonwhite user page talk 20:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just edited the page Neonwhite, the references are contained in the Time Magazine article already cited on the Emo page. I also added the quotes from Panic at the Disco, and Gerard Way. Both of those quotes are sourced on those band's respective pages. I don't know how to format the page to include the quotes, I hope our team of editors can assist me there; or correct my grammar. Thank You so much in advance. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

the major problem with this article

the biggest problem i can see with this article is that it completly ignores all emo music made since 1994 in favour of indie rock music and adding bands such as dashboard confessional and weezer (who aesthetically have nothing in common with emo) based on the sake of a few articles by lazy medai types. let us not forget that this page is about emo the music, not the subculture based on the word. this is the problem!

on the subject of emo fashion, what the hell is this doing here? this is supposed to be about music, the fashion stuff belongs elsewhere. also the criticism. if this is a music page then why isn't the criticism about music?

let us start a vote please, if the page protectors want to keep in stuff like dashboard confessional, then fine do so on an Emo (subculture) page. let's keep this place about a music style that is miles away from choruses and easyily audible lyrics. please guys?

conclusion: this is a music page, if anyone can show me the musical lineage between dashboard confessional and indian summer, then fine keep it.

chris b and neon white: you are essentially acting like bullies here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eweyewewe (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly wikipedia is not a democracy, we dont do things by votes, secondly content is based on verifiable sources whether you agree with them or not. The article is about anything emo, music, fashion, hair anything as long as it is sourced. Please stop the disruptive editing and personal attacks or warnings will follow. There is no evidence of a subculture existing. --neon white talk 21:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Neonwhite, Why doesn't this article mention the Emo Rangers TV show in England? I mean, couldn't even that be put on SOMEWHERE on that page? Btw, Neonwhite is right, wiki is not a Democracy... In reality, if one simply takes control of the page, he can shape along any lines he wants, so long as there's a reference, (even if those reference are contradicted or superceeded by other references, and vice versa). And, as you notice, even though I have tried not to edit the page myself, I have gone down here to try to reason with Neonwhite, but he doesn't budge. I will now for the first time ever try to edit or add a part on this criticism section. We'll see how that turns out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy the Dressmaker (talk • contribs) 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea, obviously no-one has put it in the article, if you have sources then there is nothing stopping you adding it. --neon white talk 22:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Emo, only music to preps

Many people think they know exactly what emo is just cause they can read the first paragraph of the wiki. So everyone has to scream in my face that emo is just a music...therefore subculture/fashion/stereotypes should either be a whole new section or higher up on the section. Apperantly were all illiterate so we dont go as far as section 10 or so it might be. and as divorce rates go up and people have worsened lives we should better fix that before we get crap about be humans being music groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.175.244 (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is why I am working on getting an article publishable on wikipedia. Note my discussion above yours i'm working for a non-biased article about us! But you are right people stereotype by the first lines of wikipedia. --XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not responsible for things that happen in real life based on what is (and is not) contained in the first paragraph of any particular article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Due to the fact that the fashion stereotype is hard to source it only commands a small section not really that important enough to warrant a mention in an article summary. --neonwhite user page talk 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

When the heck was emo ever a fashion? IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A GENRE OF MUSIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.68.171 (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

hardcore punk?

emo is not a style of hardcore punk. embrace is not hardcore punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.75.172 (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes it is.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

We all should know by now that Emo derived from the early hardcore punk movement. Which doesn't make sense as to why bands like Dashboard Confessional are in the emo article. These bands are not emo, in the least bit. Emo, Emoviolence, Screamo, etc. are all forms of extremely chaotic music, with roots straight from hardcore punk. It's not a fashion, and it has nothing to do with cutting your self. Wikipedia is an unreliable and misinforming site, as to find the true meaning of emo. What are true modern emo bands? Hiretsuken. Envy. Circle Takes the Square. I Would Set Myself On Fire For You. Funeral Diner. Gospel. Etc. It's not hard to look that up, and see that screamo/emo bands are still around, and still play chaotic music, that should be appropriately called "emotive hardcore". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.71.184 (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, but emotiove hardcore is so different to that fashion called "emo". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.6.71.75 (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki's Rivethead page as precedant towards a separate EMO Kid page for Subculture.

Even though I am campaigning for Wiki to open a separate page for EMO (Subculture or Lifestyle or Fashion)there is a precedant and the sources to back up such a disambiguation.

Does anyone here know what a Rivethead is? Do you know that Wikipedia has an article in which the term is used to describe a fan base of a musical genre that is far less known than EMO? And yet, we cannot have a separate article (according to Neonewhite) for the EMO subculture (or fan base, known as EMO'S). This is rather bizzare considering the sources for the latter would far outweigh the former by an untold sum; in fact, they are profiled in TIME MAGAZINE of all things!

But I should remark here that the EMO page needs an disambiguation; the example of the Time Magazine article and LA WEEKLY not having its criticisms of EMO included show a blatant bias and agenda to prevent this natural conclusion. I also cite the fact that Neonwhite has refused to even answer my question regarding the handling of this article where the criticsm is ommited.

And the reason is because in those articles EMO is identified as urban tribe or fashion subculture.

I do not wish to control this new EMO page. I will merely provide suggestions The New EMO page will just about write itself (and should be transparent), with more talented hands than mine.

The time is long overdue. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and there are currently no sources whatsoever to back up claims of anything other than a music genre and a stereotype that this article covers. Wikipedia is not the place for original research (which is exactly what this view is currently) and personal essays. I can see no relevance with the Industrial (music) page. Criticism is often removed from articles to maintain a balanced article in accordance with policy (WP:NPOV), this isn't an article about the criticism of the emo genre. May i take this opportunity to remind you of the rules regarding assuming good faith. Accusing editors of having an agenda is considered uncivil. The article is question are not sufficient for the claims being made. As has been explained the classic misuse of the word 'subculture' is just not enough if all that is described and therefore all that can be sourced is about music and a fashion stereotype and not about a subculture. Scientific claims require scientific sources not gossip in the media. --neonwhite user page talk 00:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a page for Rivetheads on WIKIPEDIA, Neonwhite? I repeat the question: Why is there a page for Rivetheads, who are fans of Industrial/EBM music and yet there is no page for EMOS... EMOS have more sources, more notoriety then do Rivetheads. According to your logic, there should be no page for Rivetheads at all, BUT THERE IS ON WIKIPEDIA. Can you square that one for me, please? You do have an agenda, and so do I. Your agenda is to monopolize the term EMO. My agenda is simply to point to the documented evidence that contemporary EMO has a separate influence or development apart from old EMO. I have pointed out two immediate, large print media sources: the LA WEEKLY and TIME Magazine. I am simply asking why these sources are not being used. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This was something I was going to bring up in the last discussion but didn't, and I believe if we do make the article it should be refered to as Emo Kid cause thats what the fans are and emos just dosent sound right. Anywho I believe it is due to the fact that it is so new that our sources arn't "reliable" even though we have offered a book, news coverage, and a srticle by a proffessor. im not eniterly sure but i'd like to enter this conversation lets see how this turns. --XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's probably time to (re-)create the Emo (subculture) article--the page is there as a redirect now--and let someone take it to AfD if they feel that's what's needed. JJL (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Chriscore, the term EMO Kid is a GREAT suggestion for the title of the page. There is abundant print and internet sources which refer to the this subculture as such. Btw, in Mexico, Emo Kids are simply referred to as Emos, that's because the letter E in the spanish equivelant 'emocional' is a soft vowel.

As far as what JJ refers to, I certainly am not technically competent to re-create or create the page; others can do that. I personally will have no part in the construction part of it, only the constructive element ;) --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Other stuff exists is irrelevant. We have a section on fashion. It isn't long enough to justify a fork that would likely be POV/content fork. Is you have anything to add to that section, no-one is stopping you and in the unlikely event that it gets too long then a spilt can be discussed but currently there is no justification for any spilt. Be aware that personal attacks and accusing other editors of having an agenda is not considered civil behaviour. I repeat there is no evidence of a subculture whatsoever. The only sources so far are about a fashion stereotype. Synthesising material to advance a position is not acceptable and neither are neologisms. Remember this is an encyclopedia not a high school magazine. What is contained in article has to be accurate and not just media speculation. What studies did they do, what research? We can't base any article on misused terms. If you want to write an article about your personal views on the subject then a blog is the place but wikipedia is not the place for original research. --neonwhite user page talk 22:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this one on you neonwhite now that I look at this articles fashion area it looks really terrible, and Maybe I will round up a few sources and clean it up. --71.180.33.165 (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (Chriscore Signed out)

Neonwhite, I have no idea how the facts can stare you in the face and yet you can deny them repeatedly. And I also consider it rather hypocritical that everyone is locked out from editing the page for months on end, and yet here you say that we are free to edit the fashon section. How about we open the entire page open to editing? I have been trying to get someone's attention as to the criticisms had in the LA WEEKLY article but to no avail. But that's not really my point this time around; your answer that the Rivethead page is irrelevant to the discussion is a rather poor one inded. In fact, it flies right in the face of your logic, doesn't it? I thought Wikis rules applied universally; that is to say: they are one way for every page. But that's fine. I will go to the Wikipage for Rivethead in the next few days and asked them on what their take is and perahps get a second opinion.

Chriscore, the Time Magazine and LA WEEKLY articles are sources enough to open a page on EMO KIDS. But I won't labour the point for the time being since my time is limited here. Just be sure that Neonwhite is way wrong here. Does anyone else find this bizarre, that Rivet-heads have a page on Wikipedia but EMO Kids don't? --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No-one is 'locked out', the page is semi protected because of IP vandalism. Anyone with an account can still edit. The Rivethead article is a poor one, it lacks proper citations and is about a fashion who's notability is debatable. It is not a good example of an article and may get deleted/rewritten in the future. I repeat there is currently a section on fashions and stereotypes that needs improving, it is of no great length and there is little evidence that this fashion has any kind of notability on it's own to justify a split. Articles are created when they are needed not for the sake of creating one or because you desire a subject to have one. I have read the Time articles and they simply do not back up what you are claiming, they are opinion pieces that make no real assertions other than a few brief generalizations. We can find literally hundreds of media sources saying 'emo kids are this' or 'emos do that' but they are simply not good enough sources for anything other than proving a media stereotype. The challenge is to find academic sources with a reputation for sociological study that have researched this and made more of a conclusion than the 'emo faithful' 'are only happy when they're sad'. I highly recommend getting to know a little more about how wikipedia works including notability policy and original research before continuing this pointless discussion. --neonwhite user page talk 18:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Neonwhite, I don't care about EMO kids being mopey, or sad. My own POV is that they're simply trendy kids. Plain and simple; they are a pardoy of a parody in a sense. But I think you're right that the Rivethead page is really badly written. But here's a newsflash: the EMO (Music) page is badly written itself. Don't get me wrong, it's not as badly written as Rivethead, but I have a challenge for you: why don't you go into the discussion page of the Rivethead page and clear up the mess -- since it is so obviously topsy turvy? But I have anotehr newsflash: the guy who runs Rivethead is similar to yourself, and can control the debate and frustrate any criticism whether founded or unfounded. Why? Because he controls the page. As to what you say about the fashion of EMO. Read the LA WEEKLY article. The byline clearly states in Bold Black letters how EMO is a fashion decision! How do you square that for me? But there will come a day when someone finally pulls the rug out from under you, and everyone else well say: "Ah, yeah... EMO, that was the dominant fashion trend of the middle 2000's." And it will be endorsed by an article on Wikipedia, the way you endorse the Deragotis history of the music style that everyone acknowledges died before the 2000's hit. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There have been tons of sources posted saying that emo is a subculture; some even separate it from emo music (the msn article). I cannot see how this isn't a justification for a subculture article. There's reliable sources, it's "verifiable," and it's notable, considering some of these major publications have articles about it. --Punkrockrunner (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)punkrockrunner

Pitchfork and Drive Like Jehu

Pitchfork (formed 1986) [5] and Drive Like Jehu (formed 1990) [6] (both featuring John Reis/Speedo from Rocket from the Crypt and Hot Snakes) were both from San Diego and huge influences on 1990s emo--should someone add this to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.40.170 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources: "It's often easy to forget that DLJ were considered emo in their day" (Pitchfork.com) [7]

"Posthumously, Drive Like Jehu's music has been cited as a catalyst for the reemergence of emocore and for the prolific San Diego music scene of the 1990s." (Wikipedia, [8]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.40.170 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as with many things, Pitchfork is totally clueless in this regard. DLJ were never considered to be emo in their day. If pressed, Pitchfork couldn't cite that statement. --Mnbeer (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

New Section: Sounds like

I was just thinking perhaps we could give a section about what the music sounds like. I found a good source. [9] It gives a pretty good idea of what it sounds like and would maybe help anyone that would lets say form an emocore band, etc. Would write more gtg --XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a self published source, not verifiable unfortunately. --neon white talk 13:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you find this stuff out.. oh well I tried, im just saying it would have been useful sourced or not. --71.180.33.165 (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)(xXxChriscorexxx signed out)

Agreed. This source is pretty weak and somewhat subjective. --Mnbeer (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wording Concern

I think this article does a great job explaining the history of the genre and the way the usage of the term changed following the popularity of Dashboard Confessional and Jimmy Eat World. However, I think some extremely important wording is poor:

"As a result, the term 'emo' became a vaguely defined identifier rather than a specific genre of music."

A term can't be a genre of music, it is used to describe a genre of music. Also, using "defined" and "identifier" so close together is both redundant and confusing. I would suggest a rewrite such as:

As a result, the term "emo" found common usage, yet became increasingly vaguer in meaning. --216.49.149.39 (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)JML

I totally agree, because when i read the original which is currently in the page, i could not get my head around what it meant, but now that i have read this user's rewrite, i understand the sentence. Not everyone who reads wikipedia are clever enough to understand such complex vocabulary. --Speighticus (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Restrictions on Russia

Emo is supposedly going to have restrictions on it in Russia. Can someone add this to the wikipage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.213.119 (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the correct link for Emo to be banned in Russia. It comes from NME [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.104.59 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't anyone included the gist of this NME article? I'm busy enough dealing with the Roundtable translations, which will be coming soon, my friends. All sourced. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Done --Enric Naval (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OR

Last month I went through and added citation needed tags where there were possible instances of original research, hoping that this would spur editors to find sources for the statements. However, since that hasn't happened I'm going to add an OR tag to the article. Maybe there's OR in this article and maybe there's not, but with so much of the material unsourced its really impossible to tell. Hopefully this will finally convince editors (including myself) to find and cite the necessary sources to help improve this article. --Aurum ore (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I noticed this quite recently as well. I know that Neonwhite or Cheeser1 were the probably collaboraters of this mythical "Third Wave" of Emo which has absolutely little documentation. In fact, 80 percent of that whole section are all unsourced statements! It's all conjecture, it's all personal opinion then, isnt' it(???) It's all ORIGINAL RESEARCH, no(????) I smell a double standard. I say, going by Neonwhites strict enforcement of sourced statements, that the whole Third Wave be deleted. I was amazed by this irony since Neonwhite constatly puts down any suggestion that Emo is a subculture or that we should never bring up Emo/Scene. There was also an article done by NME about Emo in Russia. EMO is called a subculture by NME!!! NME is reference nearly half dozen times by this Wiki Emo page. Isn't it time we do a subculture or fashion page, my friends? --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a subculture of sorts and not just music. For a rather sarcastic view see: [11] --WonderWheeler (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Was there a re-write?

This article used to be nice, long, and informative, but it seems to be only a tenth as long as it used to be. Plus, Jimmy Eat World's song "The Middle" (and their whole Bleed American album) is not what I would call emo... This stuff about "Modern Emo" is crap really, Emo died around 2000, now everyone left in the genre is either scattered or is with Deep Elm :P. --98.26.61.168 (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

External Links Broken

The following external link brings up a 403 error: International Emo Community - [12] May I suggest altering this to another popular online emo community such as [13] --91.84.74.148 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Emo Roundtable Discussion on Mexican TV

In the link below the Mexican cable television channel Telehit broadcast a TWO-HOUR debate where Kristoff debated Emo fans about What is EMO.

I know the editors of this page should be curious, I mean, since we're on an Emo wiki page, I thought that the video footage, here on youtube, divided in 12 parts should be of SOME interest this is a boon for us all. In the coming weeks, I hope to translate some of the key parts. Since Kristoff has been "made" by Time magazine, I suppose we can pick up quotes by him on any subsequent discussion having to do with Emo. And of course, here we have fans of Emo themselves, in the flesh. Since this wiki page has associated Emo with the fashion or fans of Emo, this opens the doors for us harvest more data here from a verifiable source! Meaning, (1) what is EMO? (2) Who are the fans or "subculture" that is identified by EMO? (3) And why was there such hatred for this fad or culture, not limited to Mexico? -- Because, in this program there are references to anti-Emo propaganda originated from the US and Worldwide.

The link [14]

This is the stations official website: [15] --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We cant link to copyrighted material. --neon white talk 18:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean we can't link to copyrighted material? Since when? If we can't then we should remove every link to every corporate website and, for example, we couldn't reference to any news article from any news agency. --Witty Lama 05:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

He means that we can't link to material that violates copyright laws. In this case, recording a TV program and uploading to youtube is infringing on the copyright of the TV channel. That doesn't mean that you can't link at all to that sort of videos.

If it was a very short fragment, then you could proably claim fair use, but not on the case of a half an hour long program. In particular, I have seen occasionally links to short videos of news reports or to videos of short interviews done inside a news program (for example, on the last source of this section). --Enric Naval (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, everyone! Emo kids and their haters speak via Mexico's Telehit! And I invite anyone to correct any mistakes in translation; or someone can add something that I missed.

[Somemone please collapse this thread, this is long]

Btw, the order of the videos, of which there are 12, are numbered 00 to 11 for some reason. The link to the collection is posted in the link above.

Extended content

Video 00

What makes an Emo? A reporter asks Emo kids on the street. (06:35)

Emo Girl 1 (06:40): "no se; differente lo de mas, pero no puedo explicar lo" In Eenglish: "I don't know, to be different from everyone else, but I can't explain it."

Emo Girl 2 (06:44): "To think like one wants."

Emo Girl 3: "To dress like one wants."

Emo Boy 1 (06:49): "We are outsiders."

Emo Girl 3 (again): "It is a matter of how one dresses."

Emo Girl 4 (07:02): "I am one who listens to music that expresses what I feel."

Video 01