Greatest ever 'Emo' song

[Nofutcha]

http://www.nothingnice.com/index.php...Recordset2=285

cartoon from someone who is somewhat an authority on punk music, im sure he has more recent and funnier emo jibes but i cant be assed looking

[SilverSmoke]

All those labels you stupid kids need to define yourself and your taste of music tires the shit out of me.


Emo.

Jesus christ, just shut the **** up. What's next? Angro? Furio? Badassio?

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Hicks

Punk means different things to different people, there’s no all encompassing definition, that’s what makes the scene so great. Arguing your view of “what punk is” is retarded, you’re never going to convince anyone else that your view is right and no matter how many times you post you’ll still come off sounding like a 15 year old screaming “XYZ HAS SOLD OUT THEYRE NOT HARDCORE”.

well firstly just because a band sells out, doesn't mean they aren't punks. it's probable that they're hypocrites, but that doesn't stop them being punks.

if they sing about how much breakups suck and never about how much donald rumsfeld sucks, however, they aren't a punk band because the origin and meaning of the term 'punk rock' is all about and entirely about political protest. i've mentioned john cooper clarke twice already and it doesnt seem to have got through: THE MUSIC THEY PLAY DOESNT DEFINE A PUNK AS A PUNK, THE MESSAGE BEHIND IT DOES. to say that a band is a punk band because they use guitars like the ramones did is silly; that makes them a hardcore or perhaps, as much as i feel wary around the term, a post-punk band. it doesn't make them a punk band because there is no political motivation, which is the prerequisite to being called a punk band. i've said the same thing 30 times in this thread but nobody's paying attention to it, they're too busy getting on their INTERNET HERO soapboxes to criticise anyone who would touch one of those taboo subjects like 'what constitutes a punk band' to see that the argument is not in fact "ROFL OMG HOW CAN U LIKE THE RAMONES THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE EIGHT BASSISTS".

**** all of you.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Phang

My definition is 100% correct and i cant possibly accept that anyone else is right because i have more life/music experience than everyone else in the world put together and you should all BOW TO MY MUSIC KNOWLEDGE

fixed

[Blastoderm]

Originally Posted by SilverSmoke

All those labels you stupid kids need to define yourself and your taste of music tires the shit out of me.


Emo.

Jesus christ, just shut the **** up. What's next? Angro? Furio? Badassio?

Oi, monkey boy, shut up.

[furball]

Originally Posted by SilverSmoke

All those labels you stupid kids need to define yourself and your taste of music tires the shit out of me.


Emo.

Jesus christ, just shut the **** up. What's next? Angro? Furio? Badassio?

Do you not understand the concept of abbreviations?



Emo is short for Emotional.

'angro' = angry......nope doesn't work
'furio' = furious.....nope
'badassio' = bad ass.....not having much luck are we?


Go back to posting sob threads and reminding us that you have sex sometimes. Thanks.

[Knight Theamion]

Therapy - Diane

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Phang

well firstly just because a band sells out, doesn't mean they aren't punks. it's probable that they're hypocrites, but that doesn't stop them being punks.

if they sing about how much breakups suck and never about how much donald rumsfeld sucks, however, they aren't a punk band because the origin and meaning of the term 'punk rock' is all about and entirely about political protest. i've mentioned john cooper clarke twice already and it doesnt seem to have got through: THE MUSIC THEY PLAY DOESNT DEFINE A PUNK AS A PUNK, THE MESSAGE BEHIND IT DOES. to say that a band is a punk band because they use guitars like the ramones did is silly; that makes them a hardcore or perhaps, as much as i feel wary around the term, a post-punk band. it doesn't make them a punk band because there is no political motivation, which is the prerequisite to being called a punk band. i've said the same thing 30 times in this thread but nobody's paying attention to it, they're too busy getting on their INTERNET HERO soapboxes to criticise anyone who would touch one of those taboo subjects like 'what constitutes a punk band' to see that the argument is not in fact "ROFL OMG HOW CAN U LIKE THE RAMONES THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE EIGHT BASSISTS".

**** all of you.

How many political songs does it take to make someone punk? Is Eminem a punk cause he wrote 2 songs on 2 different albums about hating George Bush?

You can be political and not in a punk band and you can be in a punk band and not political. Apart from Johnny Rotten (perhaps he is included) I doubt the rest of the Sex Pistols had any sort of political (or any other type of) opinion. the lyrics were inflamatory and pissed people off which was probably more of the reason of them being written rather than any sort of political aims.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

however, they aren't a punk band because the origin and meaning of the term 'punk rock' is all about and entirely about political protest.

This just isn't true unless you're taking a very wide definition of politics. Punk is/was about attitude certainly, but this isn't necessarily a political attitude. DIY (for instance) is not explicitly a political statement or even political act - even if it is a rejection of traditional / mainstream methods.

If we're saying that many of punks early attributes (e.g. deliberately "bad" fashions which sought to shock the mainstream) are political then where does that stop? Are hip-hoppers who wear their pants round their knees being political? Are goths political because they dress differently?

Explicitly political songs (e.g. criticising the government directly, espousing anarchist principles or something like that) is certainly a minority of songs traditionally defined as "punk".

I think you could probably summarise the traditional "punk rock" message as simply "**** you". Or as Steve Shelley put it ; "punk was not taking 'no' for an answer when we knew the answer could be 'yes'". Now, that can be taken as a political statement certainly (and an important one) but then we may as well say that Blink 182's "Anthem" or "Adam's Song" are political songs. Which I've no problem with at all, because at least we're being consistent.

If however we're defining politics as something more narrow then only a minority of punk is political. And indeed, much of the explicit leftism / anarchism (not counting lifestyle anarchism) only came after the early usage of the term punk.

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by SilverSmoke

All those labels you stupid kids need to define yourself and your taste of music tires the shit out of me.


Emo.

Jesus christ, just shut the **** up. What's next? Angro? Furio? Badassio?

This coming from the biggest emo person since Adolf Hitler is quite entertaining

[Nofutcha]

Originally Posted by Phang

well firstly just because a band sells out, doesn't mean they aren't punks. it's probable that they're hypocrites, but that doesn't stop them being punks.

Well actually you're wrong,

Selling out means selling out what you believe in for money.

That is why selling out is such a big issue in the punk scene, because as Dante said, its a DIY attitude. As soon as you give up that attitude, and start making music for money, then you could say your punk (eg good charlotte and the other whiney bands), but it doesnt mean you are.

(case in point: Good Charlotte making a song about "lifestyles of the rich and the famous, they're always complaining" when they are both rich and famous themselves)

Selling out is also bad because nearly every punk band that sold out, became over-produced, boring and 'paint by numbers' sounding. (eg the Offspring Ixnay on the Hombre and followup albums).

So through my experience within the punk scene, it's about being yourself, being open minded and not caring what other people say or think, as long as your happy. That doesn't mean you need a mohawk and fifteen facial piercings... I consider myself to be punk, and no way I want shit in my face and have to gel my hair up for a few hours every morning, and i always look totally out of place at punk clubs, but the people who judge me for that have no idea about the fundamental reasons for being punk.

[SilverSmoke]

Tupac - Dear mama

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Nofutcha

That is why selling out is such a big issue in the punk scene, because as Dante said, its a DIY attitude. As soon as you give up that attitude, and start making music for money, then you could say your punk (eg good charlotte and the other whiney bands), but it doesnt mean you are.

It's only selling-out if you give a shit. DIY isn't a punk idea. the Sex Pistols, the Clash, the Ramones etc... all had major record deals.

Originally Posted by Nofutcha

(case in point: Good Charlotte making a song about "lifestyles of the rich and the famous, they're always complaining" when they are both rich and famous themselves)

I hate this example whenever I see it. It's a song about rich and famous celebrities COMPLAINING about being rich and famous. Now, I'm not a follower of Good Charlotte but I've never heard them complain about being rich and famous and until that happens you cannot fairly call them hyporcrites.

Originally Posted by Nofutcha

Selling out is also bad because nearly every punk band that sold out, became over-produced, boring and 'paint by numbers' sounding. (eg the Offspring Ixnay on the Hombre and followup albums).

I'm not really sure how much that has to do with signing to a major label though. Some are encouraged/forced to make music with a certain sound. But some bands just aren't musically creative. Blink 182 for example, pretty much all their music follows a similar formula until their last album where they actually tried to push themselves creatively and even then it wasn't outstanding (although it was good for them).

Originally Posted by Nofutcha

So through my experience within the punk scene, it's about being yourself, being open minded and not caring what other people say or think, as long as your happy. That doesn't mean you need a mohawk and fifteen facial piercings... I consider myself to be punk, and no way I want shit in my face and have to gel my hair up for a few hours every morning, and i always look totally out of place at punk clubs, but the people who judge me for that have no idea about the fundamental reasons for being punk.

Punk has no reason.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

It's only selling-out if you give a shit. DIY isn't a punk idea. the Sex Pistols, the Clash, the Ramones etc... all had major record deals.

Like most ideas, punk has got more "extreme" has time has gone on (and has evolved). The Sex Pistols, if they were around today, would be seen as manufactured crap.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Like most ideas, punk has got more "extreme" has time has gone on (and has evolved). The Sex Pistols, if they were around today, would be seen as manufactured crap.

It really depends on what type of punk you are using as your standard. If you are using NOFX as your standard then DIY music and left-wing politics is the order of the day.

If you use Green Day (who after American Idiot we can safely call punk) then you can endorse signing to major labels. they aren't the only band to have made the switch to a major (Rise Against, formally of Fat Wreck signed to a major a few years ago to 'reach more people' with their political message).

then you've got you're skater-punk, skinheads, straight-edge punks etc who would find problems with both of the above (straight-edge in particular). If you use them then anyone who drinks/does drugs/eats meat isn't punk.

Punk in general is pretty much fractured and incorporates a number of different viewpoints. If we use the Sex Pistols as our standard then any punk band who signs a record deal for money could be considered punk.

[Marilyn Manson]

I don't know why people bang on about punks of the 70's Sex Pistols type as if they're something that we desperately should be admiring and supporting against the tidal wave of pop-punk shite.

Have you ever actually met those kinds of punks?

I have on many occassions, and they're ****ing mongchops, believe me. I don't know why this really needs to be stated for the benefit of some people here, but they're aggressive, stupid, surly, short-tempered, violent, ugly, narrow-minded unwashed shit-sacks.

I'm pleased punk is dead.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

I don't know why people bang on about punks of the 70's Sex Pistols type as if they're something that we desperately should be admiring and supporting against the tidal wave of pop-punk shite.

I agree, except about the bit about pop-punk being shite. I quite like most of it.

Have you ever actually met those kinds of punks?

Yes, quite a few. They're generally morons, but that could be said for much of the human race.

punk is dead.

I'm not really sure this means anything.

[Orion Treet]

Why are you lowering your level of musical apreciation like this?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Phang

well firstly just because a band sells out, doesn't mean they aren't punks. it's probable that they're hypocrites, but that doesn't stop them being punks.

if they sing about how much breakups suck and never about how much donald rumsfeld sucks, however, they aren't a punk band because the origin and meaning of the term 'punk rock' is all about and entirely about political protest. i've mentioned john cooper clarke twice already and it doesnt seem to have got through: THE MUSIC THEY PLAY DOESNT DEFINE A PUNK AS A PUNK, THE MESSAGE BEHIND IT DOES..

But what if their breakup song can be framed as a metaphor for the disintegration of international relations in our modern world, along with highlighting the increasing alienation felt by people as the ideology of late capitalism causes them to become unable to sustain meaningful relationships with their fellow man? Your definition suggests that 'the political' is something which exists over and above the socially-charged interactions of ordinary people in their day to day lives, which is a naive construction rejected by many postmodern theorists.

Also, punk is shit.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

fixed

WORDS MEAN THINGS.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Phang

typing in caps makes me look intelligent and sincere.

fixed

[LHC]

This objective view on punk isn't a very punk view.

[Nofutcha]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

It's only selling-out if you give a shit. DIY isn't a punk idea. the Sex Pistols, the Clash, the Ramones etc... all had major record deals.

Yes, and they all had creative freedom, and the sex pistols hardly lasted on their major labels did they. Major labels didn't realise at the time how unmarketable punk was, now they have worked out they can market it to alieniated white teenagers as an alternative to rap music. I think Jello Biafra even brought out the theory that the reason a lot of pop teen punk is on major labels these days is because record execs wanted to stop kids from becomming too black. Gotta love Jello.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

I hate this example whenever I see it. It's a song about rich and famous celebrities COMPLAINING about being rich and famous. Now, I'm not a follower of Good Charlotte but I've never heard them complain about being rich and famous and until that happens you cannot fairly call them hyporcrites.

They were still rich and famous and complaining, I will admit to not ever listening to the song other than that little bit on ads etc, but either way its a stupid thing to sing about while being rich and famous, but hey thats my opinion.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

I'm not really sure how much that has to do with signing to a major label though. Some are encouraged/forced to make music with a certain sound. But some bands just aren't musically creative. Blink 182 for example, pretty much all their music follows a similar formula until their last album where they actually tried to push themselves creatively and even then it wasn't outstanding (although it was good for them).

It has everything to do with signing to a Major label. Even when the epoxies signed to semi-major Fat Wreck Chords (yes its a major label but dont get me wrong, i love nearly all their bands and albums) their sound changed totally, EG their self titled album is brilliant and unpolished, while their fat wreck debut had too much production and everything sounded too well placed. In my opinion that lost them a quality.

Same with Offspring, going from semimajor Epitaph to Sony. Smash and Ignition kicked so much ass, and had such a wicked and distinctive raw energetic sound. However Ixnay was absoulute crap, the edge was gone and the songs were too formulaic and had no energy. I dont think anyone can say that Offspring put out better albums after they changed, because there is no way they did. I still enjoy offspring on some level, but every time i hear them, i just miss the old energy.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Punk has no reason.

No reason other than to give people an outlet for original and fun music while being able to express opinions and style in the late 70's, amidst a sea of washed up stadium rockers and formula bands in a music industry that hadn't done anything original for over ten years.

It's no coincidence that punk and hip-hop and reggae all gained popularity at around the same time in the main stream, and deep down always share the common goal of making great music in a basement or at a party and having fun with like minded people, regardless of who you are or how you dress. (Before i get flamed aboout the hip hop comment, i know its not like that now, i know its mostly just bling and boobies, but like commercial punk, thats only on TV)

George Clinton: "One nation under the groove"

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I quite like most of it.

I quite liked you.

Before you just said that.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yes, quite a few. They're generally morons, but that could be said for much of the human race.

I didn't say they were morons. I said they were much worse than that.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm not really sure this means anything.

I mean to say that the 'punk' of the Sex Pistols era (The very violent and angry stupid sort) is no longer with us as a significant force.

Hurrah for that.

[Nofutcha]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

I mean to say that the 'punk' of the Sex Pistols era (The very violent and angry stupid sort) is no longer with us as a significant force.

Hurrah for that.

The violent angry types were just the people who came later on and misunderstood what was happening. They were basically tourists on the punk scene, much like the teenagers with "I love punk chicks" and Anarchy symbols on their backpacks are these days.

I will agree the sex pistols did have an element of violence in their later acts, but that was cause of Sid, and he was a mutant. And they were pretty dirty and low class, and they did spit a lot, but hey, thats what they were.

The early stuff, pre-sid era, is still great to watch, and Johnny is still very amusing as he asses about.

Most punks that are punk for ever, and not just when they are impressionable teenagers, tend to be intelligent, and have credible views on politics and other issues, as well as a broad range of musical tastes. Eg: Johnny Cash is popular in the punk scene, as well as Tom Waits. A lot of my punk friends also like classical and jazz.

And often punk bands are the headline acts at political concerts (unfortunately some of these have appeared recently just because everyone else is doing it).

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Nofutcha

Most punks that are punk for ever, and not just when they are impressionable teenagers, tend to be intelligent, and have credible views on politics and other issues, as well as a broad range of musical tastes.

Sorry, have to disagree here quite strongly. All of the punks I've met who are in their fourties or older (And by that I mean those who were actually there during the 'hayday' of Punk in the 70's.) have almost all been of the type I described above.

Your argument might be true of punks who started off a little later (the 80's, say) but it certainly isn't true of the more crusty types, in my experience.

[Nofutcha]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Sorry, have to disagree here quite strongly. All of the punks I've met who are in their fourties or older (And by that I mean those who were actually there during the 'hayday' of Punk 70's.) have almost all been of the type I described above.

Your argument might be true of punks who started off a little later (the 80's, say) but it certainly isn't true of the more crusty types, in my experience.

In that case we have different experiences, and maybe us post-punk-punk-traditionalists (did i just coin a new phrase?) are just misguided-wanna-be-know-it-all-pussies (ahh there's the phrase).

Ah well.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Nofutcha

Yes, and they all had creative freedom, and the sex pistols hardly lasted on their major labels did they. Major labels didn't realise at the time how unmarketable punk was, now they have worked out they can market it to alieniated white teenagers as an alternative to rap music. I think Jello Biafra even brought out the theory that the reason a lot of pop teen punk is on major labels these days is because record execs wanted to stop kids from becomming too black. Gotta love Jello.

they only had creative freedom because they thought they were getting something that didn't need to be repackaged. the Sex Pistols hardly lasted but they did sign to 3 different major labels in their short time.

Originally Posted by Nofutcha

They were still rich and famous and complaining, I will admit to not ever listening to the song other than that little bit on ads etc, but either way its a stupid thing to sing about while being rich and famous, but hey thats my opinion.

that's like saying NOFX are hypocritical for complaining about American foreign policy and living in America.

Originally Posted by Nofutcha

It has everything to do with signing to a Major label. Even when the epoxies signed to semi-major Fat Wreck Chords (yes its a major label but dont get me wrong, i love nearly all their bands and albums) their sound changed totally, EG their self titled album is brilliant and unpolished, while their fat wreck debut had too much production and everything sounded too well placed. In my opinion that lost them a quality.

Maybe they liked the sound vhey were getting using better recording equipment and all. But changing the quality of the recordings has nothing to do with chaging the style of music played to appeal to a wider audience.

Originally Posted by Nofutcha

Same with Offspring, going from semimajor Epitaph to Sony. Smash and Ignition kicked so much ass, and had such a wicked and distinctive raw energetic sound. However Ixnay was absoulute crap, the edge was gone and the songs were too formulaic and had no energy. I dont think anyone can say that Offspring put out better albums after they changed, because there is no way they did. I still enjoy offspring on some level, but every time i hear them, i just miss the old energy.

I would disagree with this as I enjoy Ixnay. their sound totaly changed with Americana which I thought was their debut on a major label.

Originally Posted by Nofutcha

No reason other than to give people an outlet for original and fun music while being able to express opinions and style in the late 70's, amidst a sea of washed up stadium rockers and formula bands in a music industry that hadn't done anything original for over ten years.

that has nothing to do with what I said. Punk has no 'rules' as such it has no reason other than '**** you' which incorporates potentially every person on the planet.

[Deepflow]

I have crash (smash? bash? i really cant remember what its called now, but its in my cd wallet and ive listened to it many many times) and americana. I do however prefer Americana.

Thats probably just because im a tool though.

[Nofutcha]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

they only had creative freedom because they thought they were getting something that didn't need to be repackaged. the Sex Pistols hardly lasted but they did sign to 3 different major labels in their short time.

I dont get your point, they kept their creative freedom, made a heap of cash, and still wrote completely ass songs. No way is that selling out to major labels

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

that's like saying NOFX are hypocritical for complaining about American foreign policy and living in America.

Not really saying that at all, the fact that they were born there could have something to do with why they live there.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Maybe they liked the sound vhey were getting using better recording equipment and all. But changing the quality of the recordings has nothing to do with chaging the style of music played to appeal to a wider audience.

Over produced, you dont need great equipment, however producers can do amazing things. Amazing things that record companies like.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

I would disagree with this as I enjoy Ixnay. their sound totaly changed with Americana which I thought was their debut on a major label.

Ixnay was their first major recording, and its blatantly obvious that Ixnay was made by a bigger record company. Well i think it is blatantly obvious, I still enjoy ixnay on a level, but no where near as much as smash and ignition. It has something missing.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

that has nothing to do with what I said. Punk has no 'rules' as such it has no reason other than '**** you' which incorporates potentially every person on the planet.

It had everything to do with what you said. And nothing much to do with **** you.

Im too tired to reply better. I think everyone should just go listen to some Dead Kennedys, and everyone will be happier. Oh and read Jello's rants on the Alternative tentacles site

[Deepflow]

im not sure why you seem to think that producing something well = selling out to the record companies. It sounds more like a pointless rant against corporations than anything else.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Nofutcha

Im too tired to reply better. I think everyone should just go listen to some Dead Kennedys, and everyone will be happier.

is the rerecorded version of Fresh Fruit For Rotting Vegetables a sellout?

Myself, I prefer Holiday in Cambodia when i can make out the lyrics, because they're ****ing superb lyrics.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

Therapy - Diane

The Hüsker Dü original was better.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Nofutcha

I dont get your point, they kept their creative freedom, made a heap of cash, and still wrote completely ass songs. No way is that selling out to major labels

It depends what you mean by selling-out. to some (especially with the DIY attitude) just signing to a major label is selling-out.

Originally Posted by Nofutcha

Not really saying that at all, the fact that they were born there could have something to do with why they live there.

they could always move, like Good Charlotte could give all of their money away, becme recluses and then they would be free to complain to whoever will listen....

Originally Posted by Nofutcha

Over produced, you dont need great equipment, however producers can do amazing things. Amazing things that record companies like.

Some bands also like their music to sound as if it's not been recorded in their parents basement.

Originally Posted by Nofutcha

Ixnay was their first major recording, and its blatantly obvious that Ixnay was made by a bigger record company. Well i think it is blatantly obvious, I still enjoy ixnay on a level, but no where near as much as smash and ignition. It has something missing.

Both Smash and Ixnay were released by Epitaph (unless they re-released them). You're defination of Epitaph as a major label is something I find confusing.

Originally Posted by Nofutcha

It had everything to do with what you said. And nothing much to do with **** you.

It was a rejection of everything and everyone at the time rather than the acceptence of any form of rules.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

im not sure why you seem to think that producing something well = selling out to the record companies. It sounds more like a pointless rant against corporations than anything else.

The problem with most "highly produced" music that it's actually really badly produced. There was some tedious rant I read somewhere about the noise levels in modern recordings which meant they sound quite poor (the chorus wasn't loud enough or something).

[jerome]

hay, a thread about emo.

and i missed all the good arguments.


anyhow:

top "emo" (read: post-hardcore punk/indie pop/indie rock/punk rock with more fashioncore tendencies) songs:
circa survive - we're all thieves
saosin - translating the name
brand new - i will play my game underneath..
death cab for cutie - we looked like giants
gatsby's american dream - the child
mae - painless
park - gasoline kisses for everyone
say anything - alive with the glory of love
sunny day real estate - shadows
texas is the reason - back to the left
the postal service - brand new colony
thursday - understanding in a car crash
straylight run - tension and the terror

are just a few etc.



emo originally WAS basically post-hardcore punk with more emotionally charged lyrics, it has evolved onto now, into various elements ie. "screamo"(read: pussy version of death metal), "emo-rock" (see: jimmy eat world & indie bands who're seen as 'emo' etc) & "emocore" (read: post-hardcore bands who involve a bit of screaming in their music - ie. thursday/saosin (well. pre-cove saosin)

emo now is just a multi-genre spanning "genre", it exists on a mainly aesthetic basis on little boys & girls who want to look cool like bands ie. from first to last, taking back sunday & my chemical romance, NOT for any particular other reason ie. actual good music as godknows the latest shit by the mentioned bands are so lacking (though fftl have 2-3 excellent songs on dear diary..) - there is no clear definition anymore really (neither there has there veer been i suppose.)

i could rant a lot more but i've not really read a lot of this thread yet. i will now and post again (if needed)

[jerome]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

I woul classify Alkaline trio as Emo. I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the Ataris yet, the epitomy of Emo.

more like, the epitome of pop-punk. and probably one of the best pop-punk bands around mind.

and i have to second phang's hatred of the term pop-punk.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by starmog

hell is for heros.... EMO???

WTF

btw what about their new alb... awsome..

i dont understand all this fuss about the new album. it seems so ****in generic to me. but then again, that goes for a lot of bands heh.

but definitely one of the overrated scene bands.



ah, that reminds me:

when most people refer to 'emo' what your probably actually going to mean is "scene". scene is basically your typical hipster/emokid who loves bands no "mainstream" kid hears of, prides him/herself on being "non-conformist" but swears by the rules set by 'scene' in websites ie. http://dobi.nu/emo/ heh. non-conformists who follow stereotypes rock.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by JamMak

P.S.
Underoath are Christian Rock ?!

Well I never. They hid that well. (Still kick arse tho)

alright this is another little generalisation which irritates me.


i personally dislike underoath so don't know much about them except the basic fact that some of their members are christians. but i am a fan of several other bands who get classed as 'christian rock' for the same reason.

so,

WHAT the **** is christian rock ?

most of these bands do NOT sing about the bible and how to get into heaven and such. it's unbelievably silly/shit/annoying to demean bands by poking at their religions (this may not be waht your doing but it seemed like it at first read)

for the record, underoath have never 'hid' the fact that their members are christians.

[JamMak]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

alright this is another little generalisation which irritates me.


i personally dislike underoath so don't know much about them except the basic fact that some of their members are christians. but i am a fan of several other bands who get classed as 'christian rock' for the same reason.

so,

WHAT the **** is christian rock ?

most of these bands do NOT sing about the bible and how to get into heaven and such. it's unbelievably silly/shit/annoying to demean bands by poking at their religions (this may not be waht your doing but it seemed like it at first read)

for the record, underoath have never 'hid' the fact that their members are christians.

No, No. It's something I came across while looking at websites related to this thread.

In some ways i'm 'suprsied' by them. I'm used to hearing "christian rock" bands like Reliant K etc. where I can *tell* by listening to the lyrics that they are 'christian rock'
Underoath, I never heard anything that made me think that. They seem more like 'christians' that do 'rock' (meaning no bad stuff kthxta)

[Now I remember. I think it was from the wiki list of emo bands -> underoath -> "a christian rock band".]

Whether they are christian or not does not affect me if I happen to like the music. I was just suprised to discover that other people classed them as "christian rock" when I had not noticed anything about them to suggest that; unlike most "christian rock" bands.

[Piraga]

Emo is gay

[Snurx]

punk is DIY, punk is a music genre, punk is a way of life, punk is Green Day and Tragedy, punk is wearing a Sex Pistols t-shirt, punk is spiky hair, punk is straightedge, punk is getting smashed and beating up fascists.

I don't think there is one person that can classify punk properly, so I won't even try. I don't like the term.

[Nofutcha]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

lots of stuff.

A lot of your points you have ended up agreeing with my original points, I think i said everything i needed to say on this topic, not everyone can agree on everything.

And for the record, ixnay was released on Sony, eptiaph have since picked up the distrubution. Also i consider epitaph to be a semi major label. They are definitely not independent. Epitaph and Fat could both be called major labels within the punk scene. Although they dont have the multinational corporate dealings going on and as far as i know treat their bands very well and leave the album content to them.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Nofutcha

Also i consider epitaph to be a semi major label. They are definitely not independent. Epitaph and Fat could both be called major labels within the punk scene. Although they dont have the multinational corporate dealings going on and as far as i know treat their bands very well and leave the album content to them.

signing to Epitaph or Fat can only be called selling out if you're clinically insane.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by JamMak

No, No. It's something I came across while looking at websites related to this thread.

In some ways i'm 'suprsied' by them. I'm used to hearing "christian rock" bands like Reliant K etc. where I can *tell* by listening to the lyrics that they are 'christian rock'
Underoath, I never heard anything that made me think that. They seem more like 'christians' that do 'rock' (meaning no bad stuff kthxta)

[Now I remember. I think it was from the wiki list of emo bands -> underoath -> "a christian rock band".]

Whether they are christian or not does not affect me if I happen to like the music. I was just suprised to discover that other people classed them as "christian rock" when I had not noticed anything about them to suggest that; unlike most "christian rock" bands.

ok fair enough :]


edit: to the other discussion going on: selling out is truly over/misused.

[Nofutcha]

Originally Posted by Phang

signing to Epitaph or Fat can only be called selling out if you're clinically insane.

I know lots of people that think that.

I don't though, as i said, they are major for punk labels, but not multinational corporate major like sony or warner etc.

In my opinion It's not selling out, because as i said, the bands keep all their freedoms on fat or epitaph, unlike the proper mainstream majors that own your soul.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

alright this is another little generalisation which irritates me.


i personally dislike underoath so don't know much about them except the basic fact that some of their members are christians. but i am a fan of several other bands who get classed as 'christian rock' for the same reason.

so,

WHAT the **** is christian rock ?

It's rock music, except you just change the word 'baby' to 'Jesus'.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Nofutcha

A lot of your points you have ended up agreeing with my original points, I think i said everything i needed to say on this topic, not everyone can agree on everything.

And for the record, ixnay was released on Sony, eptiaph have since picked up the distrubution. Also i consider epitaph to be a semi major label. They are definitely not independent. Epitaph and Fat could both be called major labels within the punk scene. Although they dont have the multinational corporate dealings going on and as far as i know treat their bands very well and leave the album content to them.

I read somewhere a while back that Epitaph has actually been bought by a major corporation.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

I read somewhere a while back that Epitaph has actually been bought by a major corporation.

I read that on this forum, but I've seen no evidence for it.

There was a time where Bad Religion were signed to Atlantic as you undoubtedly know, but that's obvious completley different.

[Nofutcha]

i searched but couldnt see any news. So can neither confirm nor denie. I cant remember last time i bought an epitaph CD to be honest, so im not bothered. Their back catalogue is fantasic though, so that shouldnt change if they should 'sell out'