this topic has had the shit kicked out of it even more than that dead horse lying over there.
emo is what you want it to be, i guess. a lot of bands i used to listen to in the 90s have since been posthumously labeled 'emo' by music critics and fans, because they want to create something.
i don't know what it is they're trying to do. i've never been able to figure out music fans or music critics. maybe that's why i'd like to be one (but not both, that's impossible.)
the main problem with any of these debates is that no two people have the same idea of what emo is.
casual listners and hard-core experts will debate for days until it devolves into a flame war: listing what bands are emo and what bands aren't. i'm not sure what the point is.
it always seems to become a pissing contest about who's more emo. or who's more punk. or who's lame.
it's all kinda silly to me.
maybe a better topic would be "What is your idea of an Emo Band."
and then we'd at least clear up some of the muddy distinctions that always seem to cloud these debates.
(and, for those who don't know me, the Rites of Spring post was supposed to be with my tougue sticking right out of my cheek.)
apathy_activist
Canada
July 2002
JAN 16, 2003 01:58 PM