Quote:
Originally Posted by WhateverDude
The lines aren't blurry. The people who call the bands you listed emo can call any band emo or any other genre- that doesn't mean they're correct. There's an entire culture of people associated with emo and screamo with values that started with 80s hardcore. The bands you listed have nothing to do with that culture. They don't share those values. Those values, along with the music, are what define a band as emo, screamo, hardcore, punk, whatever. It's not about being condescending or elitist, it's about filtering out the listeners who share those values from those who don't. How would you feel if you invested your life into a culture that has no "real world value" and then people who thought you sounded and looked "cool" copped your style and assimilated it to turn a profit? To add insult to injury, what if that culture became the subject of constant parody based completely on people's ignorant and inaccurate perceptions and depictions? How would you feel then?
|
Would you care to elaborate exactly what these values are? Defining music by subjective values seems, if possible, even more nebulous.
The process you describe - of a grass roots music movement becoming increasingly popular, modified, and yes, commercialised, is hardly unique to emo. It's a common phenomenon in the music industry generally. Not that many modern pop-punk or punk-rock bands share the values of the original 80s punk bands, but does that make their music worthless? No! Does it in any way devalue the original music that inspired it? Funnily enough, no it doesn't.
Rock and roll was appropriated from blues and r'n'b - does that make it worthless as a genre? Do modern metal artists undermine their predecessors by only partially emulating them?
No, and no again. I appreciate that commercialisation can be frustrating, but it's an unfortunate part of the process of musical evolution - these people you perceive as "copying" you because they want to "look cool" for the most part, probably have simply discovered, and genuinely are enjoying what is to them, a new sub-genre of music. THAT IS NOT A BAD THING. Music is awesome - so why shouldn't it be as participatory as possible? It's very narrow minded to think "well, I heard this band first, so I must keep them to myself" - and it's counterproductive to the bands as well: they may honestly have no wish to make lots of money from their music, but they do need to be able to sustain themselves, at least, if they wish to keep producing it.
Now, obviously, when enough people like a thing, then companies etc. will start trying to deduce ways to make that thing profitable. However, it really would be unjust to blame the other fans, or for that matter, any of the bands for this: they, just like you, are simply trying to enjoy the music.
Personally I've never adhered to one specific subculture stringently enough to feel that people in general are imitating me, although I have experienced a few individual/ specific instances of people imitating me on a personal level. I generally take it as a compliment - why should I mind if, for example, I explain my opinion on politics, or religion, or mention some music that I like, and then the person to whom I've explained myself is sufficiently persuaded by my motivations, rhetoric, or taste, to wish to adopt that opinion for themselves? Surely that's a good thing?
As far as parody goes - well, I've been bullied and ridiculed for any number of things. What's one more to add to the pile? I'm confident enough in my own principles to dismiss the castigation of people so insecure in their own self esteem that they feel the need to attempt to empower themselves by unfairly belittling others.
I get the impression that you feel like something you love has been appropriated from you, and bastardised, but the truth is that it was never yours, in a proprietary sense, to begin with: it's something that you participated in, certainly, but how can a collective idea or movement be said to belong to any one person?
You cannot possess it. You can merely believe in it.
My second point is that the thing you love has not been corrupted at all - all the original music you enjoyed is still there - it still exists [unless for some reason every single person who owned it as a cd or file or record destroyed or deleted it]. Your memories of it remain - surely you do not allow modern incarnations of the genre to tarnish them?
Should I suddenly hate Buffy the Vampire Slayer just because the vampire genre has now suffered Twilight? No. Of course not - because all the things from the past that I love... are still there for me to appreciate. Do I care that the vampire genre is currently awash with girly romances? Not particularly - because even though it is a little frustrating, I know that logically, this also means that there is far more chance of GOOD new vampire fiction getting published as well. I just have to sift through the dross a bit.
This is how it is with music. It really doesn't matter if there are modern bands you dislike, that claim influence from bands you do like. So what? Didn't Hitler claim Darwinian theory as an excuse for eugenics? Doesn't mean Darwin wasn't a brilliant guy - just that a few of the people who decided to read his material were *******s of the highest [or should that be lowest?] order. That happens. It's a risk of being successful.
Anyway, since we're on the subject, I'd be interested to hear what, in
your opinion are the core values of emo music... and in seeing how many other people unequivocally agree with them.