No. Emo = emotive hardcore punk.

http://www.musicbanter.com/hardcore-...on-thread.html

I think it's a non-issue. Emo is as punk as New-Wave. It's not really an opinion thing. Genre criteria really isn't anything you can just pull out of thin air. Most people in the emo forum try to inform people on the matter not be dicks. But the thing is sometimes shit happens and people make arsehole remarks because they're sick of trying to explain things to people who don't give the facts a chance.

What's wrong with that? He's conceding a point and opening up a discussion. He's even admitting the Brits need educating.

Smack! ^

You fail at spelling?


?


Arrogance. ^

Pointing out a fact.
The same, and rightfully so, this isn't a kid we're talking about and I'd be the first to get annoyed with bad grammar. If I can be arsed to speak English with the minimum of proper grammar, I'd say there's nothing rude about asking the same from actual native speakers...especially if they're mature individuals...It's a sad day when teenagers act more maturely (and calmly) than a 30-something-year old....
Again, we're talking about people that aren't just superficial fad-followers, these kids know their shit and have every right to get pissed off when someone comes in spouting uninformed bullshit. I did that once in the punk forum and got told off....but I knew what was coming and took it like a man....

This is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned...

Well good luck running the boards Marijan.

I really don't want to start another genre argument, but saying that criteria for a genre are set in stone and are "facts" is the highest form of elitism; it's about the same thing as saying that language is set in stone. It's all based on public opinion, and as the views of the majority change so do definitions. For everything. I don't know why you can't come to terms with the fact that there are two completely different kinds of music which are both refered to as "emo," and that one is much more relevant today than the other.

I think there are broad things for genres that can't be taken away from and the smaller details can be taken as you wish. There are pillars other wise we're just saying things are whatever we want because we want to. How is either more relevant than the other?

Culturally speaking, I don't think too many people are still concerned with the 90's dischord scene or post-hardcore. I mean, obviously there's still an underground following, but for the most part if you take the average person on the street and talk to them about emo there is a very definite set of connotations that go with it and when you hear people talking about "emo kids" everyone knows what they're talking about. And it's not Ian MacKaye. Thus, more culturally relevant.

Culturally more relevant but not musically. I'd say there are just as many legit screamo bands as there are the post hardcore poppy stuff.



I'm all for someone coming in here and saying emo isn't a punk genre if they put facts behind it. Examples, explanation, logic. Hell I think I could bullshit one up.

"The difficulty in defining 'emo' as a genre may have started at the very beginning. In a 2003 interview by Mark Prindle, Guy Picciotto of Fugazi and Rites of Spring was asked how he felt about 'being the creator of the emo genre'. He responded: 'I don't recognize that attribution. I've never recognized 'emo' as a genre of music. I always thought it was the most retarded term ever. I know there is this generic commonplace that every band that gets labeled with that term hates it. They feel scandalized by it. But honestly, I just thought that all the bands I played in were punk rock bands. The reason I think it's so stupid is that - what, like the Bad Brains weren't emotional? What - they were robots or something? It just doesn't make any sense to me.'"

That's a quote I got from wikipedia. I trust it well enough.