On Emo, and the Evolution of Music, A short (?) and VERY rough draft Options

[*mipadi*]

After reading numerous posts today about emo, I decided to write up an essay on the subject (which is really quite fascinating). Thought I'd post it here for some honest feedback. It's a very rough draft at the moment, and definitely open to critiques and consideration from the masses. Enjoy.


--------------------


On Emo, and the Evolution of Music

I can't honestly say that I sat down to write a brief essay on the subject of emo music on a whim. No, it was after reading a fair number of forum posts that the idea came to me. You see, it seems that emo has broken into the mainstream as of late; and that "success" provokes endless debates about what constitutes emo, and what doesn't. A number of such threads are littered throughout the forums, mixed in with posts about various users' opinions on emo. A number of them have been locked, or soon will be, in the perpetual fight to have no more than one thread on a particular topic open at one time. Thus, I decided to condense a number of my posts into one single essay and post it, in the hopes of generating some actual discussion on emo and rock music in general, and the evolution of various genres. My original goal in creating such an essay was to avoid the immature "this is emo, not that" and "that's not emo, this is emo" posts that get thrown about, and generate some real discussion on the very fascinating topic of music history.

First, a bit of history and background on emo, for one cannot truly know a subject until one knows of its origins. Emo, contrary to popular belief, is not short for "emotional rock"--or, at least, not originally. It was originally short for "emotive hardcore" (or "emotional hardcore") because, as you can probably guess, it arose out of hardcore punk. In the 1980s, the Washington, D.C. area was ground zero for a growing music genre known as hardcore punk. Hardcore punk was an energetic type of punk that dealt with the traditional issues surrounding the "punk ethos", particularly things involving society and politics. A man by the name of Ian MacKaye was at the forefront of this revolution in punk rock. During the 1980s, he fronted such bands as Minor Threat (where he penned and recorded the song "Straight Edge", which helped to jumpstart the whole Straight Edge movement) and Fugazi. By the middle of the 1980s, MacKaye and others realized that while hardcore punk was doing a good job at tackling major issues, it didn't focus enough on personal issues surrounding the individual; indeed, it lacked the emotion of mainstream rock music. Four musicians got together and formed Rites of Spring, the band often credited as the first emo band: Guy Picciotto (who later formed Fugazi with MacKaye), Eddie Janney, Michael Fellows, and Brendan Canty (who also went on to play in Fugazi). MacKaye helped produce their first album. MacKaye himself formed the short-lived band Embrace, which essentially combined the sound, energy, and passion of hardcore punk with the emotion of traditional music.

Naturally, the sound of the first emo bands was not like the polished studio recordings of many emo bands of today. MacKaye is a staunch supporter of the do-it-yourself ethic in music, and none of the bands released their music on any major labels. Furthermore, the influence of the hardcore punk scene led to a gritty sound that would later be reflected in the grunge movement of the early 1990s. (As an interesting side note, the early emo bands and grunge bands had a lot in common; in fact, the genres are very similar. Both are evolutions of hardcore punk, both focus on emotional issues, both have "angsty" lyrics, and both developed at about the same time. A listener familiar with the early music of bands like Nirvana, Mudhoney, and Green River is familiar with the origins of emo.)

Emo eventually led to a more melodic, less rough sound, as reflected in bands such as Texas is the Reason. By the time the mid-1990s rolled around, emo bands such as Sunny Day Real Estate and The Promise Ring were starting to "tone down" emo, at least in the sense that the music was slower and more melodic. Some people will group this in the genre "post-emo", but it's more of an evolution of the emo scene than a separate genre. Sunny Day Real Estate's 1994 album Diary is an excellent example of the emo of this time period.

Emo lay practically dormant until the early 2000s, when the success of bands like Saves the Day and Taking Back Sunday rocketed emo to the forefront of rock music. And that is where I will begin my look at the evolution of music, and what emo is and isn't.

Talk to any music fan at least a bit familiar with emo, and you will most likely get a laundry list of examples of what he considers to be emo, and what he does not consider to be emo. I experienced this while playing in several emo bands while in high school. The first one arose out of a punk band, and our sound was much like the sound of the "original" emo bands. However, when we referred to ourselves as an emo band, it evoked ideas of the more contemporary use of the term, which didn't truly describe our music. It then became clear that emo had evolved quite a bit from its original sound.

Some would argue, then, that many current emo bands are not emo at all. Talk to any fan of emo music in particular, and you will promptly get a list of what is emo and what isn't. Many "hardcore" fans will reference bands like Embrace, Rites of Spring, and Sunny Day Real Estate, and say that they are emo, and nothing of today is emo.

I find this to be inaccurate. The truth of music is that it evolves. Take, for example, rock music. Modern rock music bears little resemblance of the "Buddy Holly-type" rock music of the 1950s. In fact, I'd wager that if you took a serious music fan of the 1950s and had him listen to the rock music of today, he would insist that today's music is not rock. But that's wrong--of course it is rock. It's simply rock that has evolved. Rock of today is different from the rock of the 1970s, which is different from the rock of the 1950s. Times change; so does music. But even though the sound is very different, there still are many elements common to both time periods--it's very clear that the rock of today has stemmed from the rock of the 1950s.

The same goes for emo. The emo of today might sound quite a bit different from that of the late 1980s, but you can trace the heritage of a band such as Taking Back Sunday to the emo bands of yesterday. It's ludicrous to suggest that emo cannot evolve and take on new forms.

However, there are clearly some instances in which the term is applied too liberally, and that particularly comes from a lack of adherence to the original definition of the term. "Emo" has come to mean "emotional rock" and gets applied to any band that uses overly sentimental lyrics in their songs. As noted before, this is inaccurate, because emo is not short for "emotional rock"; it is short for "emotive hardcore". A band that lacks any semblance to hardcore punk can hardly trace its lineage to emo. A perfect example of this misuse of the term is with bands such as Dashboard Confessional. Dashboard Confessional is in no way an emo band. Yes, Chris Carrabba's lyrics are emotional, but that does not make them emo--a lot of bands use emotion in their lyrics (most of them, in fact). Now, I'm not trying to disparage Dashboard Confessional by saying they are not emo. That's another great misuse of the term today--a person will try to disparage a band by saying, "Oh, them? They’re not emo." Such a use is often synonymous with "I think those guys suck." I'm not using the expression to pass judgment on Dashboard Confessional; what I am saying is that bands like Dashboard Confessional are often mislabeled because virtually none of their musical elements can be traced back to the hardcore punk scene of the mid-1980s.

Another complaint of mine is the use of the term "emo" to describe music to which "emo kids" listen. Emo has been bastardized into a trendy lifestyle choice for mopey, whiny teenagers. Teenagers with horrible attitudes and bland personalities label themselves "emo" in the hopes of avoiding the fact that really, they're just spoiled and bratty. Emo is a music genre, not a lifestyle. Emo does not necessarily involve being depressed and sad all the time. I could go into details on how deliberately choosing to be sad, angsty, and depressed is not only pathetic, but also masks the fact that there are people with real issues of depression out there, but I'll save that for another essay. My point is that what many of these "emo kids" believe emo to be about is not what emo is truly about. Early emo pioneers were not necessarily depressed, or trying to be depressed; nor were they terribly concerned about making a fashion statement or starting a trend. They cared about the music, not the associated baggage.

Hopefully, this essay has cleared up some of the common misconceptions about emo, and has provided some interesting and useful information on the roots of the genre. While I am fascinated by rock history, I will admit that, aside from a few bands (and aside from playing in such bands for a while), I am not a huge fan of emo; however, the origins of the genre are interesting, and the evolution and use (as well as misuse) of the label is one that I found worthy of examination. So much debate goes on between emo fans and non-emo fans alike, that I found it almost a necessity to post my brief examination of emo.

[*mipadi*]

Thanks for the feedback from the both of you! As for the inspiring links:

- http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=96133
- http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=61956
- http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=95947
- http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8649