Heccubus Presents: Primers An Educational Thread
#1
Posted 08 May 2007 - 11:40 AM
I think this might be fun.
Anyone want to get the ball rolling, or shall I just begin with emo, since folks around here seem to lack a clear understanding of just what that music even is?
#2
Posted 09 May 2007 - 11:57 PM
Emo: large flightless Australian bird.
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#3
Posted 09 August 2007 - 05:02 PM
I think this might be fun.
Anyone want to get the ball rolling, or shall I just begin with emo, since folks around here seem to lack a clear understanding of just what that music even is?
Define Emo:
Emo (an abbreviation of "emotionally-driven Hardcore punk") is a term now broadly used to describe almost any form of guitar-driven alternative rock that expresses emotions beyond traditional punk's limited emotional palette of alienation and rage. It is also used to describe fans of this genre, most commonly teenagers. (e.g., emo kid). The actual term "emo" originated in the mid-1980s D.C. scene, with the band Rites of Spring, as well as bands such as Fugazi, Moss Icon, and Antioch Arrow.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emo
Great Quotes Of The 21st Century/Cobnat gets serious!
Ron Paul At AntiWar.com/A Writing Guild For The Clinically Retarded/Death By Quotes/AntiWar/Early Justin Raimondo articles/In Defense Of Yoshiro Mori By Justin Raimondo/Vox Popoli
Evil Happens/This Is A Knife!/Minorities, too!/
AYBABTU/Che Guevara Action Figure!/Strange Humour
#5
Posted 09 August 2007 - 08:54 PM
The original Emos were okay, with thier moppy hair, thick rimmed glasses, and muppet t-shits.
but these new crybabies came along stole the goth look and the emo name and listen to pepsi approved rebellion (the rebellion for kids too scared to think for themselves and still wear a tether to the mainstream).
This is another media fuck-up-a-subcultre by misrepresenting it in a single article on a slow news day written by a bimbo.
Just like 'grunge'
nirvana - punk
soundgarden - metal
peral jam - rock
alice in chains - metal
mudhoney - punk
media said - ALL='grunge'
and thus another comercial subculture was born.
exept now they're telling you what to listen to.
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#6
Posted 09 August 2007 - 09:06 PM
I feel like the definition of metal has changed a lot since the late 80's and early 90's.
Buy the New LittleHorse CD, Strangers in the Valley!
CD Baby | iTunes | LittleHorse - Flight of the Bumblebee Video
Chefelf on: Twitter | friendfeed | Jaiku | Bitstrips | Muxtape | Mento | MySpace | Flickr | YouTube | LibraryThing
#7
Posted 09 August 2007 - 09:52 PM
It doesn't matter what someone else classifies a band as.
It doesn't matter what YOU classify a band as.
At the end of the day, it's all music and the only thing genres do is help to describe a certain artist's sound for the sake of understanding a bit about their sound. In that sense "grunge" was a perfect descriptive term, as it not only embodied the music, but the entire scene. The clothes, hair, attitude, AND sound.
And Barend, should I remind you that in classifying Nirvana as "punk" or Soundgarden as "metal", you're doing exactly the same thing as classifying either as "grunge"? You're dubbing them with a label that was created by the mainstream media to broadly describe a select group of artists. Punk describes The Clash, the Ramones, and the Sex Pistols, and I don't think there are any more similarities between the three of them than there are between Nirvana, Soundgarden and Pearl Jam. Rock and roll, punk, new wave, disco, techno, country, jazz... These terms are all coined by people to describe the music itself, not by the musicians making said music. Sure you get the odd artist who comes up with a term to arrogantly try and set themselves apart from their peers, but at the end of the day they still get lumped in with whatever genre they're most easily paralleled with.
Similarly, no one in the 80s hardcore scene called themselves "emo" or "emotional hardcore". They just thought they were in hardcore bands, and had something to say other than "I hate this, I hate that, I hate you". "Emo" was a term made up by a bunch of pretentious journalists and outsiders. Just like almost every other genre label under the sun.
This post has been edited by Heccubus: 09 August 2007 - 09:58 PM
#9
Posted 09 August 2007 - 11:36 PM
I feel like the definition of metal has changed a lot since the late 80's and early 90's.
Listen to 'rusty cage'
When Soundgarden won the award for best grunge album of the year, Chris Cornell demanded; "we're not leaving this stage till someone calls us 'metal'!"
Soundgarden and Alice in chains weren't super heavy but their influences were mostly metal and they suit it better. Soundgarden moved to rock more on their last album, but you can't listen to badmotorfinger and not hear metal components.
My classifications up there were just basic guidelines. but Nirvana was more punk than the fucking Offspring, that's for sure
Nirvana was influenced by Killing Joke and the Pixies. Soundgarden was influenced by Black Sabbath and Led Zeplin, Pearl Jam by Neil Young, etc. The genres' aren't important; I was merely illustrating their different roots and sounds without resorting to carfully using the subgenres down the metal and punk trees. The important thing that 5 or so bands that sounded nothing like each other were all labelled under one classification, and that was an ignorant move in my opinion. It wasn't until STP came along and sounded a little like all them that you could really say anything and even then the imaginary dots had already long been connected by the fact that the fans of these bands were wearing torn jumpers... A lot of those kids were listening to Sonic Youth and the Beastie Boys but hose bands had arrived and were established well before G-bomb was dropped. The only thing most of the bands in the so called genre had in common was a majority of them came from Seattle, which is hardly a justification.
I don't really care all that much about nit-picky classification, but something is rotten in mark of den when bands of different schools are marched into a media deathcamp. The media likes to jump on these things and put as much as they can into little safe containers where they can keep an eye on them until they figure out a way of assimilating them into the great big mainstream music factory where they take good stories and turn them into fables where the moral of the story is to not think so hard and purchase something from our gift shop.
sorry, went a little ranty there.... with unrestrained metaphor usage.
(This is why I started making music, so I could bitch about it there and not trouble you good people.)
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#11
Posted 10 August 2007 - 12:19 AM
How so? The "x is more punk than y" argument is so fucking conceited. "Punk" is just an industry buzzword. It doesn't mean anything.
See also:
"x is more indie than y"
"x is more metal than y"
"x is more hip hop than y"
And so on. Like I already said, none of these definitions means a damned thing. They're just words that people make up to describe music that they don't already have a category for.
This post has been edited by Heccubus: 10 August 2007 - 12:20 AM
#13
Posted 10 August 2007 - 12:26 AM
Which is exactly my attitude. For instance, the Sex Pistols. People seem to love them and think they were some kind of innovative artistic force. I think they were just a group of obnoxious pricks who couldn't play their instruments to save their lives.
Johnny Rotten is a phony, and a sellout.
Sid Vicious was a junkie, a murderer, and a total scumbag. The world's better without him.
The other two don't matter anyway, so who cares?
And as I said, none of them could play. At least the Ramones made sucking at guitar sound dangerous. The Sex Pistols just sounded like whiny teenagers trying to make a "statement".
#14
Posted 10 August 2007 - 12:37 AM
I used to think they were good, but when they played at George Lucas' AFI Lifetime Achievement ceremony (invited because his two daughters loved the band) and purposely sounded sucky, that's when I turned my back on them.
I don't like to listen to pricks who won't even play correctly for some of their biggest fans.
This post has been edited by Bond: 10 August 2007 - 12:37 AM
#15
Posted 10 August 2007 - 01:14 AM
See also:
"x is more indie than y"
"x is more metal than y"
"x is more hip hop than y"
And so on. Like I already said, none of these definitions means a damned thing. They're just words that people make up to describe music that they don't already have a category for.
Perhaps I didn't make my point clear.
Nirvana is more 'punk' than the Offspring, in the same way Napalm Death is more 'metal' than Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch.
As in Nirvana has 'punk' roots, and the Offspring was an annoying pop band. 'punk' is no more a buzzword than anything else
'punk' was really just the original term for alternative.
and even then just for rock. everything else alternative was called industrial. This was before 'alternative rock' came along which is sadly just a lable for rock that isn't ballads intended to sell to people with no souls.
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)