Music evolving through the years
 

Okay this is here just to continue a discussion me and LadyStardust were having on a different forum. But post any comments you might have on the subject.

Could you elaborate on the subject for me? I missed the conversation that started this thread off. Is it about how your personal taste has evolved over the years or how you think music has changed over the years?

About how a genre of music can evolve over years. We were talking about Emo, which I believe died in the 90’s but LadyStardust thought music might evolve and change.

I think bands that get branded as Emo like My Chemical Romance, Panic! At the disco, and fall out boy are just pop bands that have nothing to do with the genre. It’s like the whole Marilyn Manson and Goth thing.

Very true, very true indeed, though I'd consider Fall Out Boy to be somewhat annoying indie more than pop, but still

Well, once a music style is something the major labels are selling wholesale, I don't think it has much to do with the original style of music. Remember the pop punk explosion a few years back, with bands like Blink 182, Good Charlotte, Avril Lavigne, etc? That clearly had nothing to do with the actual punk scene. It's probably the same for these new faux-emo bands. I used to listen to an emo show on college radio years before it got big, and those bands sounded little to nothing like MCR, Panic at the Disco, and Fall out Boy. Emo has never been my thing, but I recognize the difference between real emo and the pop version of it.

Avril Lavigne is considered pop punk? Egads, it's worse than I thought. At least Green Day have some decent songs if you don't hate pop as a matter of course.

In regards to goth music, I see it as becoming more and more electronic, sometimes even merging with industrial.

*pant pant* I made it! Just . . give . . me . . . a . . minute . . . to . . . catch . . . my . . . breath . . .

So, what was REAL emo, then? Until recently, mainstream was all I was ever exposed to, so I'm more than a little behind on things. What makes a certain song/band fall into the Emo category?

Quote:

Originally Posted by electrosexual In regards to goth music, I see it as becoming more and more electronic, sometimes even merging with industrial.

Good goth...I must honestly say I agree, Electro. The flamboyancy of our culture and goth rock is edging toward the aggrotech, electronica or so-called "darkwave" sound.

Other than that, the majority of goth bands today are either re-forming (the new work not quite matching up toward the original) or involved in the deathrock revival.

The Industrial/synthpop sound is kind of messed around with our scene a bit. Soft Cell may be responsible, mainly Almonds' apperence and fame given throughout the 80s.

Hmhh..Originally, "emo" grew out of hardcore punk in the late 80s/early 90s. The themes were completely bastardizes and killed by what the media put attention toward. Now, sorry to cut this short but I am off to go burn some American flags.
Goth Forever
Goth Forever
Goth Forever

Hmm I sort of agree, but I don't think all the electronic type stuff people call goth really has that much to do with the culture (just my opinion, I realise that huge part of the scene revolves almost exclusively around these bands.) That said, I do listen to darkwave/synthy stuff, it's just not my preference as far as gothy stuff goes.

But WHAT WAS emo? What did it sound like? What were the themes? What qualified? What didn't?

I still won though.

The original bands that were emo branched out from punk, and I believe the genre started of in the mid-80’s in Washington. The bands I used to listen to that were actual emo were Fugazi, Fire Party, Moss Icon and Rites of Spring. Of course there are loads more but these used to be my favourite.

They were punk bands but because of their over the top performances were named Emo as a joke by punks, I think. By over the top I mean breaking down in tears and falling to their knees on stage.

So why have bands, such as blink-182, kept the label punk?

I don't think there IS such a thing as punk anymore. Punk is not just about trying to rebel and being angry at everything, though that was a huge part of it. I think that punk ceased to be true punk as soon as it became popular in the mainstream. As soon as it was acceptable to wear torn jeans, or a mohawk - or the day someone SOLD something with the anarchy symbol on it - punk died. Punk, by its very nature, could not be popular, or even accepted. It was about doing what you were not allowed or supposed to do. It's kind of hard to wear torn clothes held together by safety pins as a statement against capitalism when Wal-Mart is SELLING stuff just like it.

I think Blink 182 was punk to a degree. Musically at least. They're fans were not punks however. They were mostly wannabe punks.

I always found the perfect band to describe emo is Juliana Theory. Emotional but very tolerable.

As for goth music it is becoming intertwined with electronica but I have a feeling that won't last that long. I give it five to ten years at most.

Death_Mask is right on with Emo.

In regards to punk, I'll have to say that I personally think that the rebelliousness aspect has been overemphasized by the music press and industry. Punk has had its tradition of social rebellion, but the rebellion was more self-aware than the "rebellion for rebellion's sake" that is the current billing. I'll pull out an old magazine here in Punk's defense -

With the advent of punk in the mid Seventies, a movement existed in rock that declared itself to be specifically against the mass media and their cosy relationship with rock, establishing instead its own network of communicationin a plethora of fanzines and independent labels.
- Gary Herman, The History of Rock, 1983

The cheapening of punk into mindless rebellion has been the selling point of "pop punk," new "emo," and even "alternative." Take a hard listen to some of your favorite albums - is it a mindless bouncing from "rebellion" to sappy love songs? If so, you're listening to the exact pop swill that punk, and later post-punk was so adamantly against.

Outside of that, I'm totally with LadyStardust on punk. Crass said "punk is dead" in '78, specifically speaking about how punk was suddenly being bought and sold, instead of being innovated. Local punk shows rarely have the same vitality and sense of urgency that punk had back in its day. "Punk" as it is billed on the radio is nothing more than the music industry continuing to stagnate by further cannibalizing the last revolution they actually recognized before killing.

So just say the attitude is dead. Why waste anyone's time with all that trite. Musically, it is alive. The attitude is dead. As far as emo goes, it was an offshoot, pop punk is a type of punk, and alternative is a spin off from punk.

Punks dead, grunge is dead and so is emo.

It’s like all those bands like good charlotte trying to come of as punk and grunge bands nowadays are just trying to be Pink Floyd. Actually I think there are a few books written on the whole emo being dead subject.

I don’t really know how all these pop bands were labelled emo, but it stands for emotive hardcore or emotive rock NOT pop with a converse thrown in.

I have to disagree with you there. The attitude is a large part of the genre. Punk was a culture, not just a certain sound. The culture is gone, and therefore, new music that may sound like old punk will never truly be punk. To say that only the attitude of punk is dead, not all of punk, is like saying Elvis isn't really dead, he's just physiologically deceased.

What makes you say that? Alternative as it was in the late 80's/early 90's was just a catch-all term for music that didn't fit in easily with other labels like "rock" or "metal." There were many archetypal "alternative" bands that clearly had nothing to do with punk, such as Dead Can Dance, XTC, The Violent Femmes, Indigo Girls, Cocteau Twins, They Might Be Giants, and many more. I would argue that alternative as we know it today has even less to do with punk, and more to do with grunge, rock, and metal.

Because knowledge of the genre is incredibly important if you're going to talk about it. In punk's heyday, there were all sorts of zines that were being read by punks, and they had no problems with it. And all of those zines were longer than my post.

The attitude of punk was perhaps more important than the music itself. Because punk wanted to be something different, making punk that sounds like punk at this point in time is about as anti-punk as it gets.

I'll kick a trash can and that's punk. You kick a trash can and that's trendy. Be your damn self and don't compromise who you are for anything.

*shrugs* I'm good a bastardizing things. :p

I completely understand that the attitude is dead, but it's a bit like classical. If someone writes a classical piece today, it's classical, but it's not classical like it was three hundred years ago. Someone writes a punk ditty today, it's punk, but not like it was back in seventy seven.

I say that alternative evolved from punk, not mean all alternative, but much of it that came from post-punk and other styles that shared punks attitude such as early industrial and new wave. Other styles came from these styles and post punk bands, eventually creating the catch all alternative. Now, grunge evolved from post punk and punk as well from bands like Killing Joke and Pixies, so, arguably, grunge is a cousin of punk (from the attitude to the musical style).

Alternative also was a phrase started during the late seventies to describe punk. It was an alternative to pop, rock, and r&b.

I also have no problem reading long posts and plenty to do with music. I read more than a couple music magazine, from Spin to some local 'zines.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why I said that it was trite. Perhaps it felt like arguments I'd argued before and it felt repetitive. I apologize.

Well, with bands like Throbbing Gristle, Joy Division, The Sex Pistols, The Cure, and Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Cramps, The Clash, etc, all claiming some rights to the Punk name, I think there's good reason to be skeptical when we see punk presented as an over-simplified package that pales in comparison to its' original form.

I think that the unifying factor in punk was the need to create something new that represented the people who were listening to it. Both Joey Ramone and Johnny Thunders were pretty vocal about how new punk totally missed the point for a very long time(to the point where the Ramones started denying they were punk), so I think it's important to make the distinction.

The reason punk is not comparable to classical is because the methods of creation were not meant to be under a specific formula, as the music industry would have you believe. Classical now is classical because it was meant to created a certain way. Punk was not; so creating music specifically because it sounds like the punk that is most commonly accepted as punk, is basically not punk.

The CA Hardcore scene and UK Oi scenes were more about the mentality of making punk that sounded the way most people think of punk these days. The UK and NYC punk eventually did as well, but that can be largely blamed on Malcolm MacLaren, and to some extent the socio-anarchist movement to whom the music was of little importance.

Either way, punk these days has nothing to do with punk. It's either pop, or shitty pop, depending on how many people you're trying to attract.

I can certainly see where you're coming from. I agree to a degree, however, I still feel as though the music can be formulated and created. You write a fast paced three chord song and it's "punk." That does not make you a punk. It just seems to me that the musical definition can live on, not as strongly as when it was started, but it can live.

The way I see it, musical genres aren't just defined by sounds, they're defined by aesthetics. When you have one but lack the other, it doesn't add up. A flavor-of-the-month teen bubblegum band playing punk chords is still a flavor-of-the-month teen bubblegum band to me. Band like Blink 182 could be less thought of as punk, and thought of moreso as imitation-punk or faux-punk. Semi-authentic tunes, fake attitudes.

Where are you getting this information?

I actually thought it was pretty common knowledge.

There are so many arguments to be had about every style of music out there. Every generation thinks its music was more talented and more original than the next. Why not just listen to what you like?

Well, Yes. Music usually evolves to popular demand, or under pressure.
Like, how the blues evolved, and Spawned the Birth of Rock N' Roll, Then it just went from there =/

The part about alternative existing as a widespread term in the late 70's, particularly to describe punk, doesn't fit with anything I know about music history. But because you, I and Reptile are all too young to actually remember the late 70's, I have to assume the information comes from some source other than personal experience. If it is common knowledge, then why have I never heard this tidbit before despite being an amateur music historian?

I have no memory of the word alternative being used until the early 90's, right before grunge came out. Then the word was everywhere. What most people regard as pre-grunge alternative was called Indie, or by other genre names.

I don't know where this information came from, but I can look through all my music mags again, and I'm sure I won't find anything. If Alternative was being used as a name back then, it was definitely not in common use, even in the punk circuits.

I have no idea. It just seems logical to me.

I've heard it was referred to as alternative by several websites, magazines, books talking about the offshoots of alternative. The foremost one I can think of is Rip It Up and Start Again. It's about the post punk movement. There's mention of it in there.

I don't think it was a common term, almost like Joy Division wasn't commonly listed as goth until much later.

If you are making a claim about historical facts, what "seems logical" just doesn't cut it. If you think that the term "alternative" was used regularly as early as the 1970s, you should probably try and provide some kind of proof.

While I acknowlege that Wikipedia is far from reliable in and of itself, it does provide a fairly comprehensive "alternative for dummies" sort of article. It also includes a fairly extensive list of actual references. Just look up "alternative rock" on Wikipedia's main site.

I didn't say I thought it was used, I said it SEEMED LOGICAL. Hence my saying that.

My apologies, Underwater Ophelia. I suppose my comment should have been directed primarily at IsolatedReptile rather than yourself.

Well in that case, he already cited where he got the idea from.

Damn. I had to reread his posts a few times before I caught it. Excuse me while I attempt to extricate my foot from my mouth.

That is a good book, what pages are you referring too? I took a quick scan-through, as I didn't remember it being used in that context. It doesn't appear in the index either, so if you can point me in a direction, I'd be appreciative.

I've got a decent collection of weeklys and fanzines, and I don't remember it in there either. I think you might be reading into the words too much.

I would agree that most music can be formulated and created, but not when we're talking about punk.
Even gothic songs could be formulated, just look at Voodoo Church (which is a good band nonetheless). You take a theme out of a B-movie, and either sing happily about it (Specimen-type) or sadly about it (The Cure-type) and it would fool more than half of us, passing as a genuine gothic song.
But punk attitude is different than that. It's more of 'you have something to say? Grab a guitar and start saying it!'
It had nothing to do with meter and riffs; it had everything to do with expression and meaning.

Exactly what I was saying, only put much more eloquently. Punk IS the attitude, so by acknowledging that the punk attitude is dead, you are forced to acknowledge that punk ITSELF has bought the farm.

Punk is not death until the last punk dies.

Hhhmmm . . . that is a good point. Musically though, must he die or simply stop making music?

Punks have been saying punk is dead evey year since 1977.

I looked thrrough a stack of zines from the 70's and 80's and didn't find one refered to as "alternative", not even in ALTERNATIVE PRESS.

Maybe this is me reading too much into this as well, but... Alternative Press...

I don't have access to the book right now, and it's very possible I did read to much into it. I do know that I read that it was referred to as alternative in the late seventies/early eighties a couple of times, so I'll just have to look through my magazines an books and see where it is.

I have to thank you people for being correct about punk rock. I've been listening to real punk for about 7 years since I was 11. It makes me sick to see kids with t-shirts and stuff with a band and know nothing about the band or the music behind them. In my opinion punk is not dead, it is just underground. There are a handful of real punk bands left today. Not this pop crap like Blink 182 or Green Day. But as regard to today's music scene it is just a fad like all styles of music that happened and it too shall pass and something else will replace it.

I think what you're forgetting is that before the term "Alternative" was used to describe a genre music (or moreso, to destroy multiple genres), it would have had its more conventional meaning. Hence, "Alternative Press" would have meant "press that is an alternative to the mainstream" and not "press about Alternative music."

It's much like the music industry's recent use of the term "Indie." Indie used to mean a band that was on an independent label - now it means a band of a specific style. Think about this - in five years (or less), you will be meeting people who have never thought of "Indie" as something that came from an independent label. Some of them will even tell you you're wrong if you tell them that formalizing the term "Indie" as a genre was just another attempt by the major labels to kill off independent music.

There is a rich history of the music industry deliberately obfuscating and otherwise eliminating competing music through unscrupulous methods. Unfortunately, it's still up to those of us still in the underground to set the record straight, since there doesn't seem to be anyone else willing to do it.

(And thanks for double-checking Miron; I know it's impossible to have everything, so hopefully between the two of us we have a substantial enough amount ;-)