Panic! At The Disco

Emo is more widespread than that definition now, though.

Weezer are also under Alternative, for me.

Chris Cornell's solo album isn't grunge, so that would be a mistake. I have him in Alternative.

As for 'chamber pop', need we go on? (Sufjan- Alternative in my iTunes)

I hate how longstanding definitions are bastrdized then become the ndard in the end. It seems that anything that evokes sadness is "emo", which is now suggested as "emotional".

By that definition, Richard Marx is emo.

Well, I can see how bands like Sunny Day Real Estate and Jimmy Eat World evolved from bands like Fugazi and Rites of Spring, especially Clarity era Jimmy Eat World.

All these bands that people actually consider emo are just...not emo.

-AC

Any sub-genre can and will change. Sub-genres on the whole are usually pointless anyway. Fugazi were already rock, so arbitrarily they became a new, more individual label that some person or people decided they were. Who cares if that gets bastardised.

Metal was originally Black Sabbath; now it's Disturbed as well. Doesn't really matter.

Well, I suppose those that can clearly identify the roots of said genres can bask in the glory of knowing what they're talking about.

I think knowing roots and evolution is important, even if evolution makes things worse. Because then you can tell the difference between evolution and people who create genres out of nothing.

-AC

Just made that up, didn't you?

As had the Nazis.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Just made that up, didn't you?

As had the Nazis.

That doesn't even make sense.

-AC

eh? radiohead guitar is pure britpop. notice i also included experimental and electronic.

weezer was a part of second/third wave emo, including built to spill and modest mouse (the latter is arguable).

Originally posted by manorastroman
eh? radiohead guitar is pure britpop. notice i also included experimental and electronic.

How is it pure britpop? Pulp could be considered such, and it sounds nothing like that. Radiohead, as a band, are not britpop.

Originally posted by manorastroman
weezer was a part of second/third wave emo, including built to spill and modest mouse (the latter is arguable).

Those are alternative bands, not emo.

-AC

simultaneously rhythmic, angular and chunky. much like blur. i admit they've evolved, but pablo and bends will go down in the history books as "britpop" milestones.

alternative is a primarily late eighties early nineties modifier. modest mouse, weezer, and built to spill are more than just "second wave emo", but that is qutie apparently part of their sound.

Originally posted by manorastroman
simultaneously rhythmic, angular and chunky. much like blur. i admit they've evolved, but pablo and bends will go down in the history books as "britpop" milestones.

Considering they've already gone down in history, in Britain, as rock milestones, I'm not sure what ass you're pulling that idea out of.

Originally posted by manorastroman
alternative is a primarily late eighties early nineties modifier. modest mouse, weezer, and built to spill are more than just "second wave emo", but that is qutie apparently part of their sound.

So then why call them that? Why not just call them a rock band, or an alternative rock band? Both of which are more accurate than emo.

-AC

Originally posted by manorastroman
sufjan: earlier stuff is lo-fi indie, later stuff is chamber pop
sigur ros: post-rock
snow patrol: indie pop/rock, emo
ben harper: singer sonwriter, adult alternative (it's a real genre)
chris cornell: grunge
g love: experimental/fusion
weezer: emo, alternative rock (weezer generally fits)
radiohead: britpop/experimental
the kooks: indie rock
the zutons: indie rock

see, it's easy.

You see that bit where I said "without getting too idiosyncratic about each band"? What I meant by that was that I wanted to group them in related-genres without getting too idiosyncratic about each band. Weird, huh? All these double-meanings...

most of those genres are pretty widespread. chamber pop houses many greats, like belle and sebastian for instance.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Considering they've already gone down in history, in Britain, as rock milestones, I'm not sure what ass you're pulling that idea out of.

So then why call them that? Why not just call them a rock band, or an alternative rock band? Both of which are more accurate than emo.

-AC

you always pick the most irrelevant pieces of a post to attack. it's okay, you're still the smartest guy on these boards.

Originally posted by manorastroman
you always pick the most irrelevant pieces of a post to attack. it's okay, you're still the smartest guy on these boards.

It's not a matter of being smart, it's a matter of knowing music and not knowing music. Nobody's posts here besides a few, have anything that's hard to counter. It doesn't take smarts.

It wasn't irrelevant, you claimed they're britpop, they're not.

-AC

i thought i told you that it was okay.

I think what he's getting at is britpop was more of a movement (a couple actually) than a sound...that's what I've always anyway.

As a side note, I think "emo" is one of the lamest terms ever coined to define a genre of music.

Radiohead weren't really in the movement or the sound, though.

That's speaking as someone in England, listening to that music at that time.

It might be written in places that they were, but I remember clearly that they were not. Same as Tool might be written in future as being part of nu-metal.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That doesn't even make sense.

-AC

Mine wasn't meant to, unlike some.

(Yours and the Nazis)

me and my friend talked about this...MOST indy bands are ok until they get famous...because they try to push the idea of indy too much and end up selling out...