I didn't really have a gateway. In sixth grade I was listening to bad metal like Bon Jovi, Cinderella, and Whitesnake. I saw some episodes of The Young Ones on MTV and thought, Punks and British people seem cool.

In woodshop class we had to make a picture frame and put something in it. The teacher provided old magazines. I ended up with an issue of Rolling Stone that had one of those "100 Best Albums" articles and #1 was The Clash's London Calling. Curious, I bought a copy at the mall. It was better than what I was listening to. I bought all of the Clash's albums.

Then the Sex Pistols. Then PiL because I liked Johnny Rotten. Then other British post-punk and alternative bands. Then Big Black and the Minutemen and Fugazi and the Pixies.

There were some misteps along the way (Primus, the Red Hot Chili Peppers), but by high school I had pretty sound taste in music.

There seems to be a lot of dispute over what constitutes "emo;"both in this thread and in general. While I don't use that term to categorize bands like Jawbox, I think that, if we're comparing contemporaneous types of music, bands like Jawbox and Fugazi are going to be our "emo" group, like it or not.

"Grunge" doesn't exist anymore, neither in it's original form nor in a watered down corporate version, (though the influence of bands like Pearl Jam and Soundgarden on bland "hard rock" bands like Nickelback is obvious) and emo is a far cry from what was once vaguely considered "emo," so comparing the two based on current trends seems a bit weak.

I think the original "grunge" scene was comprised of a fairly bland group bands, (Melvins excluded) where as the "emo" scene had some great bands, so my vote is "grunge" by that criteria. In terms of influence, I think grunge influenced more terrible bands than emo did, but grunge only wins because I can tolerate third wave emo bands like Texas is the Reason and Mineral where as I cannot stand bands like Staind and Nickelback.

They both have a fair amount of embarrassing imitators cavorting around these days.

We can debate whether the genre labels are accurate or valid or where they originated. But what I find more interesting is debating which genre, as is commonly understood by mainstream bands called "grunge" and "emo," is worse. I like neither. But which is the lesser of two evils? I'm talking mainstream representations.

I hate emo.

I like Nirvana.

Emo shall go.

Fugazi does not count as emo, nor do Husker Du, nor do Rites of Spring. They shall not be eliminated.

My Chemical Romance? Load the shotguns!

STF wrote:We can debate whether the genre labels are accurate or valid or where they originated. But what I find more interesting is debating which genre, as is commonly understood by mainstream bands called "grunge" and "emo," is worse. I like neither. But which is the lesser of two evils? I'm talking mainstream representations.

Comparing mainstream representations of both types of music is hard because they (like early forms of man and dinosaurs) did not roam the earth at the same time so, on one hand you'd have an almost original assortment of grunge bands vs. a group of bands who are playing a tired, played out type of music that was done much better years before, but was not popular then. In this type of thunderdome the emo bands would lose right out of the gate, so I think it's better to judge both types of music by both their peaks and valleys.

Next week, Santa Vs. the Tooth Fairy.

tommydski wrote:Next week, Santa Vs. the Tooth Fairy.

Are you saying dinosaurs and prehistoric man didn't exist? Because they did, buddy. Do you want to fight about this? I saw a few just the other day.

It's hard for me to say which is better. It's much easier for me to hate emo. Emo is fucking irritating. Grunge is easy to ignore.

Heliotropic wrote:

tommydski wrote:Next week, Santa Vs. the Tooth Fairy.

Are you saying dinosaurs and prehistoric man didn't exist? Because they did, buddy. Do you want to fight about this? I saw a few just the other day.

Naw, I actually didn't read your previous post until just now.

Heliotropic wrote:Comparing mainstream representations of both types of music is hard because they (like early forms of man and dinosaurs) did not roam the earth at the same time...

It doesn't matter when they were around. Nor am I interested in comparing grunge and emo as bodies of work or where they are at this point in time.

What would have been better to have grown up with if you were your common average music fan who was drawn to whatever music was preceived (however ridiculously) as being "edgy" at the time?