Page 2 of 8
Negative Thunderdome: Emo vs. Grunge
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:46 am
by tommydski_Archive
Double Post. Here's a picture of some capybara -
Negative Thunderdome: Emo vs. Grunge
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:53 am
by Tommy Alpha_Archive
Well, indeed- a few weeks ago in peckham me and some friends were called in quick succession 'hippies' and then 'goth punks' by a charming young chap who threatened to stab us all in the eyes.
I guess this isn't really much different. apart from the threats of stabbings of course.
Negative Thunderdome: Emo vs. Grunge
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:57 am
by sparky_Archive
Tommy Alpha wrote:Well, indeed- a few weeks ago in peckham me and some friends were called in quick succession 'hippies' and then 'goth punks' by a charming young chap who threatened to stab us all in the eyes.
I'm happy to hear that Peckham courting rituals have not changed in my absence.
Negative Thunderdome: Emo vs. Grunge
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:07 am
by andyman_Archive
tommydski wrote:Well, that's exactly the problem with these labels.
"Hipster", "Emo" and "Goth" just ends up meaning anything and everything you dislike bound in a neat little package for you to vent your own personal insecurities on. As a description of a type of music, it is now completely barren because it is up to each individual's hatred to decide what defines it. So "Emo" can mean effeminate, camp, over-dramatic, over-produced, young, homosexual - whatever you want to hate this morning.
Gawd, the labelling of music is really silly. Except Crap or Not Crap of course!
I remember when emo was all about wearing black with matted black hair and whining with the voice of a fourteen year old girl. It's changed slightly to be more about fashion now, hasn't it?
See, it's all about what's popular with the youth - I see emo as the "new grunge".
Negative Thunderdome: Emo vs. Grunge
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:37 am
by Wood Goblin_Archive
Depends on how you're defining the terms. If you're using the mainstream definitions (i.e., Pearl Jam vs. My Chemical Romance), then grunge is better by a few steps.
But grunge, as it was defined in the late 80s and pre-Nevermind 90s, included Mudhoney, Green River, Tad, Screaming Trees, etc., as well as some of the sonically similar AmpRep bands, like the Cows. Rites of Spring were okay, but they don't hold a candle to the awesomeness that is Tad.
I don't think I've ever seen Fugazi or Jawbox classified as an emo band.
Negative Thunderdome: Emo vs. Grunge
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:17 am
by emmanuelle cunt_Archive
andyman wrote:
See, it's all about what's popular with the youth - I see emo as the "new grunge".
Nah. Emo is the new hair metal. But worse.
Negative Thunderdome: Emo vs. Grunge
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:20 am
by tmidgett_Archive
Emo is way worse. Even Chris Cornell never sounded like he was actually crying.
Negative Thunderdome: Emo vs. Grunge
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:33 am
by kerble_Archive
tmidgett wrote:Emo is way worse. Even Chris Cornell never sounded like he was actually crying.
yes, it was more of an "about to sneeze" type vocal sound.
Negative Thunderdome: Emo vs. Grunge
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:02 am
by tommydski_Archive
emmanuelle cunt wrote:tommydski wrote:
See, it's all about what's popular with the youth - I see emo as the "new grunge".
Nah. Emo is the new hair metal. But worse.
I think andyman said this, not me.
Negative Thunderdome: Emo vs. Grunge
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:09 am
by night_tools_Archive
Grunge
vs
Emo
Grunge wins...
