June 30, 2010

• Emo!

  (or: The Bastardisation of Emo. A Refrain.)

   

  David Moss: Emo Apologist. It’s been three years since I addressed this whole deal. Last time it was more of a rant. This time I’m gonna try and be a bit more analytical about it.

  Being in Japan it’s hard for me to tell for sure but, it seems, the “emo” fad has (thankfully) faded from the mainstream and slunk off to the Commercialised Subculture Fad’s Retirement Home to be forgotten until some retro-revival in 20 years time. But, for me, “emo” always meant something more and the inability of the mass-public to see beyond the media’s misappropriations has long been a source of frustration and contention for me. Recently it’s been playing on my mind again and writing is generally my outlet. So this is more for me than anyone else. I’d love to make my case on emo to the entire world but that’s unlikely to happen. Nor would much of the world care (nor should they, really.) But I care. So I hope whoever reads this will (if they’ve not heard my emo-apologetics before) at least find it interesting, maybe offer food for thought on the topic.

  My updates always end up way too long so I’m not gonna go into detail about the history of emo. Basic overview; first came punk. Later on, hardcore. Then, in the 80s, came an underground music scene birthed stylistically from punk and hardcore, but with an emphasis on expressing emotions normally not dealt with by those other two genres. Intensely introspective lyrics, sometimes sung gently, sometimes screamed, sometimes both, set to a more melodic punk sound. “Emotive Hardcore.” Eventually shortened to “emocore” or just “emo.” The philosophy was rooted in intimate, personal connections between performer and listener, through the intensity and an unashamed expression of heart-on-sleeve emotionality. Later the emo banner was taken up by alternative bands who drifted away from the hardcore roots, taking emo in a more indie-rock direction, but maintaining the sense of bleeding-heart vulnerability. Emo began to encapsulate a number of sounds, from skate-punk to alt.rock to post-grunge to post-hardcore. The common thread that weaved them together, however, was always a sense of extreme emotionality. Be it diary-like outpourings set to acoustic melodies to angtsy, broken-hearted power-pop to bitter-sweet, introspective alt. rock to dark, visceral post-hardcore “screamo” the theme of intense and honest emotionality remained, in various forms. Hence “emo” became embraced (sometimes positively, sometimes pejoratively) as a term to define these bands and the fans they connected with. It also became a by-word for anyone who portrayed these characteristics, whether they were into the “scene” or not. Either way one who connected (or potentially connected) with this scene on a genuine level would be one who also was deeply introspective, thoughtful, highly emotional (perhaps overly so) and in need of music as an outlet for their more-intense-than-usual feelings.

  The problem comes in the devaluing of the original philosophy and definition. It’s a difficult thing to debate as, since emo’s inception, people have rallied against the term. Outside of the scene and the fanbase those who disliked emo-types, feeling them to be melodramatic and over-sensitive, freely used “emo” as an insult which lead to some embracing the term happily (much as some black people embrace the N-word, and some gay people embrace the Q-word, et al) and some shied away from the term entirely, denouncing it. Some found it inappropriate to use the term to define a genre, since bands that played “emo music” were often very different, stylistically. Some found the attempt at labelling small-minded and insulting. Some say it’s just a word to help commercialise bands with a certain commonality in their songwriting. Some just didn’t like the negative connotations of the term. Whatever the objection the term has always been somewhat controversial. In recent years, however, the term has taken on a significance and mass-appeal (or dis-appeal) that has led to what I call The Bastardisation of Emo.

  Here’s how any subculture or scene works. You get a bunch of like-minded, artistic types coming together and producing something. In this case, music. Over time more and more people who connect with this subculture or scene get involved, they find that sense of belonging and resonance we all look for (whether we’ll admit it or not.) But then you get the “posers.” The people who come in based on image. They gravitate towards this subculture/scene not because they truly connect with it but because it’s become fashionable and popular (or, for the pretentiously contrary-types, because it’s unfashionable and unpopular.) Whatever their reasons, for these people, it’s not about a serious and deep connection. It’s about look. Image. It’s about feeling like a part of something without really going through the self-exploration necessary to know whether this is the place for you or not. There’s not been a single scene immune to this trend. But, to me, it is exceptionally divergent to be so shallow when it comes to “emo” and here’s why. Think about what “emo,” the term, means (or, rather, should mean/meant.) The connotations. “Emo” means (or, at the very least, implies) “emotionality.” Not just common, every-day feelings that every flesh and blood human feels but emotionality of an exceptional level. An extreme level. It just seems to be how some of us are wired; an almost bipolar-like tendency to experience the full gamut of human emotion so acutely it may seem kinda weird to those around us. I’m being rather melodramatic here, making it sound like some kinda condition. In simple terms; people feel. Some people feel more acutely/easily/intensely/broadly than others. The people at the more extreme ends of this spectrum, that’s what I’m talking about. Anyway, if you are so inclined the likelihood is you’ll gravitate towards the “emo” groups and styles because they are usually kindred spirits, and (well, see the above paragraphs.) But… how can one truly be “emo” if one is so shallow as to join a scene for for fashionable reasons? It’s not just a misappropriation, it’s downright contradictory. Whatever else an “emo” person may be (over-sensitive, whiny, melodramatic, withdrawn, weird) the one thing they can’t be is shallow. It is contrary to the very traits that (depending on your personal opinion, for better, or worse) make up “an emo.”

  These days the term is applied liberally, and with no real thought or insight. At some point (as with all scenes) the emo tag began to be applied to more and more diluted definitions until it became what it is today. An ignorant media, always keen to apply a dumbed-down soundbite to whatever it can, bestowed the term “emo” on anything that stylistically resembled the emo-styled music of the time. Only they weren’t looking very deeply into it and, as a result, any band that sounded anything like the multitude of genres that espoused emo philosophies in their music got tagged “emo.” Regardless of content so long as a band sounded a little alt.rock/skate punk/post-hardcore/acoustic rock they’d get tagged as “emo.” Which became virtually every band for a certain time. More importantly (and more divergently) for MTV and its brethren was the look. Much like the idea of “emo” as a genre the sense of style adopted by the fan-base has been extremely diverse. When the commercialisation struck the pseudo-goth punk look was in. Crazy hair, tight drainpipes, piercings, make-up, etc. Henceforth to be “emo” was to now adhere to a fashion. And so True Emo died. When one makes a subculture specifically devoted to the internal, the introspective, the emotional, about the external, about look and fashion, there’s something very wrong. So then came the posers. The waves and waves of teenagers following the trends, adopting the looks. But ask them about the internal? Blank stares. Some of them would try and play the part. They’d suddenly try to write (crappy) poetry in an attempt to look deep. They’d apply plasters to self-inflicted (and none-existent) wounds to look tortured. They made it an image first and a depth-of-character thing…. second? Third? Fourth? Last? Try, “never even placed.” Yes, for these “emos” real emotion, real feeling, real depth, is totally unimportant so long as you have the look. I cannot express how mind-boggling this is to me.

  What is worse, for me, is that despite the glaringly obvious contradiction in terms “emo” has become adopted as the term for these kids. Most people never knew emo before the Bastardisation. They don’t know the history. They just take what the media tells them and the media says “eye-liner, crazy hair, tight jeans = emo.” So people hate these phonies and look on them with disdain. I don’t blame them for an instant. I do too. But think about it; for anyone to be a poser, a fake, a phony, they have to be imitating something genuine, minus the genuine. Ergo, for the much-maligned poser-emo to exist there must be True Emos, of whom these kids are just cardboard cut-out wannabes. Just like any other subculture. But in their ignorance most people don’t even realise there is more to emo, was more, than the shallow teenage trend that leapt to the youth-scene forefront in recent years. And most people don’t care to know. They like their judgements to be quick and visually-based. They’re so comfortable with their own uninformed, shallow definition of “emo” they aren’t concerned with hearing someone like me explain the logical and conceptual fallacies of it. Some are more savvy; the term “scene-kid” is more appropriately used to refer to one who is all about the scene. But some actively want to be seen as emo, specifically emo, without actually possessing the character, just cos they think it’s cool/will get them dates/is just another way to rebel, whatever. I’ve always called them “scene-mos.” I guess the problem here lies in never knowing for real who is genuine and who isn’t. Only the person in question knows that for sure. My point is simple, though; regardless of whether you dress “scene” or not. Regardless of whether you care for the term “emo” or not. Regardless of all the external stuff… “it’s what’s inside that counts.” Genuine emo stuff will naturally attract genuine emos. It will also attract shallow posers. Those genuine emos may be scene, they may not, but it is their personality that defines them, something one can never judge from the outside. The posers will always try to be scene because that is all they really care about. The genuine ones will not always be so easily spotted, will be rounded human beings with other interests. The posers will be 1-dimensional cookie-cutter beings. The genuines will be about the music first, and the internal. The posers will be about the image first, and the external. The genuine ones will grow, change, but they will always be who they are, they will always be “emo” inside. The posers will move onto a new fad in a few years.

  Me, I came late to the emo thing. Early enough to get in before the mass-commercialisation but I’ve always been one to spend a long time soul-searching before settling on whether something was for me or not. I learnt about emo in my first year of uni, in 2003. My fencing buddy Drew was into the music and pointed me in a few directions. It was an epiphany for me, as ridiculous as that sounds. Here were bands playing music a loved, from positions I could really relate to. Here was a potential scene I finally felt was right for me. Introspective, sensitive, intensely emotional, a little weird…? Welcome home! It was the music first and foremost for me but later I found myself finally feeling I’d found myself in all of this and comfortable with my identification. Now few people I know can separate me from my ‘look.’ There are elements of the scene I embrace. There are elements I reject. There are emo-tagged bands I love. There are some I don’t care for. There are none-emo musicians I like. I’m 30 years old as of this March and I still feel right about this “emo” thing. I guess this is important to me because it took me a long time to find where I belonged amongst subcultures, if at all. I don’t care of someone dresses a certain way. I don’t care if they like or hate the term, “emo.” What’s important being “emo” (or, if you hate the term, this hitherto unnamed emotional nature) is who you are inside. Exactly the same goes for the bands and music in question. Substance, not style. Emo can have both, or it can have just substance, but it can’t be just style. The misappropriated use of “emo” isn’t gonna go away. But I really wish people would give more thought to the words they use and not just accept uninformed media terminology. If people find sensitive, heart-on-sleeve, emotional types annoying, fair play. If people’ve been reading this thinking “Dave, what is this pussy-shit you’re on about” and wanna hate on emo I really don’t mind. I’d just like them to hate on the right thing, for the right reasons.

   

  The Last Of The (E)Mohicans.

   

  ---

   

  Day 3: Your Favourite TV Show

   

  OK, so Day 3 came several days after Day 2. To be honest I got bored. Anyway, after getting the emo thing off my chest for the some-big-number-eth time, and hardly exercising the art of brevity in doing so, I’ll keep this short. I’m mainly into cult stuff, be it comedy, sci-fi or fantasy. Well thought-out, imaginative stuff that touches your mind, heart or maybe both. Comedy: alternative British comedy, usually the abstract, somewhat surrealist, and often satirical stuff. The Day Today, Garth Marenghi’s Darkplace and The Mighty Boosh take prime position. I like to watch a fair few cartoons/anime but my current faves are Naruto and Avatar:The Last Airbender. Both are aimed at a young demograph but both transcend that demograph in terms of character development and themes. But perhaps my major TV love-affair was with Joss Whedon’s alternative reality known informally as the Buffyverse. Buffy The Vampire Slayer and it’s brother show, Angel. Easily the two shows I watched most devotedly between 1998 and 2005. The bloody awful 1992 movie nearly stopped me from ever getting into Buffy but, thankfully, my brother caught and episode and just started watching one day. I saw him watching and started watching myself and we were both fans by the end of our first episode. A fantasy-infused reality, given emotional depth via the grounding of the supernatural in real-life issues, usually well-written, highly relatable and (once you get truly into it) highly personal. The fantasy and liberal use of applicable metaphor (highschool as hell, etc) made Buffy and Angel cool and intelligent but the heart, for me, lay in the integrity of the show as a character-driven story. Buffy and Angel could be amusingly goofy, ironically ridiculous, defiantly original, viscerally real and the emoest of emo. But without the integrity, the ability to really believe in that world and those characters, it wouldn’t have meant half as much to me. Yep, those shows were my faves!

   

  • 5:10 am
  • 1 Comment