Off topic: Amy Winehouse: a cautionary tale...

[Dean Roddey]

 

The reason is that there is very little new ground to cover in music, especially rock 'n roll. We now know that nearly everything has been done, and nearly anything can be done. People are aware that there are no more limitations.

 

 

Many people probably thought that before the 60s happened, or before hip-hop happened, or before punk happened, etc... There will always be something new coming along. And the thing is, the music of the 60's wasn't tied to the movement because of the music, it was because of the words. If there was another movement, it could just as easily be driven by a guy with a guitar and a harmonica if he's out there speaking truth in a way that suddenly gets some issue across to a lot of people.

[BATCAT]

I thought this article was worth posting in this thread...

 

From the AP:

LOS ANGELES - A restraining order against the man who's been at Britney Spears' side during her downward spiral alleges that he drugged her, took over her finances and controlled the ravenous paparazzi "like a general."

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

The order against Sam Lutfi was based on a lengthy declaration from Spears' mother, Lynne, who says Spears met the 33-year-old in October 2007 and "essentially moved into Britney's home and has purported to take control of her life, home and finances."

 

The documents released by the court Tuesday ordered Lutfi to stay away from Spears. In a section of the order detailing previous harassment, Lynne Spears says Lutfi "drugged Britney, he has cut Britney's home phone lines and removed her cell phone chargers. He yells at her. He claims to control everything — Britney's business manager, her attorneys and the security guards at the gate."

 

Much of the 6-page declaration centers on the night of Jan. 28., just a few days before she was whisked to a hospital's psychiatric ward. She outlined increasingly bizarre behavior through the night and said her daughter asked at one point, "When do I get to see my babies?" to which Lutfi answered, "Wednesday."

 

Lynne Spears said she, her husband and a friend went to Britney's home, but security guards kept everyone but her out. Once inside, Lynne Spears said she found several paparazzi, that there had been "a big fight" with Lutfi, and that her daughter was crying.

 

"The paparazzi reported to Sam and addressed him with great respect. They treated him like a general."

 

She said during the evening, "Sam had told Britney she was an unfit mother, a piece of trash and a whore, that she cares more about Adnan, her current boyfriend, than she cares about her kids and that she does not deserve her kids."

 

It was unclear how Lynne Spears knew details of the fight.

 

Lynne Spears said Britney was not home when she first arrived and she understood Lutfi had disabled all of her daughter's cars to keep her from leaving. She said he ordered one of the photographers to take her away when he found out her parents were on their way to intervene.

 

Eventually, she said, "Britney returned and became very agitated and could not stop moving. She cleaned the house. She changed her clothes many times. She also changed her three dogs' clothes many times. Britney spoke to me in a tone and a level of understanding of a very young girl. Britney then picked up a bottle of pills and read the label and asked us, 'What does insomnia mean?'"

 

Lynne Spears said at one point, Lutfi told her, "You'd better learn that I control everything," and said he was the one giving Britney her medications and, "he told me if he weren't in the house to give Britney her medicine, she would kill herself."

 

She alleged that Lutfi theatened her. "Then he said to me, 'If you try to get rid of me, she'll be dead and I'll piss on her grave.'"

 

Throughout the night, she said Britney — who recently lost custody of her two young children to ex-husband Kevin Federline — kept asking when she could see them.

 

"What do I have to do to see them?" her mother quoted her as saying. "Sam responded, 'Take the pills I tell you to take.' Britney said, 'I don't like the pills and I don't like the psychiatrist. Can't I see another psychiatrist so I can see my babies?'"

 

At that point, Lynne Spears said, "Sam responded, 'If I told you to take 10 pills a day, you should do what I tell you to see your babies."

 

She said one time Lutfi raised his voice and said "Why don't you get back with Kevin (Federline)." Britney then said, "I'll do anything to get them back."

 

Spears was barred from contact with her children after she refused last month to relinquish them to representatives of Federline after a court-sanctioned visit.

 

[Jarick]

That doesn't seem like it could be true, but if it is, that's scary.

[soundwave106]

 

If another big cultural movement manifests, it likely won't have much to do with music. Music might be involved, but it probably won't be it's focus. The reason is that there is very little new ground to cover in music, especially rock 'n roll. We now know that nearly everything has been done, and nearly anything can be done. People are aware that there are no more limitations.

 

 

Nah, there will always be surprises. The 1960s was the art movement with perhaps the most impact in a long time, due to the social upheaval of the times, but I would argue that the rave / techno movement of the mid 1990s-early 2000s had about as much impact, and kind of similar end results, as the punk movement of the 1980s. The DIY / indie pop / emo / Internet ethos *is* the new movement, it's sort of unique in that the Balkanization is as never before, but we've been through the 1990s college alternative era already, so we should be sort of used to it...

 

Counter-culture "superstars" are weird. They almost get more famous after 10 or 20 years where people start forgetting the {censored} that always tops the pop charts, and focus on or re-discover the good stuff. I mean, what was Jimi Hendrix's Billboard rankings? (looks) OK... Purple Haze peaked at #65 on Billboard, as an example. Do people talk about #1 hitters in that era like The Fifth Dimension or Strawberry Alarm Clock as much? Nope. Likewise for The Ramones. Their highest charting single was #66, in the same year the top singles included Debby Boone and a disco version of the Star Wars theme. No kid buys a Debby Boone T-shirt at Hot Topic.

[kurdy]

 

Nah, there will always be surprises. The 1960s was the art movement with perhaps the most impact in a long time, due to the social upheaval of the times, but I would argue that the rave / techno movement of the mid 1990s-early 2000s had about as much impact, and kind of similar end results, as the punk movement of the 1980s. The DIY / indie pop / emo / Internet ethos *is* the new movement, it's sort of unique in that the Balkanization is as never before, but we've been through the 1990s college alternative era already, so we should be sort of used to it....

 

 

I would argue otherwise. Many of these counter-cultural movements never extended into the mainstream, and that's the difference. To people who were involved in those scenes, it might be profound, but I'd say most people were not aware of the rave/techno movement of the '90s. I'd say punk, hip-hop and grunge were probably the last trends to have any lasting impact. And the last of those three happened well over 15 years ago.

 

I will agree that the internet is the new movement, but as I said, that has less to do with the content, and more to do with its means of distribution. But it will be interesting to see whether any of these obscure DIY bands will be "discovered" 20 years from now. Doesn't seem very likely at this point, but I guess it's always a possibility.

[BlueStrat]

The 60s were unique for so many reasons. I agree with kurdy- there may be times that have the same profound cultural impact, but it won't look anything like the 60s. This is because a series of events happened to converge at the same time.

 

1. The cold war was in full swing. The opening of the decade brought us to the brink of nuclear war with Russia via the Cuban Missile Crisis. The cold war created all kinds if things-a constant state of fear and cultural suppression, probably the Kennedy assassination, and

 

2. our involvement in Viet Nam. This war had good intentions, but it had the misfortune of occuring at the end of European colonialism in SE Asia, and the average person in S. Vietnam didn't see a dime's worth of difference between us and the French controlling their country, and didn't have the will to fight for it. Without going into the myriad of ways we botched that war, suffice it to say that it was a defining event of the 60s.

 

3) The Civil Rights movement. Until 1963 (hard to believe, isn't it?) segregation was still legal in parts of the country. Black people were regularly and routinely being denied voting rights, public access rights, and so on. MLK and others stimulated the sense of injustice among young white idealists. John Kennedy was already encouraging young white kids to increase their vision of their country and the world (he created the Peace Corps, for example).

 

4. Quantum leaps in technological achievement. We literally went from sending our first satellite into orbit in 1959 to having men land on the moon and come back again safely in just 10 years. To put that achievement in perspective, it would be a greater achievement than had the Wright brothers gone from thier crude first plane to the F-4 Phantom in the same time period. The cultural byproducts we got from the space program are too many to list.

 

5. The sexual revolution. Back in about 1961 or 62, the birth control pill was created. This meant that people, particulaly women, could have sex with whomever and whenever she chose to, without fear of getting pregnant. This created a radical loosening up of sexual mores, which soon spread to music and film, and led to other forms of social experimentation with art, drugs, and especially created

 

6. Feminism. Women were casting off the traditional role of home maker or teacher or librarian. They wanted a place at the table of power in all areas of life-family, political, corporate.

 

All of these things-the anti-war movement, "free love," hightened social awareness and experimentation, an increased sense of place in the world, and so on created a cultural petrie dish for the explosin of music and art that occured from 1964 to 1970 and beyond. Those conditions will never be here again. Maybe others will somedy that hold equal impact on the culture, but it's hard to see it now.

[BlueStrat]

 

I will agree that the internet is the new movement, but as I said, that has less to do with the content, and more to do with its means of distribution.

 

 

Spot on.

 

I saw a political interview last night after the primaries; the interviewer was talking to college kids about the 'youth vote' and how energized young people are. The reason? Barak Obama and some of the other candidates are using YouTube and MySpace to speak to the kids. The interviewer asked what message the candidates were putting out that was so exciting, and none of the kids interviewed could articulate what the message was. They were just enthralled that the internet was being used; therefore the candididates were somehow 'speaking to them.'

 

Canadian sociologist Marshall McLuhan said it over 40 years ago: the medium has become the message.

[HeartfeltDawn]

Someone finally mentions Brian Wilson. Hurrah. You go back through history and you see that Wilson along with his brothers was physically and mentally abused by a {censored}ed-up father. Wilson's mother turned to booze. His father beat them up. Wilson was rendered semi-deaf in one ear when he was a kid on account of one particularly savage beating. Anything that traumatic will cause issues in later life. Most addicts are trying to use substances to cover over their problems. Wilson used booze, drugs, progressed to overeating, all sorts.

 

One of the truths about being {censored}ed-up is that the progin of those behaviours comes from childhood in most cases. Brian Wilson is obvious. Maybe Heath Ledger can say the same. Perhaps Amy Winehouse can say the same.

 

The media does have a role and I'll demonstrate it here. The first link here is from the Daily Mail in 2006. It's bemoaning her thin state and publishes a picture of her old curvy self (when she really did look great). That newspaper calls for her to go back to her older self, the buxom self.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=397803&in_page_id=1773

 

Now fast forward to the Daily Mail today. Now they're saying she looks healthier than ever!

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=512567&in_page_id=1773

 

Look at those pictures of her throughout the years. The media gives a different approval of each figure. One year she's great as a buxom lass, now today she looks healthier than ever even though she's skinnier than her buxom days and plastered in make-up (NB: the excessive use of make-up is a classic psychological defence mechanism for someone who is lacking in self-esteem and a good sense of who they are as a person).

 

My point is that the media is very harsh on women especially. Britney might be fantastically rich but can any of you honestly say you'd take all her money in exchange for years of being plastered over newspapers and magazines and having photographers follow you?

 

 

 

 

If you end up a celebrity, you've got a new access to drugs and the sort of low-rent living that passes for high fashion. If Heath Ledger hadn't been into the drugs, he might have hit booze or gambling. So many different ways to {censored} up. It's the origins of the problem that should be addressed. To me, Amy Winehouse screams of emotional problems from the past, way before she ever sang and hit the newspapers. A chick with a history of appearence changes, anorexia, mad exercise regimes, drugs, a fairly quick marriage and whatnot ain't just {censored}ed up because she got a couple of bad reviews.

 

I've never wanted fame. I'd hate to appear on TV regularly, have gossip columnists talking about me. I always feel sorry for the Royal Family. Imagine being a media figure from the moment you're born to the day you die. I'd not trade my life for their life.

[Booya Tribe]

 

I would argue otherwise. Many of these counter-cultural movements never extended into the mainstream, and that's the difference. To people who were involved in those scenes, it might be profound, but I'd say most people were not aware of the rave/techno movement of the '90s. I'd say punk, hip-hop and grunge were probably the last trends to have any lasting impact. And the last of those three happened well over 15 years ago. I will agree that the internet is the new movement, but as I said, that has less to do with the content, and more to do with its means of distribution. But it will be interesting to see whether any of these obscure DIY bands will be "discovered" 20 years from now. Doesn't seem very likely at this point, but I guess it's always a possibility.

 

 

Rave culture definitely extended into mainstream pop music, but I would agree that the "cultural" aspect of it did not... but how much of the hippie culture really extended into mainstream culture? It is always the part of the culture that you can buy that extends furthest into mainstream culture (ie: clothing/fashion, and music, to a limit), and the rest stays in the fringes, because it is not marketable.

 

I don't mean this to be an absolute statement, I do think that the subculture of the 60's had more impact on mainstream culture than any subculture since, but I don't think that the "fringe" elements of it got much further in than those of any other subculture.

[sabriel9v]

 

Spot on. I saw a political interview last night after the primaries; the interviewer was talking to college kids about the 'youth vote' and how energized young people are. The reason? Barak Obama and some of the other candidates are using YouTube and MySpace to speak to the kids. The interviewer asked what message the candidates were putting out that was so exciting, and none of the kids interviewed could articulate what the message was. They were just enthralled that the internet was being used; therefore the candididates were somehow 'speaking to them.' Canadian sociologist Marshall McLuhan said it over 40 years ago: the medium has become the message.

 

 

Funny you mention myspace and youtube. I've seen a few complaints in the forum about how these devices do not repay artists for fueling them, but if you really look at it, myspace and youtube are multi-purpose devices. Obama has stuff on youtube and so does Clinton. When Biden was in the race he had an elaborate youtube profile set up. I almost feel like the debate about youtube and myspace owing artists money is a dull and moot point. Youtube and myspace have their hands in so many other things and have made it clear all forms of entertainment, politics, and culture is what they aim to give their users.

[kurdy]

Spot on. I saw a political interview last night after the primaries; the interviewer was talking to college kids about the 'youth vote' and how energized young people are. The reason? Barak Obama and some of the other candidates are using YouTube and MySpace to speak to the kids. The interviewer asked what message the candidates were putting out that was so exciting, and none of the kids interviewed could articulate what the message was. They were just enthralled that the internet was being used; therefore the candididates were somehow 'speaking to them.' Canadian sociologist Marshall McLuhan said it over 40 years ago: the medium has become the message.

 

That's easy. The message is the same every election year. Either "the country's broken" (for the party not in power), or "the country's doing fine, but could use improvement." Of course, the message is always followed by, "vote for me and I'll fix everything."

[BlueStrat]

That's easy. The message is the same every election year. Either "the country's broken" (for the party not in power), or "the country's doing fine, but could use improvement." Of course, the message is always followed by, "vote for me and I'll fix everything."

 

I like how they're all the "candidate for change!"

 

Yeah, after they're elected, that's what we'll have in our pockets.

:blah:

[crazytrain]

I'm used to it. I spread it out over the whole day, from 8 am to 8 PM. I'm also on a pain contract, which I wanted before I'd agree to taking the stuff. It says I will only use the stuff under a doctor's regular supervision, I will only get it from one place, the scrip has to last 30 days, and if I abuse it I get cut off. It sucks, though. I know I'm getting physically hooked on them. I just wish they'd give me some new knees and be done with it, but they want me to wait.

 

Man I know what you mean,I just had a knee rebuilt and the doc keeps the Lortab's coming,10 mg! I love them and have no side effects from them aside from an extremely heavy high after taking a couple.I can't walk without them though and they are talking 2nd surgery now!

[soundwave106]

I would argue otherwise. Many of these counter-cultural movements never extended into the mainstream, and that's the difference. To people who were involved in those scenes, it might be profound, but I'd say most people were not aware of the rave/techno movement of the '90s. I'd say punk, hip-hop and grunge were probably the last trends to have any lasting impact. And the last of those three happened well over 15 years ago.

 

Rave culture extended into the mainstream in pretty much any first world nation other than the United States. At least as much as punk or hip-hop has. In Europe, techno is the pop, although guitar-based music is making a comeback compared to say early 2000s. Although techno started in the United States (20 years ago or so), techno's always been undergroundish here for some reason. So far, I consider this the last big movement, even though the United States didn't leap on it too much. Yeah, the clothing and PLUR etc. didn't extend much into the mainstream, but that applies to the biggest youth movement, the hippies, too, as others have pointed out.

 

If we count grunge as a "new trend", you got to count emo as well. I saw grunge as a stereotype enveloping only one element of the alternative / college rock takeover in the 1990s. Likewise, emo is but one element of the indie / college / Internet trend. The 1990s alternative revolution got more airplay, but that's because radio is "playing it safe" these days by marketing to tweens, generic urban, and older pop-country listeners. Because of this, I don't know how history will write the cards. Everyone knew of Nirvana. There are hipster bands that every hipster knows about, like say an Interpol or Death Cab For Cutie. But the general public is barely aware of many of these super-indie groups. Only a few bands (like say Radiohead) are both hipster-approved and known by the public (and Radiohead actually is an example of a 1990s band). As pointed out by many, not everyone knew of Jimi Hendrix when he was alive either, though, so...

[BlueStrat]

 

If we count grunge as a "new trend", you got to count emo as well.

 

 

Maybe, but not to the same degree. I never saw grade school boys running around with skin tight pants and eye liner. One of the reasons grunge becams so big is that fashionwise, it was easy to grasp and sell. Flannel shirts, jeans, work boots, Mexican peasant pullovers...actually, the same stuff we wore in the 60s. Emo is far more a niche market, a large one to be sure, but a smaller niche than grunge was.

Culturally, grunge was punk's younger cousin, and put rock and roll back in the hands of unpolished high school kids following the pretty boy hair, makeup, spandex and sweep arpeggios of the eighties.

[soundwave106]

 

Maybe, but not to the same degree. I never saw grade school boys running around with skin tight pants and eye liner.

 

 

Dress-wise, full-blown emo isn't worn everyday. Then again, the same applied to full-blown punk, goth, or rave. Probably hippie stuff, too, for all I know. As you point out, grunge wear isn't that much different than ordinary wear.

 

And, yes, emo is also a smaller niche than grunge was. It's probably most comparable to, say, gothic stuff at its peak, although probably it won't have the staying power. (It's amazing that gothic fashion and culture has stayed relatively popular so long, even through several wildly different music styles, with very similar dress.)

[sabriel9v]

Rave culture extended into the mainstream in pretty much any first world nation other than the United States. At least as much as punk or hip-hop has. In Europe, techno is the pop, although guitar-based music is making a comeback compared to say early 2000s. Although techno started in the United States (20 years ago or so), techno's always been undergroundish here for some reason. So far, I consider this the last big movement, even though the United States didn't leap on it too much. Yeah, the clothing and PLUR etc. didn't extend much into the mainstream, but that applies to the biggest youth movement, the hippies, too, as others have pointed out. If we count grunge as a "new trend", you got to count emo as well. I saw grunge as a stereotype enveloping only one element of the alternative / college rock takeover in the 1990s. Likewise, emo is but one element of the indie / college / Internet trend. The 1990s alternative revolution got more airplay, but that's because radio is "playing it safe" these days by marketing to tweens, generic urban, and older pop-country listeners. Because of this, I don't know how history will write the cards. Everyone knew of Nirvana. There are hipster bands that every hipster knows about, like say an Interpol or Death Cab For Cutie. But the general public is barely aware of many of these super-indie groups. Only a few bands (like say Radiohead) are both hipster-approved and known by the public (and Radiohead actually is an example of a 1990s band). As pointed out by many, not everyone knew of Jimi Hendrix when he was alive either, though, so...

 

+1

If corporate America finds out that something in the underground has momentum and can make them more money, it "magically" filters into the mainstream.

[Booya Tribe]

 

Dress-wise, full-blown emo isn't worn everyday. Then again, the same applied to full-blown punk, goth, or rave. Probably hippie stuff, too, for all I know. As you point out, grunge wear isn't that much different than ordinary wear. And, yes, emo is also a smaller niche than grunge was. It's probably most comparable to, say, gothic stuff at its peak, although probably it won't have the staying power. (It's amazing that gothic fashion and culture has stayed relatively popular so long, even through several wildly different music styles, with very similar dress.)

 

 

Emo fashion is actually very popular for girls... a lot more so that guys. You can outfit yourself emo at Target or any number of stores at the mall. It is strange that emo has taken on this goth thing. The modern "emo" fashion is sort of a bunch of fashion movements from the last 15 years of underground music all rolled up into one.

 

What started as "emo" music is also nothing like what people who are "emo" now are into. Sunny Day Real Estate, Slint, Joan of Arc, Capn' Jazz, Compund Red, etc, were all a lot more adventurous musically than the bands now, which are basically a sadder sounding version of pop punk, or otherwise, just metal. Heck, Fugazi played a big role in the formation of "Emo."

 

I think the goth element of emo comes from the hardcore bands that incorporated a new wave influence and died ther hair black, wore tight pants, etc.

[sabriel9v]

Emo fashion is actually very popular for girls... a lot more so that guys. You can outfit yourself emo at Target or any number of stores at the mall. It is strange that emo has taken on this goth thing. The modern "emo" fashion is sort of a bunch of fashion movements from the last 15 years of underground music all rolled up into one. What started as "emo" music is also nothing like what people who are "emo" now are into. Sunny Day Real Estate, Slint, Joan of Arc, Capn' Jazz, Compund Red, etc, were all a lot more adventurous musically than the bands now, which are basically a sadder sounding version of pop punk, or otherwise, just metal. Heck, Fugazi played a big role in the formation of "Emo." I think the goth element of emo comes from the hardcore bands that incorporated a new wave influence and died ther hair black, wore tight pants, etc.

 

THANK YOU!

The term emo has largely been misconstrued and misunderstood. The sounds of Sunny Day Real Estate, Glassjaw, At the Drive, and several other "emo-core" bands have nothing to do with the bull{censored} called emo now. AFI, My Chemical Romance, and the like bear little to no resemblance to these bands.

[Booya Tribe]

THANK YOU! The term emo has largely been misconstrued and misunderstood. The sounds of Sunny Day Real Estate, Glassjaw, At the Drive, and several other "emo-core" bands have nothing to do with the bull{censored} called emo now. AFI, My Chemical Romance, and the like bear little to no resemblance to these bands.

 

What's funny is I have never been into the genre myself, aside from owning a Slint record a while back (though I think a lot of people would yell at me for calling them emo), but friends in high school were into it, it was big where I lived growing up, and it was unavoidable when I was in a band that was touring in the late 90's and 00's. I do think the old "emo" music was a lot more interesting than the new stuff though.

[Dean Roddey]

No matter what you started with, eventually you end up with Spandau Ballet, and another generation takes over.

[soundwave106]

THANK YOU! The term emo has largely been misconstrued and misunderstood. The sounds of Sunny Day Real Estate, Glassjaw, At the Drive, and several other "emo-core" bands have nothing to do with the bull{censored} called emo now. AFI, My Chemical Romance, and the like bear little to no resemblance to these bands.

 

Except that they all, in the end, basically pop-punk. Yeah, even the "screamo" folks (pop-punk with some guy screaming, in a nutshell). Earlier guys did sound more indie and less slick, which in this genre is definitely more interesting.

 

I personally threw AFI in what I call "SoCal punk" aka Epitah / Fat Wreck Chords punk until recently... SoCal punk to me is more interesting. Damn trend-jumpers.

[sabriel9v]

Except that they all, in the end, basically pop-punk. Yeah, even the "screamo" folks (pop-punk with some guy screaming, in a nutshell). Earlier guys did sound more indie and less slick, which in this genre is definitely more interesting. I personally threw AFI in what I call "SoCal punk" aka Epitah / Fat Wreck Chords punk until recently... SoCal punk to me is more interesting. Damn trend-jumpers.

 

I don't know if I agree with that. Glassjaw has never descended into the pop punk category. ATDI just plain broke up. I think Sunny Day did too, but correct me on that. Maybe early AFI could be considered more hardcore and punk, but it's really not. Black Flag is the seminal SoCal punk band and they were so much more raw than Danny Havoc and his cronies. I feel there's a certain amount of aggression related to punk, but more importantly a relentless drive that defines the genre. Relentless and energetic drive to the point where it manifests itself onstage as physical aggression, momentum, and violence. Bands like AFI and My Chemical Romance have definitely sold out though. I know it's cliche to say that, but they really did.

[soundwave106]

 

I don't know if I agree with that. Glassjaw has never descended into the pop punk category. ATDI just plain broke up.

 

 

Some of the emo bands admittedly had more complex structures (often with an ethos dipped in indie rock / college rock), ATDI certainly was and that applies to some of the screamo bands (Thursday for instance). It kind of blurs together after a while.

 

 

Maybe early AFI could be considered more hardcore and punk, but it's really not. Black Flag is the seminal SoCal punk band and they were so much more raw than Danny Havoc and his cronies.

 

 

Black Flag however I think of traditional hardcore, it's a lot more shouty and aggressive. What I'm describing, and what AFI was, is more, er, melodic hardcore punk. It's more a "feel" than a location, honestly, it just seems like Southern California is where a lot of these bands come from, and Epitaph / Fat Wreck Chords is where a lot of these bands reside (especially Epitaph). Another way I could describe this type of punk is Bad Religion style, seems like their blueprint is used by a lot of bands including early AFI.

 

 

Yeah, AFI "sold out" (or, in less insulting terms, changed styles towards a more commercial angle) in my book. My Chemical Romance -- were they anything beyond pop-punk? I don't know their earliest stuff but they've been pretty consistent from what I've heard.

[sabriel9v]

Some of the emo bands admittedly had more complex structures (often with an ethos dipped in indie rock / college rock), ATDI certainly was and that applies to some of the screamo bands (Thursday for instance). It kind of blurs together after a while. Black Flag however I think of traditional hardcore, it's a lot more shouty and aggressive. What I'm describing, and what AFI was, is more, er, melodic hardcore punk. It's more a "feel" than a location, honestly, it just seems like Southern California is where a lot of these bands come from, and Epitaph / Fat Wreck Chords is where a lot of these bands reside (especially Epitaph). Another way I could describe this type of punk is Bad Religion style, seems like their blueprint is used by a lot of bands including early AFI. Yeah, AFI "sold out" (or, in less insulting terms, changed styles towards a more commercial angle) in my book. My Chemical Romance -- were they anything beyond pop-punk? I don't know their earliest stuff but they've been pretty consistent from what I've heard.

 

Ahh I see. The Epitaph sound is definitely a more melodic and softer punk sound.

 

I will say I don't like using the term sell out anymore. There are lots of implications attached to that and saying a band sells out can mean many things. But I wouldn't be surprised if AFI collaborated with the Neptunes and Travis Barker now. Actually I could totally see that in the future for them. Bottom line is they gained a large and core fanbase by being true to themselves and now they have abandoned that to make hits. And you can't say it's to pay back the label for any "loans." AFI had far surpassed that point and still came out with recycled fodder for albums. btw Remember my old Band A/Band B post about one band being true to themselves and the other band being completely business oriented? Well the business oriented one just split up