Whilst emo has never been mentioned in any form of media at all!

In your OWN FIRST media link it says, “… They regard themselves as a cool, young sub-set of the Goths. … ”

In your very second media link it says, ” … The Emos – short for Emotional – regard themselves as a cool, young sub-set of the Goths. … ” & ” … Elder Goths, as opposed to Baby Bats, who are the under-30s. … ”

All hail the brand new sub-genre Emo that’s based upon the Goth genre.

Get it?

you’re repeating points I’ve already addressed over and over.

You’re projecting.

All underground music is sub-genre?

Speaking of which, this just goes to show that you haven’t been listening.

The point is, once again, is that it’s all been done before. It doesn’t matter if you define it as a sub-genre or not. There hasn’t been a new, distinctive, mainstream genre in over a decade that compares to decades past. The only thing you have to offer is desperate things like Emo, Goth, Dubstep and Mashups (based upon sampling other genres so by its very definition it’s a subgenre).

Once again... if you asked average people to discern 50′s music from 80′s music, the overwhelming majority would be able to VERY easily do it based on genre style alone. That’s certainly NOT the case nowadays and you’ve yet to address or explain that.

Because… you can’t. And, try getting away from your computer for a while and waltz into a Goth club and ask them if they think Goth or Emo “defined” the 00′s for the general public. They’ll laugh you out of the club.

Your anecdotal experience doesn’t match what was going on for the majority of the public. Grunge was a very well known genre and mentioned directly by name on the cover of Rolling Stone, Time, SPIN, Newsweek, etc., etc…during the early and mid 90′s.

Whilst emo has never been mentioned in any form of media at all!
* Stoned to death for being an emo: NINETY Iraqi students killed for having ‘strange hair and tight clothes’
* EMO cult warning for parents
* Emo music attacked over teen suicide (I remember really similar complaints about grunge after Kurt’s suicide).
* Eye, eye! There are no fringe benefits for emos (Health hazards from haircuts apparently…I’m fairly sure the pun-filled title is just as likely a health hazard).

The biggest hits today (in near 2013) could have very easily been the same hits produced in the very late 90′s and early 2000′s and most of the general public would know the distinctive difference anymore. You can’t easily take a hit from the 80′s and have the general public get it mixed it up with a hit from the 50′s (or even the 70′s for that matter) because they’re too distinctive from each other.

I already addressed this. The majority of pop music has barely changed since the 80s (about when it became far easier and cheaper to produce pop-music without real instruments), the only real change has been production values. However, considering those production values you can hear pretty distinct differences. Auto-tune is the obvious example of a new technique barely used (or at least used very differently) before the 2000s. Consider these three songs:
Madonna – Like  A Virgin 1984
Kylie Minogue 2000
Lady Gaga – Bad Romance. 2012

I’ve chosen those three particularly for their similarities: they’re all obviously huge, mainstream pop artists that use electronic backing tracks. However the production values have evolved, the beats/backing tracks have evolved and no, Bad Romance couldn’t have come out in 1999. It has a distinct flavour which will only become more obvious with time. Of course, these are all much the same genre, but that doesn’t exclude the possiblity of new genres existing.

Tell that to the rest of society that disagrees with you. There’s a reason that major genres are separated from sub-genres. It’s by consensus. That’s reality.

So there has never been a non-mainstream genre? All underground music is sub-genre? Absolutely absurd. 

Enjoy deciding you’ve heard all the new styles music you’ll ever hear. Personally I look forward to my kids telling me about what strange new styles of music they’re listening to while I chuckle at the media hysteria about whatever feature of said new genre is ruining our children.

Grunge was clearly defined by the 90s, grunge was clearly huge by the early 90s, but grunge didn’t define the 90s until people looked back and went “grunge had a huge cultural impact”

You’re terribly incorrect. I’ll just copypasta from a previous post of mine I already gave you the links to:

By 1992, the Grunge genre was already very well established in popular culture. The American public didn’t look back on it later in the 2000′s and then finally label it “Grunge”.

New music genres are a big deal in popular culture and people know when it’s happening (as it’s happening) and genres are labeled accordingly within magazines, radio, Internet and TV as it’s happening. Grunge was certainly no exception.

Your anecdotal experience doesn’t match what was going on for the majority of the public. Grunge was a very well known genre and mentioned directly by name on the cover of Rolling Stone, Time, SPIN, Newsweek, etc., etc…during the early and mid 90′s.

Therefore Hip-hop must be a sub-genre, because it to relies on taking other genres and remixing?

You’re wrong, Hip Hop didn’t rely on samples, it was just another aspect of it. On the other hand, Mashups by their very nature depend upon them.

I would say you’re getting desperate here, but we passed that bridge a long time ago. ^_^

Popularity is irrelevant. Saturation is irrelevant.

Tell that to the rest of society that disagrees with you. There’s a reason that major genres are separated from sub-genres. It’s by consensus. That’s reality.

And like I said earlier, you can’t have it both ways. You said Emo was an important genre for the 00′s when it actually was established in the 90′s first. The only thing that changed for Emo in the 00′s is that is became slightly more mainstream. You keep contradicting yourself.

Which seems to be where we disagree. I believe Emo, or Dubstep are as much their own genres as Grunge

Once again, tell that to the rest of society that disagree with you. While many will definitely say Grunge defined much of the 90′s – Hardly anyone except the most rabid fans would say Emo or Dubstep defined the 00′s. Emo and Dubstep are more like sub-genres in that respect.

And, once again, there’s a reason that there’s no strong, new, distinctive, defining genres for the 00′s… we’re clearly running out of them. As I’ve stated before, if genre’s weren’t dying out, then you’d have many more to show than these weak examples of Emo (established in the 90′s) and Dubstep (which most people consider a sub-genre of drum and bass).

Here’s something for you to ignore again, but it completely destroys your arguments…

ONCE AGAIN:

The biggest hits today (in near 2013) could have very easily been the same hits produced in the very late 90′s and early 2000′s and most of the general public would know the distinctive difference anymore. You can’t easily take a hit from the 80′s and have the general public get it mixed it up with a hit from the 50′s (or even the 70′s for that matter) because they’re too distinctive from each other.

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT? You can’t.

In this day and age of affordable home studios, Internet distribution and collaboration there should be at least 5 MAJOR distinctive new genres created in the 00′s. But, there IS’NT. That’s REALITY.

Show me a new MAJOR genre that holds up to the distinctive sounds of the 50′s, 60′s, 70′s and 80′s? You can’t. It’s been blurring ever since the 90′s.

Until you address that reality, this discussion is useless.

what defines a genre compared to a sub-genre is subjective and relative (its not ‘reality’)

Once again, tell that to the rest of society that disagree with you.

In your desperation, you’re now trying to tell everyone that sub-genres don’t exist or some blather. We’ll have to simply agree to disagree.

Enjoy your sub-genres. It’s all that’s left.

That’s hilarious. By its very nature, it’s a sub-genre because you’re taking other genres (and/or previous music) and remixing it…Mashups are just more advanced sampling that we’ve seen since the 80′s with Hip Hop.

Therefore Hip-hop must be a sub-genre, because it to relies on taking other genres and remixing? I thought we couldn’t have things both ways here?

—

Once again, you keep ignoring all the DEFINING genres that went along with the 50′s, 60′s, 70′s, 80′s, and 90′s and sweep their major cultural impacts under the rug while trying to tell me that the 00′s were defined as equally with Dubstep and Emo.

And here we get to the central fault in your argument. You seem to believe that a genre must define a generation or a decade, or have some overarching impact on society at large to be a distinct genre. None of this is true.  A genre has to define a style of music that is distinct, recognisable and different from other genres of music. That is it. 

I don’t see fashion as a requirement of a genre, but I agree that it does help define the culture that surrounds the music, which feeds back into defining the music. Popularity is irrelevant. Saturation is irrelevant. However, seeing as you keep arguing that these elements are relevant  I’ve pointed out that both dubstep and emo did achieve both a level of mainstream popularity and cultural saturation. Both genres will inevitably be looked back on by those involved in the scene and people will say things like “the 2000s were all about dubstep”. I’m not “having it both ways”, I’m countering your arguments.

A sub-genre helps further define a style of music, but as I’ve said, what defines a genre compared to a sub-genre is subjective and relative (its not ‘reality’). For example, if you were describing say an unknown band that were in the same vain as the Dead Kennedys to someone that only listened to Jazz you’d probably leave it at “they’re a punk band” if you were talking to a broader rock fan you might say “they’re a hardcore punk band” if you were talking to a punk fan you might say “they’re 80s hardcore punk throwbacks with a strong political message”. Relative to who you’re talking to and what they know, subjective depending on where you draw the line at what a sub-genre is.

Which seems to be where we disagree. I believe Emo, or Dubstep are as much their own genres as Grunge, I believe fans of the genres would agree with me (I’m certainly not a fan of either). I wouldn’t go as far as say they’re on equal status as Punk or Rock because they’re much broader categories that cover many more sub-genres. I also wouldn’t try and argue that they’re as popular as grunge, because you’re right they’re not, that does’t exclude them from being defined genres in their own right.

As to Vanilla Ice and mashups, does that mean punk started in 1968 with The Stooges? Or is it when it exploded into popularity simultaneously on three different continents around the mid 1970s? Once again, everything is influenced by what came before it, that doesn’t make something a sub-genre.

It will undoubtedly form at least part of “what defines” the 2000s for the people involved in it.

If it was going to, it already would’ve. It’s nearly 2013. Grunge clearly and undoubtably defined the 90′s by the early 90′s.

mashup

That’s hilarious. By its very nature, it’s a sub-genre because you’re taking other genres (and/or previous music) and remixing it. Just like with naming Dubstep, you’re just further proving my point.

Mashups are just more advanced sampling that we’ve seen since the 80′s with Hip Hop.

If you can convince me that Emo is more of a sub-genre than Grunge I’ll eat my hat.

What about emo? It surged along with other alternative music in the 90′s. And, once again, you’re naming something that by no one’s standards but your own would define the decade of 2000-2010.

You’re seriously trying to tell me with a straight face that Emo defined the 00′s as Grunge did with the 90′s? While Emo certainly gained more popularity in the 00′s (which you claim doesn’t matter anyway), it never came even close to reaching the saturation point of genres of previous decades.

Like many others that don’t want to face the fact that distinctive music genre has a limited bandwidth, you’re getting desperate here.

popular (although this is completely and utterly irrelevant)

If popularity means nothing, then why do you claim that Emo (which was well established in the 90′s) defines the 00′s when it became more mainstream (but still much less so than Grunge did in the 90′s)?

You can’t have it both ways.

Finally, again the point you’ve ignored repeatedly. New instruments, new production techniques.

Actually, I didn’t ignore it. Read above through my previous posts and you’ll see where I addressed it.

ignoring history.

That seems to be your forte. Once again, you keep ignoring all the DEFINING genres that went along with the 50′s, 60′s, 70′s, 80′s, and 90′s and sweep their major cultural impacts under the rug while trying to tell me that the 00′s were defined as equally with Dubstep and Emo. Sorry, I’m not counting Mashup as anything but a subgenre as it should be. Also, as far as mashups go, I refer you to the 1990′s with Vanilla Ice and Queen/David Bowie.

For extra credit, give examples of pop musicians who have mined and reworked the resonances of earlier pop in the way that Silvestrov deconstructs and puts romantic cliches under a broken microscope and fold them like pictures of Poincare undergoing the Baker transform.   Maybe that’s the pop that I want to hear.

Everything I’ve said about dubstep is correct though. It is:
a) Definable and separate to other music that has influenced it. (whomp whomp…)
b) It is popular (although this is completely and utterly irrelevant)
c) It and the scene surrounding it does influence fashion. 
d) It will undoubtedly form at least part of “what defines” the 2000s for the people involved in it.

I’ve also offered two other fairly distinct music genres that are for all intents and purposes products of the 2000-2010 decade. Firstly, mashup. Tricky to define because it does borrow so many elements from so many different styles, and even within the genre there is such variation between the sounds created, but mashup is certainly a genre onto itself.

Next, and probably the most obvious example of a new genre with its own distinct fashion, ethos and even within the broader genre a large number of subgenres is Emo. If you can convince me that Emo is more of a sub-genre than Grunge I’ll eat my hat. They’ve both got a lot of the same roots, punk-rock, metal, alt-rock. They’ve both got their own fashion. They’ve both spawned a huge number of bands that imitate early sounds from the genre. 

Finally, again the point you’ve ignored repeatedly. New instruments, new production techniques. These will inevitably pop up and they’ll inevitably change music in a big way again. Claiming otherwise is ignoring history.

Plus Hot Topic, etc.

dubstep beats are used as backing music for acts as popular and mainstream as Lady Gaga

Right, just as pieces of it are used with some Brittany Spears songs, but I already addressed this in my previous post.

This is certainly not the same thing as past genres which dominated popular music. This weakness of Dubstep, once again, proves my point.

In all seriousness though, people not being able to define a genre well doesn’t make them not exist.

Then who’ll define them nowadays? Manatees?

There are infinite possibilities of sound possible

Sorry, the science isn’t with you there, either. Iterations of sound that mimic anything like music to the general public have obvious limits.

However the idea that there is a limited bandwidth is silly.

I had some tell me the same thing well over 10 years ago and they’re all eating crow now that the time for a distinctively new genre has come and gone.

Especially with all the Internet collaboration and home studios that’s been available for over a decade, there should already be MANY new, distinctive genres that matches the impact of genres in decades past. But, there isn’t. And all you have to laughably offer is… Dubstep.

It sure as hell isn’t because people aren’t trying.

Any day now… any day now….

I don’t see any requirement for a genre to “[influence] culture (including fashion and sensibilities) in a widespread manner”, although I’d argue that dubstep has met this criteria anyway: i.e. dubstep beats are used as backing music for acts as popular and mainstream as Lady Gaga, and there are countless festivals and clubs playing the genre which attract hundreds of thousands of followers world wide, at which you’ll see plenty of similar fashion, clearly influenced by the scene that surrounds the genre. Whether they’ve influenced to the same extent as grunge or any other genre is a moot point. There are also other newer genres which have done the same thing in the past decade. Probably the most obvious in Melbourne would be the Emo/Screamo scene (which once again, has roots in punk, goth, metal, etc). I distinctly remember heading to the Flinders Street steps (a cultural landmark of Melbourne) one day and wondering what happened to all the old punk-rockers that used to hang out there. Gone were all the leather jackets, colourful mo-hawks and tartan pants. In their place were a younger generation looking androgynous, with bulk eye-makeup, hair that looked like it had been ironed and pants so low that 80% of the wearers underwear was visible.

What defines a genre in relation to a sub-genre is obviously subjective, hence my question “what was the latest genre according to you” (and as you claim Hip-Hop and grunge were the last new genres anyone will see in the other thread, I’m curious as to how saturation happened in the late 1990s). One could easily argue that there are a handful of true genres: orchestral, jazz, rock, folk/blues and dance; and that everything falls within those categories. I’d disagree with them.

What’s different is the distinctive STYLE that any average person can detect.

Aherm… 

In all seriousness though, people not being able to define a genre well doesn’t make them not exist. There are a lot of grunge bands that sound pretty damn similar to other genres of music. Alice in Chains sounds like metal of the same vintage. The Melvins sound pretty damn similar to bands from stoner rock scene. Kurt Cobain himself described Nirvana as punk-rock, it’s not hard to see why.

I’m not going to deny that genres are getting harder to define as I think the biggest change in the post-internet world is the amount of genre blending that happens, which describes why you see only “sub-genres”. However the idea that there is a limited bandwidth is silly. There are infinite possibilities of sound possible, therefore there is infinite possibility for new genres. More than likely at some point in both our lives a new instrument will come out, or a drastically different production technique will become popular and something as distinctive as hip-hop will change the face of music once again. 

And for those resonating with the anxiety-of-influence-haunted rock critic: art has a long history of offering us the-same-only-different, which means “music modeled on the past” can mean “music not operating in a vacuum.”

don’t get me wrong. i love new shit. i’m a technophile and a vocal advocate of science and science education. i also love new art. I love twists on the old and stuff that challenges everything i’ve ever seen.

but i do have a huge soft spot for the old shit that turns me on. A lot of that happens to be from the 50s and such. Sun Records, EC comics, pinup girls, etc. i dunno. Maybe i’m part of this perceived “problem.”

The biggest difference between say 80s pop and 90s pop was production

Agreed.  Probably one of the many reasons I despise most Pop music.

Hey, I like Grunge that’s trendy in 1992 right now, but it’s certainly not a new, distinct genre… it’s a slight variation on punk-rock..Hey, I like punk-rock that’s trendy in 1977 right now, but it’s certainly not a new, distinct genre… it’s loud, agressive rock music.

Maybe in your own anecdotal (and/or sarcastic) sense, but Grunge and Punk are certainly considered distinctly different genres by larger society and influenced culture (including fashion and sensibilities) in a widespread manner.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=d&tbm=isch&q=90's+grunge+clothing

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=d&tbm=isch&spell=1&q=hip+hop+clothing+90's

I do see the point you’re attempting to make as well that all music is influenced by previous music. All that does is prove my point that new, distinctive music genres have a limited bandwidth.

You can only rehash old music so far before it become nothing more than muddled sub-genres, sub-sub-genres and so on. And that’s where we are now.

Once again, it’s not to say that today’s music isn’t good or novel (to some extent), it’s just not nearly as distinctive anymore because there’s only so many iterations available. I’m not saying Grunge is better than Dubstep, I’m saying Grunge had a much larger cultural impact and its much more definable by society than Dubstep. Hence, Grunge was a far more distinctive genre for society at large. We don’t have those with that kind of impact anymore.

K-Pop is as much a new genre as any of these genres

K-pop is NOT a new 2012 genre (It started in 1992) and it’s basically an umbrella for South Korean dance, electronic, electropop, hip hop, rock, and R&B music.

In other words, pop music from South Korea that basically went unnoticed in the 90′s because of Grunge, Hip Hop, Rap, etc.

The only way that genres drastically break from what already exists is when new instruments create completely new opportunities

The instruments of Grunge are very much the same as the ones used in many 70′s bands. What’s different is the distinctive STYLE that any average person can detect. In other words, it’s a distinctive difference for society whether you anecdotally agree or not.

COW: Can you name a new, distinct genre that defines 2000-2010? Nope, you can’t.
YOU: Actually, yes I can. Dubstep. It may have “began” in the late 90s…

I’ll grant you that dubstep is considered a “huge” new genre by its fans, but unlike previous genres it’s only added as a “flavoring” to most popular music and it’s not considered by most of society as something that defines the past decade.

You’ll hear dubstep influences in popular music like recent Brittany Spears, etc. but it’s nowhere near the defining sound for average listeners like we’ve had with music genres of previous decades.

Sorry, but Dubstep isn’t associated to the past decade by greater society like Disco was to the 70′s or Grunge was to the early 90′s. It’s just your wishful thinking.

What happened to music in the decade of 2000-2010 was the Internet. But, that’s not a new music genre like we’ve seen in the past. It just a new model to distribute and remix old genres.

Dubstep to most people is simply a sub-genre of drum and bass.

Keep in mind, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with Dubstep or any of the other less distinctive genres. But what I am saying is that new, distinctive genres are dead and you using Dubstep as an example only further proves my point.

its as new as Grunge was ever.

You’re confusing “new” with a distinctive, widely popular genre.

I think this timeline can help show how insignificant Dubstep is in the grand scheme of past dance music genres that had a wide impact on society/culture:

http://www.thomson.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/infographic/interactive-music-map/index.html
(note you’ll have to hunt for it on the right)

Comparing the societal impact of Dubstep to other past genres like Grunge is ridiculous.

New, distinctive genres are dead and Dubstep only proves it.

The biggest difference between say 80s pop and 90s pop was production, apart from production the song formula is much the same. Exactly the same is true today. How many god-awful autotune songs did you hear the in the late 90s or early 2000s?

No.