"My Chemical Romance is this generation's Nirvana"

HAHAA!!! does that mean MCR are going to be playing the York Town Fair then?!!

how about this, MCR=this generation's MCR? seems fair.

"hello, i am teenager with a 4.0, and an IQ of 120 and i love my chemical romance."
well, hello teenager w/a 4.0 and IQ of 120.
i'm not so sure how that makes any difference as to music, but good on ya! keep them grades up and stay off the drugs/cutting/alcohol/pre-martial sex/etc.
emo=emotional?!!! ZOUNDS.

-- eedd (e...), April 28th, 2006.

Exactly. Which is why I said he would have spit them out of his ass, like throwaway lyrics. But your'e right about the content.

I'm pretty sure most people who like music are gonna know what "emo" stands for, it just seems like the kids today have no clue that it started before they were born. To all those emo kids out there, DO SOME HOMEWORK! YOU'LL FIND SOME GOOD STUFF!!
And no, there is nothing wrong with liking mcr. Just like how it's not wrong to like whatever band you like. It's just totally ridiculous to think they are even in the same league as Nirvana.

http://www.pgcps.pg.k12.md.us/~pointer/images/teacher.gif

so what youre saying is, musicians have a responsibility to play the role of guidance counselor?

even though im sitting in seattle, home of this so-called nirvana, and despite how early it is, this statement has to be the most ridiculous thing i've heard all day.

regardless of how meaningful music is in my life, i'd never let an entertainer have that much sway over my life.

I wasn't in the Nirvana generation and therefore have no clue how a band goes about being a generation's Nirvana - to me Nirvana were this cultural albatross around our necks, something you had to like whether your heart was in it or not, something you had to treat as a cultural touchstone. They was nothing exciting about them; they were part of the 'alternative canon', like the Sex Pistols or the Doors or even the Stone Roses, and liking them didn't even give you any sort of identity since every single person you knew would know and recognise and no doubt like their hits. There must have been a brief period when I liked Nirvana as Nirvana, surely, but mostly it was just that you had to-- you had to own the albums and say 'In Utero' was better than 'Nevermind' and have read Kurt Cobain's suicide note (and put him in your (im)personal pantheon of Doomed Idols, sid vicious brian jones kurt cobain richey manic whoever). As far as I could tell, Nirvana were the Oasis of a few years previously, that same cultural position. I'm so, so glad to be old enough now that I don't have to act like Nirvana mean anything to me; maybe if they hadn't been forced down my neck from an early age I'd care? or maybe i wouldn't have recognised how important they were supposed to be without everyone telling me so.

So I hope MCR don't occupy that position, and I don't think they will. They seem more... smashing pumpkins levels of popularity, influence? They're not doing anything new - it's gothy pop-punk, basically, isn't it? and songs like 'I'm not okay' are really exciting, thrilling to listen to, but they're never going to dominate a whole scene. They'll be massively important to some people's lives, though. And sneering about people using music, and pop lyrics, as an emotional support is pretty fucking sad; I'm sorry, what do you use music for? A lifestyle accessory? You were never fifteen and miserable? I'd hate to be someone who had never had that emotional capacity.

Or, to talk about MCR another way, MCR=Bombast. To repurpose an old zinger: Wagner is the MCR of music.

I'm trying to remember what it was in my generation that you "had" to like. I actually had to think about it before coming up with U2 / R.E.M. although the kind of obsessiveness described there still sounds kind of foreign.

As far as the roots of emo: i thihnk your point is obviously correct musically, but what I'm too lazy to do is trace "emo" lyrically, where there comparisons may be more accurate. (Not that I've listened to Fugazi.) MCR couldn't have existed without Husker Du or the Smashing Pumpkins, it seems.

Most on the mark post. But then, I've only read the first and last 5 posts of the thread...

As for Nirvana.. well, you can't really compare ANY artist at this moment to Nirvana - that kind of impact is rare and even more rarely duplicated. And definitely not within a decade of each other. Just Ultragrrl being silly again. Seriously, why do you people care so much about her?

I had never heard of her before I read this post. And if discussion of her comments generates threads like this -- one of the most interesting and thoughtful on ILM for the last few months, well, great.

AS IF 90% of joy division fans EVER didn't get into their music this way

Not enough incredible b-sides. And Gish is way WAY better than I Brought You My Bullets.

Collective Soul = Jet
Live = The Vines
Candlebox = The Bravery
4-Non Blondes = The Donnas
Cranberries = Evanessence
Filter = Trapt
Stabbing Westward = Three Days Grace
Jars of Clay = Switchfoot
Dishwalla = Breaking Benjamin
Seven Mary Three = Audioslave
Tonic = The Ataris

I'm well aware that most of this makes no sense at all, and I'm just matching up the first bands I can think of.

"FWIW, I'll give you "this generation's Smashing Pumpkins" if you really want.
-- Brian O'Neill (e7jey4a0...), May 1st, 2006."

OK, but whomever it might be better be LSD fried AND angry.
AND a complete control freak and egomaniac.
AND have to be able to solo for 20+ minutes at a pop.
AND write something that's as good or better than Silverfuck or Hello Kitty Kat.
so, give it up!

Bombast, bombast, stupid lyrics, bombast.

and can we then count on the lead singer to DIE then?????
if not, then it don't work!

Please don't put your life in the hands of a rock and roll band who'll throw it all away

.........
i got nothin.

now this is ironic, given who sparked this whole thread in the first place

-- maura (maur...), May 15th, 2006.

OH!
SNAP!
!!!

I somehow doubt it -- that guy was literate.