>
>I'm guessing there's a lot you've missed.
>Being the father of four teenaged kids (now in their '20s), I have the
>advantage of being exposed to the rebirth of punk first-hand (well,
>literally second-hand, I guess). You might want to take a look at this:
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punk_rock
>
>And living in the DC area, I was particularly tuned into the following:
>
>"In its original, mid-1980s incarnation, emo [punk] was a less musically
>restrictive style of punk developed by participants in the Washington,
>D.C. area hardcore scene. It was originally referred to as "emocore", an
>abbreviation of "emotive hardcore". Notable early emo bands included
>Rites of Spring, Embrace, and One Last Wish. The term derived from the
>tendency of some of these bands' members to become strongly emotional
>during performances. Fugazi, formed out of the dissolution of Embrace,
>inspired a second, much broader based wave of emo bands beginning in the
>mid-1990s. Groups like San Diego's Antioch Arrow generated new, more
>intense subgenres like screamo, while others developed a more melodic
>style closer to indie rock. Bands such as Seattle's Sunny Day Real
>Estate and Mesa, Arizona's Jimmy Eat World broke out of the underground,
>attracting national attention. By the turn of the century, emo had
>arguably surpassed hardcore, its parent genre, as the roots-level
>standard for U.S. punk, though some music fans claim that typical
>latter-day emo bands like Panic! At The Disco and Fall Out Boy don't
>even qualify as punk at all."
>
>It's not '70s punk at all, trust me. My oldest son now records and
>produces bands, and the vast majority are emo-punk bands. Do I like it?
>For the most part no, although there are some good bands here and there
>in the genre. But it's an indication that punk as a whole has
>progressed considerably, probably more so than most other genres.
