Talk:Gothic rock

Should gothic music redirect here?

OMG, WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THAT METAL IS NOT GOTH, YOU'RE JUST FANATICS, THE OLDIER BANDS HAD SEX, DRUGS, AND THINGS LIKE THAT IN THEIR MUSIC, BUT GOTHIC METAL DO NOTHAVE THAT KIND OOF THEMS, TODAY'S GOTHIC METAL IS COMPLETELY GOTHIC. Gothic music redirects here. Surely there are other genres of goth music than rock, such as gothic metal? --Irrevenant [ talk ] 07:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Gothic Metal is Metal music, not Goth. --Chontamenti (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Gothic metal is really just a misnomer. It came out of metal completely separate of gothic rock and gothic was tacked on because of some sort of perceived,"darkness" which, while really vague and personally to me not making much sense, seems to be similar to how gothic rock initially gained its name (that being the atmosphere the gothic rock subculture entertained). And if one were to look back to what gothic means as of the past 100 or so years, it is from the 19th century gothic writing style. This is where the connection between the atmosphere and the word gothic of today. But the gothic in the front does not really have anything to do with the actual style of play so much as just something that it was called when the style came out and it just stuck. The problem with this is that this combination of perception causes confusion amongst people and hence why people now try to stick the gothic rock genre on non-gothic rock bands by citing critics who caught onto this trend and use words like "gothic" to describe them in reviews when in actuality those critics are calling them gothic sounding from the metal standpoint and not from the gothic rock standpoint. This is because as anything else, most critics specialize in something, so you have metal critics who can talk about metal but when use the word gothic coming from a metal viewpoint it confuses laymen and women (and frankly most of those metal critics are metalheads who don't know about or listen to gothic rock). But just because both have gothic in the front, irrespective of what that actually means, it has nothing to do with the actual "sound". Just a name, and frankly gothic rock had it first but thats okay as the names are already established and its best we just try to push forward and correct any damage that has been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.60.163 (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Gothic metal has nothing to do with Goth. But yes there are lots of other kinds of Gothic music that are not rock. I don't understand why Gothic music redirects here and not to, say, Ethereal Wave, Darkwave, Deathrock or Neo Classcial. These are also considered kinds of Gothic music. What makes rock so special? Cheers! Very Old School Goth (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethereal, Neo-Classical, Cold Wave and Goth are kinds of Dark Wave music. Until the mid-/end-90s, the term Goth(ic) was associated with Gothic rock. We never called Neo-classical/Heavenly Voices as "Goth". The term Goth was mostly associated with Mick Mercer's dark rock world. --Chontamenti (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Key word here being "was". ;-) 76.181.241.184 (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because in many regions, the Goth and Dark Wave movement is dead. It was primarily a movement of the 80s and 90s. Today, the nighclubs are full of Dance/Techno and Heavy Metal music. Especially in Germany. I really hate that fucking crap. People call it "Goth", but in fact it's Metal and Techno music in Aeolian mode. --Chontamenti (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not dead everywhere. Some clubs still play Goth, Etherereal, Death Rock, and Darkwave and refuse to spin ebm or metal. Come to think of it, I am one of those DJs. 76.181.245.123 (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

EBM (DAF, Nitzer Ebb, F242) isn't the problem, but Hellektro (Combichrist, X-Fusion, SITD etc.). It's only a genre confusion. I don't understand why Goths of today dislike Post-industrial music, such as EBM. Early Goths also listened to Einstürzende Neubauten, Cabaret Voltaire and Skinny Puppy. --Chontamenti (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Because industial and ebm are not as related to Goth as many would have you believe. The industrial and ebm scenes are very similar to disco, in a lots of people's minds (especially ebm), which is what Goth was an answer to/backlash against. I regularly attended Batcave and Slimelight many moons ago and recall some people being into Skinny Puppy, Einstürzende Neubauten, etc. and remember a great many people treating them as poseurs for being pro-industrial. Personally, I could care less what people listen to. But I do think that the moods and aesthetics frequently associated with ebm and industrial to be quite counter to those associated with Goth. Meaning I find that ebm and industrial in the Goth club setting to be something of a mood killer. Just my opinion, mate. Cheers! Very Old School Goth (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Goth scene now definitely includes many other styles than traditional Gothic rock, as a number of sources will attest. Perhaps "Gothic music" should redirect to the Goth subculture page. Lots of older people think that rivetheads and cybergoths and such aren't goth, but descriptively speaking, many goths follow those styles. Besides, even the goths who stick to the older rock styles often listen to deathrock, which is itself somewhat divorced from the initial UK goth scene. Such are the vagaries of history. Aryder779 (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Gothic music is a vague term. It should be deleted. Not every kind of music that is preferred by the Gothic culture is Gothic music.

Btw: Remember: In fact, the Death rock movement started in 1982. There was no Death rock album released before 1982. In 1980/1981, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Bauhaus and Lords of the New Church toured in the United States. Since the beginning, Death rock was definitely influenced by UK Goth. Death rock is only the American kind of Goth, strongly influenced by US Hardcore Punk. --Chontamenti (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a disambiguation page is in order. Listing the genres most frequently associated with Goth and the genres that are (unfortunately) confused with Goth. Cheers!Very Old School Goth (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO it would be only a hardly embattled POV list (see the history of the Gothic music article). The list of Gothic rock bands is hard-fought enough. --Chontamenti (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Point taken. Looks like Ada Kataki and 76.181.250.255 wiki-martyred themselves over that one. Very Old School Goth (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Gothic Metal is a genre of Heavy Metal, I agree with that; a genre parts Doom, Power and Black Metal. It did not branch off of Gothic Rock and does not share its musical aesthetics. A point I have to bring up is how all this article seems to only focus on Punk Rock's influence(which is undeniable), while totally ignoring the effect early Heavy Metal and Psychedelic had on the gothic rock genre. I shouldn't even need to explain what Gothic Rock has in common with The Doors, The Thirteenth Floor Elevators, Black Widow, Uriah Heep, Black Sabbath and Judas Priest. All these bands had a greater influence than some listed in the article, the most ridiculous example being The Sex Pistols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.218.176 (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course heavy metal influenced gothic rock bands, but not the genre itself. Siouxsie and the banshees and Bauhaus (Goth Rock Pioneers) are not influenced by heavy metal at all. The Gothic Music is ALWAYS influenced by Post-Punk. Punk rock is not that important in goth music, but that's just my opinion. There are a lot of goth music genres, obviously, but each one is a subengre of Gothic rock or post-punk. Anyways I agree with making a disambiguation or a exclusive page for goth music.|170.51.26.54 (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Grunge

This sentence, at the end of the lead, has never seemed right to me: "Following the immense popularity of Grunge in the United States, gothic rock slowly faded from the mainstream and has since then remained a largely underground entity." - Dave Thompson: Schattenwelt. Helden und Legenden des Gothic Rock. Hannibal, Höfen 2004, ISBN 3-85445-236-5, p. 316.

The reference is to a German translation of a book, so I can't check the source. The real issues are these: First, the article isn't really about the United States at all anyway. Almost the entire Gothic rock article is about British groups, and a few Europeans; there's only a brief mention of the U.S., with regard to deathrock. American goth is covered there. So the real concern is the British music scene, which I think was preoccupied with Britpop rather than grunge. For another thing, Gothic rock as such was always pretty much an underground entity. Comparing Nirvana to the Mission UK or whatever is basically apples and oranges, commercially speaking. For another thing, the sources basically indicate that the heyday of Gothic rock was about '83-'85. I can think of a number of developments that encroached on Gothic rock's territory much more than grunge -- hard rock à la The Cult, shoegazing, and especially industrial metal, for example. Groups like the Smashing Pumpkins, Jane's Addiction, and Nine Inch Nails were very popular in the early '90s, the same period as grunge, and certainly drew on Goth and occupied its cultural space to a much, much greater degree than Pearl Jam, et. al. Aryder779 (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Sex Pistols were an undeniable influence. I believe they`re what intially motived Siouxie and the Banshees, the Cure, and Joy Division to start bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash Loomis (talk • contribs) 05:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Theatre of Hate

This article incorrectly implies that Theatre of Hate emerged into the scene in 1983. The band was formed in 1980 and broke up in late 1982. They enjoyed the height of their popularity in 1981-1982, and should probably be mentioned alongside Bauhaus, The Cure, Joy Division, and Siouxsie as forerunners of the movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.226.208 (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The group has no Wikipedia page and seems to have very few sources covering it. It was included in the "mid-80s" section because that's how Reynolds characterizes them in his post-punk group. If you have good sources for the group, please write a page from them and then mention them in the appropriate space here. Aryder779 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Mention of Mislabeling of Marilyn Manson and other Artists

Should we mention artists that have been mislabeled as goth rock such as Marilyn Manson and White Zombie? KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 14:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that there should be a section for later groups that draw on gothic rock or are associated with it by the press (She Wants Revenge, AFI, Manson, stuff like that). These kinds of additions have been controversial in the past, but with good sources, I think this might be possible in some way. Manson and White Zombie are covered at the industrial metal page; there are obviously some cultural connections between industrial metal and gothic rock, but not really much demonstrable musical relationship. Aryder779 (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The common mistake is from critics specialised in mainstream styles and not the underground. As soon as a band such as Marilyn Manson makes it big time they only see the surface. Without deep analysis they see that "this is dark music" or "this is an occult band" and pigeon-holes them with gothic aesthetics. Marilyn Manson is part of the Industrial Metal movement.

Pre-dating gothic rock, Heavy Metal has always been dark, occult and gloomy, though in a live fast, iron-fist kind of way. Industrial explores the modern age of technology with its undercurrents, through the rust of a concrete jungle nightlife. Gothic lives darkness as solace, finding beauty in the disowned aspects of life(and/or death), and looking for a romantic edge in tragedies. Death Rock at face looks similar, but rather focuses on the thrill of living out the mindset of monsters and horror movie scenarios. Finally Emo, expresses loss and life's emotional experiences through dark metaphors. All these have been incorrectly lumped together at one point or another. I think of all things if wrongly labeled bands are to be mentionned, the section needs to address how the "dark" genres themselves differ from one another.

for example: Black Widow(Psychedelic) Black Sabbath(Heavy Metal) Skinny Puppy(Industrial) Bauhaus(Gothic Rock) Misfits(Death Rock) My Chemical Romance(Emo)

All these bands are dark, but are worlds apart thematically and musically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.119.37 (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not always so easy to label groups. I completely agree that Marilyn Manson is not goth - but a group being part of one rock scene does not automatically exclude them from another. Killing Joke, The Cult, Siouxsie and other such groups have always effortlessly moved between genres, or had followings from several genres. They are not mutually exclusive. Gothic Rock is extremely varied, just listen to the Sisters of Mercy, The Virgin Prunes, All About Eve, ASF, XMAL and Gene loves Jezebel - you will be loathed to find any musical, cultural or even image connection between them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiuxiuejar (talk • contribs) 19:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gothic rock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi. Will start review soon. Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The goth subculture "that includes clubs, various fashion trends and numerous publications that grew in popularity in the 1980s" sounds like it should be mentioned somewhere in the body of the article... and did gothic rock continue? If it did, what are some current artists/ bands associated w/ gothic rock?

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   There are no fair use rationales, specifically for this article, for File:Nicoheroin.JPG, File:Joy Division.JPG, and File:Killing Joke band members 1985.jpg

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   The captions are very short. Also there are a lot of images here. Are they all necessary? Maybe explain the sigificance of the band in the caption?

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• There is a lot of overlinking in the article. For example, David Bowie is linked twice.
• The web footnotes aren't formatted consistently. Try Template:web cite

Lead:

• "Notable gothic rock bands include Bauhaus, Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Cure, The Sisters of Mercy, and Fields of the Nephilim, among many others" can be changed to "Notable gothic rock bands include Bauhaus, Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Cure, The Sisters of Mercy, and Fields of the Nephilim"
• One paragraph seems short for the lead. Look at Grunge music.
• "Gothic rock (also referred to as goth rock or simply goth)" Source?
• "Gothic rock gave rise to a broader goth subculture that includes clubs, various fashion trends and numerous publications that grew in popularity in the 1980s." Source?

Style, roots and influences

• "Gothic rock typically deals with dark themes addressed through lyrics and the music atmosphere." Source?
• "Nico's 1969 album, The Marble Index, was also particularly influential." How? Explain more, please.

Origins and early development

• "The term "gothic" was initially loosely applied to certain post-punk groups."Source and who were the certain post-punk groups?
• "...much of the fan base came from his milieu" Maybe reword?
• "Southern Death Cult were themselves icons of the scene" You can leave out "themselves"
• Maybe spell out NME?
• "The emerging scene was described as "positive punk" in a February 1983 article in NME" The emerging gothic rock scene?
• "Simon Reynolds speaks of a shift from early Goth to Gothic rock proper, advanced...." I'm confused. So early gothic rock wasn't the same as the gothic rock that came afterwards?

Subsequent developments

• Gothic rock is both capitalized and not capitalized (example:"....which draws on Gothic rock" and "American gothic rock began with....")

References

• A lot of the books are missing ISBNs
• What makes http://sortedmagazine.com/archive/magazine/sordid/attrition.htm a reliable source?

I'm sorry, but I'll have to finish up the review tomorrow. Kaguya-chan (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Will finish review later today. Thanks for being patient! Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Overall, this is a very interesting article and a lot of good research was put into it. However, I'm not sure if it is a good article at this point. It doesn't seem to cover the main aspects of the topic. I'm sure that with a little more work, it could be renominated in the future. Look at Punk rock or Grunge music for examples. Kaguya-chan (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "Southern Death Cult were themselves icons of the scene" You can leave out "themselves"

Actually you can leave Southern Death Cult out entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.246.95 (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Should Gothic music Redirect here ? I

I don't think so, there's a lot of gothic genres that are not gothic rock such as Darkwave, ethereal wave and death rock.

Dark Wave and Death Rock aren't "Gothic" genres. Ethereal is a Goth spin-off.

lol? Deathrock is like an american version of gothic rock, and gothic rock is within the darkwave movement

Don't you see the difference? Gothic Rock is a part of Dark Wave, yes, but Dark Wave isn't a part of Gothic Rock. And Death Rock isn't the same like Gothic Rock. Death Rock has a strong Hardcore Punk and Hard Rock influence, bands such as 45 Grave were inspired by Heavy Metal bands (Black Sabbath). Read Gitane Demone's interviews and biographies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.9.54 (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Besides, this is Gothic Music too, from 1390 AD: [1] Maybe a disambugination page is needed? -- megA (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ultravox as a Gothic rock band

Listen to their 1980. album ViennaItalic text, and 1981. Rage In Eden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManOfTwoWorlds (talk • contribs) 14:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, awful Synthpop/New Wave Pop. I can't hear any Goth sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.21.181 (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(Eyeroll at above dissing of Vienna}

Well Ultravox falls under the "New Romantic" banner, not Goth, but I nevertheless kind of see where you're coming from. I don't think it's too crazy to suggest there's a "dark"/eerie feel to early works from Ultravox as well as Human League, Visage, OMD, Numan. The bands of course, deliberately put an alienated/detached mood to the music, and I suppose that mood is gloomy and maybe "Goth-like". Problem is, the themes in New Romantic Synth were ultimately more Sci/Futuristic-focused, while in Goth more supernatural/morbidity focused...thus, that distinction will always prevent above bands from being talked about in a "Goth" context (fair enough, since they aren't Goths).

But that being said, these bands in their early incarnation's are known to be described "postpunk", which is Goth's parent genre. Additionally, we know that synthpop itself is a confirmed Darkwave musical origin. So at the least, I'm thinking that some New Romantic synth influence in later electro-Goth music, isn't exactly improbable.

(I should note that despite my mentioning of Numan, he does have both Goth and New Romantic ties.) Theburning25 (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Cash

It seems to me that certain works by Johnny Cash may fit under the label "gothic music" although certainly not his work as a whole. Or would the terms psychobilly and gothabilly be more appropriate? The following article seems to support the notion that Cash may have a place in this article:http://www.slate.com/id/2147591/ BillyJack193 (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have pretty wide musical taste, and I enjoy Johnny Cash as well as many goth bands. Can't say I've heard a gothic rock influence in his stuff though. Are you refering to gothic music as in gothic rock, or to something else? If so, Cash doesn't really have a place here since the article is specifically on the gothic rock genre, not on any music that one might describe as "gothic" in some sense of the word.Ash Loomis (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was speaking more of his influence on gothic rock, rather than its influence on him. I agree, though that it may fit more with other forms of gothic music.BillyJack193 (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure most gothic rock bands are familiar with Cash's work and appreciate it. He's one of the most influential figures on the development of modern popular music. However, I don't think he would have been a direct influence upon them. Goth grew out of punk and drew on various other experimental genres while Cash played more traditional music. Cash helped shape the rock and roll genre, which eventually led the development of later styles such as goth, but I don't think any of the bands that formed the genre were directly drawing on his work. Do you have any sources where a band that helped develop the style mentions him as a direct influence, or sources that discuss how certain songs influenced the sound? Otherwise, there's no real need to include Cash here. Ash Loomis (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Connection with Gothic architecture?

There surely must be some reason why the music and music style became known as 'gothic'. But does anybody know what it is? 86.40.48.250 (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you even read this article and the related ones of Goth subculture and fashion? By the way, there are several things which has the label "gothic" and there's no specific connection among them or do you think that Gothic chess is related to Gothic arquitecture? "Gothic" is a label with a pejorative connotation which is why it has been used in so many artistic areas. Even though Gothic chess, Gothic literature, Gothic subculture or Gothic arquitecture share the same "gothic" term, they don't have share any cultural connection among them, neither are Gothic Rock and Gothic Metal related for that matter. ImaginaryVoncroy (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the opinion above mine. Gothic literature, which is related to the Gothic Revival architecture, influenced the mood and atmosphere of goth rock. And this is explained in the articles about gothic novel and gothic subculture. You can also look here [2] where it's described how the architecture, the literature and the music are connected.212.50.76.237 (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the influence of Gothic Lit I would stress that the allusion to architecture is most definitely significant. In the popular imagination (however inaccurately, but no doubt related to the Gothic novel tradition, and also with Gothic Horror in literature and cinema)Gothic architecture with its pointed arches, pinnacles and asymetric designs is viewed as spiky, gloomy, mysterious and sinister in contrast to the clarity, order and openess of classicism. The term was undoubtedly intended to reflect this. Indeed it was a notorious cliche of late 70's and eighties pop music journalism to refer to 'a gothic cathedral of sound' in reference to gloomy music. Anyone who read the NME, Sounds or Melody Maker in those days can attest to this. General blackblood (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Edition war over Gothic Metal as a Gothic Rock fusion genre.

It seems like RepublicanJacobite has given no explanation as to why he personally considers Gothic Metal as a Gothic Rock fusion genre with Heavy Metal (only that it seem a tad "gothic" to him), so I invite him to write here why he considers such thing. What he seems to ignore is that Gothic Metal didn't came from Goth scene in the first place, it doesn't sound like Gothic Rock music at all and it doesn't certainly show any kind of reminiscence of a Post-Punk formula which Goth music is strongly connected. So, I'm curious to why RepublicanJacobite is constantly adding a wrong information in this page, when it has been widely accepted that Gothic Metal didn't come from Gothic Rock ImaginaryVoncroy (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no edit war. You keep removing valid information based on nothing but your opinion. That is vandalism. Please stop. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not just ImaginaryVoncroy's opinion though, it's generally agreed that the musical styles of gothic rock and gothic metal are unrelated, even if many people in the goth scene do enjoy listening to both kinds of music. Ash Loomis (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As I was expecing RepublicanJacobite didn't justify his edition because he doesn't really know what he's talking about. How your edition is a valid information? Based on what? You keep adding a wrong information based on nothing. I cannot do much, so I ask someone to delete the information RepublicanJacobite because it shows pure ignorance about Gothic Rock scene ImaginaryVoncroy (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Gothic metal isn't a fusion genre. The genre may have "Gothic" in the name but it is no more Goth than Cyber-Punk is Punk. That they both have Gothic in their names is merely coincidence. Gothic metal is not influenced by Goth in terms of music. Aesthetically, perhaps, but not musically. No offense, but I think somebody is too quick to erroneously identify opposing edits as "vandalism". Simply disagreeing with an edit doesn't make the user a vandal and claiming that they are just because you disagree comes off as a bit puerile.Vampider (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Alice Cooper

How can any article about Goth not include Alice Cooper? Alice Cooper is to Goth what Iggy is to Punk. Goth is an aesthetic, not a specific musical genre. Jetblack500 (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

He's metal. Metal has fuck all to do with Goth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.58.8 (talk • contribs) 22:14, August 10, 2010

Gothic Rock is a music genre and Goth subculture a music-based subculture, have you even read the articles? ImaginaryVoncroy (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear on who you're supporting with your comment. Also, there ARE people out there who are a part of the Goth scene and don't need to read wikipedia articles in order to have an understanding of said scene. And, as stated above, metal has nothing to do with Goth. Most Goths I know despise anything related to metal or the notion that Goth and metal are in any way related. "Alice Cooper is to Goth what Iggy is to Punk." Really? Alice Cooper is nothing to Goth. He's metal. You must be thinking of Rozz Williams.75.180.56.145 (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Psychedelic rock:

Should not be listed under "stylistic origins". This kind of music was popular before the existence of Punk and Gothic rock but is by no means responsible for the existence of Goth. Goth was born of the Punk movement. Punk was the antithesis of the hippie movement ("never trust a hippie"/"call all hippies boring old farts and set light to them"). Psychedelic music was neither responsible for Goth nor an influence on Goth. Punk was. Calling psychedelic rock Goth's "predecessors" does not imply that the 2 are somehow related. It simply means one came before the other. Really? Goth and psychedelic rock? Apart from disco or metal, I don't think you can get any more polar opposite. Calling for consensus here. Should "psychedelic" be listed under "stylistic origins" on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.53.229 (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

My only concern is that you are removing a sourced statement. Wikipedia articles are not created based on opinion, but on reliable sources. I don't care what is listed under stylistic origins, as long as it is sourced. Beach drifter (talk) 05:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not about your concern. It's about people making "sources" say anything they want them to say regardless of whether they are true or not. I could find 3 sources that claim the sky is pink. That doesn't mean it's true or it belongs on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.102.59 (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of the Reynolds book? The wording may be significant in a distpute like this and unfortunately I do not have a copy.--SabreBD (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Scott Walls interview "Psychedelic rock did not create hippies, hippies created psychedelic rock" Malcolm McLaren & Johnny Rotten defined Punk rock in the 70's and the quotes "never trust a hippie" and "call all hippies boring old farts and set light to them" can be attribured to them. Punk was a backlash against the hippie culture. Goth is an offshoot of Punk, so saying that psychedelic influenced the Gothic music scene is absurd. One band (Siouxsie) MAY have been partially influenced by psychedelic rock but to assert that the entire genre was inspired by hippie music given it's Punk rock roots is ludicrous.71.79.102.59 (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Who told you that psychedelic rock is the music of "hippies" and the goth-rock music is "punk. " Gothic rock formed from post-punk and not punk rock ... psychedelic-rock group The Velvet Underground is influenced goth-rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.205.19.215 (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Learn to read. Goth CAME FROM Punk. Hippies created psychedelic rock so psychedelic rock IS the music of hippies. "The Velvet Underground is influenced goth-rock" this statement makes NO sense. Wait for CONSENSUS before re-adding that unfactual statement. Thanks!71.79.255.156 (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well so far the consensus seems to be that you are a bit rude and are making assumptions based on personal beliefs. Additionally, it stands to reason that we need to wait for consensus before removing sourced content from the article, not before re-adding it. WP:BRD. Beach drifter (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Not personal beliefs but historic fact. Also, where is this source? What does it say? What does it prove? Anybody actually read this page? Does it say that psychedelic rock came before Goth or that it actually influenced every single band that are considered original Goth... or just one? Sounds more like personal beliefs factor into why 178.205.19.215 keeps re-adding it. Where in the article does it say that psychedelic has anything at all to do with Goth? Jazz came before Goth too. Should that be in the "stylistic origins" section too? How about cave men beating on rocks with sticks? And "rude"? I find it rude that we're asserting that people who find hippie music offensive are somehow influenced by tree hugger gibberish.71.79.255.156 (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If you can source your statement that goth fans all find psychedilic rock offensive, I will gladly eat my hat and then argue for your edit. You could probably of guessed, but if you go to the psychedelic rock article, jazz is listed as a stylistic origin. Beach drifter (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As said before it is best to quote the book. I do have the book and will try and check but I have the smaller US version and little time this weekend. To the "debate" what many are forgetting is that psychedelic music was far from all peace and love. There were the "psychedelic punk" groups like The Sonics and there was this group you might have heard of, The Doors who did not fit your strict definition of hippie. But gothic seems like six degrees of separation but if Reynolds said it fine. Edkollin (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Edkollin. I will see if I can find a copy of the British version. I have no objection if it is in the source, although it should really be in the body of the article and not just the infobox.--SabreBD (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"Many goth bands use drum machines that do not stress the back beat in the rhythm. Siouxsie and the Banshees and The Cure tended to play the flanging guitar effect, producing a brittle, cold, and harsh sound that contrasted with their psychedelic rock predecessors"

It sounds like Goth and Psychedelic rock have very little in common here so I'm surprised it was used as a source. Use of drum machines, flanging guitar effect, brittle cold and harsh sound and that it contrasted with Psychedelic rock. Sounds like there are nothing but differences being pointed out here and nothing in the way of similarity. Not sure how this is a stylistic origin, exactly. This just illuminates that these 2 genres don't seem to be in any way related. Use of the word predecessor sounds to me like Psychedelic rock was a music genre that came before Gothic rock and not much else here. WJKovacs (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Glam rock

This keeps getting deleted from the infobox, but, unlike the psychedelic reference above, it is clearly sourced in what is generally considered the most significant book on post-punk. For the record Reynolds (p. 420) notes: "And yet Goth and New Pop had something in common: routes in glam. ABC and the Human League loved Roxy and Bowie, but so did Bauhaus and Sex Gang Children. New Pop and Goth both represented a return to glamour and stardom - a backlash against post-punk's anti-mystique". I don't have any strong feelings on it, and how it is included is certainly up for debate, but as a principle we have to follow what the major sources indicate.--SabreBD (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no "glamour and stardom" to Goth. It was a backlash against disco which was flashy, high energy and happy (which is why EBM has no place in a Goth club, see how that works, EBM fans?). Goth was slow, haunting and dark. Glam and Goth are not even similar. The only thing they have in common is that the bands wore makeup. Hardly as reason to compare the two. You may as well compare Bauhaus to Inane Clown Posse [sic], or Corpus Delicti to Winger. Liking a band doesn't mean your band sounds anything like said band. If your sound was influenced by another genre then, sure, said genre was a "stylistic origin". But if you just happen to wear the same kind of, say, pants as another musician then they're hardly an influence on your genre. Music genres are defined by their sound, not by what the musicians are wearing. Apart from wearing makeup, what do glam and Goth have in common? I'm coming up with "nothing". Anyone else?65.24.131.138 (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

First, it is not my view of influence, but a reliable source and in fact one of the most important. Second, it would be a mistake to think that the implication is that all of glam rock was an influence, as clearly a very specific strain is being pointed to here, Sweet and Slade are not being pointed to. Third, while aesthetics are a significant part of a genre (in punk for example) reliable sources indicate that they also affected the sound. For example, in Valerie Steele and Jennifer Park's Gothic: Dark Glamour (Yale University Press, 2008), they indicate that: "while goth's costumed performances originated in glam rock's aesthetics, musically gothic rock was shaped more by Bowie's and Iggy Pop's Berlin albums." For more specific details on style see [[3]], which includes material on singing style, lyrics and guitar riffs, among other things. The fact is that reliable sources point to this as a major point of origin. Perhaps the best solution is some careful wording in the "Style, roots and influences" section that makes the nature and limits of influence clear. This has to be in proportion to the scale of the article and in balance with other influences, so just a sentence or two would probably be appropriate.--SabreBD (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of recent edits

A series of recent edits by Woovee, mainly concerning the origins of the genre, have been repeatedly reverted. These edits appear to be reliably sourced and no alternative evidence has been offered. It would be useful if those reverting could explain the reasons for these reverts so that and edit war can be averted and consensus developed over these issues.--SabreBD (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

GA status again?

I have been taking a look back over the failed GA review of a few years ago and attempted to fix the issues of illustrations and coverage problems that were highlighted. I think that this article is quite close to GA quality and will try to work on the consistency issues. If anyone can make improvements or suggestions with that end in mind and help would be much appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologise if any offence was caused by reversions I made yesterday, but we really need to get passed this. I take this to be the case as yesterday just adjustments and even additions were made, and today my additions have been effectively reverted. I am happy to discuss any of these changes, and to go with whatever is the consensus here of course, but we wont get anywhere if disagreements result in an edit war. Two issues were presented in the edit summaries:

• On the issue of "too many images": this was said in the review when the shorter article had a large number of images (some of them non-free without rationale) and these resulted in exactly the sort of "sandwiching of text" that WP:IMAGES discourages (and which led to one of my deletions yesterday). You can see that version [[4]]. The current images do not overlap and appear to fulfil the GA guidelines. I have also supplied captions that make the significance of most of the images clearer, which seems to me to be what was desired in the review.

• On the appropriateness of mentioning wider culture. It is clearly suggested in the review, and this is a pretty concise summary. We can discuss whether this is what was intended or appropriate and exactly what form it should take if it is included. I am open to all of that. But reverting it when it has been suggested seems to me to need a proper rationale.

I look forward to comments and discussion.--SabreBD (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There are three issues here :

1) GA Quality : ready or not ready:

To me, The article is not close for GA quality as I have planned to add many other things including another new chapter about the gothic genre in the years 1990's and 2000's.. I've been working on this article for months, adding excerpts of reviews and articles from the NME, Sounds, Melody Maker etc... and I haven't finished my researches yet.

Woovee (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I may have missed this, but where is the list of your plans on this talkpage? If it is not here, then how do you expect editors to know about them and act accordingly? Please be careful not to slip into WP:OWN. The way this is put makes it sound as if recent edits have spoilt your plans, but it has to be a collaborative effort, not a single one. You have perhaps forgotten the thread two above this one when I supported your sourced efforts. As it happens, I think that this article would greatly benefit from a section on the 1990s onwards and that you should definitely go ahead with developing that. However, none of that precludes another editor attempting to improve or expand the article. It is not in the spirit of Wikipedia to revert those edits because you do not like the edits, but instead you should focus on the issues and make cogent points here instead.--SabreBD (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you with all the things you wrote. One has got an arguement here because you want to change the visual of the page and add a brand new sub-section which is not about gothic rock but its subculture. It is normal that you get some reactions from the people who have contributed to this article.Woovee (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure which bits you are agreeing with here. I would like to take this as a positive step, but please bear in mind that you also want to change the article, and indeed have done so by making changes and then reverting and that, just as a point of fact - and not that it matters, I have been editing here longer than you have. That said I have not reverted and I am engaging here to try to find a consensus.--SabreBD (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You wrote : and not that it matters, I have been editing here longer than you have...

Not that it matters, I added a lot of historical content here : you can't say the same for you. All your edits just consisted in undid versions apart the one of last week, when you added a summary of an already existing wiki article goth subculture. Your first edit on that article was a few months before mine.Woovee (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

My point is that there no ownership for anyone.--SabreBD (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

2) On the issue of "too many images"

The failed GA review has this comment : there are a lot of images here. Are they all necessary? . My position is simple. One picture per chapter is enough. To the press, the most famous gothic icon is Robert Smith as it was printed in the nme here : therefore, one has to put a picture of him here. This is a necessity.

Initially, I had made this proposition for the pictures here: it was simple and all the pictures were put on the right of the article

I have to say that the choice of the Toronto pic here was not good. Indeed, beauty and esthetics of the people represented on a pic matter. The artistic quality of a picture is also extremely important. For instance for a article about the bodybuilding, it is better to choose a pic with a beautiful person with attitude rather than a pic of someone who is ugly. See all the great artistic pic with gothic people here and here that one has selected on the goth subculture's article and spot the difference with the Toronto pic here.

Woovee (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already explained that the GA comment has to be taken in the context of the article at that point. Could you just clarify what do you mean "one per per chapter" - do you mean sub-section? If so, do you have a guideline that supports that position? If not it is just your opinion and, although you are entitled to it, you are not entitled to impose it without reason or getting consensus here. You have also rather undermined your position by inserting more pictures into the text than one per section in this edit [[5]]. There are relevant guidelines on WP:IMAGES, if edits do not agree with them, by all means point it out, you will find me accommodating, but you cannot revert good faith edits on the grounds that they disagree with your own position. I am also open to discussing which pics to use, but given that I had already posted one it might have been a good idea to raise the issue here rather than just replacing them.--SabreBD (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

In order to gain time, it would be easier if each one clearly replies to the other when a question is raised. So here are a few questions:

One pic per sub-section is a reasonable choice : let's follow Punk rock as a good instance of a featured article. see also Grunge. Agree or not ?Woovee (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

We do not have to limit ourselves to one picture per subsection (see the featured articles - picked more or less at random - at Nimrod Expedition, J. R. R. Tolkien and Heavy metal music, that all do this). The key limits are outlined at WP:IMAGES and these stress Pertinence and do allow alternation, but not sandwiching of text. Also, are you sure you want this - how are you going to fit Robert Smith in, since all the sections have a picture at the moment?--SabreBD (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference. Heavy metal music has got 106,804 bytes where as this article only has 21,411 bytes. If the sub-sections were longer we could add more pictures eventually. Right now, the subsections of this page are too short to add more than one image. Woovee (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In your view they may, but the sections are not necessarily too short within the guidelines used on Wikipedia. I also remained puzzled about how you can argue this when you have previously added images that did conflict with guidelines. And again, where do you propose to put Smith if there is not room at the moment? --SabreBD (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A pic of Robert Smith (the ultimate gothic icon) must be present : are you agree or not? Woovee (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already said (in an edit summary) that I am more than happy to have Smith illustrated in the article, but I am not sure he is "the ultimate goth icon", for some other figures were more significant. The reason why I chose the other pics is that they were contemporary or near contemporary with the section (and therefore clearly pertinent) and it has to be said that the pic you had of Smith was from 2007. I am quite happy to have a pic of him instead of say Siouxsie Sioux, but I would prefer it were from the early goth rock era for that section.--SabreBD (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You wrote I am not sure he [Robert Smith] is "the ultimate goth icon",. That you are sure or not is not the point. For the NME which is the most important music paper, he is. Again, look at the front cover of the "NME originals: goth issue" here : they chose Robert Smith. So his image must appear in priority. Woovee (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

They could be wrong, and this is not a case of "must", but, in any case - as I have said twice now - I am not against having having a picture of him here. Which picture do you want and where?--SabreBD (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As Simon Reynolds stated, goth put a high premium on physical beauty (p421 2005) ; therefore, one should choose a picture with a good artistical esthetics. I have already explained this yesterday. Therefore, the Toronto pic should not be selected. Agree or not? Woovee (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Reynolds says a lot of things, it doesn't mean it has to affect the illustrations here. To be honest I am really not that bothered about which pic, but the one you used did not seem to illustrate the section. To me it seemed to be of two people who did not look very goth and, to be honest, I found the pushchair in the background very off-putting. I am prepared to discuss other options if you want to suggest them, but I deliberately avoided the sort of art pic that does not look as it is anything to do with the scene or those of stereotypical Victorian goths of the sort that hang out in Whitby as there connections to music is very slight. Bear in mind, when I posted the Toronto pic there was no image: when you posted the pushchair pic, you were replacing one, so it is kind of incumbent on you to make a case. And again, its odd that we are debating this given that you now feel the section is not valid. So lets resolve that issue first.--SabreBD (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm speechless with this kind of comments. Simon Reynolds is a music historian : you're not. Everyone prefers artistical pictures : you don't. The Toronto pic is full of stereotypical goths, by the way. Woovee (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

How do you know I am not a music historian and who is "everyone", I do not see any other comments but ours here at the moment? In any case it is irrelevant. You are taking what has been said about the genre in general terms and applying it to something very specific. It is not as if he said we can't have pictures on Wikipedia that are Goths from Toronto. And again, this is a moot point if there is no sub-section.--SabreBD (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

3) Is a chapter about the goth subculture necessary ?,

This gothic rock article must be only about music and the bands of this genre.

There is already one long, complete article about goth subculture about books, movies, fashion and the tastes of the gothic fans. Therefore, a chapter about this hasn't got its place here because as the gothic genre implies, it is only about music and the bands who make it. It is not about writers, movies directors, painters etc...

Woovee (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This was suggested by the GA review and I happen to think it was a reasonable point. It is also important to note that I did not place the whole article inside this one, but a short summary, as is entirely legitimate as per WP:Summary style. If consensus here is that it not needed (and particularly if there are defensible arguments that will stand up in a future review), or that it should be in a different form, then I am fine with that, but such a consensus needs to be developed.--SabreBD (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The GA review said : The goth subculture "that includes clubs, various fashion trends and numerous publications that grew in popularity in the 1980s" sounds like it should be mentioned somewhere in the body of the article... and did gothic rock continue? If it did, what are some current artists/ bands associated w/ gothic rock?.

This remark meant that the sentence about the goth subculture present in the lead, should be included in the body of the article, but it doesn't say that one has to create a sub-section about goth subculture.

Therefore, this sentence about the goth subculture and its fashion could be added in the first sub-section titled "Style, roots and influences", after the part mentionning Dave vanian (with the mention see main article: goth subculture). On the punk rock article, users chose to mention punk fashion in the first sub-section. So, one could make it too here too. And at the end of the article (once another sub-section about the gothic rock in the years 1990's and 1990's will be written), one could write that goth clubs still exist in major cities.

I really want to insist on the fact that all the sub-sections must make sense. There is not really a need to add an appendix that would look like an uncomplete summary of goth subculture, (which is another really consistent wikipedia article). That would be a pity to dilute it here.Woovee (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but your logic does not follow. The GA review does not say it has to be a sub-section, but it doesn't say it cannot be. I certainly feel it makes more sense at the end of the article, which keeps the order used in the lead. Again, this is how Wikipedia is supposed to work with clear summaries that readers can link to should they wish to do so. The punk article is also a better argument for having clear sub-sections, than just running them into other sections. Having said that, I would not totally rule out this way of doing things, however, reducing this to a "sentence", just looks like a way for you to minimise this. You might want to consider how it be if your planned "genre in the 1990s+" were arbitrarily reduced to a sentence. At the moment I still do not see an objection here beyond the fact that you do not like it or the image that was added.--SabreBD (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You wrote : The GA review does not say it has to be a sub-section, but it doesn't say it cannot be. This is what I stated earlier. The review doesn't suggest it. For the moment, I still don't see any valid point from your part here to explain why one should add a bad summary of the complete gothsubculture. Woovee (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not accept it is a bad summary in fact, oddly enough I think it is quite a good summary and the point about not being restricted still stands. I was not using this as evidence for my way of doing this, but that there is no definitive way. It would be helpful if you gave me something to work with here and perhaps suggest a reasonable way we might incorporate this (and please note that doesn't mean having one sentence in characteristics).--SabreBD (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A reminder that this thread is waiting for suggestions so that the issues can be resolved.--SabreBD (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I made a suggestion here. "Visual elements" could appear here & the other sentences could be included elsehere on goth subculture. Valboo 17:30 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. Is the rationale that visual elements are directly relevant and that the other things are less so? - because I think I can probably live with that. We can keep the "main" link to Gothic subculture at the top of the section, but perhaps we will want to say a little bit more about visuals. There was a reference in your change to crimped hair that was unsourced, so perhaps it would be good to provide a source (and maybe a bit more on hair?) and then run with that shorter version. I suppose this might be better titled "Gothic fashion".--SabreBD (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I had picked up "Visual elements" as it's a more neutral title. To me, this has to be about the look of these bands only. Goth Subculture also talks about Gothic Fashion. Valboo 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's take this alternative solution. The wiki'statistics reveal that Goth Subculture is far more popular than this page, anyway.Woovee (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like consensus to me.--SabreBD (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Quotations of sources

Is there some particular reason that so many footnotes in this article quote large sections of text beside the bibliographic sources? This is usually only done when a source is not easily accessible, or in some way in dispute, (see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Additional annotation), but a lot of these are actually available online. This does make it difficult to bundle identical references and the references are much long and more difficult to navigate.--SabreBD (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Gothic rock" isn't shouldn't be the title, nor the genre name discussed in the article.

"Goth rock" isn't the correct genre name, it is "Industrial rock", seeing that that is what goths generally listen to and that the genre "Industrial" portrays the modern bands/groups as "goth" and try to appeal to goths. When "Goth rock" is searched, it should redirect to "Industrial rock". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32E2:820:D91A:2863:BAFE:39B0 (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a bit of a surprise, given the huge number of sources that mention the genre. Do you have any reliable sources that support your case?--SabreBD (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note regarding editing of Goth related articles

This is an article (subject) which can only be accurately written and edited by persons who have been lifelong members of the European Goth subculture from it's inception in 1982. Those who do not meet this criteria have no business attempting to make assessments of a subcultural history they know little or nothing about. So please leave the writing and editing to those who know first hand - Thanks!79.230.107.17 (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not how Wikipedia works. Please read the links I posted on your talkpage, which explain these issues. In the meantime this talkpage is for discussion of major changes. The changes you have made to this article, which introduce, among other issues, original research and do not conform to the guidelines on neutral point of view need to get consensus here before being implemented.--SabreBD (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

All changes made to the article are factual and relevant to the article. Removing these changes is blatent censorship of relevant factual information. If censorship is how Wikipedia works, then Wikipedia is doomed.79.230.107.17 (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I was there at the Batcave during the batcave era from 1982 and onwards, both as a band member of one of many goth bands during that time and a member of the UK goth subculture. The history of Goth and my own history are inseperable, since I have lived through every moment of Goth's history and was a part of it's making. When you think you know more than I do about the subject, then you're welcome to prove it, until then - my contribution and edits stand as fact.79.230.107.17 (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You should particularly read WP:Verify. I am afraid you telling us that you were present from 1982 is not relevant in Wikipedia. Your experiences are original research and Wikipedia is not the place for these. It is also important for Wikipedia to maintain a neutral point of view, which your edits do not do. You seem to be suggesting that deathrock is distinct from gothic rock and that gothic rock is not a musical genre and have made changes that now mean the text does not reflect the reliable sources used in this article (this is apart form the formatting problems that your edits have created: removing the lead and infobox, which are important parts of this article). If you have a case for these changes and can supply reliable sources, you need to bring those points here and gain a consensus for your changes. Otherwise they will almost certainly be reverted. You should also be aware of the WP:3RR, which you are in danger of breaking.--SabreBD (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Deathrock evolved in North America from 1978 - 1983 independently of Goth in Europe which evolved during the same period, from 1984 Deathrock and Goth began to merge into a worldwide Goth movement. This is not "original research" it's simply an historical fact. It was not until Oliver Wisdom released "The Bat Cave, Young Limbs & Numb Hymns" in 1983 outside the UK that the "Aha" moment arrived in North America, then Kommunity FK (Patrick Mata) performed at the Batcave in 1983, the following year in April 1984 Christian Death (Rozz Williams) played the Batcave (Their first UK performance), at this point the pot had been mixed. As I stated in the article - Genre is a marketing tool for the music industry, the term has no real meaning and exists only in the imagination. So no, Goth is not a genre, and neither is any free art form.

Goth is not a static movement. The term "Gothic Rock" may have been valid in the mid 80's, however today the "Rock" tag is obsolete and irrelevant. Goth has become a free-form art movement.

I will post the changes below for discussion so a concensus can be reached at some point.79.230.107.17 (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Goth music

The bands which directly infuenced the evolution of "Goth" music are (in chronological order): Bauhaus, Joy Division, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Virgin Prunes, The Cure,, The Sisters of Mercy, Southern Death Cult, Specimen, Alien Sex Fiend, Sexbeat, The Venomettes, Sex Gang Children, Clan of Xymox, and Dead Can Dance. Dave Vanian of The Damned was an obvious influence on Goth fashion style, although the band has never been in any way dark or gothic in musical terms.

Whilst the person who wrote the above is probably right that these bands influenced Goth, they were not all Goths by any means. The article makes some effort to distinguish between bands that influenced the Goths and were admired by them and those that actually were 'Gothic'. However it seems to confuse the issue repeatedly and a bit more clarity in this regard seems desirable. The term gothic (small 'g'!) was often used adjectivally (rather than in reference to a genre) of 'post-punk' bands like Joy Division, the Banshees, The Cure, The Birthday Party, Killing Joke, Bauhaus etc. These were distinct from 'true' Goth bands like Sisters of Mercy, Fields of the Nephilim etc. (this can be confusing as the Sisters have themselves rejected the term just as the Birthday Party and Killing Joke did). If you went to a Cure gig in the late eighties you'd be very conscious of the different camps by the way people were dressed. You'd have your general indie kids (generally no make up and not chromatically challenged in the wardrobe department), then there'd be the guys with Robert Smith hairdos, make up, all in black (usually black denims and baggy jumpers). They weren't Goths. They were the obsessive Cure fans. Also in black and heavily made up with dyed black hair, but usually with piercings and a penchant for leather, rubber, bondage gear, studded dog collars, wrist bands, belts etc were the actual goths. Easy to spot the difference. The Goths adopted the post punk likes of the Cure, yet whilst those bands may've been gothic, they certainly weren't Goths.

In regards to music and ideology drawing strict lines is always questionable but I would point to the Sisters of Mercy's self proclaimed vision of their look and sound as the culmination and pointlessness of all prior rock cliches. The same can be said for the absurdities of the likes of the Nephilim. The more theatrical post punk bands (Banshees, Cure, Birthday Party) were adopting a look that was expressionistic rather than ironic. Similarly post punk music was broadly speaking expressionistic in tone -seeking to expand the vocabulary of rock music. By contrast the Goths propounded a millenialist, fin-de sciecle attitude that everything had been said and done and their music and image reflected a nihilism founded on this.

As for the Damned they certainly weren't Goths to start with and their graveyard imagery was pure comedy, but they later tried to pose as Goths in order to cash in (indeed one could argue that the Banshees did this later on as their popularity waned too, and even the Cure if a bit more passively). General blackblood (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Terminology - Goth vs "Gothic Rock"

It should be noted that the outdated term Gothic rock has become obsolete, (much as the terms "Groovy" and "Hipster"), given that the term Rock with it's 1950's Rock and Roll roots, is extremely limiting and no longer relevant to 21st century music and subculture.

Rock music by definition is based on 4/4 time signature 12-Bar R&B (Blues), with a back beat provided by drums, and a rhythm provided by bass and guitar.

Goth music does not require any of these elements, it can include any imaginable rhythm, combination of rhythms or polyrhythms, or can be completely devoid of all rhythm, with no key or time signature, no beat, no drums, no bass, no guitar or any stringed or percussion instruments of any kind. Goth can be a drone or complete silence. Goth can be white noise or ambient sound or absolutely anything the artist requires it to be as an instrument of expression. Goth music is a free art form, which can be as avant gard, experimental or as conventional as the artist composing it.

The term "Rock" therefore has no meaning in such a context. The concept of Genre itself is nothing short of a pair of creative handcuffs without a key.

Virtually all existing "Goths" agree that the term Goth is now universally applied to both goth music and goth subculure, without the need for any genre tags. The term "genre" being solely a marketing tool for the music industry.79.230.107.17 (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure how to respond to all this. These seem to be unsourced changes and that constitute original research, which is to be avoided on Wikipedia. It is probably not helpful to post all the proposed changes here, but better to concisely summarise what you are trying to do and what exactly are your reliable sources.--SabreBD (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did a googlebook search on pussible names for this article. "goth music" gets 1,730 results, "goth rock" gets 2,570 results, and "gothic rock" gets 5,210 results. I also found a few hundred results for "pop-goth". Dimadick (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)