Goth: Your Opinion

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

ETS asked this:

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

What if the metal head ALSO owns every Bauhaus album and is also into the traditional goth rock and death rock bands and attends the same frequented haunts and clubs as you? Can they only listen to goth rock because any sacrificed attention to another genre shows a lack of consistent allegiance?

GM responded with this:

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

I don't think that's what Kontan is saying. I think his only point is that one must listen to goth rock to be goth, at least by the most commonly accepted definition of the subculture.

That's exactly what he's saying. He's defining a goth as someone that listens to goth music, as is evidenced by this thread's message #42:

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

I WILL define it. A goth is a fan of goth rock. I've always said that.

I completely agree with EtS on this point. Kontan's statement smacks of high-handed snobbery.

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Then again, as I've said before, anyone is technically free to redefine a given word. However, the guy who decides that "detective" means "gay prostitute" should be prepared to encounter some confusion when he approaches a detective and asks "want to go get a room so I can lick your asshole?"

This comparison is idiotic. Both gay prostitutes and detectives have very specific definitions, while "goth" does not. This is just ham-fisted hyperbole.

Not everything is open to redefinition. I can't redefine the chemical formula for sulphuric acid simply because I want to. Well, I suppose I could, but it wouldn't allow me to make acid from brown sugar and apple juice. Subcultural labels, on the other hand, have no substance and mean almost nothing, and are therefore vulnerable to arbitrary redefinitions.

[Man In Room 5]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

I'm not sure. Perhaps there is a set gothic aesthetic, but by that reasoning wouldn't the designers of gothic cathedrals in 15th century France have shared traits with the goths of our modern era? I highly doubt you can in any way compare the, largely religious, scholars and artisans responsible for producing gothic art and architecture to the crowd at Hot Topic. Still, seeing as though "mallgoths" seem to be in the majority, they are what I would call de facto goth. There are lots of them, they call themselves goth, and, as there is no set definition for the term, I suppose we will have to concede the label.

If you concede the label then this is where I should be a prick and say I win the debate, but I can't really do that. I say there is a gothic aesthetic but I have yet to define exactly what it is, so I can't say that I won anyone over to anything. I only want to argue that there are commonalities between the modern goth scene and the designers of gothic cathedrals in 15th century France as well as the gothic novelists of the 1700-1800s. Certainly not many commonalities, but enough to establish a connection. Most gothic traits are superficial anyway--the hot new band of the week, the hot new outfit of the week (that's how Hot Topic got it's name after all)--but behind that is possibly the "gothic aesthetic" which may connect them all.

So, looking at the surface goth changes very quickly but looking at the motivations behind the aesthetic I suspect modern goths share a few traits with 15th century artists and even more traits with 18th century gothic novelists (or more accurately, the characters they created). You say the "scholars and artisans responsible for producing gothic art and architecture" were "religious" but I would say they were merely spiritual or perhaps even simply inspirational. I'm not sure they were concerned with the dogma and ritual of the church; they were concerned with the emotional drama, the "dark night of the soul" and the art that lifts us above it. A look at medieval gothic art shows that almost all of it centers around the New Testament rather than the Old Testament and I suspect this is specifically because of the dramatic/emotional appeal of Jesus' story. Medieval gothic artists preferred bittersweet victory over darkness and were probably much closer to the stereotypical suffering emo artist of today than they were to any religion. They merely worked within a Christian context because that's all they knew and secular fiction was in its infancy. In fact, I'd argue that prose fiction developed from writers who wanted to reproduce the emotional cycles of the New Testament. Some of Chaucer's works come pretty close to the gothic image or the romantic emo suffering artist stereotype and--interestingly enough--Chaucer's secular works have appeared as carvings in gothic churches...which suggests to me that the artists of the churches were willing to depict any bittersweet, uplifting tear-jerking material they could find. It was also Chaucer who transformed the tale of Lucretia into something bittersweet, romantic and uplifting.

I think this is the connection. The gothic aesthetic seems based on an ability to find something uplifting in otherwise dark material and this is exactly why the Sister of Mercy's song Lucretia was such a big hit. Even if you didn't know Chaucer's version, you could feel uplifted by a song which had predominately dark lyrics. Ditto that for SOM's This Corrosion which sounds damned near like church music itself and amid all the corrosion is still somehow uplifting and constantly repeats the line about healing. Ditto that for Joy Division's She's Lost Control and for at least half the songs by Bauhaus. I think this also explains why some goth artists can suddenly go Christian so easily (Eva O. is the 1st I think of). It's not so much that they suddenly found religion....it's just that they suddenly decided to depict this gothic aesthetic within a Biblical framework just as the 15th century gothics did.


Jesus, that was a long post. I'm extra-pretentious today.



@Utho: If you're looking for 18th-19th century goth novels I'd start with the Wikipedia article on gothic literature. I'm not sure how accurate it is but it will at least name the big ones and you can go from there.

[Don't Look Behind You]

wow i left a forum full of narrow-minded eldritch-worshipers and when I come back its full of people capable of leading intelligent discussions.

The opinion about how subculture is something vivid, defined by the collectivity of its members and not the members being defined by some set citerea is what I have been prophesising for severla years now...:P Its so difficult to not get worked up about this ridiculous subject.

It is such a breath of fresh air to see people like Man in Room 5 and Eclipsing the Son, among others, actually understanding what subculture, or culture for that matter, means.

In my opinion, goth is the term for a milieu, under which all, from oldschool deathrockers to cybergoth are united. As Man in Room 5 has interestingly pointed out several times, there are basic themes that reoccur throughout history and take on different forms during each era. But they are still connected.

Also, Utho made a wonderful anthropological analysis of the European goth scene. Seeing this, i think its sad that some still try defining anything as "real goth". Sure, there is a subculture based on gothic rock. its called Goth by its memebers. As any subculture, it has influences the outer world, has introduced it to some concepts that it readily took up and bam new subcultures emmerge ebcuase THE TIMES FUCKIN CHANGE.

how nice it is to be back on g.net

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

That's exactly what he's saying. He's defining a goth as someone that listens to goth music, as is evidenced by this thread's message #42:

And he's right.

[Opteron_Man]

Oh so many contradictions....

[MollyMac]

Oh, now, here it all goes again. If Goth is so fucking open ended, then it isn't anything at all. It *isn't* what you make of it and call goth because you don't have a decent enough grasp of Wikipedia.

Goth isn't Macramé.

[Don't Look Behind You]

since when is wikipedia the ultimate authority on anything?

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Don't Look Behind You

since when is wikipedia the ultimate authority on anything?

Whenever somebody underestimates Wiki, God kills a kitten.
Here's a project for you:
1. Read a Wiki Article on a subject.
2. Read a book on the same subject.
3. Google the subject extensively.
4. If Wiki was completely unreliable on said subject, fix article.
5. Fin.

[MollyMac]

It isn't. It was a statement implying that they are incapable. Context, man. Context.

[alucard978]

New to this site,I was goth before the word goth was known and had a following. Because I listen to many types of music does that make me not goth? Define goth in one word. Not easy, my point is I love beath metal, speedmetal hardrock,so I guess I am not a true goth. I love horror paranormal and vampires, I was watching Dark Shadows after school when I was 8. Goth was associated with vampires and old castles, then dressing black, painting fingernails black. Am I Goth?, am I just an aging rocker? I am me, thats what I am Nice to meet you, alucard978

[MollyMac]

Hola and welcome. You will be annoyed by the ongoing "What is Goth" aspect of this place, to be sure, then. But such things are important at a younger age.

Hi, I'm not a goth, either.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

ETS asked this:



GM responded with this:



That's exactly what he's saying. He's defining a goth as someone that listens to goth music, as is evidenced by this thread's message #42:

ETS' post CLEARLY implied that, in Kontan's view, someone couldn't listen to Cradle of Filth and also be goth. It's not subtext, it's right here:

Can they only listen to goth rock because any sacrificed attention to another genre shows a lack of consistent allegiance?

Kontan never once intimated this.

This comparison is idiotic. Both gay prostitutes and detectives have very specific definitions, while "goth" does not. This is just ham-fisted hyperbole.

Not everything is open to redefinition. I can't redefine the chemical formula for sulphuric acid simply because I want to. Well, I suppose I could, but it wouldn't allow me to make acid from brown sugar and apple juice. Subcultural labels, on the other hand, have no substance and mean almost nothing, and are therefore vulnerable to arbitrary redefinitions.

You have a real talent for arguing against points that I never made. I said "anyone is free to redefine a given word", not "anyone is free to redefine natural laws". Definitions are democratic, however-- if most of the world's english speakers decided that 'detective' meant 'gay prostitute', the standard meaning of the word would most certainly have changed.
At present, the most popular definition of 'goth' is 'a fan of goth rock'.

[MollyMac]

Excellent. Well, then, Goth is a fishmonger!

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

Weak argument. I could just as easily ask the same question. Why is it so important that you and YOUR ilk be the only breed known as goth?

What if the metal head ALSO owns every Bauhaus album and is also into the traditional goth rock and death rock bands and attends the same frequented haunts and clubs as you? Can they only listen to goth rock because any sacrificed attention to another genre shows a lack of consistent allegiance?

That goth I talked to was also a ravenous Britney Spears fan.

What I'm saying is you CAN'T get a goth without goth rock.

I mean, it's silly to call yourself something and then rebuke the very cornerstone of that something. It'd be like calling yourself a biker and yet you don't own or ride a bike or even have very much interest in bikes beyond people just considering you one.

I really hope this clarifies my point.

As you can see, the definition of a goth being a fan of goth rock is actually the most liberating definition because the only requisite of it is that you ARE a fan. Just cause you may hate dark melodramatic post punk, doesn't mean you can't enjoy your Anne Rice novels and New Rock boots.

[Man In Room 5]

It seems different people on here are debating the meaning of different terms. I was debating the definition of "goth" as a style while others were defining the definition of "a goth"--as in an individual...which leads to pointless wars of who is "more goth". Yet others are trying to define "gothic rock". Definitions of all 3 terms must be inclusive simply because we're going to have a hard time drawing a line. Certain bands or people are clearly not goth...but anyone with even a hint of what we consider goth is going to have to be included.

Prime example: If 10 million mallgoths say HIM is goth we should probably include HIM in goth rock. My question is simply, what is the criteria for that decision--or what makes 10 million mallgoths see a relation between HIM and those other bands that most of us consider to be better examples of goth rock, such as Bauhaus. Better yet, does HIM have any artistic commonalities with 18th century gothic novelists?

Saying that a goth is someone who listens to gothic rock brings us no closer to any definition of goth. It's like saying a junkie is someone who is addicted to junk. Unless you already know that junk is heroin this definition tells you nothing.

Personally, I don't want to say who is and isn't goth or what bands are and aren't goth. I just wanted to search for the commonalities between them and question if any guidelines can be established over time. I think goth is almost like an artistic tradition or school of art. It changes down the years but all the changes are variants of a vague central theme, which I've been calling the gothic aesthetic.

[Eclipsing the Son]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

That goth I talked to was also a ravenous Britney Spears fan.

What I'm saying is you CAN'T get a goth without goth rock.

I mean, it's silly to call yourself something and then rebuke the very cornerstone of that something. It'd be like calling yourself a biker and yet you don't own or ride a bike or even have very much interest in bikes beyond people just considering you one.

I really hope this clarifies my point.

As you can see, the definition of a goth being a fan of goth rock is actually the most liberating definition because the only requisite of it is that you ARE a fan. Just cause you may hate dark melodramatic post punk, doesn't mean you can't enjoy your Anne Rice novels and New Rock boots.

Okay. That works. It would be silly to claim goth and shun the music.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Definitions are democratic, however-- if most of the world's english speakers decided that 'detective' meant 'gay prostitute', the standard meaning of the word would most certainly have changed.
At present, the most popular definition of 'goth' is 'a fan of goth rock'.

Who says that the "most popular" definition of goth is a fan of goth rock? Where are you pulling that from? I'd be willing to bet that if you polled the masses the term "goth rock" would barely be mentioned.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Who says that the "most popular" definition of goth is a fan of goth rock? Where are you pulling that from? I'd be willing to bet that if you polled the masses the term "goth rock" would barely be mentioned.

In that case, the masses aren't fucking Goths. Oh shit. I made a valid point.

[Eclipsing the Son]

I have to agree with them now. I knew a girl in culinary school who wore the clothes and was a self proclaimed goth. One day, giving her a ride to class, I put on Bauhaus and she asked me to change it cause it bored her. I then put on The Birthday Party and when that didn't please she recommended I listen to Murderdolls. I told her she wasn't goth and she said she was she just didn't like my taste in music. She never got a ride again and while the reason being was I thought she was stupid for saying such a thing, I now can also add that she definitely could not be goth with her tastes in music.

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

In that case, the masses aren't fucking Goths. Oh shit. I made a valid point.

No, shortsighted rainbow dunce, you didn't.

What you did is called 'being Captain Fucking Obvious'.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

In that case, the masses aren't fucking Goths. Oh shit. I made a valid point.

I wasn't aware that goths managed to be all gothy in a fucking vacuum. I guess we can just count the rest of the human population out of the equation, then?

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

I wasn't aware that goths managed to be all gothy in a fucking vacuum. I guess we can just count the rest of the human population out of the equation, then?

Maybe not the entire population. Just the ones who don't know what Goth is. Wait.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by MollyMac

Oh, now, here it all goes again. If Goth is so fucking open ended, then it isn't anything at all.

Goth is whatever the majority seems to think it is. People claiming to be goth can't even agree what the fuck it is, let alone the majority of people that don't identify themselves as anything of the sort. Do you have a tenable definition?

Originally Posted by MollyMac

Goth isn't Macramé.

Well, you're right about one thing: goth isn't part of making decorative tablecloths out of knotted string. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Eclipsing the Son]

You should know by now that Mollymac only ever states her opinion. She NEVER backs it up though. She's 'too cool' for that.

[gothicusmaximus]

I meant to imply that 'a fan of goth rock' was the most popular definition among people who identify as 'goth', not the most popular among people who, having no idea, blindly guess what the deal is. I'm sorry if that didn't come through.
Then again, I could easily be wrong about this. In my experience, most self-professed goths define the subculture thusly, but it's possible that socially retarded teenagers looking for a way to make their loneliness seem intentional simply outnumber Bauhaus fans nowadays.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

I meant to imply that 'a fan of goth rock' was the most popular definition among people who identify as 'goth', not the most popular among people who, having no idea, blindly guess what the deal is. I'm sorry if that didn't come through.

Is that all it takes, then? Do we now include everyone that likes Bauhaus and The Cure, among others, under the label of "goth"? I guarantee you that doing so would incite a shitstorm of protest from many members of this forum, with all the attendant screaming about needing to go to goth clubs, and such. Hell, I like both of those bands, but I wouldn't consider myself goth. I'm also betting that most self-professed goths wouldn't either.

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Then again, I could easily be wrong about this. In my experience, most self-professed goths define the subculture thusly, but it's possible that socially retarded teenagers looking for a way to make their loneliness seem intentional simply outnumber Bauhaus fans nowadays.

They do. Bauhaus isn't goth anymore. Or, if it is, it won't be soon enough. Bauhaus didn't change, the people defining goth did. It's evolution, baby.