Category talk:Goth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I reformatted this discussion into something resembling a sane layout because the indentation was taking up over half the width of the page - hope nobody objects. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 11:41, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)'

I would argue that there are a good number of bands listed that aren't goth acts. Front 242, Funker Vogt, Front Line Assembly, NIN, etc. Several of those acts have publicly derided the goth movement, in fact. Twiin 05:24, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As per discussion with Lady Lysine Ikinsile on Talk:Assemblage 23, I'm creating List of non-goth musical artists popular within goth subculture; I'm going to add said list to Category:Goth, start removing Category:Goth from certain groups, and move them to said list. - Korpios 02:11, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Okay, those changes are done; everything that was glaringly not-goth was removed from Category:Goth and added to List of non-goth musical artists popular within goth subculture. I even added Apoptygma Berzerk to the list, despite APB not having been in Category:Goth in the first place. Did I miss anyone? - Korpios 02:46, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The only other 'questionable' acts would the The Cult and Sisters of Mercy, but I think they should probably stay. Twiin 04:33, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think an inclusionist policy is best here. A lot of people (including me) consider SoM to be goth, for example, whatever Eldritch says (and a lot of people have publically derided him for his comments ;-), so it's worth listing them. Conversely, I don't consider Manson goth, but I would rather include him on the grounds that other people do, than enter a long and most likely pointless discussion about whether he is or isn't. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 04:39, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)

Hmm, what about Nine Inch Nails? Older stuff seemed non-goth, but I don't know enough about what they're doing recently to say for certain. The article implies industrial. - Korpios 04:48, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Blink. I was about to say that I don't think they're any more goth than the others that were removed, then went to see who added the category, and it was none other than myself. So, uh, removed. I'll move them to the not-quite-goth list. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 04:58, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this move and consider there should have been quite a bit more discussion first. Restoring - David Gerard 19:38, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining exactly why you disagree rather than jumping in and starting to revert everything? There was discussion before action, and now you're providing an example of action before discussion. Please cease any further reverts (I see you've already done Covenant (band) and VNV Nation) until we all discuss this further and agree on an appropriate course. - Korpios 20:39, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See below. "I knows it when I sees it" is in fact the case, but really isn't encyclopaedic or good enough to satisfy NPOV - David Gerard 21:17, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

More on the subject ... I really don't see how we can take anything other than an inclusionist view on this without it pushing a POV. On one end, excluding the Cure, Siouxsie and the Banshees or the Sisters of Mercy just because they disclaim it would be patently ridiculous. On the other, we'd have no bands beyond the goth cliche pastiche level, because any modern band knows the label "goth" is the kiss of death as far as success outside the scene goes. Furthermore, there is no single consistent genre or style called "goth" (beyond the pastiche of cliches level) and, as far as I can tell, never has been. Excluding the cyber stuff or excluding Manson and imitators would be POV-pushing, however sincere. The topic should include stuff relevant to the subculture, which would include the industrial-end stuff (e.g. Nine Inch Nails) - David Gerard 20:38, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think we should include only things that are at least remotely goth though. VNV Nation, Apoptygma Berzerk, and other EBM/synthpop/futurepop bands are basically never described as "goth bands". I don't think we should go around sticking 25 genre names on every single band, just because they're somehow vaguely related to each of the genres. VNV Nation, for example, are a better candidate for a classical music category, as some of their songs are instrumental string arrangements. Or, as with songs like Amhran Comhrac, some sort of Celtic folk music. Or—less of a strech than any of the above—trance music, although that's also not really very close to accurate. --Delirium 23:08, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

Using the string present does not make them "classical". They're a bit more than vaguely related to the goth category - it's one of their main market segments. I don't see anything deeply wrong with several categories being attached to an article. I see it as whether the article is relevant to the category, not the other way around. VNV is relevant to the Goth category IMO. VNV certainly wouldn't be relevant to the Classical category. VNV may well be relevant to the Trance category. VNV probably wouldn't be relevant to the Celtic folk category, although if this became a bigger part of their music they might go in a hypothetical Industrial Folk category with Sorrow and half of World Serpent. Etc. Etc. Put it this way: who understands SimRonan? 1. the bedroom musician EBM wannabe stars who write it; 2. the cybergoths. (Though I don't think I'd list SimRonan here ... hmmm.) - David Gerard 09:01, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Covenant, VNV, APB, NIN, etc... they're not goth bands, and while goths may listen to them occasionally, that doesn't make them 'goth acts' any more than having a white audience makes you a 'white act'. If they don't participate in the goth subculture, play at goth festivals, or get released on goth labels/compilations... I don't see why they should be included. Twiin 08:43, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

VNV headlined at Whitby, as did Icon of Coil. Covenant headlined Black Celebration in London in 2001, Apop headlined it in 2002. EBM is right into the goth scene in the UK and vice versa - David Gerard 09:01, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't have a large emotional investment in this issue or anything, but as a music promoter and DJ, I would never classify those bands as 'goth'. If you were running a record store, would you put them in the 'goth' section, or would you put them in a 'Future/Synth-Pop' section? Twiin 09:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Would a record store have a "goth" section? I think it'd be more likely to have a "deathrock" section and an "EBM" section and so on. And noone's about to complaing about deathrock artists being listed under goth. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 09:05, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the record stores where I live (Ottawa) have 'goth', 'industrial', and 'electronica' sections. Covenant/APB are in 'electronica' when they're not in 'pop'. Twiin 09:07, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If I were running a goth record shop, I might. If I were running any other sort of record shop, it would almost certainly all go under "alternative". As I said, I maintain that an inclusionist attitude is needed for the category - David Gerard 09:08, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can't agree. Lumping NIN with VNV, Siouxie, Front Line Assembly and The Cult makes the category label so loose as to be irrelevant and useless. They don't share anything in common, aside from the fact that people who listen to them tend to wear black. There's much more specialization and genre-definition present in that area of music than the 'goth' category allows for. Additionally, as someone who works with artists like FLA/242 and their contemporaries, I find the categorization of them as 'goth' as erronous as including Gwar would be, and a little insulting to the artists involved. Twiin 09:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In what way is it "insulting"? How is the category "irrelevant and useless" because it lists artists that are not only very popular within the "goth" subculture, but comprise, in many cases, the majority of a typical playlist at "goth" club nights? (And you're a lot more like to hear Front 242 at a goth club than, say, Type O Negative or Theatre of Tragedy—both of whom are in this category). — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 09:33, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

It's insulting in the same way calling Type O Negative a psychedelic rock band is insulting. That's not what they are, that's not what they do. It's not a dig at goth culture/music, or anything. The category isn't irrelevant and useless as it stands, but I think it runs the risk of becoming irrelevant if it's just including bands that might be in a playlist at a goth night somewhere in the world. 95% of goth nights I've been to bill themselves as goth/industrial/ebm nights -- The 'pure' goth nights that I've been to here play a lot more Type-O than F242, but that's due to regional variances, I'm sure. My point, really, is that I think you're running the risk of diluting your category. It's simple. Is Front Line Assembly goth? If so, they should be in the category. If not, they shouldn't. Is Sisters of Mercy goth? Sure is, even if Old Man Andrew says otherwise. Is Front 242 goth? Not where I come from, although YMMV. Twiin 09:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think it's not so much "are they goth?" as "are they relevant to the goth subculture?" (being as it's Category:Goth rather than Category:Goth music artists): and I think it's fair to say that, yes, they are, whether or not their music is "goth". Should electronic body music also be removed from the category? — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 09:48, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

The category's self-diluting. "Where I come from" isn't the world. This category isn't "Goth as we see it in Ottawa." I don't see the "insulting" either. SoM claim to find the tag "insulting". It's not about what the artists think, claim or market themselves as; it's about what's right for the category.
Come up with a criterion (or set of criteria) that makes obvious, elegant sense if you want to exclude the main portion of the soundtrack of goth in the UK at least. I've tried for years to come up with a criterion and haven't; if you can, you'll deserve a Nobel Prize for Goth.
Failing that, I maintain that an inclusionist approach is the only way this category can satisfy the hard policy of NPOV - David Gerard 09:50, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how your "This category isn't Goth as we see it in Ottawa." comment contributes anything positive to the discussion. It's silly to suggest that I claimed that was the focus of the category -- and if that's not what you're suggesting, than it's an irrelevant comment. I didn't suggest that it was, I was stating my experiences with goth culture as a goth/industrial/experimental dj and promoter in my corner of the world. This is a global community, is it not? This category isn't "Goth as we see it in the UK" either.

That aside, I think Lady Lysine Ikinsile's "Are they relevant to the goth subculture" question is a great criteria for inclusion to the category. Nine Inch Nails is (or was), but I don't Think FLA/242 is (or was).

And For the Nobel Prize for Goth: Industrial/EBM came from Throbbing Gristle, new technology and splicing tape loops, whereas goth came from the positive-punk movement. To me, they're two very obviously different things, coming from two very obviously different places. Does VNV Nation have more in common with technology-based music, or positive-punk? Does The Cure/The Cult have more in common with experimental splicing, or punk? The delineation is, to me, a simple one. Twiin 10:02, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with NIN, so I may be wrong here, but aren't they normally categorised as something approaching industrial rather than EBM? I can understand your reasons for being against e.g. FLA, but surely they are more suitable for inclusion than NIN?
FWIW, I think the fact at least one "suitably qualified" person has a strong opinion in favour their inclusion is reason enough to include them. Would you agree to include them with a note at the top of the category page explaining the purpose of the category? — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 10:14, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't expect I'll be doing much editing of the goth category. I only commented at the outset because I felt that there were bands listed that perhaps should not have been, so you're more than free to include/exclude anything you want, regardless of how I feel about it. I think the List of non-goth musical artists popular within goth subculture was a smart way to deal with the problem, and avoid these kinds of headaches. :)

As for FLA vs NIN -- NIN's first album was gothy synthpop, and his next one was industrial-metal. FLA haven't done any work that I'd consider to be even vaguely gothic, to be honest. I think we're running into regional differences quite a bit here. You think that FLA's more goth than NIN, and see that as self-evident. The people I work with see NIN as more goth than FLA, and see that as self-evident. In any case, I'm not trying to dictate or push content, I just felt I should contribute my opinion. Twiin 10:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's excellent as a concise theoretical dividing line for the subject. However, it fails to account for reality and other notable and important Points Of View, e.g. EBM being standard goth fare in the scene I see here. (Perhaps they just look like goths and call themselves goths and share a scene with goths but aren't goth at all?) The reason being, I suggest, that industrial, though it wasn't punk, definitely played a big part in UK post-punk in the late 1970s, which goth eventually emerged from; and industrial and goth have remained intertwined since. Certainly I've heard compatible industrial in goth clubs in Australia since the 1980s.
I wasn't meaning to be snippy with the "as we see it in Ottawa"; it's that you seemed to be using local views to exclude stuff that would be included according to others. As I said, the category is going to have to be inclusionist to satisfy NPOV - David Gerard 11:28, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Category:Goth" is given wholly without context. Are we talking about subculture? Musical genre? Fashion? From the perspective of the end-user (e.g. someone reading an article on VNV Nation for the first time), it's highly misleading to see "Category:Goth" listed at the end of the article. It gives no NPOV perspective whatsoever regarding whether the artist should be considered "goth" musically — and that's exactly the meaning we can assume most end-users will take away from such a listing at the bottom of the article. Other potentially assumed meanings are also suspect — assuming a given artist dresses "goth" (applied to many EBM/synthpop groups, this would render "goth" in the fashion sense meaningless), or associates with the gothic subculture (again, many of these groups have little to nothing to do with the elements typically associated with said subculture). As for an inclusionist policy being NPOV, this simply isn't true; an inclusionist policy is every bit POV as an exclusionist one, so I don't see how we can use that as a valid yardstick. Honestly, I don't think Category:Goth is viable as it currently stands; it badly needs to be placed within the context of something like Category:Subcultures. An acceptable category listing for these "questionable" musical groups would be something like Category : Subcultures : Goth : Associated Musical Groups. That makes it clear that we're talking about groups that are associated with the goth subculture by some - and that's fairly NPOV, IMHO. - Korpios 17:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's already a subcategory of Category:Subcultures, which is where it belongs. And the intro says it's about the subculture.
Granted, that's one point I was mistaken on; the category trails really ought to show a couple of levels of context. - Korpios 18:00, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A modest proposal: a separate EBM subcategory

How's the following sound? Category:Electronic body music. This would be a subcategory of Goth and of Industrial Music. VNV, Covenant, Apop, Icon of Coil and Assemblage 23 all fit straight into it. Could probably put an article on InFest there too. (A UK "industrial" festival where the music is EBM and the attendees are largely goths.) Sound workable? - David Gerard 17:47, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to give my tentative support to this; the above-mentioned confusion regarding no levels of context for categories might actually come in handy, in this regard. This removes the immediate issue of seeing "goth" directly on the artist pages, yet still allows those browsing the categories to find the artists through downward descent. My only concern would be the name of the category; some of these artists are more properly synthpop than EBM. Suggestions for a clean-sounding collective name for the two? (I'd really rather not split them into two separate categories, as the line blurs between them for several of the artists in question.) Is "Electronic body music and synth pop" clean enough? - Korpios 18:00, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Nah. I might call EBM a subcategory of "synth pop" as well. I'm sure the harder core indushtrialishts do. The five bands I named fit into EBM inarguably (well, as inarguable as any conversation between goths) - David Gerard 18:27, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm trying to follow the definitions give in synth pop and electronic body music, that's all. A little fixing now saves a lot of grief later. ;) Perhaps as an alternative adding both "electronic body music" and "synthpop" as subcats, and dual-listing artists that really do blur the lines? For example, Covenant is usually described as a synthpop group, not an EBM group. - Korpios 18:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Are they so "usually described"? Not as far as I know - David Gerard 18:45, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*sigh* This might be part of the confusion. ;) I've usually seen Covenant referred to as synthpop. Many of these artists, again, blur the lines badly between the two genres (more synthpoppy vocals, more EBM instrumentally); "futurepop" has been used to describe them. This sub-issue isn't nearly as important to me, though, as the more general issue at hand. It can be taken up later. - Korpios 19:04, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure. In theory it's sound, but do we then create Category:Deathrock, Category:Goth rock, etc. and move all the other 'goth' bands out of Category:Goth? On a different note, if one sees, for example "Categories: Electronic body music | Goth" at the bottom of a band's article, I don't think it's necessarily unclear, or implying that they're "goth music" (what does that mean - goth rock? Can't EBM be considered 'goth music', +/- regional variation?) — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 18:07, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
As Twiin pointed out above, EBM is very much not "goth music +/- regional variation". The two (goth and EBM) came from wholly different sources, and stylistically speaking have no more in common than the examples aforementioned (folk, classical). IMHO it's quite fair and NPOV to say that EBM is associated with the goth subculture; it's extremely POV (and extremely questionable) to say they are goth music. By breaking it out into a separate subcategory, it makes the distinction that this is merely a musical genre associated with the subculture. As for breaking out all the other artists into their own subcategories, I'm not certain this is absolutely necessary; they may require case-by-case examinations. - Korpios 18:24, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
How do you define "goth music"? — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 18:32, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
Death rock and gothic rock (with the exception of the "Contemporary dance club goth" paragraph, with IMHO needs some NPOV tweaking) are fairly decent guides. Calling the Crüxshadows and/or London After Midnight "goth" despite their heavy use of synths is fair, because they're both deliberately aiming for, and creating, what could be described as the "goth" genre sound; calling Assemblage 23 or VNV Nation "goth" musical-genre-wise merely because of their popularity with the goth subculture isn't. A genre is defined by its acoustic qualities, not by who listens to it; put another way, you should be able to fit an artist within a genre based purely on listening to their music with no other "hints" (e.g. visual presentation, popularity). - Korpios 18:54, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"Solitary" by VNV sounds like Joy Division would have had they continued. Listen to some early industrial bands, the sort with guitars and drums (before the Sisters of Mercy stereotyped everything for everyone). Your acoustic quality criteria are exceedingly blurry - David Gerard 18:59, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I have listened to those bands (early-industrial sort); for the record, I can't stand them. ;) I'm not making a case that EBM/synthpop/futurepop are under the "industrial" umbrella any longer, as I believe they've evolved away from it much the same as goth has evolved away from punk. That said, I don't see how my criteria is particularly mistaken. Either way, I don't see how this should impact the proposed plan (a subcategory under Categories : Goth). - Korpios 19:14, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
But Category:Goth isn't about goth as a musical genre, it's about goth as a subculture. "Goth music" was a bad term to use there: I meant something like "music which is part of the goth subculture." ("Part of" rather than "associated with")
If someone wants to create Category:Deathrock and Category:Electronic body music, and so on for the other bands listed under Category:Goth, and add those categories here, that'd be fine; I'm just not comfortable with listing some bands here while saying other are "not goth". Particulary when bands like Theatre of Tragedy and Type O Negative are listed here. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 19:09, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
Okay, so how about making subcategories for all of them? That way, no band is listed as "more associated with / part of / etc." the goth subculture than others. Again, my overriding concern this whole time has been making it clear to the end-user reader of an article that a given artist isn't necessarily "goth" musical-genre wise. I have no problem noting that they're associated with the subculture by some. Unfortunately, the current category system, given its lack of context (e.g. "breadcrumb" trails) requires a bit of working-with. - Korpios 19:17, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The other categories are nothing like as clear as EBM/the rest. In fact, most 'categories' of goth seem to have traced the history of bands coming up with euphemisms for "goth" because they feel silly calling themselves "goth" - David Gerard 20:14, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, it seems:

  1. There is agreement that a subcategory should be made for EBM/EBM-like artists, and artists clearly falling within this umbrella should be moved there.
  2. There is contention regarding what to do with the other artists.

Am I correct, or mistaken? Should we go ahead with the EBM subcategory for now, at least? - Korpios 20:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I shall do so now. It beats more "what is goth" pinhead-angel-counting - David Gerard 21:04, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've begun moving deathrock to Category:Death rock. (The name of the category is based on Death rock, but I do believe "deathrock" is a more common spelling... maybe it should be renamed). — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 15:46, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)
I've always used 'deathrock', but googlefight puts the numbers at 36000 for 'death rock' and 32000 for 'deathrock'. I don't think it matters too much, really. It also might put to rest a lot of this kind of discussion if the goth category were renamed such that people knew it wasn't necessarily referring specifically to goth musicians, although I have no idea what a good wording would be to convey such.Twiin 09:25, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I did suggest Category:Goth subculture, but David being a stinky goff disagreed, and thinks Category:Goth is quite clear. If things are going to be subcategorised under it anyway I don't think there's really much room for confusion.
FWIW, I think a lot of hits for "death rock" on google are a bit misleading: they're just "death" followed by "rock". — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 10:46, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

[edit] Another band that seems to be here due to appearance

What is Placebo doing listed under the Goth category to begin with?

Their music still a farcry on anything Death Rock EBM Darkwave Goth.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/o/t/Category_talk%7EGoth_6f2d.html"