Talk:Gothic rock/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Gothic rock. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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 [[1]]. 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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 [[2]]. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 [[2]]. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
"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)
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 [3] 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)
Southern Death Cult ! Info / Help
Hi everybody ive got a question
What genre i Southern Death Cult really ?
Im new into that whole Gothic Stuff so i cant find any similarities to true goth band like vendemmian, sisters or fields.
And the other point is their style is differend - an indian warpaint has nothing to do with goth style like Sex Gang Children or Specimen -Sometimes their tagged into Punk ? But in my eyes the sound have nothing to do do with punk music like Sex Pistols its not as agressive as Sex Pistols and not so anarcho if you know what i mean.
I was searching on the whole www and i found following tags
- Goth Rock -Positive Punk -Post Punk -Goth Punk
Can anybody tell me what it really is please ? Which point makes them Goth or Post Punk or else ?
For me its just darker more tribal post punk which became Goth in the early 80's
Thanks for your help --88.152.98.150 (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
"keyboard-heavy"
Hundreds of bands don't use any keyboards. Important are only the guitar technique, the drums, and the vocals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.17.232 (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2014 (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. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'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)
Always the same ignorant people. Of course, early Gothic Metal is a fusion genre. Bands such as Paradise Lost combined Doom/Death with Nephilim-esque Gothic Rock. Greg Mackintosh was a Goth in the '80s... The problem is not Gothic Metal. The problem is that Gothic Metal is often confused with Symphonic Metal (Nightwish, Within Temptation etc.). And this style hasn't really much to do with Gothic Rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RivetHeadCulture (talk • contribs) 11:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Goth at the BBC
This compilation of performances brought me here: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04mqfl1. jde 78.149.225.44 (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Removal of information about the Banshees' early singles
Very disappointed that my sourced information regarding "Playground Twist" and "The Staircase (Mystery)" being early examples of the genre was removed without explanation. Lachlan Foley (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Song description
I really don't understand the last few edits. Even Mick Mercer described Siouxsie's voice as cacophonous. And of course, early post-Punk/Goth includes a brash and punk-ish vocal style. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
What do you not understand? Cacophonous: "involving or producing a harsh, discordant mixture of sounds. synonyms: noisy, loud, ear-splitting, raucous, discordant, dissonant, jarring, grating, inharmonious, unmelodious, unmusical, tuneless." Your second statement is completely incorrect. PUNK ROCK involved brash and often noisy vocals. ***Some*** post-punk bands had noisy, harsh, brash vocals....the Birthday Party and PiL for instance. But many were quite the opposite. One of the main differences that led from punk to the change to post-punk, was less cacophony....the more arty, dark, somber vocal style developed by bands like Joy Division, Wire, the Bunnymen, Chameleons, Magazine, Bauhaus etc. is not cacophonous... In regards to this specific edit: Very early Siouxsie recordings were more punk rock in style and some songs might be called cacophonous (though as a critic, I would choose a more apt term like dissonant). But by the time of 1981's "Arabian Knights" (the song in question), she was singing in a very melodic style. Just because she sang a few noisier songs years earlier does not make THIS performance cacophonous, which the orginal text stated. Not to mention that the text gives the impression that cacophony is a typical goth vocal mannerism, which it most decidedly is not.Greg Fasolino (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Less cacophony doesn't mean no cacophony. And Siouxsie's vocal style in the late '70s and early-mid '80s was always cold, punk-ish, cacophonous (cf. X-mal Deutschland, Skeletal Family, Toys Went Berzerk etc.). It's not melodious like a regular '80s pop singer... --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)