The First Goth Band

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Catch

Wiki is a load. It is written by users whom we have to trust to know the facts. I could go over there and state that ACDC's "Big Balls" was the first gothic song.

And the admins would correct it in about five seconds. Wiki requires reliable outside sources, and if something isn't properly sourced, it will be deleted.

[Catch]

Haven't you ever wondered when Goth became a lifestyle, not just a casual insult?

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Catch

Haven't you ever wondered when Goth became a lifestyle, not just a casual insult?

"Goth" wasn't a casual insult until after it became a "lifestyle".

[Catch]

The term "Goth" systems from when the Romans seperated the people into different, more managable groups. The Viso Goths where from the territory now known as Southern France and Germany. Also Beligum and Luxumberg. The Viso Goths became mercenaries who would make contracts with countries and then savagely loot and take them over. They are also known for exceptional artistry, especially in relation to masonry; however, at that time, calling someone "Goth" isn't much different from calling them, "savage."

There was a time when this stopped being an insult, or remained an insult, and became a way for people to market themselves. They embrassed the idea of being savages and began to carry the label proudly or for marketing.

I believe, though the Birthday Party isn't proud of the label, they stimulated the music industry that people started to market themselves as "gothic." You see the bad broke up shortly after and they seem to resent the title far more than anyone else.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Catch

The term "Goth" systems from when the Romans seperated the people into different, more managable groups. The Viso Goths where from the territory now known as Southern France and Germany. Also Beligum and Luxumberg. The Viso Goths became mercenaries who would make contracts with countries and then savagely loot and take them over. They are also known for exceptional artistry, especially in relation to masonry; however, at that time, calling someone "Goth" isn't much different from calling them, "savage."

That's completely irrelevant to Gothic Rock. By the 20th Century, "Goth" was no longer a term for a person, but a term for buildings and 'dark' literature. Gothic literature lead to gothic movies, and the term became another word for 'dark' in a way. The first bands to be described as "Gothic" were described as such for their 'spooky' sound and style.

Originally Posted by Catch

There was a time when this stopped being an insult, or remained an insult, and became a way for people to market themselves. They embrassed the idea of being savages and began to carry the label proudly or for marketing.
I believe, though the Birthday Party isn't proud of the label, they stimulated the music industry that people started to market themselves as "gothic." You see the bad broke up shortly after and they seem to resent the title far more than anyone else.

Nobody was 'marketing' themselves as Gothic until maybe the '90s. Throughout the '80s, it was a term used by critics and the media to describe a certain look and sound. The Birthday Party was maybe the third band that the term stuck to, and perhaps the eighth or ninth to be described using the term.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

"Goth" was no longer a term for a person, but a term for buildings and 'dark' literature.

Gothic buildings were so called because they were viewed as a barbaric attack on the classical architectural establishment. Works of fiction dubbed 'gothic' featured such buildings as their primary setting.

Not to imply that Catch has any idea what she's talking about, just that you don't really either.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Gothic buildings were so called because they were viewed as a barbaric attack on the classical architectural establishment. Works of fiction dubbed 'gothic' featured such buildings as their primary setting.

Not to imply that Catch has any idea what she's talking about, just that you don't really either.

I know where the term comes from. Beyond etymology, there's no relation. Prove that "Goth" as a term for a "barbarian" wasn't archaic by then, and you might actually be arguing with me about something.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

I know where the term comes from. Beyond etymology, there's no relation.

So, there's no connection between a prior understanding of a given word's meaning and the present understanding of that word's meaning beyond etymology? Really? You think?

Prove that "Goth" as a term for a "barbarian" wasn't archaic by then, and you might actually be arguing with me about something.

"Goth" as a term for barbarian isn't even archaic today. In fact, before there were gothic rock fans, that noun could only describe German barbarians.

The notion of the 'goth' as an opponent of a classical establishment was present in the description of buildings as gothic, and it certainly isn't entirely absent from that term's use in regard to gothic rock. The gloomy, macabre atmosphere of gothic literature certainly played a role in the popular employment of the word to define the sounds of Bauhaus and Joy Division, but this wasn't the only factor.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

"Goth" as a term for barbarian isn't even archaic today. In fact, before there were gothic rock fans, that noun could only describe German barbarians.

The notion of the 'goth' as an opponent of a classical establishment was present in the description of buildings as gothic, and it certainly isn't entirely absent from that term's use in regard to gothic rock. The gloomy, macabre atmosphere of gothic literature certainly played a role in the popular use of the word to define the sounds of Bauhaus and Joy Division, but this wasn't the only factor.

Those are two seperate meanings of the word. By the 20th century, "Gothic" was not commonly used to refer to barbarians. "Gothic" referred primarily to the building and literature styles. The building style was by no means still considered "barbaric". "Goth" referring to an extinct German culture and "Gothic" referring to books are completely different things. End of.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

Those are two seperate meanings of the word.

They're not separate. They're related by etymology. You said so yourself.

People didn't call books 'gothic' with no regard for the reason for which buildings were deemed 'gothic'. People didn't call music 'gothic' with no regard for the reasons for which both buildings and books were deemed 'gothic'.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

They're not separate. They're related by etymology. You said so yourself.

People didn't call books 'gothic' with no regard for the reason for which buildings were deemed 'gothic'. People didn't call music 'gothic' with no regard for the reasons for which both buildings and books were deemed 'gothic'.

All you're doing is arguing with me because I left out a few fairly small irrelevant details. It's like arguing with someone because while talking about barbarians, they didn't mention that it comes from a word meaning 'foreigner'. It's pathetic. If you can actually give me examples of "Goth" being used commonly in the 20th century to refer to people still alive during the 20th century, then you might have an actual argument.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

All you're doing is arguing with me because I left out a few fairly small irrelevant details. It's like arguing with someone because while talking about barbarians, they didn't mention that it comes from a word meaning 'foreigner'. It's pathetic.

You claimed that, by the 20th century, 'goth' no longer meant 'barbarian' in any capacity, and 'gothic' had simply become another word for 'dark' with no additional connotations. This is totally untrue.

If you can actually give me examples of "Goth" being used commonly in the 20th century to refer to people still alive during the 20th century, then you might have an actual argument.

This is an idiotic stipulation. Just because the Goths no longer existed by the 20th century doesn't meant the term was no longer used in reference to them. That's like saying no modern person ever uses "mammoth' as a noun, or even thinks about mammoths, and that the word is only an adjective meaning 'big' now that mammoths are extinct.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

You claimed that, by the 20th century, 'goth' no longer meant 'barbarian' in any capacity, and 'gothic' had simply become another word for 'dark' with no additional connotations. This is totally untrue.

Oh, fucking Jesus. Did you scroll over what Catch said? She was using an archaic definition of "Goth" used to refer to living people as barbarians. I pointed out that by the 20th Century, living people were seldom referred to as "Goths". In fact, the term in the context that's relevant to Goth rock comes from the use of the term to refer to something 'dark'. It wasn't used like that until after it was used to refer to architecture and books. While the architecture was called 'gothic' because of the Goths, it possessed no other properties that would relate it to the Goths. You don't go by a house and say "My! That house looks like an ancient group of German barbarians!". No. It was an abstract concept which you seem to know about, but clearly can't understand. By the time Goth Rock came into being, the word "Gothic" had branched out a lot, and ancient Goths have absolutely nothing to do with Goth Rock.

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

This is an idiotic stipulation. Just because the Goths no longer existed by the 20th century doesn't meant the term was no longer used in reference to them. That's like saying no modern person ever uses "mammoth' as a noun, or even thinks about mammoths, and that the word is only an adjective meaning 'big' now that mammoths are extinct.

Catch implied that it was exclusively an insult. By the 20th century, it was no longer an insult.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

Oh, fucking Jesus. Did you scroll over what Catch said? She was using an archaic definition of "Goth" used to refer to living people as barbarians.

Originally Posted by my original post

Not to imply that Catch has any idea what she's talking about, just that you don't really either.

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

I pointed out that by the 20th Century, living people were seldom referred to as "Goths".

You said nothing about 'living people'. You said "Goth was no longer a term for a person". If this is what you meant, then you're right, but that hardly means anything, as the word was still commonly used to mean 'barbarian' during the 20th century.

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

In fact, the term in the context that's relevant to Goth rock comes from the use of the term to refer to something 'dark'. It wasn't used like that until after it was used to refer to architecture and books.

You're basically saying that the history of the word's use doesn't matter. If 'gothic' had no connotations that related to its original meaning, people would have chosen to call the music 'dark' or 'spooky'.

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

While the architecture was called 'gothic' because of the Goths, it possessed no other properties that would relate it to the Goths.

This sentence makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

You don't go by a house and say "My! That house looks like an ancient group of German barbarians!". No. It was an abstract concept which you seem to know about, but clearly can't understand.

I think I've said multiple times that the Gothic architectural movement was perceived as an attack on the classical, romanesque establishment.

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

By the time Goth Rock came into being, the word "Gothic" had branched out a lot, and ancient Goths have absolutely nothing to do with Goth Rock.

Again, the idea that etymology doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

Catch implied that it was exclusively an insult. By the 20th century, it was no longer an insult.

Originally Posted by my original post

Not to imply that Catch has any idea what she's talking about, just that you don't really either.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

You're basically saying that the history of the word's use doesn't matter. If 'gothic' had no connotations that related to its original meaning, people would have chosen to call the music 'dark' or 'spooky'.

I'm saying that the etymology in this case has nothing to do with the properties of Goth rock. Since the meaning of the word as used to describe Gothic Rock is completely different from the meaning used to describe German Goths, the fact that there was a group of people called 'Goths' in ancient times is entirely irrelevant. I've already stated that I know the evolution of the word, and all your initial argument did was call me out for not explaining it completely.

This sentence makes no sense.

Originally Posted by My Post as intended to be read

While the architecture was called 'gothic' because of the Goths, it possessed no other properties that would relate it to the Goths. You don't go by a house and say "My! That house looks like an ancient group of German barbarians!". No.

This is a case of poor reading comprehension on your part.

I think I've said multiple times that the Gothic architectural movement was perceived as an attack on the classical, romanesque establishment.

Yes you did. And I noted that here:

Originally Posted by Me Again

It was an abstract concept which you seem to know about, but clearly can't understand.

This means that while you note that the Architecture's name comes from the Goths, you fail to realize that it possesses no physical qualities that would relate it to them. In other words, it had nothing to do with them other than a name used in what was perceived then as a negative way.

Again, the idea that etymology doesn't matter.

If someone called a type of house a "Sodom" simply because they didn't like it, then years later when the term is no longer used as an insult, there are humourous books called "Sodomic" because they're set inside "Sodomic" houses, then some form of light comedic music emerges and gets coined "Sodomic Rock" by reviewers... where's the relation to a mythical community of rapists?

[HauntingMist]

I like Nick Cave... that is all.

[steerpyke]

All the bands mentioned are brilliant stuff that helped define the original goth sound. Tags to describe scenes, especially radically different ones seem to be applied in hindsight. Most of the early bands seemed to grow out of the punk movement, Bauhaus, and Southern Death Cult were part of a thing called "positive punk" which I think was the journalistic tag that they seemed to be branded with. Bands like Birthday Party, Warsaw, Death Cult , The Banshees were all very different from each other and hardly seemed part of the same movement at all. Bands like the Sisters seemed to define how most people viewed as being goth in the early eighties, with their cold, clinical, almost slow dance beats but since then it has moved in all directions from ethereal soundscapes, industrial walls of noise, Byronic romanticism, futuristic sub punk...you can't stop its influence.

Just my view of things from the early days. Then again I was drunk most of the time.

[gothicusmaximus]

I have to say, Albert, every time I argue with you, I'm stricken by how sheerly dense you are.

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

I'm saying that the etymology in this case has nothing to do with the properties of Goth rock. Since the meaning of the word as used to describe Gothic Rock is completely different from the meaning used to describe German Goths, the fact that there was a group of people called 'Goths' in ancient times is entirely irrelevant.

Etymology almost always influences a term's connotations. The other meanings of the word goth are all evoked every time that word is used, and anyone who wanted to avoid this could easily have given goth rock a different name.

This is a case of poor reading comprehension on your part.

No, it's a case of idiocy on your part. "While the architecture was called 'gothic' because of the Goths, it possessed no other properties that would relate it to the Goths." It possessed no properties that would relate it to the goths except that it was called "gothic" because of the goths? Why was it called 'gothic' then? I think I found a flaw in your thinking here.

This means that while you note that the Architecture's name comes from the Goths, you fail to realize that it possesses no physical qualities that would relate it to them. In other words, it had nothing to do with them other than a name used in what was perceived then as a negative way.

No, as I've said about THREE TIMES now, the word 'gothic' was never just a flavorless criticism with no meaning beyond 'bad'. Prior to the emergence of Gothicism as a prominent architectural movement, the prevailing style was Romanesque, one influenced heavily by Greco-Roman aesthetic principles. As edifices began to that deviate from this standard in their construction, some perceived an attack on the classical establishment. Goths attacked Rome, Gothic attacked Romanesque.

If someone called a type of house a "Sodom" simply because they didn't like it, then years later when the term is no longer used as an insult, there are humourous books called "Sodomic" because they're set inside "Sodomic" houses, then some form of light comedic music emerges and gets coined "Sodomic Rock" by reviewers... where's the relation to a mythical community of rapists?

There would be none, but to call a house a "Sodom" for no reason other than that its architecture isn't pleasing to a single person's eye probably wouldn't become a popular behavior. Why said single person would call the house a 'Sodom" in the first place is incomprehensible to me, as most would reserve that comparison for criticism in some way related to its target's sexual depravity. If his objection to the structure was confined totally to its physical appearance, he most probably would have deemed it 'ugly', or something similar but somewhat narrower in its implications, like 'lopsided' or 'top-heavy'.

[jack_the_knife]

Originally Posted by Catch

Beligum and Luxumberg.

Show me a map with those countries...

[Catch]

I didn't say "barbaric" at any point. The people of southern France were known for having advanced chisel for carving stones into gargoyles. The helped build many of the fantasic cathedrals throughout that part of Europe and were well respected until their mercenary activities, which casted a dark shadow on their reputatons as a race.

As for finding maps simply use any combination of these keywords: Alexander the Great, roman empire, Gaul, Gauls, Goth, timeline, map, europe.

I don't feel like searching it today. I found a great website showing the boundries between the centurian outposts once. Should have bookmarked it.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Etymology almost always influences a term's connotations. The other meanings of the word goth are all evoked every time that word is used, and anyone who wanted to avoid this could easily have given goth rock a different name.

A single word can have different meanings over time. Everybody knows this.

No, it's a case of idiocy on your part. "While the architecture was called 'gothic' because of the Goths, it possessed no other properties that would relate it to the Goths." It possessed no properties that would relate it to the goths except that it was called "gothic" because of the goths? Why was it called 'gothic' then? I think I found a flaw in your thinking here.

It was called "Gothic" because it was viewed by some as a barbaric assult on classical architecture, a point you've mentioned multiple times, but don't seem to understand.

No, as I've said about THREE TIMES now, the word 'gothic' was never just a flavorless criticism with no meaning beyond 'bad'.

I never said it was, and I never said that you said it was. Who the fuck are you arguing with?

Prior to the emergence of Gothicism as a prominent architectural movement, the prevailing style was Romanesque, one influenced heavily by Greco-Roman aesthetic principles. As edifices began to that deviate from this standard in their construction, some perceived an attack on the classical establishment. Goths attacked Rome, Gothic attacked Romanesque.

Exactly. Some thought it was an attack on the classical establishment. This is an abstract idea, and in reality, the houses were not attacking anything. You take shit way too literally.

There would be none, but to call a house a "Sodom" for no reason other than that its architecture isn't pleasing to a single person's eye probably wouldn't become a popular behavior. Why said single person would call the house a 'Sodom" in the first place is incomprehensible to me, as most would reserve that comparison for criticism in some way related to its target's sexual depravity. If his objection to the structure was confined totally to its physical appearance, he most probably would have deemed it 'ugly', or something similar but somewhat narrower in its implications, like 'lopsided' or 'top-heavy'.

It's a hypothetical situation. Historically, when someone big does something, the peasants tend to imitate. This one fact destroys your silly attempt at hypothetical sociology.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by Catch

Alexander the Great

Alexander was long dead by the time the Goths gained any semblance of power.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

A single word can have different meanings over time. Everybody knows this.

This betrays your poor understanding of socio-linguistics. For the most part, each new meaning of a word develops in some way from its previous meanings. There exists an etymological lineage.

I never said it was, and I never said that you said it was. Who the fuck are you arguing with?

You implied this belief in your analogy, where someone calls a house 'Sodom' just because he doesn't like it. You also said that Gothic Architecture had no connection to the Goths, while a clear connection exists.

Exactly. Some thought it was an attack on the classical establishment. This is an abstract idea, and in reality, the houses were not attacking anything. You take shit way too literally.

This is totally irrelevant. A figurative connection is still a connection.

It's a hypothetical situation. Historically, when someone big does something, the peasants tend to imitate. This one fact destroys your silly attempt at hypothetical sociology.

I can't even speak to the inanity of this idea. As if a casual remark made by some great king of all Renaissance Europe was overheard by a goatherd and everything snowballed from there.
No matter the social station of the person who first characterized Gothic architecture as such, that characterization had to make sense to others in order to take root in the culture.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

This betrays your poor understanding of socio-linguistics. For the most part, each new meaning of a word develops in some way from its previous meanings. There exists an etymological lineage.

I never denied this. Again, who the fuck are you arguing with, Captain Obvious?

You implied this belief in your analogy, where someone calls a house 'Sodom' just because he doesn't like it. You also said that Gothic Architecture had no connection to the Goths, while a clear connection exists.

I noted the etymological connection.

This is totally irrelevant. A figurative connection is still a connection.

It's not a direct connection. And, as I've said multiple times before, Goth Rock came from a form of the word which means something completely different. It's a chain, not a straight fucking line. Allow me to demonstrate:
Goths>Goths viewed as Barbarians>Gothic Architecture>Gothic Art/Literature>Gothic Rock
Simply, the meaning as used in "Gothic Rock" is completely different from the meaning used to refer to ancient barbarians.

I can't even speak to the inanity of this idea. As if a casual remark made by some great king of all Renaissance Europe was overheard by a goatherd and everything snowballed from there.
No matter the social station of the person who first characterized Gothic architecture as such, that characterization had to make sense to others in order to take root in the culture.

This is bullshit. Want an example? The Spanish language.

[gothicusmaximus]

Simply, the meaning as used in "Gothic Rock" is completely different from the meaning used to refer to ancient barbarians.

It carries with it the connotations of its other meanings. Just admit that obvious fact and we can stop fighting. I usually like arguing, but with you it's just impossibly tedious.

This is bullshit. Want an example? The Spanish language.

I can't imagine how the Spanish Language could possibly be related even if we lived in a Jodorowsky movie, so I'm just going to ignore this statement and assume you'll explain if it's really important.