If this is Goth, then I hate Goth.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by GirlsNotMe

No, I am not proving his point.

God is just as subjective as what Goth is.

...Man, THAT sounds funny.

Actually no. Goth is well defined and has been since the 80's. Anything one might consider new is wrong.

Manson, Hot Topic, Evennansce, My Chemical Romance, and whatever else MTV throws out there and says is 'goth' these days does NOT make it goth.

Goth is NOT subjective.

[Amledo]

I think that Goth is what you make of it. Not the clothes, not the music, and not reading Anne Rice. It is more a state of being, a mind set, and if anything Goth is personality. I do not believe that my writing abilities come from a tortured soul that bleeds depressing or romantic accounts of the supernatural, I am just a writer. And if anyone tried to justify calling me Goth just because I was holding an Anne Rice book or listening to Rammstein then I'd probably lose it. The conversation that started this thread made little sense to me, and the ensuing arguements even less so. Being Goth does not make one non-conforming or special, hell if that were the case then the rest of the social cliques should just line up and be told what they have to write, read or listen to. But I am ranting, I am not sure that I have said all that I meant to but I'll leave it alone for now.

[Firestorm]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Actually no. Goth is well defined and has been since the 80's. Anything one might consider new is wrong.

Manson, Hot Topic, Evennansce, My Chemical Romance, and whatever else MTV throws out there and says is 'goth' these days does NOT make it goth.

Goth is NOT subjective.

Please tell me the universal definition of goth.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Firestorm

Please tell me the universal definition of goth.

I concur. Now I'm off to wear lots of white and listen to tATu...

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Firestorm

Please tell me the universal definition of goth.

"Goth with a sledgehammer"

http://www.fehq.org/public/whatgoth.htm

[Valerius]

Interesting page. I guess we should put all that into the website's constitution.

[PersephoneX]

That conversation made my eyes bleed!

[WolfgangAsmodeus]

This conversation reminds me of the conversations I heard almost daily back in my Punk days as an adolescent. Every time I went to a show, or went out with friends, the same argument would errupt:

Punk 1: "Sex Pistols is the first punk band!"
Punk 2: "No way man, it's the Ramones."
Punk 3: "You're both wrong, it's Iggy Pop and the Stooges."
Punk 1: "What?! They weren't punk! You fucking poser!"
Punk 2: "Who are you to say what's not punk. Isn't this about non-conformity to society? Why must we make it about conformity to a new set of arbitrary and ever-changing sub-culture values?"
Punks 1 & 3: "POSER!" (Fights would break out over this shit.)

This is why I got out of the punk scene that I loved for more than 10 years. People weren't having fun, they were just arguing about who was more punk and why or why not spending 2.5 hours doing your hair in the morning was non-conformist.

I've been slowly moving in the Gothic direction for some time now. Not because I felt like I needed a new style, just because it seems to be more in tune with my personality. Frankly, I've been disugsted with the close-minded dogmatism I've been faced with from "self-appointed" (to quote the author of this thread ... and aren't ALL Goths "self-appointed," or did I miss the committee?) Goths.

It's alright to debate a band, but damn it, let people be who they are. If someone sees Gothic imagery in a HIM song, or in Marilyn Manson, then let it be. Why does it have to come with a certified *Gothic* label to have a place in this culture?

P.S. I realize this doesn't apply to everyone Gothic, so don't everyone get all "Well that's a lot of Goths but it isn't me!" I'm aware of that. As an old man I know loves to say: "If it don't apply, let it fly."

[Hexian]

*LMFAO* look you either are or you're not if you really feel the need to argue and prove yourself you're probably not.

[Dorean]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I just hate, more than anything, the latin version of Goth. They believe they are the best artists in the world and that only suffering is art. They're worse than 'emos'......

No need to quote this whole block, but, Jillian, I would like to discuss this with you - and I hope you actually take a moment to read this in it's entirety before you decide to flame or praise me.

You argue that this person is not goth and that they are "worse than emo". While I can't say that I blame you in some ways for feeling that way, I do not find you disdain and contempt for someone else's opinion to be at all flattering. It reminds me of the closed-mindedness I receive from "Bible belt Christians" who want to save my damned soul. Your lack of acceptance of someone else's opinions are appauling.

Drucila believes that "Love is torture" and you chastised her for it, so let me present you with this arguement:

I think we can all agree that a Romanticist's Love, by it's very nature, is possesive. That you have a love of something. I also think that we can agree that Romanticist's Love is that of desire. You desire to possess the object that you Love. But if you desire to possess what you love, then by that same token, you DO NOT possess that object. Once you do possess it, you no longer desire it, therefore you no longer Love it. The only time you regain your Love for that object is if you loose it again. It is by this logic that the quote "You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone" was coined. This arguement is the same argument taken from the great philosopher Plato and his writings titled "The Symposium"

This nature of Romantic Love was expressed further during the Romantic period in literature - to wit Edgar Allan Poe belongs. Yes, he was a Romanticist - and almost all of his writings had to do with death, love, and tragedy. The very nature of Romantic Love is tragic. True Romantic Love only works if the two who are in love are seperated - hence the stories of Knights and the Fair Maidens who would be in love while seperated by great distances while the nights were off fighting in the Crusades. It only works because it is a lie that is built upon a lie; an idealic form of what you imagine the person is like - a perfection in them that does not exsist. None of their bad habbits or their faults interfere in the fantasy of Love if they are not present. Thus the greatest expression of Romantic Love is only shown through death such as with Edgar Allan Poe's "The Raven" where the narrator is pondering over his lost love of Lenore who has long since died while the Raven hauntingly reminds him that he will see her "nevermore". That is love. That is torture.

So please, explain again how Drucila's argument is wrong? So you subscribe to a different philosophy of love. The irony that I see here is that myself, and most of whom I know, where considered "Goth" before you were out of dipers in 1989, (listening to bands like Bauhaus, The Cure, and Sisters of Mercy before the term "Goth" was even coined), have always been very much into the Romanticist/Victorian period of the late 1800's. We were the artists, the expressionists, the surrealists, and the free thinkers.

Like it or not - HIM, Evanescence, and My Chemical Romance (to a lesser extent) are a part of the Goth Genre as a whole. They are not Goth Industrial, Darkwave, or EBM, and yes, they are more mainstream than those before them - but that does not change the reality of it.

The only reason why I've taken the time to respond to this non-sense is because I'm tired of coming across those who are quite a bit younger than those of us who came before them, and even those who came before me, who feel they know everything there is about being "Goth" and what it is. It's not something as easily defined as that - and this is coming from someone who has been called "goth" all his life, though has never really considered it much.

I just wish people would quit with the "My black is blacker than your black" attitude.

[Godslayer Jillian]

A very good argument, but of course I would defend my stance, so I will.
First of all, I hope you don't think I'm decrying the Emo subculture. I hate those kids of 'alternative' subcultures that don't like being stereotyped and yet they do the same with emos. But that's why I placed little marks in the word 'emo'. It looks almost ridiculous to point that little thing out, but it's something we have talked for quite a while; just as we don't like, say, a person that exclusively shops and listens to the bands he finds at Hot Topic calling himself a 'goth'.
Second, I would argue in the possessiveness of Romantic love. Love could simply be love, only tainted and muted by human desire. Love in itself would not be cruel.
And lastly, Evanescence is simply alternative rock, My Chemical Romance calls itself violent, dangerous pop, and HIM does indeed go from alternative to gothic rock, but there's a difference between gothic rock and simply gothic (even if it's just nit-picking) just as the more notorious difference between gothic metal and simply gothic. But then again, the genre doesn't equate to appeal, like in the case of The Sisters of Mercy, who are post-punk, but have a large gothic fanbase, or Current 93 that is just experimental.

[HumanePain]

I thought that Jillian was trying to explain that it is NOT ok to accept that love is torture, to prevent babybats from interpreting that physical pain (e.g. cutting etc.) means they love someone a lot, with which I agree needed to be said. But the way you interpreted it Dorean, I agree with, except to add that I would not say that almost all Poe wrote was about love and tragedy; I would say about a good third of what he wrote was satire, and incredibly funny satire at that! He was one hell of a funny guy! Try reading "Lionizing" or "Thingum Bob Esq." just for starts, there are many other stories he wrote of the same humor.

Oh, and Dorean, speaking of reading, there is an Introduction thread that everyone else has read, that asks introductory questions, so that you can post your answers in a new thread of your own, so we can all get to know you better. Everyone else participates in the initiation, I would suggest you do too. Here are the questions:

https://www.gothic.net/boards/showthread.php?t=1644

[Godslayer Jillian]

Both physical, spiritual, and psychological; it's not ok to accept love as cruel.
That is nothing but a perfect example of humans being cosmic masochists.

[Delicate_Torture]

Wow. I can't believe the number of people who totally and absolutely missed the point of the original posting here and started arguing over whether speaking eloquently is a sign of genius or a symptom of conceit.

It is neither. It is an example of vocabulary.

Now to get back to the main point of the thread... I agree that HIM, Evanessence, MCR, Marilyn Manson and many other bands that are branded as being goth (with a little 'g') are nowhere near Goth (with a big 'G'). However, I really don't think that it matters either way. Branding is a device of marketing, and the reason that these bands and artists are branded as goth is because that way their marketting is opened up to an entire new group of people who include Goths, Emo, Alt, Indie and just plain disenfrancised youth.

Listen to what you want to listen to, be it Cruxshadows, Dresden Dolls, Tori Amos or John Denver.

And to all of you who laughed at the John Denver referrence. Fuck you all! John Denver is god.

[Draygorn]

Clearly this idiot is a poser who thinks she can bullshit her way through a conversation with an actual Goth person. I can deal with assholes, but pretentiousness makes me want to vomit. I don't pretend to be anything; I'm simply me, and anyone who can't or won't accept that can go to hell.

[Renatus]

I have alot of reading to catch up on in this thread, But I'm too bored today to do much of anything of the sort.

[ArtificialOne]

Someone say certified goth label?

Cool.....
I'll get it as my next tattoo and that will show all the poser who's grade A certified goth!!! lmao

lol

[Dorean]

No, I certainly did not assume that you were degrading "emo" at all - they seemed only of little importance to your argument except to make a point. Since you had done so, I figured it easiest to use them in context as well.

As far as desire and Romantic Love - we used that term much differently. Desire was not always a word associated with Lust, as you imply with "human desire", but instead a deep rooted want. So I was simply making the argument of Socretese as told by Plato that Love is desire is want - to obtain the object of desire makes it impossible to continue to desire it. You can still lust over it, you just cannot want it because you already have it. That leaves love untouched by lust, or human desire, and thus untainted, as you say, but still tortureous. And here, I would like to argue that just because something is torture and painful, does not make it cruel.

The best example I can give is relating to love from the point of view of a loner cowboy. The story goes that this young cowboy was driving a heard of cattle across Oklahoma. Near sundown he came atop a ridge of hills where he saw the most beautiful woman he'd ever seen and fell in love immeadiately. He paused for a moment as he watched her fire red hair glisten in the last moments of sunlight as she went about her evening chores. Then he picked up and moved on. Never saw her again. Years later, having never been married or having children, a young boy asked him if he'd ever been in love. He smiled and said yes, and proceeded to tell his story. The young boy then asked him why he never did anything, why he didn't go back to find her the old cowboy said "Because that moment was perfect and it would never be more perfect. I wanted to remember that and had I gone back to her, time would have ruined it."

Obviously a tourtured loner in love with a woman he desired but could never have. The memory was painful, but it was tender and pleasant at the same time. Bittersweet. That is the nature of Romantic Love. Beautiful, painful, but not necessarily cruel.

Philosophers have been arguing this since Socretese and Plato, and they are still arguing the paradigms of our beliefs in love today. In no way do I expect anyone to subscribe to that particular belief of Love - simply making the argument of the other in the original post from what seems to be their stance whether they had the words for it or not.

And yes, I would say that Evanescence is more Alt Rock than Goth - they have brought elements with them to the mainstream - and there's something to be said for that...good...and bad. MCR admittedly says they never went out to be a "goth" band, and I'm thinking of a particular interview I once read in Gothic Beauty on the subject. They, however, also brought elements into the Mainstream America in ways Evanescense has only been able to acheive in Europe (thinking of an Amy Lee interview I heard some time back as well where she talked about their rising popularity and having more of a European fanbase as a whole). Lastly HIM is just simply subjective. They are about as goth as the Cure, which, in reality, isn't goth. The Cure is more post-punk, but they were the forefront of what became the gothic movement. HIM is a throw back to that in more of an alt-rock way carrying with them some of the gothic idealogy. But one can argue that all bands labled as "goth" are not, infact, true goth bands. Being goth seems to be similar to the idea of Romantic Love in the fact that once you acheive being a "true goth" you are the very antithesis. Once you become goth you cannot be goth so to say.

HumanePain I did the introductory post as per your request. And let me correct myself in reguards to Poe, because when you consider his stories, you are much correct! One of my favorites being "The Cast of Amontillado"! However, from my recollection (and it has been some time mind you) it was much of his Poetry, not his stories, that were more on the tragedy of love. Such as the ever so famous "The Raven" as well as works like "Lenore" "A Valentine" "To Helen" "to F-S S. O-D" and "The Valley of Unrest" to name a few.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Delicate_Torture

And to all of you who laughed at the John Denver referrence. Fuck you all! John Denver is god.

"Well, I got me a fine wife
I got me old fiddle.
When the Sun's comin' up
I got cakes on the griddle.
Life ain't nothin' but a
funny, funny riddle,
Thank God I'm a
Country Boy!"

I always did like that song. But I hated it when John Denver put down Alice Cooper.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Dorean

I would like to argue that just because something is torture and painful, does not make it cruel.

Well, in that case we have to make different points in this argument because she said that Love is cruel, not that Love is torture.

[HumanePain]

I think what you are saying Jillian is finally sinking into both of my neurons: you are talking about ideal love, where both partners nurture and love each other in a supportive fashion, not unrequited love.

That is the kind of love that has sustained my wife and I for 23 years. Damn, has it been that long already? Time sure flies.

[Valerius]

Gasp! If I'm reading this correctly then that means if I turn into a goth-goth then I really am not a goth! By that line of reasoning, it would mean I'd have to not pay attention to being a goth in order to be a goth. This is very interesting.

HumanePane, you're old enough to be my dad! But it doesn't matter, you're cool.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Valerius

HumanePane, you're old enough to be my dad! But it doesn't matter, you're cool.

Thanks Val!

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Valerius

Gasp! If I'm reading this correctly then that means if I turn into a goth-goth then I really am not a goth! By that line of reasoning, it would mean I'd have to not pay attention to being a goth in order to be a goth. This is very interesting.

Actually that would make a lot of sense. Look for Sir Francis Bacon's 'Of Regimen and Health'.
If moderation is always good, why not moderation in our own personality?
After all, we're always saying not to take ourselves so seriously.

[DevilsMustKnow]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

He can be both perfect and cruel. Perfectly cruel.

But that is saying the cruelty is perfect, not god.