thank you for the article, karla.

That was a nice article. I think it's good to have these so-called "goth-lite" bands that can be doorways for others to get into other bands. "Well, if you like them, then you should check out *blank*."

I don't think there's any escaping mislabeling. Years ago I saw a talk show, I think Leno, where Nicole Eggert, Jamie from "Charles in Charge", talked about listening to black metal when she was a kid and then proceeded to name off Depeche Mode's "Master and Servant" as one of her favorites. Aside from being fascinated that she liked that song, devious thoughts tumbling in my head, I was like, "Black metal, what the hell is she talking about?".

According to that article, we owe it to the British press for the labeling of 'goth'. So if they had decided to label it, let's say, "Victorians", would this site be called KnoxVictorians. com.

That's a lot of power the press has to be able to label a sub-culture like that. Anyway, I'm not a big fan of journalism.

I find it interesting how people have a natural inclination to categorize and sub-catagorize abstract concepts like art and culture. This is further confounded by the organizational nature of business based solely on profit. Each business is itself a tightly categorized structure used to facilitate the abstract concept of transfer of goods and services. The hard part is making it profitable, and to do so the businesses in question use their extremely focused (ie narrow) categorical skills to assess their environment. Take a good look at modern multimedia. It is segmented into styles, moods, techniques and various other forms of definable characteristics. The art, fashion, and music created and assimilated by the 'goth' subculture is subject to exactly the same fate as any other subculture products. When the newspaper and marketing execs think they have it figured out they label it so they can communicate about 'it' with other industry groups. Many, many, stereotypes are born from this and now the 'goth' culture has it's own. basically if you are not inside the 'goth' box then you have no idea of the multitude of differences and ideas presented within. These people will always misunderstand. By the same token, if you are not in the 'geek' box you suffer the same lack of awareness in respect to the geeks out there. In the end it is all about context and abstraction, so you shouldn't care. These people do not know you personally and are not defining you individually. They are simply struggling to understand something they are not inherently part of..

scarecrow wrote:

does anyone else think this "what is gawth, what isn't" conversation needs to roll over and die?

yes....Im so fukking sikk of the stapleheaded goth persuasion "Im so Goth" or the Uber-Goth "better than you" bullshit that goes on here

Personally if you don't know what you are then you have bigger issues than what your preferred stereotype is..go watch some Mtv or something and leave it alone...

AMEN

Here's my favorite rant about genre labeling, from the Constellation Records website:

"This is our 'post-rock' -- a term that must be construed politically in equal measure to its referencing of some diffuse 'instrumental' or 'deconstructed' musical aesthetic. 'Indie rock' was never a genre and its bastardisation as an aesthetic category was one of countless elegant corporate-intellectual coups during the 1990s. Sadly, all too many hipper-than-now taste-makers were happily complicit, ready to replace 'indie' with 'post' and thus help extinguish any abiding concern about the economies that ground and contextualise rock music. So fuck post-rock, and the smooth untroubled consumption it enables."

I totally agree - genre labels exist to marginalize and suppress good music. Labeling excludes more listeners than it includes. Labeling Will Oldham "indie rock" instantly excludes him from the millions of country music fans who would quite like his work. Labeling Godspeed You! Black Emperor "post-rock" instantly excludes the vast majority of classical music fans who would love what they do - which is, after all, a modern, rock-instrument version of classical music.

Basically, most people don't look beyond certain genres, because they've been brainwashed into believing that cross-genre music doesn't exist, which it plainly does. The Black Heart Procession are just as "goth" as any "goth" band, but have I ever met a Goth who likes them? Nope, not one - because they're considered "indie rock" and don't put on the external trappings (i.e. artwork or style) of "goth"-ism.

What you have to understand, of course, is that this is done deliberately. The major record labels don't want anything to be considered universal music except for their bands. They would have you believe that a rock band on an independant label isn't "rock-n-roll" but is a marginalized and elitist member of the "indie" or "post" rock movements.

The strange thing is, most members of goth/indie/punk/etc. circles seem to also want their music to be marginalized - most of them don't want "normals" listening to "their" music, which is funny, because most of everyone is "normal". By definition, the majority of people in any subculture would have to be "normal", because like, that's what normal means.

As a conversation at KFAR yesterday made me think for the hundredth time - the music you listen to or the books you read don't have anything to do with what kind of person you are, fundamentally. It's just window dressing.

I like music that goes "bleep."

Jack wrote:Here's my favorite rant about genre labeling, from the Constellation Records website:

"This is our 'post-rock' -- a term that must be construed politically in equal measure to its referencing of some diffuse 'instrumental' or 'deconstructed' musical aesthetic. 'Indie rock' was never a genre and its bastardisation as an aesthetic category was one of countless elegant corporate-intellectual coups during the 1990s. Sadly, all too many hipper-than-now taste-makers were happily complicit, ready to replace 'indie' with 'post' and thus help extinguish any abiding concern about the economies that ground and contextualise rock music. So fuck post-rock, and the smooth untroubled consumption it enables."

I totally agree - genre labels exist to marginalize and suppress good music. Labeling excludes more listeners than it includes. Labeling Will Oldham "indie rock" instantly excludes him from the millions of country music fans who would quite like his work. Labeling Godspeed You! Black Emperor "post-rock" instantly excludes the vast majority of classical music fans who would love what they do - which is, after all, a modern, rock-instrument version of classical music.

Basically, most people don't look beyond certain genres, because they've been brainwashed into believing that cross-genre music doesn't exist, which it plainly does. The Black Heart Procession are just as "goth" as any "goth" band, but have I ever met a Goth who likes them? Nope, not one - because they're considered "indie rock" and don't put on the external trappings (i.e. artwork or style) of "goth"-ism.

What you have to understand, of course, is that this is done deliberately. The major record labels don't want anything to be considered universal music except for their bands. They would have you believe that a rock band on an independant label isn't "rock-n-roll" but is a marginalized and elitist member of the "indie" or "post" rock movements.

The strange thing is, most members of goth/indie/punk/etc. circles seem to also want their music to be marginalized - most of them don't want "normals" listening to "their" music, which is funny, because most of everyone is "normal". By definition, the majority of people in any subculture would have to be "normal", because like, that's what normal means.

As a conversation at KFAR yesterday made me think for the hundredth time - the music you listen to or the books you read don't have anything to do with what kind of person you are, fundamentally. It's just window dressing.

I'm not sure I agree on with your general criticism of categorization.

I tend to think as humans, there is an irrestible urge to categorize things to simplify them.

In fact, every noun you speak is simply a categorization of something. We do this so general conversation isn't infinitely complex. How else can you describe things without categories?

While GYBE! may complain about being called "post-rock" and I admit, some of their complaints may have some merit, the term "music" itself is a category. What seperates "music" from "conversation" and "noise"? The answer is quite simply, whatever humans want to seperate those categories. But if we didn't seperate them, trying to describe them to someone else would be impossible.

If you heard a great band and you wanted to describe them to a friend, how would you do it? I know a few crazy souls out there that might try to imitate the music with their own vocal abilities, but most people would try to describe it to you using terms that you would identify certain elements of the bands' music with. You might say, they are a mix of "goth" and "punk" or maybe you say, they sound a lot like Rancid, but with a hint of darkness, but you can not avoid categorization, regardless. You will always have to label things in order to effectively give the person you are talking to any idea what you are talking about. If we could somehow, just let someone else tap in on our brain and see the utter complexity of things, then this wouldn't be necessary, but we can't do that. Language is our median of communication and by its nature it limits us.

So, my argument, essentially is, people are always going to label you no matter what. You can't really avoid it. And there's not really anything wrong with it. Conversation doesn't work without categorization. Just don't let labels guide you. Don't feel like you have to stay within the confines of a category created by a human being. But people have to create those categories, regardless.

And of course, you are right, categories have nothing to do with the kinda person you are - they are just "window dressing", but I just don't think it's practical to communicate without this "window dressing".

That was a good post.

Caustic wrote:I like music that goes "bleep."

Awwww, yes sweetie, we know you do.

The Liberal Vampyre wrote:I'm not sure I agree on with your general criticism of categorization.

I'm not sure you understood what was being criticized, since I don't disagree with anything you said.

I, and Constellation (not GY!BE, their record label), aren't saying that genre labels should be completely abolished in description of bands. What I and they object to is the commercial usage of categories to separate music from potential listeners.

In fact, what you're saying is pretty much the same thing I'm saying - "indie rock" and "post rock" aren't descriptive genre labels, they're marketing terms used to bastardize independant rock. If one were to use only descriptive terms to talk about, for example, Will Oldham, one would use terms like "country" and "folk", since that's what he actually sounds like - yet he is labeled "indie rock" and thus, for all intents and purposes, completely cut off from a lot of people who think that Nashville "new country" is the only "country like" music being made.

See what I'm saying now?

It's not that using genre categories to describe music is wrong; it's that the record industry is obsessed with marginalizing "unpopular" music into little camps in order to limit the power of indie labels. Look at Radiohead - they're an "artsy" band who are closer in sound to "indie rock" bands - but because they're on a major label, they are considered to be "rock-n-roll", they get called "the next Pink Floyd", and they are generally presented to the record-buying public as a "universal" band that "anyone can like". If they were on an independant label, they'd be bastardized as an "indie" band and only "indie rock fans" would buy their albums.

fuck music