Heartland

What do think of new goth bands? do we need another sisters? Me and a few other dudes were talking about this on Saturday night, discussing other goth bands and what they bring to the scene and the answer was very little! There seems to be no mystery and atmosphere at gigs anymore, its all open and lively and nice, too nice we thought. What does everyone else think? Are folk happy with whats around now?

A lot of the stuff that passes for "goth" these days seems to have missed the joke IMO.

I have no idea who the new Goth bands are, but I suspect markfiend speaks the truth as, to be fair, he often does.

Strange definition you seem to have though, not goth because "too nice"?

nice as in not risky enough

Aw shucks ruffers! I have a fan!

ruffers wrote:I have no idea who the new Goth bands are, but I suspect markfiend speaks the truth as, to be fair, he often does.

Strange definition you seem to have though, not goth because "too nice"?

nb, it should be noted he often doesn't as well.


To get back to the point it seems to me that by being a band which fits a label, you remove the risk of taking risks at all. If you go outside the label, then by definition you ain't goth anyway.

This is less a malaise in music but more reflects society's wish to put lazy, handy, easy to use labels on everything which in the long run will stymie innovation as, even though there may be a brave few creating new stuff, nobody will isten outside their box because they don't like things with different labels. And round it goes.

I know what I mean.

bands that think they're goth are usually either industrial metal with new rocks and hair extensions, or sisters clones.

bands that the press pay attention to and call goths, are usually either f**ked up, uber-image conscious over-produced metal (mr manson take a bow) or bad stadium rock with eye liner (that be HIM then)

goth has descended into a parody of itself. ythe trend started when goths started playing instruments. it was ok until then... now its too self-conscious and the energy and innocence has been lost.

songs about bats, vampyres, love after death and other such silly nonsense completely miss the point, that being that there was no point. no common theme or subject matter.

the "original" bands werent trying to be goths. they were just being themselves. "goth" definied itself by what those bands did, how they looked, what guitar effects they used, etc

its was a mood/spirit thing.

look at the 1st gen bands an dthe diversity of their sounds, look and lyrical subject matter:

bauhaus ("bela" was a joke btw)
the banshees
the cure
sex gang children
alien sex fiend
gene loves jezebel
the sisters
virgin prunes
neph (just about 1st gen)
et al

drugs, art, sex, alienation, cowboys, lovecraft

there were as many different sounds & themes as there were bands.

also these days, goth bands seem to forget they operate in a world were their music will be judged outside of their little scene. they wonder why they arent taken seriously by the music press or public at large when their music is of no significance, no relevence, no anything to anyone other than a handful of new rock wearing social misfits at their local goff night.

maybe they are too happy with being judged alongside other goth bands, rather than alongside contemporaries outside their narrow musical spectrum. they dont seem to care about how good they might be when compared to "real" bands, as long as they're nearly as good as KM (cue rikky...), "wailing fuckwit" aircrew or the scary bitches. ffs.

bands that actually set out to be goth are almost all crap these days. 5th generation derivative nonsense who are more often than not just embarrassing.

ruffers wrote:This is less a malaise in music but more reflects society's wish to put lazy, handy, easy to use labels on everything which in the long run will stymie innovation as, even though there may be a brave few creating new stuff, nobody will isten outside their box because they don't like things with different labels. And round it goes.

I know what I mean.

definitely.

and when a band starts defining itself by those boxes and labels, then you get derivation and stagnation...

So if we were to say that any new band with all the correct criteria of first generation bands popped up then that would be ok? coz the stuff they wrote about is still as important today as it was then, brings me back to attitude, atmosphere that is sadly missing from todays wannabes.

Spirit UK wrote:So if we were to say that any new band with all the correct criteria of first generation bands popped up then that would be ok?

yep. they would be interesting, have character and probably have their own sound

Spirit UK wrote:coz the stuff they wrote about is still as important today as it was then, brings me back to attitude, atmosphere that is sadly missing from todays wannabes.

and yep again

Spirit UK wrote:So if we were to say that any new band with all the correct criteria of first generation bands popped up then that would be ok? coz the stuff they wrote about is still as important today as it was then, brings me back to attitude, atmosphere that is sadly missing from todays wannabes.

But they wouldn't be Goth.... or at least they wouldn't get filed under it because of the points Quiff Boy makes. Maybe they already exist, and we're looking in the wrong place.

that said, i'm more than happy to see a bunch of sisters copists if they get it right... its just that so few do

We don't need a new "Sisters",just something NEW from the "Old"Sisters would do most of us I suspect .

Another sisters means another band with the same attitude etc, i don't mean carbon copy. Which brings me back to the question Do we need another sisters? I think the answer is yes, we are desperate for it, new blood, some moody f**k on the mic and chainsaw guitars spitting out cool as f**k riffs. Interesting!

Spirit UK wrote:Another sisters means another band with the same attitude etc, i don't mean carbon copy.

So they'll wreck themselves on speed, hate the media, fight with their record company, move to the mainland and refuse to put out records?

Don't know about yourself, but that's hardly my idea of a good band

Californian Dweeb wrote:Aren't Kleopatra records always up for this s**t?

f**k off.

Without wanting to sound like I'm second-guessing AE...
A band proceeding down the same path as our industrial love Gods would perhaps be able to negotiate some of the obstacles The Sisters have hit?

I'd love to hear the original ideals of The Sisters pounded out again. Could be a REAL renaissance for this jaded old culture.

Sounds like a good time to me...but hey

*ahem!*
Currently breaking the toes of - Anyone who disses the Banshee aircrew
Be'ave!
Goth bands - they're still out there, some of them are good, a lot of them are pants. Best plan of action? Go to a lot of cheap gigs and figure it out yourself

d00m, champion of underdog bands the world over. Well done.

I've gotta ask...does Paddy want to get involved here, as the Representative of a Sisters-clone? Or Ed, whose band sounds remarkably similar? Do you guys feel there's a niche, or are you on your own out there...?

timsinister wrote:d00m, champion of underdog bands the world over. Well done.

Someone's gotta stick up for 'em. I don't wanna live in a world without "Deliriously"
And I think Rhombus need a mention. 'cos they're quite good.

Just noticed our new friend Spirit is a Sheffield-type. And possibly a goth... You're not a... Sheffgoth are you?!

rhombus do indeed rock

as it says on the tin.

and paddy is not "Representative of a Sisters-clone" - he's representative of a Sisters tribute-band, which is a wholly different situation with an entirely different agenda

Quiff Boy wrote:...and paddy is not "Representative of a Sisters-clone" - he's representative of a Sisters tribute-band, which is a wholly different situation with an entirely different agenda

Hence the wink. Sorry, should have made it a bit clear, I was taking the mick out of the original comments along the lines of "Another Sisters".

Quiff Boy wrote:bands that think they're goth

Fancy thinking you're a goth band. FFS!

Early bands were doing some joke which we appear to have missed (they constantly say they were making a joke about something. I'd love to actually know how in the remotest way Bury Me Deep is a joke).
These early bands were then perceived goth, and claimed not to be.

So why does that mean bands nowadays who are goth bands have to be like that? They are not perceived as goths because they're "Sisters clones" (yeah right, you find me a goth band nowadays that'd play Crash And Burn as a goth song) or talentless. They claim they ARE goth, and they're not doing it as the legendary "JOKE" dictates.

Therefore:

Early bands: Perceived to be goths + Claimed not to be goths + Doing it out of humour = generally considered non-goth now and called "massively influential" (yet any influenced GOTH bands are called "clones")

New goth bands: Not perceived to be goths + Claim to be goths + Being serious = Goth Music. Talentless clones of non-goth bands, we're told.

Goths just can't win. So excuse me while I go on stage in a Bauhaus top and sing "Happy House". After all, it's a joke, isn't it?

</rant>