Talk:Bauhaus (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Pop music  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Alternative music (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wrong Brother[edit]

The first paragraphs of the band beginnings is incorrect - David J's brother is Kevin Haskins, not Daniel Ash. Brandon

Bela Lugosi's Dead: Gothic Myth[edit]

Bauhaus frontman Peter Murphy had insisted that "Bela Lugosi's Dead" was recorded as a joke. I don't personally believe there was such a thing as "gothic" music. The term is about as meaningless and artificial as "alternative" (aka alternateen) or the "Right vs Left" paradigm. In my experience, there was little difference between jocks, preppies, rockers and gothics (or batcavers). The latter clique consumed a wider variety of mind altering substances perhaps. Although many may have deluded themselves that they were being non-conformists by scaring their parents with a "paint it black" dress sense, the "goth" clique was not exceptionally different socially or philosophically. It wasn't a movement. A clique is a clique, a herd is a herd. False choices seem to abound in life!

Except the problem to your argument is that Gothic music does exist and it's in a very similar vein to music that came off of albums like In the Flat Field by Bauhaus, Juju (album) by Siouxsie and the Banshees, and First and Last and Always by The Sisters of Mercy (band). Though the band members themselves might deny the connection, the fact that the subculture exists and is still thriving shows how strong the music of then still influences the Goths of today. Your idea of drugs influencing the Goth scene is false and the difference between "jocks, preppies, and rockers" and Goths are that the former are usually alot more dickish and are afraid of people who are different than they are than the latter. I am curious what your actual experience is with the subculture as myself have been in the scene for fifteen years. True Bella Lugosi's Dead was meant as a tounge-in-cheek song, but the fact that they sang it so seriously, as well as created other songs later in their career which were of a similar dark nature that were more serious, created an imagery for their band that their fans adopted (their hearse called the Bauhaus mobile, Peter Murphy having vampire imagery as part of his clothing style, they appeared on the movie They Hunger for crying out loud!) and later modified themselves into their own personal style that they enjoyed makes Bauhaus the primary reason why the Gothic subculture started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Goth: Movement or Fashion Statement?[edit]

More than anyone else I credit the beautiful and talented Siouxsie Sioux with developing the "gothic" look. She seems to be the prototype for the clothing and makeup that came to be associated with "gothic."

Steve Severin (Banshees bassist) and Robert Smith (Cure vocalist and one-time Banshees guitarist) were similarly fascinated with her fashion sense. According to Siouxsie, "Put it down to Robert and Severin together. It's all their fault. Both of them would take my clothes and my jewelry. There were some strange nights going on there, lots of cross dressing and clothes swapping. Except they never had anything I wanted to wear."

Her fans also began to emulate her unique style. The look eventually spread across the Atlantic to America. Commented Sioux, "Actually, it's funny -- at quite a lot of our concerts, I used to look out and see all these little Robert Smiths." The Siouxie look with a little Sid Vicious (Sex Pistols) and Rozz Williams (Christian Death) thrown in....

Origins of "Goth"[edit]

It is not "generally accepted" that Bauhaus was "the first goth band". The Banshees both was formed and released their first album before Bauhaus, and have in my opinion been as least as influential to the goth scene.

Geira 16:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, most people think of Bauhaus as the first, although, yes, Siouxsie was there first. However, her band was much more punky until just around the same time that the "Bela Lugosi's Dead" single came out. I suppose we need some outside sources to back up any statements here, though. Folkor 17:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I think most people see them as one of the first "regarded" goth bands. There were goth bands before them yes, but the genre and the sound was slow to catch on and have a name. I think with Bauhaus people really started to say "these guys are goth!"

My favorite origin tale of the term "goth[ic]" comes from Ian Astbury of The [Southern Death] Cult, who incidentally himself also possessed unusual dress sense , according to Steve Keaton writing in the Dec 14, 1981 issue of Sounds: "The singer is weird, really weird. His hidden beneath an avalanche of red and black hair and rabbit skin pom-poms...."

"The goth tag was a bit of a joke," insists Ian Astbury. "One of the groups coming up at the same time as us was Sex-Gang Children, and Andi [Sex-Gang] -- he used to dress like a Banshees fan, and I used to call him the Gothic Goblin because he was a little guy, and he's dark. He used to like Edith Piaf and this macabre music, and he lived in a building in Brixton called Visigoth Towers. So he was the little Gothic Goblin, and his followers were Goths. That's where goth came from."

Pete Scathe covers this subject in fascinating detail in A History of Goth.

Scathe's site contains a number of artist quotes excerpted from "The Beautiful People," an interesting retrospective written by Suzan Colon for the July 1997 issue of Details Magazine.

Richard 23 21:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bauhaus was the first gothic band as in: first band to be recognised and defined as Goth. There were bands before that could be labelled as gothic as well if you back to them. Joy Division for one, or The Damned (their frontman David Vanian was the first person to introduce the gothic look in music, and also used the look off-stage unlike most performers, so we may should credit Vanian as being the first true Goth in music). However, none of those bands got the Gothic label because there was no such subculture, this started of when Bauhaus also emerged. Bauhaus also deliberately aimed for a rather eerie/horror-esque image and stage antics, further seeking the Goth label. I guess they do deserve the title of godfathers of Goth, even though the music of mainly Joy Division can also be labelled Goth. They never had the label though in their days and also didn't really deliberately search to create an atmosphere that is now known as gothic. Nocturnal Me 21:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, but wikipedia article are supposed to have citations to a trusted reference source, particularly for contentious statements. Making unsupported claims is frowned upon and may lead to deletion of either the entire article or the contentious section. I will try to find some sources to cite re: the origins of goth rock, and I beg others to do the same. Trade journals are a good source if you have access to them, for example: Rolling Stone, Spin, Kerrang!, Blabbermouth. Thanks! Vampyrecat (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Joy Division[edit]

Yeah, whatever. Isn't Joy Division the first gothic band ever? I mean, I'm pretty sure they are even if wikipedians hit me with all their neurosis.

Most people don't actually consider Joy Division as a goth band. I had a protracted argument with my best friend for several months about this, and eventually, I realized he was right. Joy Division is more proto-goth, but Bauhaus deserves the credit as the first real goth band. At least, in my opinion. If you can give a good argument as to why you think Joy Division counts as the first goth band, I'd like to hear it. Folkor 19:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I think Joy Division created the goth "musical" style, and Bauhaus the "fashion" part. Musicaly, Joy Division's sound in songs like Love Will Tear Us Appart, Dead Souls, She's Lost Control, etc. created the goth sound.
You have a point there - Joy Division's fashion wasn't gothic, while Bauhaus's clearly was. I wouldn't call "Love Will Tear Us Apart" gothic - the upbeat feel and especially the keyboard make me lean towards more of a New Wave feel. The lyrics, however, as with most Joy Division lyrics, are rather gothic in nature. "She's Lost Control" and "Dead Souls" have a very gothic feel to them, but it's not quite the same as what Bauhaus did. Joy Division's guitars were always rather distorted, while Bauhaus's tended to be cleaner ("Spirit", "Bela Lugosi's Dead") or distorted to a point where the feedback was quite intense ("Dark Entries"). Bauhaus would never use a keyboard like in "Love Will Tear Us Apart". If I remember right, in the booklet in the Everything! album by Tones on Tail, Ash said something about purposely using keyboards and synthesizers, since such activity was forbidden in Bauhaus. Just a couple arguments. Folkor 06:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Joy Division may use a keyboards, but it's used in a way that gives you the sensation of being in an abandoned and lonely place. That's a very goth keyboard.
(I'm going to stop adding colons, because it's indenting too far.) That's a very subjective statement, not that there is necessarily something wrong with that. However, I think that the keyboards in songs like "Love Will Tear Us Apart" and "Isolation" do just the opposite of what you say - I think they sound uplifting and bright, despite the dark lyrics. "Transmission" also gives off the same feeling. To quote from A History of Goth, "Bauhaus are the first band who cannot be comfortably classified as anything other than goth. UK Decay and The Banshees could be considered punk, The Cure could be considered New Wave, Joy Division could be considered post-punk, but Bauhaus were unmistakably goth in music, looks, lyrics, art and style right from their first single." That site discusses why Joy Division was a big, big influence on gothic music but isn't really gothic in and of itself. Of course, there is still room for argument, and that is just one site and therefore one opinion. Folkor 04:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Bauhaus are to goth as the Sex Pistols are to punk. They may not have started the movement, but they defined it. I think it's safe to call them the definitive goth band. --Switch 11:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Well put. -- Jon Dowland 18:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As much as I love both bands, I would not consider Joy Division gothic....the difference? Joy Division's dark lyrics are woe is me im gonna cry in the corner cause life sucks Bauhaus is let's go dance on gravestones and sing about dark stuff, but life dosen't's just fun to scream out the word stigmata! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Bauhaus continued with that Genre what Joy Division starts with. Joy Division's Music is post punk. While Unknown Pleasures sometimes was a way more faster and "happier" (but dont forgett about "she lost control" Closer is way more gloomy dark and melancholy than anything other in this time. So you can call Bauhaus Goth Rock. Joy Divison fits in Dark Wave and Post Punk Why Dark Wave? Because The term was coined in Europe in the 1980s to describe a dark and melancholy variant of new wave and post-punk music, such as gothic rock and dark synthpop, So its a dark variant or way of post punk and while this describes Dark Wave im sure this definition also fits perfect for Joy Divisions Music — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brosi90 (talkcontribs) 16:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


Crackle is not from the year 2000 , but from the year 1998. 23:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

references and bibliography[edit]

i know the information presented in this article represents common knowledge. but there's still a need for a 'references' section and 'bibliography' section. it's common knowledge only for those who were part of the scene. ...but for the ones that weren't? i'm currently translating this in romanian, and i fear for a big "original research" label at the beginning of the article if some references won't be given soon. :D IleanaCosanziana 14:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Bauhaus was / Bauhaus were[edit]

"Bauhaus were an English rock band formed in Northampton" Ok. That's fine. But then we get this: "Bauhaus released its second album Mask" (THEIR) "Bauhaus is generally considered the first gothic rock group" (ARE)

What is going on here? Is this an American thing? Like when Americans say "U2 is touring" when it should be "U2 are touring? I figure this is some noun confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read Dictionary of English: Group Nouns. Singular in these situations (where the band is acting as a single unit) is perfectly appropriate, in both British and American English - Foetusized (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ziggy Stardust"[edit]

I see where the page Ziggy Stardust (Bauhaus single) was recently moved to Ziggy Stardust (Bauhaus song). While it may have been a Bauhaus single, I don't see it as a Bauhaus song. This article for the band links to Ziggy Stardust (song). Does the content at Ziggy Stardust (Bauhaus song) need to merge into Ziggy Stardust (song)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foetusized (talkcontribs) 15:41, 22 September 2008

It's the standard formatting for article names, see Wikipedia:SONG#Naming. --JD554 (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
So what is the standard for articles about songs that have had notable releases by multiple artists? One article like The Passenger (song) which covers both the Iggy Pop original and the Siouxsie & the Banshees cover, or two separate articles like Ziggy Stardust (song) and Ziggy Stardust (Bauhaus song)? Since the two "Ziggy Startdust" articles are about the same song, shouldn't the articles be merged? -- Foetusized (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Although there is scant information in Ziggy Stardust (Bauhaus song), it was a notable release by the band and the article can (and should) be expanded. There is an argument that such little information should be merged in to a parent article, People Are Strange is a good example, but at some point they will need splitting. This one just needs expanding with reliable sources added to show its notability. --JD554 (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cite your sources please[edit]

This article is poorly referenced and could really use more citations. It already has a Biography of Living Persons warning and I'd hate to see the article deleted. Please don't add any new information without proper citations; it's more difficult for a third person to go back and add references later. If it's just a rumor it doesn't belong in the article, and if it's more than a rumor there should be an article or reference out there somewhere, right? It's quite easy to fix bad formatting in citations, so don't worry too much about doing it wrong. If you're really unclear on how to cite sources you could just leave them in a comment here on the discussion page. Thanks! Vampyrecat (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP warning, just the header that is on all BLP article talk pages. The article is not in danger of being deleted, but help with the citations is always appreciated. Was there any particular reason for the merging of the References and Notes sections? -- Foetusized (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I should really have updated the whole thing to one citation style and converted what is currently called "bibliography" into citebook format. The old-style citations are fairly labor intensive to convert to the new style. I find them to be time consuming because I like to keep all the original information when I'm converting. For example, the references in this article have page numbers which should not be lost during the conversion so it may take a while to convert them all. Vampyrecat (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the BLP/deletion warning, you're right, the whole article is not in danger of deletion. I should have kept my plea for citations more limited. Vampyrecat (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

GO away White - Goth Rock ?[edit]

Is it true that Go Away White still fits in Goth Rock ? On the Discography here on wiki are Alternative and Goth Rock the Genres.? is it a mixture of both of them ? Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brosi90 (talkcontribs) 20:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Year of dissolution[edit]

We've given the year the band dissolved as being 2008, as this is the year that 'Go Away White' was released; but the band actually recorded the album in 2006 and ceased to work together after that time. Wouldn't this mean that 2006 is the year that Bauhaus dissolved? (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Genres and consensus[edit]

User has repeatedly tried to change the genre classifications that had previously been accepted via consensus. After genre warring and insulting other editors, this user was blocked for 48 hours. Now that the block is off, they have gone right back and repeated the same exact thing, despite our explanation of how consensus works, which they have ignored. please read thoroughly so you understand what it actually means on Wikipedia, rather than what you believe it means on your own. If you are seemingly compelled to change this page (based, I might add, on your personal gripes with the sources), then you need to make your case HERE, in Talk, since the other CURRENT page editors disagree with your constant attempt to change. If you can convince others to agree here, then you may achieve consensus. Referencing comments from years ago is not consensus. We have all disagreed with you; it is thus YOUR job to make a case to change, not our job to make a case.
Also additional commentary here by other current page editors (Mezigue, Binksternet, Woovee, Myxomatosis57) would be helpful. Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what more I can add to what I have already explained repeatedly to this person. (From their rants on your talk page, which you removed, and on mine, which are still there, this editor seems to be on some sort of delusional personal crusade and Wikipedia is not here to help people through their identity crises.) Bauhaus started going at a time when Goth wasn't a genre. They helped invent it, but chronologically it comes after post-punk which is also a more catch-all and accurate term for their quite varied output. All this is well covered in the article, and there is no reason for the intro and infobox not to reflect that. Mezigue (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Agree 100 percent.Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Do you at all see what is above this (all the opinions beyond yours) where you FINALLY took my advice and used the damn talk page, but not to use the talk page to actually discuss things about Bauhaus, it's genre, history, or gain any consensus from the writers above this part of the page; but instead you complain about me?! Here's the thing Mezigue about your very wrong opinion, we have bands like Sex Pistols or Ramones who pretty much invented (or at the very least, made famous) of what we call Punk today, but we don't go back and say "Well, because they helped invent punk, that doesn't mean they are and we'll call them 'garage band rock', 'rockabilly' or 'post-disco'." We call them punk bands because they invented the style, imagery, and sound surrounding it. Same as we would call Bauhaus a Gothic rock band because they invented the style, imagery, and sound of Gothic rock. I still don't understand what your problems to this is? You've got bands like Joy Division being considered post-punk, isn't that enough? Why try to grab bands like Bauhaus, Siouxsie, and others? Thank G-d you guys haven't gotten to Christian Death yet, Rozz Williams would probably be spinning in his grave at that point... when he isn't spinning after what Valor did to his band.
The problem with the "Goth at the BBC" reference is that it's focused on goth and doesn't take in the larger picture of post-punk. So it doesn't help us to place Bauhaus in context. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Just because you disagree with the source material leaving out something you wish was in there doesn't mean the source is incorrect. In fact because it's from the BBC, a very well regarded media source, means it trumps many other sources that have less of a reputation or history. (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, you reverted again! I see a larger block in your future if you don't desist. The idea here is, dont change it until you gain a consensus. You do not have one. In fact, so far it's 3 saying no, to your 1. If anything, we have a consensus against your changes. I'll address your text, just to be fair, thought we've gone over this a dozen times and you still don't grasp the history. "We call them punk bands because they invented the style, imagery, and sound surrounding it." Yes, and they were never called anything else, and didn't help form any other genre. Bauhaus (and the Banshees) were called post-punk for years prior to the common use of the term "goth", and they helped form the post-punk genre BEFORE. Priority and precedence matter. You were not around then, so you wouldn't know, but more importantly, you ignore the sources because you have a wholly irrational, emotional, ahistorical and non-neutral dislike for the very commonly used, respectable, well-researched and well known term "post-punk". Please either read some of the suggested texts, or stop your crusade. Wiki isn't the place for aggrieved goths to "right the wrongs" of journalistic history.Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I reverted back to what the page was for years before people like you got to it Greg. Second, STOP TRYING TO INTIMIDATE ME FROM SPEAKING THE TRUTH! (I am sure you wouldn't even of known about my ban if I didn't delete it from my talk page, (Personal attack removed)) Third, it isn't 3 to 1, as far as I see it I have consensus from way back in 2005 according to this talk page but you STILL WON'T ACKNOWLEDGE IT (I count about 8 to 10 editors above who are discussing Bauhaus as a Gothic rock band, to your three, it's just that they aren't editing it right now to what it should be except for me)! As for bands like Bauhaus, they started the genre of Gothic Rock thanks to making the song Bella Lugosi's Dead, with making a tongue-in-cheek song so seriously they invented a new genre with the first song they created! They didn't even delve into post-punk at all until possibly some later tracks, but they started as a Gothic Rock band, it just wasn't called that way because there wasn't a proper name for what they were playing yet, similar to eventually coming along before collectively Punk bands decided to call that what style they were playing. As for Siouxsie, they started as punk and went post-punk for a little while, but after Juju it was Gothic Rock and stayed that way through a majority of their career making it their "primary genre" and what they are referred by when their name is brought up in conversation (not to mention many media sources).
I'd rather you read some of the references you've been ignoring, in order to further your very wrong personal views about the genre. Wiki isn't a place for a has-been "journalist" whose trying to rewrite history on a site that allows to be easily edited (despite the opposing view having at least 3 times the amount of editors he claims as consensus) for a genre he only experienced personally for about 4 short years before leaving it behind, probably because more people are open to the idea of "post-punk" like he wants and not the "evil" Gothic Rock genre name; where he can make money again selling post-punk "history" to the skinny jeans, lumberjack beard, PBR beer crowd who will listen to him unlike Goths who wouldn't. (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Gothic rock or goth rock is a genre that surfaced in 1982 to be precise with bands like Alien Sex Fiend but this genre doesn't concern those late 1970's post-punk bands that we are talking about. Those post-punk bands including Bauhaus had gothic lyrics but they haven't got anything to do with the gothic rock genre. There will always be sources that reduce Bauhaus to this goth rock tag as if their music was one dimensional; this bbc source even tagged PJ Harvey as gothic rock. PJ Harvey has also certain lyrics that are gothic as Rolling Stone once reviewed it but goth rock or gothic rock, she is not this is not serious. Music historian Simon Reynolds is a detractor of those post-punk bands and has pinned them down with this label. But history is what it is, one can not retrospectively tag a band with the genre that didn't exist in 1979. The gothic adjective is one thing, the gothic rock genre is completely something else.
"Bauhaus had 'gothic lyrics' but they haven't got anything to do with the gothic rock genre." There is so much wrong with that sentence, that I am trying to type this as I laugh hysterically! Bauhaus had 'Gothic lyrics' and a 'Gothic sound' and a 'Gothic look' because they INVENTED IT ALL! Unintentionally yes, and it wasn't given the name right away (neither was Punk music given it's name straight away), but they invented Gothic Rock and the Gothic subculture thanks to how they performed a tongue-in-cheek song so seriously, the look of their band and on stage persona (you didn't see Ian Curtis of Joy Division coming out of a coffin on stage, did you?), the songs that they wrote, the damn hearse that they brought to carry their instruments in, and other things that other bands (like Siouxsie, The Cure, Dead Can Dance, Cocteau Twins, and others) did together during that time which eventually got a proper genre name of Gothic rock (in America Gothic Rock used to be called Deathrock and England called it Positive Punk [probably for humor sake, since us Goths do like making fun of ourselves alot while we enjoy being whom we are]). If you don't "retroactively tag" bands who are a certain genre name, simply because they didn't have that name for the genre back when the band started in that style, then why don't you go to both the Sex Pistols and The Ramones pages right now and change them from Punk to whatever other genre they can be described as before the genre was given the name of Punk Rock? (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The Pistols were associated with the punk thing for day 1. After the Bill Grundy notorious tv show in december 1976, they were on the cover of tabloids with the title "Punk shockers". The Stooges were proto-punk but their genre was not punk. Gothic rock started to be recognized as such around 1982, the UK press then reduced it to goth around 1985. Woovee (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
There isn't any consensus to change this lead which is well written and fairly explains that their dark music helped spawn a genre called gothic rock that surfaced years later. Woovee (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure if you wrote the unsigned paragraph up above this sentence Woovee, but all I can say is that Bauhaus started as a Gothic rock genre band because they invented it and it was the style they started with since their first song was "Bella Lugosi's Dead" and not something "post-punk" similar to Joy Division's "Love Will Tear Us Apart". The editors dating back from about 2005 according to tags on this talk page (more numerous than just the 3 that Greg props up) is the consensus that I have that gives me precedence to change the page back to what it was before Greg and the 2 others got to it. (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
"Love will tear us apart" is something else, it was almost Sinatra-esque in a certain way. To my point of view, the look doesn't really matter in the end. Joy Division, with a song like "Atrocity Exhibition", were gothic by essence. But their genre is not gothic rock even if a Sounds (magazine)'s reviewer tagged them gothic rock as soon as in 1980. Bauhaus are gothic too and their main genre is also post-punk like Joy Division's.Woovee (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
They and "Bela" could not have been called "gothic rock" in any widespread or general sense in 1979-80 because that term was not in common use yet, as evidenced in the sources. And consensus, AGAIN, does not refer to what editors in the past may have offhandedly said. It refers to a CURRENT, specific discussion in which a suggestion is made, and then current editors debate and/or offer their votes. YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONSENSUS. I am not "propping up" anyone--I do not even know those other editors aside from the fact that they are also current editors of this page and they likewise disagree with your extremely subjective, non-historical, emotional and biased interjections. You are verging on personal attacks again. Please limit your comments to the topic at hand and do not make insinuations against other editors here.Greg Fasolino (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Sex Pistols and Ramones could not have been called "Punk" in any widespread or general sense in 1974-75 because that term was not in common use yet, but they are still called that today because they invented the genre. In a similar sense, media sources and many musicians who are influenced by the band call Bauhaus a Gothic rock band because they invented the genre, despite at the time not having the genre title. Let me give you an easy example, Lewis Black probably could be considered a "rage comedian" (google "rage comedian", his picture in the GIS preview comes up twice!) in the future because someone in a magazine could use that title to describe him, despite when he first started that comedic style name wasn't invented or used yet and/or made popular, but he would be considered that at the time the style is named and it would be retroactive to when he started out since most of career (if not all of it) he was like that style; other comedians might get influenced by him and say "I'm a rage comedian like Lewis Black is" and media sources would report on Lewis Black as a "rage comedian", they wouldn't say "Well actually, he's always been an observational humor comedian and not a 'rage comedian'." except for a select few trying to misguide others to conform to their own personal opinions. It's why Bauhaus is considered a Gothic rock band primarily, because retroactively after the genre was solidified with a name and a common style, the progenitor band is considered of that genre like Sex Pistols and Ramones are considered Punk despite when they started there was no Punk genre name. You can't say what editors "may have" said, because it's right above this damn section, read it and you'll see. Plus it seems like I wasn't the only one trying to right the wrongs of you "post-punk" pukes, back in 2012 two separate editors tried to right the wrongs of changing the genre on this page with adding proper references
— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
There is an article on post-punk actually so you could read it. All this other stuff you are ranting about is pretty much all in your head. Take a deep breath and calm down. Wikipedia isn't here to help you replay your playground tiffs or fight imaginary battles. Mezigue (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The article on post-punk is no help at all, it describes "post-punk" as being more like a movement than a musical genre, here's some highlights from your vaunted "post-punk" page: "Some critics, such as AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine, have employed the term to denote "a more adventurous and arty form of punk," while others have suggested it pertains to a set of artistic sensibilities and approaches rather than any unifying style." and "Music journalist and post-punk scholar Simon Reynolds has advocated that post-punk be conceived as "less a genre of music than a space of possibility," suggesting that "what unites all this activity is a set of open-ended imperatives: innovation; willful oddness; the willful jettisoning of all things precedented or 'rock'n'roll.'". So basically you're trying to sell me the idea that "post-punk" is a music genre and can describe bands as their primary genre yet it doesn't specify how it sounds, nor how it differs from other music genres because it's "less a genre of music than a 'space of possibility'." You know what that means, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! It means NOTHING! ANYTHING can be put in that "space of possibility"! And the damn post-punk "scholar" of a apparently meaningless term even doesn't describe it as a genre and yet you three are claiming it's a music genre and not only that, claiming that Bauhaus is not only part of that genre but it's their primary genre and to you not Gothic Rock! (which they not only invented but many Gothic rock and other Gothic subculture stylized bands have gotten their influence from Bauhaus and other first generation Gothic bands) How can you call "post-punk" a musical genre when it apparently "pertains to a set of artistic sensibilities and approaches" and not "any unifying style"? Your vaunted page even describes bands supposedly attached to post-punk that predate the post-punk period, like Cabaret Voltaire and yet you three tell me that Bauhaus can't be a Gothic Rock band because Bauhaus predates the Gothic Rock genre name? (by about only 1 - 2 years, Joy Division was called Gothic by Tony Wilson, the founder and owner of Factory Records, who produced and published Joy Division's records!) Steve Severin of Siouxsie and the Banshees in the biography says he described Join Hands (released 1979) as Gothic by the time of it's release (I always thought Love in a Void was a Goth song and it's one of my favorites of theirs) but the media didn't pick up on that at the time, [1] and you most likely consider Siouxsie and the Banshees primarily a "post-punk" band too apparently as their primary genre Mezigue. As I said, I am trying to right the wrongs of the people who are trying to redefine Goth bands as something they are not (or at least not giving the primary genre of Gothic Rock credit over another genre). My problem with certain people (some Hipsters, others who may make money off of telling people what they want to hear instead of the truth) who may like a Gothic band is that they redefine it to a "safe" genre (which post-punk seems to be so undefinable, that it's perfect for Hipsters to do so since it's "unique" in that it's undefinable, so anything coming out of those speakers no matter how incomprehensible could be called "post-punk") so they aren't personally affiliated with those "evil" and/or "crazy" Goth people. That's why I keep fighting you three on this, because you're trying to make your opinions override history and fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Three things: 1) I am warning you for the last time to refrain from personal attacks; you do not know me, and have no business making assertions (which happen to be incorrect) about my personal life or music career. 2) Maybe this will help reach your hidden logic center. Bauhaus is to post-punk is to gothic rock, what Led Zeppelin is to rock is to heavy metal. Read the lead of the Led Zeppelin article here and that will provide some enlightenment (or not). 3) Most importantly, one thing you said here was not only true for a change, but crystallized the entire point of the problems you've been causing: "I am trying to right the wrongs." Wikipedia is NOT THE PLACE for you or anyone else to "right the wrongs." That, and that alone, is the reason you have been reverted, opposed and then blocked. If you want to "right the wrongs," start your own magazine or blog, or write a book. Wikipedia is not interested in your crusade, we are interested in the sources. Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there an exclusivity contract involved? 2) Bauhaus is not post-punk to Gothic Rock because their first song is a Gothic song, tounge-in-cheek song sang in a serious manner (you know Goth isn't all sadness like Emo, we make fun of ourselves too since the beginning when Peter Murphy, David J and the gang wrote that song, you should know this being a self claimed journalist of the scene), dark and morbid lyrics, heavy bass lines, and electronic instruments. They didn't just come along and go "we're post-punk too", they played their music how they designed it and by doing so invented a new genre of music which is now known as Gothic Rock and influenced the formation of the Gothic subculture. The difference between Gothic Rock and post-punk is that I can define Gothic Rock as a musical genre and ascribe that genre to many bands based on how they sound similar to that style, your definition of post-punk makes it more sound like something similar to the Gothic subculture where it's a movement of people and not a musical form (though the difference being is that Goths don't arrogantly claim to be "better" and/or "more artistic" than the Punks that preceded them, nor try to ascribe certain bands to the subculture that don't fit in with that definition). What makes Bauhaus more "post-punk" than Gothic rock other than the time difference (about 1 year or so) of the release of Bella Lugosi's Dead to when Gothic rock was properly referenced as such? 3) When a reference site has improper information, you correct it and give proper references (it's not an agenda, it's trying to bring facts and end false information) that's what I tried to do and you revert claiming "consensus" and you only come up with 3 people, I claim more than you and supposedly to you it has to be "current consensus", so you instead of actually reading any of my reference points or information I give, you just keep moving the goalposts in order to keep your opinion "winning" (and apparently calling out admins who just time block and don't give any responses to questions regarding impartiality on his talk page) instead of listening to the references I put out. You still do not give a definition of post-punk that would make it a music genre; the way the Wikipedia site and yourself have described it sounds like a group of arrogant people patting themselves on the back, calling themselves more artistic than prior art movements that preceded them yet carry a vague meaning which allows virtually anyone to just call something "post-punk" with little to no consensus needed (even from the artists themselves like Steve Severin who says he came up with the description Gothic to describe their 1979 album in the Banshee's autobiography). If you want to put this blanket term on a great many musicians, then what is the limit? What makes a band post-punk or not post-punk? What makes one band primarily post-punk and not primarily another genre like Gothic Rock, Darkwave, Ethereal, Triphop, Shoegaze, or other genres common to the Gothic subculture? What makes post-punk such a "great descriptor" that it trumps other definitions of a band to describe that band and do you think when someone hears a "post-punk" band play that they can easily say "that's post-punk!" or another way a common person can be told what post-punk is and describe a band as such based upon what they hear? I really wish to know, because despite having a large subculture behind me, they don't seem to bother like I do with Wikipedia referencing their favorite bands except in small spurts (like that 2012 change I mentioned and the fight between the people trying to return the page to reference Bauhaus as a Goth band and User:IllaZilla ) and I can't bring the page (and other Goth bands) to it's most accurate and then ask for protection in time before you, Mezigue, or your third editor changes it to what you want. You seem biased in that you only use sources that agree with your opinion (like AllMusic, despite the source not existing when many of these bands we're arguing about started up or even broke up before AllMusic even existed at all) or cherry pick them in order to show your view as proper, but when I put out the full reference to show my viewpoint or point out flaws in your references you revert it to your opinion anyway with nary anything about it on the talk page except for a long time after I suggested it (and only to complain about me, not argue the merits or follies of the references I posted). (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
In the interests of civility, I am responding to this hot mess in as terse a manner as possible. You say "I can define"---nobody cares what you can define. You're not a source. A well-respected, commonly used genre term does not exist or not exist based upon the likes or dislikes of one person (like yourself). You ask a great many questions, but when we tell you to explore the sources and the great richness of press and music material out there regarding "post-punk," you just repeat the same questions over and over. It's not our job or our responsibility to explain what post-punk is to you. Read the damn sources. Nobody cares if you dislike the term! How many times must we say that? It's irrelevant. And no, I do not wear medieval clothes, not that this would have any relevance to this discussion, and no, my personal life is not up for debate here and I will ask you for the last time to desist bringing it up. If you want to mention any of the numerous music articles I have written (many used as sources by other editors here on Wiki), be my guest, that's fine. But leave my personal life out of your tirades and crusades or I will be forced to report you for harassment. A final warning.Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Just popping in to ask why I'm mentioned in's comments above. I haven't made an edit to this article in nearly 4 years. If I recall correctly, my few edits to this article were to revert someone who was editing against their block, and also to argue that the infobox should reflect the sourced prose of the article rather than carrying the sources itself. So whatever you're arguing about now (seems to be usual, the most contentious and time-wasting aspect of music articles), I'd appreciate it if you'd leave me out of it. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Well lets put it this way, others can define Goth music too, that's why it's a genre and why even on a editable source like Wikipedia it has a "style" definition for how Gothic rock sounds and because your argument is about wording, then lets say that others can and have defined Gothic Rock as a particular style (and until Woovee got at it, which I am sure (s)he did after reading me on here figuring I was about to use it as a source, he changed "Early gothic rock" bands to "Proto-Goth" bands in describing Bauhaus, Siouxsie and the Banshees, and other Gothic rock bands on 15 March 2016 to completely change the definition of those bands while keeping the source the same; without consensus and without a stated edit reason too) which is why many bands are listed as such. It also is true that even apparent "scholars" of the post-punk "genre" can't define it, as I have stated before in that "hot mess", so I want your definition of how it sounds or if you don't want to type it, find me a link that says something like "This is what post-punk sounds like." But as usual, you are deflecting the question, and saying "It's not your job or responsibility to educate you" on a damn REFERENCE WEBSITE (people are educated by references)! Then why do you post here if it isn't "your job", then get another hobby other than changing information on an editable reference site where other people get information from and may use that information (if that information is incorrect, they would be miseducated) for their own personal needs! I myself would have never learned about Bauhaus, Siouxsie, Dead Can Dance, and other first generation Gothic bands if it wasn't for the internet help lead me (and others) in the right direction all those years ago (to magazines, books, and other mediums that taught me about and helped me enjoy the scene) and if I got that information solely from you and Wikipedia (if I was, I wish, a good deal younger), I wouldn't get information except that which fit your own biases. (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
As for you IllaZilla, I am calling you out as to why you had a problem with that references that went in the infobox as to that user years ago you reverted. Was the infobox references incorrect or just improperly placed? If improperly placed, then why did you simply revert what he posted instead of maybe helping him by deleting the references of the infobox, keeping the ones in the article, and keeping the genre order as sourced by the references he posted unless you come up with opposing references to disprove his assertions? Why does it seem that almost everyone who tells someone else to "seek consensus in the talk page" before reverting or changing an article never do that themselves? (not a question specifically to you IllaZilla, though you do do that as this is your first post in this Bauhaus talk page despite making edits 4 years ago and that person you claimed was a "sockpuppet" of a blocked account you gave this advice: "4) If disagreements arise with other editors, start a discussion on the article's talk page. Don't edit war, but instead discuss the problem in order to reach a consensus." and yet you don't comment on Bauhaus' talk page till you say "Leave me out of it") (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

One more thing, this is an easy thing to show consensus from other editors on this talk page thinking similar to the way I do. "Bauhaus are to goth as the Sex Pistols are to punk. They may not have started the movement, but they defined it. I think it's safe to call them the definitive goth band. --Switch 11:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)" That is on this talk page, that is consensus (as well as the person after Switch wrote this "Well put. -- Jon Dowland 18:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)") as well as the paragraph written by Folkor before that which I won't copy and paste for you, you'll just have to look up, but in general (as I said before) it is talking about how Bauhaus can't be classified anything other than a Goth band and a band like Joy Division is post-punk. So far that's four people (including me) disagreeing with you Greg and the two others, if you don't "move the goalposts" when you lose that argument, maybe you'll see more people than not consider Bauhaus primarily a Gothic rock band. (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I really don't think I owe you an explanation for a handful of reverts four years after the fact, but... If I recall correctly (and that's a big if), it's because the edits in question were made by User:BEATWEAKer, a serial genre warrior who, within a week, had already been blocked twice (not by me) for making dozens of unexplained, unsourced changes to genres in various articles. When blocked, BEATWEAKer would make the exact same edits anonymously, which a is a blatant violation of the blocking policy and mandates an immediate revert, no matter the content of the edit. A couple weeks later, BEATWEAKer was found (by official administrator investigation) to be a sockpuppet of User:TheMetallican, a known sockpuppeteer and genre warrior, so I feel no remorse about having reverted any of BEATWEAKer's edits because, regardless of their content, all of those edits were in violation of policy as they were made by a sockpuppet.
Now, as for the message I left on BEATWEAKer's talk page, I (humbly) think it is very good advice concerning how to handle genres in music articles, and (not having looked at the recent history of this article, so not really knowing what your edits have entailed) would be good advice for you to follow. Unfortunately you have seemed to focus only on the fourth point of my message, regarding taking disagreements to the talk page. To that point I will say, since you have complained that I did not then take the topic to this talk page myself back in 2012, that the onus to start a discussion lies with the editor seeking to make a change to the article, so it was BEATWEAKer's responsibility to start such a discussion if they believed the genres were incorrect and should be changed. I had already taken the matter to BEATWEAKer's talk page, and they were making these kind of edits to many articles, so I was definitely not going to start a whole bunch of discussions on a whole bunch of talk pages just to say the same thing to one editor a dozen or so times in a dozen different places.
The rest of my comment to BEATWEAKer is what I suggest you consider in whatever disagreement is going on here now: The infobox (and, to a large extent, the article lede) is meant to be a summary of key facts from the article. Discussion of genres, and the accompanying sources, belong in the article body. The infobox and lede should then reflect what the article body and its sources say. I note that this article has a "Musical style" section with several references; the genres in the infobox and lede, then, should reflect the content of this section. Since it seems you're also disagreeing about the lead sentence, I will suggest—and experience tells me that most featured articles handle things this way—that if an artist's oeuvre does not fall easily or entirely into one specific subgenre (e.g. gothic rock), then it is better writing to introduce things using a broader parent genre (e.g. rock), then go into the more specific styles and subgenres in a subsequent sentence or paragraph.
I think that's all I have to contribute on the matter. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)