Talk:Baby Bat/@comment-45817999-20200605135001/@comment-191.177.180.32-20201007072748

Hey. I usually make it a point not to feed the trolls, but this time the academic side of my brain decided to tie up the sensible one. So, here goes.

First, what do you define as "goth rock"? Because from the start, this movement had a lot of influences (like all others), and the styles that are included inside the "goth rock" umbrella can vary immensely. I'd recommend this dissertation (https://fsu.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fsu%3A180435/) for a very well ressearched outlook, though there are plenty of other legitimate sources to be found (if you survive the plethera of "goths are dangerous/ in danger" articles in between the good ones). They mention not only the origins of the genre, but also the fascinating deviations it took, and ways it divided itself along the way.

Another point is how closed-minded it is to define an entire (and incredibly resilient) subculture that has lasted for many years simply through one of its markers. This study (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jpms.12231) goes in some depth when it comes to the spirituallity related to the Goth movement, and how it's transgressive - keeping in tanden with the goth culture itself - but also diverse. The authors give you a good historical overview as well, and stablish quite competently where their observations come from. To make it not completely disaligned from your particular music-based definition, this was published by the Journal of Popular Music Studies.

Finally, I'd highly suggest you read the book "Goth Music: from Sound to Subculture" (https://books.google.com.br/books?hl=en&lr=&id=X-A0CwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=goth+subculture&ots=DhMCIxh4FN&sig=Us95XYDGF5J8i9TO0C3fdK3h1zI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=goth%20subculture&f=false). Chapters 1-3 will provide a fascinating deep-dive on the styles and moments inside the genre and its history, while Chapter 4 adresses in detail the changes that led Goth from a simple music genre to a proper subculture, and how this expanded from its origins, challenging the internal status-quo and elevating our understanding of the topic.

Anyway, this was just an attempt to send you some very basic and very accessible, but reputable and well fundamented works that not only explore the topic, but go directly against the comments you made a point to add to each page of this wiki (which, yes, I read today while avoiding proofreading a very boring thesis). I know you'll probably not read any of them - or at least not beyond their abstracts -, but this seemed like a more productive response than simply giving you my own opinions on the subject, especially after noticing your request for references or well-rounded argumments from other commentators - which, if you'll pardon the relative rudeness, you haven't provided on your own end of the conversation (and, like I said before, "personal experience" may be very valid on a conversation, but not when sources are requested; my experience with this subculture is probably very different from yours, and neither of us know how the other users', and therefore are not a solid basis for debate).

I hope you respond to this comment, like you've done to previous ones. It'd be fascinating to read your input on the works of actual academics who have approached this topic from wildly different points, and still managed to oppose you tightly-held "music only" belief.

(I appologize for any typos; mobile phones are not friendly to long texts, and I'm simply too tired to check the previous paragraphs)