Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 2

Nu-metal section

All that really needs to be said here is that "nu-metal" is merely hard rock in disguise and not metal at all.

Why does "battle music" redirect here?

I typed it in expecting Tchaikovsky's 1812, Wellington's Victory, and the whole sub-class of obscure classical pieces nobody can ever neatly categorise as anything else. And I end up here, in spite of there only be being two instances of the world Battle in the entire page on heavy metal music (the only one of significance being the quoting of the influence of "battle hymns" - not even one line). Any thoughts on at least a disambiguation page, since a "list of battle music" page wouldn't be hard to set up. Graldensblud 23:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Man, that is rather amusing, however the reason is pretty simple. "Battle metal," either a pseudo- or heavily unknown subgenre of metal once had its own page, and so "Battle music" redirected there. Following its deletion, the term was redirected to "heavy metal music," since it is relative to all metal subgenres. I agree that this is incorrect and should be dealt with -- I suggest you redirect "Battle music" to wherever you feel most appropriate, or simply request to blank the page. --Ryouga 04:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Metallica example

I removed the second Metallica example in the last paragraph of the themes section, simply because we do not need a list of every single metal song/album that has ever contributed "to the discussion of the state of affairs". I hope nobody minds.

Remove link to All Music Guide

Wikipedia FAQ clearly states no links to commercial sites. The people who keep reposting this link work for AMG and are serving their own interests and not the whole of the metal community or the Wikipedia editors. Anon October 18, 2006

All Music Guide links are OK on Wikipedia. They are the main source for the bulk of the music articles on the encyclopedia and the All music Guide link is included in most of the album infoboxes used by the Wikipedia Music Project. Further to that, All Music Guide is used so extensively throughout Wikipedia that it has it's own AMG template for quick additions into Wikipedia music articles and therefore it stays as a valid external link and can be added to any/all music related articles. 156.34.142.158 15:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The AMG article on heavy metal is meaningless as the same info is covered on the Heavy Metal page of Wikipedia. If anything was quoted or referenced, then it should be credited and listed in the Reference sections and not the External Links section. Better sites can be found that deal with the history of metal and metal bands and not some corporate site like AMG.

It's a reference, and it helps those interested in the topic to research more about it. I'm the one who originally added the link and I do not work for AMG. Reliabilty is preferred to rest on professional sites rather than fan ones, and that's the most adequate online resource. Please do not remove it again without discussion. WesleyDodds 04:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's Not About Your Favorite Band

I've been watching this article for a while, and it seems like people are too focused on particular bands. Some major figures such as Sabbath, Priest, Maiden, and Metallica are candidates for more lengthy discussion, but couldn't minor figures just get put on to a list at the end of each history section? Or maybe put a link to a more detailed article with a list of bands? Anon August 14, 2006

"Plus, Rhapsody of Fire have used many classical string instruments and have created a new style which they call 'Film Score Metal'." This band does not need to be mentioned. Not only does the sentence sound illogical in the course of the paragraph, but Heavy Metal bands have been using string instruments and other classical elements long before 1997, when their debut came out. To me this a plug to get this band on the heavy metal history page so theyve been removed.--Tomtheebomb 21:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Queen

Queen have been recognized as pioneers of heavy metal. Queen(1973), Queen II(1974), and Sheer Heart Attack(1974) are heavy metal. A Night at the Opera, News of the World, and others have heavy metal on them. Thay have mixed heavy metal with arena rock, glam rock, progressive rock, punk rock, and even opera. - Mtmtmt 05:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. But your point is . . . ? WesleyDodds 06:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

the article on alt. metal

is too short and really says nothing about the genre except that some people don't like it, list a few band names and mention the connection to grunge that only has to do with a few alt. metal and nu metal bands.

The appropriate venue to list your contentions is the Alternative metal page. WesleyDodds 22:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Metallian"

A spammer keeps adding this poor quality site to the links. If you have a look at their edits, their sole purpose on Wikipedia is adding this site to links of bands pages [1]. - Deathrocker 19:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Classical influence exaggerated a bit (?)

This has been bothering me for a while. The infobox would lead you to believe that classical music is an overarching influence on metal, but the text within the article doesn't back the claim up, beyond mentioning Ritchie Blackmore, Yngwie, Randy Rhoads and the tenuous Iron Maiden bit at the end of the section. maxcap 23:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the classical influence really doesn't come into metal until the late 70's, then becomes a bit pervasive in the 80s before becoming restricted to genres like power metal and gothic metal in the present day. Certainly the original metal bands didn't really have it; this encyclopedia of rock music assembled by the NME in 1977 I was looking at the other day referred to Led Zeppelin as the definitive heavy metal band, and they mainly came from a blues background. It's a major part of metal's history, but maybe it could be reworked a little. WesleyDodds 22:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So, I've been having a hell of a time finding a reference for the 'Maiden Powerslave comparison in the last paragraph, can anyone help provide a source? maxcap 18:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What?!? There's no Classical influences in metal. Classical music is restrained and controled. Romantic music is the previous type of music that you're looking for. JMan8088

Paul Gilbert deserves mention in this section, he did an article in total guitar on Bach and performed fugue in D major for that particular magazine, also to note many of the techniques and phrases he uses seem similar to the ones found throughout that song. Also Jason Becker (Cacophony) should be mentioned and he is well known for his performance of Paganini's 5th Caprice. Also I think Steve Vai has done a performance of Beethoven's 5th Symphony. Speed/thrash metal should get mention here in my opinion.

I don't agree with you, Paul Gilbert and Jason Becker probably aren't notable enough for the main article; Vai, maybe, but he isn't known for his classical influence. There is an article on shred guitar that could use some expansion though. maxcap 17:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I was reffering to them being mentioned in the context of classical influence in heavy metal and nothing more.

So, why is Mozart grouped with Franz Lizst? Lizst wrote some of the most metal non-metal music ever, and lived a pretty metal lifestyle. Maybe he wasn't a specific influence, but I think a better example should be used as to what kind of "classical" music (speaking broadly, not periodically) was not influential to metal.

Also this is where speed metal and shred should be mentioned without a doubt, few mainstream bands actually took up much influence and it IS people like Paul Gilbert, Jason Becker, Marty Friedman, Dream Theatre, Joe Satriani etc that actually look to classical for some influence, this is grossly biased towards 70s mainstream metal.

Classical Music in the genrebox

I question the influence of classical music being pervasive enough to warrant it's inclusion as a primary influence in the genre box. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? maxcap 18:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What is meant by "classical"?==== Metal has little to no classical influence, periodically speaking. It has LOADS of baroque influence as far as improvisation goes, and romantic influence in the general mindset, especially more symphonic metal bands.

I think it's being used as a generalization for all those periods, and I'm fully aware of it's influence on guitar playing; do you feel that this influence is enough to cite it as a primary influence, like it's being used in the genre-box? maxcap 01:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

maxcap - i reverted your change removing classical from the genre box because unfortunately a big chunk of the end of the article also got removed, which i assume was accidental. thought about removing the reference in the genrebox, but as i have no opinion on the matter, i figured i'd leave that to you--Ultranaut 06:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should say European art music, or Western concert music, to avoid possible confusions about the word "classical"?

It's funny when people who talk about the influence of classical music on heavy metal music always cite the same 5-6 classical musicians. Even funnier is when people who like Nightwish, Children of Bodom, Therion, Stratovarius, Edguy... put in their mouth the names of Beethoven, Mozart, or Wagner... BTW, I find Judas Priest much better than Paganini. ;)

Classical Music does not belong in the infobox! It is most certainly not a stylistic origin of heavy metal music, nor even an influence on all metal, but only an influence specifically on prog-metal in the mid 70s, and few other genres, such as speed metal and power metal, that sprang up in the mid 80s. (Okay, and Iron Maiden, I'll admit). If it's considered proper, someone could possibly add an "Other Influences" section (as opposed to origins) and put Classical Music there, along with Punk Rock and whatever else. --Rosencrantz1 20:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Classical music has had an incredible influence on the ideals of all forms of metal, in addition to a direct musical influnece on at least hundreds of bands. Ours18 07:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Prince... metal?

The solo at the end of "Let's Go Crazy" might be a swell bit of guitar virtuosity, but the song itself isn't metal. The most we can say is that the track is a bouncy pop song smacked with a tasteful edge. However, we can't expect anyone to argue that it is a "metal" song. Making a reference to it on the Heavy Metal entry is just baffling.

I think perhaps somebody was joking? - Deathrocker 20:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Prince may not be a metal musician or write metal music but when it comes to playing the guitar, he is very very good. Prince has mastered literally every musical instrument and is considered extremely good on all of them

Danzig and Type O Negative

I think the two were significantly relevent enough during the 90s to warrant a mention in the article, and perhaps a mention of the high level of heavy metal influence in Alice In Chains music too.

It wouldn't really fit in with the nu-metal section, anybody have any ideas? - Deathrocker 20:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Danzig Alice in Chains are examples of Alternative metal; Danzig influenced by gothic rock, deathrock and punk (with Glenn Danmzigs history in The Misfits and Samhain (band), and Alice with grunge/alternative rock. Both were part of the wave of alternative metal that also included bands that would eventually influence nu metal. Type O Negative were part of a brief revival of early heavy metal that Danzig are arguably also part of - Type O Neg's metal was slow and scary more than fast and angry, like Black Sabbath. I'll edit the article now. --Switch 00:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I just noticed that Pantera aren't really mentioned either, and I remimber them being massively popular in the early 90's, maybe something could be worked together with all those bands? maxcap 01:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a brief mention of groove metal happening via Pantera should be included too. --Switch 05:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The section on Type O Negative is probably a little too thorough for this article's scope. A sentence or two should be fine. WesleyDodds 04:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it wise....

To have the subgenres abreviated in the info box as so...

Heavy metal
Stylistic origins	Psychedelic rock, European classical music and British blues
Cultural origins	Late 1960s United Kingdom
Typical instruments	Guitar — Bass — Drums
Subgenres
Black - Death — Doom — Folk — Glam — Gothic — Industrial - Neo-classical — Power — Progressive - Symphonic metal — Thrash (complete list)
Regional scenes
Gothenburg — Britain — Bay Area — Florida
Other topics
Fashion — Genres - History — Bands — Umlaut

If somebody is just reading through the article, it could be confusing, as it says "Folk" rather than "Folk metal" as a subgenre, and "Glam" rather than "Glam Metal", for example. Shouldn't it be fully typed out, to avoid confusion for those who are just reading this article? - Deathrocker 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So unabbreviate them if it makes sense, but dont violate policy and projects in the process. Ley Shade 23:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the edit summary, You do realise WP:HMM isn't an official authority on Wikipedia articles don't you?.. decisions for articles are made on their appropriate talkpages, after discussion... like HERE for example (that is what the talkpages are for). WP:HMM is just an unofficial group for people on Wikipedia who say they like some form of metal music... and wish to work together on/create some articles.

You do not have to be part of WP:HMM to edit metal articles on here, its an open encyclopedia, not an (invisible) democracy to quote Jimbo Wales. If people who are members of WP:HMM wish to come over to this article and discuss the inclusion of certain information logically then, cool, lets see them do so.. a "yes, no" poll on some unofficial group not even on the articles talkpage doesn't have authority over articles.

In this articles info box it states "-- Note: Due to major debate that springs up from time to time and edits that might compromise the article's integrity, please discuss any major changes to this article on the Talk Page first. --" this was not done yet for such large sections to be blanked. - Deathrocker 23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the "poll" is inherently biased. maxcap 00:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention all the fusion genres are removed, which are supposed to be included in the infobox. Plus, as far as I remember, the original Wikiproject discussion only concerned the footer that's placed on every genre page, no the main infobox that tries to tie everything together and is inherently more detailed and informative. WesleyDodds 03:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The poll was advertised on this page, and messaged most everyone who was doing work on this article about it as well. If they chose not take part before closing, thats their problem. Consensus still stands. 81.157.94.111 11:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't advertised very well, and this[2] link doesn't show this page linking in. I would think it would be evident to someone who refers to NPOV as consistantly as you, that the poll is biased. It's like polling conservative Christians on the validity of evolution. My biggest problem is the same as Wesley's, the fusion genres, they need to stay. Regardless of how "true metal" they are, they are related enough to warrant inclusion. Plus, and this is important, it makes exploring wikipedia fun. maxcap 16:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the Fusion Genres is that most of the ones listed are either Non-Existant or not fusion genres. 23:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Ley Shade

Alternative metal - Christian metal - Funk metal - Grindcore - Industrial metal - Metalcore - Nu metal - Rapcore - Stoner metal - Symphonic metal Out of these which do you consider non-fusion or non existant? the only ones I question are syphonic metal, christian metal ; rapcore is probably more derivitive of alt metal, as is nu-metal. I don't know anything about stoner metal so i can't say. maxcap 23:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Stoner metal should be listed under subgenres. It's not a fusion with anything. WesleyDodds 06:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It´s interesting, but Symphonic Metal is to me a tangible and clear sub-genre. So, I think it´s better to try to enconpass all so-called subgenres, because it´s better to include something wrong than missing something right :-) Loudenvier 16:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that, I'm just completely ignorant regarding Symphonic Metal so I can't voice any sort of educated opinion on it. Same with stoner metal, except that I own a couple of Clutch albums.maxcap 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

lost some data (yikes!)

I lost some data in the process of archiving, and I'm not able to edit a previous version to move it over. Can anyone help? maxcap 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've left a message at the village pump hopefully someone will fix it, sorry folks. maxcap 01:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll sort it out... keeping more recent/crreunt discussions on this page, the rest archieved. - Deathrocker 01:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK... that should be better now, got the data back and kept some of the more current discussion on here. - Deathrocker 01:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! thank you maxcap 02:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

simple rhythms

This seems inaccurate. What about progressive metal, technical death, and many other VERY rhythmically complex subgenresgenres? Metal now contains some of the most rhythmically complex music in existence. Even in less complex subgenres, the rhythms are more complex than in many other forms of music - guitar rhythms, at least, in thrash, etc. I would say that the majority of metal is far more rhythmically complex than most mainstream rock!

I know this is a load of crap, if heavy metal (let alone sub genres such as speed metal) have simple rhythms then what does music like rap or pop have?!

A few users have deleted it (including me) but a couple of users have also restored. Shouldn't there be a consensus in regards to that part of the article as well as a much better and more in depth paragraph to replace the current under "characteristics"

Yeah, I just deleted part of that quote again - even the heavy distortion thing isn't always true, just look at Queensryche's Operation Mindcrime. Then again, that's pretty relative. There are lots of non-metal genres now that have far heavier guitars than some metal, especially early stuff.

External links

We need to seriously discuss what should be in the external links section of this page. Links keep getting removed and inserted on a regular basis by both registered and unregistered users. WesleyDodds 00:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Regional Scenes

It seems that Gothenburg Metal now redirects to Melodic Death Metal, in my opinion we need something that seperates the early Scandavian Metal Scene from other early extreme ends, Perhaps we can fix Scandavian Death Metal to a more generic Scandavian Metal, which would include the early Norweigan Dark Metal and the Gothenburg Scene? I realize that the main page for this may not be the best place for the discussion, but the infobox includes Gotheburg as a region and its not longer a seperate page. Atechi 23:42 24 June 2006

Eurovision

Is the small part on eurovision all that necessary? Lordi are by no means an important part of heavy metal nor is the eurovision win a milestone in heavy metal.

Lordi is not heavy metal or any subgenre of it either. They should be mentioned only in -maybe- hard rock. --EpiC-- 22:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's all that notable in the greater context of heavy metal, especially given that the page is already big enough. I could stand to lose it. WesleyDodds 08:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Now it's been moved to the Characteristics section. That just makes the Eurovision section more superfluous than before. WesleyDodds 08:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Lordi are deffinetly part of heavy metal. And Eurovision is a high key international event... it should be mentioned somewhere in the article as it is notable. - Deathrocker 10:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Eurovision is a high key international event? Don't think so, Lordi was barely mentioned in the news and there was the odd reference in tv shows at the time but the thing pretty much blew over by the end of that week

It may be a "key international event", but is it really that notable in the greater context of the article. And if so, does it deserve the amount of space afforded to it? WesleyDodds 21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Deathrocker, Eurovision is a much hyped high key event. You will understand the extent of Eurovision's popularity when I will tell you one thing. That being, Lordi winning Eurovision was one of the big news in my native country India, which happens to be a third world country. And let me tell you, the news coverage was extensive, not to mention coverage in the newspapers. "Lordi happens to be the first heavy metal group to win Eurovision" roared the international sections. Now, I am back in Europe and I can tell that the hype here is pretty much big as well. So, let the section remain.

--NRS^{(talk to me,mail me or award me a barnstar)} 13:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe an section titled "awards" or "industry recognition" or something like that could be created that way the Eurovision thing could be integrated with othe awards of note. maxcap 21:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

To quote the Eurovision article "It is also the world's biggest song contest in terms of audience figures, which in recent years have been quoted as anything between 100 million and 600 million internationally."... it may not have been as widely spread in the United States (As it is a European event), but the rest of the world seem to have been watching.

I do agree with the above comment too... about perhaps implomenting an "industry recognition", some metal bands have made it to the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame for example. - Deathrocker 23:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Lordi is hardly metal, they are more like hard rock or some other softer genre of music, I've listened to pretty much all their songs and they're kind of like GWAR only a lot softer, so I say, Lordi goes. Omicron91

uh

Metal is a genre, heavy metal is a sub genre

Actually, Heavy Metal is considered as a subgenre in spoken language; today. But originally (in 80's) it's the full name of whole metal genre. It's better to use original one. While refering the early metal, we could use Classical Metal instead (which we did in here). --EpiC-- 22:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, don't you mean "Classic", not "Classical"? Either way, I would say much of "classic" metal could be called something else. e.g.: Black Sabbath doom (or proto-doom) metal, Iron Maiden proto-power metal.

Don't make us go through this debate again. :D (You see, quite a while ago there was a big argument about this exact thing. It took a long time for a decision to be reached, put it that way.) :P

--FrasierC 21:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotation?

The last sentence in paragraph 4 under "Themes", is that supposed to be a quotation? If so, it's not structured very well. Shall that be changed?

Manowar?

Surely no definitive Heavy Metal article can ignore Manowar?

they're not that important in an overview of the genre. WesleyDodds 11:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree they wern't innovative nor were they all that popular

They kind of influenced all of power metal, didn't they? They deserve a mention. And they're quite popular, just not in the United States. --AaronS 22:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Manowar encapsulated the essence of a certain concept of heavy metal that is fundamental to the genre. They may not be as influential as defining bands such as Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden or Metallica but Manowar certainly are a unique and hardly insignificant component of the Heavy Metal zeitgeist. --MichaelTurley 13:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No they don't; they consider themselves "true metal". They're not as important as you make them out to be. WesleyDodds 07:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Manowars, admittedly self-proclaimed, crusade for "true metal" is merely an extrapolation of the natural antagonism which exponents of extreme art will often outwardly declare towards less challenging art forms. Manowar exemplified this artistic antagonism (expressed purely in terms that a teenager could understand) and indeed wore it as a badge of honour, or perhaps more relevantly, utilized it as a market differentiator. This, however, is only one of many interesting facets of a band which, even amongst heavy metal aficionados, inspires polar reactions in either direction. --MichaelTurley 13:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Claiming Manowar is not important to metal is simply absurd! I´m not a fan of them, but they were very important to the scene. They´ve done power metal before power metal came to be. Please, refrain from POV :-) (all right, it´s a talk page...you can POV it all!) But I agree they do not deserve a mention on the intro... But they deserve mention. Regards Loudenvier 13:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid Manowar was both influential and popular, a classic band whether you like them or not. Also, they introduced "Viking" and neo-pagan lyrical themes years before all the so-caleed "Viking metal" that is being churned out today: I remember this thematic elemnt being very influential at the time; nobody else was doing that in c.1982. Indeed, Manowar beat Bathory to this stuff, and at a time when Satan was a all the rage in underground metal!

This sounds like the case of someone simply not liking Manowar and holding it against them. Manowar was EXTREMLY ( and still is ) popular in Europe. However, to say they weren't influential is asinine. If you listen to their 4 albums from 82-84, you can hear that they were indeed the first epic power metal band. Songs like Battle Hymns, Dark Avenger, and Valhalla were way ahead of it's time. Also, Manowar have sold 8 million records. Now, that's not as much as Maiden or Metallica, but they're definitly popular.

Manowar is very influential on power metal and heavy metal. They even influenced Rhapsody of Fire (previously just, Rhapsody). But i still dont see why they should be mentioned Deimoss 02:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

They were plenty influencing, but I don't know if exactly essential. Fair to mention I assume. They also influenced the phrase "Other bands play Rammstein BURNS!" with their lyrics, "Other bands play Manowar KILL!" --Trusader 00:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Template

Heya I created a template page for the genre box. Could someone replace the one on the main page with it (my browser cuts the bottom of the page off).

Just click edit on this section and copy from here and paste to the main. Thanks! maxcap 18:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The so-called "mid 2000's Traditional Metal Revival"

I have removed this section, with the following reasoning:

- This is an extremely new phenomenon; it is yet to be seen whether or not it will have any impact on the genre, especially to a degree that would warrant its placement in the main article.

- Many of those so-called "revival" bands that were mentioned do not "take influence from the original 1970s and 1980s pioneers of the genre" nor do they play in that style. Rather, the music itself is much more in line with the sound of stoner rock (or, sometimes, stoner metal) sounds, already established as a sub-genre/movement in its own right in the 1990s with artists like Fu Manchu and Kyuss. The Sword, for example, insist that Black Sabbath is not an influence [3]; the official Myspace page for Wolfmother cites zero heavy metal bands among their list of influences [4] and they openly claim that they were never influenced by any "'70s rock" band, nor have they ever intended to sound like one. [5]

- The leading bands in this so-called "heavy metal revival" wave come from outside the genre, with a pedigree based in the indie-rock or modern hardcore scenes. Their audiences, accordingly, can mainly be found within the indie-rock (and even hipster) crowds. The phenomenon they represent is not part of heavy metal as a genre and a movement, but has more to do with the general trend towards irony-laden retro-isms in the contemporary music industry as a whole. To illustrate by comparison - if bands like Franz Ferdinand or Bloc Party are not mentioned in the post-punk article (and rightly so!), neither should their "metal" counterparts be mentioned in the heavy metal one.

- In heavy metal circles, both the credibility of these bands and their "heavy metal" identity are widely contested. This sudden "revival" (much celebrated in certain media outlets) is generally seen as fiction, concocted by industry PR men and out-of-touch music critics for the purpose of having something to package and sell as "new", ignoring the fact that actual traditional heavy metal has never really ceased to flourish within the metal scene in its 30+ years of existence; for examples of this attitude and for further reading, see [6], [7], [8] (search for "boswell" especially), [9], [10].

Trends that have proved immensely more important and influential to heavy metal than this, like 1990's Scandinavian black metal or even the Gothenburg scene of melodic metal, are either mentioned in a sentence or two in the article, or not mentioned at all; in light of this - and of the reasons listed above - having this section is ludicrous. Unless there is a really convincing counter-argument, I posit that it should stay out of the article.

- 80.178.76.86 18:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I going to throw my view on this, even though I'm new. I'd say ther has been a movement of many new bands playing Trad. Metal these days, but the deleted examples certainly aren't the ones I'd have used. I don'think the movement is that notable, it's small even within Metal, but bands like Twisted Tower Dire, Ironsword, Battleroar, etc. And older bands like Overlorde and Attacker reformed and releasing new stuff in the past few years. It might be worth a line or two, even if it's not that big/important. But certainly no more if most views are against the idea. Dace59 18:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with your point regarding the bands you mentioned. However, they represent a phenomenon entirely different from the one which was trumpeted in the "revival" section (with bands like Wolfmother, The Sword, 3 Inches of Blood, Early Man, Witch, The Illuminati, and so on). New bands like the ones you mentioned, and older bands like Pentagram and Manilla Road which have existed for decades and are still going strong, are proof that traditional metal has always been alive and well - they should be separated as clearly as possible from this new, hipsterized pseudo-"revival" wave. 80.178.76.86 18:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

3 Inches of Blood are fun sometimes, but hardly a major or moving band. As for the others, I've only heard Wolfmother and they certainly aren't a Metal band. The others are apprently Doom/Rock/Stoner hybrids. Guess other people need to make their views know on this. I'd be all for noting Trad. Metal staying strong and the influx of new or reforming bands into the genre, certainly. Dace59 19:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's kind of trendy and nostalgia/irony ridden; it's jumping the gun a bit to dedicate a section to the article. But isn't it a bit superficial to say that because a bands audience is associated with another genre their music is that genre? That sort of offhand rejection is just as shallow as the trend don't you think? maxcap 20:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, the less irony has to do with music the better, every use of it just sticks out as hipsters trying to look smart and be cool (But that's my rampent POV so moving on...). But on the point, wouldn't it be better to be using bands that are Metal, without a doubt? Rather than trusting to some media claims. Or using bands that bring up cries of "but they're not Metal!" I'm looking at the likes of Wolfmother on this one. EDIT:- I realise this would need wiki to list enough notable good examples to use and such. Dace59 20:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

maxcap: Yes, that would be rather inaccurate - that is why I noted that there is a certain disparity between those bands' scenes of origin (indie-rock, modern hardcore punk, etc) and the music that they actually play (stoner rock/metal). The point is, though, that most of those aforementioned bands cannot truly be classified as traditional heavy metal, on purely musical grounds. And even if they could, their position as "revivalists" is debunked by their own words, by the fact that both the style that the actually play and the style that they are supposedly "resurrecting" have been thriving for a while now, and by the fact that the very talk of this "revival" seems to originate from circles that are out of touch with the actual happenings within the genre. Add that to relative lack of impact/notability - and that's the gist of what I was saying. 80.178.76.86 22:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Its happening here and now of course it deserves a mention, as for a "lack of impact or notability" Wolfmother have charted on the Billboard higher end of the Billboard top hundred and on the UK and Canadian chart, and other bands have won awards in notable rock magazine such as Classic Rock, its a revival its happening now... and not in some obscure movement either. As for influences...

Take a look at Wolfmother's article, they have cited the orignal 70s metal bands as their influences as have The Answer, etc to dismiss them all as "stoner rock" when their music doesn't sound like that is ignorance. They just probably get tired of pencil neck journalists repeating the same question over and over, "what are your influences?" is right up there with "how did you get the band name"? The movement also has had full articles on and mentions in many magazines such as Classic Rock, Guitar World, and Revolver[11]... where it is sometimes named "Hipster metal".

And as for claiming scenes such as " Scandinavian black metal or even the Gothenburg scene of melodic metal," is more important to metal shows an extreme bias, and POV towards an extreme metal preference, those genres in all their existance did not have the comerical notability these current Trad Revivalists have. They are also very, very distant subgenres of genuine metal and sonically closer to hardcore rather than anything to do with heavy metal ala Sabbath, Zeppelin, Blue Cheer, Deep Purple, etc, while this Trad Revival is relevent musically and notability wise to an article on heavy metal music. - Deathrocker 11:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A classic metal-sounding band charting high doesn't necessarily mean anything, but if you have access to the articles you mention, please cite them. It'll make things so much easier. WesleyDodds 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Click on the link after "Revolver" there is a copy of one of the articles - Deathrocker 14:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not doubting its veracity. I meant cite it in the article. WesleyDodds 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've used the Revolver article source which mentions Wolfmother, Witch & Illuminati. And a couple of others including a VH1 source to vertify the information. - Deathrocker 20:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard The Sword, and it sounds like classic metal to me. And what makes you all think that the music is "ironic"? It doesn't seem ironic to me. It just rocks, and has fantasy elements. Be open to new things - you sound like a bunch of close-minded geezers.

It is my opinion that there has been a resurgence in popularity of traditional metal recently, but none of the bands mentioned (Wolfmother, The Sword, 3 Inches of Blood, Early Man, Witch, The Illuminati) are part of it to me. Wolfmother are a proggish indie rock band, and most of the others are similar - influenced by metal, directly or indirectly, no doubt, but not a "revival" of traditional metal (as if it had died). A resurgence in popularity for bands like Pentagram has been seen though, so that deserves a mention. -Switch ^t 05:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is Doom Metal (and other important sub-genres) missing from history section?

in the section dealing with the development of metal in the 1980's, why has death and thrash metal been mentioned whist doom metal been left out? Nemesis, Pentagram, St. Vitus and WItchfinder General were produceing doom *very* early in the 1980's! Furthermore, Doom may be argued to be one of *the* first directions metal took (Black Sabbath) when it was in its 1969 fledling state (see Black Sabbath's debut album with eponymous song - its not even written in pentatonic or hexatonic blues scales!) Doom metal remains a vibrant style today, and developed (esp. in the UK) through the 1990's (eg. Paradise Lost, Anathema, Count Raven, My Dying Bride, Type O Negative etc.)

Why we are on the topic of forgotten sub-styles, where is the technical metal/techno-thrash (eg. Voivod, Watchtower?) The discussion of Black Metal seems cursory at best, and is in fact completely absent from the discussion on developments during the 1990's, and from the section on cultural influence - most insufficient considering the church burning and murder crime wave that began in Norway in the early 90's: This became international news.

I myself tire rapidly of obsessive and idiotic over-taxonymising of music and art in general, but these are well-recognized and influential developments in Heavy Metal, and not just the preserve of DJ lexicon or a handful of obscure bands.

"Forgotten sub-styles"? When did Doom, or any real part of Metal roll over and die? Dace59 13:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I meant forgotten from *this* Wikkipedia article for goodness sake - couldn't you ascertain that from both the current context (ie an article discussion area!) and from what I was overtly arguing for!?!?

Simple: scope. It's not the job of this article to go into detail into every subgenre of metal. That's what the template and links to other articles are for. Plus there are recommended size limits for articles (due to browser capabilities) and this article is about 10KB past it; adding stuff about doom metal would be unnecessary and hinder readability. WesleyDodds 22:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are limits, obviously, but Doom Metal is not - as you appear to imply - some obscure "subgenre". Other metal styles are mentioned at this point in the article (eg. both Thrash and Death) and it is true that Doom pre-dated both these styles and has been developing concurrently since the late 1960's, as the above comment correctly asserts. The point about the eponymous song "Black Sabbath" is an excellent one: Black Sabbath were one of the grandfathers of heavy metal music, and it was in this Doom style that they first expressed the new terrain that they were transversing. I agree that we don't need 500 words on doom right here, but it definately needs to be at least mentioned - if only so that you can mark-up the words "Doom Metal", add your link, and fulfil the "function" of this latter article...

Dusksailor 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Black Sabbath weren't a doom metal band. If anything they were just the inspirations for it. WesleyDodds 07:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, from *that* perspective, they weren't a Metal band either, but rather "just the inspirations for it" - to borrow a phrase from you. After all, Black Sabbath were referred to simply as "rock and roll" at the time, by themselves, their listeners and by the music press. If we can apply the label of "heavy metal" to Black Sabbath in retrospect, then surely we can also identify them as a "doom metal band" with the benefit of hindsight. At any rate, many listeners and musicians today - and during the 1980's - describe the band's music as doom.Dusksailor 12:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Iommi's solo albums and Black Sabbath's Master of Reality album are about as doomish as you could get. Vegetaman 18:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Mercyful Fate?

As it stands right now, Mercyful Fate is only mentioned as the originators of the corpse paint in the underground scene. Anyone into the underground scene in 81-84 knows that Mercyful Fate was one of the most important bands, along with Venom and Celtic Frost. The barrage of riffs, shifting song structures and strong rythem section is what spawned Thrash Metal in the first place. The Neo-classical guitar work raised the bar for guitarists everywhere! King Diamond's shifting 7 octave vocal range raised the bar for metal vocalists. Everyone knows they were Metallica's ( And Megadeth's ) biggest influence. Their heavy Satanic lyrics at the time were new, unmatched ( and legit ) and heavily inspired black and death metal. Also, I'll go out on a limb and say King Diamond's extreme way of screaming falsetto is what created the Black Metal guttural screech ( along with Chronos and Tom Warrior's vocal style ). Surely, Mercyful Fate deserve a atleast a small paragraph to themselves.

Yes, Merciful Fate are important in their own right, but Metallica's and Megadeth's "biggest" influence? "Everyone knows" you say? I think you are out on your own there! Ever heard of Diamond Head? Or Budgie or Motorhead or Iron Maiden for that matter? Lets not get carried away to prove a good point. I also think that yes, you are way out on a limb with the claim that King Diamond "created" the BM vocal style. He vocal style seems to receive amused dersion from the majority of metal listeners, especially those into the more "extreme" forms of metal, back then and today. More likely that KD was initially attempting to mimic the NWOBHM style of vocals that his musical compositions are clearly derivative of. Have a listen to Merciful Fate demos, and I think you'll hear an attempt at a much more convential NWOBHM vocal style there. Goodness, you might as well claim that Rob Halford or Robert Plant "created" the BM vocal style using this argument!

Dusksailor 15:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've followed Metallica since the beginning and I've heard them say countless times Mercyful Fate was their biggest influence ( I thought their Mercyful Fate Medley on Garage INC. and them playing it in their live sets was proof enough? ) , but Diamond Head and Motorhead were definitly up there too. I've actually heard them say Iron Maiden wasen't a big influence but that's not relevant right now. I know King was mimicking the NWOBHM style in some songs, however in Nuns have no fun, in the line "They never fail" he does a proto-black/death style growl, and that's the earliest of that kind of growl I could find. I believe that the trio of King, Warrior and Cronos is what spawned the black/death metal style.

I hadn't noticed that claim about KD's "7 octave vocal range"! Haha, that would "raise the bar" as you put it for the human race! Seven octaves? Surely you jest. Raise the bar for digital pitch shifting technology perhaps, but this is beyond the verified capacities of any known human male voice. And while we are on the point of "raising the bar", guitarists had many much more accomplished classical guitarists to inspire them long before (and since) King Diamond quit playing soccer and Merciful Fate started recording in the 1980's! Dusksailor 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard King has a 7 octave range many times, but I can't confirm it. Do you know the exact number? I can never find a confirmation, usually people cite it's 5-7. I know there are more inspiration guitarists that predate Mercyful Fate, however listening to their early demos and first two records, I can definitly see alot of inspirational in the guitar work as a whole - especially the riffs. Mercyful Fate has got to be the most important link between NWOBHM and thrash.

Genres

It seems evident to me that Neo-classical and folk metal should both be listed as fusion genres. Also, I think that the sub-genres should be limited to the great 8 of classic, doom, death, gothic, thrash, power, progressive and black, as of now. Groove metal, rapcore, etc. are dubious subgenres at best that have not been established to the extent that, say, melodic death, Viking metal, etc. have. In addition, speed metal is not a real genre. I've usually heard it used to mean thrash metal, and "speed" is simply not accurate, because much of thrash is NOT particularly fast. A lot of Metallica, especially. (Walri)

Speed Metal "kind of" does exist... It is quite visible that it would split into both THRASH and POWER metal. Just look at the early, early Blind Guardian stuff, or even Motorhead and Judas Priest. Granted those bands moved out of that. I don't agree with Gamma Ray being classed under Speed Metal though, they're definitely what I would call Power Metal. Vegetaman 19:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, seems there was a misunderstanding of what I thought the term referred to. Still, I don't think it is a major sub-genre. I would consider Motorhead to be "Classic" metal.

Glad to see you agree with me on Doom metal. However, I have a few points of contention: Speed metal certainly is (or at least was) an important movement in the early-mid 1980's; for example those San Fransico "Bay Area" scene bands (like Metalllica, Exodus, Anthrax, Megadeth) were called Speed Metal at the time...they were essentially the evolutionary bridge between NWOBHM and Thrash - indeed some of those bands mutated over time into thrash bands. Both Speed and Thrash were almost a kind of "fusion" with Punk Hardcore at the time - it was a cross-pollination process. Speaking of which, you totally ignore NWOBHM in your "great 8" list; this is, I think, a serious omission. Death Metal evolved in like fashion from Thrash in turn, as did (what is now called) "Black" Metal. I cannot agree with the inclusion of "Gothic Metal". What is this really? Gothic rock is really evolved from Punk - or post-punk stricly, and as such has no place here. Other than that, bands like Paradise Lost, Anathema and My Dying Bride are (or were when some of these acts were still playing metal) A 1990's incarnation of Doom Metal - "3rd wave Doom" you might call them. Similarly with much of Type O Negative's metal sound - to the degree that they can be pidgeonholed at all. Power Metal, I suppose I can agree with, but "Progressive Metal" is always a problematic taxonomy: it ususally seems to be applied to any metalish band that cannot be neatly taxonomised by the music press! I have seen it applied in desperation to Type O Negative, Watchtower, Voivod, Janes Addiction, Queensryche, Fates Warning, Absrakt Algebra, Dio, Yngwie Malmsteen...etc. See the problem here? Original art always tends to be "progressing" somewhere new by definition! Finally, what do you mean by "Classic"? Malmsteen-kind of stuff, or just "older" bands by today's standards?

Sorry about my ignorance concerning speed metal. As far as NWOBHM, I consider Maiden and Priest to be largely power metal and Motorhead is a band that, as I am ignorant of their roots, I would call classic metal. I def. don't mean Malmsteen by classic metal at all. I'm not too familiar with most Gothic metal, but it seems to me that bands like Cradle of Filth and Nightwish belong squarely in that subgenre (though they certainly heavily draw on others), as well as the countless Nightwish clones and some Tiamat. A band that is definitely gothic metal is Virgin Black. (People have told me that there is a huge difference between Gothic metal and goth rock, as well.) As far as classic, that genre gets smaller and smaller the more experience one has with metal. I would call Motorhead and King Diamond classic, and people ignorant of doom would call Black Sabbath classic. Genres like classic, power metal and NWOBHM tend to overlap somewhat. For me, classic metal is older metal that isn't prog but doesn't fit in other subgenres such as thrash, death, black, doom, etc. As to prog metal, just as with prog rock, there is a difference between "progressive" as an adjective and progressive as a genre. Metallica and King Diamond were both quite progressive and ahead of their times, but they certainly weren't prog either. www.progarchives.com has a good description of what prog is in general, but I'll just say that unlike most prog rock, prog metal has developed a specific type of sound in some cases, so that it isn't necessarily "progressive" but is still prog. Arcturus is "true" prog, but Symphony X is basically power with weird time signatures, but the viruosity/neo-classicism/odd time signatures allow it to be lumped into prog, though if I had my way it wouldn't be. Prog metal is characterized by abrupt mood changes, time changes, focus on keyboards, LOTS of jazz/classical influence, concept albums, long songs, etc. Also, it tends to be influenced by progressive rock, especially Rush in the case of Dream Theater-type bands. The Norwegian and Swedish scenes seem the most truly progressive to me nowadays. Though Queensryche is often called prog, I don't consider them to be - they are really power metal. Fates' Warning is considered an early prog metal band, but I haven't heard them. You are certainly right that "prog" is a mishandled term. Sorry if I'm rambling. I'm certainly not an expert at classifying things...

Keep out the "Viking metal" for sure. And subsume that Rapcore or whatever into NU-Metal if it must be discussed at all.

It is worth noting that in the early-mid 1980's, before this obsessive taxonomising took hold of the metal scene, there were really just three kinds of metal usually described by the average listener or musician, and this seemed to suffice (and I did say "usually"): Metal, Thrash and "Glam", Glam was not respected as a kind of metal at all; rather, it was an accusation. "Black Metal" meant an album by Venom; Posessed, Death, Venom, Celtic Frost, Slayer, Megadeth and Bathroy were all just thrash bands; "Hardcore-crossover" was a clumsy way that the music press had for describing a number of thrashy bands like DRI and Tankard; "Death Metal" meant thrash with especially gorey or violent lyrics; Candlemass did depressing songs, ("some a bit thrashy, some slow but still heavy, you know?"); and King Diamond was just a weird Danish man with Kiss makeup singing falsetto in an Iron Maiden-ish Metal band.

Oh, and Motorhead, then as now, just called themselves a "rock and roll" band; loudness and a gothic script alone are not sufficient to make a metal band, at least not in Lemmy's view.

Dusksailor 14:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

To my understanding, "Gothic rock" and "gothic metal" are (musically) unrelated; gothic metal is an outgrowth of power metal and some thrash, and gothic rock an outgrowth of punk in the UK. They both draw aesthetically from gothic art and gothic literature, hence the names. But, musically, neither was derived from or even influenced by the other. --Switch 12:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

See, there are some places/people that use Goth Metal and Gothic Metal as different things. Goth Metal as to Goth Rock as Prog Metal is to Prog Rock sort of thing. And Gothic Metal as the typical style you talked about. But while it works as an idea, its sort of confusing and sure it'd never hold up for wikiy. But yes, musically there's very little relation between them really. Dace59 12:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Classic heavy metal (Late 1970s and early 1980s) section

The claims contained in the sentence..."the late-70s cross-fertilization of heavy metal with fast-paced, youthful punk rock (e.g. Sex Pistols), culminating in the New Wave of British Heavy Metal around the year 1980, led by bands like Judas Priest and Iron Maiden." is fallacious for three reasons. Firstly, NWOBHM is NOT regarded as being a product of Punk "cross-fertilization", as its origins predated the Punk movement's rise in the mid-late 1970's. (It is ususally understood that NWOBHM and punk influenced one another during the 1980's and this exchange of musical ideas gave birth to Thrash Metal). Secondly, the NWOBHM did not "culminate" "around the year 1980", but rather somewhat after that. (In fact, Iron maiden had only released a demo, a few singles and their first album by 1980.) Thirdly, Judas Priest, stricly speaking were NOT a NWOBHM band at all, and predate this movement by years: they released a 2-track demo in 1973, their first album ("Rocka Rolla") in 1974, and according to Mark Hale (1993) they formed way back 1969. Nothing New Wave about Judas Priest - they were well ahead of the breaker, recording back in the Lommi-Osbourne-Butler-Ward Black Sabbath period, years before the Punk craze had even begun. Dusksailor 14:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Judas Priest were lumped in with the movement (their most influential music was released around that period), and many other band besides Maiden had released albums by then. WesleyDodds 21:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

...and your point is...what, precisely? Dusksailor 12:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A rebuttal to your points? WesleyDodds 15:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Dusksailor is both right and wrong. Right, because Judas Priest (and others, for that matter, including Motorhead) are not part of the NWOBHM no matter how you slice it - they were products of the early/mid '70s, and were established bands by the time that the NWOBHM movement began as a decidedly underground phenomenon. In fact, these bands were the direct influences that the NWOBHM generation looked up to; the role models, with their big tours and multiple albums under their belts back when most NWOBHM bands were still working on their first self-financed 7". The very term was coined by the UK-based Sounds magazine to describe this new, grass-roots phenomenon and set it apart from the "established" bands - dig up a few old issues and you'll get the picture of what was going on in the 'scene' at the time. Musically this can be a bit confusing, since "NWOBHM" is not a genre designation but more of a "time-and-place stamp", but the movement still had its own defining characteristics, and bands like Judas Priest simply do not compute.

He's still wrong about the punk thing, though. Punk WAS an inspiration to the NWOBHM, both musically (re: Maiden, Angel Witch, Venom, countless others) and conceptually (the DIY origin of the movement and the prevalence of indie labels), and they did cross-fertilize; Algy Ward from Tank was previously in The Damned, Paul Di'anno sang in a punk outfit before joining Maiden, Discharge exchanged members with Demon more than once, the Cockney Rejects went metal before thrash even existed, Evo (drummer/singer in Warfare) came from the Angelic Upstarts, and so on so forth... countless examples. It's pretty much a fact. 87.69.85.88 18:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Dusksailor is User:Leyasu's sockpuppet

Ha Ha ! Didn't you guys understand ? The way Dusksailor is going about things, it is pretty obvious that he is Leyasu's sockpuppet. Leyasu is banned, so he comes here in disguise and pretends to reason and dicuss hiding his original tendency to vandalise and his vanity. Please report and ban this user.

--Leyasu Sockpuppet Killer 16:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am most certainly NOBODY'S "sockpuppet", I had not posted any discussion here until AFTER this Leyasu user was banned. Have you got any evidence to back up this accusation? If so I should like to hear it, and I am sure others would too. In fact if you cannot provide any evidence I would like a retraction and apology. You ought to be very sure of your facts and be able to demonstrate them if you intend to make churlish claims such as these. I take exception to, and deeply resent being accused of being the same person as a banned user by somebody who adduces absolutley no evidence whatsoever. "Pretty obvious" does not constitue an argument, much less concrete proof of anything.

As one who does not actually know, it leads me to wonder what, precisely, Leyasu did around here to get banned: engage in discourse, disagree, provide argument to back up assertions, utilise dialectic?

It is ironic that you are accusing anybody of being a "sockpuppet" with a user name like "Leyasu Sockpuppet Killer". Who are you really, why don't you make this ungrounded accusation using your regular login name or a visible IP address? Dusksailor 17:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

retraction and apology expected from Leyasu Sockpuppet Killer for unfounded accusation

A complete retraction and apology is expected thank you very much Mr/Ms "Leyasu Sockpuppet Killer", and pronto. Dusksailor 17:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting for an apology and retraction, and I think that the concealment of your own Wikkipedia identity is both hypocritical and cowardly, and undermines your credibilty and hence the strength of any claim that you have made. Your failure to respond or provide any evidence merely compounds your position, and makes it difficult for others who may in the future correctly identify the activities of the aforementioned banned user should he or she reappear here.

Dusksailor 12:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, since that account has been blocked you might never get one, but I can understand you still wanting an apology from that user if they're registered a new name. But if they haven't come back, or just ignoring this, sadly you won't get one. Dace59 13:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

ITS NAME IS "METAL MUSIC". "HEAVY METAL IS A SUBGENRE OF METAL MUSIC!

This is incredible. this music's name is "metal". and "heavy metal" is one of its subgenres like trash metal,black metal,etc. What is going on here? somebody should fix that. it is a big fault for a site like wikipedia!

No. --Switch 12:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, who really cares, but my understanding is that "Heavy Metal" was the first term applied by the media, and is usually regarded either as an onomatapaeic reference (to Led Zeppelin originally, some claim) or is derivied from William Burroughs; The precise origin, is at any rate, disputed. What does not appear to be in dispute (until now) is that the term "Metal" is merely a later abbreviation. It is quite understandable that this simpler term has emerged given the current tendency for the English speakers to economise the language. Perhaps if we are mistaken here, you could provide some empirical eveidence to support your correction.

What I am really fascinated to know is why are many Heavy Metal enthusiasts apparently obsessed with pedantically taxonimising this general musical movement, as opposed to subjecting it to actual critical or qualitative analysis? Some listeners seem to be mostly concerned with being able to pidgeonhole (to their own personal standards and satisfaction) each and every band that they feel deserves to be included in the grand canon of "Real Heavy Metal" bands.

Anybody who has done any real work in taxonomy will understand the difficulties that this activity is fraught with, and of the limits of its application in any field - especially one that is evolving before the reseacher's eyes. At any rate, with no agreed critereon for organisation, rational and systematic organisation is obviously not possible. If this must continue, at least stop putting the cart before the horse. Please don't anybody try to tell me that this is precisely what has been going on, because there has been no rigorous discussion of any of the proposed dimensions that might consitute such a taxonomy, little or no reference to pre-existing schemas in music generally, and therefore we have nothing here that is even approaching a working consensus in which to organise anything. Dusksailor 12:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

it was always called "heavy metal for 20 years until the fans became pedantic about classification and "-metal" became a suffix (i.e. thrash metal, death metal). "metal" is just an abbreviation. 67.172.61.222 20:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If it has been called just "heavy metal" from 1970 to 1990, that also implies that in the 16 years since 1990, common usage in the metal scene has been to use "metal" as umbrella term, and use "heavy metal" as a more specific term referring to the traditional style of metal. You can believe it's just a case of pedantism, sure, but don't you think that, if among followers of the style, a certain nomenclature has been common for a period longer than 10 years (to which I can attest: the current nomenclature of "metal" vs. "heavy metal" did exist at least in 1996 on Usenet already), this nomenclature should be reflected on Wikipedia? Joost 00:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's not enter in this discussion again. It was VOTED before and Heavy Metal (the unbiased correct title for an encyclopedia article) was selected. In fact the stand-alone Metal (music) article was merged with Heavy Metal because it would be a pointless duplicate article. See this link for further understanding. Loudenvier 16:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing to split the article again: as you may have seen on the page I linked to, I spoke out for a merger of Heavy Metal and Metal Music. (Actually it was my exact suggestion which got performed in the end, including undoing the by then existing merger from List of heavy metal genres to Metal Music) But now, I was merely saying that the common nomenclature I spoke about should be reflected on Wikipedia (although on a second glance maybe it is reflected just fine now in the opening paragraph of the first article). And indeed, the last thing we need is pointless duplicate articles: that was why I was for the merger in the first place. Joost 08:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It already is, in the first paragraph. Beyond that, "metal" hasn't completely replaced "heavy metal" as the overarching genre term. Both are used commonly, particularly in sources in print. WesleyDodds 09:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Iron Maiden are still together

Iron Maiden have not broken up, yet this article implies that they are on a reunion tour. - Enzo Dragon 23:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's on about the return to a "classic" sort of line up. With both Iron Maiden and Judas Priest, the return of Bruce (and Adrian) and Rob are seen as a sort of reunion and return. Dace59 00:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think it would be a "classic" sort of lineup because that would have Paul Di'anno as the lead vocalist. It would be it's most famous line-up.

Paul Di'anno is far from being considered in the "classic" maiden line-up. The classic line-up, most famous and prolific is with Dickinson (by which voice Iron Maiden is known everywhere), Adrian, Murray and Harris. Loudenvier 13:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Di'anno is not considered "classic" Maiden by any means. Dickinson has been on the majority of recordings (as far as I'm aware), both old and new. Enzo Dragon 07:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Gothic Metal/Rewrite & Metal music/temp nominated for deletion

• Metal music/temp nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metal music/temp.
• Gothic Metal/Rewrite nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gothic Metal/Rewrite.

Thanks --Ling.Nut 15:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Covers

Please remember that Fair Use images should only be used as a last resort where critical commentary is required, not just to "illustrate" an album anytime it is mentioned. Only one image on this page had an explicit relevance to the text. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 16:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Music Samples

Maybe we should consider adding some musical samples to the article like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_hop_music has.

I've thought about that too, but looking through what was already uploaded proved somewhat lacking in regards to hat might suit this article, barring Metallica and Iron Maiden. Someone should upload some clips for this article, though. All soundclips would have to be fair use (30 seconds or shorter) and inserted pertaining to context where appropriate (see Elliott Smith for a random example) to adhere to Featured Article guidelines.

Suggestions:

• Ozzy Obsourne's "Mr. Crowley" for "Classical influence" section.
• Led Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love" for "Origins"
• Van Halen, Judas Priest, or Iron Maiden for "Classic heavy metal"
• Metallica's "Master of Puppets" for "Underground metal"
• Korn's "Blind" for "Alternative/nu metal"

Contributions would be much appreciated WesleyDodds 08:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree

I don't know how to encode a file in ogg format, but would be willing to contribute. I think I still have that Korn song around here somewhere from when I owned it. One suggestion though: Black Sabbath would be a much better choice for "origins" and Slayer would be a better choice for "Underground metal." Metallica were much more known at that point than Slayer and stylistically were quite different from everyone else; something like "Angel of Death" was a bit moe typical for thrash at that time. Ours18 00:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How is Metallica "Underground metal"?Inhumer 00:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, they certainly aren't now, but they were for some time in the 80s. Slayer might be better though, as they not only were thrash, but were a sort of proto-death metal. Any in-between recordings with elements of both thrash and early death would be good for "underground metal". -Switch ^t 03:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Grunge Metal

Could there be a cross over between grunge and metal? - User:Cronus (band) Yes, like Seether, but they are post-grunge, alice in chains is metal at times APACOlypse27 00:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Mudhoney? Yes, probably. Grunge is a subgenre of alternative rock, bringing grunge/metal fusion bands under the banner of alternative metal. --Switch 02:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Characteristics

Out of curiosity, why were the characteristics removed? I liked them, and I see no reason for their removal. Lehi 02:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It was vandalism. The section's back now. WesleyDodds 03:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

SHOCK ROCK?

History

The Steppenwolf song is frequently cited when discussing the origins of the term Heavy Metal, but it seems pretty clear from the context of the lyrics that this term is referring to motorcycles. FWIW. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.168.20 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

ethno metal

I was reading an article that described a band as "ethno metal" I clicked on "ethno metal" in the article and it redirected here. But there is no mention of ethno metal in the article. Can someone explain what it is, and why it redirects to this page when there's no explanation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.138.168 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Please set it up for creation/review in the WikiProject:Metal site, tnx User:Jman8088. December 14, 2006. 5:38 pm.

proto-metal revived and origins sections shortened

Someone deleted a list of bands I had created on the proto-metal page, which to me was foolish. The proto-metal article is definately needed, because everyone keeps adding minor bands to the Origins section, and it was getting too damn long. I revived the proto-metal list, and moved all references to bands other than Sabbath, Zeppelin, and Deep Purple in the main heavy metal article to the proto-metal page.

Please discuss any problems here before reverting. Thanks.

You really can't have a proto-metal article until you have references, which explain the need for the article. Aside from that, I plan to revise this article when I get back from vacation, because it does ramble a bit. WesleyDodds 11:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The proto-metal article may not have been referenced, but all of the bands mentioned in the Origins section aren't referenced, either. Why are you so opposed to a proto-metal article? My edit made sense - it will save you the trouble of rewriting the section, and create a natural place for more detailed information about early heavy metal. It's stupid to redirect proto-metal, because the main heavy metal article doesn't have enough room to discuss all of the little details about the numerous bands who had a heavy metal moment or two from 1966 through 1975. It just makes sense to have a seperate article on the subject, and link to it from the main HM article. I'm a nice guy, so I won't start an edit war, but come on!

I simply think we don't need to split hairs, thus the previous consensus on redirecting pages like "traditional metal" and "proto-metal". And thus we should abide by that consensus. WesleyDodds 16:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not splitting hairs, it's organizing information for the sake of clarity. But whatever. Have it your way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.7.243.100 (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm kind of surprised there's no mention of the general lack of critical acclaim of metal. I love metal and it seems many critics don't think much of it (ex. Allmusicguide having Black/Death metal as a genre (something most fans would be highly contentious about), or a site like pitchfork focusing on independent releases that never reviews metal but will review multi-platinum rap albums.)Oderus 02:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dio started devil horns?

I know that he says he started the trend, but could we get a source from it? Would a listing of Metal:A Headbanger's Journey count? Desdinova 21:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Punk and glam

I edited this entry a while back, in particular as regards the early 80s history. There was some discussion below about my part about cross-fertilization with punk rock and the NWOBHM, but it lost focus; let me restart that here and also bring in glam, which is not OK the way it is now, in my opinion. If I don't see any comments here in a week or so, I'll have a go at rewriting.

First a general comment: there is a lot of bickering about which band should be mentioned here and there. I think in a general entry like this, no one band should be favored, but there should be a link to a "list" page. The individual bands mentioned in this entry should only serve to characterize trends and developments.

So, why am I adamant that Judas Priest and Iron Maiden are the appropriate representatives of the NWOBHM? First, I am aware of the fact that Judas Priest is older than Iron Maiden, in fact this was part of the discussion back then (don't know how far back you guys read). I think most written metal histories would agree it makes sense to say both groups spearheaded the NWOBHM. I'll try to dig up some canonical reference, although unfortunately in this business many of the well-written ones are out of print. But it is clear from their albums; the NWOBHM was not just a musical direction, but a movement (lyrical themes, fashion etc). Just take a look at the Priest album British Steel and contrast it with Rocka Rolla, the Priest album that was brought up as an argument that Priest were not part of the NWOBHM. The two albums (BS and RR) might as well have been two different bands. The NWOBHM was characterized by short, energetic punk-like anthems (cf. Breaking the Law), as opposed to slow, soft epics of the 70s. It's true that Judas Priest are older than most other NWOBHM bands, but around 1980 they changed and updated their style, both visually and aurally, in a timely fashion to co-author this new and hugely influential chapter in metal history.

Probably a separate entry on the NWOBHM needs to be worked out to clarify this, but a summary should remain under this entry.

So, I'd be happy to defend this point of view to death; Iron Maiden and Judas Priest are the main representatives of the NWOBHM (Now Motorhead are brought up, they were an influence but not like Maiden and Priest). And it happened very quickly "around 1980", as I had written, but I'd be happy to be more specific, say 80-84 or so should delineate the "early 80s". This part can clearly be improved but it was criticized for the wrong reasons.

And about glam: Calling Motley Crue and company "the most popular" seems ridiculously LA-centric. Someone kept writing things like this also a few years ago. "Most popular" in terms of what? Record sales? Just take a look at the sales lists. Musical influences? Hardly -- that should be measured in terms of which later bands (mentioned in this entry) quote the supposed influence as their personal influence. Even bands with roots in LA like Metallica were not particularly influenced by glam, whereas the NHOBHM influence is a well-documented (e.g. their covers) and unmistakeable influence on e.g. their first album. In my opinion, for these reasons glam was not a particularly important part of metal history, and should be afforded a correspondingly small amount of space. Gustav Marcus 20:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Uriah Heep

Uriah Heep was the first band in the world who played "a progressive heavy rock". It was the father of the genre called "progressive metal" which was formed in the 80s. Heep should get a lot more attention because of this in wikipedia although it never sold as many records as the bands like Purple, Zeppelin or Sabbath did. The band's influence to metal music have been significant. Loijaa 13:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That may be, but they don't belong in the lead section. WesleyDodds 10:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Technique

I see lots of historical data, but little coverage of the actual musical aspects of metal. Is anyone interested in writing this, or, if I write it, will it be accepted? I realize the article is long, but, being that there's already a long section on metal's classical influence, I think it would be worth it to detail some other aspects, such as atonality and the presence of a pedal tone.

If you write it, I'll revise it (if need be). Ours18 08:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the thing about Metal music in general that EVERYONE seems to miss in articles, techniques and musicianship is how styles are formed and designed in metal music. Just like classical music with its Rondo forms and Sonatas, metal has is technical side that is always missed yet in most cases, defines a genre of metal.