User talk:Shadowking/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Shadowking/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Genesis 17:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 04:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Microtonal music redlinks

If you know about the composers whose redlinks you restored, why don't you start their articles? (Even if stubs.) A redlink in a list like that gives absolutely no information about who they are or why they might be important. - Rainwarrior 08:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply by Frédérick Duhautpas at User talk:Rainwarrior#Microtonal music redlinks.

Reply by Rainwarrior at Talk:Microtonal music#Composer redlinks.

Maybe the repetition seemed aggressive (or maybe something about the tone), or maybe it was an aggressive act. I don't know. After replying to you, I realized the discussion was more directly related to the article itself so I posted there as well (and my reply is there too). - Rainwarrior 19:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Heavy metal stuff

Hey, if you look at the last paragraph on the section about the term "heavy metal", I've worked in some of the stuff you had put up in the lead section previously about the different definitions of the genres as well as some stuff I've found on my own. I think that should illustrate the issue succinctly enough. As for the rest of the article, I'll be expanding the "origins" section soon (adding details about other 1970s metal bands like Blue Oyster Cult, Rainbow, Thin Lizzy, and Kiss) and we'll need to rework the "mainstream dominance" section quite extensively. I've written a full paragraph about the New Wave of British Heavy Metal in that section, but everything beyond that paragraph in the section could be completely reworked. WesleyDodds 11:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, If your willing to add some more content to HM, could I suggest that the "Pedal point" section could be expanded. I take your point re the images, I'm trying to tidy the structure of the article overall, no hard feelings. Ceoil 16:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. Can you cite the statement: "The use of consecutive fifths and octaves is a violation of an important rule of harmony and classical aesthetic". Thanks. Ceoil 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, French sources are fine. To quote from WP:CITE: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." You would not need to translate extensive text, just enough to give the gist! Ceoil 17:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Frédérick, I copy edited the sections; can you check that I didn't loose any of the intended meaning. Thanks Ceoil 22:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my comment was directed to the other user, using your comment for support. Sorry about the confusion. Even while typing it, I wondered to myself, "Is this the right context to present this in, or is it slightly confusing the way I'm writing it?" WesleyDodds 08:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Aeolian mode

Hi, I'm trying to add more reliable sources for the musical characteristics you've written on. One thing I found out was that Deep Purple's "Smoke on the Water" is apparently in the Aeolian mode. Given it's one of the most recognizable metal songs, could you describe its chord progression in the modes section the way you've described the other progressions? WesleyDodds 08:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

first, I just wanted to say you did a great job puting new sources concerning the harmonic section. I will provide examples for phrygian modes (as for the moment the examples I put only apply to the aeolian mode.)But that's correct the phrygian is frequently used as well (especially in Thrash metal). Phrygians chord progressions generally revolve around the I-ii relations whereas Aeolian revolve around I-VII or I-v.

Concerning the smoke on the water song. there is some truth in what you're saying but I see two problems. Before I get into details, :let me summarise them:

1. Even though the song has some Aeolian parts, it is far from being the most representative instance of Aeolian harmony

2. I regard Smoke on the Water as a hard rock song rather as a heavy metal one.

1. Aeolian harmony in the song

There are indeed parts that are aeolian, but I don’t consider Smoke on the Water as a typical aeolian example. Indeed the verses (most particularly) and the melodic lines of the solo are mostly aeolian. But the parts for which the song is the most famous for (that is to say the main riff and the chorus) are not aeolian at all.

But let me show you:

Since the tonality of the song is in G, let’s consider the aeolian mode applied to that tonality.

An aeolian mode in the G tonality would be:

G -A -B flat –C- D -E flat -F -G

Now let's consider the roots notes in the riff:

G –B flat- C – G- B flat- C#- C ….

Note the notes in bold:

Note that C# (even if ones writes it Db enharmonically) doesn’t belong to the natural aeolian mode (which doesn’t have any C# or Db). As you can see above the Aeolian only implies natural C and D (without any sharp or flat.). This C# is actually a blue note. There's no blue note in the natural aeolian mode.

Plus the power chord of this C# also implies a A flat (=G#) in its constitution, which is also alien to the Aeolian mode in G.. as you can see the mode only implies a natural G or a natural A (but no G sharp or A flat)

So yes Blackmoore was one of the first to imply Aeolian colour in heavy metal music but this song isn’t the most representative of it if you ask me. As only the verse uses a typical aeolian chord progressions.

I sure can mention it, but I’m afraid this would be misleading because the riff is so famous, and even if I mention the verse example, many people might understand that this is the riff which is aeolian.

2. Smoke on the water is a hardrock song

I guess we are here again in the same potential misunderstanding concerning the difference between HR and HM. Of course I know in some circumstances they may be regarded as synonymous. But as Heavy metal, I’m referring to the pure heavy metal whereas Hard rock is still rooted in rhythm and blues. The harmonic definition I’ve made was referring to pure Heavy metal only.

Rhythmically speaking Smoke on the Water doesn’t have the typical groove of heavy metal. It’s rather a hard rock groove. And it doesn’t use any pedal point.

I'm not saying that Deep Purple didn't play some heavy metal songs ( For example Highway Star song is an early example of Heavy metal song with the specific grove and the pedal point) but Smoke on the water in particular isn't a heavy metal song.

Anyway if you absolutely want to put it, I sure can give you the chord progression scheme of the riff. But I can assure you it is irrelevant with the section dealing with the aeolian section.

Greetings.

Frédérick Duhautpas 11:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first point, but every single source referenced in the article objects to your second point. While some may considered Deep Purple hard rock as opposed to metal, "Smoke on the Water" is almost unanimoulsy considered a heavy metal song (in fact, the Christe book, which insists Black Sabbath is the first true metal band and Deep Purple is hard rock, even says "'Smoke on the Water' was a bona fide metal anthem and the first basic of a longhaired guitarist's repertoire.") Additionally, it does follow the common metal trait of unison riffing. Nevertheless, I think your first point is more valid, so I'll leave it up to you whether to include it or not since you know way more about music theory than I (I took about a cumulative year of music theory in my entire life and never learned--or can't remember learning--about modes). WesleyDodds 11:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Smoke on the water is a metal song

Ok, I’m not to deny there’s unanimous view about this.(I don't have any stats to judge that anyway). But for me unanimity has never been a rational source for providing evidences of truth. Unanimity is just a social and empiric agreement that can be used as an argument of authority to impose a view. (sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad ones)

Anyway I’m probably wrong but I prefer rely on my analytic tools than on unanimity. But be it! I won’t contradict that. Majority is always right! I’m not the kind to contradict unanimity and consensus.

If there’s unanimity about Earth being the centre of universe, then just like Galileo I won’t try to argue any further, even though my analytic tools prove me the contrary. Cause none can’t argue against collective agreement. Social always prevails on rational. So yes, Smoke on the Water is a metal song.

greetings

Frédérick Duhautpas 14:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You are perfectly right, Smoke on the Water is not a HM song, and I like this analogy, the story of Galileo (I have some university background in maths, physics and science). --Doktor Who 12:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about various things

Hello Frédérick. Could you please take a look on Ulver's new album page Shadows of the Sun. One user thinks the album falls into the category of Electronic art music.

This reminded me about the discussion on erudite/art music on avant-garde metal talk page. Can you tell me what do you think about it?

It seems like a biased personal point of view, just to make the band seem more pompous. And it's a matter of inconsistency. If you declare one band as art music (although most music nowadays falls into popular music, now matter how popular it is), then other bands should also fall into that category. Especially the more "artsy" bands.

Nice work on the Avant-garde metal page. I am quite astonished by your musical theory knowledge. Death2 04:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is not electronic art music, what is it then? It heavily incorporates elements from classical and experimental music with the help of electronic instruments and devices. What genre is that? You also give me views I don't have: "Biased personal point of view, just to make the band seem more pompous." Please don't do that. If it's not minimalism, how come the album sound very much alike one audio sample on the minimalist music article, and like Arvo Pärt, a well-renowned minimalist composer? Have you guys even heard the new album by Ulver? -cun 22:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(PS! I moved the discussion to Talk:Shadows_of_the_Sun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cun (talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Heavy metal

Salut Frédérick, je n'avais pas l'intention d'être offensive. J'ai lu un discussion dans l'article sur le "powerchord" où les gens n'ont pas été d'accord sur la question de parallelisme de quintes. Il y'a un gar qui a dit que les accords peuvent utiliser le parallelisme des quintes, parce que le réglement était seulement pour les voix dans les mélodies ("part writing").Nazamo (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

le voici:

A criticism sometimes levelled at the use of consecutive power chords is that they violate an important rule of voice leading. This rule prohibits the use of consecutive fifths or octaves in certain situations. It applies to the common practice period of classical music, in which chords, originally, were formed as the result of individual parts, such as voices, combining. Following the principle known as voice leading, the individual parts maintain their identities throughout, but if the interval of a fifth or octave is sounded consecutively between any two parts, their individuality may be momentarily lost. This was considered to result in a weakness of harmonic texture and was studiously avoided, especially in the earlier part of this period.

However such technical considerations exclusively concern common practice classical music’s aesthetic preoccupations. Now powerchord is an harmonic element which is principally used by popular music such as rock or heavy metal.And popular music is not concerned by these art music's technical and aesthetical exigencies. So it is irrelevant to criticize popular music for using such chords, for it never was concerned by the observance of these rules. Popular music’s compositional approach is freer, more intuitive and is not concerned by the complex classical theories of polyphonic structures.Nazamo (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In this approach, power chords are not considered as composed of independent parts that happen to coincide. The component parts depend on each other to produce the required sonority and the presence of consecutive octaves and fifths when the chords are heard in succession is seen merely as doubling - a technique often applied in classical music as a way of strengthening or 'colouring' parts that are not being contrasted against each other in harmony.[1]

Moreover, unlike the prohibition against consecutive octaves, the prohibition against consecutive fifths is better viewed as a matter of style. During the common practice period of European classical music, the popular music of Europe made frequent use of consecutive fifths; the avoidance of the consecutive-fifth texture by composers of music for aristocratic, religious, and middle class audiences was at least in part a matter of differentiating "serious" music from that of the peasantry and uneducated lower classes. Given the fact that rock, blues and other music in which power chords are likely to occur tends to ally itself unabashedly with the music of such marginalized groups, the stylistic argument against consecutive fifths becomes irrelevant concerning these popular music.

Thanks Nazamo for your reply.

I really appreciate your sense of objectivity and your methodological approach but I’m afraid you misinterpreted my basic point in the article considering the content of your reply. Let me take it point by point.

Concerning your quote thanks for providing it, but I was already aware of everything about it, since I myself wrote a large part of this quote. So I certainly agree with it. This sentence most particularly:

“So it is irrelevant to criticize popular music for using such chords, for it never was concerned by the observance of these rules. Popular music’s compositional approach is freer, more intuitive and is not concerned by the complex classical theories of polyphonic structures”

it was written by ME. Yes I did.This too:

“In this approach, power chords are not considered as composed of independent parts that happen to coincide.”

So I can assure you there is nothing in this quote that contradicts the point I raised about parallel fifths in the HM article.This is where I realize you guys apparently misunderstood the point I raised since you seem to believe anything in this quote can contradict it.This point you removed is not meant to criticize Popular music for using Parallel fifths! Of course not. And of course it is a stylistic issue. That’s my point.

Basically the point was meant to dissipate the beliefs that claim Metal descends from classical. A view which is wrong. Because these music genres are different by essence. Classical is erudite music and Heavy metal is Popular music. But anyway the Parallel fifth comment is just a minor detail among others concerning this claim: The difference includes also the following facts.

1.Classical has a heavy theory of harmony, with lot of obligations and interdictions. While Heavy metal is freer in his compositional approach.

2.Classical is a strict written tradition, a classical work is defined first by its written score whereas Heavy metal song is first defined by its original recording.

3.Common practice classical music never or rarely used modal scales. Only late modern classical music made use of them. Whereas Metal most pre-eminent scales are modal.

4.Classical has a polyphonic comprehension of Harmony whereas Metal like many popular music often uses harmony like global block and doesn’t dissect them in independent parts like classical does..

5.Classical music extensive make use of complex techniques of composition such as strict academic counterpoint (not free counterpoint that pop music including metal may sometime use) and fugue as well as a use of polyphonic structure within the vertical harmony.

As for the guy who claims that chords can actually employ parallel fifths in classical. Sorry, but he's wrong. And I’m so sure of that, that I can challenge him to provide any examples from Mozart, Beethoven and any composer from the common practice period. There’s no doubt that chords progression by these composers don’t use such parallel movements even in instrumental accompaniment. And I can provide countless examples of such music without a single trace of Parallel fifths EVEN in CHORDS. Sure occasional exceptions to this rule can be found in case of chromatic context (where they re indeed licit), bass doubling to the octave most notably.

You also can find some exceptional example of free parallel fifths in Mozart’s divertimento for two horns and strings called “ A Musical Joke" (Ein Musikalischer Spaß, K. 522) ” .

But this was precisely meant to be a parody of popular musicians of his time for their extensive use of parallel fifths.

But yes, historically the parallel fifths rule does come from the polyphonic voice leading. So originally they used to concern only polyphonic chants. But that was in medieval music and Renaissance. But since then this rule has been extended to any ensemble in the common practice classical period. Until it was abolished by modern 20th century classical music. But modern classical is quite different from Common practice classical music. And Heavy metal rarely refers to modern classical music.

So sorry, but my point remains unchanged.

If my original point has been misinterpreted, then I agree it’s important to reword it to make it clear that nothing is meant to criticize or be condescending to Heavy metal. But I stick to it.

Unless the guy can provide extensive examples of parallel fifths even in chords in common practice classical music. Which I’m certain he cannot apart from the licit exceptions I mentioned.

Hope I dissipated certain misunderstandings.

Greetings

PS: at any rate, your French is wonderful! I wish I could speak English as well as that.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Heavy metal / classical influence

Hi Frédérick, I can see from the talk page that you've been involved in a discussion on the Heavy metal (classical influence) section. I've made some further suggestions and would encourage you to post your thoughts.

Cheers! Onesecondglance (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Frédérick, have responded to your comments, we seem to be getting somewhere!

Also, just as friendly advice, please be aware that in some places the way you phrase things can sound aggressive. I realise from your user page that English isn't your first language, so I mean no offense to your writing skills - just trying to help out. Hope you have a great Christmas! Onesecondglance (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Sorry for the delay of my reply, (couldn't reply earlier). Anyway, thanks for this very interesting discussion. I particularly appreciate your attention concerning my arguments and the fact you always try to argue against them taking acount of them. I need to praise that about you because I know by experience that many editors around here generally don't have your patience and this kind of attention.

Anyway your propositions made on the discussion page seem to be interesting and appears mostly acceptable to me. I'll reply to it, when I'll have just a little more time.

About my writting style and my english, thanks for the recommandations. I'm not offended at all. On the contrary, any suggestion is very welcome. I know my english is poor and I really need to improve it. So never hesitate to make any comments on my wording. Oh, and I'm extremely sorry if anything in my posts could be interpreted as agressive.I'm glad you didn't interpret it that way. Because I indeed didn't meant to. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

All good! Hope you had a good Christmas and thanks for being one of the few polite people on Wikipedia these days. Cheers! Onesecondglance (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your avant-garde metal list revert

Please see talk page. Also in my revision I had added Peccatum, who not only clearly reflect an avant garde metal sound but are labeled it on their Wiki-page and various internet publications. You removed them, yet you put alt/nu-metal bands like Otep and Dog Fashion Disco back on as if they were really part of the genre? Why? If anything is POV, it's your edit.--Danteferno (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You really need to chill out, my friend. No need to be agressive. I'm sorry if my removal offended you. But I didn't meant to attack you. Because I removed one of your edit doesn't mean I attacked you personnaly. So I fail to see what justifies your agressive tone in response. You disagree with my edit? Fine, just restore your edits and let's discuss, until we find an agreement. That's all...No need to be aggressive. that's one of the principles of wikipedia.

Besides, apparently, we basically think the same concerning the alt bands included in this list...But the thing is we don't have the same solution to handle the situation. Personally I would either delete them, or (as I've done) include them in the general list( even though I think it's wrong to include them). But I think it useless to create a specific section dedicated toi alt metal bands when this article deals exclusively with AVANT-GARDE METAL.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not retort to double standards here: you removed my edit and called it POV. I then called your edit POV, and I am an "aggressor"? Teh. Anyway, Mr. Bungle, Fantomas, Meshuggah, Dog Fashion Disco, etc. really don't belong on the list at all. I found no sources that point to them as being avant-garde metal. Maybe "experimental rock", but there's really no metallic element about them and they are much closer to the alternative/nu metal realm of bands if anything should be called 'metal'. Thus they should be removed - as you said - unless further evidence can substantiate.--Danteferno (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Let's not retort to double standards here: you removed my edit and called it POV. I then called your edit POV, and I am an "aggressor"? Teh. "

Why? you consider removing an edit and calling it a POV is an agression? Personnaly I don't. And I wasn't complaining of the fact you did the same. As already mentioned in my previous post, I was complaing of YOUR TONE only ...which I still find agressive and cuting, btw.

I don't think that my attempts to keep objectivity in that article can be regarded as an act of aggression, no matter you might find my edits as injustified(which can possibly be). I didn't revert them just for the sake of attacking you or bothering you or something... I just did it out of concern for objectivity. So no need to overreact, you're not personnaly a target of mine. Don't mistake your person with your edits. Edits can be judged innapropriate but it doesn't mean that the person who made them is personnally put in question or attacked. Here's my point.

Btw,I still think your view is a POV concerning Fantomas. Because Fantomas is widely recognized as an iconic avant-garde metal band. And I have sources about it. I still don't think I'm an agressor just because I qualify part of your view a POV. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Classic Metal

warning:: for the comprehension the following message has been posted by a permanently banned user who's been trolling the Classic metal page for months. Basicaly his claims are legitimate but he used vandalism and personal attacks to impose his views. So he was banned. And now he comes in my personal page to provoke me once againFrédérick Duhautpas (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened to you fixing the article?

142.162.205.213 (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine thanks for asking, Mr Troll. Well, I didn't care to reply to your provocations because you're a troll. But once for all I'm going to reply to your question. I said I will fix this article and I definitely mean it. I already fixed the french version of it 6 months ago or so which proves my intentions and my capacity of doing so. SO why didn't I also fix the english one then? Well, if you paid more attention to what I said you would have noticed that my basic comment was: "Anyway when I'll have time I'm gonna fix this article to make it more serious and relevant, and with sources." For the moment I don't have time enough to engage myself into a massive change of an article. Period. You're not satisfied with the delay? I don't give a damn. Get over it, I'm not at your service. And I'll take my time. I don't give a damn what you think of me. Now why don't you get a life instead of trolling? Don't you have anything better to doFrédérick Duhautpas (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

On November 11th, you said "when I have more time i'll fix the article." Considering you made no edits since then (sarcasm) I guess you truely had no time. And, I only troll when moronic shit happens.

142.162.205.213 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I had no time. Screw your sarcasm. Unlike you wasting your time in sterile trolling and vandalism, I spend most of my time for constructive and money making activity, which leaves me few room for the moment to engage myself into massive edits in a free encyclopaedia. And the classic metal article really needs a massive edit.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you had no time, then how come you have edited alot of times since you made the edit "I'll fix the article when I have more time?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.205.213 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please care to read carefully, before making irrelevant sarcasms. I said I have no time for massive edits. Most of my edits are small edits. (I dare you to find any massive edits of mine within the last 6 months). Plus this article classic metal is not my top priority. So deal with it. And besides I don't care if you believe me. I don't make edits to please you. I'm not at your service. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

On November 15th, you were on from 08:47-09:31. You could have made a "massive edit" then. If that's not enough time, then what is?

Plus this article classic metal is not my top priority.

It's in your watchlist.

I don't make edits to please you

You said you would fix the Classic Metal article, which was my entire point.

And besides I don't care if you believe me

I'm not aloud to believe liars.

142.162.205.213 (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Believe what you want. I don't give a damn. The discussion is over. It's clear that your only intention is provocation. Call me a liar if you will, This won't change anything in the fact I won't make any edits just to please you. The changes will be made when I'll have time. period. This is not a promise to you. This is just an intention of mine.You don't believe it, fine... why should I care? Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

add de band —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.195.245 (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Orders? I must add the bands otherwise...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frédérick Duhautpas (talk • contribs) 15:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Classic_metal&diff=188799133&oldid=188794808 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.195.245 (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn it, I'm caught!:lol: Note I'm not forced to negociate anything with a troll like you. So if you're not glad then go away. I'll stick to my words, I'll add them when I'll see no troll activity anymore.Unfortunately for two recent weeks I've seen some troll activity. You proved you're incapable to retire. Hence the fact I'm not adding them for the moment. You're the only one responsable.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll bump [[1]] when two weeks go by without vandalism and you don't add them.

142.162.195.245 (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As a permanently banned user, vandal and troll, you're not in position to negociate anything here. This is not up to you to decide how much time it takes.Two weeks is too short. Considering you've been trashing the article for months instead of discussing and negotiate politely. Just go away for good. And we'll see. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Monsieur, je peux parler le français si vous voulez. The checkuser's not been completed, Alison apparently has a list of sockpuppets and IPs for blocking, and she hasn't provided that yet. One of the clerks will take care of it, you don't have to do anything else. Bonne chance! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule

Please refrain from reverting 3 edits, as you did to Classic Metal.

I've removed my signature from the above, as it wasn't me. Thanks for telling me about the person, I do appreciate it, it seems Rlevse has taken care of the block. I'm sorry for any confusion that may have ensued. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Avant-garde metal

Dear Frédérick, I have edited both Art music and Avant-garde metal because I have found many small mistakes, instances of awkward phrasing, and some minor formal weaknesses (such as punctuation) in these articles, many of which seem to originate from you and are probably often due to your native language. However, as I am not a native speaker of English either, and especially not an expert in the subject matter, it would be important for you to go over the articles to check my edits, since I might have distorted your intention in places.

I am especially unsure about this passage:

While avant garde indeed ignores many conventional habits and is less concerned by theoretical considerations they still refer intuitively to some basic principles of the tonal language (the common musical grammar almost all western music uses) even though they tend to deviate very much from it.

Does avant garde deviate from the basic principles or the tonal language?

Thank you. Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank for this great job, you did. I had already checked what you corrected. And I'm satisfied with what you did so far. I didn't checked everything yet. Thank you very much. I wish I could master english like you.

Does avant garde deviate from the basic principles or the tonal language?

Well to reply to this question, it depends what we mean by "avant-garde". Because it's a term that can be used loosely and differently according to certain persons who use it. If by" avant-garde" we called any music ahead of their time or any non standard music then no, avant-garde doesn't necessarilly deviates from the tonal language. However musicologically and historically speaking the term "avant-garde music" has stongly been associated with the radical tendencies of modernist music including atonal music, twelve tone music, Serial music, Stochastic music, Concrete music, electronic art music, spectral music, etc... All these modernist tendencies are characterized by a general rejection of tonal language. So my specification about tonal language concerned the fact avant-garde metal despite its name doesn't necessarilly rejects tonality like avant-garde music often does. In this regard avant-garde metal is closer to the experimental approach of postmodern music than modernist avant-garde in music.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Genre classification

Can you check out the discussion on Talk:List of gothic metal bands#Nightwish does not belong on the list. and perhaps contribute? Thank you. Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough is enough

I think we're both getting carried away with our arguments at the list of gothic metal bands. With your permission, I'll remove all the exchanges we've made that have little to no relevance to the article and we can start all over again if you wish. --Bardin (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of starting all over again at that talk page. I'll try to rein in my frustrations this time. I would appreciate it though if you could similarly try to refrain from questioning my character and avoid such things as calling me paradox or suggesting that I'm using sources inconsistenly when you should know better than that. --Bardin (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Traditional heavy metal

Hey there. I've moved the classic metal article to traditional heavy metal as per my comments at the WikiProject Metal talk page. I've removed large chunks of unreferenced material as well as stuff that you did referenced but which I feel is quite irrelevant now that the name of the article has been changed. I've also changed the formatting of one of the references you used and added some more bands to the list with other references. I couldn't think of anything to add in the main body of the article though so I've added a stub to the article. If you've got info to add, then please by all means add them. In particular, I think the article needs a section on characteristics to specifically explains what exactly separates traditional heavy metal from the other later subgenres. I'll be watching the page and can help out as needed with the formatting or word flow but I don't think I can contribute anything to it in the way that I've done for the gothic or folk metal pages. Good luck. --Bardin (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal#Genre delimiters

You're invited to the above. --Bardin (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Goth subculture

Hey there, I realize you were acting in good faith. But talking to Breathtaker just encourages him. He's had a lot of opportunity to talk already and he refused to act apropriatly at the time. I would like to revert both your comments and his from the page. Please either let me know that I can or revert them yourself. Thanks.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I jumped the gun. Blocking him doesn't really work... he just jumps to a new 87.122 IP... twice now he's gotten the entire 87.122 node blocked but it was only temporary in both cases... he has to show a lot of rampant vandalism before the node can be blocked again (and even then it will only be another temporary block).--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears as complex as classical music?!

There's this guy at Talk:Classical music#Complexity 2 who seems to say that Britney Spears (not she herself, of course) makes use of advanced composition techniques on a regular basis, techniques that as you have explained, even the most developed or sophisticated progressive/technical metal does not use. WTF? What has that guy smoked? If anything, his contribution is at least very misleading, and dangerous, in that it is grist for the mill of those who think that the separation of erudite vs. popular music is mainly motivated by elitism and such. Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)