Talk:Randy Blythe

Randy Blythe

Just thought I would get a discution about this going.

Kholdstare666

Well, he looks like an Orc in that photo: 'Get the little halflings!' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.7.248.131 (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Roofer?

I remember from back in the Burn The Priest days that it was said that Randy was working as a roofer at one time. Is this true?

Yes, for a little while in 1999/2000. So was Mark.

Randy mostly did food service, though. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.197.9.48 (talk)

"Death metal style" voice?

You've got to be joking. This is a total distorted yell, akin to the kind found in metalcore. --Ryouga 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's awsome, a one of a kind scream, not a distorted yell,,, no respect... Damn long live -Lamb of God- and the congregation!!!

I don't think that its metalcore AT ALL. --Iron bob 03:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

                                                        -Dhesil-

It's obvious that Randy is the epitome of the modern metal vocal style. The conjunction of the "cookie-monster" and prog-metal vocal styles sets Randy apart from his contemporaries. While other modern metal vocalists vacillate between a traditional melodic and a purely visceral style, Randy combines both approaches into a uniquely aggressive but melodic vocal style. Evidence of his recent vocal growth can be heard on tracks like "Descending", "Requiem" and "More Time to Kill". Nerdler 09:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)nerdler

Not metalcore at all... D.Mather 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Randy Blythe's voice cannot be alone associated with a type of metal, without the rest of the band's music behind it. You can tell it is an extreme metal voice, but that is a very general term. You may rule out what it is missing. It is missing high pitched screams of black metal, it isn't as deep when compared to singers such as George Fisher or Glen Benton, and it isn't as clean and "young" sounding at metalcore singers.--Gmunnywhiskers (talk) 03:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bull whips?

He collects bull whips, which he "uses to great effect"? WTF does that mean? 4.131.51.168 16:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep thats true, I think its on the killadelphia dvd extras where it says he collects them and is shown fooling around with 1. C.Davis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.165.66 (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In the Walk With Me In Hell DVD, Randy sneaks whips past security in Europe. Willie wants to learn how to whip, so he's standing in the bus lot beating himself up with the whip. LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.180.76 (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Really?

"Randy is the epitome of the modern metalcore vocal style"

That statement is the epitome of POV190.213.111.139 (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Real name

What is his real name? I've seen everyithing on this wikipedia page from David Randall Swayze Blythe to David Randall Pierre Blythe... nothing has ever had citations. Anyone know his middle name or can cite something? I am removing all middle names until we can get something cited on the page. He is a huge Patrick Swayze fan but I doubt that's an actual middle name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.138.242 (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC) His real name is David Randall Blythe. Contrary to a recent statement on wikipedia he is not the brother of Cody Lundin. They are, however, good friends. He was 3 younger brothers. TRUST ME I KNOW!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott's tots (talk • contribs) 04:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

It appears that the last sentence of the fifth paragraph has been vandalized and should be reverted to its previous form.

Blythe claims to have recorded Lamb of God's latest album, Wrath, completely sober, and now drinks non-alcoholic beverages
as much as possible, which led to the album to become and a commercial and critical disaster.[citation needed]

Xandrox (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

official publicist statement about arrest

http://www.metalsucks.net/2012/06/29/randy-blythe-faces-5-10-years-in-prison-official-statement-from-publicist/

75.58.121.23 (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Bail set at $200.000

Info here, including pictures from the court hearing. Waiting for a non-tabloid report in order to include it to the article with proper reference.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Content without proper reference for 3 years

I have removed content that has been marked as "citation needed" for some 3 years now. Here it is for anybody who would like to eventually return it back with a proper reference.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

He has a small tattoo on his hip that resembles a penis and two testicles. According to Blythe in Killadelphia, it was the result of him trying to tattoo the Misfits' logo on himself while drunk and passing out before he could finish it. He also has a tattoo on his left forearm reading COBHC, which stands for "Children Of Bodom Hate Crew" which is the name used by the band Children of Bodom for themselves, their crew, and their fans.

He has a great fondness for beer, especially Fat Tire, and for German digestif Jägermeister. In the Walk With Me In Hell DVD, Blythe said he would try not to drink as much as he usually did on the 2007 tour supporting the Sacrament album.. He was apprehensive about working with other bands that drank a lot, notably Children of Bodom and Mastodon. Blythe recorded Lamb of God's second latest album, Wrath, sober.

Ridiculous length and detail in Manslaughter section(s)

Does anyone else think the fact that nearly the entire article is now made up of several subsections covering this current event? I've done my best to reign in details and keep NPOV, but I can't keep up with what's essentially a single editor's work. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is long and that the rest of the article deserves to be enlarge to keep up with it.

Considering that the last 3 days saw about as many visitors to the article as perhaps the previous three months, I think it is safe to assume that they were mostly looking for what the manslaughter section is describing, and thus it is not "ridiculous" due to its length neither to its content.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

One more note: as far as I know (being a metal/HC/trash fan) this is probably the first time that a member of a band was charged with killing his own fan (however involuntarily). This story is here to stay, and so should also the detailed section.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Williamsburgland, this section is quite lengthy. It looks like someone combed through the internet and did better reporting than some publications out there covering the event, but I think it's just too much detail for one event in an encyclopedic article. A lot of the "2010 Concert Incident" seems to be a collection of various opinions -- the second paragraph seems to be reviews published shortly after the concert. This section should really try to stick to the facts first and foremost, and use opinion and reception sparingly if at all. Fezmar9 (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources in manslaughter section

A lot of these sources are Google Translate links from various Czech publications of unknown reliability. Using Google Translate links is a problem for a few reasons: (1) we don't know how accurately Google Translate is translating the articles, (2) if and when Google Translate updates, we could lose both the translated article and the original article and (3) we should really be using the original article and letting the reader chose his own translation method. Most browsers automatically offer to translate articles anyways, so nothing is really lost by doing this. I also think it's a problem to see a lot of Czech publications whose reliability cannot really be determined. Since a lot of the exact same information can be found on trusted and well-known American publications such as Spin and NYT, I think the currently existing sources should be replaced where possible. I'd also like to go through and update the {{cite web}} templates. Fezmar9 (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the ongoing issues has been the language barrier, though one of the major contributors seems to have a good grasp on Czech and English. Another has simply been the perspective of the reporting style - I don't know for sure, but the Czech publications tend to er on the side of reporting Blythe's responsibility for the incident, while American publications seem to take the other perspective. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Being the major contributor: I am translating it directly, I am using the google links only for ease of whoever would like to double-check it.

Problem with most American sources is that they base their information on [www.blesk.cz www.blesk.cz] which is a tabloid. It is for good reason - this tabloid has the best coverage, it seems that on the Saturday court session they were the only printed media present (+TV Nova). All other printed media (or their online versions respectively) take their time in reporting on the issue (which may be also caused by attempt to double check information).

So far novinky.cz, aktualne.cz, denik.cz, mediafax.cz, idnes.cz, are all reliable sources. TV Nova is a bit sensational, but still serious media. novinky, aktualne, idnes seem to be neutral on the issue. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't calling your translation skills or accuracy into question, but it does create a reliability issue (as there usually are with current events and various news organizations competing to break the news first).--Williamsburgland (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I perfectly understand that.

It is a real pity that the serious media don't cover it as good as Blesk does. Apparently the Czech prosecution asked US authorities to prosecute Blythe in the US, but they declined any cooperation - I think this is rather a very important information, especially if the US authorities never relayed the issue to Blythe himself. Hopefully some more reliable source will cover this issue soon too. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Just thinking about the holiday - would it be too much to note that Lamb of God singer's release from prison in the most atheist country in Europe will be most probably delayed by public holidays, which celebrate the official acceptance of christianity in the country and the most important church reformer leader before Luther?Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

SPAMMING

is there anyway of putting a petition link for randy on the page without being considered spam..i think it got deleted once before because they may have thought it was spam. There are alot of celebrities tweeting about it and i think it should be included in the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.115.65 (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Likely no, and certainly not for the purposes you're seeking. Wikipedia is not a means to publicize a movement or goal, so the only way to add it to the article would be to find reliable, verifiable coverage of the petition and add it using neutral language without calls to action.

I'd also note that while your intentions are good, it's unlikely that said petition will have any bearing on the legal proceedings. Even if it did gain any attention in Washington, the US Government has little to no influence over legal happenings in Europe. --Williamsburgland (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response..do you think i could put a link from a blabbermouth source mentioning the petiton on it..im new to posting on wikipedia maybe someone can help me word it right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.115.65 (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that last time wasnt spamming at all..whoever changed it is a jerk..if you dont want to contribute to randy blythe then you shouldnt be contributing to a page on wikipedia that is supposed to be dedicated for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.115.65 (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That is misunderstanding. This is not a page dedicated to Randy, this is page about him.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So why make a page about him if you arent for him. Who makes random pages about individuals or contributes to the writtings if they arent for him. I had a news source local news about the vigil and it got deleted. oh i see all your contributions are czech related so are you against petitioning for randy? is that why it got deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.115.65 (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians don't write articles because they are "for someone", but because they have an interest in the person or the topic. If someone adds to Adolf Hitler article, it does not necessarily makes him anti-Semite. If someone adds to this article, it does not make him "free-Randy" or "kill-Daniel and the likes" person.

That information about vigil is still there, only the "scorching heat" and similar descriptions didn't make it due to Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. You are invited to add other reliable, verifiable, notable and neutral information to the article; especially to other sections, which seem a bit neglected compared to the manslaughter charges section. RegardsCimmerian praetor (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The mention of the vigil is there but the article for people to read the whole story isnt...it is a reliable, verifiable notable source it is a local richmond news source where they are from..all new sources arent neutral really they all have to give the facts but with their point of view on a story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.115.65 (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't name call. As far as I can tell everyone who has interacted with you thus far, Cimmerian and myself included, have tried to be as helpful as we can be. Cimmerian is correct that wikipedia is not here to represent subjects of articles the way they would want to be represented. Our goal is to report notable facts with a neutral point of view. With that in mind, what issue do you have with the section as it stands?--Williamsburgland (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The issues i have is i mentioned the vigil in richmond and gave a credible news source (a local news source from richmond va which is where he is from) about the vigil and the link from the word has been deleted..its linked to another wikipedia page. I also posted an article about the petition from blabbermouth news which if you check the sources there are several links from blabbermouth...that got deleted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.115.65 (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Check again. It wasn't deleted, the section was renamed to "reaction" to more accurately reflect the sections content. Most everything you added is still there.--Williamsburgland

(talk) 01:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The text is there but when you mouse over the links its always a wikipedia link not the source i had up 184.0.115.65 (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What source are you looking for? If you're trying to link the petition within the article you can't - that would be clear spamming. The source we are using is Blabbermouth, which covers the petition from a news standpoint. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

So what good is that?..if im looking for information and all i get is wikipedia sources..this doesnt make sense at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.115.65 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

From the very beginning here I've explained to you that wikipedia is not a means for promotion. I explained to you that the only way the petition can be included is if you find 3rd party news coverage of it. This has happened. You cannot add a link to the petition, or insert calls to action for the reader. --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2012

(UTC)

It WAS from a 3rd party and it didnt include a call to action..did you look at my last posting

At this point I'm getting tired of your attitude. I've done nothing bu try to help you and all I've gotten is name calling and negativity. If you can't calmly and coherently explain what your issue is without getting petulant, I'm done trying to help. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well then explain to me how this is considered spamming..this is what i had According to an article by blabbermouth a fan has opened a petition to try to help get the attention of the whitehouse. Currently over 8,000 plus fans have signed it and is being tweeted by fans and bands alike.[19]

On July 7th 2012 there was a Vigil held in Lamb of God's hometown of Richmond VA on browns island in support of Randy Blythe. 100 plus fans stayed out in the scorching heat of 103 degrees.[20] blabbermouth had a link to the blabbermouth link and the Vigil had the link to the WTVR news report. That is not a direct link to a petition that is a 3rd party source is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.115.65 (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It still says almost exactly that (the part about the heat was removed because it isn't relevant), and both the links are still there in the form of references. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

But its not there as a direct link..all it does it go to another wikipedia link which makes no sense184.0.115.65 (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not how wikipedia works. If every article had external links built in things would be a mess, and external sites/advertisers would constantly be vying to add their site. Generally external sites go at the bottom, along with references. The links in the body of the article bring you to other articles within wikipedia, like vigil, or the we the people system, or the three other musicians that are quoted in the section.

Also, please sign you comments so we know who's who; it makes things less confusing. You can do so by hitting the signature button, which is the 4th button from the left at the top of this screen (it's a pen creating a signature). --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Links

Hi, I copy your message here for a possible future discussion:

Hello, I saw you deleted bare URLs from Blythe article. There were just two of them, both of high informative value. Could you please let me know, which policy is broken by use of bare URLs? Thank you. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiHannibal (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, both of them were directly in the body of the article, which is a practice used for wikilinks. The first was a link to the page of the club (= see Wikipedia:Spam), and in Czech. (Even when interwiki links are ocassionaly used, the language is marked.) The second was a direct link, in the same way, to the article used as a reference for (also) the same sentence and thus added nothing new (repetition). Highlighting sources like this is contraproductive.

As for your question, please see Wikipedia:External links, for example paragraphs 1 and 4.4. BTW I think that the Manslaughter charges section is too long, and should be later (in correspondece to other articles dealing with police investigation etc) reduced, and describe only the the reasons for and results of the prosecution and not the whole process. This is not [wikinews].WikiHannibal (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the first URL was to the pages of the club since there are none free pictures of the club, while the pages of the club have abundance of them. The point of wikipedia is that it should be helpful to anybody who would like to research the given topic, and possibility to see the place where event took place is, I believe, helpful to any potential researcher.

As regards content, once the issue moves to trial, I will tune down the processual part in favor of material (evidence, conduct of trial, etc.). However for now, a potential researcher is most probably asking question "how come that Blythe paid bail but is still in jail"? And the article, as it is now, answers it. I think that it is still way far from wikinews.

Last but not least, I have already pointed this once: Wikipedia is here first and foremost for the readers. And readers seem to be interested in the issue of Blythe's manslaughter charges very much. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, if you consider the photos of Abaton important for the article, or for the manslaughter section, you can create External links to the article and link it from there. However, I suppose there are more importnat external links about him, which are missing in the article, than that of Abaton...WikiHannibal (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Split

I would like to propose we move the manslaughter section to its own article. In the split template I proposed the name 2010 Prague concert incident, though this was just something that came to mind first. It could really be named a number of different things that could be discussed at another time. First we should discuss if a split makes sense at all. I believe it makes sense for the following reasons:

• The amount of information about this event dwarfs the rest of the article.
• This is an article about Randy Blythe, not a concert that happened in 2010 and its aftermath. Though the event pertains to Blythe, the a lot of the information is about the event in general.
• Clearly there is enough coverage from numerous international sources for this event to establish its own notability independent of Blythe.
• If moved, the article could easily be expanded to include more information about the victim and addition reactions both positive and negative.

—Fezmar9 (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Against

• I don't think it should be an article in its own right. First of all the fact that the rest of the article is so far shorter is deficiency of the other parts, not of the manslaughter part.
• Secondly, it might fail WP:NTEMP, it is too early to say whether this event will be notable enough to deserve own article.
• Thirdly, I think it is simply to early, I would leave that decision for at least after the first instance court decision on the merits. By that time all witness accounts will be known and thus the "2010 incident" will be described in detail. So far the "2010 incident" would deal mostly with its "2012 Blythe's detention". In case that the charges get dropped (which is not probable, but neither impossible) it would really only deal with the detention.
• Also, the incident was between Randy Blythe and Daniel Nosek, anonymity of the article's name as proposed makes no sense.
• In general, I think that the rest of the Blythe's bio should be worked on, rather than taking this part away.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I would vote for the split. The reasons given by Fezmar9 are valid. Even though Cimmerian praetor is right in his description of the negatives of the Randy Blythe article, it seems to me there are in fact no direct resons against the split: 1) the manslaughter section is (and according to the trend, also will be) growing much more rapidly than other parts, unbalancing the article even more 2+3) There are far less notable events at wikipedia, and since the courts are working slower than editors, there is nothing wrong with changing the article into "2012 Blythe's detention" - in 2 or 3 three years... 4) Fezmar9 mentioned that the name of the article can be changed later, plus anyone can suggest another name but the fact the only proposed name is not perfect is by no means a reason against the split. 5) See 1).

So, I am for the split, and for the proposed name; analternative could be for example 2012 manslaughter accusation against Randy Blythe (analogy to 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson). I also think that it is irrelevant to write in such detail about the charges, other persons' comments, petitions, etc., or to worry about notablity while doing so - either split or double (triple..) other sections... WikiHannibal (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything i can remember about randy blythe

Im a noob. heres alot of what i know and shit.

but randy was a alcoholic from hell when they first got noticed.

funny story posted in revolver magazine. how lamb of god got signed, was awesome! randy being all drunk got on stage at a venue(no clue where) and started doing the set. shortly after their set started, randy being all fuckin berzerk jumped off stage and hit his head knocking himself out cold. apparently some talent scouts were watching and took notice. that night they got signed.

randy and a recording company had issues recording him, because his voice was weak and sounded like absolute cat urine. randy claimed he was used to being on stage with a mic he could cup to help him project, and the mic basically made him sound better then he really was. eventually the sound tech figured out a way to rig up a petal that boosted his volume, and also distorted his voice so it sounded neat on recordings. He' also claims that he fell in love with it, leaving us to speculate if he used the cool gadget live? who knows.

theres videos of him drunk as hell on the tour talking mad shit to one of his band member. apparently he got arrested recently. charged with manslaughter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IGmX5RAJl8

news vid^^

http://www.revolvermag.com/news/qa-with-lamb-of-gods-randy-blythe-thank-god-im-back-in-america.html

black label society i think it was? one of their early albums had a song where randy fake screamed his heart out but never realed the lyrics. randy claimed the heartfelt poem was "too personal" to be let out in the wild

revolver explaining fucking life story of manslaughter.

For a tour a while back i got to speak with him via twitter. i asked him if he was excited to come see alaska, to which he replied "fuck yes i am! im gonna fuck sarah palin in the ass!"

revolver did his life story twice. apparently revolver does not enjoy new ever evolving metal. kinda like my dad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeabmyAIQ3Y ^^ thats him after getting punched in the face by mark.

loyalty he got from guitar hero.. ballin

I know moar shit about him but i cant think of anything of interest for wiki.