Talk:Heavy metal music

---

/archive 1 /archive 2

Classical

Why was classical music removed from the info box? giani_g

I don't know; that's very silly. :) I'll put it back up. Ours18 22:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There were no Modernist composers in the examples given, i've taken the liberty of adding some. 80.179.13.34 16:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Giani: Classical removed from stylistic origins

"Classical has hell over lot more influence than blues in modern metal so don't remove it, ever seen "Metal: A Headbangers Journey"? Ever read any guitar mags? ie Total Guitar being one"

Giani before getting mad and arrogant, maybe you should make sure you have understood clearly the reason of the removing.

Indeed you're making an obvious confusion: Classical influences are absolutely not denied here! But your confusion lies in the fact that"Stylistic origins" does NOT mean "stylistic influences": metal draws influences from classical but it does not descend from it.

If you had read the content of the article itself you would probably have realized that the classical influences are absolutely not denied. Only the descendance from classical is denied.

So no matter HM has indeed rid off most of its blues influences. It does descend from rock which itself descend from Blues. But Metal does absolutely NOT descend from classical. That's a very naive belief: Metal IS popular music whereas classical is serious(erudite) music. I remind people too that the modern descendant of the classical music is the contemporary music not heavy metal.

I'm musicologist and I can assure you that.

Frédérick Duhautpas 09:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

O sorry, keyword "origin" not "influence", that clears things up. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Classical keeps getting removed from the article! It's ridiculous seeing how blues gets to stay (screw pentatonics guitar noobs!), nearly all major guitar publications (in the UK anyway) such as Total Guitar (which is one of the mainstream dumbed downed ones at that) cite classical as being a major influence in the devolopment of metal music, songs such as "Loved to Death/Last Rites" by Megadeth, "Divine Wings of Tradgedy" by Symphony X, Malmsteen's various Bach tributes, Paul Gilbert's various guitar articles on metal theory (even some of his techniques can be attributed to Bach), Metallica's S&M, the use of the tritone etc should blatantly illustrate this point. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 03:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Once again, no one denies that classical music has been a major influence in the development of metal music, but this section of the info box is NOT CALLED "Major Influences"! This section lists the origins of metal, and heavy metal originated from blues music, plain and simple; classical music didn't begin influencing heavy metal until after metal had emerged as a distinct, independant genre (in about the mid 70s).

To put it another way, the first metal album to be significantly influenced by classical music, as far as I know, was Ritchie Blackmore's Rainbow, released in 1975. But heavy metal has its roots in the late sixties (seven or eight years earlier!), with bands like Blue Cheer and Iron Butterfly- bands that originally began playing pcychedelic blues. You mention that bands like Megadeth, Symphony X and Yngwie Malmsteen have been largely influenced by classical music, and I agree with you completely! (I love classical music, by the way). But you forget that these bands do not, by any means, constitute the original heavy metal movement. Think about it! If these groups were the groups with which heavy metal originated, then logically that could only mean there was no metal before them! And that proposition is just absurd! Surely you wouldn't deny the metalness of earlier bands like Iron Maiden and Judas Priest?

Speaking of Iron Maiden, that brings up another point: it's quite true that Maiden was influenced by classical music, (this is especially true of Dickenson's operatic vocals), and I suppose someone could use this to argue classical music as a stylistic origin of heavy metal. But we must ask ourselves, was even an old band like Maiden part of the original movement? The answer is no, they were undeniably NWOBHM. Obviously heavy metal didn't originate with the NWOBHM, or it would not have been called the "new wave." It was called the new wave because there was a first wave before it! (Interstingly enough, Nicko McBrain, in an interview, said Maiden is "really just a progressive blues band.")

The reason why this whole issue is causing so much trouble is because people confuse the terms "stylistic origin" with "major influence". We would all do well to remember that a genre's stylitic origin may not be a major influence in the development of that genre at all. Take, for example (if you can stomach it), the modern-day "pop" genre. Pop music emerged in the late thirties with the jazz/classical fusion of artists like Bea Wain, Larry Clinton, and (later on) Vera Lynn, but ironically, the biggest influence in pop's development is probably rock and roll music. Thus we could say that it's stylistic origins are "jazz" and "classical", and that it's major influences include "rock and roll". It is a similar thing with metal- its stylistic origin is undoubtably "blues", while its major influences include such diverse genres as "classicl" and "punk".

This comment is growing pretty big, but there's one more point I'd like to make. If classical music was really a stylistic origin of heavy metal, wouldn't we see the earliest forms of heavy metal using primarily classical/orchestral instruments, like viols, horns, etc., and their gradually being replaced with guitars and drums, until heavy metal sounded like the heavy metal we know today? But of course this isn't the case. (Granted, some metal bands, Haggard, for instance, have begun incorporating orchestral instruments into their music. But this is a very recent development, and it is quite different from original heavy metal). Or consider Deep Purple's Concerto for Group and Orchestra- such a work would be pointless if at this early stage in metal's development (1969), metal and classical were quite difficult to distinguish.

There is no way one can say that heavy metal music originated with classical music. Anyone who does says this is probabley misunderstanding the terms. This being the case, I will now proceed to (yet again) remove classical music from the info box. --Rosencrantz1 07:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Heavy Metal FAQ

The Heavy Metal FAQ is a longstanding internet resource. If you're gonna link the allmusic guide, you should also link this. I know there's bigotry against the source, but, hey, they did get there first and write it and have been active in the heavy metal genre longer than any contributor to this page. Also, it meets source requirements. Wikipedometer 01:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Ours18 05:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Anus.com is a low quality site and shouldn't be allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. So I guess I disagree with the "2"(??) editors who posted above. 198.164.201.47 09:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This article should have no connection whatsoever with that FAQ. It is neo-nazi propaganda, and makes numerous absurd generalizations that have no basis in reality whatsoever. Orange ginger 15:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That FAQ is the best there is, period. Ours18 19:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"numerous absurd generalizations that have no basis in reality whatsoever" - such as..? Sk8a H8a 05:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

One example: "[...}let us not forget that metal is a post-moral genre and so has no qualms about the methods of the Nazis, only questions about the ultimate effectiveness. There are also many who appreciate the Nazis but as a scientific preference would have used other methods for similar but not exact goals." Just because there are some fascist idiots who play and listen to metal does not mean that you can say that metal as a whole "has no qualms" about Nazis. First of all, metal is a genre of music, not a person, so it doesn't have qualms or a lack thereof. Secondly, the idea that all who play and listen to metal (presumably what the writers of the FAQ meant) have no qualms about Nazis is just laughable. And that's just one example of the idiocy of this FAQ. Orange ginger 19:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, they meant that the spirit of metal has no qualms with it. Ours18 04:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Metal sectioned revised

I deleted the last paragraph from the alt/nu metal section, which I will justify here:

"Pantera was a key formulator of the groove metal (post-thrash) distant subgenre of heavy metal music."

Pantera was indeed a key band at this time, but "groove-metal" and even "post-thrash" are not well-known or often-used genre terms, in my opinion, and there is no reason why either should be considered a "distant" sub-genre of heavy metal. Pantera's metal. Nothing "distant" about it. I added a line to the first paragraph about Pantera, because they were important, and cited a source to justify the statement.

"Slower, eerier metal became more prominent as more bands left commonplace influences for the bluesy, deep sound of the original heavy metal groups like Led Zeppelin."

This isn't cited, and the same phenomenon of bands going back to the roots of metal is discussed in the next section, "Recent Trends." It should not be discussed in both sections - one or the other.

"The most prominent group of this first-wave metal revival was arguably Type O Negative, who claimed influence by Black Sabbath and even the later work of The Beatles."

This isn't cited, either, and it's highly debatable. It seems to me that it was added by someone who really likes Type O Negative, thus not a NPOV. The band need not be mentioned in an overview article - the alternative metal article might be the place to go.

"This led to a surge in the popularity of doom metal, as well as a resurgence of interest in early heavy metal bands."

Type O Negative led to a "surge in popularity" of doom metal? Debatable - doom metal has always been pretty underground. As for the resurgence of interest in early heavy metal bands, that is discussed in the next section. Orange ginger 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So you can say that Heavy Metal is a derivative of Hardcore Rock, right? Because I was having that discussion with a frieed.

The Sword

I dont know why The Sword is not listed as stoner rock. They are not heavy metal or doom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drtuttle (talk • contribs)

Judas Priest?

How can we call it an article about metal without citing or mentioning that Judas priest were the gods of metal, they aren't even on the 1st paragraph were Led Zeppelin were mentioned although Led Zeppelin are a Hard Rock band mainly not Heavy Metal.

Judas Priest really should be there because not finding their name there may cause metal fans to have doubts about the quality of the information in the article.

I wish seeing the changes soon!

Thank you... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.109.252.210 (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

He's got a point. Judas Priest and probably Iron Maiden belong in the intro. They are probably the two most well-known and influential figures in classic metal. Orange ginger 17:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The improper use of the "atonal" word in the article

Hello,

Some might find my request futile but I’m a musicologist and for the sake of accuracy, I’d like to stress the fact that the use of the word “atonal” here is improper:

fairly harsh and involve guttural growling, high-pitched screaming, and other such atonal vocalizations(Metal underground)

As a matter of fact, in a strict use of musical vocabulary the word “atonal” refers in no way to the noisy character of some vocal timbre.

The word “atonal” actually refers to a given compositional technique (as well as a specific harmonic state:the atonality) introduced by Arnold Schonberg in the early 20th century. A technique that puts the traditional tonal language in question. By “tonal language” I mean the common musical language that most of the western music refers to (including Death metal). A technique that gave birth to a specific style called “atonal music” challenging some of the classical music dogma.

So the word "atonal" here has nothing to do in this context. So if you don’t mind I’d like you to consider finding a more appropriate word in place of this one.

Should some doubt what I’m saying here, I would suggest them to check the Atonality article.

Frédérick Duhautpas 16:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If the singers aren't using tone, I think it's safe to say that they are atonal. But to avoid confusion with the classical music genre, it would make sense to change it to something like "non-tonal." Go for it. Orange ginger 17:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Orange ginger

I’m afraid I have to disagree with you on two points:

• First: you actually seem to confuse tone (that is to say “pitch” in this context) with timbre. Now the specific character of the grunt vocals and similar screamed vocalisations lies in the vocal timbre, not in the non existence of some tone. Grunted vocalisation DOES have tones. Even though they may sound less distinct, these vocalisations use tones. Otherwise why would so many people describe grunt vocals as low? If there wasn’t pitch implied,you couldn’t tell whether it’s low or high.

However this technique prevents people to have a wide range of pitch. That’s why its use is rather monochord; hence the fact these vocalisations only can be used in an unmelodic way. (Beside the aggressive timbre)

• Second: in the strict musical vocabulary, when you use the word “tonal” you DO necessarily refer to the western musical grammar that is to say the “tonal system” and its fundamental elements: the "tonalities". This adjective does not refer to some character of a voice that would use or not tones. That’s a misuse of the word in music.

Now since tonal generally refers to that grammar, no matter you say “atonal” or “non tonal” both mean the same in any circumstance, it refers to some compositional grammar that breaks the basic rules of that tonal system.

If you still have doubts about this, I suggest to check it by yourself. Make a search with the word "tonal".

And this is NOT an issue that only concerns the classical music (as you seem to believe) this word concerns the musical vocabulary in general. Any musical genre may use atonality, including metal but most of the subgenres don’t. However I wouldn’t be surprised some Avant-garde metal bands do though.

Regards Frédérick Duhautpas 19:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Atonality is frequent in metal, but I wouldn't say it's frequent in the vocals. Metal vocals generally go along with what is being played (ie, are in the same key), even death metal vocals. Perhaps discordant or harsh would be better terms for this sentence? Ours18 20:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your suggestion which sounds more appropriate indeed. On the other hand, no offence but I have to deny what you're saying about atonality being frequent in metal. I suggest you to get more familiar to that concept to realize that's not true. From what I gather in what you're saying you seem to confuse being atonal with being off-key or using tense harmonic progressions.But that's not the same.

While many metal genres may use dissonant or tense harmonic relationships such as the tritone or chromatic progressions, the absolute majority of them stay rooted in tonality though (including extreme metal and even prog). Most of their riffs and chords progressions have a tonic. And btw the very use of a very tonal chord such as the commonly used power chord precisely prevents them to turn to atonality most of the time. So far the only bands I've heard that were close enough to atonality were some avant-garde metal bands.Frédérick Duhautpas 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Heavy metal generebox

Why is "nu metal" listed as both a subgenere and a fusion genere of heavy metal? I strongly believe it should be removed from the list of subgeners. 192.168.0.146

Cultural Origins.

The cultural origins section should say "Late 1960s in the United Kingdom and United States". However, someone keeps removing the United States. The American band, Blue Cheer, released their debut album, Vincebus Eruptum two years before Black Sabbath released their debut. Vincebus Eruptum was just as heavy, if not moreso, than any proto/classic metal, be it American, British, or otherwise. America also had Iron Butterly, Steppenwolf, Vanilla Fudge and BÖC contributing to metal in the late 60s and early 70s.

Also, anyone who knows their metal history will tell you that American rock, hard rock, psychadelic/psychadelia and blues influenced metal just as much as their UK counterparts. Give credit where credit it due. I'd remove "United States" myself, if it didn't belong there, but it does belong there.TheRealCitizen 03:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello the RealCitizen

"Anyone who knows their metal history will tell you that",

How about discussing with rational arguments only as true encyclopaedists rather than with arrogance?

I know my history and these bands you mentioned but still I disagree with you. But you're correct: anyone who knows their history would credit them as being pioneers at least and even as influential acts sometimes, but… anyone who has some stylistic analysis or musicological knowledge will also tell you that these bands you’re mentioning may be regarded as proto hard-rock or as hard-rock, but in no way as heavy metal.

And I would say that even Led zeppelin and Deep Purple case are debatable as they are mostly hard rock bands.

Yes, just like many people you tend to confuse hard rock with heavy metal

I’m sorry but Blue Cheer and such bands like Iron Butterfly or Steppenwolf are in no way heavy metal bands.

Sure back to the time they didn’t make the distinction: it was too early. But now we do -for over 20 years-.

Ok let’s reply to some irrelevant objections that might be raised.

1. Because the name “heavy metal” comes from a Steppenwolf’s song doesn’t mean Steppenwolf are necessarily heavy metal themselves.

Just like the “black metal” name comes from Venom, but Venom can’t be credited to be a true black metal band as it is defined today.

2. Because those bands you mentioned use heavy distorted sound doesn’t necessarily make them heavy metal. Here’s your main confusion.

The usual error is to think what defines heavy-metal is the heavy sound of the guitar only. But that’s not enough. If it was true, then hardcore and even some noisy pop rock would be regarded as heavy metal.

But Heavy metal has some other specific stylistic traits.

- A specific rhythmic groove often based on some dynamic patterns most of the time in staccato (thanks to palm muting) on a mid-tempo

- or sometimes some oppresive long ringing chords.

-The use of power chords most of the time

some frequent and even typical harmonic relationships :

- most particularly modal Aeolian chord progressions such as I-VI –VII, I VII-(VI) or I-VI –IV

- the use of tense harmony such as the chromatic or triton relationships.

- a large use of pedal point as an harmonic basis

Typical harmony that precisely avoids the blues influence. What is one the main difference with hard-rock: as the latter still displays some blues influence and sometimes psychadelic influence. Now the typical heavy metal songs generally avoids this stylistic aspects.

So in these respects, the very first band to introduce typical and pure heavy metal sounds was Black Sabbath with songs such as Paranoid or Children of the Grave for example. The same goes for doom metal whose prototype was introduced by songs like Black Sabbath

But BS had still some hard-rock side as well, as some other songs of them still are heavily influenced by their blues background.

Deep Purple with a song like Highway Star which makes use of the aforementioned groove and a large used of harmonic pedal point notably can be considered more or less in some regards as heavy metal as well(though not as clearly as the previous examples mentioned). But they still mostly play hard rock.

Whatever there’s no question there wouldn’t be heavy metal without hard rock.

And somehow historically the bands you mention may have their share of influence on what it would be. However they don’t have the typical heavy metal sound yet as defined by some songs of BS and latter developed by bands such as Judas Priest.

And so the real question is: what do we exactly credit here for?

bands for being influential in the birth of the style ?

or only the ones who create the first prototype of it?

I would definitely tend to choose the second option

No offence to our Americans fellows but as the prototypical sound of pure heavy metal was defined by British bands, I would only credit them.

However I would sure credit these Americans in the birth of Hard rock and even as some significant influence.

Greetings

PS: I forget to add: If you have early american exemples that match several of the strict criterions I mentioned, then I would gladly reconsider my stance.

Frédérick Duhautpas 03:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as there doesn't seem to be any objection, I'm removing the USA from the "origins" box section.

Frédérick Duhautpas 08:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Stylistic Origins

With hardcore punk being an influence on thrash, and thrash having subgenres decended from it, would it make sense to have hardcore punk included in the info box as an influence? maxcap 15:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

hi Max

I would say no, if you ask me.

But sure you're correct about Hardcore being an influence on thrash. However it wasn't one in the early stage of Heavy metal's developpement. So in my opinion it should not be added here, but only specified in the Thrash metal page only (what is already done.)

Frédérick Duhautpas 08:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Corrections and specifications

Ok,I had to correct a certain number of chapters that were not totally acurrate on a strict musicological ground. I've also rearranged the article with more structure and relevance. But as I'm not a native english speaker, I'd like to ask the editors to check my english in the chapters.

Anyway here are some the things I had to correct.

• Operatic Vocals: Technically speaking Dickinson and Halford use in no way the specific operatic singing techniques. But recent trend singers such as Tarja or Sarah Jezebel Deva do. But as for singers like Dickinson and Halford, I tried to find a more appropriate term with what the author meant: I suggest "theatrical". But I'm open to other suggestions

• Tritone: Even though augmented fourth and diminished fifth are enharmonically equivalent in the equal temperament (they sound the same). Theoretically this is the actually augmented fourth which is called the tritone. Calling the diminished fifth a tritone is a parlance (because of the enharmony) but that’s not exactly correct. In a tonal harmonic context, augmented fourth and diminished fifth don’t have the same function. So it is important to distinguish. This is generally the function of the augmented fourth which is used in certain contexts to suggest evil, scaring atmospheres.

• Tritone and history: The tritone was not banned in medieval music because of its evil sound. It was banned because its sounded dissonant and so unpleasant. And so that dissonance was symbolically associated to the devil, that is to say what has to be rejected from music as in morality. Because of the original association, it was slowly assimilated in cultures conventions as “evil”.

• Classical and heavy metal: as it is a common wrong belief and it was particularly latent in the article, I had to specify that even if there are no question many metal guitarist are classical inspired, heavy metal does not have any ascendance (close or far) from classical lineage though. I remind people that heavy metal is popular music whereas classical is serious (erudite) music. Classical compositions considerations and concerns are far more complex and technical than the ones of any genre of metal even the most erudite ones like the neo classical metal or the progressive metal). I remind people too that the modern descendant of the classical music lineage is the contemporary music not heavy metal .

• Music and words:I had to change the formulation about "words being translated in music" in order to make it sound a little less naive: Music undeniably expresses meaning but it is not like a verbal language you could translate textually from one to each other. There's a large confusion about it in the popular belief. As a matter of fact: as musical thinkers like Hanslick have underlined: Words cannot be translated strictly into music. Music doesn't mean anything similar like language. I mean: as an example take some pure instrumental music: well, it doesn't have the hability to express explictly denotative things like "Yesterday I woke up and I took a cup of coffee". It can't. Only verbal languages can express such precise things like that. Actually music conveys connotative and diffuse meaning, impressions, atmospheres but nothing precise. Now some of these conotative meaning associate better with some lyrical themes than some others.

Frédérick Duhautpas 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Too Long?

All of the new information has made this article very long. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size

I think we should break out certain sections. As I've suggested earlier, the "Origins" section (in History) is a good candidate for having its own article, for the following reasons:

1) The other history sections - classic, mainstream, and alternative metal, as well as the five genres of underground metal - all have seperate articles.

2) Someone has removed relevant information from the Origins section for space purposes. We're not supposed to be deleting information. Instead, we should be organizing it. A seperate Origins article would solve this problem.

3) The Origins section is longer than the other history sections. Trimming down the info to the basics and referring readers to a more in-depth article would make all of the history sections (with the exception of "the term heavy metal") roughly equal.

If there are no objections, I will do it later this week. Orange ginger 15:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For my part I agree.

Frédérick Duhautpas 16:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Music Notation/guitar tabs maybe?

The notation in the "Musical language" section is great, however, I think it would be appreciated by many if the examples were given in guitar tablature as well. maxcap 01:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Max

Sorry my wrong, but I must confess I have a certain disdain for tabs. I don't find that very serious in an encyclopaedia. But that's me. Don't know... is it really serious to put such a trivial notation like tabs in an encyclopedia?

On the other hand even though I don't like Tabs, basically I put those informations to be understood by everyone, so I guess the least I can do is to make them accessible the most I can (including people who can't read notation). So I will try to transcribe them in tab.

Frédérick Duhautpas 09:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Disdain for tabs? Sorry bub but standard notation doesn't work all too well for guitar other than providing proper rhythm. I think most serious guitar players use a form of both where standard notation is written on the top and below it the tabs are provided. Tab is not trivial at all, it tells you exactly where to play it (since you can play various notes in many different areas and octaves), it tells you information on harmonics, bends, slides, and then some. How would you work out standard notation for odd tunings like Drop D? Yes, you could play the *notes* fine but how do you know your hands are in the best place? When artists write guitar/bass parts they often do tend to use both.

For the record, I believe standard notation is the best form of notation... for rhythm, but I have to seriously disagree with your belief that TAB is trivial, especially for an instrument like guitar. If it's good enough for the pros to use it, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Your post comes off as very elitist. 75.111.37.174 22:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(sorry I missed this section earlier) He didn't come off as particularly elitist to me, but I agree that standard Western music notation isn't particularly well-suited for electric guitar. Even for rhythm I don't find it very useful in a lot of cases; Gorgut's playing completely off the side of the neck, pick scrapes, etc. Ours18 00:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My primary concern when I suggested it was was "beginning" guitarists. One of the things about guitar lessons that frustrated me when I first started was that my technical skill was advancing way quicker than my skill reading notation, probably thanks to tabs.maxcap 00:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I love tab, but from what I understand, tabulature is copyrighted. Standard musical notation isn't. WesleyDodds 02:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's wacky, but I would think that it would be OK as fair use because the examples aren't complete trascriptions. maxcap 03:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Conkyworm's edition (about black metal)

Concerning your comment :

“Eventually, black metal bands such as Mayhem began to drop this technique and replace   the traditional chugging sections with tremolo picking instead.”

It is correct but it was off topic in the place you wrote it. (so I had to put it in a more appropriate place)

When talking technical issues, it is crucial to see difference with the different parameters of music. Please don’t confuse instrumental techniques with compositional techniques. This is not the same.

Pedal point is NOT an instrumental technique like tremolo picking. So it can’t be replaced by it as you wrote. Pedal point is a harmonic characteristic not instrumental technique.

While you’re correct when saying BM uses frequently tremolo it has nothing to do with harmonic language chapter itself. It has to do with rhythm and groove.

Now on as strict HARMONIC ground there is no question pedal point is extremely frequent in Heavy metal (and even in black metal). However in BM it is less obvious for guitar players as (unlike classic metal or thrash metal) the pedal point is seldom part of the guitar riffs itself, instead it tends to be played in background by the bass : A striking example being De misteriis Dom Sathanas in the second riff where the bass insists on a persistent alternation between two E (low and higher) (TAB: 0 on E string and 7 on A string) while the guitar plays its own things: This persistance of this two E notes alternation IS also a pedal point.

But admitedly the pedal point tends to be a little bit less frequent in black metal

Concerning the tremolo specification, notice I have said in a general manner that Heavy metal tends to use "small equal binary or tertiary rhythmic figures" (what obviously includes tremolo as well though not overtly specified)

Concerning the removing of the sound and techniques chapter title:

I added it for more relevance. Talking about instrumentation is not the same as talking about instrumental technique or instrumental sound. Dealing with instrumentation is talking about the set and the kind of instruments involved not their sound or their techniques.

That's why I made a clear separation. For instance concerning the volume issue it doesn't concerns the instrumentation directly ( I mean their specific timbre) it deals with the amount of decibels those instruments are played.

I insist on this: when talking about technique it is crucial to see clearly the different musical parameters to avoid confusion.

Thanks for your comprehension Frédérick Duhautpas 22:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

GRAMMAR, GUYS!!

Not surprisingly, it turns out metalheads can't write complete sentences. 140.247.45.152 20:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, it turns out some uninformed idiots use the same overused common places and simplistic stereotypes to trash this page because they have nothing better to do.

• Have you ever wondered in your small mental paradigm that some grammar and syntax errors might also be explained by the fact some contributors don't come from English speaking countries? First try to speak my own mother tongue fluently and then we will see if you can look down upon guys making syntax errors.

• I'm not a metalhead, I'm a musicologist. So before opening your mouth be sure you know what you're talking about...

Frédérick Duhautpas 21:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Giani: Classical removed from stylistic origins

"Classical has hell over lot more influence than blues in modern metal so don't remove it, ever seen "Metal: A Headbangers Journey"? Ever read any guitar mags? ie Total Guitar being one"

Giani before getting mad and arrogant, maybe you should make sure you have understood clearly the reason of the removing.

Indeed you're making an obvious confusion: Classical influences are absolutely not denied here! But your confusion lies in the fact that"Stylistic origins" does NOT mean "stylistic influences": metal draws influences from classical but it does not descend from it.

If you had read the content of the article itself you would probably have realized that the classical influences are absolutely not denied. Only the descendance from classical is denied.

So no matter HM has indeed rid off most of its blues influences. It does descend from rock which itself descend from Blues. But Metal does absolutely NOT descend from classical. That's a very naive belief: Metal IS popular music whereas classical is serious(erudite) music. I remind people too that the modern descendant of the classical music is the contemporary music not heavy metal.

I'm musicologist and I can assure you that.

Frédérick Duhautpas 09:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

O sorry, keyword "origin" not "influence", that clears things up. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Links Section

I have added a (badly needed) link to the Metal Archives. I think the link section could use some additions. Any suggestions? --Conkyworm

Someone removed it, I restored it. I added the Metal FAQ from the American Nihilist Underground Society as well, as that has always needed to be up there. I can't think of anything else that would make sense. Ours18 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

External links must conform to policy WP:EL. Which neither of those do. 156.34.220.114 04:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How exactly do they violate it? Ours18 04:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Links have to provide something NOT already available on Wikipedia. Those two links add absolutely nothing. Only dumbass inbred 13 year olds read websites like that. 156.34.220.114 04:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I can understand ANUS to be removed as the guy who runs it is a weirdo and has lots of odd ideas about metal music. Most of his heavy metal faq is original research. Metal Archives is a suitable site to include as it (attempts to be) is a complete overview of (true?) heavy metal and provides reviews albeit somewhat biased and incomplete as it ignores some subgenres like nu-metal. Anyway MA is a good site to find more information about a particular band. Spearhead 21:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

ANUS was cited as a good source by the Deena Weinstein Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal that comprises many of the citations on metal-related articles. That alone should be good enough to qualify it. Ours18 01:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The reverted version by Deathrocker

I have to say I strongly disagree with the last edits w of Death rocker who reverte the article to a a very far version arguing there were too much things about subgenres going on there.

Come on!

1. Not that much 2. I remind you that the general article deals with the wider sense of heavy metal.

If we were talking about the classic metal only then why the history would deal that long with subgenres up to recent days and why the history traces back that far to the origins with things that are not particularly metal at all?

And what would be the differences supposed to be between this article and the classic metal article?

Moreover you removed materials that were dealing precisely with classic metal as well. All the stylistic analysis chapter mostly takes as reference the base of classic metal.

Before reverting that much the least you can say is talk about this before here. Frédérick Duhautpas 02:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I put it back to the long standing, heavily sourced and generally accepted version, from a couple of weeks ago, before your mass editing. You bastardized basically everything that was about heavy metal in this article (no offense).

Subgenres that have later emmerged from it have their specific sections lower down the article to describe their own characteristics. In the characteristics of heavy metal, putting "the singer from Nightwish and Cradle of Filth, etc" as some sort of definative is just grotesque. It decreased the value of a previously featured article, you even went as far as to remove examples of bands in this genre in the opening. - Deathrocker 03:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok before keeping on using your circular logic, please have the decency to reply point by point to my objections:

1. If we are talking of the classic metal exclusively then why dealing that much with the subgenres in the history?

2. If dealing with with subgenres in this article is irrelvant then why the subgenres have their wide sections dealt the history part? In we were to ban any reference to subgenres then your current version is incoherent with your guidelines too.

3. tracing the history that far until the blues is irrelevant as well if we are supposed to deal with classic metal exclusively.

4. If this article is supposed to deal with classic heavy metal, then what's the point of having a classic metal article. why having two articles dealing about the same subject?

5. Before such an large edition I think the least you could have done is to discuss about it here and make sure everybody agrees.

look I would have gladly edited some things with negotiation if you have argued a little more than that. Because even in the exclusive classic metal perspective, there were many things I added that matched that demand. But your decision seems to me arbitrary and unfair as it hasn't been concerted + you avoid replying the clear and precise objections I have made.

moreover most of the editions I made were justified here, nobody discussed them, and now you came up after 2 weeks and you state that everything must be removed. So why didn't people did before?

If you think you're the voice of the commonly accepted truth, you won't mind I ask everyone here.

Plus you twist my words, I never claimed that the singers of Nightwish and the operatic female singer from Cradle of Filth were representative of the genre. I was just mentioning the real operatic voices as some tendency of some subgerenrs just like some had mentioned the grunt in Death metal.

Plus your original version mentions the gruff voice of J.Hetfield who is not really represetentative of the classic metal. Your current version is not coherent either considering that and the history dealing that much with subgenres.

And guys around here, I'd like to have your opinion about this if you think.

Frédérick Duhautpas 09:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Heres' what I wrote on his page:

Hello Deathrocker

Look,

I can understand you might disagree with certain points of my edits, but I consider your reverted edit as excessive and in some way unfair. But as I’m a sensible person, I don't want to go into childish edit wars with you because that would be unproductive. As I presume you're a sensible person too and that you're sensitive to strict rational and well constructed arguments, I propose you to discuss on debatable points and find some compromise. Look, if we define clearly the conceptual framework we are working on, I'm inclined to revert some of my own editions to match that demand. But I refuse to accept that previous version you reverted, because as a musicologist I can't help but see many inaccuracies. Frédérick Duhautpas 13:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with many of Deathrocker's edits and usually my opinion is that he is completely "musically impaired" and edits based on his own POV over valid citation/history. BUT, that being said, I actually support most of his cleanup to this article. Essentially, he restored some already "beat to death consensus on article content which, right or wrong, Wikipedia is built on concensus. 156.34.216.169 12:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with consensus per se. If the consensus is to let things as it is... be it. But at least give some coherent guidelines for the next edits to come. Because for the moment as it is, it is NOT coherent with his own criticism.

can you give sense at least to that incoherence? Indeed the issue seems to be subgenres shouldn't be dealt in this article. Be it... So I guess we're talking about he Heavy metal word in his restrictive meaning... that is to say the classic metal. Don't we? We're not talking of heavy metal in a wider sense.

I'm ready to hear that but ...

• How can you explain the history section deals with subgenres then? Those parts should be removed as well in this logic!
• What's the point of having a classic metal article? If this article alredy deals with the subject?
• plus most of the analysis part was dealing precisely with classic metal considerations as a reference.

So why removing these parts then?

I think we should find some compromise instead of removing everything. I'm predisposed to removed every part of my edits that concerns subgenres, but I don't think everything I have written has to be removed. Come on I used examples of Judas Priest and of Black Sabbath notably.Aren't they supposed to be classic metal?

Frédérick Duhautpas 13:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, considering:

• that Deathrocker voluntary ignored my proposition of agreement.(He didn't care to reply to my pm and just removed it from his box to put in his archives.)
• that none could give an consistent reply to the incoherences I noticed in his criticism.
• that the opinions of Deathrocker + some anonymous person only can't seriously be regarded as the expression of a real consensus justifying the removal of my edits.
• that none else claimed any other opinion against my edits.

I decided to reinsert my edits, but in taking in account (in all good faith) the criticism of Deathrocker (even though I think he's incoherent with his own criticism): no more mention of the subgenres and I provided some fully sourced references.

If my edits were removed once again, I would make a request for comment for this page.

Frédérick Duhautpas 19:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the lead section back for now for two simple reason. One, such a cut-and-dried definition of metal (definition in the 70's vs. definition in the 80s) doesn't exist. Bangs had his viewpoint, but lots of other people do as well, and the original definition you detailed still exists in some capacity to this day. Not to mention there are other ways of classifying metal beside the dichotomy presented. The second is more mundae: it's the lead section, and such a detailed discussion of the evolution of the classification of metal doesn't belong. As this article is undergoing a Featured Article Review I'd say hold off on adding that section back again until we substantially revamp the article and cover more sources. It may still have a place in the article when we're done, but probably not in the lead section. WesleyDodds 03:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Here again I have to underline several misinterpretations going on here:

• I never said that the early definition(HM=HR) was only used in the 70s. I clearly wrote that both views were commonly widespread today.
• I wasn't refering to the opinion of Bangs only, I said, both of these views are commonly widespread.
• Of course there are some other meanings of heavy metal: I never meant to reduce its definition to that simple dichotomy. That’s another misinterpretation. I kept the first distinction of meaning as well: “either the genre and all of its subgenres, or the original heavy metal bands of the 1970s style sometimes dubbed "traditional metal".
• I’m just implying another important distinction about the later part of that first distinction.
• I insist both points of views exist. You are perfectly entitled to have your own opinion about this, but I sourced my edit by referring to a serious and referential encyclopaedia of music which clearly states that both views exist. Btw It even dedicated two separate articles for Hard-rock and for heavy-metal.

However your second reason makes much more sense. Ok, I will wait a while before reinserting that part. I'll be writing another version of it which could avoid some of the misinterpretations mentioned above.Frédérick Duhautpas 10:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sound files

Probably around ten files would be reasonable in FAR. Suggestions

• 1."Angle of Death" - Slayer
• 2. "Business" - Biohazard
• 3. "Aces High" - Iron Maiden.
• 4. "Cursed Realms (Of the Winterdemons)" - Sunn O)))

Ceoil 01:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• 5. "Iron Man" - Black Sabbath
• 6. "Master of Puppets" - Metallica

Also some nu-metal or metalcore song, not sure which one though as they aren't really "big". M3tal H3ad 01:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Biohazard would cover metalcore? Ceoil 01:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of one for 'Recent trends (mid 2000s)' - Killswitch or Shadows Fall, but Bio could cover it. M3tal H3ad 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sunn O))) song is a cover, and I think putting covers up instead of the original is dishonest. For mallcore (oh I'm sorry, nu "metal") I would suggest Korn's "Freak on a Leash." "Black Sabbath" would be the most appropriate Black Sabbath song. I would be willing to upload the files if someone would be willing to tell me how to upload in ogg or FLAC format, as I have no idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ours18 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Also, some glam songs are needed. I'm assuming we would be using one or two song samples per section, unless said section contains three or more subgenres. Ours18 01:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

For early heavy metal it has to be Zeppelin or Sabbath, preferrably something which showcases their roots in blues rock ("Dazed and Confused" and "N.I.B." spring to mind). For NWOBHM I'm leaning towards Di'anno-era Maiden or Motorhead. LA metal should definitely be Van Halen. "Master of Puppets" is probably the most obvious choice when talking about underground 80's metal (yes, we all know the song now and the band is rich as fuck, but it's definitive of thrash metal). For nu metal we should probably use something familiar like Korn's "Freak on a Leash" or Slipknot's "Wait and Bleed".

Also remember, we might want to use a soundclip or two for the "Musical traits" section. WesleyDodds 03:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"Iron Man" is decent for showing a blues/hardrock backround, but I won't oppose "NIB." The Metallica song though is a no-no; there's far too much pentatonic-based riffing for that to be a definitive thrash song. "Angel of Death" would be better. Personally, I think each section should have a minimum of two audio files, so maybe both MoP and AoD would be best. Ours18 04:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring

Ok, here's two main things I think need to be reworked.

1. The "Characteristics" section is a bit of a jumble. There's lots of one-sentence paragraphs and it needs to be restructured in order to flow more easily and be understandable by a more general audience.

ok, I can explicit some of the technical considerations with more metaphorical terms just like I've done in the 'groove and rhythm' part.But imo these paragraphs need to be separate precisely because every one deals with a distinct side of the heavy metal sound. I think it is clearer to deal them seperately than mixing everything (chords, rythms and stuffs alltogether)Frédérick Duhautpas 20:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

2. The history section gets wonky for me around "Classic metal", "Mainstream success", and "Underground metal". I'm leaning towards completely overhauling those sections, which includes eliminating the current divisions, shuffling things around, and creating new sections. Should we create a subgenres section like the one over at punk rock?

Alright, let's discuss this. WesleyDodds 13:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agreed with your concern about the leading part, I find the new one even more problematic. And I must confess I'm quite surprised of the way it has been revamped. And it deals with aspects that should be in an introduction. As far as I know a leading part has to be concise.(that was basically the reason why I was careful to your criticism.)

Plus I have to remind that some people here are opposed with the mention of the subgenres...So I'm surprised some people want to add more and more references about them...(even though I tend to agree).

As for the removal of the harmonic differences between HM and HR, this is not particularly a orignal research, I actually explicit more technicaly a commonly admited point. I didn't think I had to source it as I had alredy done it before. But no problem, I will provide some.

But I agree this is not the right place in the article an I was considering to revamp it.Frédérick Duhautpas 20:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Which sense are we dealing with?

I think people really should define clearly what we are talking about when dealing about heavy metal.

Because currently it's a real mess. it is obvious some deal with the subject

• in its wider sense(the general metal including subgenres)

whereas some others seem to deal with

• the restricted sense(the classic metal).

Now mixing both views lead to a lack of coherence.

Please guys it is crucial to define some clear guidelines. No matter the choice, it is really important to clarify this problem and give coherence to that article. Frédérick Duhautpas 21:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There is already an article about classic metal, so this needs to be about metal in it's wider sense....which is basically the way it is now. However, death metal doesn't have it's own subsection in the underground part, let last time I checked death metal was more popular than black metal--Obituary had a platinum album in one country and Cannibal Corpse (terrible band, ugh) had a song on the Ace Ventura soundtrack.

Again, if someone explains to me how to do this soundfile thing, I'll be perfectly willing to provide one or two sound samples for the death metal section (black metal may be my specialty, but I've got more than enough dm songs here too). Ours18 21:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ours that the article should be wider in scope than just "classic metal". Otherwise, it should br severely trimmed and merged with Cl Metal. I would favour the summary style structure proposed by WesleyDodds above.

You can convert mp3 file to ogg vorbis using Audacity or Acoustic Labs Audio Editor 1.4 (both are freeware). Ceoil 21:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Ours, but as Deathrocker seemed to suggest that we should refer to the classic metal only(quote: "Subgenres that have later emmerged from it have their specific sections lower down the article to describe their own characteristics"...)I thought it was important to know if everybody agreed with Ours' point.Frédérick Duhautpas 21:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"classic metal" isn't an actual genre... it wasn't called "classic metal" when it was around. Its just "heavy metal"... what you are attempting to do is write it under a scope of all forms, which has an article in that direction already; List of heavy metal genres and subgenres also have their respective section in this article - Deathrocker 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that most people approaching an article titled "Heavy metal" would expect a wider scope. You want to depreciate the article down to the narrow definition you personally hold, but I don't see many in agreement. If this is going to be an article on classic metal only, then the current title is misleading. Also your 4 reverts removed other edits that were outside of this issue. That's my position. Its clear. I'll wait for others input before commenting again. Ceoil 22:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't have the slighest clue what you are talking about, do you... the version from yesterday, is a long held concensus version and former featured article. I didn't write the article single handedly. The article is about heavy metal that is what the bands were labeled and refered to as, "classic metal" is a psuedo-genre...

Also, removing Giest's simple vandalism trolling edits while I'm attempting to work on the article, does not count towards a "revert". - Deathrocker 22:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've said what I have to say, except WP:OWN, WP:STALK. , WP:3RR. Ceoil 22:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment, DR modified his last post after my reply. Ceoil 22:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment, your point is? I hadn't finished and you had already replied. If you had looked before anyway, at the top of the article, you'd have see that the version previously was a featured article... and thus is the long standing concencus built version.

I already pointed out to you the exception of rvr in simple vandalism. Again if you weren't so desperate to jump on an article you have no interest in, you'd known the history of it. - Deathrocker 22:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA Ceoil 22:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Non were made thanks, assume good faith. - Deathrocker 23:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Deathrocker is stalking my log files and adding deletion notes to all images and files. Ceoil 23:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what your claims have to do with this article.. infact they don't belong here, but please read WP:STALK "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason."

Please also WP:NPA. Also, try to upload within policy in future (adding rationale's and sources) so Wikipedia doesn't end up in trouble. Thanks very much. - Deathrocker 23:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Have reported your actions per WP:STALK. Ceoil 23:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: bad faith harassment has continued over last hour. Ceoil 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"the version from yesterday, is a long held concensus version and former featured article." Thing is, that version is crap. That's why we're having a FAR. To fix it. WesleyDodds 01:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And bringing nonsense into the opening about nu-metal, isn't? The way the article is now it looks like it was re-written by somebody who has absolutely no idea about the genre, like this in the opening for example...

"the late 1970s brought the New Wave of British Heavy Metal which stripped away much of the music's blues influence in favor of a harder and faster "pure" metal sound. "

Its pure nonsense, and POV. Who says the original metal bands weren't "pure metal"? And who says blues isn't an integral part of the sound?... The main difference was, NWOBHM added in punk influences which isn't found in the bands before it so it can't be "pure metal". If you think the older, featured artcile version was "crap" then making it even more "crap", doesn't help it at all.

Also, using a Megadeth riff as an example of "heavy metal" in the musical characteristics, is bias. Megadeth are a thrash metal band.. why is it not a glam metal, black metal, alternative metal, gothic metal, etc genre riff instead?.... it should just be pure and simple heavy metal (like it was before). So such problems of favouristism amongst mere subgenres doesn't occur, especially in the main part about heavy metal itself. - Deathrocker 01:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Pt. II

This article hasn't been about "pure heavy metal" for quite some time now, and wasn't even that way on its Featured Article version. If you really have a problem with it, nominate classic metal for deletion and then we can talk about removing almost all mentions of subgenres from this article. As it is, changing the focus of the article from what it is now to classic metal when there is already an article about that is at best misguided and at worst completely disdainful, poorly-disguised hatred of anything that isn't "pure heavy metal" (something you have repeatedly shown in the past).

Also, this article does NOT try to do what the List of Heavy Metal Genres does. That article is a list of every conceivable subgenre of metal; this is a major overview of the most notable types of metal. They are NOT the same. Ours18 02:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not suggesting that the sections about the subgenres later on down the article be removed. Second of all, the version I was putting it back to was the one from yesterday, which has been standard consensus built version for more than a year... so you're either contradicting yourself, or you're just crawled out from wherever you were in an attempt to cause trouble.

Third, I don't "hate" any form of music. (looking at the classic metal article, nor do the editors there) You do not know my music tastes, so keep your misguided opinions to yourself. Your hate for heavy metal and aything that isn't brutal grindcore (something you have repeatedly shown in the past), is at the most completely disfainful.

Fourth, the "classic metal" article isn't even about the same form of music, heavy metal has its roots in the late 1960s... classic metal article states it covers bands "from the late 1970s and early 1980s". - Deathrocker 02:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Point taken.

2. The version from yesterday wasn't the one from over a year ago; Frédérick Duhautpas has made edits to that one since.

3. You refer to anyone who listens to extreme metal as "kids" and have frequently showed disdain towards it as well as all of its fans, from the pointless edit war on "Extreme Metallum" (your words, not mine) to stating (without any evidence) that it is the most ridiculed form of music on earth. Yes, you do hate some forms of music. Stop trying to claim otherwise.

B. I have never showed any hatred or dislike towards heavy metal, and certainly not towards "anything that isn't brutal grindcore." If you ever took a look at my userpage, you'd notice the Recently Played section is often mostly comprised of nonmetal ambient or darkwave bands, so you just shot yourself in the foot. Also, I hate grindcore with a passion.

5. Well, perhaps you would like to start a different article on traditional metal. As it is, you claim that this page has been primarily about pure heavy metal for the last year. This is dishonest; the earliest version from March 2006 has over a third of the article taken up by metal genres after the traditional metal movement, and almost half of its Featured Article version was also taken up by later forms as well. Ours18 03:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

1. OK.

2. Yes it was, read the history.[1] Mr. Duhautpas' re-writes keep been removed my users because of history revisionism. Unless of course you think "the vocalist of Nightwish and Cradle of Filth" are definative of heavy metal.

3. Please provide proof for your claims; that I think any form of music "the most ridiculous form on earth" or that I refer to anyone who listens to "x" music as "kids". You can't, so retract your slanderous comment.

What does Extreme Metallum have to do with anything? Do you really have nothing else to do than witter on about a dispute from over half a year ago on an unrelated article? I do not "hate" any form of music, if I did why would I have just stated the exact oposite? Stop trying to force your baseless slander off as "my opinion" on things I haven't claimed.

B. I'm not interested in what are or aren't your music tastes to be frank.. just as you shouldn't be interested in mine. That was the point I was making. That isn't what editing Wikipedia is about, its about improving articles. Although it is interesting that you say you "hate" a form of music... don't presume others "hate" forms of music just because you do.

5. Why? It wasn't called "traditional metal", its just "heavy metal"... shall we move Slayer, Metallica and Megadeth to a neologism article dubbed "traditional thrash metal", and put metalcore bands in the "thrash metal" article as characteristics, etc.. as they take influence from it and are more recent?

Again, you seem to be confusing your little self, with the nature of the dispute here... the version from yesterday, is very similar to the concensus built version from last year... sayyyy in July (I'm not sitting all night raking further and further back for your benefit, when you haven't even bothered to comprehend the situation here.. this is an apt enough example). As I said at the begining of my reply, I'm not suggesting that the long standing sections lower down about subgenres be removed.... I'm suggesting that the factually incorrect nonsense and/or out of place info the upper part of the article. (ranging from nu-metal, Megadeth example in characteristics of standard heavvy metal).. be restored to the longstading version. Comprehend the actual situation, before you reply this time please. Anyway... you're diverting my attentions and that of the conversation away from attempting to discuss issues with the article content, higher in this section, so if you don't mind...- Deathrocker 04:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment:Statement above was refractured Ceoil 04:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this will be escalated per WP:STALK & WP:NPA. Ceoil 01:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, DR is respoitioning his later, qualifying comments before mine. Ceoil 02:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

noted. Ours18 02:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I dont give a damn if my files are deleted. But cannot assumegoodfaith here Ceoil 02:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, article talkpages are for discussing changes to the article. Not making odd, derogative, off subject banter. - Deathrocker 02:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Objection to 6 rv's against 7,431 kb of text against consensus harldly qualifies as either "odd" or "derogative". Ceoil 02:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained to policy exceptions (which are stated officially), in regards to your claims above. More than once. And against concensus?.. when it had been concensus built standard for more than a year, and as little as 24 hours ago? Yeaaaah, you sure know what you're talking about here don't you.

As for odd, adding strange babblings like all this "for the record, <insert derogative remark that has nothing to do with the actual article>" that you keep littering the page with, like it were your LiveJournal account or something, hardly qualified as discussing additions to the article at hand. - Deathrocker 02:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm building evidence, lets be clear about that; even if you were unable to take earlier hints. WP:STALK. Ceoil 03:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: more refacturing above. Ceoil 04:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments as writ cannot be taken as linear Ceoil 04:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Deathrocker comment" Yes it was, read the history.[2] Mr. Duhautpas' re-writes keep been removed my users because of history revisionism. Unless of course you think "the vocalist of Nightwish and Cradle of Filth" are definative of heavy metal."

As I already said, you twist my words for your own purpose: I never ever claimed that these examples were definative of heavy metal.You intepretated it that way. But I only mentioned them as a simple tendency of some given subgenres. But after your criticism I excluded these examples by myself in all good faith as an attempt of conciliation.

Now determining whether we should deal with the subgenres or not is another debate...

Either we're dealing with the original sense of heavy metal (which I call "classic metal" as a parlance to avoid confusion) or "heavy metal" in its extended sense, I'm ready to accept any option as long as it is coherent with the rest of the article.

And I never made any history revisionism. I didn't even touched the history part.Frédérick Duhautpas 04:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Megadeth riff

About your criticism concerning the example of Megadeth riff and the fact they are a thrash metal band. Your criticism would make sense if only I had picked examples from their earlier releases. But unfortunately, if you were more familar to Megadeth music, you would probably know that they have evolved over the years. Now the example I've picked is from an album which exclusively plays heavy metal in its purest form.(Youthanasia-1994). Yeah, you will probably deny that. So just check this: http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=138 or better: Just listen to the song, and if you find any trace of thrash metal in that song, then I can't do anything for you anymore.

This example is perfectly representative of heavy metal music even in the restricted sense of the word. That's why I kept it.

Frédérick Duhautpas 05:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't consider Encyclopaedia Metallum (or "Extreme Metallum" as he calls it) a reliable source, so that's not going to be good enough for him. Ours18 05:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, somehow I'm kind of expecting that. But still I'm naive enough to keep faith in his ears and his good faith to judge the song atured Article version" is the most salient observation posted to date in this 'discussion'. Life is short; there are a number of good editors working on the page, can ye just concentrate on fixing the article per the now established concencus. Ceoil 15:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. okFrédérick Duhautpas 17:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Frédérick. I find it worring that an editor with your specialist knowledge is hounded like this. Ceoil 17:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Megadeth are one of the "Big Four of Thrash Metal", so how one could dispute them being thrash is beyond me to be honest. LuciferMorgan 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth do some people here always have to confuse and misinterprete everything ? OK, please read slowly and very carefully....Who said they haven't been part of the big 4 thrash? Not me...I clearly state in my previous post that they WERE thrash back to the time . BUT... is it so hard to understand that a band can evolve during a career?

Look Metallica was part of the big 4 too. Now who would dare to be idiot enough to claim that records like Load or Reload for example are thrash?

The big four was an expression one used most particularly back in the thrash heydays in the late 80s/90s. Back to that time Metallica, Megadeth were indeed pure Thrash .

BUT The point is the song I mentioned is taken from a late album (youthanasia) which doesn't play thrash anymore.You know Thrash is about fast rythm ans stuffs? Don't you. Now I dare you to point any fast rythm in the song I pointed.

Anyway if we refer to heavy metal in the larger sense in this article, being heavy metal or thrash, it doesn't matter here. Because let me remind for people who understand nothing that my example of the Megadeth riff is supposed to illustrate the use of power chords not to ilustrate how heavy metal sound...Now the use of power chords is a common basis of every sub-genre of metal.

Frédérick Duhautpas 07:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't even about "pure" heavy metal back when it was first featured. The article always covered the subgenres. WesleyDodds 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't about pure heavy metal before... As i said above, the Megadeth riff is supposed to illustrate the use of power chords not to ilustrate how heavy metal sounds anyway...Now the use of power chords is a common basis of every sub-genre of metal. And this riff is appropriate in both cases anyway: pure heavy metal or heavy metal in its extended sense(Subgenres implied or not)...

Frédérick Duhautpas 08:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

What exactly is disputed here? Obviously we need more inline citations because that's what the FAR is about, but wouldn't be more appropriate to tag the disputed items? After all, I'm going to be spending the next few days citing things (FYI: You can browse the books used as sources for free on Amazon.com for verification). Right now whatever problem exists is vague to me. WesleyDodds 01:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll ignore this "M3tal H3ad" guys bad faith comment & obviously Ours18 (who I don't think has ever added anything to the article but spamlinks)... and answer the question. As I said above.... the way the article is now it looks like it was re-written by somebody who has absolutely no idea about the genre, like this in the opening for example...

"the late 1970s brought the New Wave of British Heavy Metal which stripped away much of the music's blues influence in favor of a harder and faster "pure" metal sound. "

Is pure nonsense, and POV. Who says the original heavy metal bands weren't "pure metal"? They invented it! And who says blues isn't an integral part of the sound?... The main difference was, NWOBHM added in outside non metal influences; like punk rock which isn't found in the bands before it so it can't be "pure metal".

The point here is that NWOBHM sped up and toughened up the music, making the music less reliant on blues influences. I certainly don't consider the music "more metal" than what came before (and I wrote the new lead!), but a lot of sources do (for example, Christie's book makes a big point about the "pure lineage of metal"), and I'm going to be sourcing them in the next day or so. WesleyDodds 07:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, this is bullshit;

"As the genre developed, thematic content was among the things that helped define various subgenres of heavy metal. Mainstream Glam Metal bands of the 1980s like Motley Crue or Twisted Sister had lyrical content mostly devoted to the praises of alcohol, women and "rocking." At the same time, other artists were taking a more serious thematic tone, often focusing on war, nuclear annihilation, environmental issues, and political or religious propaganda, like Black Sabbath's "War Pigs", Ozzy Osbourne's "Killer of Giants", Metallica's "...And Justice for All", Iron Maiden's" 2 Minutes to Midnight", Accept's "Balls to the Wall and Rage Against the Machine's entire catalog. Death is also a predominant theme in heavy metal, featuring in the lyrical content of artists such as Black Sabbath, Metallica, Megadeth"

If this article has to be degraded to where it isn't actually about heavy metal, but about its subgenres then it should be written without bias.. and with factual acuracy. It trys to dismiss glam metal themes as less "relevent", when that isn't the case. Nikki Sixx has explained that Motley Crue's album "Shout at the Devil" for example's themes revolve around social issues; the "devil" they are telling people to shout at are the government, your boss, whoever is in your eyes repressing you. Read the intro lyrics for the theme of the album. Also, Twisted Sister has songs that are about social issues and not just "drinking, women and rocking"...the themes of We're Not Gonna Take It, again revolve around rebeling against society's repression. Under the Blade is about surgery and the fear it can instill in people.... I could go on. That part seems to have been re-written by somebody who doesn't understand the concept of euphemisms in song writing.

Also, it claims in the opening that Thrash found "mainstream audiences", which only really Metallica did during the 80s (the "big four" sold more in the 90s)... the majority of that genre, with the likes of Testament, etc.. were less popular compared to glam metal on a whole. - Deathrocker 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Broad strokes, Deathrocker, broad strokes. It's giving basic examples in the genre. I don't see any bias there myself. WesleyDodds 07:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes.. there is bias, claiming the originals weren't "pure metal", but ones who added outside influence (from punk rock) somehow were? Its clear as day. - Deathrocker 07:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point. It's "pure" in that it's the completion of the form's evolution into a clearly-defined genre with certain stylistic traits. and once again, this is not my POV. It's held by a number of sources, primarily the Ian Christie book. WesleyDodds 07:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And that is just one POV, as I said, it took influences from non metal forms such as punk (read its article). Claiming the original metal bands weren't "pure heavy metal" is pure history revisionism. There is no evidence to suggest the likes of Black Sabbath aren't "pure heavy metal"... they invented it, and they certainly weren't NWOBHM.- Deathrocker 07:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's one POV, but it's a notable one, and one commonly held by those in the metal community. VH1's recent special Heavy: The History of Metal discussed the various interpretations of metal. Christie gave his opinions along with other journalists and tons of musicians. Also I am trying to emphasize that a lot of the musical traits established during the late 70s and ealry 80s were the ones that influenced subsequent subgenres.

Like others here, I am finding you increasingly difficult to work with. I am trying hard to work with everyone here. But right now this article is undergoing a featured article review (click that link at the top of the talk page) and I am infinitely more concerned with making this article conform to Featured Article standards than trying to explain and clarify to you basic points in order to counter opinions only you are pushing. I am going to continue working on this article, and my work will only increase in the next few days. Please give the other editors consideration and please wait to see how we work things out. WesleyDodds 08:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Deathrocker tagged the article because he didn't get his way, and reverted my edit removing POV statements earlier. M3tal H3ad 01:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any that I'm aware of, just a content dispute (which is apparently only disputed by one person). Ours18 01:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any that I'm aware of, just a content dispute (which is apparently only disputed by one person). Ours18 01:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

About the this quote being questioned: "the late 1970s brought the New Wave of British Heavy Metal which stripped away much of the music's blues influence in favor of a harder and faster "pure" metal sound. "

I support WesleyDodds and Ours point of view about this. But the problem is the sentence, as it is, may imply a misunderstanding. As I already said when talking about the traditional heavy metal there are often two views about it. Some consider Heavy metal as synonymous of Hardrock whereas some others imply a subtle difference between both, mostly lying in the fact HM songs would tend to drop the blues harmonic structures (I've just sourced that) and heavy metal would be more agressive and use sharper rhythms. However the source I provided insists that the Heavy metal sound isn't particularly faster than Hard-rock.

While the second view is frequently admited, the first one is too. Now if DR refers to the first view HM=HR , the Heavy metal is used in a wider scope and doesn't take in account the blues roots being stripped away. As in this perspective the term is used to cover indifferently both bands which keep or drop the blues harmonic roots.

I'm not saying he's right whereas you are wrong. I'm saying the distinction between HM and HR may imply two different views which may not be conciliated. That's why I thought it was important to take to specifiy the different views about this. Frédérick Duhautpas 08:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How's this for everyone? We all agree to skim the sources provided (as I said, you can view them on Amazon.com), I'll take care of inline cites from these sources, and if anyone objects they can yell at me here regarding each point at the end of each day, and we can compare the information provide in each source. Can we all agree on something like this? WesleyDodds 08:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ok, I have no problem about this as the sources I mentioned concerning difference between HR and HM are particularly explicit on the issues (both articles dedicated to heavy metal and hard rock in the encyclopaedia I mentioned.)Frédérick Duhautpas 08:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily referring to this specific item, but to the article as a whole. Given Deathrocker's protests I am assuming there will be other items in the article that will be debated. I just want to focus our efforts (and if necessary, our criticisms). WesleyDodds 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ok, that's a wise decision. That's the way musicologists do btw. But I think the main problem of DR is he doesn't seem to accept/understand that the heavy metal term can be used in an extended sense implying subgenres too. Frédérick Duhautpas 09:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

???

I'm deleting the following due to a serious POV undertone in the statement:

"And the fact that many metal bands pretend to be " symphonic" by thinking they can replace the rich acoustic spectra of an entire symphonic orchestra by the synthetic sounds of a keyboard would be regarded as an heresy or as pure naivety in the classical world."

It reeks of an attack on Symphonic Metal, and unless it's severely rewritten to lose it's bias, it has no place in this article. --24.250.126.23 00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a point of view, because something doesn't praise your favourite style doesn't mean this is a POV.

I didn't meant to attack the symphonic metal anyway.(I like that genre). But it isn't anywhere close to the real symphonic music. I only mentioned the fact that the classical world doesn't recognizes the sound of a keyboards as rich enough and then wouldn't regard such a use as serious. This is not my point of view, I'm a musicologist, I've just mentioned a FACT. But allright, you wanna delete it, be my guest.... Frédérick Duhautpas 07:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You realize you've mentioned being a musicologist 8 times on this talk page? Just thought that was interesting.

I quite despise "symphonic metal" but that is an extrememly bias statement. Musicologist or not the statement was bias and was rightfully removed. ADarkerBreed 17:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a valid statement which belongs in the article, but its tone should certainly be addressed, as it sounds like an attack on the genre - there should be more emphasis on the fact that this is the belief of many classical musicians and perhaps "by thinking they can" with "with an attempt to"? In fact, this also appears as an attack on apparently narrow-minded classical musicians, many of whom actually enjoy symphonic metal (I certainly know some, not that I can provide a source for that...) Sk8a H8a 04:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Nu Metal just a type of Alt Metal?

So couldn't we just remove nu metal from the header of the history section? If you click on the Alt Metal link, you'll see that Nu Metal is listed as a sub-section of alternative metal. There are a few types of alternative metal listed in the alt metal article... so, why does nu metal get special attention?

I imagine because it's the "biggest" and most controversial of the types of "alt metal;" I wouldn't be opposed to putting it with the alt metal section myself. I think I'll do that now, actually. Ours18 21:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Allmusic.com groups nu metal under alternative metal, but it does refer to it as a later wave. Ian Christie's book makes a clear distinction between the genres, though. WesleyDodds 01:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nu metal is a subgenre of alternative rock influenced by metal, but fans of nu metal claim it is a subgenre of metal (and many metal fans disagree with that). Metal fans that do not consider nu metal as a form of metal use the argument that nu metal has a mainstream audience while most of the other branches of metal has a relatively underground audience. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 18:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nu metal isn't a subgenre of alternative rock. That's the key difference between alternative metal and nu metal. Alternative metal consists of bands that to various extents are both alt-rock and metal. Nu metal is meant to refer to the "new" metal that appeared at the end of the century, reflecting more metal's popular resurgence rather than the influence of alt-rock (even though that's still there to an extent). WesleyDodds 02:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

{{citeweb}}

Can the group of editors striving to improve this article ensure that all reliable web based sources used as inline citations are consistent with the citation format of the article, with author, heading, publication, retrieval date etc.? {{citeweb}} is one style that can be considered - I notice some editors (likely anons) have added cites inconsistent with the style used by the article. LuciferMorgan 21:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

DCGeist is going to take care of that once we get all the cites down, which should be in a few days. WesleyDodds 01:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

prog metal

I moved the prog metal section back into power metal, mainly because we could have an inifinite number of sub-genres listed in this section, and the line must be drawn somewhere. The underground metal section is going by the encyclopedias of Gary Sharpe-Young, who split the underground into five categories - thrash, death, black, power, and doom. So I say limit the section to those. The prog bands listed have a lot in common with power metal, so it fits in that section.

Spamlink that fails WP:EL

This is long winded, but needs to be to make the point... a certain EM spammer, continues to add a spamlink to his favourite Website in the article. Despite the fact that numerous users have removed it [3][4][5][6][7][8] because it blatantly fails WP:EL

Note: diffs are misleading; "numerous users" comprise two ips leading with 156.34.220, and one ip restoring the link. Ceoil 22:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A list of things it fails in Wikipedia:External links;

"What should be linked"

• Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

The website is openly non neutral, and exlucdes many subgenres, its content is based on the POV of the people who run it without fact in mind. See more information below...

"To be avoided and restricted"

• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.

EM openly has content from a non factual or neutral viewpoint; for example it classifies and rejects certain bands' place on the website calling them the derogatory phrase "mallcore" and claims "mallcore" is an actual genre of music... it also claims nu-metal, alternative metal, industrial metal, some traditional metal and most of metalcore are not subgenres of heavy metal (while all death metal and black metal are considered "ok")... this bias contradicts the project and policy stated in WP:EL. (which is all well and good on their own little website, they can print what they wish... but this is an encylopedia and it fails policy for links)

For an example of bias it states in the "rules" of their site;

We do NOT accept the following (this is our decision, please don't argue this):

Mallcore, also known as "nu-metal" by some (ex: Papa Roach, Limp Bizkit, Drowning Pool, Slipknot)

Metalcore, unless it's clearly more metal than core (e.g Shadows Fall, The Red Chord, Mastodon are OK: Avenged Sevenfold, Atreyu, Bullet For My Valentine are NOT). If you are uncertain, best avoid metalcore bands altogether.

Glam rock (ex: Poison, Whitesnake, KISS)

Classic rock (ex: Led Zeppelin, Uriah Heep)

Industrial (ex: Nine Inch Nails, Rammstein, KMFDM, N17)

The bias and factual inaccuracies (for example Poison aren't "glam rock" a genre from the 70s, they're glam metal; Rammstein aren't Industrial they're Industrial metal) against these bands and forms aren't based on verifiable research from printed works, its just a "I like this, I don't like that" non professionally run site.

• Links mainly intended to promote a website.

See Ours18 spamming of similar websites trying to promote on Nihilism article and numerous users constantly removing the spam there too.[9][10][11][12][13]

• Advertising and conflicts of interest

Ours18 is a member of said website, thus it is a conflict of interest for him to promote it in the links.

• (And most importantly) Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

As that website is a "in free time" run, project... not an actual music industry run, official or professional website. There is no evidence to prove that the media (such as images featured for each band) aren't in violation of copyright.

In their own rules it makes no mention of the website (or the people who are uploading images such as these[14][15][16][17], which are certainly copyrighted) owning a license to distribute such media freely or that they have any permission to do so, and thus is in clear violation of a Wikipedia: External links "no exception" policy, which restricts such things. - Deathrocker 02:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

One quick look at their front page, and what do we see: "All photos, logos and cover arts are © their respective bands/labels/photographs" Óðinn 09:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And where is the proof that this website has "permission to reprint" the images of respective photos... which are recognised as copyrighted? The lack of proof of specific licensing and lack of permission still means they're violating copyright laws.

If you uploaded other media.... say 10 different albums, putting them out there for everybody to use and said "© their respective bands/labels" that would be a violation of copyright also, because of the lack of permission from the copyright holder. - Deathrocker 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, fair use principle does not require such permission. Secondly, nearly all the images used by the EM (logos, album covers, band photos) are considered a promotional material by the copyright holders (recording labels or bands themselves). They, therefore WANT these materials to be seen by as many people as possible. Putting some restriction on the use of these material would be counterproductive for them. Web - sites of labels like Spinefarm have the entire sections that contain hundreds of high-res images specifically for the media use. So, what I'm trying to say is that one should not try to be holier than the pope and wage wars on the imagined copyright violations about which the actual copyright holders are not the least bit concerned. Óðinn 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to add to that. I agree 100%. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"First of all, fair use principle does not require such permission."

Your claim is heresay as you do not have proof of your claim. All images have copyright holders and pro-photogrophers... who those media pieces have been stolen from and used on a website; without A) permission and B) Specifically crediting the owners of each image by name or company. Thus is violated fair use and copyright laws. - Deathrocker 20:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It says right on the first line in the fair use article that permission is not a required for fair use. EM does not use the images for profit in any way, nor does it use them with the intent of replacing the originals, nor to harm the potential profit the copyright holders could gain from those images. The images on EM are there just for display purposes. If this broke copyright laws of any kind, there would be complaints, but there aren't. And you can't argue that EM needs the permission of the copyright owners to display the photos or cover art, because that is not a part of the fair use doctrine. PhantomOTO 21:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll just briefly respond to the arguments of Deathrocker.

• The site is openly non neutral. I get what you are trying to say, but I think it is pretty much exaggerated. The fact that Encyclopaedia Metallum doesn't like nu metal among other genres is certain. But some pages on Wikipedia are also non neutral in the other way around (stating that a certain genre of music is "the best"). Plus, I am not sure if you will find anything in the FAQ or rules of Encyclopaedia Metallum that states that "mallcore sucks" or whatever. They only say that those kind of bands are not accepted, which is legitimate. The website is pretty much neutral in the band pages (none of the pages say that a band is "good" or "bad", apart from the occasional use of the word mallcore to give a general term about what they consider as pop-metal) and gives lots of concise information which could be used in the same way as athlete statistics (except for metal bands) such as year of formation, origin, genre, lyrical themes, discography, etc.

Wikipedia has a policy on neutrality, including those specifically in WP:EL.... the fact that you (even somebody who uses that site) can say "The fact that Encyclopaedia Metallum doesn't like nu metal among other genres is certain" means it is not neurtal and thus fails guidelines for acceptable links. - 20:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• It says nowhere on Encyclopaedia Metallum that mallcore is an actual genre of music. It is just a term to regroup in a quick way what their community recognise as pop-metal. The claim that some people have saying that those genres are not part of heavy metal is relatively true (I'm not saying it is, but I'm saying that it's got some arguments to support it). Many of those genres are fusions between styles (Industrial = electronic + metal, metalcore = hardcore + metal, nu-metal = alternative rock + metal, traditional metal could be considered to early for some, etc.) and the website might judge that some bands are more electronic, hardcore, alternative rock, or too early to be put onto the database. For example, on the main page, it sais something about metalcore bands and about how it was okay to add metalcore bands, but that they had to be more metal than core, which shows that there is no prejudice. The difference between death metal bands and nu-metal bands is that death metal is almost unanimously recognised as metal, while nu-metal is sometimes seen as closer to alternative rock than metal. Their intention is to create a database of bands that are recognised by a big majority of people as metal. Glam rock/metal (the term is sometimes used interchangeably) is not considered by everybody as metal.

It says specifically in the rules of that website, for bands not allowed "Mallcore, also known as "nu-metal" by some", thus making the claim that "mallcore" is the real name for nu-metal. It has nothing to do with pop-metal (Def Leppard).

Also, regardless of the fact that your definitions above are very much incorrect and you could find this out by clicking on a few simple links on Wikipedia. (Industrial is not a fusion between electronic music and metal as Inhumer rightly points out below).... Industrial metal (Rammstein) is different to Industrial music (Einstürzende Neubauten). One of them is a metal subform, the other isn't.

What I meant by pop-metal was not glam metal. I meant metal that goes on MTV (nu metal, metalcore, alternative, etc.) The website says "known as nu metal by some" which shows they are not stating their own opinion but the opinion of others that they don't necessarily represent. The closest definition to mallcore that exists is unarguably nu metal. The reason they put up that rule is because of the people complaining that mallcore bands were on the site, because those bands were not considered metal by some parts of the metal community. There was also a debate on whether grindcore bands should be submitted to the website (since grindcore is an extension of hardcore punk). The reason they are doing this is not by discrimination or hate for mallcore, but in order to prevent people complaining that bands that they judge "non metal" or "pseudo-metal" are on the archive. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 21:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In regards to your point about fusions; NWOBHM (Iron Maiden), Thrash metal (Slayer), Glam metal (Motley Crue) also fuse different styles with heavy metal too. (including, punk, hardcore, etc) Anyway... lets not get sidetracked... the point of this is to show how, this specific website is not viable to be linked as it fails WP:EL... no evidence has been shown to prove otherwise. All of the points I originally made in reference to policy still stand.- Deathrocker 20:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay then lets look at this from the beginning, in order not to get carried away in unnecessary debate about useless stuff :)

You claim that (feel free to correct this if I didn't quite get it):

• EM is non-neutral.
• EM gives factually inaccurate information.
• EM chooses arbitrarily bands that they accept or refuse in the archive.
• Ours18 puts the links to promote the website because he is a member of it.
• EM violates copyright.

Is that right? Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 21:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Óðinn already responded to the copyright thing, thus making Deathrocker's accusations invalid.

• Deathrocker says: " add a spamlink to his favourite Website. " I think you are taking this too personally. I know that Ours and you have had issues like this before (notably on the mallcore AfD) and I am not sure that everything in this is fair. You should remember to assume good faith from him.

I've posted proof of similar spamming of his on other articles (Nihilism, with diffs. Stating that somebody is doing something, when you have over 10 diffs to back it up isn't going against assume good faith, its presenting points in a matter of fact manner. - Deathrocker 20:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you do claim directly that the link is a spamlink. Maybe a Wikipedian thought it was a good idea to include this website (which is very helpful for research) on the external links, and nothing more. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 21:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you in advance for your cooperation,

Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 10:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Real or at least Original industrial had nothing to do with electronic music or metal. Inhumer 19:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Check the FAR as concerns linking to EM (which I wholly disagree with doing). LuciferMorgan 09:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My biggest problem is that it has nothing to do with WP:EL and everything with him hating the site because it contadict his personal views and opinion on metal. Inhumer 20:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If it has nothing to do with WP:EL, then why did I explicitly state that as the reason, in the very heading of this section? It fails policy... boo hoo all you want; read policy and don't violate it.

Although it is sometimes amusing seeing you and a couple of your EM buddies follow me around Wikipedia, creating fictional opinions for me claiming I "hate" things or claiming I think "this and that" when you have absolutely no idea, it can also get quite tiresome. Regardless. Not to stray off the point, as I said, your WP:SPAM of your favourite website and edits in violations of WP:EL violate the officially stated policy, and thus can't remain. Want to spam a site? Then post it on websites which don't have restrictions and policies against such acts. - Deathrocker 10:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you here. The aim of his actions of the EM wiki were to discredit the website as a possible source, and he's still trying to do that. An accusation of criminal activity is a pretty classless maneuver on his part, but since when has he ever acted in class, and with good faith? He always flaunts guidlines regarding civility and assuming, but never follows them. Apparently, he's nearing the end of his rope with the mods for his antagonistic style, so hopefully he'll eventually be banned and people can resume editing in a friendly environment, without worrying about someone abusing and insulting them, reverting their edits in bad faith, or sinking so low as to accuse them of being criminals. PhantomOTO 21:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: PhantomOTO is a mod at the spamlink website in question. Although his venemous slander against yours truely has no basis, and his attemps to stain my good name are quite uncalled for; his opinions on the matter clearly fall under the "conflict of interest" section of the WP:EL policy. - Deathrocker 10:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Why should't we block and ban all editors that have been on EM? That would probably solve the problem. At least Deathrocker wouldn't find anyone to argue with. Although, I think even in those circumstances, he could. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 10:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

An external link is the least of your worries, this article may lose FA class. M3tal H3ad 12:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: Deathrocker has stopped attempting to defend his bitter, slanderous accusation of mass condoned criminal activity on the part of Encyclopaedia Metallum now that his baseless argument has been discredited. Also note that Deathrocker has no "good name" to stain since it is the consensus of almost every editor working this page that he is annoying, immature, and pig-headed, and has been blocked more times than everyone else combined. Further note the blatant hypocrisy of Deathrocker being upset at "venomous slander" aimed at him, not only falsley accused EM of being involved in copyright infringement simply because he doesn't like it, as shown by the archives talk pages at the EM wiki, but also accuses EM users of stalking him on Wikipedia. PhantomOTO 22:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, funny you claiming I "don't like" something, without me actually stating that as my opinion. You are violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and assume good faith, if you are unable to act like an adult with decency here then I suggest you go back to EM where you can create all these wild; violative and slanderous fantasies that you are above.

Even below, the owner of the website proved what you said above to be a blatant lie. That website has encountered problems from taking other peoples images without permission and without crediting them specifically, and some have asked for their property to be removed. I don't have anything to "defend" when even the website owner is providing information which contradicts you. - Deathrocker 22:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

She's just adding something she has personal knowledge of and I didn't. For that, I apologize. You also try to overstate the scope of these problems. As Morrigan said, it is limited to very few cases. Also, you are making assumptions about the nature of the complaints that you are not in a place to make. For example, perhaps someone wanted a photo removed because he/she found it embarrassing, but neither you, nor I, can say for sure, and Morrigan would have to be the one to tell us. Regardless, you can no longer claim that EM operates outside of fair use doctrine (as images on the site are used for the purpose of review, and are in no way intended to make a profit), so you've resorted to pretending to be a victim. Furthermore, just because a minor point I made was wrong, does not mean that you must not respond to any other issues raised, as you habitually do when faced with evidence that contradicts your point. Evasion does not make you correct.

I find it alarming that you can delude yourself and attempt to deceive others as to your position on EM, when you carried on a one-man crusade to force information with little relevance to the site onto its wiki, while insulting the owners as "extreme metal kids," and now you accuse them of being criminals. And please, do not flaunt Wikipedia's policy as if you are not in violation of it. You are the most crass person on this page, subjective, and always assume that others are editing in bad faith. Why, when someone such as yourself conducts himself so hypocritically and abusively, should anyone else assume that you are unbiased and following the rules? PhantomOTO 00:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll add that it has happened a few times that we received emails requesting that we remove band photos from the pages. We found this bizarre, as this kills the point of having promo pictures in the first place, but we complied. Other than those few incidents (which can be counted on the fingers of one hand), no other copyright complaints ever occurred. So we can all take these accusations with a grain of salt. Morrigan 22:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Hey everyone, I'm beginning to get burned out working on this. I'm going to finish up reworking and citing some prose, but help would be appreciated, particularly with regards to the characteristics section. Unfortunately, citations from amatuer websites are not good enough; we need to directly reference reputable sources, particularly books and articles, on the genre and its characteristics. Guitar World and similiar magazines would be a place to start since they focus a great deal in explaining how musical forms work, and books on rock music ought to provide at least a brief synopsis of the genre. Additionally, older sources would be great in order to better flesh out the perspective. The stuff I'm mainly working from has been published in the last five years or so, but I'm hoping to check out some books form my university library soon in order to help. WesleyDodds 13:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Metal not "art" nor "serious"?

Saying that classical music is both "art music" and "serious music"-and that popular music (like heavy metal) is neither is completly condescending. Popular musicians are in fact "artists"!; and some popular musicians are serious with their music. To say on this article (note #19) that classical music is "serious art" and that heavy metal (or any other styles for that manner) is not, completly undermines the genre. That is why I demand that note #19, and the graph it has spawned, should be taken off the article! Anonymous 13:57, 13 MAR. '07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.172.237.93 (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I'd just like to clarify something: the designation of a particular genre (say, Jazz or Classical music) as "art music" or "serious music" doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they're 'really' art. Those phrases -- especially "serious music" -- are just terms that refer to particular kinds of music, and such phrases certainly do not preclude the seriousness of metal musicians in pursuing their art. In order to resolve the issue, though, I decided to change the instances of those terms to 'erudite music', which may be a bit clearer. [[User:|Conkyworm]] 23:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Conkyworm said everything. Sorry, but no condescendence was meant towards Heavy metal when I used those words (I'm a fan of HM), the words "art music" or "serious music" are actually idiomatic expressions. They refer to the general classification in music: classical and contemporary music and (to some extent)jazz are classified as "serious music" or "art music". I agree these expressions may sound excessive or elitist but that's just the way they are ordinary called in the english vocabulary of music. And using these words doesn't mean in anyway that heavy metal isn't art or serious. Of course HM is. Frédérick Duhautpas 23:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen those terms used in reference to various types of music, but I think for the purpose of this article, it would be wise to use "art music" and not "serious music." The latter has a strong connotation, and saying something doesn't fall under the classification of "serious music" could be taken as derogatory by many an editor or average reader. PhantomOTO 00:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree the " serious music" term might sound derogatory. Anyway Conkyworm suggested the use of the "erudite music" term. And I tend to agree with him, because it should avoid some misinterpretation from people who aren't necessarily aware of this classification and the difference of nature. However I had to keep the "art music" term as well to maintain coherence with the sourced quote. Concerning the art music term, I'm not denying some people may use it in reference to various types of music, but fundamentally the word exclusively refers to classical erudite traditions and by extension to contemporary music (as descending from classical) (and to some extent to jazz.)Frédérick Duhautpas 07:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)