Talk:Black metal

Archives
February 2002 - May 2006

Wikiproject improvments

Alrighty, while I intend to do some of these, I think it would do us good to get a list going of what We think needs to be done to get Black Metal into 1.0 standards (it is as of today a B-)

1. Lead - Seems mostly ok, a bit ambigious already got a better wording for the parts I find so.

The lead is filled with fluff. There's no reason to include a (false) spiel about how black metal is supposedly anti-idealist, especially given that black metal is rooted in Romanticism, which is arguably a form of idealism itself. Also, perhaps someone should cite a source for the idea that black metal bands consider racism "a form of philanthropy" (??). No one is ever going to agree about what black metal is and is not, so perhaps it's just best to avoid any generalist statement about ideology whatsoever.Egendomligt 06:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Genrebox - Pages need to be made for US Black Metal and Eastern Europe Black Metal, other than that seems ok. We might want to add something about Scandavian Black Metal as a regional scene? Or rather might move Viking to Regional, and retitle it Scandavian, though this leaves the beginings of NSBM out and implies that their bands were part of the same scene.

3. Characteristics - My main problem with Characteristics is the listing of "Lyrics that take the form of pessimistic, Satanic, Pagan, or occult themes which blaspheme Christianity. Bands such as Slayer, Venom, Deicide, and Immolation overlap lyrically with black metal somewhat but are musically defined as death metal (Deicide, Immolation) or thrash metal (Slayer, Venom), however, Venom coined the term "Black Metal" and laid the foundations for later Black Metal alongsides Bathory and Celtic Frost." As there are Christian black metal bands by actual music styles Christian Black

I think it's good the way it is, as it says "Black metal can display" (emph. mine) before the listing itself. That, and "Unblack" has no real importance/influence in Black Metal. It could perhaps be changed to say that there's also something as Christian Black Metal, and then a link to that page... 81.240.173.147 21:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure where you think it is saying can in any form, the direct quote from the page is is that of "Lyrics that take the form of pessimistic, Satanic, Pagan, or occult themes which blaspheme Christianity. And its not just christian black metal that exsists, Wolves in the Throne Room have no lyrical base in pessesism, but are black metal. There mere fact that you can have these lyrics without it being black metal, makes me question the revelance of this, as you can say the same thing about other forms of extreme metal.Atechi 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As "black metal" refers to the occult in the first place, the lyrical content is as important as the musical content in defining something as "black metal." Thus, there is no such thing as "Christian black metal," as while they may musically style themselves as such, their lyrics are far and away from the occult and from any sort of "black"ness. --Skullfission 08:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

4. History - What is in our history section after the third paragraph goes on a tangent about Norweigan NSBM (one that is repeated on about four pages), Additioanlly, the entire section seems to lack sources (or they are at least not cited), and to me needs to be rewritten.

I corrected some grammar here, but you're right, this needs major re-writing, especially since at the end it goes off on a tangent about the future of the genre! Maybe this should be moved; it needs some serious thought. Many fans have very strong feelings about what can be/can't be considered BM, and talking about bands that bring in elements of industrial etc. could cause some controversy. 41214 21:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

5. Artists - Seems good to me.

There are many more important bands that should be mentioned, such as: ildjarn, havohej, mütiilation, vlad tepes, vatain, nargaroth, behexen, 1349, etc.

I've been involved with the black metal scene for well over a decade, and I have heard of exactly ONE of those bands (1349). --Skjald 22:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me guess, you're Norwegian, right? If not, you obviously haven't been reading your zines lately. But no, none of the above mentioned bands need a mention as they haven't had any big influence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.165.128.200 (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Be weary, naming too many bands can lead to edit wars. People will delete or add band names just because they feel like it. I saw this happen on several pages. Emmaneul 03:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of that. However, some bands, f.e. Moonblood, are by far more essental than, some of the mentioned bands, like Blut Aus Nord, Arkhon Infaustus, Anorexia Nervosa, Antaeus or Ofermod.

I worry that some of these bands shouldn't be mentioned at all; if a band bring in industrial elements, can they still be considered BM? There is a big rift in the BM bands that are emerging now- some are rigidly sticking to classic styles and some are being much more experimental. Fans have strong opinions on this. 41214 21:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Samples - We need to get some.

7. Misc - Can we take the NSBM section out? as a subgenre with its own page?--Atechi 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree there should be some samples IMO. Darksteel 09:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it more closely, I think we can delete the history and subforms, rename First/Second wave Black Metal to History, and it would clean it up really well, imo. --Atechi 16:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pagan metal

While we are discussing the possible deletion of some minor subgenres, there is one that seems to me to be sadly ignored, pagan metal. There are a number of relatively well known bands such as Primordial and Moonsorrow that fit into this category, but no section! Pagan metal presently redirects to Black Metal. There are about 20 articles that link to pagan metal ([1]), so it must to have some significance, and should deserve a section at the least.

Back in December there was an AfD for pagan metal, the result of which was no concensus (3 keep, 2 delete, [2]). Strangely enough, I cannot find the article or section that was up for deletion. Would someone like to create this section? Or at least tell me why it shouldn't be (re?)created, if that's the case. IronChris | (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[3] - dunno if it fits well in this article. It also has close ties to viking metal and folk metal. Spearhead 08:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of useless genres here. Pagan Metal is not a genre, is a stylistic description. Oriental Metal is similarly dumb, and doesn't exist. No one outside of Wikipedia references 'Oriental Metal'. Also, Neoclassical Metal or Symphonic Metal are, like Pagan Metal, stylistic descriptions, not actual genres. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.122.166.35 (talk • contribs) .

Yo, I got redirected here when I clicked on a link for 'troll metal'. I can't see why Troll Metal is more similar to Black Metal than it is Folk Metal or even Heavy Metal - Finntroll, Korpiklaani, TrollfesT - they don't sound very black metal to me.

i've heard people referencing oriental metal. Like Loudness.Miles 02:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

i havent heard of oreintal metal, but neoclassical i hear mentioned quite often--Frenrir1 22:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I redirected Pagan Metal to point to Folk Metal, as it isn't strictly a type of Black Metal. --Atechi 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The only one related to it would be Blackened Pagan.

BTW, The Origins of Black Metal Publication > Articles > The Origins of Black Metal is a "dead" link.

Someone should explain why they all wear black and white face paint...

Corpse painting/clothing

There should be a short section on face painting (from kiss to mayhem and then it many bands gave it up etc.) and on clothing (black clothes, bullets, pikes etc.)

That's fine as long as it's encyclopedic and verifiable. Whatever was put up yesterday on this subject was not. Scskowron 14:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging the intro with History

It is misleading to have the section labeled History start off with the Norweigian DRA.MA. I would suggest to either start off the history section with Venom, Bathory, ect or to rename the History to Early Norweigan Scene or something similar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.181.90 (talk • contribs) .

I agree that a lot of emphasis is made on the Norwegian history, and that's not all there is to it. This seems like a decent proposal to me, there's a lot about history in the intro. IronChris | (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree and will try and rewrite the article in the next few weeks, there is also alot of repetition most notably "Venom (the original line up being Cronos, Mantas & Abbadon)." which occurs twice. Also the start of the "History" section and the "First Wave" scetion both add exactly the same info about Venom. I also think it would be better to leave out the large section about the Euronymous/Varg episode as I'm pretty sure there will be info about it on either the Mayhem, Burzum, Euronymous or Varg (or all four) pages already.

Another thing of note is that there was no recording studio in Euronymous' basement, I think the writer is reffering to the 'Griegenhallen' (Greig Memorial Hall)? which is a general purpose studio, not limited to BM. Another thing would be the 'Inner Circle' reference as Varg and many others have stated that there was no large organization as many of them didn't stay in the same city (Euro - Oslo, Varg - Bergen, Emperor - Notodden), it could be noted however that the term is used. I also think the NSBM section could be shortened to one sentence as there is already an article about it and the 'War metal' section could be added as a separate page or a page could be made for Blasphemy as "It is generally accepted[weasel words] that Blasphemy were the first "War Metal" band".

I'd like to know what others think of these ideas first?--XdiabolicalX 19:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Downplaying the importance of the early Norwegian scene seems foolish, as this was the scene that basically defined the second wave of black metal and its varieties. The history of early black metal is a primarily Norwegian one, unless anyone wants to point out similarly influential groups from other countries around the same time.--Egendomligt 08:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where else to post this. I remember a friend telling me of a metal artist, who if I recall correctly was Burzum, which would seem right, as I remember him telling me of him being in prison (Though he said he synthesizes music from inside the prison now, and let me hear a clip of it. Much less agressive now, as would be obvious.) I just remembered a quote that I thought would be interesting to add. My friend says that somebody tried to kill Burzum, and defending himself, he killed the person. My friend said that in an interview, he said, completely casually and nonchalantly, something along the lines of, "He tried to kill me, and he failed miserably, so I killed him." Does anybody have any information on this, or know if there was a quote like this at all? From reading the history, I could see where some of it may have been misinterpreted or something somewhere, by my friend, but I'd like to know for sure and have it clarified. 4.234.30.224 09:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No one knows the truth for sure except Mr Vikernes and we can't take his word for it. Diabolical 16:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. He's consistently (well, consistently for Varg) claimed that the murder was in self-defence, however it's subject to endless dispute whether that meant Aarseth actually made an attempt on his life or that Varg simply felt threatened by him and decided to kill him first. The details are vague and most reports & interviews on the subject contradict one another in a number of ways.Thee darcy 16:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page is getting excessively long (133 kilobytes, the recommended maximum being 32). Would someone like to archive some of the old discussions? It's getting kind of a pain to read and edit, not to mention that some particularly old browsers (if they still exist) might have difficulties showing or editing such long pages. IronChris | (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I archived it. It was getting much too long. IronChris | (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

War Metal

What the hell is War Metal? And why is it included on the Black Metal page? If it would be included any black metal subgenre it would be NSBM or Viking Metal. War metal it's just a stupid tag that some stupid fuck invented in order to earn some status. It's just stupid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viriatus (talk • contribs) .

Woah I can't believe "war metal" is still there... There were lots of discussions about it (see archive 1), but nothing was ever done. IronChris | (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So are we going to delete "war metal" or make a minor movement group as suggested in the archives? I personally lean towards deletion of War Metal, it strikes me a poseur subgenre. Google gives Black War Metal 303, just plain War Metal is 128.000 but most do not seem relevant to the music scene. Atechi 16:25, June 23 2006

At the very least, it would seem from it would be better to place this with Thrash or Death metal, most of the bands listed as influance are death/thrash and in the section description it is listed as a Death/Thrash fusion. Atechi

Deleted War Metal due to lack of objectives.

Some weird stuff

"Black metal is a sub-genre of extreme metal" Extreme metal? I never heard of this as being a real genre. BM is a kind of extreme metal but I don't think extreme metal by itself is a genre. And the Extreme metal page is a low quality page. Refering to extreme metal is not a good idea imo.

I think some reference to "extreme metal" is useful, however since that's a term created after the fact to describe black metal, death metal, grindcore, swedish chef metal etc etc etc (and not a real genre at all, just an umbrella term) I think at best one could say it's considered a form of extreme metal. Definitely not a subgenre thereof though.Thee darcy 16:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"It garnered criticism from mainstream media because black metal supposedly embraces anti-Christianity, misanthropy, nihilism and sometimes racism and nationalism though not all musicians considered black metal necessarily support these ideologies, especially not the latter two (they are almost exclusive to the sub-genre of National Socialist black metal), perhaps because standard black metal ideology is influenced by anti-idealist philosophers who often regarded racism as a form of idealism or philanthropy." This is a very long sentence. I think this could be more readable.

"A distinct "rasped" vocal style..." & "Screeching vocals" I think one could be deleted

"Standard tuned guitars (In contrast to death metal which is typically dropped D and down-tuned.)" In Death it's not common to play in dropped D. Downtuning is common, 'dropped D' isn't. Emmaneul 03:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The second wave

Regarding Litany's edit: I agree that the article should cover the origins of the second wave wore widely, but except for Bathory (which is already covered in the article), the Swedish black metal scene was very small in the late-80's / early-90's and the bigger Swedish bands only started after black metal was already "popular". Claiming bands such as Lord Belial, Dark Funeral and Mörk Gryning as a major influence or originator is just a factual inaccuracy and blatant fanboyism, as these formed in 1993/1994. If you want to make the section to cover some important non-Norwegian bands too, please do so, but don't only add your favourite bands from your own country and make it look like Sweden was a key scene together with Norway. Most sources agree the second wave originated from Norway. Prolog 18:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha fanboyism? First of all they are not my favorite bands and second of all most bands. Both Marduk and Abruptum (and also Dissection if you want) came before bands like Dimmu Borgir, Emperor and Gorgoroth. Dark Funeral, Lord Belial and Mörk Gryning came during the same time between 1992-1993. I'm not trying to put down the fact that Norway was a big influence during theese years, but they are not the single one (just like with Melodic Death Metal from Sweden). Sweden was also a prominent inspiration in the second wave of black metal. Regarding Bathory, that band was one of the big influences during the first wave. I think we could cover more band's that wore important during theese years than just Norwegian and Swedish, like Samael for Switzerland and maybe even Sarcófago from Brazil.

The line between the genres of black-, death-, thrash/speed-metal were (and still is as fare as I consider) rather blurry during this time (late 80's/early 90's). Best regards - Litany 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the section is too Norway-centric and should cover influential bands from other countries, like the ones you mentioned along with Master's Hammer, Blasphemy, Beherit etc. This shouldn't be hard to do as the section is still pretty short. I still think the article should keep the usual consensus of Norway as the most notable scene, as otherwise it might fall under original research and go against the few semi-reliable sources that there are about this subject. Prolog 21:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted Dark Funeral and Abruptum as influences from Swedish scene as Abruptum isn't black metal at all and Dark Funeral wasn't found until 1993. Dissection hasn't really ever stated themselves as black metal but "metal of death", but I suppose it can stay there. I also added Finnish scene as influence, namely Beherit and Impaled Nazarene. Ofcourse there could be a long list of the smaller bands which have later become famous and somewhat influental from these two countries (Sweden: The Black, Azhubham Haani etc., Finland: Archgoat, Unholy etc.), but it's getting rather trivial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.234.5.136 (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I wanted to emphasize the significnce of Dead's suicide to second wave of black metal as after the attention black metal got through it, death metal bands started to be more interested in BM. These bands include Thou Shalt Suffer (pre-Emperor), Black Death (pre-Darkthrone), Amputation (pre-Immortal) and partly Old Funeral (Varg Vikernes used to play in the band before Burzum). Ofcourse some of the bands changed their name already before the suicide, but their style suddenly turned into more BM after it.

Also I wanted to ask if anybody here considers the Black War (the so-called "BM war" between Norway & Finland in the c. 92-93) worth of a mention? I could write about the incident. After all it had a effect on Finnish black metal scene (espescially Impaled Nazarene & Beherit).

I'd like to know why the Norwegians hated Beherit so much to spawn a band called Fuck Beherit. I've never saw anything about them othe rthan the Metal-Archives page. XdiabolicalX 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I added the Dark War into the history section. You can check pretty much the same shit from Finnish 'zine Isten #8 (I can also send scans). And although the "conflict" can sound hilariously funny now, it was far more serious back then when people were being killed.

There also could be some mention about the murder commited by Bard in the history section and in general the article should handle also Finnish and Greek scenes as they were the two big scenes with Norwegian one.

Beside the Finnish and Greek scenes, the German and Dutch ones should be considered to some extent, especially with bands like Funeral Winds, Bestial Summoning, Lacerated Gods, Martyrium (ie pre- Secrets of the Moon), ABSURD to be considered as all having some influence or mark on the scene. Bestial Summoning, while despised by the Swedish and Norwegian scenes still made a valuable contribution that was imitated to some extent by some in the scene at the time, and their name is still quoted a lot today by many chaotic BM bands and projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.1.168.129 (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for all the blood

Just a quick note; something I noticed, but didn't Dead's suicide note read "Sorry for all the blood" and not "Excuse all the blood"? Or is this just due to different translation (as I'm not sure if it was written in English or not).

It was written in Swedish or Norwegian, not that it matters because there was more on it than just those words as the media would have you believe. XdiabolicalX 17:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the exact text matters, the gist of it is that he apologized for all the blood. Spartacusprime 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe he also apologized for firing the shotgun in the house, said goodbyes, etc, but I'm certain that he said, somewhere in the note, "please excuse all the blood". 68.107.196.211 01:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Wave?

I'm not sure there really is a third wave, but there are definately modern BM bands which are not second wave. Compare bands like Negura Bunget, Nokturnal Mortem or Arcturus with Transylvanian Hunger... Huge difference. I think something needs to be said about modern/"third wave" BM bands.

I agree, there's been lots of talk about French band recently, I'd like to see some more development on the paragraph about these "third wave" bands and the similiarities and differences. 41214 12:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not hugely familiar with modern black metal, but to me it seems like releases from bands starting in the late 90's and early 2000's differ greatly from early to mid 90's black metal. Bands such as Wykked Wytch (sp?) and others are being lumped into the black metal category, and recent releases from groups such as Enslaved, Satyricon and Dimmu Borgir suggest a much different sound than what they were 10 years ago. I personally feel, from my own observation, that black metal groups that are embracing more commercial or accessible sounds, or prog-oriented sounds (such as in Enslaved) or avant garde/ambient sounds (such as Blut Aus Nord) should be considered part of a third wave.

This is post-black, rather than a new wave.

Performance

Unless anyone objects, I am going to add a brief section about performance, saying how most black metal bands do not play live. It's rather critical to black metal, which I don't think you'd get from reading the article. -- scskowron 09:41 15 December 2006(UTC)

I think you could include this in the Aesthetics section. Although you could rewrite the part about drum machines and ambient samples as not fit for live show as it has been done by for example Mysticum. Also you could add something about the stage show (many bands using flesh and blood to throw to the audience). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.165.128.200 (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Most bands that don't play live only do so because there is only one member writing the music so it usually ends up unfit for live performance. Most bands do play live. XdiabolicalX 21:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the ridiculous claim that a "SIZABLE portion of black metal bands employ drum machines," changing it to the neutral "some." Skjald 10:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Most black metal bands don't play live? Nonsense. Impaled Nazarene, Dimmu Borgir, Emperor, Immortal, Marduk, Dark Funeral, Satyricon, 1349, Enslaved, Destroyer 666, Gorgoroth, Goatwhore, Dodheimsgard, Dissection, Borknagar, Carpathian Forest, Mutiilation, Mayhem, and Hell-Born all are or were live acts, and most of these bands actively tour or did at some point. Also, that thing about bands throwing flesh and blood at concert-goers isn't very common as far as I know. I know Mayhem did it and, though not black metal, Deicide used to do it.12.72.247.29 01:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but one must concede that the live experience is not central to black metal. Black metal is an recording-oriented genre, not a performance-oriented or media-oriented one. Scskowron 02:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

First Wave

I added a note about Death SS to the first wave section. There is also some inconsistency between the opening paragraph and the first wave section. The opening paragraph states that Venom only had an influence because they influenced Celtic Frost. The First Wave section makes it seem like Venom had a huge influence and doesn't even mention hellhammer/celtic frost (I just added one line that needs to be expanded). Olliegrind 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up this whole section (First Wave), but it could use a total rewrite by someone intricately familiar with the history of black metal. I just cleaned up the language a bit. Skjald 13:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Tonality

I've analysed some black metal recently and I think there should be a section on the tonality and harmony used in black metal, i.e. uses the Diminished scale, often rather than using diminished and minor chords it uses ambiguous parallel minor thirds to create a very dark and grim atmosphere. A progression typical of the styl would go something like this:

I-II-I-IV-III

Although this sort of things is a common feature, it is not a universal one.

If you want to add it, go ahead, just make sure you provide specifics and can back it up with a song. Maybe "Funeral Fog" would be a good one? Scskowron 06:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Black Ambient

I found an article on Black ambient and I thought I'd mention it in case you guys wanted to add it to the list or something. I wrote an article for Payasage d'Hiver and I might do one for Darkspace as well. I am not an expert on the Ambient side of Black Metal but if anybody wants to help me then by all means. Lord of nothing 16:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Several Edits/Merged Info

I hope nobody here thinks I'm a jackass for doing this, but I put the page through dozens of edits (many of which could have been done at one time had I thought of them). HOWEVER, it should be realized that, despite the long list of edits on the history page, no information was lost or vandalized in any way.

I simplified the "History" section (renamed it) and split up all the information for an easier read. All the info from before is still there (and more, actually, like the Faust incident), but I made it an overall easier read for anyone who wants to learn about black metal's history for the first time. Before, it was mashed together and who was who became impossible to tell for anyone who doesn't know their stuff already.

I also removed redundant information. A lot of stuff, like definitions on what corpse paint was, was repeated upwards three times. I defined it once, using much of what was already here, and put it where it belonged. Some stuff in the opening section was merged as well (why repeat things and draw them out?). I also fixed some grammar issues, such as "LaVey-satanism", which is actually written as "LeVayen Satanism" (I'm sure the originaly scribe meant well).

A picture of the stave church was also added for visual effect, as well as a picture depicting Dead and Euronymous to help demonstrate corpse paint. A link to an interview with Mayhem shortly after Dead's suicide has been added as well in one of the paragraphs under "Historical Events in Black Metal". It was also somehow lost that the usage of Dead's pictures on "Dawn of the Black Hearts" was never done by the band itself, at least not officially, and the photographs were in fact stolen to make this cover. Aarseth also didn't actually eat the brains, and the scan of the interview linked there shows this. It should also be noted that, even though one of my source links leads to a Yahoo! Music page, all biographical info on that page is actually from the All Music Guide (AMG, which probably hightens the credibility in some people's eyes).

I'm a huge music and metal fan in general (not just black metal), and I feel black metal is still not getting its story told cohesively or with credit. That's why I all did all this and hopefully, upon inspection, you will all agree the page is much better now. Thanks. -- 15 February 2007 68.5.56.205

The work is good. At first I was about to flip out when I saw all those edits but they were all well-done and verifiable. They make a good addition to the page. Scskowron 21:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the compliments. Your initial skepticism is understandable. I imagine this page gets defiled a lot by uneducated youths. -- 15 February 2007 68.5.56.205

Issues with this article

Aside that it is largely unsourced, I ran across the following issues with this article:

• Characteristics is a huge list that needs to be reworked into proper prose
• Characteristics is full of vague and sometimes confusing or contradictory terms ("Relatively thin or thick guitar tone", "an uneasy atmosphere", ""evil" sound", "Fast, repetitive, aggressive drums" and then "the drums can take a slower role"
• Characteristics has lots of musicological terms which in itself isn't a bad thing but makes it hard to read
• how can "Some black metal songs" be a characteristic? I expect here something that would generally describe black metal not list all kinds of possibilities. Similar "Certain bands... "
• "...This wave included the British band Venom..." contradicts with "Venom cannot be credited as a true black metal band" a few paragraphs down
• It seems to me that "The First Wave" basically equals blackened thrash metal
• Modern Black Metal does reflect a third wave?
• "One of the most striking features in black metal is the use of facial corpsepaint" is confusing and vague: So it really isn't about music afterall but all about looks?

Spearhead 21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

lol, as far as your last comment... yes! Well, okay, I'm kidding, it's not entirely about looks, but yes, looks must be emphasized, as in black metal image perhaps exceeds music (let's be honest here) than any other subgenre.

No, there is not enough evidence to claim there is a "third wave" per say, despite the fact that the genre still remains somewhat alive today. Saying there is a "Third wave" is pretty a profound statement and we have yet to see that happen.

Yes, the "First Wave" is basically "blackened thrash metal", as black metal builds off thrash itself! But the term "blackened thrash metal" was coined AFTER black metal, and became useful only after the "second wave" took the genre in a different direction, what with punk-like drums and even symphonic elements, so the term "blackened thrash" then became somewhat of a necessity.

I agree with the Venom statement, the individual who wrote that must be comparing them to Norwegian styles, so it does seem confusing. But they did in fact coin the term "black metal", and introduced the heavy emphasis on anti-Right Hand Path sentiment in music.

And lastly, I myself am "casually interested", and am in no way trying to make things complicated. In fact, I've been the one grouping and simplifying things on this page for the sake of the uneducated for weeks now! -- 68.4.207.20

Your work is much appreciated. Most metal articles are very messy, like including black metal, death metal and doom metal, as well as unsourced. I did some cleaning up and tagged issues that would require sourcing. And for my last statement I was half-joking. BTW consider registering an account - it makes communication a bit easier. Spearhead 23:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem against tagging facts? This article does need references. Tagging where it does need so is helpful. Instead of removing them, consider providing actual citations for these statements. Those aren't of "the is blue" type. Spearhead 23:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to the initial issues:

• Please look up the word 'striking'. Corpsepaint being striking does not mean that it is important, it means that it is highly noticeable.
• I think it is counterproductive to turn characteristics into a section of prose. I like it better in list form, and it is easier to read that way.
• Some of the descriptions are vague, I agree.
• The use of the phrases 'some songs' and 'some bands' is important to distinguish that a certain characteristic is not all-encompassing.
• The Venom thing is real annoying and needs to be fixed.
• Yes, the First wave is essentially blackened thrash metal.

Scskowron 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have in fact put the First and Second wave portions through major revisions, now that you brought that aspect to my intention (so thanks). And by striking, I mean noticeable. Corpsepaint does in fact strike you as a black metal thing, nobody else does it. So that's what I meant. As far as the tags thing, it just seems to me that it brings a level of discredit to the page to have that many "citation needed" things all over the page, and the thing is this is all true, not debateable. It just looks bad, and doesn't seem necessary for some of the stuff you tagged since a lot of it is so blatantly verifiable for anyone who just listens to a mere sample on Amazon, let alone a whole record. Citation claims should be reserved for controversial statements, or least so it seems. I know you mean well though.

Tormentor

Where should i place the band Tormentor? i've already added them to the first wave section (now deleted), as they played BM in the late 80s (and later, even without knowing about the Norwegian scene). Several bands (from early second wave) stated them as influence.

One also deleted the entry (with a linked source [4]) that Mayhem chose Attila for 'De Mysteriis..' _becouse_ Tormentor was one of Dead's favourite bands. I think this kind of fact has much more to do with black metal (the music) then bone fragments.

--- Dukey42 01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Advertising, removed

Hi all, I noticed a couple of redirects to www.metalreview.com in the main text. I have removed this, as this is blatant advertising. Instead, since it seems to be a genuine metal site, I have moved it to external links.

FSHero 11:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro and ideology sections

Totally unecessary copy/paste from my talk page removed. I explain why below (*). Logical Defense 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

would like some third opinions on the current version of the article made by me, and also some criticism from LD. what needs to stay in the idealogy section (give me quotes followed by the reason) that i have removed, and why? 86.149.59.252

A couple of things I'd like to mention to you, 86.149.59.252 who started the edit war. You seem to think that the ideology of black metal is its most defining feature. This is highly debatable, and I do not think that most fans/scholars of black metal would agree with you. It is true that the majority of black metal embraces a sort of anti-religious and hateful ideology. Yet this does not belong in the introductory sentence. The purpose of the encyclopedia page on black metal is to explain to people who are not familiar with the subject what black metal is. Therefore, when people read it, they should know immediately what it sounds like: it has highly-distorted guitars, shrieking vocals, etc. That is what separates black metal from every other genre of music. No other genre of music can be classified in the way that it is described in the second sentence. Afterward, the ideology of black metal can be noted, and it is, in the third introductory paragraph. Other genres of music have "uncompromising" ideologies, like punk rock and indie, so it is the description of the actual music that is most significant to the non-listener.

To someone who is a non-listener, the fact that black metal has an uncompromising ideology is rather useless as a description. Some of my favorite bands, like Shining and Abyssic Hate and Burzum don't even use vocals in many of their songs, so it would be difficult to recognize an ideology simply by listening to a record.

Regarding the ideology section, you cut out some details that made the paragraph flow nicely. You may have kept the crux of the ideology, but the way it reads is very wordy and seems to be a bunch of "ism's" all stringed together. The ideology section is the most controversial section of the black metal page.

Moreover, though idealogy is an acceptable spelling, ideology is much more common and is used elsewhere in the article, so please be consistent and use the latter spelling.

I did not appreciate all the edit war you created, 86.149.59.252. If you are so serious about improving this page, please register a username and discuss all controversial topics in the Talk page first. You are welcome to help us make this entry great, but insisting upon undiscussed controversial edits is not welcomed.

Right now the word "shrieking" needs to be fixed in the second sentence. Request permission to change.

Scskowron 00:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"they should know immediately what it sounds like: it has highly-distorted guitars, shrieking vocals, etc" - but what defines black metal apart from other forms of music that ALSO use distortion and screaming? punk rock and indie may well have ideologies, but black metals different values are easily identifiable and unique. you all seem intent on giving black metal a disservice by simply labelling it as angry music. if you cared about the genre, you wouldnt. and LOL at thinking burzum has no ideology, if you are the kind of person that thinks that then you don't know enough to edit this article (the problem with 80% of wikipedia)

"To someone who is a non-listener, the fact that black metal has an uncompromising ideology is rather useless as a description" - why? wouldn't they want to know?

also nice to see the page locked. go listen to cradle of filth you complete tits, you're all untermensch 86.154.174.199

I know what your problem is...you can't read. I never said Burzum had no ideology, ever, anywhere. I said it is difficult to recognize Burzum's ideology simply by listening to one of his albums. That's not even close.

And you want to know why the fact that black metal's ideology is useless for a description? It's because it doesn't describe how the music sounds. Ideology is not music. I didn't say they didn't want to know. It's in the article already.

Try reading what people write; maybe you'll be able to write better.

Scskowron 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(*) First of all, to the anonymous IP: it was totally unnecessary to copy/paste our conversation from my talk page to this discussion page. You could have raised the issues in another manner. Granted you did this out of bitterness to smear me, however, the result disfavored you, as the conversation shows that I tried to inform and reason with you; someone who instead replied with antagonizing statements and invalid points with no other intention but to argue. Please find an external forum on another site where such behavior is commonly regarded. (the archive of this conversation is in available this page's history)

That aside, to everyone else: The edit history speaks for itself; the record shows this anonymous user demonstrates ignorance beyond negotiation. Unable to read and comprehend the responses users have given him (explaining why his silliness merits reversion), he jumps ahead without thinking, responding sporadically, causing an edit war while continuing to ask the same questions that were already answered; not to learn, but to antagonize. Despite being warned not to personally offend (after calling me a “pedophile” in one edit summary), he goes on to call Scskowron and others “tits” and “untermensch” above. Finally, completely aware of his wrongfulness (but still unaware of Wikipedia policies, proper grammar, anti-defamation, or simply how to write an informative article clearly and concisely), he admits in one edit summary to changing his IP consistently in order to return for no other purpose but to raise conflict with users and impose illogical bias, which recently forced an admin lock on the article. ‘’IPs used so far: 86.154.174.199, 86.149.59.252, and 86.145.249.81).’’

Without drawing theories about why he behaves like this, I will simply conclude he is beyond reasoning with at this point. Therefore, all users should avoid giving him the confrontation he enjoys and simply report to an administrator upon further disruption. Logical Defense 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Pendulum strumming?

What the hell is pendulum strumming? No other article mentions it. And the part about characteristics is in more than one way hard to digest for people without Ph.d.'s in music science..! Please! TheEsb 03:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

the brutality

Is black metal brutal at all? Since many death metal fans disses black metal and thinking ball pinced bitches screaming, can i have an explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsteam (talk • contribs) 17:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you need an explanation of? Whether or not it's "brutal" is not something an encyclopedia needs to discuss, and maybe you should actually listen to the music to find out for yourself. Scskowron 18:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamat/Treblinka

I wonder why in hell Tiamat and their precedessor Treblinka is not a mentioned? Because Sumerian Cry is certainly not death! And their scene mates Grotesque??? Altought they are best known as a leaders of the Sweden's black metal scene along with godfathers Bathory in the end of 1980.

Black ambient

I have put a paragraph concerning "black ambient" in the "modern black metal" section. If I have not put it in the right place, feel free to move it. ^^ Zouavman Le Zouave 15:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good Zouavman. Do you have the initial article by any chance? I wanted to see if you left anything out when you merged it. I also miss the band listing :....( Would have been cool to have as a link to another page.User5802 18:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a great addition to the page and I think it's at the best place possible, without adding another boldface segment. A few of the other bm veterans here and I have been trying to keep things compact without disregarding informative details; I think you wrote that perfectly and it's probably at the best location. Logical Defense 22:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Black metal or Death metal first?

Which one came first? There seems to be a debate about this. Any facts to support either???User5802 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What debate? Death metal didn't become a formidable genre until - at the very earliest - 1984/1985. The first band you could consider actual true death metal was Death, and they didn't form until 1983, and even then, that was one recognized band that had no influence on black metal as a single entity. The first wave of black metal already had its start building of thrash in the late 70s/early 80s, with Venom, Bathory, and so forth. If you would like facts, feel free to explore this very website... Thanks. Logical Defense 17:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Venom... Thrash Metal????

Sorry, but that's a glaring error. Venom are part of the NWOBHM, which happened before Thrash. Also: I hate citing a Wikipedia article as reference, but Thrash is largely an American phenomena: Anthrax, Metallica, Testament, Megadeth... They are the product of NWOBHM meets Hardcore punk; so, how can Venom be a part of something that came after them?

Anyone of you ever heard Venom's Skeletons in the Closet (1994) compilation? Listen to the last track, "Radio Venom": they're dissing Thrash! I mean, these guys had HUGE egos... they would never diss themselves. (Just for the record: back in the day they did tours with Metallica, Slayer and Exodus).

And for those of you who still aren't convinced, I'd say you're probably infected by Norwegian fanboyism. Venom invented Extreme Metal. So, be it Doom, Thrash, Death - or even newer stuff like "Metalcore" or Post-metal - they all have something of Venom. By calling the band "Thrash", that someone is actually limiting the extent of their influence.

Venom is Black Metal - and rightly so. And denying that by judging a style not by it's creators, but by it's followers? Not smart. Musicaindustrial 14:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of your sentiments except for the fact that you limit the thrash metal scene to "largely" America. I think that is an insult to great bands like Sodom and Kreator. True most of the attention is focused on the American scene, but European thrash (and also South American if I may say so myself) has contributed a great deal, often which is underrepresented. Scskowron 15:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "Teutonic Thrash" trio are truly important: Sodom, Kreator and Destruction. I fully agree on that. But weren't they influenced by American Thrash from the start? (Except for Sodom's first EP, of course). These three were putting out their first records in 1984-1985; that's 1-2 years later than the debuts of Slayer and Metallica (and I'm not counting on Metallica's demos).

But... that's that. And what about Venom? Does anybody else agree that they're not Thrash metal? Musicaindustrial 18:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I can agree with you on that. Venom is pretty hard to classify, in my opinion. They exhibit characteristics of thrash, NWOBHM/heavy metal and black metal. However I think their greatest contribution was their use of fairly unconventional song structures, which is one of the defining features of black metal. I mean, thrash metal and NWOBHM bands mostly have that intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus formula in almost every song, whereas that was not so much evident in Venom's songs. (Admittedly some songs followed that formula, but not many). How many truly black metal bands can you think of that employ that standard (and boring) formula? Practically none. Combine that revolutionary method with some dark lyrics, and yes, you have the first black metal band. Scskowron 20:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Venom are part of the NWOBHM, which happened before Thrash." Later, you say "Venom is Black Metal - and rightly so." Wait... Venom isnt black metal, either. Because Venom came around before thrash, and black metal came from thrash metal. So how can Venom be part of a genre that didnt exist at that time? Prepare to be Mezmerized! 22:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because a band came out before its genre doesn't mean it still can't be classified as its genre. Case in point - Black Sabbath. They are doom metal, but doom metal didn't really emerge as a viable genre until 1986, 16 years after Sabbath's first album. Scskowron 03:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhat ridiculous to try and draw up some kind of organized chronological history of metal sub-genres, as there wasn't a straight line of evolution across the board, and in the early '80s everything was a giant melting pot of bands in embryonic stages anyway.

In any case, the problem with this faulty blanket statement ("black metal came from thrash metal") is that it totally negates several bands, most notably Hellhammer and Bathory. What "thrash" was Tom Warrior listening to in 1982? How about Quorthon? Depending on whether to choose to believe him or not, he was either inspired by punk and hard rock or the biggest Venom plagiarist ever. Thrash was never in the early equation. I think some bands just took some of the occult topics present in the NWOBHM to the extreme, and subsequent bands expanded on that. Were many later black metal bands inspired by thrash or coming out of thrash backgrounds? You bet. But saying black metal was born of thrash is iffy.

Bands part of a genre in its infancy are often labeled differently in retrospect. Metallica where regarded as power metal in the beginning. Nowadays a lot of bands are seen as deathcore bands; a few years ago they were simply called metalcore. Metalcore was referred to as post-hardcore by many in the late 90ies. Venom is black metal (amongst other genres like NWOBHM) in retrospect (they even coined the term). Kameejl ^(Talk) 10:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Logical Defense, your reversions

You reverted basically everything I did so I'll just try to go through things one at at a time. First of all, why did you re-add this sentence: "Bård was interviewed for a black metal mini-documentary that accompanied the DVD release of Metal: A Headbanger's Journey."? I'm sure he's been interviewed many times over the years so why is this worth noting? How does it enhance the reader's understanding understanding of black metal at all, let alone enough to justify writing it in this article rather than in Bård Faust?P4k 01:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

After looking at this closer, I think you really just need to go through this more carefully and decide which of my edits you actually have a problem with. You're reverting like 10 things here but only complaining about one of them; some of those edits you've restored and some you haven't. Maybe you're still in the process of fixing things, I don't know.P4k 01:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The mention of speculation regarding whether or not Varg took the picture alludes to the conspiracy that surrounded that very question at the time of release of Aske, via the Norwegian press. Your citation tag, however, was accidentally reverted in the group of things and I hadn't noticed until now; I'll fix that, along with the Headbanger's Journey cite tag, which at first appeared absent because it only appeared at the end of the paragraph (when fixing, I'll post twice to avoid potential third-party speculation; and trust me, it's happened). So first off, sorry about that, it wasn't intentional.

Additionally, under the NSBM section, it was important to keep a universal perspective regarding some of the generalization that befalls all black metal acts, besides just Burzum. The wording regarding Aarseth and Dead's brain was phrased the way it was because it wasn't Aarseth himself necessarily who raised such claims first. The removal of the addition of the comic book edit (which I explored after you post) seemed like much of a stretch and didn't hold strong ties to actual black metal music. Your header adjustment to "Dead's suicide" was fine; I merely took it a little more literal by referencing Ohlin by his birthname. Also, you make a good point about the sentence at the end of the section regarding Bard, and quite frankly, I don't know how that one got reverted in the midst of things. If it seemed like a personal smearing against your edits, I apologize, I just didn't want any details to get lost. As mentioned eariler, I'll restore your efforts put forth with the cite tags. Thanks. Logical Defense 05:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

South America

In the genrebox it states that the mainstream popularity "varies in Scandanavia," which is correct but I have also added South America to that statement as Black Metal is actually extremely popular on the underground in countries like Brazil. Hope everyone agrees. Navnløs 18:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If you agree a source listing OTEP as black metal is a bad source...

Please speak out here [5]. Lots of people are listing this site as a source for various articles, but time and time again it gives invalid information. Please weigh in to make sure wikipedia does not get filled with false information.Hoponpop69 (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Need opinions

Will someone please tell FromByond to stop editing the black metal article and adding "combat metal" and American black metal as subgenres. Combat metal doesn't exist as far as I know and American black metal is not an actual subgenre. There are tons of countries with black metal and they all have their own style, should we add every single country's style as a subgenre? I mean war metal doesn't even have a section on this article (war metal actually redirects to black metal) and it is arguably a real subgenre...more so than the two FromByond wants to add. Navnløs (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he understands now from our discussions on his page (I know you wrote this before then anyway), so it shouldn't be an issue anymore. I explained in depth what was wrong with those additions on his page already. Logical Defense (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that last comment of mine was old. I already talked to him about it a while ago and he seems to be on the right path. Good luck with proving "combat metal" is a subgenre of black metal, though. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

growling vocals

article says high shreiky vocals, im gonna add growling and Italicoccasionally text shreiked, i mean we dont want people thinking dream theater is black metal