Jump to content

Talk:List of heavy metal bands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Curb Chain (talk | contribs) at 00:29, 11 May 2012 (→Indefinite Semiprotection?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMetal List‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Danzig and Pantera

  • Danzig = Thrash Metal ??? I think this is Doom or something. Pantera = Power Metal ??? Thrash, Neo-Thrash or Nu Metal. Only the first output(=shit) was Power Metal. Is the band named Cemetary or Cemetery? -- Zoe
    • Pantera is most probably Thrash Metal for most of their releases. Maybe it would be better if album's are also identified. Some bands evolve throughout their careers. Like : Genre - Album - Band But since this is a list of band and not of genres. I would suggest removing the classifications and make another list. --sisidapa
      • Pantera was considered Power metal and never was considered thrash. Cradle of Filth is not even considered black metal and how can they classify D.R.I. into death metal? I guess you are right sisidapa, it is better to remove the classifications.

Pantera are thrash metal or groove metal. No power metal. No nu metal. Seriously, WTF is nu metal about Pantera? As for Cradle of Filth, well... fuck knows. Haven't heard of Danzig. I'll look 'em up. --86.0.183.95 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New layout

This list should be alphabetized. Reasons:

  1. Metal styles overlap a lot, and many bands seem to fit in more than one style.
  2. Each genre has its own page; we could move the genre-specific lists to each genre page.
  3. People -- both fans and musicians -- disagree as to which style any group belongs.
  4. This is supposed to be a list of artists, genre subdivisions belong somewhere else.

Anybody who opposes?

I copied the list from the NL site - many more bands and alphabetical Spearhead 22:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Going to go through it now and wikify (I'm sure that Aurora Borealis thing doesn't actually like to the band but the phenomenon for example, also, 3IoB should be blue, as they have an article on here (I should know, I wrote it myself).--KharBevNor 00:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The List works out better the way it is. True, metal styles often overlap, but who cares? Why don't we make the punk and alt-rock lists the same way? Plus, the list would be so freaking long if every single metal band was put on one page.

"Dark ambiental"?

  • One band is listed under the heading of "Dark ambiental metal". Is "ambiental" a word? The article for In the woods... says that they are "dark ambiental metal", but Google only gives 2 results for that phrase as opposed to 181 for "dark ambient metal" and 2740 for "darkwave metal". I think I'll change the listing to "Darkwave metal". Change it back if it isn't accurate... I think that's what the lister meant. --Idont Havaname 21:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Redundant

This list seems to have become rather redundant aside from its dubious name and debatable style determination. Most pages describing a particular style also have lists of their own (not even the same at all often) and some styles have lists of their own List of Death Metal bands. Hence I propose to either remove this page all together, make it a alphabetised list as proposed above or turn it list of styles or something like that. I'm in favour of removal. If this lists would persist of a list of band lists it should be renamed to list of heavy metal bands, as with musicians I exepct to find individual guitarists, drummers, singers etc here. Spearhead 21:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer a list of lists, but I agree this one is poorly named. Sam Spade 00:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This should be moved to lists of heavy metal musicians, and made an index page for the various lists for subgenres and other potential lists (e.g. by decade, by country). Tuf-Kat 01:12, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

List of heavy metal genres should also be considered as a place for some of this. IMO there should be a page listing lists of heavy metal bands (according to genre), and a page listing heavy metal musicians, according to instrument played, or genre, or whatever. One way or another, we need to decide what were doing and network it all together, because otherwise its a mess. Is there a heavy metal wikiproject? I'm sure theres a music wiki project somewhere... Sam Spade 14:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres might be a place to coordinate some of this... altho currently it seems dominated by hiphop ;) I left a note @ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music_genres#lists_of_metal_bands. Sam Spade 15:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If someone's feeling plucky enough to implement it, I tend to think we should have a rational, standardized structure for musician lists (i.e. list of heavy metal musicians should be the same set-up (more or less) as list of reggae musicians and list of soul musicians). I think, to avoid duplicating categories, we ought to really push for captions on all entries -- just a sentence or two to give some context for each entry. Tuf-Kat 21:13, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Check out the new template I put together

  • Two comments - one, the black/red color scheme is a little hard to read. Second, the mainstream popularity is somewhat accurate, but metal has never really become that "play constantly on every radio station" genre. At least this is not the case in the US. I like the rest of the template, though. --Idont Havaname 21:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This list needs major clean-up or deletion

Currently many of these band names are wikified, but the wikilinks take you to the wrong place. Going to Quicksand, for example, you might experience a sinking feeling. Correct these links. I suggest against filling up with external links where Wikipedia articles are unavailable, since Wikipedia policy advises against large lists of external links (WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files). And if you haven't got articles for all these bands, unwikify them. Fuzzypeg 13:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the problem with Satan and Goatlord too. Basically, someone needs to go through the entire list for dab problems. I agree that we should un-wikify the redlinks, but anyone who creates a band article needs to remember to update the list. Maestlin 19:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that The 3rd And The Mortal and The Sins of Thy Beloved are under T. Shouldn't they be under # and S respectively? --IronChris 22:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Romarin 17:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bands that should be removed

Several bands in the list should be removed. In my opinion, those that don't have at least one full-length album shouldn't figure in the list ("The 11th Room", "Faith in Hate", etc.). Also, some bands are not metal. Porcupine Tree, for example, is a progressive rock band, though they used metal elements on 2 albums, that doesn't mean they should be listed here (even though I like their music very much!). Primal Scream is also a rock band, and should be removed. I'm sure there are plenty of others, so there's lots of work to do on this page. --IronChris 05:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say we only list notable bands that have metal or one of its subgenres listed (not bands that were influenced). +Johnson 22:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, this is a task. Its gonna take more than two or three guys to get this right. About half the P section turned out to be non-existent articles! I suggest we keep the non-existent notable articles wikified just so that when they are created they are already wikified. +Johnson 00:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I don't think it's a big deal for them to be wikified or not, so let's keep them like that, it'll be easier. Once we've finished correcting the links we'll also have to decide which bands to keep and which to delete... that's going to take a while too. But until all the links are rectified we shouldn't get into that, let's deal with one problem at a time. --IronChris 03:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have corrected all links in A, B, C, E, F, G, and R. I know also that User:Romarin has corrected those in D, X, Y and Z. Still some work to be done here, but we're getting there! --IronChris 05:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I knocked out P and S, as well as some random ones here and there. One thing I noticed is that a lot of the links go to albums. This is another thing that is going to have to be fixed when we are done the links. +Johnson 16:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that queen should be removed (Bloodredchaos 16:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC))
I noticed that about the albums too, but I think they concern different bands. For example, Damaged is a band, but it is also an album by the band Black Flag. And of course the link sent you to the album (the band Damaged doesn't have an article). So I think that when a link goes to an album, it is also nevertheless the name of a (different) band. In any case, let's wait until all the links are cleaned up before we worry about that. --IronChris 17:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Rudi Pell is twice in the list : once under A and once under P. I'm not sure which one should be kept (though under A seems more logical, I wouldn't think of looking for Axel Rudi Pell under P...), could someone sort it out? --IronChris 00:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every band that does not have an article (ie, a redlink) has been removed from the list. This is the best way to ensure that there's no links to people's own un-notable bands. I also removed any links that were obviously just words, and not a band. If I have removed any that should be there, then ensure there's an article on the BAND (not on the word) that exists, before putting them back in. Proto||type 12:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that we discussed doing before we started was leaving notable bands without articles on the list. Not every band that deserves an article has one. However, it isn't a big deal because we can refer back to the old revisions of this article for a copy of bands that are in need of articles. +Johnson 15:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good plan. Question, though. Would it not make more sense to make the articles, then add them to the list? Or am I being dumb? Proto||type 17:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with what you did, Proto. For a start, as Johnson says, some notable bands didn't have an article. So why not "write the article first and then add it"? I guess that makes sense, but then there are quite a few articles that would have to be written to get just the notable bands in the list. And this was a good way to check which articles needed to be done : just look what links are red and write an article.
Second, I was going through the list of bands (nearly finished actually) to check that each link referred to a band and not to a word. Removing them doesn't solve the problem, as the article may exist and the link was just wrong.
So, removing the red links, alright, that's not what we agreed on, but it makes sense in a way (though I don't think it was the best way to deal with it, it certainly is the quickest). But removing links that were incorrect definitely seems to me to be a bad idea, correcting them would have been much better. Because now looking through the whole list to find them again is going to be even longer. --IronChris 18:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
put bands that need articles on the project page, under the header creation. I already put some there, but there's probably a dozen others that need to be created as well Spearhead 19:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if what I did held you up at all dude. All those redlinks and links to words are still visible on the history of the article. As spearhead says, the project page is a way better place to list articles that need to be written. And doesn't the list look nicer now, all lovely and blue :) Proto||type 23:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy and rock are not the same, so...

I have removed some bands like POD, Staind, Blue Oyster Cult and more, they are rock bands and cant be considered as heavy metal bands cause they have nothing in common with this style. I have removed Alice in Chains and Soundgarden from the list because they are classified as grunge bands (although I dont know why).

I think some bands of nu metal cant be here, as they sound more like rock than heavy. Only bands like Slipknot, which are heavier than POD or Linkin Park should be here

If you desagree with me, revert my changes (except for Staind and Blue Oyster Cult, which are rock bands for everyone who has listened them!!!!)

BTW, since when is Europe metal? Zaebangad 18:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Europe is considered Glam Metal. Cdscottie


I removed Firebird since they're a Blues Rock band.--Inhumer 19:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy/Tradtional Metal

Should't the list contain Heavy/Tradtional Metal bands only?--Inhumer 03:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal is a broad term that comprises all of the genres listed in the list of heavy metal genres. All "metal" bands with an article should be listed here. IronChris | (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean Heavy/Tradtional Metal in the sense of Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Saxon, etc.. --Inhumer 16:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be classic metal. You can find a list of classic metal bands (including all the examples you gave) here: classic metal#Important artists. If you feel like it, I guess you can create a separate list for these bands. IronChris | (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should only contain genuine heavy metal bands; and have links to other subgenres lists... such as a list of thrash metal, glam metal, black metal, NWOBHM, metalcore, etc bands. - Deathrocker 02:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK.. I've started to do what was suggested, but I have also created a section for the many subgenre lists.. and put three notable examples from each subgenre, hopefully this will help direct people adding bands to the correct, respective list. - Deathrocker 03:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When doing examples, its a good idea to make sure the bands are notable and of the genre, rather than being on your favourite bands list.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually agree with Deathrocker about the changing of the list--Inhumer 21:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree he has done a good job. An oddity for his usual edits. Perhaps though, the bands listed as examples should be bands from the lists themselfs.
Grunge is a sub genre of Heavy Metal! This should not even be in question. Although there are Grunge bands (Pearl Jam, Green River, Mudhoney) that should be considered hard rock bands, Nirvana, Alice In Chains, Soundgarden and Tad amongst many others cut their teeth on the Heavy Metal template and would not exist if it were not for their love of all things Metal. Cobain himself expressed his love of Zeppelin, paying homage with the song AeroZeppelin on the Incesticide album. Cobain put Punk, Metal and Classic Rock, with a dash of Pop/New Wave in a blender,called it Nirvana, and poured it into your mug. He described Nirvana as sounding like the Bay City Rollers being molested by Black Flag and Black Sabbath. Nuff said. Nirvana is just as much Metal as anything else. Just listen. Heyvee May TallHeyvee May Tall 19:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen?

Can Queen really be considered part of heavy metal? They were far more linked to the glam rock movement at the time. Rather than the likes of Sabbath, Zeppelin, Deep Purple, etc. - Deathrocker 08:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said about Led Zeppelin or Steppenwolf. --Inhumer 20:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean being considered part of Heavy Metal, not them being Glam Rock.--Inhumer 20:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Queen were more linked to heavy metal in there early years. At the time music critics where saying they were going to knock Zep of there metal thrown.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 02:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rumor has it that Queen shall soon be crowned "the new Led Zeppelin," which is an event that would certainly suit this observer just fine. There's no doubt that this funky, energetic English quartet has all the tools they'll need to lay claim to the Zep's abdicated heavy-metal throne, and beyond that to become a truly influential force in the rock world. — Rolling Stone - 149

Ignoring Inhumar's nonsensical comment. The Queen association with Heavy Metal is very tedious to say the least... Queen fans like to make out that the band were somehow connected to an endless list of music forms when it isn't really true; they don't have the same characteristics as any of the other bands from this period which were viewed as heavy metal.

And when this movement was around, everything from their image to their music was associated with glam rock... especially due to Mercury's image, the band's themes, music, name, etc, etc. What in their musical characteristics do they share with Sabbath, Blue Cheer, Deep Purple, etc? - Deathrocker 14:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's music is not glam, it is much more complex and heavier then glam, the glam ended with the look!— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 14:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is my comment nonsensical?--Inhumer 06:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really are a fool, Deathrocker. Queen WAS Heavy Metal, a good example is "Stone Cold Crazy". "Bohemian Rhapsody" is more accurately a faux opera with metal segments rather than rock-opera. XXSaifXx 06:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of Queen's earlier music was very accossiated with heavy metal, mainly on the Sheer Heart Attack album. Check out tracks like Stone Cold Crazy (later Covered by METALLICA) and Brighton Rock. Then you'll see that Queen were originally a metal band. DooDahDave (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Metal Bands Post 1974

I think there needs to be a list of bands the formed after the Original movement. --Inhumer 19:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Original movement: 1967-1974"

Is this section really necessary on this page? It keeps getting modified, bands are added, removed, and all that without any kind of verification; there is one general source that is provided for the whole list, but the list has changed since that source was provided, and it therefore the source no longer applies to all the bands in the present list. Also, the source being a book, it is impossible for most of us editors to refer to it to retrieve the original list. Really what is needed is a source for each band, otherwise the list just isn't reliable.

Also, maybe moving it to its own page would be a good idea. I mean, why do all the other bands have their own article, but this movement is featured on this general list about all of heavy metal music? That seems like a lack of consistency to me. IronChris | (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't call Motorhead a heavy metal band.

Motorhead should not be labeled as heavy metal because "heavy metal" is a term they always said "fuck you" to, like Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and other heavy metal bands more commonly seen as hard rock nowadays. They're also a little bit like AC/DC in terms of attitude, except their music was faster than AC/DC's music. Like AC/DC, they think of their music as nothing but one thing and one thing only: "rock n' roll". If you were near Lemmy (Motorhead's leader) and you used the "heavy metal" term when you are talking, he will be insulted by it. They can't be labeled as punk rock because they had long hair and wore leather jackets. I think it's better if we label them as "heavy rock" than "metal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Whitton (talk • contribs) 11:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are well referenced as a heavy metal band. Their own article explains how they feel about the term, as does AC/DC. But in the end Wikipedia is built on referenced content from reliable sources and not on editor's personal opinions. And those bands, and their connection to the genre, are extremely well referenced. 156.34.215.188 (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dust

Yes it does. 156.34.217.92 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was once an article about them, but apparently the material was plagarized from AMG. Dust also seems to meet the criteria for notability under wikipedia's guidelines. Not only was Marky Ramone in the band, but MArky Ramone also went on to join Richard Hell & the Voidoids. Other band members went on to join Stories In other words, they qualify under multiple sections of wikipedia's own policy. The criteria for speedy deletion can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7

This obviously does not apply to Dust as they were pioneers and are verifiable from a reliable source (AMG). Im going to include them on the original movement section.--Krautukie (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make an article for them first. No red nn links allowed. 156.34.217.92 (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? Whose rules are these? They obviously arent wikipedia's, so to me it seems as if you just made that up. Furthermore, until you can come up with something that shows that the band should not be on the list, they will remain.--Krautukie (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are Wikipedia's rules as this is the consensus format for this list. If Dust are notable then an article that passes WP:MUSIC can be created for them. If it passes notability requirements to remain as an article... then it passes the criteria for inclusion on this list. It's just that simple. 156.34.217.92 (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus from who? A select few who choose to delete it? I know for a fact that the band has been included in the past on the list, and was probably deleted by the same marauders who are engineering this scrofula. It's also obvious that they are notable enough for an article to be written about them, as there was one written in the past. However, it was deleted as I previously mentioned, due to the fact that it was plagarized. Also, the rules given could apply to a band being included in a list, as there is no article but irrefutable proof that they are notable. Because of this it is not a candidate for speedy deletion under the aforementioned section A7 and should remain on the list, despite the fact there is no formal article about them.--Krautukie (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was deleted over copyvio and not over notability then there is no reason you can't try and re-create your article again. This time just don't plagiarise any content from external sources. That's a quick way to get blocked. 156.34.217.92 (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasnt my article, first of all (dont know where you got that idea from), and secondly and most importantly there doesnt have to be an article about them for them to be included in the list.--Krautukie (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For this article, like most others, no nn entries. An article must exist. Make one. And come back here after and re-add them. 156.34.230.187 (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 156.34.230.187, why don't get an account at Wikipedia first before you start bitching around here. People like you really get on my nerves. Why don't you write the article yourself, as per be bold. 85.3.9.154 (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the sources

hi. the sources dont work.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuxdecimaltriangle (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

problems with the original movement section

why isnt motorhead included in the original movement??? their first album, which is accepted as a heavy metal album, was released in '77. that falls under the time period of '67-'79. ill wait until somebody gives an explanation before making changes, but it needs to be changed. perhaps they should be included in both the original movement and NWOBHM, on a side note accept and saxon (the latter falling under the category of NWOBHM as well) should be included in the original movement section as well. i dont see this as being up for debate, as all three of these bands fall well within the article's guidelines, and (as some have pointed out) this is not an opportunity for some to pick and choose bands to be included on the list(s). --Krautukie (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are already included in the page... more appropriately in the NWOBHM section... and do not need to be duplicated. They are the NWOBHM band whose coattails were rode upon by all the other NWOBHM bands so it is the best placement for them. 156.34.217.80 (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that still doesnt change the fact that theese bands fall under the criteria of the original movement, and should be included as such. according to that logic black sabbath would be included under the doom metal artists sub section (and not under the original movement). this is obviously flawed, as i already pointed out. if the criteria for inclusion is a problem (as these bands obviously fit the current criteria), then the dates need to be changed (and the various, cherry picked subgenres that fell under those dates would have to be changed as well). otherwise, these bands should still be included in the original movement section.--Krautukie (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be flawed since Black Sabbath are not a doom mtal band. Playing 'doom metal' and playing 'heavy metal' vvveeerrryyy slowly are 2 completely different things. Black Sabbath are an influence on doom metal. But they are never thought of as a doom metal band unless it's on some amateur online fansite/fanzine that caters to retards (see metal-archives.com for a good example of a website that caters to the lowest common denomintor of heavy metal fan... only level 4 basket weavers read that website) Most of the NWOBHM bands started long before 1979 (Iron Maiden-1975, Saxon 1977, Def Leppard-1977) And even though Motorhead had a release in 1977... it barely charted and the band was, essentially not much more than a bar band... until 1979. It's hard to be a part of a movement when you're an unknown. Dates don't mean much... it's significance. And Motorhead are the locomotive at the head of the NWOBHM train. So that is where their inclusion has the most impact. There wouldn't be a NWOBHM without them. WHereas from 1976 tot 1979... their contributions to the global heavy metal scene are insignificant to nil. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ohhh, so its all about how significant they were at the time? i was under the impression that as long as there was an article about the band that was grounds for inclusion (among other things). or maybe you seem to be making up your own rules as you go along (along with injecting your own bias into the matter as well). black sabbath exemplifying doom metal was an example, much like motorhead could be considered an archetypal speed metal band. this, again, is not about opinion. this is about fact. if certain bands happen to fall under various sub genres/timeframes, then that should be incorporated into the article.--Krautukie (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is not a link to the List of speed metal bands on the page. And it should be. And as per your suggestion Motorhead certainly are speed metal. For each list link there are 3 examples. If the speed metal link is added it only makes sense to move Motorhead there as one example since that is their next/other "best fit". (Def Lappard or Diamond Head can be sub'd in for them under NWOBHM) Finding 3 'pure' examples of Speed metal is tricky. Motorhead is obviously one. But if you actually look at the speed metal list it is made up of bands who are either heavy metal or power metal. Judas priest and Accept are just heavy metal bands who have a half dozen "fast" heavy metal songs and so they get mistakingly lumped as speed metal bands... common mistake. And most of the European power metal bands like Helloween and Running Wild are, again... just heavy metal bands who have some fast songs. For the 2 other examples of speed metal all I can think is that Venom, although looked at as a foundation stone of Black metal, can easily fit under speed metal as an example since that is primarily what they were and still are. I will add the link and move 2 examples under it. And I will prompt some of the other regular editors of this article, like Funeral, to try and think of a good "third" to suggest here. Different subject but I might also suggest that Tool is a better alt_metal example over SOAD. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nu metal

Since when are Deftones nu metal?

On their article they are alternative metal/experimental rock.

61x62x61 (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are most commonly referenced with the origins of the genre. As most pro publications support and not just personal pov that they aren't personally I think they sound link an alternative rock band, But thats just opinion and Wikipedia isn't built on opinion it's built on verifiable refs. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 17:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just have to say that Viking metal is not a sub-genre. It is an extension of various other sub-genres focusing on the topic of vikings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.179.191 (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding both topics (Deftones and Viking Metal). Deftones: I feel the same. I don't actually agree that Deftones are nu metal, I've listened to a load of their songs and they don't have the same traits. But I think they should be left as nu metal. Just to... avoid all those... arguments... Viking metal: I agree that it's not a sub-genre. Then again, the same is true of Christian metal, and that gets its own sub-genre. --86.0.183.95 (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing/Incomplete Sub-genre List

Shouldn't Glam Metal be included in the list of sub-genres along with examples? There is a wiki page for this List of glam metal bands. As the wiki page Heavy metal music cites "Heavy Metal" as "often referred to as Metal" and Glam Metal is a sub-genre of Metal, wouldn't this mean that Glam Metal belongs on this list? Mseanbrown (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of glam metal bands was voted on in an AfD and the consensus was to delete it. Libs (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No lead

Previous discussion on this topic was pretty clear. The list is replaceable by the category without a clear lead-in to detail what it is about. See the List of thrash metal bands to see what a good list should look like. Anything straying from that style and is up for AfD. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iron maiden

y isnt iron maiden listed under heavy metal (Seth4000 (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)) Seth4000[reply]

They are listed under their appropriate NWOBHM section The Real Libs-speak politely 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

still thats a sub genera. they should be put under this heading as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.175.161 (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Jimi Hendrix (The Guitar God) on the list of heavy metal bands?!

I saw that Jimi Hendrix was omitted from the list of heavy metal bands, yet bands like Cream, Blue Cheer and Mountain are still kept on the list. The Hendrix article tells you that he "established a sonically heavy yet technically proficient bent to rock music as a whole, significantly furthering the development of hard rock and paving the way for heavy metal". Let's not also forget his exstensive use of guitar feedback, overdriven ampliers and effect pedals. Therefore, HENDRIX SHOULD BE ON THE LIST OF HEAVY METAL BANDS!!! Race should not matter, need I remind you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.119.254 (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrix wasn't Metal. He influenced it a lot, but Blue Cheer, Cream and (as far as I know) Mountain actually "played" it. Also, the article you cited very explicitly states that he paved the way for Heavy Metal. (Albert Mond (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Read the "Definitive Metal Family Tree" in the article Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, and you'll understand what I'm talking about. Better yet, buy the DVD if you're still skeptical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.119.2 (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I not only read it earlier today, but I commented in the Discussion section. The thing's terribly inaccurate. (Albert Mond (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, "terribly inaccurate", eh? Tell that to Sam Dunn, the dude who made the documentary!

If I ever see him, I'll be glad to. (Albert Mond (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Regarding topics. The 'Definitive Metal Family Tree' is pretty inaccurate. I mean, Judas Priest as power metal? Fuck that. It's not exactly the greatest guide you can follow. As for Jimi Hendrix, well... I personally think he should be included there. Sure, at the time his stuff was considered 'acid rock', but if it was released a few years later it would have been metal. Consider this, also: if Iron Maiden came out today, they'd be considered hard rock. I got that off some other guy on the internet, but I can't remember the site or the guy. Or even the discussion. --86.0.183.95 (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica

Surely they should be in this list? After all they are listed on the wiki page as heavy metal (along with a few other genres). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.221.191 (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the greatest thing you have forgotten is they are not part of the original heavy metal movement which the section is a list of and nothing more. This article is merely not a list of heavy metal bands but of bands that were merely heavy metal before the genre branched off into many others like thrash (and no this does not include NWOBHM as they have a section below this). FireCrystal (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
??? This list is called "Heavy Metal Bands", not "Heavy Metal Bands from the original heavy metal movement before 1979". That would be stupid. If you only want to include those type of bands then the title needs to be changed, otherwise all heavy metal bands will be included.


Although under the Heavy Metal banner. Metallica was one of the progenitors of Thrash/Speed metal along with Anthrax and Slayer. Andy_Howard (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the "just Heavy Metal" bands.

Let's say there is a notable band playing exactly the same style as the ones on this list, where do I put it? I mean not every band plays in a subgenre? Maybe the title should be changed to "List of original heavy metal bands"? 85.3.9.154 (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because he isn't a band he is a single person. The title of the article says "bands" And it has section for original bands and for easy links to other sub-genre band lists. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you type in the wrong part? I presume you're referring to Jimi Hendrix. In which case, I'll enlighten you. Ever heard of the Jimi Hendrix Experience? That was Hendrix with a band. --86.0.183.95 (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are more bands that need adding

a couple of bands need adding... the list definatley needs Ted Nugent, and Jimi Hendrix. And what are Raven doing on the list? They are NWOBHM, not original metal movement. Oh and should Slade, Sweet and Smile be added to the list? I know they were more linked to glam rock at the time but... Smile's page say they are metal, Slade's music is very heavy and was described by Nikki Sixx as "The only thing metal about glam in the 70s", and Sweet are often credited as a metal band with their heavy songs like action (which was later covered by Def Leppard). So we need to add/discuss these bands:

DooDahDave (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick clarify to help out... Ted Nugent and Jimi Hendrix aren't bands and Slade, Sweet and Smile aren't heavy metal. Hope that helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I'm still not sure about Slade... we'll have to discuss that more. I see what you mean with Sweet and Smile, but Slade are still sorta a metal band. Listen to the albums We'll Bring the House Down and Till Deaf Do Us Part, both of which are heavy metal albums. Mama Weer All Crazee Now is also a metal song. You could consider adding them... oh yeah and you still need to get rid of Raven. How can you have Raven but not be allowed to put in Iron Maiden? DooDahDave (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jimi Hendrix wasn't a band... but the Jimi Hendrix Experience was. Put them on the list.--Lordnecronus (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I don't consider Slade and Sweet metal (yes, Slade experimented with metal, and Sweet were on the harder side of Glam). If Wiki lists Smile as metal, I see no reason why we can't add them, unless we have some objection to their being considered metal. (Albert Mond (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I still don't consider Hendrix metal, personally (why not include Blues Creation?).(Albert Mond (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Finally, I see no reason why Nugent shouldn't be added, even if he isn't a "band." I think that "band" is probably just a term that the article's creator didn't completely think over, and I doubt it's meant to be taken so literally. (Albert Mond (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Also, it seems Raven was formed in 1975. I was under the impression the the NWOBHM didn't start until around 1978, although the Wiki article on Raven implies they were part of it. (Albert Mond (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Considering adding Grand Funk Railroad

I have several sources (two 100% reliable by Wiki standards) which refer to Grand Funk Railroad as 'heavy metal.' I also tend to agree with this term, at least in the late '60s/early '70s context, as it was used. One of the two reliable sources is a 1980s (yes, I know I said late '60s/early '70s) review by Rolling Stone of "Grand Funk Lives." In the last sentence, the reviewer refers to it as "...boorish heavy-metal bluster". The second 'reliable' source is the book "Rock Eras" by James M. Curtis. Besides those two, I've found a recorded interview with Don Brewer in which he says "We were a three-piece heavy metal kind of a band in the late '60s, early '70s," and there's a copy/paste of a Kerrang! article which frequently refers to them as heavy metal. Keep in mind, that Vanilla Fudge and Steppenwolf have made it into this article. (Albert Mond (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I don't consider GFR metal, but I say go for it. We aren't really using a pure definition of metal seeing how Aerosmith, Cream, Mountain, Bloodrock, Vanilla Fudge, Steppenwolf, etc. have been included here. And I know bands like Twisted Sister and Anvil have both refered to GFR as metal in interviews. I have a book here called Rock the Rough Guide that calls King Crimson metal(who again I don't consider metal). A quote from page 477, "Opening with the cataclysmic heavy-metal of "21st Century Schizoid Man", and closing with the cathedral-sized title track," Rockgenre (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of understand Aerosmith's inclusion. They have a few songs I'd say are pretty metal, and "Rocks" could have been a metal album in the '70s. Not sure how I feel about Cream and Vanilla Fudge, though. "21st Century Schizoid Man" could definitely pass for early metal, I think (though I'm not certain about the rest of Crimson's material). Is it just me, or does it sound like it directly inspired Sabbath's "Iron Man"? (Albert Mond (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I do agree that Aerosmith do have a few metal songs("Nobody's Fault" is definately metal), but to call them a metal band I think is a bit overkill. They were mainly just a really great bluesy, hard rock band. Still "source>opinion" and the book I mentioned actually does refer to them as metal too. Vanilla Fudge and Cream I personally consider bands very influencial to metal and the hardest bands of their time, but to me metal didn't start until Blue Cheer(rest in peace Dickie Peterson), Iron Butterfly, Zeppelin, Sabbath, and Purple came along. And I have heard an old myth that the "21st Century Schizoid Man" inspired "Electric Funeral", though no proof to back that up. Ozzy even covered it on his cover album. Rockgenre (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you added King Crimson. I'm really, really, really not sure about that, personally. It seems like both sources refer primarily to "21st Century Schizoid Man," but in that case, could one not include Pink Floyd for "Nile Song," and "Ibiza Bar?" (Albert Mond (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I don't consider more than half this list metal, King Crimson and Grand Funk included. You can remove them if you want. I really don't care. Though I don't really understand this list. Is this just a list of just plain heavy metal bands? Rockgenre (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty good question. I think it's supposed to be first wave (late '60s stuff to right before the start of the NWOBHM). I'd expect the primary genre format for most of this era would be hard rock/heavy metal or vice versa. (Albert Mond (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Semi-Protection

So, I've noticed there have been a lot of entries lately for bands which do not meet the requirements of 'Original Movement.' These have mostly been from anons, and a number of times, anons even made it into something of a joke. While humour is fine, I think that if we want this to stop, we should probably put it on 'semi-protected' status. (Albert Mond (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I honestly think its wrong to have the list just be "Original movement", in the first place. The article is called "List of heavy metal bands". It doesn't say "List of First Wave Metal Bands". I think we should removed the original movement paragraph and let any kind of metal be included. Rockgenre (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it wasn't incredibly well chosen, too. On the other hand, a full list of metal bands might seem relatively jumbled (not that I'm opposed to the idea), and I think it would be a good idea to have an article which covers first wave groups and artists exclusively. Personally, I think it might work if we 'changed the name' of this article, maybe to something like 'first wave heavy metal artists' or something. That would also fix the technicality keeping Ted Nugent and (assuming there were any) other first-wave solo artists off of this list. (Albert Mond (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Ted Nugent, in my opinion was never metal. I think he's in the same position of Thin Lizzy. And by that I mean their biggest influence was on metal which is why they have linked to the style even they are more hard rock. Still sources back up that he is metal, so unfortunately I can't argue with sources. His first band the Amboy Dukes(even though they are really more of a psychedelic, protopunk band) having several sources backing them up as metal. Allmusic says they were adding "adding a psychedelic sensibility to an otherwise proto-metal sound." and my that book I mentioned before claims they were, "mutating again into full-blown heavy metal." on page 18. This page I think should just be heavy metal in general and we already have pages called 1960s in heavy metal music, 1970 in heavy metal music etc. ,so I think those pages cover enough in terms of "first wave".Rockgenre (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider myself a Nugent expert by any means, but I know I've heard more '70s Ted Nugent material that I'd undoubtedly consider 'metal' by '70s terms than I've heard of '70s Thin Lizzy material (though their '80s material is definitely worth note in that area.) As such, to this point I consider him to be significantly more metal than I consider Lizzy. I've no clue whatsoever about Amboy Dukes, though. Plus, I think the vast majority of the first wave, including the relatively canon groups like Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, and even Black Sabbath, were arguably Hard Rock/Heavy Metal format by today's qualifications. I disagree on the latter statement regarding the importance of this page, though. As of right now, I think the fact that it's here should designate that it has some point, but as you've argued the title is clearly misleading to some editors. (Albert Mond (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I'm obviously not an expert either(which is why I regret choosing the name "Rockgenre", but I figured I wasn't going to stay here very long). If there has always been one problem with metal it's that no one knows how to define it. Almost no other style as been so debated. We can easily tell whether a band is blues or psychedelic, etc., but whether this band is metal or that band is metal will always be up for discussion. I remember reading comments for "VH1's 40 Greatest metal Songs" on youtube and people were writing things like, "What?!? Scorpions, GNR, KISS, Marilyn Manson, Deep Purple, Twisted Sister, AC/DC, and White Zombie ain't metal! Real metal is Death, Cannibal Corpse, and Cradle of Filith!" or something like that and I'm thinking how close minded these people are. I guess we're all a little closeminded sometimes. I'm sure many others would agree with you and disagree with me on the Nuge's music. Here's some Amboy Dukes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN2VNFpiGWo . I agree on the first wave being hard rock as well and being honest I don't consider Sabbath the heaviest band of their time. I think Blue Cheer first album heavier than Sabbaths first and that Budgie at their loudest could definately rival Sabbath. Rockgenre (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of think the same. I'm not sure whether or not it's really not knowing what metal is, though. A lot of it has to do with such factors as how much metal a band must release to be metal, aesthetic, time period, popularity, and multiple other things which don't necessarily factor into the music itself. Personally, I don't really consider the first wave 'hard rock,' so to speak. I'd say both were primary genres for most (alright, maybe not necessarily 'most'), but that hard rock was almost always ahead by at least a bit. I'm not sure about Blue Cheer's first being heavier than Sabbath's first, but I have heard "Just a Little Bit," and it's one of those tracks that really blows your mind when you think about other '60s music, and it's easily heavier than much of today's prominent metal material. I'm skeptical about that album being heavier than Sabbath's debut, though. And of course, Sabbath later released "Symptom of the Universe," which I think could be the first true thrash song. To add on to what you said about Budgie, I've heard some of Deep Purple and BOC's early live material and I think it's also comparable to, or excelling Sabbath in the area of heaviness. I'm really just rambling now, though. (Albert Mond (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Shouldn't this article be moved?

The name 'List of heavy metal bands' implies that this article lists every heavy metal band notable, but that's not the case. It listes every heavy metal band that were part of the original movement. Robo37 (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely a misleading name. Problem is, I can't think of a new name that isn't too ponderous. --LordNecronus (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think "First-Wave heavy metal bands" might work, but that was probably one you thought of. I agree that it's a very misleading title. If we do end up moving it, I suggest that we use 'artists' instead of 'bands.' If we move it, we could also use this page as a directory for the various subgenre lists, if that's alright. (Albert Mond (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Funnily enough, I didn't think of "First-Wave heavy metal bands". I thought of "List of first-wave heavy metal bands", but for some reason I didn't think of dropping "list of". It's a good suggestion, anyway, and if the page gets moved (which is a move I support), it's what I vote for as the new name. I also agree with the other two suggestions you made ("artists" instead of "bands", and using the page as a directory for the subgenre lists). --LordNecronus (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, I'm not sure if we could get removing "list of" approved, but if we could it'd be great. I think we should probably start on this soon, though I'm not sure how we'd go about it exactly. (Albert Mond (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Old school pre-80s heavy metal bands

I tried to add a bunch of pre-80s, non-nwobhm bands to this list but someone who's not informed removed my selections. For the record, if someone would be so inclined, these bands were Atomic Rooster, Warpig, Leaf Hound, Possessed, Tear Gas, Icecross, Tempest, Three Man Army, White Witch, Angel, Armageddon, Freeway, Bow Wow, Heavy Goods Vehicle, Motorhead, Riot, Taste, Granmax, Sorcery, Legend, Mythra, Samson, and Silvertrain. If you need any information on any of these bands or would like to listen to them I could link you videos from youtube. These are all pre-80s bands. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onslaught fei (talk • contribs) 02:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Firstly, you're going to have to find a few very good sources for Atomic Rooster. I wouldn't be opposed to adding them if you can, as songs like "Death Walks Behind You" definitely qualify. This may not be an incredibly easy task, however. Warpig shouldn't have any problem getting added. I'm not sure about Leaf Hound, and bands without articles (a '70s Possessed doesn't appear to have been added to Wiki yet) will be relatively hard to add. If you want Motörhead added, you'll have to take it up with Wiki's definition of NWOBHM. (Albert Mond (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I figure with bands like High Tide, Lucifer's Friend, and Uriah Heep listed that Atomic Rooster would be a shoe in and with other very hard rock oriented bands like Kiss and Steppenwolf. Information on Possessed can be found http://www.riseaboverecords.com/products/view/192. Here I'll just list some of the bands I know and own the music too:
I guess the most I can do to help this page is offer these 70s metal bands and their music. If someone wants to dig up sources they are welcome to but I'm just going off the top of my head. I may remember some more later. Like Gun. They were really good too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTErpA_Ltz4. I normally never ever edit wiki pages but I noticed how bare and noob this page was so I decided to pitch in. Only trying to help others discover old metal I've known for years. Check them out. Onslaught fei (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Realized I left off a Leaf Hound example. Just remembered a few more. Most of these are much heavier and thicker then stuff like Rush and Jethro Tull which is on the list.
Onslaught fei (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed move reverted

A previous attempt to move the content of the article have been reverted. Any future attempts will be treated as vandalism unless the topic is brought up here on this talk page and a consensus reached. Wiki libs (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It got brought up above, but I don't think a consensus was officially reached. Nobody seemed to disagree vehemently with the move, though. --LordNecronus (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite Semiprotection?

I'll support it.Curb Chain (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_heavy_metal_bands&oldid=491905111"