Jump to content

Talk:Black Sabbath (album)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 105.174.4.110 (talk) at 07:04, 14 February 2020 (→Identity of the woman in the cover of Blacl Sabbath first album.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Os Mutantes

The heavy riff of "Black Sabbath" (track 1), is the same riff from the last track (Ave Genghis Khan), of the Os Mutantes Debut album ("Os Mutantes" [[1]]), of 1968. The riff is played to fade, at the very end of the track (it's not all of the track). This is no co-incidence. Os Mutantes 1968, Black Sabbath recorded in 1969. 86.169.93.166 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard rock

I have found references to label the album as Hard rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalichudali (talk • contribs) 15:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

add it then.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope Its metal The people who said that are complete morons. TheEarthboundFan2001 (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doom metal?

Their famous title track, has been listed as the first doom metal song. Could I add doom metal to the genre list? TheEarthboundFan2001 (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheEarthboundFan2001, I would suggest "No". It's generally regarded as having inspired doom metal, but not doom metal itself. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Ryk72. SPNKs (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Sabbath (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doom Metal: here we go again

Once again, a user is attempting to add Doom Metal as a genre without discussion. This user has already told me to "Fuck Off" [2]] and demonstrated a very clear lack of civility or willingness to work collaboratively with these edit summaries: [3] [4]. At any rate, this very topic has already been discussed here and it's been determined in the past that, while the album influenced Doom Metal, that sub-genre came into existence many years later. Do we need to discuss this yet again? SolarFlash (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stoner rock?

The infobox lists "stoner rock" as a genre. Issue #1, the cited source doesn't clearly label this album as stoner rock, it uses the word "essentially". Issue #2, stoner rock is a subgenre that emerged in California in the 1990s. How can a British album made in 1969 be classified as something that didn't come into existence until decades later in another part of the world? SolarFlash (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"You use essentially to emphasize a quality that someone or something has, and to say that it is their most important or basic quality." (Dictionary) isento (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From the looks of the flawed sourcing in the stoner rock article, it is more accurate to say the stoner rock scene emerged in 1990s California, not the musical style itself. Some insight from Orange Goblin's Ben Ward: "...what people call the stoner rock scene... it's sort of cool to be called that. It's got this California image with surfing and girls... There are bands in this country who are coming out of the woodwork and jumping on the bandwagon, and they're not actually keeping in touch with where this music originated from, which is Black Sabbath..." (Black Sabbath FAQ) isento (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Absolutely correct. Black Sabbath influenced stoner rock. Was Eddie Cochran punk rock simply because he influenced the likes of Sid Vicious and The Clash? No. Don't be silly. SolarFlash (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your comparison is not helpful or relevant. We are not dealing with Eddie Cochran and your opinion of his music (WP:WHATABOUTX, WP:OTHER). isento (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is a reliable source that disputes the view that this music is stoner rock, we should not remove it simply because we disagree with the claim (WP:TRUTH). The view -- published by Spin, attributed to Chuck Klosterman and fellow Spin writers -- is an aesthetic opinion on a piece of music (a work of art), not a claim to stoner rock as a scene. And aesthetic opinions from expert sources are allowed under WP:SUBJECTIVE. isento (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Find a single reliable source stating that Stoner Rock even existed as a subgenre before 1990. SolarFlash (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to; Klostermann's identification already suggests it existed as a subgenre before 1990 with Black Sabbath. And you seem to have ignored or not understood my reference to WP:SUBJECTIVE, so allow me to quote it directly for you: "it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts … Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art." Klostermann, or Spin, qualifies as such an expert. isento (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to also have had difficulty understanding, or reading, the advice given by WP:TRUTH, so allow me to quote it for you directly: "Editors may not … delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source." You are the person disagreeing with Klostermann's opinion. The burden is on you to find a reliable source that disputes Klostermann's opinion that the album is in the stoner rock genre. You cannot keep misusing the premise of stoner rock's emergence in the 1990s as a definable scene or movement, because Klostermann is not attributing the album to the scene but to the musical aesthetic. isento (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you I have no issues understanding or reading. Already you are having trouble remaining civil. Are you here to discuss the issue or me? SolarFlash (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't noticed, I do not see an issue with the content. So I am left to wonder if the issue is your understanding, in which case I am compelled to address it. It is not personal, no more than your calling me "silly" was personal, or your demands for sources I am not obligated to discover. I have already thoroughly explained my view of Klostermann's opinion, your confusion of the stoner rock style with the timeframe of stoner rock's subculture, and the guidelines relevant to this discussion, but you do not address those finer points, instead responding with lazy comparison and a burden-shifting demand. isento (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you're confusing style with genre? Is that it? They're two different things. You asked for sources. OK. Here's one [5] referring to Kyuss as the band who "provided the blueprint for stoner rock". Laying the blueprint very strongly implies that they were among the very first stoner rock bands ever, if not the very first. Kyuss did not exist prior to 1987, let alone in 1970. So that establishes that stoner rock came into being in the late 1980s at the absolute earliest. Next, here [6] we have the band Sleep being referred to as "pioneers of stoner rock" and this band did not exist prior to 1990. The term "pioneers" strongly points to stoner rock being a brand new heavy metal sub-genre that could not have existed pre-1990's. It's difficult being a pioneer when someone beat you to it by 20 years. Here we also establish that prior to 1990, stoner rock wasn't a thing. If it wasn't a thing in 1987, it most certainly could not possibly have been an inkling of a thing in 1970. So that, in a nutshell, is why I feel "stoner rock" should be removed as a genre for this album. SolarFlash (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to reduce my argument to another lazy generalization, that is fine... "Pioneer" is defined as being "among the first to do something" (Dictionary), not necessarily the first, as you would like to infer. Your source says they were "leaders of the newly emerging stoner rock/doom metal scene" (again, scene, not genre). You are not establishing anything. Contrary to the proper way to research and edit on Wikipedia, you are not researching sources that cover the topic of the article in which you are having a content dispute -- Black Sabbath. The placement of "stoner rock" as an ancillary genre of the album -- metal and blues rock are placed ahead of it -- is not controversial nor an exceptional claim, especially when this album's band has a reputation for inventing and predating the stoner rock genre, as verified by sources such as the following: Martin Popoff: "Black Sabbath is one of a hallowed few bands in rock 'n' roll history that could be said to have invented a whole subgenre of music ... doom metal and stoner rock." ([7]) Tom Reardon of Phoenix New Times: "...the metal pioneers, who helped invent multiple music genres, including stoner rock …" ([8]) Andrew Dansby of Associated Press: "the songs revealed themselves as archetypes for two generations of subsequent heavy music: metal, doom, stoner rock -- anything of a dark nature that moves along slow, lumbering guitar riffs." ([9]). And in case you do not know what "archetype" means, I will define it for you: "a perfect example or model of something" (Dictionary). Your discrimination of this particular genre in this article's infobox continues to seem suspiciously intense and resolute. isento (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my point. Your tone is super aggressive and you've done little more than insult me since you began. Dealing with you just isn't worth it. Hopefully if you ever reach adulthood you'll learn to work collaboratively. As it stands right now you're just lashing out in anger in all directions. Enjoy your day, I have more productive things to do than argue with petulant children. SolarFlash (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should this genre-related content be removed from the article?

This content was removed by SolarFlash on the grounds that the source verifying the content is "in dispute" (although the only evidence of dispute is SolarFlash's undoing of the addition), and that one should "obtain consensus before adding any additional genres", even though SolarFlash had removed a genre themselves without obtaining consensus. So, as I am left to interpret their remarks as expressing a desire or demand for consensus if changes are to be made against their preferred revision of the genre content, I have listed this RfC. Given the fact that there are reliable third-party sources in both the lead and in the body of the article verifying journalists who've claimed this album is of those two certain genres, should this content be removed, as SolarFlash attempted in their edit? isento (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, me questioning your primary source does indeed place your edit "in dispute"; I'm sorry you seem to feel that more is required, because it isn't. And surely you know that no editor needs to obtain consensus to revert the addition of questionable material. You however, do indeed need to gain consensus to have the material you are attempted to add stand if it is being disputed. Grow up. SolarFlash (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that isento seems to have intentionally given this discussion a misleading name. To be clear, this discussion is about content he is attempting to add, not content I am attempting to remove. The edit summaries prove that conclusively. This looks like an apparent attempt to rig the outcome in his favor. By labeling it an "attempt to remove content", Isento knows that a failure to reach a consensus means his edit will stand, according to the guidelines. The truth is that, because he's trying to add material, a failure to reach a consensus will mean that his edit will not be allowed to stand, as clearly outlined in the guidelines. I hope this was all an honest mistake and not an attempt to game/abuse the dispute resolution process by Isento for his own benefit. I think anyone taking part in this discussion needs to be aware of these unethical tactics. SolarFlash (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Discussion

Please use this space for more extensive comments isento (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SolarFlash's reason for removal -- that the Mojo source doesn't identify who has credited the album birthing particular genres -- is hypocritical and selective reasoning, as they have allowed for similar statements, also in the lead, about other genres to remain in the lead, despite those statements (and the sources of those statements) also not identifying who has "considered", for example, the album to be the first heavy metal album (which is attributed to Harvey, p. 10; like the Mojo source, Harvey does not identify who credits the album this way). By doing so, I believe SolarFlash is exhibiting confirmation bias, specifically in how they uniquely interpret the content they are against being in the article. isento (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any "similar statements" found elsewhere are irrelevant and you can certainly discuss any of those individually later if you'd like. The specific video you are attempting to use as the only primary source in this instance states that this album "has been credited with giving birth to the stoner rock and goth rock" genres. This is a terrific example of a synthesized claim that fails to explicitly attribute the genre to the album as a whole. The video’s precise wording (“has been credited”) very clearly combines material from multiple unnamed sources to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated in any way. At no point do we have the opportunity to find out exactly whom has credited this album with giving birth to the stoner rock and goth rock sub-genres, and at no point does it explicitly say that this album is an example of either genre. Who, precisely, has given that credit? If you can't answer that question, you can't use it as a source! At best, as a primary source, this video can be used only to establish that the album was influential on the genres in question, but nothing more than that. And again, focus on the edit and not on the editor. Attacking and making efforts to discredit/smear editors don't strengthen your argument, but they do indicate that you believe yours is weak. SolarFlash (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mojo is a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Furthermore, there are additional journalists cited here in the #Genre section of the article accompanying Mojo's claim, including Spin magazine ("it's essentially the first stoner-rock record (just listen to the wall of distortion on 'N.I.B.') and definitely the first goth record") and Gavin Baddeley (Black Sabbath is considered by some to be the first recording of gothic rock.) isento (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The status of watchmojo.com as a reliable source is not what the discussion is about. Please re-read from the beginning if necessary. SolarFlash (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source is not a primary source, which, as WP:PRIMARY explains, "are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." It is a secondary or tertiary source as it is offering a broad summary of the album's significance from people independent of the subject (WP:PSTS). Additionally, your ideas about synthesis appear misguided and out of place here. As WP:NOTSYNTH explains, "SYNTH is not summary … SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources." It would be helpful if, instead of exclamation points and intense boldface, you accompanied your responses with references to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, so others who join this discussion can trust you are judging the content according to our standards as an encyclopedia. isento (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, source rather than primary source. Sheesh, grow up. But any source, reliable or no, which makes a statement which strongly implies that material from multiple unnamed sources is being used to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated in any way, can be challenged. I'm beginning to wonder if you even read my comments before responding. Now maybe we can let the community take it from here? Maybe? Dealing with you really sucks. SolarFlash (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Continuously rendering your misapprehensions in bold does not make them any more valid. What is the conclusion you are referring to, that you believe is not explicitly stated in the source? isento (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rodger Bain Jew's harp on "Sleeping Village"? No he didn't!

Rodger Bain was in charge of production yes, but did not contribute musically especially on Sleeping Village at all! Stop lying, idiots! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.133.97.9 (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of the woman in the cover of Blacl Sabbath first album.

https://loudwire.com/black-sabbath-cover-woman-black-figure/?trackback=fbshare_mobile&fbclid=IwAR3hbRW2Cs6hDlFq-s4ySHR8IMoMNtfZb9jUlTnkFyXmxxwt8d9rPbXHNTI

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Sabbath_(album)&oldid=940731015"