Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Article title?

The title of this article seems to be a sort of strange phrase that I never hear in real life or read: "heavy metal music". Although the name isn't "ambiguous or inaccurate" (WP:COMMONNAME), it does seem uncommon. I searched the archives and found this discussion which was against the titles "Heavy metal music" and "Heavy metal (music)", and this discussion was a little more vague. My own expectation when I searched for the article was "Heavy metal (genre)", however I haven't taken the time to read the entire article, so I'm not sure what title suits the article best at the moment. This being a featured article, it may be possible that this was discussed at some point in the candidacy reviews. But I am interested in the opinions of any passersby or watchers who may stumble on my question here. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like the review didn't discuss it at all, unfortunately (and the original nomination is amusingly empty). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you find the longer discussion at Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 7#Proposed move?--SabreBD (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't see that, thanks for the link. I'll have to read it tomorrow. The "no consensus" thing intrigues me. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks, it was an interesting read, as was the link to the older archive. I guess I'm on the fence, and every time I read an argument for one way or the other, I'll agree with it. And since the article is about the music, then there we go. No biggie. Thanks for the link! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

MC5

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Could you please, clearly and concisely, state why you made a change to the sentence on MC5 being a Detroit garage rock band. This seems to have nothing to do with that.--SabreBD (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

NOTE TO SABRED: That comment was posted yesterday; it was not my response to your reversion of my deletion of an unnecessary introductory phrase, and it wasn't an attempt to justify it.

This is the comment I was posting when I found your comment posted here:

Why defend a (moronic, and unnecessary to boot) characterization of the MC5 as a "garage band"? Simply note that they were influential: it's just true.

"No shortage of sources that describe them as this - if there is a point better take it to the talkpage" - Note what I say above: WP:RS cited here aren't even rockcrits, not even musicologists, not even musicians; many posers infest WP:RS sources, such as the (dreadfully inaccurate) allmusic.com, and the arguments regarding exactly what genre category some band falls into during some span of its "career" results in (indefensible) assertions such as those appearing above in Talk, e.g., Lep Zep CANNOT BE HEAVY METAL (under some highly restrictive definition of what exactly qualifies as "heavy metal").

So some (unqualified yet "expert" - ask Nicholas Nassim Taleb what this means!) WP:RS somewhere asserts that the MC5 were a "garage band". OK, they indeed STARTED OUT as a garage band; as such they influenced almost ZERO PEOPLE. By the time they were signed, they were hyper-professional and musical in ways that are extremely challenging to characterize with genre labels, though "hard rock" suffices as a generalization; but they were absolutely NOT doing garage rock anymore. See the interview with Michael Davis, the bassist for The Five: [1] "John Sinclair said, 'don't call them a garage band and don't use that phrase to anybody in the band; they won't like it.'"

SRSLY, it was called "The Detroit Sound" or "The Motor City Sound" or A-Squared (after the record label) or suchlike at the time (e.g., Bob Seger, Mitch Ryder/Detroit, SRC, The Stooges, Alice Cooper -> Love It To Death was a product of a sojourn in Detroit.)

So, Sabred: If you must insist on having some dumb genre label affixed to every mention of a band, please refer to the MC5 as a "hard rock band". OK? It's not misleading; the "garage band" label placed on The Five is extremely misleading. CHECK MY CREDS PLEASE! bonze blayk (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that, although reliable sources describe them as garage rock you don't feel that they are? The fact that they emerged from the Detroit garage scene is significant in understanding the origins of the genre and is not misleading. So yes. I think we should keep it. Your CREDs are, I am afraid, not as significant as verifiable and reliable sources.--SabreBD (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"reliable sources describe them as garage rock" ... cites, please. I see no cites in either this article or article on the MC5 providing WP:RS cites for this characterization... I provided a counter-cite, above; perhaps not WP:RS, but... it should give you pause to see that quote from their manager (John Sinclair, Revolutionary!) before deciding to support this (wholly idiotic) characterization of the band.

... and without prior checking, my characterization of The Five's sound meshed 2/3 with that of the WP:RS (and IMIO largely UNreliable, due to personal history/experience with their "band biographies") source allmusic.com - [2] "MC5: Styles: • Hard Rock • Proto-Punk • Detroit Rock"

So, SabreBD: Do you have any cites supporting this (bizarre) "garage rock" contention? After ~1967, they'd moved far far beyond this category, and none of their records fits within it.

"Your CREDs are, I am afraid, not as significant as verifiable and reliable sources" Let flow my tears! "Am I WP:N yet?" - bonze blayk. bonze blayk (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Before we get into a cite debate, perhaps you can just clarify your position. Are you saying they were never a garage band, or that they started one and then developed, as I think your third paragraph implies? If so we might have grounds for closing this with a compromise clarification.--SabreBD (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

SabreBD, you initiated an (unnecessary) cite debate; now you have one. I cited two sources above; please provide a citation from a RELIABLE EXPERT ON MUSIC (not Deena Weinstein, please!) that the MC5 were a "garage band" or played "garage rock" on ANY of their recorded output, or revert your last revert so that The Five are a described as a "hard rock band". I believe that's a sound compromise. I cannot conceive of any good reason why you should be committed to a characterization of the MC5 as a "garage band"; it makes no sense whatsoever; did the MC5 start as a "garage band"? Sure, like maybe >50% of all rock bands; I'd bet that when Rush started out, they were pretty much a garage band; should we affix the label "garage band" before all descriptions of Rush? I think not!

I'm not sure exactly why you think my CREDS are not significant here; do you really think that it's a good idea to insist on a WikiDebate which may involve numerous WP:RS cites over "what is a garage band" or "what is garage rock" with a ϕΒΚ WP:V co-founder of a (mirabile dictu) WP:N garage band who played proto-hardcore garage rock/"garage punk"/whatever! on WP:N albums? And did you notice who my brother is?

You might just give up on this, no? I will not. Thank you! bonze blayk (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just trying to find your position in the hope of getting WP:consensus. I am doing this because I think it might be possible to find a form of words which reflects the sources and with which editors can all be content. This actually how the process is supposed to work. I cannot "give up" because I do not consider this a contest - just editing. I was going to suggest that we come to a form of words that briefy describes their origins in garage rock and move to hard rock/proto punk. I do not object to saying that they moved on to hard rock and proto-punk. If you want cites you might try the following:

• Don Mcleese, Kick out the Jams, p. 76, who describes the album as "the supercharged 5 in all their garage rock glory".
• The blurb comment from Michael Simmons, Cletus Nelson, the Future is Now! An Illustrated History of the MC5, which points out that they were "Formed as a Detroit garage band".
• Joe S. Harrington, Sonic Cool: the Life & Death of Rock 'n' Roll, p. 168, where they are given in a list of garage bands.
• Steve Taylor, A to X of Alternative Music, p. 147, where they are described as having the intention of "playing a freer form of R&B than most other garage bands of the time."
• The blurb from Frederic P Miller, Agnes F Vandome, John McBrewster, Mc5, which describes them as playing "played hard rock music that also included blues-rock, psychedelic rock, rock & roll and garage rock".
• Ray Broadus Browne, Pat Browne, eds, The Guide to United States Popular Culture, p. 687, where punk is described as originating in "the garage bands of the 60s like the MC5...".

And this list could go on.

You have already conceded that they started out as garage rock. Which is all that I am using these sources to assert. It would be useful if we can now move on to finding a form of words around which we can develop a consensus?--SabreBD (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This MC5 argument is ridiculous. They're widely acknowledged to be a garage rock band. The attempt to dismiss Weinstein as a source also makes no sense. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

SabreBD, it's taken me quite a while to return to this issue... but I still can't understand why you insist on characterizing the MC5 as "garage rock". I think it's much more fitting to describe them as a "hard rock" band, which accurately categorizes the whole of their recorded output within a broader label for their music.

I think the citations you provide here, which I will precede with '•••', are mostly non-supportive of the characterization of the Five as a "garage band" or a "garage rock" band; all italics hereafter are mine:

The article currently states: "In this period the Detroit garage rock band the MC5's raw distorted style has been seen as a major influence on the future sound of both heavy metal and later punk music.[81][82]"

Cited in the article: [81] Braunstein, P. and Doyle, M. W., Imagine Nation: the American Counterculture of the 1960s and '70s (London: Routledge, 2002), ISBN 0415930405.

- This is basically an article on cultural history and sociology, but it's quite well-written, and thoughtful in its (brief) assessments of the unique character of the MC5's music:

- p. 132 "the rock band MC5"

- p. 133 "Over the next two years, the quintet would develop and perfect a unique, hard-driving rock and roll sound, widely credited with influencing (some say pioneering) later punk and heavy metal rock genres.[24]" - (Cited here: "Goldmine, 17 April 1992, 16-22; Rolling Stone, no. 25, (4 January 1969): 7; see also no. 632, (11 June 1992): 35-36. ???)

- p. 133 "Playing at local clubs and high school dances, the group gradually created a high energy electric sound, which reflected the combination of rock, rhythm and blues, and experimental jazz influences."

Cited in the article: [82] Bukszpan, D. (2003), The Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal. Barnes & Noble. ISBN 0-7607-4218-9.

- Alas, no excerpts are available on amazon.com

••• Don Mcleese, Kick out the Jams, p. 76, who describes the album as "the supercharged 5 in all their garage rock glory".

- http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/698108.The_MC5_s_Kick_Out_the_Jams - In the "33 & 1/3" books series

- "This is a nonfiction series of books written about music albums." This book is about the MC5's first album, Kick Out The Jams, which is arguably "garage-rock" in its enthusiasm... and incompetence (despite the fact they were gifted musicians). Their two later albums do NOT fit this mold.

- http://www.amazon.com/MC5s-Kick-Out-Jams-33/dp/0826416608 - "On the cusp of rock's future, the 5 sounded more like garage-band revivalists, though this particular garage housed a rocket ship rather than a roadster."

••• The blurb comment from Michael Simmons, Cletus Nelson, the Future is Now! An Illustrated History of the MC5, which points out that they were "Formed as a Detroit garage band".

- http://www.amazon.com/Future-Now-Illustrated-History-MC5/product-reviews/1840681098/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 ... 1/5 Stars with 5 reviews. "it's more about the mc5's association with john sinclair and the white panther party than it is about the mc5 and their music." ... i.e.: it's not MUSICOLOGY. And, whatever they formed as, that's not where they wound up.

••• Joe S. Harrington, Sonic Cool: the Life & Death of Rock 'n' Roll, p. 168, where they are given in a list of garage bands.

- p.168: "This was the original era of the widely hailed '60s Garage Rock genre, which has continually been accredited as the origin of Punk Rock. But unlike the bands who acted as the self-conscious antecedents of Punk — the Velvet Underground, the MC5, the Stooges, the New York Dolls — the '60s garage-rockers were most likely unwitting prophets. The thing that distinguished them from the more polished acts of the day was their raw, uninhibited, and often inept "street" ethos.... But the grim reality was that they were teen fuck-ups, not international Rock stars like their British idols (although many of them charted hits). Given this frustrating irony, it's no wonder some of the performances of mid-American garage bands like the Swamp Rats, the Spades, the Shadows of Knight, Lollipop Shoppe, the Seeds, Music Machine, MC5, the Banshees, Third Bardo, and others represent the birth of real ANGER in Rock'n'Roll. These groups might not have been formalized punk theorists like the Velvet Underground or even Rolling Stones, but they were attitude punks (originals)."

- If you read this closely, Joe's managing to contradict himself in the space of one paragraph: The Five are "unlike" "'60s garage-rockers"... but are immediately included in a list of "garage bands" which are mostly (IMO) doing garage-rock.  ??? Like a lot of "rock criticism", apparently nobody bothered to proofread it, and nobody really cares if it's self-contradictory or the accumulated mass of adjectival excess really means anything.

••• Steve Taylor, A to X of Alternative Music, p. 147, where they are described as having the intention of "playing a freer form of R&B than most other garage bands of the time."

- That's "Formed with the intention of ...". They graduated from "garage-band" status, OK? And they're characterized not as aiming to play "garage rock", but as aiming at a "form of R&B".

- "Back in The USA is classic AM-radio pop music..."

••• The blurb from Frederic P Miller, Agnes F Vandome, John McBrewster, which describes them as playing "played hard rock music that also included blues-rock, psychedelic rock, rock & roll and garage rock".

- "hard rock that also included..." Hey, that's just my point! The Five were a hard rock band which was capable of playing in MANY genres!

••• Ray Broadus Browne, Pat Browne, eds, The Guide to United States Popular Culture, p. 687, where punk is described as originating in "the garage bands of the 60s like the MC5...".

- Well, I can't access this through amazon.com, so I'll just refrain from further comment at this point.

In summation: Why does this matter enough to me to engage in probably-fruitless WikiArgument over it in Talk? Because the Five are THE BAND that inflicted the hard rock influence on me, through their third album High Time (MC5 album), and I hate to see their music mischaracterized and pigeonholed in the "garage rock" category — a domain principally of the young and/or marginally competent — where musicians who might benefit from their example will be inclined to ignore them. Please check out the categories under which the MC5's albums are listed in their Wikipedia entries... none of them are listed as "garage rock" albums.

In conclusion: I would appreciate if you would consider compromising on a phrase such as: "The MC5, a hard rock band which started out as a garage band rooted in the Detroit garage rock scene..." or somesuch.

Thank you! -- bonze blayk (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with a compromise along those lines and never did. Perhaps we should just wait a bit to get the views of other editors and then formulate some precise wording.--SabreBD (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

So, SabreBD, since a couple of weeks have passed with no comments from other editors, would you mind going ahead with an edit along the lines which I've suggested? thanks! -- 00:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonze blayk (talk • contribs)

Will do.--SabreBD (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

FAQ

Should we have a FAQ section on this page to deal with regular issues like the one above. And if so what other questions would be worth having in it?--SabreBD (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

People asking if Zeppelin is metal. The answer is yes. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No,they're not.--The Great Duck (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This has really got to stop. Led Zeppelin may not be a metal band in the mind of the modern metalhead, however their importance to the history of the genre is uncontestable. If a FAQ is the solution to this I'm for it 24.69.71.254 (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure yet if this is one or two separate FAQ. I am hanging on to see if there are any more suggestions.--SabreBD (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a popular myth that Black Sabbath invented heavy metal just because they used the tritone. Could be addressed with reference to "Purple Haze", the fact it's used in blues and jazz i.e. not something that came purely from classical etc 24.69.71.254 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This looks like all the suggestions for this, so I have set it up. I have tried to incorporate them and did a quick trawl of the archives for more. It difficult as the major issues are all interlinked. I am open to suggestions on phrasing. Even if new editors do not notice this, we can at least point to the answers.--SabreBD (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is this FAQ? It's an excellent idea! --Confession0791 ^talk 04:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Its the second box at the top of this page.--SabreBD (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Metallum

Is it considered a realiable source because I believe it's a site that can be edit upon.C0un+5 (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Generally, no, because it's about equivalent to citing another wikipedia page. 98.255.1.188 (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that the information on Encyclopaedia Metallum is reviewed and by that I mean not publicly. You cannot just put up a fake page and the amount of information you can directly edit is rather limited. zubrowka74 16:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's still user-generated without a professional staff. Also, its claim to be an encyclopedia makes it more of a tertiary source than a secondary source, which generally isn't good for more than summary.--3family6 (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Tempos

I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, but I was reading the section about the Musical Language of heavy metal and it says that as of the tempos of heavy metal songs range from 60 bpm up to 350 or something. I'm pretty sure there are some drone metal songs that have tempos slower than 60 bpm, should these be considered? For example, just to grab the nearest example out of my library, "Aghartha" by SunnO))) is somehting like 6 bpm. Does SunnO))) not count as metal? They do write a lot of stuff that doesn't really sound like metal, so that would make sense. "Pain", the first track on Hjarnidaudi's PainNoiseMarch, has drums at about 15 bpm with off-beat syncopated guitar stuff -- Hjarnidaudi's sound is a lot more consistent with what I would think of as metal, so would that be a more reasonable example. Should the article be changed? If so, what should the number be changed to? 98.255.1.188 (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If a more established, less avant-garde example helps, the fourth track off of Burzum's Filosofem (different title in different releases, the title I have is "Gebrechlichkeit I") seems to be about 45 bpm -- and Burzum is one of the important early black metal bands, so I don't know if there can be much argument about whether or not that would count as metal. 98.255.1.188 (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

For that matter, I'm sure some experimental electro-grind band somewhere has done a song with blastbeats faster than 350 bpm, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about that subgenre to come up with an example, and plus I'm not sure that really counts anyways. Worth considering/discussing though. 98.255.1.188 (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The New Jersey thrash band Overkill has a bridge sequence over 400 BPM if I recall correctly, it was in the tablature book. It's one of the first song on their 1989 album, The Years of Decay, either Time to Kill or Elimination. zubrowka74 16:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Garage rock

Somewhere down the line, garage rock (or traditional rock and roll revival) had an effect on heavy metal. You can hear the influence, you just gotta try to ignore the amp sound though. But otherwise, fast playing, prominent vocals, and rock instrumentation, was part of garage rock. MajorHawke (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's follow that through and go back to Surf Rock as well, shall we? Check out Miserlou Twist by Dick Dale, then read up about this guy, who played right handed Strats left handed (because that's all he could get from his mate, Leo Fender), had the 100 Watt guitar amp invented for him because 50 wasn't loud enough (again, but Mr Leo Fender), and his playing style included Phrygian mode (among others), fast alternate picking, harmonic minor and loads of other stuff you still hear in metal music today.

At some point, musical styles converged on metal, just as if you trace your family tree back, it gets bigger, not smaller, as you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, etc. You could argue that electronica had an effect on heavy metal - listen to Delia Derbyshire's "Dr Who" theme tune from 1963, then listen to "Children of the Grave" by Black Sabbath. Consider also that the intro to "Am I Evil" by Diamond Head (covered by Metallica in 1984) is the intro to "Mars: God of War" by Gustav Holst. Motorhead were influenced by Buddy Holly and Johnny Cash (easily verifiable). So Dick Dale and Delia Derbyshire stole heavy metal from Johnny Cash, and sold it to Jimi Hendrix. Lemmy worked as a roadie for Hendrix and the rest is history - and none of this is OR, it's all verifiable fact. Ithankyou. 86.147.211.206 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Heavy Rock

What I find very odd about this article is the way the the term 'Heavy Metal' has been retrospectively applied to all the antecedent styles of music. I'm getting on a bit in years and I was around in the 1970s listening to Heavy Rock music. Yes... that is what we called it. I was a long haired leather jacket and jeans wearing fan of groups such as Deep Purple, Judas Priest and even Black Sabbath (often claimed as the First Heavy Metal Band) and if you had called me a Heavy Metal fan I wouldn't have known what you were talking about. I remember the first time I heard the expression 'Heavy Metal'. I was playing drums in a Heavy ROCK band in 1980 and the guitarist turned up with Iron Maiden's first album. I looked at the picture of Eddie on the cover and, slightly suspicious, asked if it was Heavy Rock. "No" said the guitarist "It's Heavy METAL". Ok... that is purely anecdotal. For evidence you can dig out the interview that Lemmie of Motorhead gave to John Tucker in his book "Suzie Smiled" (ISBN 9 7805954970475) where he is asked about the events of 1979:

“...back then all of a sudden everything was heavy metal. We were heavy metal, Journey were heavy metal, Hawkwind were heavy metal. Very strange”.

You might like to google the history of one of the first NWOBHM record labels. It was (and still is) called 'Heavy Rock Records'

Additionally there are Thousands of Posters and Ticket stubs around from the 1970s. Many people collect them. I have a few myself. Often, since a venue sometimes had several styles of music on different nights of the week, the poster or stub would include the genre of music at the top. Ones from pre- 1979 ALWAYS say 'Heavy Rock' - never 'Heavy Metal'. At least I've never seen 'Heavy Metal' appear on any venue ticket or poster - maybe in America? Search for 'Heavy Rock' in wikipedia and you get a disambiguation page that brings you right here - and yet this page seems to mention it not at all... It was, for many years, the label very many fans used for this genre of music.

I believe there is a bit of historical revisionism going on, trying to use the labels 'Heavy Metal' and 'Hard Rock' retrospectively and eliminate 'Heavy Rock'. SAHBfan (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix; the ORIGINATOR of Heavy Metal, Heavy Metal guitar, and Fusion

Just by what I've read, and experienced in the world of the guitar, when the Jimi Hendrix Experience released it's first album, "Are You Experienced" in 1967, NO other guitarist or songwriter has pressed the sounds and landscape of the electric guitar as much as Jimi Hendrix did, and considering the 'lack' of technology, compared to now, at that time, Jimi Hendrix, with songs like, Purple Haze, Manic Depression, I Don't Live Today, Fire, Third Stone From The Sun, Foxey Lady, and Are You Experienced, all on that same 'debut' album, and at that early date, to me, is 'Unquestionably' THE FIRST Metal music EVER recorded/released; May 1967!! Hendrix' playing also set the standard for ALL of the, soon to be dubbed, 'Fathers of Metal' that were to follow in his footsteps; ie...Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin, and Tommy Iommi of Black Sabbath! Pete Townsend and the Who were more of a "Hard Rock" sounding band at that time!

Hendrix' ability to form music 'outside' of the usual boundaries, also incorporated the first recorded works in the realm of 'Rock/Jazz Fusion'!! The FACT that Miles Davis took the time to seek out, jam, and want to record with Jimi Hendrix in the late '60s is a testament to the 'ideas' that Miles got from Jimi, before Hendrix' death, that led Miles Davis into the construction and fatherhood of the first dubbed 'Jazz/Rock Fusion' music!

The Metal community, is one of the only "current" fields of music, in 'ROCK', that is accepting of Afro-diasporan 'musicians' like the bands, Living Colour, God Forbid, Animals As Leaders, Wicked Wisdom, Fishbone, Bad Brains, Sevendust, Killswitch Engage, members of the NYCity based organization 'Black Rock Coalition', and on and on! Rock, like ALL of the other modern music forms, comes from the Afro-American music experience from the days of slavery, thru the fight for civil rights, and the constant struggle of being on the bottom rung of modern society for the past 400 years or so. Just like the word "History", "HIS-STORY", the overlooking of African American contributions to music and other forms of art, science, and ideas that have made this world what it is, is an appauling shame that should, AND NEEDS to be rectified! The ONLY reason that Black people were "Expelled" from modern ROCK music 'OVERPLAY', is the OLD fact/face of 'racism' that says, in the 'White' household that "mommy and daddy don't want their pristine, children from 'worshiping' BLACK musicians as 'childhood' IDOLS!"(See the movie/documentary "Electric Purgatory" for more on this subject). An idea that is BUSTED due to the way the worldwide web has broken the music industry! Not to mention that 'White' musicians are 'accepted' by the general music public in ALL genres of music! Just like the 'myth' that Caucasians are the majority in this world, which is only true in the USA, Europe, and Australia! It's a mighty huge planet that we live on, and the lies that keep people apart in their ideas and perseptions NEED to come to a Screeching HALT! These ideas of 'Separatism' are pushed by the 'elite' 1% that the world is 'Finally' waking up to and protesting against as I write this!!

So, Why isn't Hendrix included in talks on the Originators of Heavy Metal? Long live the TRUTH!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.35.118 (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This comment is not produced in a helpful style. Please take care with use of capitals and accusations as serious as racism. Also please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. That said, to engage with what I think is your substantive point: Hendrix is mentioned several times in the text and given credit as the possible first act to described as heavy metal, and due credit is given to his live performances and his recordings: "Purple Haze" being identified as possibly the first HM track. That seems to give it due weight in the context of the subject of the article.--SabreBD (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wikipedia ? zubrowka74 18:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

More seriously, everything is already there, History section, Antecedents: mid-1960s subsection. If you have additional, valid references, feel free to contribute. As long as it's not biased or original research, really. zubrowka74 18:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear sir, while many fans don't think of Jimi Hendrix as "heavy metal" - it's hardly the result of racism. At best, the fact that many metal fans don't discuss Hendrix is the same as slapping a sunburn.

Heavy metal is vaguely defined in the first place. It typically refers to bands with a certain image and time-period, rather than their sound. But even so, Jimi Hendrix is widely regarded as the best guitarist of all-time. All three studio albums by the Jimi Hendrix Experience regularly appear in the top 100 of greatest albums.

Plenty of credit is also given to the many African-Americans or people of African origin that have contributed to music in the 20th century, such as Robert Johnson, Big Mama Thornton, Chuck Berry, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Bob Marley & The Wailers, Little Richard, Ray Charles, Muddy Waters, Elmore James, Bo Diddley, T-Bone Walker, John Lee Hooker, BB King and so on and so on.

Metal fans tend to identify with bands that have a Gothic persona, such as Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, or Judas Priest. If anything, metal fans completely ignore the influence that West Coast musicians in the 1960s had on the many directions of "heavy metal," including The Beach Boys, The Byrds, Blue Cheer, The Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Steppenwolf, The Doors, Eric Burdon & The Animals, Iron Butterfly, Creedence Clearwater Revival and of course, the Jimi Hendrix Experience, but also East Coast musicians such as Bob Dylan, Frank Zappa & The Mothers of Invention, and The Velvet Underground. They also ignore the influence of British beat-pop, such as the Spencer Davis Group.67.169.25.132 (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So I'm sorry, but I fail to see your racially based grievance that the influence of Hendrix on heavy metal is overlooked, because Hendrix certainly receives plenty of recognition for his contributions to music in general. Metal fans who overlook Hendrix aren't racists.67.169.25.132 (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The Beatles

Am I the only one who thinks it's a little strange that the history section says that "Ticket to Ride" is suggested to be the first heavy metal song, yet there's no mention of "Helter Skelter"? John of Lancaster (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"Helter Skelter" is mentioned later on in the text; in the Origins: late 1960s and early 1970s sub section.SgtPetsounds (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I must have missed that. Thank you. John of Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Metalcore?

I don't understand why metalcore is being discussed in this article, as well as bands like Killswitch Engage or Bullet For My Valentine, since none of them have anything to do with heavy metal music (metalcore not being a subgenre of metal). Could anyone explain this to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.70.195 (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You should keep a neutral point of view. Metalcore is influenced by metal regardless of how you feel about it personally. Wikipedia articles need to be complete. Mason092 (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent Trends, "Retro-Metal"

I feel that under "recent trends", more should be written regarding "Retro-Metal", specifically the uprising of Doom/Stoner metal genres. The genre has begun to receive more press and popularity with the onset of the internet. New bands such as "Orchid", "Graveyard", and "Ghost" are included in this new peak of interest.

A fair point I think, but the difficulty is getting reliable sources that support the view that this is "retro-metal", if that term is to be used. I can certainly find sources for Graveyard (band) that describe them as retro, but not so far as "retro-metal". I will keep looking as this would probably be the easiest way to integrate this into the text, but in the end we will have to use the descriptions used in the available reliable sources. If someone does know of such sources by all means put them in or let me know and I will draft something.--SabreBD (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the attention this topic is getting. I think that this is defiantly something that should be monitored. These styles of music are becoming more and more popular as time passes, and I think that if we just wait a bit and observe the trends, we will see a rise in this music. This is obviously just a prediction however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.99.112.194 (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Mistakes in the Songinfos

There are some Mistakes in the Songinfos:

• Paranoid isn't about personal trauma, it is about simple beeing insane without any trigger event.
• Fairies wear Boots is not really against drug, it is more Pro-Drug. Much Black-Sabbath songs are (more or less obvious) about drugs, but they are usually positive or ambivalent. Black Sabbath are one of the good old bands who knew of the pleasure and advance you get from drugs. (As opposed to those violent,hypocritic,untalented and noise hardcore-punks.)
• War-Pigs is a only the censored version of the occult song Walpurgis which was banned by the record-company because it was too "satanic" for them. The original text has nothing to do with war at all, so War-Pigs is not really a typical Anti-War song.
• Electric Funeral is on Paranoid, so it is not a later song
• HAnd of Doom is about Drugs (more ambivalent as usual). It is not about Nuclear annihilation as opposed to Electric Funeral.
• What about Occultism ? It is an often topic in Metal songs. Black Sabbath originally created Metal in order to make the musical equivalent of Horror Films. Much songs of them and also Songs from other bands deal with what topic but it isn't listed in the lyrics Part of the Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.54.96 (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Mid-late 2000's?

Wouldn't it be considered early 2000's, since it only includes 2000-2010? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.132.251.142 (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes.--¿3family6 _contribs 22:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The 2000s decade, or the 2000s century? – Confession0791 ^talk 22:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That needs to be cleared up in the article.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed for claim, "discarding much of its blues influence."

The lead paragraph makes a loaded claim, which is why I added "citation needed" only for it to be removed. The editor claimed that the lead does not require citations, yet, the lead of this article has several citations. I realize that that is not proof that citations are required, but please read further.

The relevance of Judas Priest is a contentious one and lacks consensus.

There should be a citation for that claim or the claim should be removed from the lead paragraph.

The genre of "heavy metal" is also difficult to define. Thus, making a claim of fact against something that is vaguely defined is detrimental to the perspective of the article.

Moreover, I have read claims that Judas Priest was more in line with Hard Rock at times rather than heavy metal, so there is no consensus on the genre of Judas Priest. Furthermore, Judas Priest famously covered a blues rock song in 1978,67.169.25.132 (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC) "The Green Manalishi" by Peter Green of Fleetwood Mac.

Thus, the claim that Judas Priest discarded much of the blues influence in the mid-1970s is not sound and should be discussed or cited, rather than subverted into the lead paragraph and presented as fact.

I will remove the claim about Judas Priest "discarding much of the blues influence," if no one objects.

67.169.25.132 (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)67.169.25.132 (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:LEADCITE. Quotes are usually sourced in a lead and it is common to provide sources for anything that is contentious, but generally statements in the lead, which summarise what is in the main text, are not sourced in order to reduce unnecessary repetition. Until this objection was raised the statement about Judas Priest was not considered contentious. We can always copy the reference over. The relevant section of the text is at the bottom of the Origins: late 1960s and early 1970s|Origins section, particularly the citation to Walser. I will copy that citation to the lead. If you have reliable sources that disagree with that contention, then by all means put them forward here for editors to consider.--SabreBD (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So there is no musical analysis, explanation, or criteria as to how Judas Priest discarded the blues? Only a citation? Revan (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Heavy Metal cultural origins were in birmingham and the black country in England. .

I find it hard to understand the claim that Heavy Metal music conception had anything to do with America The historical quality of this article is seriously undermined by the apparent vanity of editors who don't seem to be able to accept the fact that despite the huge modern day following Heavy Metal has in the USA , it is completely seperate to the question of origin

Bizarrely, the Note 2 Weinstein (2000), p. 14 in support of Heavy Metal's American origins actually proves and suports my counter claim. Heavy metal: the music and its culture, By Deena Weinstein far from a difinative narrative anyway conceeds that the biggest argument as to the origins of Heavy Metal are btween the American feeling that Led Zeppelin started it all and the Eglish version that it was Black Sabbath.

American media seem to agree also

“Heavy Metal was born in the West Midlands and has developed a global following matched only in Hip-Hop. Its time to stop sneering and celebrate this proud cultural heritage…”

Daniel Trilling – New Statesman 30th July 2007

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-01/world/birmingham.home.of.metal_1_heavy-metal-napalm-death-metal-fans?_s=PM:WORLD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilwoodcock (talk • contribs) 19:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is there are several American-based artists that helped establish the genre, namely Blue Cheer, Steppenwolf, Iron Butterfly, Jimi Hendrix, and Grand Funk Railroad, and some later bands like Blue Öyster Cult, Aerosmith, and Kiss.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Review the archived discussion on this same topic (it has come up numerous times) And the clear consensus is that the genre has 2 distinct regional origins. Even the first documented uses of the term heavy metal were for American (and even Canadian) artists. I see no reason for even re-opening this discussion again. It is a dead subject. Heavy metal clearly had origins in both North America and in the UK. Mr Pyles (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not long since we dealt with this issue. Multiple sources support the joint origins.--SabreBD (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How did the aforementioned American artists contribute exactly? I mean besides being popular or using, at times, distorted guitars. One does not simply claim that they had as much to do with creating a genre as Black Sabbath. Revan (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is wrong in a couple of things...

As said in the title, there are some things in the article that must be corrected. starting whit this:
1-The phrase "Heavy Metal is a genre of rock" is wrong and shouldn' t be in the introduction paragraphs, is a fact that Heavy Metal evolved mainly from blues and rock but it is influenced by classical music, neoclasical horror soundtracks and folk music too.[3] To say that Heavy Metal is a sub-genre of rock is like say that rock is a sub-genre of rock and roll, or a sub genre of pop music; It's like say that the rock and roll is a subgenre of blues: It's wrong. In it's early years it can be look by some as that, but when time goes on, a sub-genre develops too many own features that it have to be recognised as a genre of it's own. It's a step that most people over the world have done, with this written i'm apealing to the neutral point of view of everyone here.
-Usefull references that sees Heavy Metal as a genre of it's own:[4],[5],[6],[7], [8],[9],[10],[11] there are other small issues here, but first let's resolve this one. Whiteandbleak (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:reliable sources: blogs and personal websites are not considered reliable on Wikipedia. The assertion is based on two reliable studies and many more could be cited. Most of your sources do not say what you seem to find in them. Bear in mind that the terms genre and sub-genre are often used interchangeably and calling something a genre need not mean it is not also a sub-genre of something else. I am afraid your argument does not follow logically as many sub-genres are influenced by other forms of music, but that does not mean they necessarily cease to be sub-genres. Consider it this way, if you were constructing a history of rock music would you leave heavy metal out?--SabreBD (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No one of my sources are blogs or personal sites. No matter what search engine i use, i can´t read the first source to the "genre of rock music" claim (the billboard music enciclopedia to pop rock jazz etc.) but i can read the second one, and the only thing that i found trough pages 11-13 was at the start of page 11, and it says: "The Heavy metal genre erupte in early 70s from the wider cultural complex of rock music, which, in turn, had grown out from the rock & roll of the 50s" i guess your source verifies my point, since the rock music isn't seen as a subgenre of rock & roll.

I think that you don't read what i meant before was my fault, here are some of my references:

• [12]:"...the new heavy metal genre forged its own unique style with fast tempos, bass drums and amplified guitars producing distorted sound."
  
• [13]:"...The genre borrowed heavily from rock and the blues but moved towards a more aggressive direction than other bands from the 60's incorporating energetic live shows and darker melodies and themes."
  
• [14]:"...Heavy Metal Music developed in the late 1960s from rock music and in the last 40 years has emerged not only into its own genre, but a complete culture, as well. It has broken off into dozens of sub-genres and has gained worldwide popularity with its unique style."
  

these three clearly proves my point, the other ones goes the same way, but aren't as specific. also all of them have very usefull info abut pioner bands, the genres ideology etc. if iwere doing a history about rock i do mention the heavy metal, a bit, and i´ll mention the rock & roll and the blues too.
to be honest i don't think that the "Genre/sub genre of rock music should be deleted from the page, but would be much better if it´s moved to the history section and completed this way: "The Heavy metal started as a sub genre of rock music but trough the years became a genre of it's own..." that way it would be much more neutral, what you think? Whiteandbleak (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the "sub-genre" sentence would fit well at the end of the first paragraph of the "characteristics" section, here is the example:

"The typical band lineup includes a drummer, a bassist, a rhythm guitarist, a lead guitarist, and a singer, who may or may not be an instrumentalist. Keyboard instruments are sometimes used to enhance the fullness of the sound.[6] It's important to remark that the sound of early heavy metal borrowed heavily from rock and blues from the era, and was initially considered to be a sub-genre of rock music. However whit the time it moved towards a more aggressive direction incorporating more energetic live shows and darker melodies and themes than other bands from the 60's and in the last 40 years has emerged as a genre of it's own, which has broke off into dozens of sub-genres and styles."

I think it will look great and will complement the article aswell. I will make the edits in the following days.Whiteandbleak (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think I can understand everything you say here. It remains true that the sources you cite are not of the same quality as most of the ones used to support the point. I am not sure this is a clearly resolvable issue, as there simply is no clear way of deciding when a sub-genre becomes a genre in its own right and sources are often not careful about meaning on subject like this. A quick look at major sources indicates that it is clearly part of rock music, for example the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I may be willing to do a major trawl of major sources and provide some results if other editors think it would be useful.--SabreBD (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather than my sources being of inferior quality, the only real diference is that my sources comes from sites that are specialized in heavy metal, thus are less popular/known; while the enciclopedia britanica don't, also after give it a whole look to the article, all it's info can well being got from wikipedia itself, wich makes it a mirror-like reference. I still defending the quality of my sources due all the new info that they can bring, including metal ideology, a more complete influences list etc. However i would like to have more editors participate into this discussion. Whiteandbleak (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact, we don't have the need to guess if a sub-genre have become a genre of it's own, there are references that clearly says that today's Heavy metal is a genre of it's own, and even one of your sources (the one which says: "Heavy metal grown up from rock, which, in turn gorwn up from rock and roll...") sugests the same thing.
Wikipedia right now is treating Heavy metal how if it were a rock sub-genre like alternative rock or indie rock, and that's not ok and must end as soon as possible. I mean have you ever heard something like "power alternative rock" or "black alternative rock" or even "Symphonic indie rock" definitivelly no, sub-genres doesn't have such huge variations, that's the reazon why they're sub-genres, in the other hand Heavy metal has broke into lots of it's own subgenres, using basic logic that makes heavy metal a genre of it's own. wikipedia is among the ten most popular websites on internet and to bring outdated info as this article does is unaceptable. I will do the edits unless a real and aceptable argument against it appears. Whiteandbleak (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:Consensus. Changes to articles do not occur on the basis on you not being convinced by an argument, but on gaining a degree of agreement on an issue. I am not convinced by your argument either. The fact that further hybridisation has occurred in no way proves that heavy metal is considered a separate and distinct genre, it might just prove it has been around for a long time. Afterall the same proliferation of forms can be found in Punk rock subgenres. I will try to find some time to assess the way in which the term has been used. At this point the sources provided are not sufficient.--SabreBD (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• As i told above, is not Ok that wikipedia considers Heavy metal a sub-genre like alternative rock or punk rock, it's not the same thing, even ethimologicaly speaking (Punk rock has the rock suffix, Heavy metal no), Punk rock can have variations, but most lyrical or regional whit no significant stylistic deviation, (although there are few exceptions), in the other hand you have Metal styles like Black metal, Death metal, Doom metal, Progressive Metal, industrial metal, all of them instantly recognizable, however, all this discussion about hybridization scale is pointless, i have like 8 references pointing that Heavy metal have become a genre of it's own, i don't know what you have against it. Whiteandbleak (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Bear with me, I am a bit pushed for time in the real world, but I am working on it.--SabreBD (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me weigh in here real quick. Of all the source provided, only one, Grave Digger Radio, gives a definite distinction between rock and heavy metal, and it also happens to be one of the few that could meet reliability standards. However, there are hundreds, probably thousands, of internet radio stations out there. This one is self-published and self-managed, so reliable in mentions in independent reliable sources need to be established.

Now, I have done a little research on my own, and Black Sabbath and the rise of heavy metal music by Andrew L. Cope does attempt to look at heavy metal as its own genre, but he also lumps it in with hard rock, and does not really say that heavy metal is not rock. So, if Grave Digger Radio can be proven to be reliable, then according to Wikipedia's policy regarding undue weight as part of maintaining neutrality, a small mention could be made about that station distinguishing the two.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have to disagree with you about my source's reliability, since [15] Metal rules is a printed and published magazine and [16] Silver dragon records is a notable underground record label. These two definitivelly are reliable, also i don't see why an already consolidated independent radio station can't be considered as reliable.
  

However, i gave a look to the book that you've submited and i found it very usefull, even more, it have all that we need to put metal as a genre apart from rock. I explain:

• Book's author cites other authors who have worked the topic (when he speaks about how a new genre is created he cites Fabbri saying "Genres do not form, as it were in a vacuum but originated from musical systems that are already established. Estable systems are transgressed to form new genres from existing ones(...) In the early formative stages of a new genre, evidences of the old and the new co-exists within the given musical set" for example.)
• Book's author remarks the need to do a re-evaluation of what defines Heavy metal as a genre apart from heavy/hard rock.
  
• The author never looks Heavy metal and Hard rock as a same genre, he realizes that is hard to differentiate Hard rock from Heavy metal and that there's been a problem doing such thing before, however, he later founds a way to differentiate both when compares AC/DC's musical structure with Black Sabbath's musical structure, resulting on Black Sabbath having all the features that differentiate Heavy Metal from Hard rock.
  

Thus, Heavy metal have become a genre of it's own, it must be in wikipedia too. Whiteandbleak (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Question – What source(s) say that metal evolved from classical music? – Confession0791 ^talk 04:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• See here: [17]. Whiteandbleak (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You can see in that section that classical being a primary influence is debated, and a source specifically targets Robert Walser's claims. Personally, someone who claims heavy metal is as much from classical as it is from blues and rock has no idea of how different classical is from popular music, but that is just my unreliable opinion. To get back to the discussion, is there any actual coverage of Metal Rules? I can't find out anything about the magazine from the website, is there another source that explains what it is? But it does not matter anyway, as the site only says that heavy metal became its own genre, not its own genre separate from rock. Death metal has been called a genre, that doesn't mean its separate from metal.

Now, about Grave Digger Radio. You said it is notable, can you please provide the notable mentions in sources? Remember, these sources do not have to be web-based, they can also be print, but enough information needs to be provided that other editors (like myself), could find it and access it.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has stated metal evolved from classical music. What I've read rather says it has been influenced by it - moreso with some of the extreme genres than with the earlier forms - but the basis is clearly blues / rock. Take Black Sabbath as a prime exemple. zubrowka74 18:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. User Whiteandbleak, however has stated the following at the beginning of this section: "'Heavy Metal is a genre of rock' is wrong and shouldn' t be in the introduction paragraphs, is a fact that Heavy Metal evolved mainly from blues and rock but it is influenced by classical music, neoclasical horror soundtracks and folk music too." While it is true that heavy metal has been influenced by those styles, it is still a rock genre (or as is being proposed now, its own genre). I personally can't see (or hear) why it is not a form of rock music. It has all of the basic stylistic features, and while it is now far removed from rock and roll (though that is a more recent development), so are genres such as alternative rock. Technically, on the English Wikipedia, rock is considered an outgrowth, even a separate genre, from rock and roll.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see any debate on classical being an important influence on metal since all the sources cited agrees on that, not Robert Walser alone, There is also referenced that notable Heavy metal musicians cites classical composers as influences, i think that someone who claims that Heavy metal don't drews significatively from classical music haven't heard Symphonic metal, Progressive Metal, Technical Death Metal or Symphonic Black Metal, genres where musicians very usually are classical trained. Also early Heavy metal pioners such as Deep Purple were known for drew heavilly from clasical music, i think all that is enough to add classical, neo classical and contemporary music (not all needed) as a stylistic origin.
  
• Now about metal rules magazine, well you can find images of it's printed version using google, also it is referenced in notable metal sites such here:[18] it even organized music festivals back then, so it must been notable. I know that the sentence isn't 100% specific, but if you read the full paragraph, it's obvious that it meant that, after all, we are editors, not lawyers to pretend that if something isn't 100% clear it can be omited.
• How to know that Grave Digger radio is notable, well, to found printed sources about it in my country would be hard, but there is another way to prove that the site is relevant: If one acces to it you'll see that it have lots of adds, which means that it have significant trafic of listeners, a site without trafic wouldn't have that much promotional adds, that's how internet's bussines works anyway.

How can you tell that you don't hear how heavy metal is a separated genre from rock music, i don't think that you have never heard Black metal, Thrash metal, Drone metal, Death metal etc. only classic Heavy metal could be confused with hard rock, however, as i said above in the book "Black Sabbath and the rise of heavy metal music" the author founds a technical way to definitivelly differentiate Heavy metal from Hard rock when compares AC/DC's musical structure with Black Sabbath's musical structure, resulting on Black Sabbath having all the features that differentiate Heavy Metal from Hard rock.

Is important to remark, that Country music have the same basis than Blues and rock, and so on pop music, and in fact it is the characteristic basis of all the popular music out there, wich originates from diverse forms of folk music. To say that Heavy metal is like Alternative rock is a giant fault, in terms of sonic diversity, Alternative rock don't comes any close to Heavy metal (which is obvious, since the first is a sub-genre of rock music and the second is a full outgrowth genre) i mean, have you ever heard something like Black/Death alternative rock, Neo-classical alternative rock, what about Power alternative rock? obviously no, and is because alternative rock is a sub-genre, while Metal is full genre, it's clear and obvious. Finally wikipedia points that rock music outgrowth from Rock and roll, but considers rock music a full genre, that's exactly what has to be made to Heavy metal music now. Whiteandbleak (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

First, with the whole classical thing, yes, there are specific subgenres of heavy metal that draw heavily from classical music, and so classical could be listed as an origin. But I'm referring to metal as a whole, not a few select styles or artists. And it is still much more popular based then classically based. But this discussion is going off course.

Metal Rules appears to be reliable. It does not have to be notable, but there was no information about it on the website, so additional info was needed. However, the article given does not support the claims you want to make.

With Grave Digger Radio, advertising does not prove notability. Again, it does not have to be notable, but there needs to be evidence that Grave Digger Radio is reliable as an author. This source does support your claim.

On closer inspection of the Google Books source that I have found, I realized that the author does not say that heavy metal is not rock, only that it is different than hard rock. Unless I'm missing something, which could very well be.

So, there is one potentially reliable source explicitly supporting your claim, and one solidly reliable source very, very weakly supporting your claim (unless there is something I missed in that book). If Grave Digger Radio can be proven reliable, than a mention of its comments can be made in the article.

(P. S. I have heard all of the styles mentioned above. Drone metal pushes the boundaries of metal, even Western popular music in general, so that one is weird, but the others still have a basic rock structure. I know alternative is completely different from metal, my point was that rock is a very broad style. Not as broad as jazz, and certainly not on the level of the differences in among all of the classical periods, but it is still broad. But all of this is pointless for the discussion, so let's just let this part drop.)--¿3family6 _contribs 19:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies that it has taken a while to pull this together and I think a lot of this has been overtaken by the arguments, but here is what some of the major texts, in no particular order say:

• Deena Weinstein, (2000), Heavy metal: the music and its culture argues that the genre of heavy metal emerged out of rock music, which is so broad as to be a field rather than a genre. Some support here, but hardly unequivocal as it still suggests that heavy metal is part of rock.
• William Phillips and Brian Cogan (2008), Encyclopedia of heavy metal music, states that "Heavy metal a genre of rock music that developed in the early 1970s". This one is pretty clear I think.
• Roy Shuker, (2005), Popular Music: The key concepts: second Edition, refers to the heavy metal genre, but he also uses genre to describe everything else that is clearly part of rock.
• Andrew L. Cope (2010), Black Sabbath and the rise of heavy metal music. This one already mentioned above. He talks about the "discourse surrounding heavy metal as a genre", but does not state that it is a separate genre or really distinguish it from heavy rock.
• John Book at Allmusic sees Heavy Metal as "rock & roll music played with a little more intensity", which indicates it is part of rock music.
• Steve Waksman, This ain't the summer of love: conflict and crossover in heavy metal and punk refers to "the way in which genre works in rock and popular music", so seems to see heavy metal as part of rock.
• Simon During, The Cultural Studies Reader refers to heavy metal as a rock genre. So again seems pretty clear.

To me this suggests that there is less than overwhelming evidence for the proposed change.--SabreBD (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No matter how much Heavy metal drews from Classical music, it stills a popular form of music, that's true, it's true also, that Heavy metal as a whole have been influenced by Classical music: [19], [20]. Classical music needs to be added to the stylistic origins section.

Again, i don't see why the Grave Diger Radio article could be less reliable than other sources, it comes from an online radio streaming site specialized on the genre, it also is well written and redacted, but you're geting too exigent and strict with that source (and with the level of writing accuracy of all my sources, when all these, if shown to any person, would be enough to prove that metal has become a genre of it's own)in particular, demanding profs and accuracy that aren't demanded to any other sources on wikipedia, it's obvious that you personally don't want these changes to happen.

About the books:

• Deena Weinstein, (2000), Heavy metal: the music and its culture, it says that heavy metal grown out from rock, wich in turn have grown out from rock and roll, even though not 100% specific, is recognizing that heavy metal is as much of an own-genre than the rock itself is, it also never claims personally that heavy metal is a sub-genre of rock music. In fact the whole book is about defining what tooks heavy metal apart from other genres, there's way more suport to my claim.

• The Encyclopedia of heavy metal music can't be seen/verified using any search engine, so it's weightless in this discussion.

• Roy Shuker, (2005), Popular Music: The key concepts: second Edition, This one clearly suports my claim, It never calls Heavy metal a "sub-genre of rock music", even at the last paragraph of page 133 it states that metal have been stablished as a genre of it's own, and have demostrated the common pattern of genre's fragmentation and hybridization... Must be pointed that on this book, the posibility of the author interchanging the genre and sub-genre terms for lazyness is impossible, since he clearly reffers to Thrash metal, Death metal and a long etc. as heavy metal sub-genres. so when he calls Heavy metal a genre is because he really meants it.

• Andrew L. Cope (2010), Black Sabbath and the rise of heavy metal music. I disagree with you in this one, for start the whole book is about how Heavy metal is diferent from Hard/Heavy rock, for the next it founds a definitive way to differentiate both when compares AC/DC's musical structure with Black Sabbath's musical structure, resulting on Black Sabbath having all the features that differentiate Heavy Metal from Hard rock. this one clearly suports my point and also never calls Heavy metal a sub-genre of rock music.

• John Book at Allmusic well this one clearly disagrees with me, but who takes allmusic seriously anyway? they thinks that pop music and rock music are the same thing, ignoring that both are totally separate genres wich their own background, porpouse, meaning, notable artists and regional scenes, wich is extremely asinine to say the least.

• Steve Waksman, This ain't the summer of love: conflict and crossover in heavy metal and punk the part that says

"the way in which genre works in rock and popular music", is it speaking about the punk genre or about the heavy metal genre? i ask because there just don't says. However, the author never call heavy metal a sub-genre or even a derivative form of rock, so as of right now, this book don't works neither for you or for me.

• Simon During, The Cultural Studies Reader this one says that metal started out from rock music, however, it never calls heavy metal a sub-genre of rock music, it also remarks that heavy metal is clearly oposed to the rock culture, this one probably suports your point, although when i read how it describes metal fans, and it's totally wrong about that.

I want to recall that the basic rock structure is in fact, the basic structure for all the popular music forms that exists, and that Black Death, Technical, progressive metal etc. very usually lacks it. Whiteandbleak (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I need to clear up a few misunderstandings about Wikipedia's use of reliable sources. First, Grave Digger Radio is self-published, which means to be reliable it needs to have material in the relevant field published by a third party. And even if the material being cited was published by a third party, it could still be debated, depending on what it was being used to source. Second, have you ever heard of the reliable sources noticeboard? Sources should be debated. If some questionable sources are used without being debated, that is wrong, but Wikipedia is a constant work in progress, and just because some people jump off of a cliff doesn't mean we all should (I hope that metaphor makes sense). As for the claim that Encyclopedia of heavy metal music cannot be used in this discussion because it is inaccessible over the internet is absolutely, completely false. Any reliable source can be used if it is verifiable. According to Wikipedia policy on accessibility of sources, "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining source material." Now, if none of the editors have access to that source, than obviously they can't uses it, but if one does, or even a few do, have it and the rest don't, I'm not sure how to proceed. It might mean the discussion is halted for awhile until other editors can verify.

Now to address the points you have made on the sources:

• Deena Weinstein, (2000), Heavy metal: the music and its culture, "it says that heavy metal grown out from rock, wich in turn have grown out from rock and roll, even though not 100% specific, is recognizing that heavy metal is as much of an own-genre than the rock itself is, it also never claims personally that heavy metal is a sub-genre of rock music. In fact the whole book is about defining what tooks heavy metal apart from other genres, there's way more suport to my claim." - this does not prove that heavy metal is separate at all, it just says it grew out of rock music
  

• "heavy metal grown out from rock, wich in turn have grown out from rock and roll" this one is recognizing that heavy metal is as much of an own-genre than the rock itself is. even if it don't says plain clear that metal is a genre, it much less says that is a sub-genre of metal. one point to metal.

• Roy Shuker, (2005), Popular Music: The key concepts: second Edition, "This one clearly suports my claim, It never calls Heavy metal a "sub-genre of rock music", even at the last paragraph of page 133 it states that metal have been stablished as a genre of it's own, and have demostrated the common pattern of genre's fragmentation and hybridization... Must be pointed that on this book, the posibility of the author interchanging the genre and sub-genre terms for lazyness is impossible, since he clearly reffers to Thrash metal, Death metal and a long etc. as heavy metal sub-genres. so when he calls Heavy metal a genre is because he really meants it." - it does not support your claim at all, if anything it says the opposite. You are right that he never calls it a subgenre of rock music, but he never says that it is not, or that it is separate from rock. He just calls it a genre. However, he does say "faster-paced the conventional rock" (emphasis added). Though not definite in saying that heavy metal is rock, it certainly leans that way, implying that heavy metal is unconventional rock. Also, he quotes another source, Lester Bangs, who clearly treats heavy metal as rock, even calling it "heavy-metal rock". So if anything, this source hinders your argument.
  

• No, he quotes lester bangs 'cos his point of view contrastates with his, also, is negatively criticizing the genre, so is not surprise the dissmisive adjetive. He never meant to call it "unconventional rock", he takes the rock genre as a reference to say that it's faster, he can well've said that is faster than conventional pop music, or that conventional blues, it's so clear that doesn't matters at all. citing as plain as it appears:
  

Once established, Heavy metal demostrated the common patern of genre fragmentation and hybridization. There are a number of identifiable Heavy metal subgenres, or closely related styles I think it can't be clearer, he meants that heavy metal is now an established genre that have shown the common patern of any genre's fragmentation into subgenres (it also uses the words genre and sub-genre properly, wich means that he definitivelly considers heavy metal a full grown genre, not a sub-genre, if that, he wuld called it "Heavy metal sub-genre" wich never happens what part you don't understand?) point for metal

• Andrew L. Cope (2010), Black Sabbath and the rise of heavy metal music. "I disagree with you in this one, for start the whole book is about how Heavy metal is diferent from Hard/Heavy rock, for the next it founds a definitive way to differentiate both when compares AC/DC's musical structure with Black Sabbath's musical structure, resulting on Black Sabbath having all the features that differentiate Heavy Metal from Hard rock. this one clearly suports my point and also never calls Heavy metal a sub-genre of rock music." - Neither here nor there, all it says is that heavy metal and hard rock are different.
  

• How many times i have to tell this to you: The book is about creating an efective way to diferentiate the emreging heavy metal genre from hard rock, heavy metal = genre is diferent from hard rock, wich is a sub-genre, you definitivelly have to read the introduction at least.

• John Book at Allmusic "well this one clearly disagrees with me, but who takes allmusic seriously anyway? they thinks that pop music and rock music are the same thing, ignoring that both are totally separate genres wich their own background, porpouse, meaning, notable artists and regional scenes, wich is extremely asinine to say the least." - First, Allmusic does make a distinction between pop and rock, but they do not have a separate "pop" category, as pop, depending on the style, can easily fit into their categories of rock, jazz, electronic, international, rap, etc. There are thousands of different ways music could be categorized, so to say a particular site should not be respected because you don't like its system is not a valid argument. Second, Allmusic is constantly being updated an reworked, and their tag system is full of errors. This is a major reason why Allmusic tags should not be used as sources. Only actual written material attributable to an author is reliable. Third, Allmusic should be taken seriously, as its actual written material fits Wikipedia's reliability criteria really, really well.
  

• 1- you coutersaid yourself various times, 2- Pop is a genre of it's own and it isn't categorizable under any other genre, fusionable maybe, but no beyond, 3- i agree, it's filled of flaws 4- this one suports your point. point for rock

• Steve Waksman, "This ain't the summer of love: conflict and crossover in heavy metal and punk "the part that says the way in which genre works in rock and popular music", is it speaking about the punk genre or about the heavy metal genre? i ask because there just don't says. However, the author never call heavy metal a sub-genre or even a derivative form of rock, so as of right now, this book don't works neither for you or for me." - That particular mention is somewhat difficult, but that whole section explains that the writer is showing how punk and metal have worked together in the history of rock.'
  

• no, in the sentence that is being cited, is speaking in singular, about only one: the punk rock sub-genre or the Heavy metal genre? we will never known.

• Simon During, The Cultural Studies Reader this one says that metal started out from rock music, however, it never calls heavy metal a sub-genre of rock music, it also remarks that heavy metal is clearly oposed to the rock culture, this one probably suports your point, although when i read how it describes metal fans, and it's totally wrong about that. - For some reason I can't access this one, so I cannot comment on it.

--¿3family6 _contribs 18:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Forgot about this from the Wikiproject music genres task force: "'Derivative forms' are styles of music that are related to the subject genre but are considered separate or developed enough musicologically to be considered parent/root genres in their own right, i.e., rock music > heavy metal music, punk rock, etc." Maybe we could compromise and change "genre" in the lead to "derivative?"--¿3family6 _contribs 03:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

let me explain: Punk rock = derivative. Heavy metal = genre. maybe some sources aren't 100% exact to call Heavy metal "a full grown genre with it's roots in blues and rock who is a separate genre from rock today" (even though you don't consider the ones who does that reliable enough for some random reazon, but in the other hand, you consider reliable a book that can't be verified anywhere on internet, that's so... neutral) but there is way less reference to call Heavy metal a sub-genre or a derivative form of rock, since no one does it, so heavy metal as an own genre stills the stronger and most referenced option. Whiteandbleak (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

First, I am not discounting Grave Digger Radio for a random reason, I am following the guidelines on reliable sources. Google books are very easy to verify, Google has the publishing information easily and readily available. But if you think a particular book or author is an unreliable source for a certain statement, we can discuss that here, or you can take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

Second, there are plenty of sources that say heavy metal is a form of rock. This is from a quick Google Books search:

• All music guide: the definitive guide to popular music by Vladimir Bogdanov, Chris Woodstra, and Stephen Thomas Erlewine. Hal Leonard Corporation. Doesn't get more reliable than this, both the authors and publication are respected, they have the authority to comment on the subject, it is a secondary source, and is published by a third party. It says that heavy metal is a derived from blues and psychedelic rock, and in the 70s "established itself as one of the most commercially successful forms of rock & roll."
• Culture wars: an encyclopedia of issues, viewpoints, and voices, Volume 1 by Roger Chapman. M.E. Sharpe. I don't know if this is Roger Chapman, rock vocalist. If it is, he is a solid source to comment. If not, he could still be used, but just not as strong. Not a music book, but well researched, and discusses cultural aspects, so it is not unrelated to the subject. The source is published by a third party, but as an encyclopedia it is a tertiary source. Good for summary and as a backup to support secondary sources. It says that heavy metal is a form of rock & roll.
• On record: rock, pop, and the written word by Simon Frith and Andrew Goodwin (possibly Andrew Goodwin, music director). Psychology Press. At least one author is reliable, probably both, and the publication deals with music. Secondary source published by third party. Does not directly say that heavy metal is rock, but lumps it in with hard rock in one sentence, and deals with how the heavy metal of Led Zepplin was part of the 'masculinization' of rock."
• The cultural studies reader by Simon During. Psychology Press. Google Book search on author reveals he deals with various cultural studies, including music. Secondary source published by third party. Throughout the book he considers heavy metal a form of rock.
• Heavy metal: the music and its culture by Deena Weinstein. De Capo Press. Weinstein deals with sociology, has done research into music and done more than one book on it, one is already used in this Wikipedia article. Not the foremost authority, but still can be used as a reliable source. The book is a secondary source published by third party. Considers heavy metal a form of rock throughout the book, and interestingly says that rock and rock & roll are too broad to be genres.
• Monkeyshines on music and great musicians by Phyllis Barkas Goldman. EBSCO Publishing. Can't find anything on the author, but the book is a reliable source. It is about music, is a secondary source, and isn't self published. Calls heavy metal a form of rock.

Those sources are pretty definitive. If Grave Digger Radio is reliable, it is in the minority, so to maintain neutrality it should have a mention as dissenting, but heavy metal should still be called a genre of rock music.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• How can you want to call heavy metal a "rock genre" when no one of your new sources called it that way? sources called it a musical form of rock music, wich if i get as strict as you don't confirm anything, no one of the authors called it a "genre of rock"

• Leaving that aside, from your sources, i couldn't confirm the first and the third, from the four that i can confirm one only says that heavy metal was inspired by rock etc., other two clearly refers to 1970 traditional heavy metal, and no one points that metal as a whole today is a genre of rock, these sources belongs to the traditional heay metal article. not here really. I'm using a new acount because my other acount seems to be caught in the middle of some kind of editor's crossfire and don't works for now. Whithe02 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Point one: That's why I suggested calling it a derivative, as none of the sources actually say it's a genre of rock, just that it's a form of it.

Point two: That's original research. On the one hand, you don't want metal being called a genre of rock music because none of the sources use that specific wording, but then you say that they are referring to traditional heavy metal, when "traditional" shows up nowhere in those sources. You can't have it both ways.

Suggestion: Maybe find some sources that support your side. I'm perfectly open to heavy metal being its own genre, but you need to find sources that say its no longer rock music.--¿3family6 _contribs 04:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Whiteandbleak seems to be turning this into a forum on what heavy metal is. The cop-out answer is that heavy metal is an opinion. Nevertheless, most musicologists will tell you that heavy metal is defined as distorted blues with slower tempos--whereas, faster tempos are considered hard rock.

Heavy metal enthusiasts will state that a rangy singer is an important part of the equation, such as Rob Halford. The other common characteristics of heavy metal are a) Gothic persona, b) outlandish lyrics (often based on folklore or literature), and c) blue collar appeal (songs about workers).

Dark themes and wild live shows hardly separate heavy metal from rock 'n' roll. The bands KISS and AC/DC for instance had dark images and wild live shows but neither sound is considered heavy metal, thus, dark images and wild live shows do not equal heavy metal. More obviously, rock 'n' roll was often called the "devil's music" back in the 50s and even still today.

Dark themes and wild live concerts showed up in vaudeville, but more precisely in Screamin' Jay Hawkins live show of, "I Put a Spell on You," ergo, the dark themes and live shows of later metal was still influenced by blues-based rock 'n' roll. Not to forget the wild live shows or sound of acid rock bands in the 1960s (i.e. Blue Cheer) or the Monterey Pop Festival that included an aggressive display by The Who (destroying their instruments) but also, Jimi Hendrix lighting his guitar on fire. Thus, the claim that heavy metal became different because of those elements is clearly false.

Furthermore, the dark themes can and should be traced back to the swamps of the Mississippi Delta and the blues of musicians such as Robert Johnson, especially the song, "Hellhound on My Trail," which was a popular cover song by blues-rock bands of the 1960s (such as Fleetwood Mac); the same type of blues-rock bands that swapped the influence of blues with folk. Even so, I find it hard to believe that folk lyrics truly separated heavy metal from the blues influence, because the blues-based cover of, "House of the Rising Sun" by The Animals shows many precursors to heavy metal (vocals, tempos, themes), and yet, the lyrics are considered to be folk (the song predates the development of the blues). The lyrics tell a story about remorse for sinful living--an underlying theme that is common in contemporary heavy metal. Dark or outlandish themes can also be heard from a song like, "Born on the Bayou" by Creedence Clearwater Revival, which evokes images of the swamps of the Mississippi Delta and tells the story of vindictiveness and mysticism (hoodoo) through the rangy growls of John Fogerty. "Born on the Bayou" however, is generally overlooked as heavy metal because it does not fit the characteristics of heavy metal in the late 60s, and yet, the song by today's standards is clearly heavy metal. The song is also layered with a guitar setting for the intro that is over-driven with amp vibrato on a slow setting (paraphrased from Wikipedia). I should mention that Creedence songs such as, "Born on the Bayou," "Bad Moon Rising," and, "Run Through the Jungle" were very popular in Great Britain and amongst influential musicians in the re-direction of heavy metal, such as Roger Daltrey of The Who. That is why, CCR, is arguably the first heavy metal band to use folk or non-blues music (but not exclusively).

The earliest use of the term "heavy metal" is found in the Steppenwolf song, "Born to Be Wild," nevertheless, Chas Chandler of The Animals claims that the term "heavy metal" was coined to describe the sound of the Jimi Hendrix Experience, but Chandler's claim cannot be verified. Typically however, Black Sabbath is considered the first "heavy metal" band, because many metal musicians would draw influence from Black Sabbath--but just as rock 'n' roll was a little bit of everything from the music scenes of the 20s, 30s, and 40s, Black Sabbath was merely a metamorphosis from the scenes of the 60s.67.169.25.132 (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)67.169.25.132 (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's a good deal of research. Do you have sources for all of this? Pretty impressive, but I'm not sure how it relates to the argument. (And FYI, many consider Kiss and AC/DC to be metal, so those two bands are not the best to use as examples.)--¿3family6 _contribs 01:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources: the points are based on common knowledge--stuff that anyone who researches the subject should know without citations. The points about "Born to be Wild" and Jimi Hendrix inspiring the term heavy metal is included in this Wikipedia page. Anything I've mentioned can be found on the related Wikipedia pages. I should mention that "Bad Moon Rising"/"Lodi" went to number 1 and "Up around the Bend"/"Run Through the Jungle" went to number 3 in Great Britain--I only mention that, because you might not notice that on the Wikipedia page. AC/DC and KISS, in terms of sound, are not heavy metal--only in image. Musicologists will define a genre strictly in terms of sound and not image.

My statements relate to this discussion because the discussion began as a claim that the page is factually wrong, because Whiteandbleak thinks that heavy metal is about image, performance, and themes rather than sound--and that heavy metal has moved beyond the blues influence. Thus, I decided to provide the rebuttal, if you will.

In terms of image, KISS and AC/DC would fit "heavy metal." In terms of sound--they don't. In terms of image, CCR is not heavy metal. In terms of sound-they were because Creedence was ahead of the curve in terms of mixing-in folk, twang, and surf into songs that were slow with heavy bass and aggressive percussion (typically bleak), distorted, riff-driven and mixed in with disparate sounds like drum sticks, cowbells, or the jangle of a twelve-string guitar. Go listen to songs like "Porterville," "Born on the Bayou," "Gloomy," "Walk on the Water," "Fortunate Son," "Bad Moon Rising," "Green River," "Run Through the Jungle," "Commotion," "Travelin' Band," "Up around the Bend," "Effigy," "Ramble Tamble," "Wrote a Song for Everyone," "Sinister Purpose," "Bootleg," "Penthouse Pauper," "Graveyard Train," or the covers of "I Put a Spell on You" and "Suzie Q" and tell me that those don't sound like obvious precursors to death, doom, drone, Gothic, black, alternative, sludge, nu metal or even thrash and speed metal as well as other sounds that have been crossed with metal, such as punk and grunge. I should add that Creedence has been highly influential in Scandinavia and Finland-where many modern metal bands have come from.67.169.25.132 (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)67.169.25.132 (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I decided to create a separate section to respond to the unsigned section about Jimi Hendrix being overlooked as heavy metal, and the section by Whiteandbleak.

"Heavy metal" is difficult to define as a genre, in part, because "heavy metal" has become more of a cultural term like "hip hop" or "rock 'n' roll" is, rather than one particular sound. There is too much POV on what "heavy metal" is, which is why it is important to understand the difference between the "heavy metal" sound and "heavy metal" culture. Musically, "heavy metal" is associated with distorted blues of the late 1960s and early 1970s, before metal bands started to mix in different influences, but are often labeled in different genres, such as thrash metal.

The sound described by Whiteandbleak sounds more like Industrial music in line with Nine Inch Nails or the soundtrack for "The Social Network."

Sound vs. Image

Heavy metal enthusiasts will state that a rangy singer is an important part of the equation, such as Rob Halford. The other common characteristics of heavy metal are a) Gothic persona, b) outlandish lyrics (often based on folklore or literature), and c) blue collar appeal (songs about workers).

Dark themes and wild live shows hardly separate heavy metal from rock 'n' roll. The bands KISS and AC/DC for instance had dark images and wild live shows but, neither one is heavy metal in terms of sound. Both are closer to garage or hard rock. Thus, dark images and wild live shows do not equal heavy metal. More obviously, rock 'n' roll was often called the "devil's music" back in the 50s and even still today.

Dark themes and wild live concerts showed up in vaudeville, but more precisely in Screamin' Jay Hawkins live show of, "I Put a Spell on You," ergo, the dark themes and live shows of later metal was still influenced by blues-based rock 'n' roll. Not to forget the wild live shows or sound of acid rock bands in the 1960s (i.e. Blue Cheer); Jim Morrison at the Whiskey a Go-Go; or the Monterey Pop Festival that included an aggressive display by The Who (destroying their instruments) but also, Jimi Hendrix lighting his guitar on fire. Thus, the claim that heavy metal became different because of those elements is clearly false.

Furthermore, the dark themes can and should be traced back to the swamps of the Mississippi Delta and the blues of musicians such as Robert Johnson, especially the song, "Hellhound on My Trail," which was a popular cover song by blues-rock bands of the 1960s (such as Fleetwood Mac); the same type of blues-rock bands that swapped the influence of blues with folk. Even so, I find it hard to believe that folk lyrics truly separated heavy metal from the blues influence, because the blues-based cover of, "House of the Rising Sun" by The Animals shows many precursors to heavy metal (vocals, tempos, themes), and yet, the lyrics are considered to be folk (the song predates the development of the blues). The lyrics tell a story about remorse for sinful living--an underlying theme that is common even in contemporary heavy metal. Dark or outlandish themes can also be heard from a song like, "Born on the Bayou" by Creedence Clearwater Revival, which evokes images of the swamps of the Mississippi Delta and tells the story of vindictiveness and mysticism (hoodoo) through the rangy growls of John Fogerty. "Born on the Bayou" however, is generally overlooked as heavy metal because it does not fit the characteristics of heavy metal in the late 60s, and yet, the song by today's standards is clearly heavy metal. The song is also layered with a guitar setting for the intro that is over-driven with amp vibrato on a slow setting (paraphrased from Wikipedia). I should mention that Creedence songs such as, "Born on the Bayou," "Bad Moon Rising," and, "Run Through the Jungle" were very popular in Great Britain and amongst influential British musicians in the re-direction of heavy metal, such as Roger Daltrey of The Who.

The anonymous section insinuates that it's racist for Jimi Hendrix to be overlooked in heavy metal.

The earliest use of the term "heavy metal" is found in the Steppenwolf song, "Born to Be Wild," nevertheless, Chas Chandler of The Animals claims that the term "heavy metal" was coined to describe the sound of the Jimi Hendrix Experience, but Chandler's claim cannot be verified. Typically however, Black Sabbath is considered the first "heavy metal" band, because many metal musicians would draw influence from Black Sabbath--but just as rock 'n' roll was metamorphosis of the 40s and 50s, Black Sabbath was merely a metamorphosis from the scenes of the 60s.

Jimi Hendrix is widely regarded as the best guitarist of all-time. All three studio albums by the Jimi Hendrix Experience regularly appear in the top 100 of greatest albums. Plenty of credit is also given to the many African-Americans or people of African origin that have contributed to music in the 20th century, such as Robert Johnson, Big Mama Thornton, Chuck Berry, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Bob Marley & The Wailers, Little Richard, Ray Charles, Muddy Waters, Elmore James, Bo Diddley, T-Bone Walker, John Lee Hooker, BB King and so on and so on.

Metal fans tend to identify with bands that have a Gothic persona, such as Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, or Judas Priest. If anything, metal fans completely ignore the influence that West Coast musicians in the 1960s had on the many directions of "heavy metal," including The Beach Boys, The Byrds, Blue Cheer, The Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Santana, Steppenwolf, The Doors, Eric Burdon & The Animals, Iron Butterfly, Creedence Clearwater Revival and of course, the Jimi Hendrix Experience, but also East Coast musicians such as Bob Dylan, Frank Zappa & The Mothers of Invention, and The Velvet Underground. They also ignore the influence of British beat-pop, such as the Spencer Davis Group, Traffic, or The Zombies.67.169.25.132 (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

...Too long didn't read, so wich was the conclussion here, metal is a genre or not? Nicrorus (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)