Talk:Disturbed (band)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

featured picture nomination

The picture in this artical has been nominated for a featured picture status, please vote for it here. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Image:Img_0326.jpg --ZeWrestler 16:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) --Zouavman Le Zouave 12:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nu Metal/heavy metal or hard rock.

There has been an revert war going on with what the genre of Disturbed is. Personally, I consider them heavy metal, but there are people that are claiming they are nu metal. But they are accually as announced by David, they are hard rock. Lets figure this out here, rather than constantly reverting the main article. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 13:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• I do not believe Disturbed is a nu metal band.--68.117.210.6

Disturbed refers to themselves as an "alt metal" band. I assume this mean alternative metal though it could come from German 'alt' meaning old. Heavy metal is often associated w/ drinking and beers, such as Alaskan Amber, refer to themselves as 'alt beer'. ~ CG

That's not "alt beer"; it's "altbier". Look it up. :) Andrew Rodland

• The on going hilarity of the “revert war” continues. I also think they're hard rock and I don't see why people should go around changing the article without discussing it on the talk page. Perhaps it could also be considered to just call them a rock group, rather than to try and get complete precision. (Although some people say nu-metal isn't metal....it would be a compromise of sorts to the people who think Disturbed aren't Heavy Metal). User:Blightsoot

Along with thinking they are heavy metal or nu metal, some people also believe they are hard rock. My opinion is they are heavy metal but I don't get upset when people call them nu metal because that's what the record companies label them as. As for hard rock, I think that's just a broad term for music like this and encompasses many genres. User:theunicyclegirl

---

I dont know what all of you are smoking, but Disturbed is NOT Heavy Metal. Heavy Metal is bands like Metallica and Sepultura, and Disturbed sounds nothing like them.

• Yeah I agree that Disturbed is nothing like Metallica and Sepultura but that doesn't mean they're worse than those two. Classical musicians, jazz musicians, popular musicians, and many other musicians can appreciate heavy metal even though they're nothing like the music they perform. Why can't you?

---

• How ironic, considering Metallica's last album is consistent with several of the apparent "nu-metal" styles.

I don't even see why there is a page as in depth as it is on "nu-metal". It's generally meant as an insult to groups that basically sound like rap. User:Blightsoot

• Disturbed is a nu metal band, even if their new album has solos. System of a Down are also nu-metal, and their guitarists also throws in the occasional solo. Having a solo doesn't mean you're not nu-metal. The two bands mentioned above have pretty much sold out, do if you use them in an argument, it pretty much makes your point void. I vote for nu metal. 80.58.6.172 15:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

What is your definition of a sell out? How can you say these bands are sell outs? Because they have a fan base of more than 1000? Because people can hear them on the radio? It isn't like these bands are on every other commercial or anything like that. You want a sell out band, look up Metallica. Metal? "Nu-Metal"? Disturbed is just a rock band. Classifications beyond that are for suckers.

They are not nu metal, as they do not rap or have distorted lyrics such as System of a Down. to say the least Disturbed is indeed a heavy metal band. I agree they do not sound like the older metal bands but this is to be expected. Evey band evolves as times change and there sound changes to match these times. Also they did not sell out, a band only sells out if they use there fame to help a so X Disturbed is not rock, they are metal. they have stated this at there concerts. tmething that has nothing to do with them: example (Slipknot selling health insurance) you can not say a band sells out because they acheive fame.

- Listing this band as Heavy Metal is factually inaccurate in multiple ways. Anyone with an extensive knowlegible about the Metal genre (as I do) would agree. They are an entirely "Nu Metal" band, which is entirely apparent in their sound, and image. To call them Heavy Metal is an out right lie. I'm changing this part. MadDax 07:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

---

• Yeah, yeah yeah. Ok then Mr "knowlegible", Tell me which part of this Disturbed Comes into:

Nu metal is a controversial subgenre of Rock music. Its connection to Metal as a music style is purely in the name. Often times this is miss classified. It sometimes bears some influence from hip-hop, because rhythmic innovation and syncopation are primary. Nu metal bands also feature aggressive vocals (either rapped, shouted, or sung), drop-tuned guitars that are clean or distorted, (with riffing similar to the Seattle Grunge Rock scene of the early 1990s) a funk-based rhythm section, and occassional DJ techniques such as turntables and sampling.

Ok so lets look at this. There is no element of "hip-hop" in Disturbed's music, and I've never heard any "funk based rhythm" "occasional DJ techinques such as turntables and sampling" or any other random excuses to label bands with derogatory terms.

Also, if you look at Disturbed's newest album, it has numerous guitar solos and riffs consistent with other Heavy Metal.

I think there is an obvious amount of disagreement on this issue, so I'm going to change the genre to Metal. There isn't any point trying to describe them under sub-genre's with the number of disagreements on which one they come under. Blightsoot 12:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you want to get into it, the label does apply reasonably well. Disturbed does, to my ear, take some musical cues from Seattle as well as more traditional metal sources, and they do also incorporate elements from rap and funk into their songs, though not to the same degree as other artists. See for instance "Droppin' Plates" or "Liberate", or compare "Shout 2000" to the original "Shout". And no one who's heard the music would say that Disturbed's vocals aren't "aggressive".

Further, it would be foolish to say that Disturbed are "simply" heavy- or speed- or thrash- metal -- they have a distinctive style that's grown beyond all of those influences.

Personally I don't think that it's important to place music into a single genre, and I don't intend to get into a revert war, but I also don't think it's fair to suppose that the idea that Disturbed is Nu-metal is entirely meritless. What I do think, given the stigma of the term, is that that label is mostly being applied by people who don't like Disturbed, which makes it borderline POV. Anyway, I agree that sticking to "Metal" is a reasonable middle ground.

Andrew Rodland 04:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

---

You're all wasting your time arguing over meaningless lables like "nu-metal". They are either in the broader, and better category of "metal" or they are not. Sub-genres should be avoided and dropped entirely. In 10 years, nobody will know what you're talking about when you mention "nu-metal" or "goregrind," but they'll know damn well what "metal" is. Anyone that believes different is deluded, wrong, and ultimately can be broken down into fanboy-status as someone who isn't (a) authoritative; or (b) shouldn't even be listened to.

End of line.

---

HARD ROCK, NOT METAL.

- Iron Maiden was metal. Metallica was metal. Judas Priest was metal. Disturbed's sound is in no way similar to these bands. Disturbed is played on the radio, MTV, as well as the other mainstream television channels. They are Hard Rock. By having the term "Metal" on Disturbed's page is total blasphemy. Disturbed is HARD ROCK. What seperates them from Nickelback, Korn, and Staind? Is Nickelback metal too? By your logic, they sure as hell should be.

Take into consideration, Wikipedia's definiton of "Hard Rock".

-Disturbed has ALOT more in common with Black Sabbath (Whom was Hard Rock) then they do with Slayer, for instance (Whom is metal).

-hard rock typically features major key song construction, as opposed to heavy metal, which is often minor key oriented.

-There is a heavy reliance on the pentatonic scale for most elements of song construction, and fifths (power chords) are often substituted for traditional chords. Chord progressions are commonly associated to 1-4-5 degrees of the scale, as in rock and roll.

-Hard rock is typified by a bright, trebly overdrive distortion effect on the guitars, lending to its overall sound. Drums can range from 100-150 Beats Per Minute, with 120 BPM being typical. Bass is usually warm sounding and lyrics are usually not as dark as those found in heavy metal.

-Songs are generally hook laden, and consist of:

  1. an intro
  2. verse
  3. chorus
  4. verse
  5. chorus
  6. solo
  7. chorus
  8. an ending

Now, If this doesn't describe Disturbed, I don't know what does. Their simplistic riffs and drum beats, along with their melodic vocals makes Disturbed a HARD ROCK BAND; NOT A METAL BAND. "Metal" Would mean they'd fit in normally with Slayer, Testament, Megadeth, whilst "Hard Rock" would put them along AC/DC and Black Sabbath. As I said, Disturbed is on the playlist of EVERY SINGLE rock radio station, along with Nickelback and Staind and many other rock artists. Listen to their music and it's obvious they are not metal. The page should definitely remain as HARD ROCK. It's insulting any other way.

METALGOD 12:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Your theory has major flaws, and I'm guessing I'm not the only one seeing them. Before you even start on Iron Maiden metal lines and "been on MTV", Bruce Dickinson played Disturbed on his Heavy Metal radio show the other week......I'd take his thoughts over yours on Metal any day of the week. Metallica also feature often on MTV when they have new songs out, the irony.

On "Nickelback, Korn, and Staind?", they are more well known to the general public than Disturbed are. I've also heard no good solos (or in fact any) from these shitty bands.

"-Disturbed has ALOT more in common with Black Sabbath (Whom was Hard Rock) then they do with Slayer, for instance (Whom is metal)." Black Sabbath is also classed as British heavy metal making them actually one of Metallica's inspirations.

"-Hard rock is typified by a bright, trebly overdrive distortion effect on the guitars, lending to its overall sound. Drums can range from 100-150 Beats Per Minute, with 120 BPM being typical. Bass is usually warm sounding and lyrics are usually not as dark as those found in heavy metal. " Arguably that is the case with people like Nickelback. They don't use dark lyrics often as far as I know. Disturbed on the other hand have got songs about "satan hiding behind different names" and the devouring of souls/people.

" 1. an intro

  2. verse
  3. chorus
  4. verse
  5. chorus
  6. solo
  7. chorus
  8. an ending"

This shows nothing, plenty of songs from a lot of genres fit that pattern. Even Megadeth's Rust in Peace...Polaris roughly fits this. "Now, If this doesn't describe Disturbed, I don't know what does. Their simplistic riffs and drum beats, along with their melodic vocals makes Disturbed a HARD ROCK BAND; NOT A METAL BAND. "Metal" Would mean they'd fit in normally with Slayer, Testament, Megadeth, whilst "Hard Rock" would put them along AC/DC and Black Sabbath. As I said, Disturbed is on the playlist of EVERY SINGLE rock radio station, along with Nickelback and Staind and many other rock artists. Listen to their music and it's obvious they are not metal. The page should definitely remain as HARD ROCK. It's insulting any other way. " blah blah blah. Your basic argument is that they've been on MTV a few times, as well as a few rock stations. Disturbed should not be under the Hard Rock umbrella. I'm now firmly seated in the ever increasing Metal camp. I mean, you're trying to clump Disturbed with Whitesnake for crying out loud.

And what kind of bullcrap is that they don't have dark lyrics? listen to down with the sickness sometime. 70.238.252.216

Christian?

Do Disturbed have Christian themes in their music? I don't mean, they're a christian rock band, I just mean like Creed and POD have. --Richy 12:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I do know that David Draiman is Jewish... Take that as you will.-->Chemical Halo 23:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Disturbed's 2'nd album, "Believe" has a whole mess of religious themes. Listen to Prayer, for instance. Then listen to Liberate, and Believe. They don't only use Christian themes but others as well. Look at the cover for the Believe album, and the symbol you see stands for Universal Belief. In it contains the four major religions: Celtic Cross, Star of David, Pentacle, and the Cresent Moon of Islam.

METALGOD 02:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Disturbed have themselves claimed to be spiritual, not actually religious.

---

I think its safe to say that any band that uses curse words is not a christian band. And yeah, Believe has all sorts of religious stuff in it, not neccesarily pro religion though. Prayer seems to be mocking religion and god

He said "christian themes" not Christian Band. And U2 also swear, drink and chain smoke...they are devout Christians. Snowbound 04:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Christian themes? David is a jew

More Genre Hilarity

It seems one user against the majority insists that Disturbed should have the genre labelled as Hard Rock instead of Metal.

The apparent definite proof is an interview of KNAC. Despite the fact the interviewer asks "Do you think that metal is less forgiving" to Draiman, it apparently means an experienced interviewer is randomly asking him about a different genre nothing to do with Disturbed. Draiman continually says Disturbed are unique and with his Hard Rock point, he merely was pointing out that Disturbed is different from most Metal groups and that he "At the end of the day, the categorization or the stereotyping that people do is something I could care less about." meaning he's going with the "label us how everyone else is if you want, we don't care where we're put".

In short it was a rant on metalcore and death metal and he's simply trying to distance himself from it in a very unimpartial way....something that is nothing new.

I support the policies brought in by the other editors and I've reverted to it. Wikipedia is not a place of non-neutrality and for fanboys who follow every word a band says like it is the word of God. (Only Steve Harris should get that honour) 66.76.50.91 20:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"We're more Hard Rock than anything." - David Draiman, of Disturbed. Also, when asked on Rockline whether Todd McFarlane (Who created the album cover for Ten Thousand Fists) is a fan of Disturbed, David responded "No, He doesn't really listen to hard rock". I'd think the band themselves would know what genre they are, rather than most of you. POINT: Disturbed is Hard Rock.--METALGOD 21:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll chime in here. Considering a lot of people label them nu-metal, it is no surprise they want to put themselves forward as "Hard Rock", but the facts actually show them as nu-metal. The hard rock thing is merely against the "labelling" as Draiman put it. Therefore, as the previous user eluded too, the viewpoint that they're "hard rock" in the face of facts is not a neutral point of view and is subjective. I won't put it as nu-metal because I know this will bring back the old argument of "Nu-metal or Heavy Metal". I think we just need to realize that Disturbed are unique. That means I'll put in a bit about both hard rock and metal. A "fair compromise" which there should be no problems with. Roger Danger Field 10:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Aah... METALGOD... Are you gonna keep this up? Dude, you're really the only guy who's actively against the 'metal' labeling, almost like it's a religious matter. It ain't, but you know what I mean. Anyway, I'm all for putting them under as either rock/metal, or just plain metal. I mean, I'd say rock if there were more people arguing it, but the sad fact is it's a huge number on one side, and one guy on another side. Therefore... well, you're being stubborn. Like the spoiled kid in the corner with his arms crossed INSISTING that he's right, while all the other kids all agreed on the other side LONG beforehand. And uh... I don't think I'm the only one who's a little fed up with all this. It's gone on TOO LONG. - Neodracoferret

Whoever you are, keep your rusted comments to yourself and do not abuse the privileges put forth by this site. This is not a critic page. (Although real critics have a better knowledge of how to use the English language better.) People like what they like are there's not much anybody can do to change that. So be considerate. And on a personal note; calling others 14 year old goths and feeling sorry for them doesnt make you any more mature than your obvious childishness.

To those who believe Disturbed is a Nu-Metal band: I honestly don;t see where you ge this from. Nu-Metal is far more rap than anything Disturbed has ever released. A good example of a Nu-Metal band is Linkin Park. THey are perhaps the most popular and defining band of the Nu-Metal genre(As said on the Nu-Metal page. Could you bring up some good evidence as to why you think they are?

To those of you who think Disturbed is a Hard Rock or Metal Band: I can really see this going either way. Ten Thousand Fists is more Hard Rock, while The Sickness was more Metal, with Believe being more in between. I could be catigorized as either, or both, as is sometimes done with genre disputes. --RockMaster 19:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Tag

I added a disputed tag to the Violation of Innocence section. Not sourced and there is no evidence this group exists. Group is on AfD, if it is deleted, this section should be removed.--Isotope23 20:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

About rapping???

thats not rapping...if that were the case throw in metallica megadeth since they've both had non-singing parts in songs

Minneapolis' Disturbed

Before the band discussed here there was an undisputably metal band by the moniker Disturbed from Minneapolis or St. Paul Minnesota that toured briefly. Some members included Earl Root(God Awful,(SIC),Aesma Deava,On The Rocks), James Odegard (God Awful), Blake Hurlbert (Quincy Punx, ShredFit,(SIC),Sublevel). They had at least two releases and also played Milwaukee MetalFest at least once.

vandalism

Should this article be locked? I'm fairly certain that Disturbed is not a porn star.

I'm fairly certain you are right :P I apparently overlooked one occurence of "porn star" when cleaning up after some vandals earlier today...but I don't think the current vandalism level warrants page protection - that is generally used as a last resort when things start going really bad, and should always be a temporary measure - Ferkelparade π 16:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ozzfest Performance

I have removed the details of their most recent Ozzfest performance. Nobody gives a damn about the songs they played live, at least not in an encyclopedia. We're not a fanpage. --84.62.141.252 16:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Genre needs to be referenced

The genre line is now "Hard Rock, Nu Metal, Alternative Metal". Hard Rock is mentioned in the article, Nu Metal is the formal genre by the industry, and if people are trying to put in heavy metal, then it's probable that it is Alternative Metal (although this could have many meanings - same as prog metal?). I'm tired of seeing reverts happening. Most of this is unreferenced original research, as far as I can tell (apart from nu metal, if it's the industry position). Please find some references before changing this again LinaMishima 01:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"Disturbed was originally founded as a nu metal band, but are now regarded as hard rock or heavy metal" and "many fans of the genre do not consider Disturbed a part of it" are contradicitons. If many people do not consider Disturbed heavy metal (most who know what heavy metal is), then how are they "now regarded as hard rock or heavy metal." It's said as though it is a total fact, and not someone's view on it (which it really is, else this dispute wouldn't be here). It takes a lot of ignorance of metal to write a sentence like that. --Ryouga 20:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

references found for genre

• official website? claims "Hard Rock"
• Major UK venue says "Heavy Metal"
• Pulse mag says "Nu Metal"
• NME Say "rockers" and "Metalers"
• Rolling stones about defines it properly, though - originally nu metal, now Hard rock, and considered Heavy metal by Ozzy himself. We have a reference!

It's late here, and I can't remember the correct citation format for websites, so I'm not adding the rolling stones conclusion right now. If someone else wants to, feel free. LinaMishima 23:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

who is song writter in disturbed?

who?

probably Disturbed lol.It usually says on the inside of the CD or on the internet somewhere.I think David writes a lot of the lyrics. SOADLuver 17:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Genre, ONCE AND FOR ALL

Ok, the article has been totally messed up by "Josboroliv", see history. Before just reverting things, lets settle this once and for all. Lets discuss it out, see if we're happy, and do (and leave) it. I totally agree with what you guys came up with in the past weeks, which would be Nu Metal in the beginning, and a change in their music, gogin closer to hard rock and heavy metal with the later 2 albums. Discuss, let's finish this. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Man, it´s simple they began and did for a long time musics in the Nu Metal Genre, its obvious that they can do some musics in others genres but this don´t change that the band is a Nu metal band. - - User:josboroliv 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See the references I found above. Technically the issue of which genres should be listed has been finished, all that needs doing is the above working in as properly cited references within the article. LinaMishima 23:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, this article is supposed to show general information about the band, not to reflect your personal dislike of the band. Looking at the history, i see people were already at finishing it for good, when you just came in and with one sweep deleted it all. You should stay out of this. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 05:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Genre has been fixed & referenced, warning comment left at top of article

I have added the rolling stone website reference to the article, restoring the genre line in the intro whilst doing so. To be honest, the genre line does look out of place. It would probably be best to work in all the references throughout the document. I had initially added the reference via the ref tag and the citeweb template, but on reviewing the document, I decided to change to a simple link instead. We should probably decide on a referencing style to use for any further references.

More importantly, the article now has a huge warning comment over the first edit screen's worth of text. This asks people to remember to reference statements and respect those that have been referenced. Once we see people no longer edit waring over the genre line, we should remove (or shrink) this warning, as it's purpose will be done. LinaMishima 02:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job. I don't think it is so much out of place, because there is not enough to say for an own pararaph. One question: Why Nü Metal? - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 08:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, because some prior editor used it that way. The nu metal article explains it's occasional use as being based on the heavy metal umlaut... which seems amusingly appropriate to me. Hmmm, surely a heavier nu metal band manages to go back to being ol' hard rock? :P LinaMishima 14:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is obvious that North American never will know nothing about metal, you all are very influencied by the pop shit music you have a lot in your country... continue to see the things like you all wanna see... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josboroliv (talk • contribs) 07:25, August 31, 2006 (UTC)

Then why don't you take part of the discussion and bring some real arguments? And sign your comments. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 08:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I take it you're not from the US, Josboroliv? Niether am I, I'm a happy Brit. Personally, I've found most people care more about weather it rocks, than any genre definition. I suggest you chill out, and start looking for a reference to trump rolling stones. Good luck! ;) LinaMishima 14:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to add a couple of things... i'm not gonna quote exactly what was said....

but here goes... the comment about pentatonic being hard rock...umm you might wanna tell slash and kirk hammet that they're now hard rock gods as opposed to metal gods since they've heavily relied on pentatonic patterns especially slash... A pentatonic patter is the root of blues...where do you think metal and rock come from???

Black sabbath is Heavy Metal...in fact they solidified after the term was mainly coined by writes when discribing jimi hendrix and later led zeppelin

whitesnake sadly is metal and they would fall under the pop/hair metal genre sam as skid row, motley crue, poison, early bon jovi, etc...

we must realise that metal has evolved over the years and has had many branches under the term "metal" In the 80's we had pop metal, hair metal, glam metal(ie: pantera's origins), thrash metal (anthrax, megadeth, metallica, slayer, etc), progressive metal (rush), death metal making its appearences in DEATH(the band), dark metal with king diamond and mercyfull faith...

So you see Metal has no set patterns or criteria to meet...

Now a days you have a bunch of death metal and black metal bands comming out underground but nothing in mainstream Metal...

Sadly the Hard Rock bands(nicklebacks, creeds, bush, and such) is what we get Korn, SOAD, Disturbed, Tool, Treble Charger...bands like this cannot be put in one category alone....Disturbed and SOAD and tool especially they bombared us with different styles and sounds at all times —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.203.61.140 (talk • contribs) 23:53, September 1, 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that I entirely follow your point, but I think you'll agree when I say that genres are very much arbitary labels, often not accurately reflecting the musical output of a group. Ultimately all that matters should be "Is it cool?" (or "is it good" if you're less of a hippy than me :P) LinaMishima 22:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

== "Disturbed was originally founded as a Nu Metal band, but are now regarded as Hard Rock , or Heavy Metal. [1]" == Just Perfect! Thanks User Snowbound Josboroliv 01:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think these arguments about genre are silly. "No, it's not hard rock, it's nu-metal!" There are way too many genres that describe fairly similar music. If you don't believe me, look up "death metal" on Wikipedia. Are there some stylistic differences? Of course there are, but there are also shades of grey and a lot of music that fits into several categories (or doesn't really fit any). In my own usage, I use "hard rock" as a fairly encompassing term and don't split hairs. I would simply describe Disturbed as being hard rock. --Vertigo

Forsaken

I don't think "Forsaken" should be included in the Soundtracks section, as it was performed by David Draiman alone, not with Disturbed. It was written by Jonathan Davis, not even Disturbed, ad thus, is not in any way a work of the band. Pookythegreat 20:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, but this has to be done!

"Disturbed was originally founded as a Nu Metal band, but are now regarded as Hard Rock, or Heavy Metal. [1]"

This is 100% FALSE!!!

Disturbed is not considered as a Heavy Metal band, but more as a metalcore/mallcore/pseudo-metal!

I'm sick and tried of hearing kids calling Disturbed (as well as other "bands" such as Slipknot or Limp Bizkit) Heavy Metal, Thrash Metal, "Extreme Rap-Metal" (like there was such a thing!), etc...

This band is commercial and purposely provocative, which is one of the principal characteristics of Mallcore!

If you please, i would like, without erasing any parts of this article, to clarify once and for all this gigantic mediatic propaganda.

I am adding a statement informing the reader of the article about the dispute concerning the authenticity of the "band"'s musical genre.

I am not modifiying any other part of the article, and PLEASE don't call that vandalism because it is definitely not!

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

--Zouavman Le Zouave 22:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We've already been through this. Check paragraphs 13 & 14 on this discussion page. Add there if you feel the article is inaccurate. Your edits were reverted. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 00:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you might have "already been through this" but apparently you didn't get a single thing from what i've been saying... I'm not changing the genre in ANY WAY!!! I'm only stating the disagreement (because there IS one!) and apparently you seem to absolutely want the band to be classified as Heavy Metal. Honestly, i wished it was classified as Crap Metal, but unfortnately for me, that would be a biased point of view. Stating the disagreement does not give any threat to the neutrality of the article, and is actually stating a FACT, which, i think (and hope), is not forbidden by the rules of Wikipedia! So leave this factual statement alone and do not deny the disagreement there is!

Thank you in advance for your cooperation!

--Zouavman Le Zouave 12:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I still think that this comment, which is degrading to the band, does seriously not belong to the article. In either way, this is something that should be discussed before it is added, especially if there is an ongoing discussion.
I would like to hear some other opinions about this. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 13:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed disputed tags. Why would they be added? - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 22:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Tags

I think that two tags should be added to this article. One for neutrality, and one for factual accuracy.

My reasons are:

1) This is an encyclopedia. The article is not made to brag about how heavy the band is, but to state factual statements. The fact that there is a disagreement is a factual statement. Thus, the tag belongs in the article.

2) In this article, the style of the band is stated. This statement is supported by personal opinions of people (such as Ozzy). Why not consider the opinions of people who do not agree with this statement. I am not alone, and MANY people disagree with the statement that Disturbed is a Heavy Metal band.

3) The people making this article seem to be fans of Disturbed. However, this article should also consider opinions that do not come from Disturbed fans. Most of the information given seems to compliment the band, and information that, like twsx says, "is degrading to the band", is deleted. Therefore, there is a neutrality issue.

I am going to re-add the tags. Please do not try to erase them again. Even though you do not like the fact that i disagree, that does not mean you should deny the disagreement.

Thank you for your cooperation,

--Zouavman Le Zouave 17:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The only person here trying to force his opinion to be a fact is you. The factual accuracy is not disputed, but discussed into detail and referenced. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 11:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

genre

Ok, Im just going to try and put my two cents in here. Ive been listening to David and company for quite a while. I own all of Disturbed's albums, including the live one. And I listen to a VERY broad spectrum of music.

Ok, Id have to say that Disturbed would go as Alternative Metal. They arent really Nu Metal, the first album was sorta nu metalish, but from Believe onward its a no. Someone cannot listen to songs like Awaken, Remember, Mistress, Deify or Stricken and think that Disturbed is Nu Metal. And they arent really Heavy Metal in my opinion. That is more of a Iron Maiden, Slayer, Metallica thing. Id put Disturbed in the same category as Chevelle, Tool, Deftones, and the other more metally bands out there these days as opposed to the more Grunge influenced bands like Nickelback, Puddle of Mudd, Seether or the Nu Metalish bands like Papa Roach, Nonpoint, Linkin Park.

Thats me shedding some light on this. Ill be checking back and trying to help out if I can, but for now Ill leave you. Lamentingvampire09 18:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple of song I'd like to know about

What's up with A Welcome Burden and Hell? They're not from the albums, but I'm absolutely certain it's Disturbed. Are these from before they started to release albums, like the demo EP's?--RockMaster 02:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you actually look at the article, you'll see that A Welcome Burden was on the Dracula 2000 Soundtrack. As for Hell, it was exclusive to MySpace for a while, but I think it's been released on a special edition release of one of their albums. If not, it might be a B-Side on one of their singles. And please, sign your comments.Pookythegreat 12:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to add that. I'll fix it. I looked at the albums, but I never though to look at that. It's right under them too. So, A Welcome Burden is just for the Dracula 2000 Soundtrack? And if Hell is a B-Side, then the articles don't say so.--RockMaster 02:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Composer

Who is the Composer for Disturbed? just curious :)

Proposition for statement

Here is my proposition. I propose to add the following statement at the end of the introduction of the article:

"Other critics regard them as Alternative Metal and many metal fans regard them as Mallcore rather than metal."

Considering the fact that I have tried to do this earlier and that there has been much contestation of the facts by a fellow Wikipedian, I am now citing sources.

Source 1

(From Ozzfest :: Forums :: View topic - Hatebreed)

grugnur wrote: so according to the "experts", ozzy osbourne is not metal??? neither is disturbed??? iron maiden??? judas priest??? none of these are metal according to the "experts"???

Ozzy - Yes
Iron Maiden - Yes
Priest - Yes

Disturbed - First of all comparing them to any of those 3 is ridiculous and 2 not metal.

Source 2

(From Ozzfest :: Forums :: View topic - Hatebreed)

grugnur wrote: so according to the "experts", ozzy osbourne is not metal??? neither is disturbed??? iron maiden??? judas priest??? none of these are metal according to the "experts"???

Nope, Disturbed isn't. The others are. Having a few metal bands on a "festival" does NOT make it a metal festival.

Source 3

(From Rate Your Music)

• Disturbed - The Sickness - country:usa genre:mallcore-nu metal
• Disturbed - Believe - country:usa genre:mallcore-nu metal

Source 4

(From mallcore tag - Last.fm)

Top Artists tagged "mallcore":

1. Slipknot
2. System of a Down
3. KoЯn
4. Disturbed

Source 5

(From MP3.com - the source for digital music!)

Yeah, in fact, I have all their albums. Being heavy does not make you Metal. Disturbed are quite heavy, but look, they aren't Metal. Slipknot are quite heavy too, but again, not Metal.

Like I said before, being heavy does not constitute as Metal.

Anybody who loves Metal should know this. Please, think before you speak.

Source 6

(From Re: Your favorite metal groups?? - Music Maniacs - FiringSquad Forums)

Mallcore shit nu-metal (from disturbed to slipknot to Cradle of Filth), is terrible because the music isn't really re-inventing anything, as some kids who hang out at the bus station might lead you to believe. In addition, these bands are praised for being so "cutting edge" when they are, in actuality, years behind the rest of the metal scene as far as creativity is concerned.

Source 7

(From Check this - Trivium, Lamb of God and Iron Maiden)

Nevermore kicks major ass. I've just watched the GIGANTOUR 2005 DVD and NEVERMORE blew FEAR FACTORY off the stage.Jeff is an amazing shredder.They also opened for the nu-metal ramblers DISTURBED and hoped to win over new fans. At some shows,the crowd was silent,and at some shows the crowd got into them. I Guess its not easy for a troo metal band to win over a bunch of mallcore kids(DISTURBED fans).

Source 8

(From Amazon.com: Gigantour: Music: Various Artists)

Forget about Ozzfest, only stupid mallcore and metalcore bands like Mudlame, Disturbed, SOAD, Killsuck Engay, and Agayu headline that stupid tour. Plus, their unforgiveable actions against Iron Maiden have made me not want to go to Ozzfest if someone paid me to. Once you see Sounds of the Underground and Gigantour; you'll never want to see Ozzfest.

Source 9

(From DarkLyrics.com Forums :: Metal Vault :: Blut Aus Nord Trilogy?)

If you believe Disturbed and System of a Down is metal then I probably hate you as well (not for your music taste, I preach the "to each his own" philosophy, but for your stupidity).

Source 10

(From No Life 'til Metal - CD Gallery - Disturbed)

Talking about the "Believe" album, by Disturbed:

First of all, this is NOT metal. How they got labeled metal I don't know. Having some distortion on your guitar does not a metal band make! Disturbed are modern radio rock; short songs that lack dynamics, average vocals, with every song being very similar in sound and tempo.

Source 11

(From Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives) (The page for a thrash metal called Disturbed, but that, apart from its name, has nothing to do with the band in question.)

FYI:Encyclopaedia Metallum is by far the most reliable source for metal bands. The information submitted there must be accepted by several administrators before being accepted, and the information submitted there cannot just be the opinion of two or three random people.

Name of Band: Disturbed
Genre(s): Trash Metal
Lyrical theme(s): Death
Additional notes: "Not to be confused with the mallcore band."

Conclusion

These are sources that include the points of view of metal fans. I think this is sufficient evidence for the statement to be added. Any suggestions are welcome. Thank you for your cooperation, I will not do anything until it is accepted by a minimum amount of Wikipedians.

--Zouavman Le Zouave 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Reactions

Please post your reactions/comments here. Please sign the comment.

All of your sources are taken from random opinions of random people. None of them are representing a broad audience or trustworthy instance. Not by far anything that would give any reason, and i believe an admin (which i hope and don't think we will need) would agree. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 22:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

These sources are the opinions of Metal fans communicating on (for most of the sources) metal-oriented forums. I am about to add another, very reliable, source, which does not originate from a forum. This last source will represent that many metal fans around the world agree with the fact that Disturbed is often considered Mallcore or "not metal". It is the opinion of many people, and it would be wrong to ommit this information from the article just in order to satisfy die hard Disturbed fans. --Zouavman Le Zouave 11:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I defiantly agree that Disturbed is not Heavy Metal or Nu Metal. Comparing them to Iron Maiden or Judas Priest is ridiculous. But the Mallcore term seems to be somewhat derogatory. While I do not like Disturbed, I would be rather mad if someone wanted to say my favorite band belonged in a genre defined not musically, but by the people that are supposed to listen to it. Especially when this genre is defined by people who seem to dislike all the bands in it. The WP page for Mallcore has two pictures on it, one of Disturbed, the other of My Chemical Romance. These two bands are nothing alike musically and do not belong in the same genre or sub-genre. Mallcore seems more to be a term Metalheads use to describe and insult many new popular hard rock bands, not a real genre. Your sources are all very convincing, but biased. Metal fans who hate Disturbed are not exactly the best group of people to try to place Disturbed in a genre. From the music I have heard of theirs, I would think that they belong in Hard Rock and less so in Alternative Metal, which this page has already placed them in, but again, not in Heavy Metal or Nu Metal. AidanPryde 13:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better. While i don't really care about categorization, i think the article should reflect opinions by trusted sources rather than those by haters. As I mentioned to Zouavman (we talk on MSN Messenger occasionally) this topic is in my opinion frozen and not worth pursuing until useable contra sources are found. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

B-sides section

Yeah so, i created a B-side section after the discography, to stop people from coming in here and going "My friend found this song and he says its disturbed, but it's not on any of their albums so i wondered if it was really them" etc..65.43.214.196 14:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Last Paragraph/Disturbed songs in video games

The last paragraph of this article (Disturbed has since garnered a more respectable reputation...) really sucks and needs to be re-worded. Whether or not the band has "garnered a more respectable reputation" with anybody is an issue of debate, and the paragraph seems merely to be an excuse to list what games the band has songs on the soundtracks of. There already is a list of Disturbed songs on game soundtracks so i'm deleting that horrible last paragraph.65.43.214.196 13:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fails WP:WEASEL

This sentence that seems to have been added by a bitter death metal or similar fan simply isn't NPOV, vertifiable or factual. There is no evidence to prove that genuine heavy metal fans (ie- people who specifically were fans of the original bands in the 1970s) have a problem with Disturbed or any other similar bands which make up part of those subgenres.

"There is still much debate on whether the band should be considered heavy metal, as many fans of the genre do not consider Disturbed a part of it."

There is clear use of WP:WEASEL words with "many fans of the genre", yet no vertifiable citations. Whether teenage fans of part of another (commerically un-notable) subgenThere is no evidenceThere is no evidencere death metal (that alot of the original heavy metal fans argue is unrelated to heavy metal itself) dislike the band or not really has no place in an encyclopediac article (especially the opening section) of a million album selling act.

Removal of the tags placed before these issues have been brought within Wikipedia policies that I pointed they fail, will be considered simple vandalism. - Deathrocker 23:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There is also no evidence that only "Extreme Metal" fans have a problem with Disturbed or any other similar bands which make up part of those sub genres. Claiming that is a non NPOV and extremely bias. You're basing it all on what you personally think and feel. Like PhantomOTO said on the Mallcore talkpage, you seem to think that the fans the styles are warring factions, when to the contrary it couldn't be farther from the truth. When are you gonna realize that just because you and your buddies think "Extreme Metal" genres aren't unrelated to heavy metal, it doesn't mean all do. There are many who while not fans of the genres, still consider them related. There are also many who are fans of more traditional metal and fans of "extreme metal" (myself included). You seem to base a lot of your edits regarding metal on personal opinion and not fact. Inhumer 01:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I also know of many Traditional Metal fans who hate Disturbed and like bands, and do not cosider them metal. Inhumer 04:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"ie- people who specifically were fans of the original bands in the 1970s" Quit acting as though these are the only metal bands in existence. The sentence was a result of editorial consensus, as Inhumer said, and the way it is now is fine as well. It really isn't vandalism to restate something generally agreed upon here. "You seem to base a lot of your edits regarding metal on personal opinion and not fact." Bingo. "that alot of the original heavy metal fans argue is unrelated to heavy metal itself" Isn't that weasel words right there? Manowar, who invented this entire "true metal" thing, state that death and black metal are both genres of true metal. Here's a cite for you: "I like all extreme metal, I like all death metal, I like black metal, I like all of that. As long as it's from the heart and it's pure and it's heavy, it's good. I don't like any of this nu metal shit, it's just complete shit." -- Joey DeMaio, Manowar.[1] --Ryouga 04:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Try this one too:

On the fact that die-hard heavy metal fans may not see Disturbed as being quite heavy enough: "We probably have too much melody going on or we're not quite as turbulent or caustic. While I really love that type of music, it's not what we try to do. If we have to place things in context, we're more hard rock than heavy metal these days."[2] Are you done yet? --Ryouga 04:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Manowar formed more than a decade after heavy metal, they had nothing to do with its origins and their music is made up of entirely different characteristics that that which is defined on the heavy metal music article. Their sound is closer to power metal than real heavy metal like Deep Purple or Black Sabbath. Ozzy Osbourne (he was only in a little band that invented heavy metal) has made quotes very favourable to the band in question; so unless you can come up with something pertaining to real heavy metal that disputes Disturbed's connection, then it is false information.

As far as "concesus", the people on this very talkpage who are stating oposition to the band in question are related to extreme metal as per their pages. You claim to listen to death metal such as Morbid Angel, Inhumer claims to listen to grindcore (as well as predominantly extreme metal bands as per a link on his page), that is a point of view coming from extreme metal fans; it is not the people who were part of the encyclopediac movement described in the heavy metal article from the 1970s. (and it is not "POV" to associate users preferences to extreme metal bands when it is stated clearly in their own links and pages.) The two have very different characteristics, and this is all explained in their specific article.

I do listen to A LOT of "Extreme Metal"(a term I hate), but I do listen to my fair share of Traditional, Power, and Doom Metal bands, and like the page says its only a partial list. Also, preferring a certain type of music doesn't stop someone from having knowledge about other types of music. Inhumer 05:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"You seem to base a lot of your edits regarding metal on personal opinion and not fact."

Incorrect, my edits do not contradict the heavy metal music article. Some of the extreme metal fans who edit Wikipedia that have come over from EM, who are here mainly to try and deface nu-metal article's connection to heavy metal and attempt to loud death/black's are non encyclopediac and POV. I always hold factuality in mind when editing ANY article, period.

But to you, anyone who doesn't agree with you is an Extreme Metal fan or as you have put it, a "extreme metal kiddie." Inhumer 05:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, there is still use of weasel words, and uncited information.... those are Wikipedia policies that must be followed. "If death metal fans dislike a band they can claim anything they want about said band on their article" however, is not a Wikipedia policy.-Deathrocker 04:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So, because I listen to Grind, it means I can't also listen to Traditional Metal? Thats some strange logic.Inhumer 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You may not take us seriously because we listen to some extreme metal, but I cannot take you seriously if you think heavy metal is restricted to a group of bands from the 70s that reject the label (Deep Purple (who have some metal releases, ex. Machine Head), Led Zeppelin). Alas, this is irrelevant. I think it is dumb to argue that Manowar is a power metal band, since they are about as power metal as Judas Priest is/was. Regardless, the second cite I have placed there is more sufficient than your random opinianated blather. --Ryouga 05:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, EM members came over when YOU start attacking the credibility of the site on its article simply because they don't include Led Zeppelin on the site. Inhumer 05:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You have also done nothing to support your claim(s). You have done nothing but use libel and tried to defamate(not sure if thats a word) Ryouga and I by saying that because we like "Extreme Metal" that we try to use bias in articles and have little knowledge of the topics at hand. You seem to do that alot when you have nothing to back up your claims with. Inhumer 06:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I should add: how is it justifiable to label Disturbed "heavy metal," yet claim Manowar doesn't belong to "real heavy metal."? And don't cite the Wikipedia article as a source, that's just stupid. For all we know it may contain information you placed in it to hold true to your own views. --Ryouga 06:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be overstepping things a bit with all of your comments, squire. I have not stated anywhere whether I personally consider Disturbed to be "this" or "that", if you want my personal opinion on what style of music they play... then feel free to ask. Don't put words or opinions in my mouth that I didn't voice, as you have done several times while addressing me.

My comments were only in the interest of keeping this article within the NPOV policy... and were in regards to the POV sentences in the article, which were unsourced, had weasel words, and were only added because you and similar editors hate the band.

In regards to Manowar, try reading the power metal article, notice how they are mentioned as important and their characteristics are far closer to those mentioned in that infobox. Their musical characteristics are not a sum of, "Psychedelic rock, Blues rock and Hard rock" which is stated in the heavy metal music article. (a featured article, heavily sourced, which had extensive reviewing for it to be even considered "featured" in the first place, factually considered among the best on Wikipedia[3]) - Deathrocker 07:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Manowar, Mercyful Fate, Judas Priest, and like bands all contain proto-power metal elements in their riffing and lead play. Neither are power metal bands. 2. Heavy metal originally and disputably may have consisted of blues rock elements, however the NWOBHM abandoned most of this element (I'll take it you don't listen to much metal outside of the hard rock and trad. bands?). On top of that, traditional metal and hard/blues rock have nothing to do with Disturbed anyhow, so I'm not getting your point with being so adamant to keep this band from receiving criticism from metal fans (which is now clearly cited). I do not wish to hear anymore of your totally erroneous outlook on what heavy metal was/is any longer, I just hope for everyone's sake you realize that the article is now fine and free of POV. If something "major" comes up, take it to talk before dismissing it as "simple vandalism." As you can tell, no one here is actually agreeing with you, so continuing on like this won't get anyone anywhere. --Ryouga 23:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no "disputably" about it in regards to heavy metal containing a blues elements, its as factual as saying Adolf Hitler had a mustache. Unless you are 14 year old, totally oblivious to the history of heavy metal and think Slayer invented it.

And... what does NWOBHM have to do with anything? They don't define heavy metal, just the same as new wave didn't define punk rock. NWOBHM is essentially a subgenre that mixed foreign elements not found in pure heavy metal (like punk) but mixed it with the sound of the original bands, they were derivative.

I'm sorry to say, but your edits don't make you come across as the sharpest knife in the draw. Attempting to debate with you seems to be pointless, as you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about, are are probably just looking for attention. (as per your attempts to drag up month old debates on the EM page when that article was already sorted) I just hope you get a clue what you are talking about, for your sakes, if you are going to continue to edit articles pertaining to heavy metal... without adding your inane POV. - Deathrocker

Continued

While I realize that articles must be consistent with other articles, using a Wiki article as a main source for another Wiki article should be avoided at all costs, period. Especially when it comes to music articles, as most Wikipedia music articles are atrocious. Ours18 06:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you consider the majority of Wikipedia music article, that the community has worked on to be "atrocious" then why bother coming here? Doesn't make sense. - Deathrocker 08:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it makes perfect sense---because they need to be fixed. Ours18 08:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree on this point, they come off as extremely bias, we had someone on here part of WikiProject Metal, who disgustingly, tried to submit the slang term "Mallcore" as a legitimate article with a picture of Disturbed featured, not once, but twice. The elitist POV emanating from many of the music WikiProjects is hurting the NPOV of articles as they continually show very little respect towards musical genres and bands they deem "unfavorable". There are quite a few music articles that desperately need NPOV, the Disturbed article itself having recently survived two POV attacks.Revrant 12:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Again. --Ryouga 22:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you "agreeing on", Ryouga? You are one of the very people who have been attacking articles of band's you consider "mallcore" and adding a POV bias. I wouldn't call your edits "elistism" though, more a lack of historical knowledge on the subject of heavy metal music. - Deathrocker 03:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm agreeing on the fact that these music (specifically metal) articles are biased and incorrect, probably due to the editing of arrogant users such as yourself, whose only arguments comprise of insulting others without citing any referable sources. --Ryouga 03:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - and that is the only thing close to a source our friend here has used in his argument(s). This page is much better the way it is now, and was better with the "many" rather than "some," as that is probably truer anyhow. --Ryouga 07:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets have all this bickering end now since the opening is worded better now. Inhumer 08:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've included the entire point I was trying to get here with the cite, rather than the way it was before. It now states that die-hard heavy metal fans may not find them heavy enough (acknowledged by the band and asked by the interviewer) and his full reply. There should no longer be problems. I also reworded the nu metal/hard rock/heavy metal sentence, to make it less of a statement, since it is not a wholly agreed upon topic. --Ryouga 22:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker, stop following me around Wikipedia and making personal attacks on me every time I edit a music page. Why is it that you only took issue with the unsourced statement after I compromised and removed the "extreme metal fans" part? Please, let's not have every metal-related article on this site become a place of petty, egotistical, childish bickering. Also, if you're going to edit pages related to "extreme metal," don't sour every discussion with insults aimed at the genre and the people you perceive as incorrigible die hards. PhantomOTO 03:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I presume that was your attempt at comedy? You think I'm following you around Wikipedia, priceless. Please show diffs to prove this attempt at self-relevence on your part... you can't, because you are commiting baseless slander....

Also, you are clearly following my edits around, that is what 90% of your edits have been so far[4][5][6] you even signed up to follow my editings in the first place over from Extreme Metallum[7]... that is a rather worrying/sad statistic, but relitively amusing at the same time IMO... also, refrain from vandalising my comments to talkpages (such as this one) without my persmission,[8] this falls under simple vandalism and is not acceptable on Wikipedia, mk? - Deathrocker 06:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Now that you mention it, this page was never this heavily reverted until the statement was changed -- honestly, it is fine. Quit reverting. --Ryouga 03:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Will you two guys, especially Deathrocker, stop already? The way the article is at this very moment seems fine to me. The debate is stated, but no unreferenced statement is made. I think that reflects all views fair enough, so please leave it like that, i beg you... - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 16:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the ordner of the genres in the box should be alternative metal, nu metal (, heavy metal, hard rock), any objections? - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 16:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go with hard rock (since this is what they call themselves) first. Then alternative, nu and heavy metal, of which the order doesn't matter too much. You can change it to whatever. --Ryouga 20:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't possibly call them hard rock over alt. metal.. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 00:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not my personal opinion - I just figured it made sense since that is the label they use. But if you want, you can put alt. above. Doesn't make too much difference. Alt->Nu->Hard rock->Heavy metal or something like that. --Ryouga 05:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, would omit heavy metal and hard rock, and just go with alt. metal and nu metal. Hard rock and heavy metal are stated in the article as a sourced opinion, but i wouldt add them in the genre line at all. Since i think alternative metal is what describes their style as it is now the best, and they without a doubt have been casual nu metal in the first and partially the second album, i would edit it to "[[Alternative metal]]<br/>[[Nu metal]] (former)". But, i would like to hear one or two or three opinions/objections/approvals before i do so.. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 15:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a sourced opinion is a bit more valid when it comes from the band's lead singer. I think hard rock ought to stay, and perhaps remove heavy metal, since while Disturbed might fall into "alternative metal" or "nu metal," they don't have much to do with "heavy metal," be it the 1970s bands or post-Judas Priest brand. PhantomOTO 03:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the order of of the genres in the info box honestly matter?Inhumer 05:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it does. The way it is now, it lets a visitor understand that Disturbed is mainly a heavemetyl/hardrock band, which is untrue. I changed the order now. Didn't remove the 2 genres yet. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 18:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm up for the removal of "heavy metal." --Ryouga 19:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Disturbed have even less to do with the origins of hard rock than they do heavy metal. Last time I checked this band sounding NOTHING like Aerosmith for example. This is where the bias of other users sets in, and what I meant by the death metal comment at the very start, alot of people related to Extreme Metallum like to pretend any band which isn't br00tal and hasn't got ties to hardcore, is just "hard rock", when that isn't factually their characteristics. One of these bands are the odd one out.

AC/DC

Aerosmith

Disturbed

Van Halen

Disturbed sticks out like a sore thumb, because their characteristics are entirely different. - Deathrocker 06:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they're not hard rock or heavy metal. I wouldn't mind it if someone removed "hard rock" -- I simply suggested it since the band and some fans seem to prefer that label over nü metal/mallcore (which is what they have always been to me). I really don't wish to waste my time any longer, I just wanted that cited information and non-heavy metal statement there, and it is. So, I am done arguing here. --Ryouga 01:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mallcore is no genre. If you are to presist on categorization, at least learn basics. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 02:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant: I use the term interchangeably w/ nü metal. I have no desire of editing the page into something other than what it is now; as long as nü metal stays and it is clear that there is a disagreement with the "metal" label among the true metal fanbase, I am pretty much ok with the page. --Ryouga 04:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, Hard Rock bands continue to form to this day. Or did they stop forming in the 70s like how you think Traditional Metal bands did? Inhumer 07:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, some bands do continue to form to this day, in a style which's characteristics are those defined in hard rock, the same can be said for heavy metal. Or is any band formed after 1980 that isn't derivative of hardcore, a part of "hard rock", like you think? Even though the characteristics of Disturbed have as much to do with those mentioned in "hard rock"'s infobox as they do with "polka". - Deathrocker 07:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, don't call someone a vandal for removing one of your comments when you did the exact same thing to one of my comments on this very talk page. Inhumer 07:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't lie, I have not removed a single one of your comments on the talkpage, nor do I have need to. PhantomOTO, blanked the very opening part of what I was stating was wrong with the article, I proved this with a diff, thus he commited blatant vandalism. - Deathrocker 07:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't lie. [9] Inhumer 07:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As you can see by the two versions, I was making corrections and expanding what I had wrote.[10] Notice how sometimes there is an "editing conflict" when trying to save work, and it has to be copy and pasted and edited again. That is likely what happened.

I have no need to blank any your messages, as anything you type that is incorrect I can disprove with a reply. PhantomOTO's removal was deliberate, and a blatant attempt to remove the very opening which explained what the problems with the article was. - Deathrocker 07:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

no, you had edited what I had said because you left in words I had written and wrote around them. Inhumer 08:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, notice how there are two comments by you... with different times.

Your older comment: 04:44

Your other comment: 04:47,

When I added my corrections: 04:48[11]

Which means I started to expand things I had wrote and correct my reply, after your 04:44 comment but before the 04:47... hence the time stated in the diff for my edit is 04:48, if you want to continue going over this again and again till you understand that is was due to an "edit conflict", be my guest. But it is rather pointless. - Deathrocker 08:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I only removed the "bitter death metal fan" personal attack. Everything else was left in, and it was still coherent. Also, if it looks like I follow you around, that's only because you have a habit of reverting my edits within 24 hours of me making them, regardless of the content, and usually with false accusations of "extreme POV," being an "extreme metal kids," or a "bitter death metal fan." And I have to consult you before removing your personal attacks, while you constantly attack me, blank my edits, and stalk and harrass me without my permission? PhantomOTO 15:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Me stalk/harass/attack you? Hahahaha. I showed with diffs that the entire reason you signed up to Wikipedia was to address an edit I made and follow me round. All you ever seem to do here is refresh my contributions page and then edit whatever article I have, and go on about the term "extreme metal kids", when I think I've used that phrase once on Wikipedia, months ago addressing a website that you don't even own, not that there is anything wrong with the term IMHO... But tell yourself whatever you want. Also, you removed the entire first paragraph not just 4 words that you are taking out of context and attempting to twist into an "attack" on someone. The diffs don't lie.[12] - Deathrocker 17:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, because "bitter death metal fan" is definitely just a harmless statement of fact. And it's not just an attack on someone, it's an attack on me. Also, the other portion of the statement I removed is restated (in very sloppy language) later in your initial post. So it's not like that point was never communicated (although your garbled syntax might make it hard for people who speak English well to understand). I did come here initiallly to respond to your attempts to discredit a website that granted, I do not own, but have a certain stake in. However, after that, when I continued editing without regards to you, is when you began to stalk me and revert my edits. A perfect example is this very page, where you only took issue with an unsourced statement after I edited it. Before that, when it made reference to extreme metal fans like they're some kind of unified front (as you like to pretend they are), you had no problem with it. And you used the term "extreme metal kids" several times to attack the owners of EM, not just once. Now you don't use it so much, but you still make attacks such as "bitter death metal fan," and still operate under the delusion that extreme metal fans are some mythic faction that's trying to revise history (something that has been an accepted practice since, oh, about the Enlightenment, but I guess your thinking is more in line with the Dark Ages). PhantomOTO 18:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Then how do you explain the words is and metal being edited around, because it wouldn't have happened like that in an edit conflict. Inhumer 08:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And you're right, this is pointless, but I would like to hear your explanation. Inhumer 08:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The (2? 3? 4? 5?) of you are violating WP:TPG. Stop this. If you have to argue over things that are not relevant to the article, use your talk pages. Please, NO MORE of this here, unless you have something to say concerning Disturbed. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 19:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should archive the page now to prevent the bickering from continuing? PhantomOTO 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

New Propositions

Twsx and I have talked a lot on MSN Messenger, and we have, more or less, come to the conclusion that a compromise could be possible. He takes a more conservative point of view on the issue, since he would prefer if the article stayed as it is. However, I am not favorable on the status quo for this article. I feel that it would be inacurrate to ommit this information from the article.

I make the following propositions:

• To put the term mallcore in a different way. Example: "is often said to be closely linked to the mallcore culture."

• To put it as a different section of the article, but as having its own, separate section.

• To use a different term instead of "mallcore". However, I doubt there is a word capable of replacing it.

• To use the original proposition but clean up the Mallcore article in a way that doesn't offend the band.

I am looking forward to hear other Wikipedians' opinions and reactions for these new propositions.

--Zouavman Le Zouave 16:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to exchange the word mallcore, you need a way to mention the disagreement (which without a doubt exists) without having it say "omg this band sux", which is in any way the case as long as "mallcore" is used, since mallcore describes an opinion, not a genre. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 19:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So you propose that the word "Mallcore" shouldn't be used in the statement. I am okay with it, since Wikipedia labels it as degrading. Could the following statement be okay with you?

"...and there is much debate on whether the band should be considered metal. Many extreme metal fans, for example, would not consider Disturbed's music as "true metal". --Zouavman Le Zouave 20:35, November 29, 2006 (UTC)

Change "metal" with "heavy metal", and find something for "true metal" as this is very vague. Other than that i guess i'm fine with it. Would like to hear some other opinions though. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I purposely wrote "metal" instead of "heavy metal". I didn't mean to say that extreme metal fans did not consider Disturbed as heavy metal, but that they didn't consider it as any form of metal what-so-ever. As for "true metal", I think I can clear this up a little bit:

""...and there is much debate on whether the band should be considered metal. Many extreme metal fans, for example, would not consider Disturbed's music as what they call "true metal".

Is this okay with you (or any other Wikipedian that might be reading this)? --Zouavman Le Zouave 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I could get behind that statement. It's not a perfect statement, it might be a little non-NPOV with out mentioning someone stating it should be heavy metal, like Disturbed's website or the article on the band at allmusic.com. However, using the term 'metal' with a band like Disturbed, who I think we all can agree is somewhere in between metal and hard rock, will always cause problems, mostly with metal fans. That being said, Zouavman Le Zouave, your statement will work well until a better term can be found, if at all. As far as a better term for 'true metal', how about just using 'metal'. Also, to improve the NPOV, arguments for each side of the dispute could be presented after the statement. Hope this helps. - AidanPryde 21:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Aidan. I think the "true metal" is ok with "as what they call" in front of it. Since you reminded me that nothing is definite and it all can still be changed or enhanced, i agree with the statement as you have given it Zouavman. Feel free adding it. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad we have come to an agreement. I am going to add the statement today either at around 10:00 (GMT) or after 17:00. Thank you for your cooperation, if any changes were to be made, I would gladly participate in the discussion and would be open to a variety of solutions. Thank you again, --Zouavman Le Zouave 07:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Zouavman directed me here for the sources on the "extreme metal" line, and I don't see any, besides an agreement that that sentence is acceptable. Can someone direct me to the document where the ruling body of this mythic, unified faction of extreme metal fans state they do not consider Disturbed to be true metal? That said, perhaps I place the citation needed tag in the wrong place. It would work much better after the words "extreme metal fans." PhantomOTO 00:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to have a "united" point of view for it to be recognized? I have the sources listed above, and Encyclopaedia Metallum shows a universally accepted point of view in the community that uses this encyclopedia (this community being the extreme metal fans). --Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • See my edits!)} 02:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessary to have a united point of view, but this is a plain generalization. It's akin to, but less offensive or important than, saying, "Most black people love fried chicken." Also, Encyclopaedia Metallum being an extreme metal source? Just because we present a different view on the origin of metal and which early heavy bands qualify as metal, doesn't mean we're biased towards extreme metal, are a part of the extreme metal "community," or cater to said community (and I'm in a position to say that, being a moderator, and in contact with the people who run EM). Don't let someone else's opinions or statements (which were intended to defame the website and its owners) about EM taint your judgement. EM is NOT a website primarily directed towards extreme metal fans, and what is written there cannot be used to determine what a large, fragmented community believes, especially if you're claiming that the viewpoint in EM is universally accepted. PhantomOTO 03:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So what do you propose? Do you want the statement to be changed around, deleted, left as it is? The statement does not say "Most extreme metal fans", but "Many extreme metal fans". It would be an euphemism to say that some extreme metal fans do not consider Disturbed's music as metal. It is not a generalisation, it is a statement stating a fact, and this fact is supported by a number of sources. You said it yourself: "It's not necessary to have a united point of view". I have 11 sources that back up this point of view shared within many individuals in the metal community (not only the extreme metal one). I have reached an agreement with twsx, but if you want to add changes, I am willing to find another agreement with you. Thanks in advance for your cooperation, Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • See my edits!)} 21:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I would write it as such: "There is still much debate on whether the band should be considered heavy metal, as many fans of the genre do not consider Disturbed a part of it." This seems efficient, says basically the same thing, but removes the part I find objectionable. I do not disagree with the statement that many metal fans do not consider Disturbed to be metal, but rather the "extreme metal fans" specification. PhantomOTO 21:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think it is better like the way you proposed. ^^ Sorry I hadn't checked the page earlier... I hadn't noticed there had been edits going around here... Thanks for reminding me! I think that it would be better to replace my statement with that of PhantomOTO. --Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • See my edits!)} 22:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The way that line is now is much better -- who's to say only black and death metal fans don't agree with the label? There are tons of Maiden fans that utterly detest this band as well. Nice job on the rewording there. --Ryouga 20:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This sentence needs major reworking: "Disturbed was originally founded as a nu metal band, but are now regarded as hard rock or heavy metal." Talk about POV -- there are plenty out there who will agree that they always have been a nü metal/mallcore band. I really don't know why this sentence was ever created. --Ryouga 21:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Progressive Influences

With Disturbed's last album "Indestructible", the progressive elements are becoming more noticable. If you listen to "Ten Thousand Fists" as a whole, you will notice it is more progressive in nature then "Believe". If you listen to Indestructible, you will notice a further progressive leaning with more complex drumming, more frequent beat changes, more varied vocals, time signature changes, more complex and technical guitar work, and the addition of more traditional metal and hard rock elements. I AM NOT recommending that Disturbed's genre be changed to Progressive Rock or Progressive Metal as this is inconsistant with what both the label and the band classify the band as. However, on the note of Disturbed being classified as HARD ROCK, the term hard rock is often used to describe progressive bands that perform heavy music.With these two things being said, I do think that there should be mention in the article that Disturbed is displaying more progressive elements with its latter releases. Does anyone here agree that Disturbed can be considered a Hard Rock and/or Metal band that incorporates certain musical elements that give it atleast a limited commonality with Progressive Metal/ Rock bands such as Tool and Dream Theater?