Talk:Extreme metal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mainstream

I predict soomeday that extreme metal will cease to exist except for in the form of brutal death metal and all other extreme genras will be mainstream

probably true, but by then we'll probably have even MORE extreme music. Also extreme metal will probably be diluted some as it becomes mainstream. --Eel 23:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, as far as I'm concerned I don't see extreme metal evolving into mainstream... Do you??? I mean, let's face it, there aren't that many people who listen to, say, black metal or viking metal, and the numbers aren't changing so fast that they will become mainstream in the near future... --IronChris 01:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would brutal death metal be the only that wont cease to exist? Death metal is the most mainstream of the extreme metal genres today (Cannibal Corpse, Six feet under, Necrophagist etc etc.). While the most extreme subgenre is probably Funeral Doom, Black Metal or Grindcore.

It'll split in two. There will be a 'mainstream' which will probably be a conglomeration of all of the genres of extreme metal into an undistinct, populist sound that channels the aesthetic elements of extreme metal into more regular song structures. There's little chance of any individual extreme metal genre going overground individually, without any mitigation of the sound. There'll be an underground, reactionary, purist reclaimation of the original ideas and sound of extreme metal, i.e. going back to the roots of the individual genres. Really all of the important genres of extreme metal said everything they had to say by the late 1990's, so this has already happened to a point (look at Dimmu Borgir, or QAncient's career as a microcosm of this.

And arguing about which genere's are the most 'extreme' is pointless, circular and somewhat moronic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelzdking (talk • contribs) 19:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

extreme metal will most likely become more mainstream later because the "extreme" areas of the 1960 are now not extreme at all. as the music industry evolves more extreme genres are made pushing all previously extreme genres of music to a less extreme position and closer to becoming mainstream — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.3.242 (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that they will just make the sound of a bombing and call it metal? Can it get any more extreme? And btw, thrash broke into the mainstream and is still perfect.199.107.16.119 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Metalcore

Is metalcore considered extreme metal?

I don't really think so. What bothers me instead is Groove metal with bands like Lamb of God and Chimaira and Machine Head. Are those bands and bands that play like them considered extreme metal?? likelightoflies 24:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No. This is mainstream "metal", which is just rock dressed up and marketed as metal. These bands are not REMOTELY extreme.

How can it be said that Lamb of God is not extreme metal? I would argue that they are as "extreme" as most death metal or black metal that I have heard. Personally I would classify this band as extreme metal.

Lamb of God are metalcore/groove metal. Not extreme... Their lyrics are everything you'd expect from a mainstream band too. Geez... Isilioth 04:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Lamb Of God are by no means an extreme band. And with regards metalcore as a whole, I think if we mention it at all we should say "and some bands within the metalcore genre" or something to that effect. Otherwise we'd including mainstream -core bands like Bullet For My Valentine or Trivium alongside genuinely extreme bands like Converge or Job For A Cowboy. Anyone agree? Cacodyl (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Crossover thrash, deathcore, Swedecore

Why are these being removed? Crossover thrash is a thrash metal/hardcore punk fusion, deathcore is a mix of metalcore (or hardcore punk) and death metal, and Swedecore is a melodic death metal/metalcore fusion. 68.47.1.63 17:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Remedial solution: Create an extreme hardcore article. These subgenres are just hardcore with some death, black, or thrash traits. At the end of the day, they are not death, black, or thrash metal.--Danteferno 23:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

They're far from hardcore, which I'm guessing you've never bothered to look into. But, even if they were closer to hardcore punk, the genres were listed under "Fusion genres, subgenres, and variations," not the main "Extreme metal genres," and even you admit they have "death, black, or thrash traits." Scene does not make a genre. 68.47.1.63 14:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The genres you keep erroneously putting in are associated with metalcore and hardcore, not extreme metal. You admitted this in the post above asking why they keep being removed (and you also answered your own question.) EM fusion genres are deathrash, blackened death, or blackened thrash, not Swede-CORE, MelodicDeath-CORE or AtTheGates-CORE. Such inclusion belongs in a separate article - it is extremely misleading to include them in this one. --Danteferno 18:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Danteferno. I'm gonna go ahead and remove them (keeping Grindcore of course) and see how it goes. Isilioth 04:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the page to include deathcore, melodic deathcore, crossover thrash, and crust punk. These genres are neither extreme metal, metalcore, nor "hardcore" genres, but fusion genres, and should remain. 69.241.216.151 23:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Crust Punk?

Why is it here? After all, crust punk is just that, punk. Its NOT extreme metal, so unless someone objects, I'm taking it off. Mezmerizer 01:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Mezmerizer

"Crust punk was created by combining anarcho-punk with extreme metal..." 68.47.81.164 13:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Nu Metal

Why has this genre not been mentioned yet? I would consider it to be one of the crossover genres because it takes influence from all sorts of music, not even all metal. I'm going to put that , there, and I'll check back later to see if anybody bitches about it. Soholo 07:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Soholo

nu metal is not a subgenre of thrash, death or black metal, and it's not a extreme music genre. nu metal it's a hybrid of genres which are not labeled "extreme" (crossover, groove, funky)

Nü metal is a term for all loose, modern metal and therefor no real genre at all. Both Slipknot and Linkin Park are labeled as nü metal, but Slipknot is much heavier than Linkin Park. But of course, none of these bands are real "extreme metal", as they got a lot of un-extreme influences (hip-hop and electronic music, for example). Nü metal shall not and will not be mentioned in this article.--85.224.83.77 22:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Nu metal is a term for music that is commonly thought "too heavy" to be a part of rock. Of course, the media doesn't seem to realize that hardcore punk exists, so they labeled it wrongly as metal. The main influences being grunge, rap/hiphop, electronic, and finally alternative metal. Really, I'd label it like grunge and put it under hard rock in most cases, or hardcore in extreme cases such as Slipknot. Modern metal consists of many genres: Metalcore is currently the mainstream whilst nu metal fades out, thrash metal is getting more mainstream attention, heavy metal is always in some spotlight, death metal has some mainstream popularity, etc. etc. The newest up and comers are deathcore and newer hardcore punk. But it's rather pointless to divulge into that. --Motley ^{a b c qu} 16:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Grindcore

Grindcore is described as evolution of crust punk.Crust punk is in the list because it's a fusion between anarcho-punk and extreme metal.So grindcore have to be in the list of fusion genres. Also it has much in common with extreme metal. Xr 1 19:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Gothic metal

it's an evolution of doom-death metal- so it's related to the extreme metal.I think it should be in the 'related styles' list Xr 1 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I added it. I shall Mezmerize you! My edits shall Mezmerize you!! My articles shall Mezmerize you!!! 17:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

death subgenres

in my opinion three different articles for deathcore, deathgrind and gore grind don't make sense because they are all union of death metal and grind core....i think that we can made only one article of them (i'm sorry i can't speak english very well---i'm an italian guy) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.220.117.179 (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Not really. Deathcore is a fusion of death metal and metalcore, deathgrind is a fusion of death metal and grindcore, and goregrind is a more violent subgenre of grindcore. Mezmerizer 18:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Mezmerizer

Talking about death subgenres, Melodic Death Metal really shouldnt be listed as extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.220.152 (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

metalcore 2 and mathcore

metalcore is a music genre made by a fusion of extreme metal and hardcore ( and both genres are labeled extreme music) so i think that metalcore can be labeled like extreme metal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.220.117.179 (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC). i think that also mathcore is a form of extreme metal

Mathcore and metalcore in general are far from being as extreme as black, death, doom, and thrash metal. Metalcore, as was said above, is part of the mainstream music, and thus wouldn't fit very well with those 4 extreme metal genres. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 18:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thrash metal was (and still is) mainstream metal. 68.47.81.164 23:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about Metallica's Black Album and similar releases, then I have to say it is not, properly speaking, thrash metal. I have never seen a music video for a pure thrash metal band on MTV. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 06:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In the '80s, thrash metal bands and videos could be seen on television, and I still hear early Metallica (KEA - AJfA) on the radio. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.47.81.164 (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

That only constitutes an exception. Thrash metal maybe has some links to the mainstream public in the '80's (when metal, notably glam metal, was popular) and with Metallica. But the point is not concerning thrash metal, but on mathcore and metalcore. You can't possibly say that, as of 2007, mathcore and metalcore are more underground than thrash. And the point is not even on whether it's underground or not, it's whether it's extreme. Mathcore and metalcore are not extreme metal. In fact, metalcore is not always metal. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 16:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Anthrax had a spot on Married... with Children, Lil Jon sampled Slayer for Crunk Juice, Metallica's Master of Puppets hit 29 on the Billboard 200 in 1986, and videos by thrash metal groups have been played on MTV. That's more than "some links to the mainstream public." Anyway, metalcore is a fusion of metal and hardcore punk, so it will never be 'pure metal,' but neither is avant-garde metal, which was listed as an extreme metal subgenre. 68.47.81.164 22:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

With regards metalcore as a whole, I think if we mention it at all we should say "and some bands within the metalcore genre" or something to that effect. Otherwise we'd including mainstream -core bands like Bullet For My Valentine or Trivium alongside genuinely extreme bands like Converge or Job For A Cowboy. Anyone agree? Cacodyl (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Here's a proposal for a valuable reference to cite: Purcell, Natalie J. (2003). "Death Metal Music: The Passion and Politics of a Subculture", McFarland, ISBN 0786415851. Terrestria (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Doom metal? WTF?!

Can someone explain to me how doom metal is considered extreme metal? It is very slow and heavily blues influenced, and it has no similarity to thrash, death, or black metal.

It is heavy as hell?--Gustav Lindwall 20:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

there's traditional doom and there's extreme doom (funeral,drone,sludge and death doom)

I would say it is extreme metal. As one guy said, dont read the music, but listen to it. So go listen to Electric Wizard and tell me what you think.

Doom Metal is an Extreme Metal genre. At its heaviest, it can be heavier and darker than Thrash Metal and Black Metal, respectively. If you're not convinced, see Black Sabbath's self titled song for a blast of pure evil and heaviness beyond most modern metal. -Motley ^{a b c qu} 06:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any source defining extreme metal (but hey, we already know this article is total original research) but [http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=5&a=ls&s=108 here]'s what Metal Observer considers extreme metal. All of these bands are related to death, black and/or grindcore. Some have doom influences but always are clearly rooted in death and black (I've listened to quiet a few). This "extreme metal" search at Rockdetectors shows 711 band articles. 9 of 711 bands are labeled doom and in each article "extreme metal" is mentioned without referring to the band. Electric Wizard or Black Sabbath are in no way extreme metal. I'll remove it until reliable sources prove me wrong. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 01:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

...and Ill just put it right back in. Prepare to be Mezmerized! 01:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Doom Metal by itself isn't extreme, but funeral doom, sludge doom and drone doom are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.141.10 (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Most doom metal is not extreme metal. Even death doom can be put with the melodic metal section because of the keyboards, violins, slow guitars, etc.... all they really have is the death metal vocal... Traditional Doom is no where near extreme metal. Drone Doom is hardly music, but just guitar effects. Sludge, well I cant say much about it for I have little knowledge. Anyways, its very arguable if doom metal is extreme or not, but in my point of view it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.194.194 (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Extreme doesn't ecassarily mean "loud, amelodic and growled" (though it certainly doesn't hurt), but rather, inaccessable to the mainstream. Many Slipknot songs totally lack melody, are very loud, fast in a few cases, contain an atypical structure and use exclusively harsh vocals but are still in no way extreme. In my experience more people enjoy Megadeth and Nile than could stand Electric Wizard or Evoken. And a lot of people don't even consider Sunn 0)), or indeed, most drone doom metal, music and that is a definite sign of extremity. 82.23.90.51 (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, we at wikipedia do not condone the reference to slipknot as many Americans would like to forget that they exist. Now for real, doom is extreme. The lyrics are dark and the guitars are tuned down and heavily distorted. Look at the imagery involved too.

Groove Metal

Groove metal is a sub genre of thrash metal.How can it not be Extreme metal?like sepultura's Chaos A.D and Arise.Or Soulfly's debut album.They are Extreme metal,wether you listen to them or look at the refrences wich claim Groove metal to be a sub-genre of thrash.(even in Groove metal's article in wikipedia,it's mentiond to be a subgenre of thrash)Solino the Wolf (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Groove metal isn't a sub genre of thrash. It's a fusion genre of death, thrash, hardcore punk, alternative metal.

New parameters?

What does everyone else think about giving a new definition in the introductory graph? When I read "extreme metal", my thoughts immediately were "music that is seen to exist at either end of the cultural spectrum, whether it characterized by speed, density, pitch, or even minimalism". Not that exact wording, but there is something definitely extreme about the glacial paces of doom and drone bands. Even dreamy, cosmic music played at a slug's-crawl pace is extreme, and so are crazy Scandinavian church-burning tunes with equalizers that look like staircases. (Sorry, I thought up all the metaphors and similes while writing this and almost broke my back trying to fit them all in). I think a one-sentence summation of this is helpful to the article, because as it stands now the genres just seem somewhat arbitrary, and the whole article is riddled with sections illustrating how much debate and controversy there is regarding bands/genres/albums, and so forth. 66.224.3.237 (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Necessary

Is this article really necessary as it adds really little content? Spearhead 19:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I find that extreme metal and its numerous genres is under-represented on the heavy metal music page. Maybe a section could be added on that page, though it is already pretty long. I think this article could be expanded, but it would then face the risk of repeating what is already written on the pages for each genre (death metal, black metal, viking metal, etc.). Still, it would be useful to have a page that would have all this information, even in a summarized form, to lead to all of these individual genre articles. In its present form however, it is indeed pretty useless.

In my opinion, it should be expanded to detail the emergence and characteristics of all the genres it includes, as there is no other page that describes and links them all in detail. If such a page exists I haven't found it. If another page isn't created, a greater section should at least be written on the heavy metal music page. --IronChris 04:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

one of the problems I have with WP currently regarding heavy metal and its genres, is that we have tons of articles but mosts are crap. Hell, most of the articles refer to made-up things, like cybercore. I've put a couple up for AFD, speedied a few, redirected some, etc. Cleaning up some good articles is a next step, which honestly is much more difficult Spearhead 07:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles on metal, metal subgenres, and related extreme/underground moosic always turn into a big useless mess, because metalheads have a strong tendency toward militant, uncompromising positions on everything, so every article gets slogged down with references to pet bands and assertions that _____ isn't "true" _____ [insert "Cannibal Corpse" and "death metal," "Nine Inch Nails" and "industrial," ad nauseam]. Hrrgh. I don't know what can be done about it and I've pretty much given up trying to clean them up. MrBook 16:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is necessery, since some bands such as Children of Bodom are difficult to categorise in narrow genres like black or melodic death metal. They could simply be labeled as extreme metal. --Izzy999 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

this goes for many bands esp if they changes styles rigorlously; eg: Opeth, Carcass, Paradise Lost, Nightfall. Spearhead 21:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldnt sludgecore/sludgedoom bands (for example Electric Wizard, Eyehategod)be mentioned in this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.157.43.92 (talk • contribs) .

I came to this talk page to suggest that it might be a good idea to simply convert this page to a disambiguation page, but I think IronChris's suggestion is better. Explaining how extreme metal developed while linking the various subgenres in a meaningful way would be quite helpful, I think. Unfortunately, as the article is now, it is fairly useless and duplicates information already found elsewhere. Furthermore, it's vague and contradicts itself. Extreme metal is characterized by a fast or slow tempo? There is absolutely no need to list every kvlt metal subgenre you can think of on this page. I suggest only listing thrash metal, death metal, and black metal. Leave the tiny subgenres to those pages, please. Any thoughts? --Dalkaen^T/C 10:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is POV by its title. When is metal extreme enought to be extreme metal. Also the "Structure" section is highly ambiguous and non-descriptive. Spearhead 21:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right. In fact I don't think extreme metal is a genre. Metal can be extreme, but that doesn't make it a genre. If extreme metal is a genre then 'fast metal', 'intelligent metal', 'soft metal' could also be genres. I think this article has low quality content because nobody can come up with quality content. There is no quality content for this 'genre'.Emmaneul 02:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree; I voted "keep" in the AFD, hoping that this article would be expanded for the reasons I stated above, but it's still pretty crappy. I regret that I don't have the time and necessary knowledge to expand it. Maybe it should be turned into a disambig page for now, if no one is ready to take upon themselves the task of rewriting it entirely. IronChris | (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Extreme metal isn't a genre, lets' get that cleared up first, folks. Extreme metal is a bunch of metal genres (and their fusion genres, etc.) that share an 'extreme element'. Thrash metal isn't extreme, so does anyone have any idea why it is listed as such? -Unlight_14

I think this is a great point. Extreme metal isnt' a genre, it's a group of genres. While the intro does call it an umbrella term, I feel like this could be better brought out by putting the list of 'primary genres' at the top of the article. Also, let's face it, death and black metal is really the core extreme metal. Thrash is important for historical reasons, and the inclusion of doom has always puzzled me -- and I say this as someone who loves doom. Obviously, there's crossover stuff (death-doom, etc.) but that's crossover. A lot of doom isn't that different than Black Sabbath's first couple albums. I mean, let's give credit where credit's due -- to the majestic beauty without which metal would not exist -- but Black Sabbath is no extreme metal band! Yeah, doom can be really slow and heavy, but is it really more extreme than a lot of groove metal bands or metalcore? Genesiswinter (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Relatedly, can anymore more on the inside of the scene bone me up on the history of the term? I have to admit, back when I was orignally into metal (including death and thrash) in the 90s, I never remember hearing this term. After getting back into the musica again in the past year or so, Kahn-Harris' use of the word was the first time I'd come across. To me it's revealing that the only source for this article is his book, (as good as the book is). And now that his book is out, the term is starting to pop up as a descriptor for a lot of 'in-between' bands on wikipedia.

Budgie

The source I used is on the page "1960s in heavy metal music". How is it not "verifiable"? Rockgenre (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If "Goregrind" Is Listed, Why Not Brutal Death Metal?

Goregrind is to death/grind what brutal death metal is to death metal. I tried to update this page to add in brutal death metal as a death metal sub-genre but I can see it's been taken out. It's a more recognized sub-genre of death metal in fact than is "gore/grind." While I'm on the subject, why also was my edit to add progressive black metal as a sub-genre deleted? There are several bands existing in this now well established genre, if you need examples just look at Klabautamann and Ne Obliviscaris just to name two. Just saying, kind of uh, double standard though when it comes to taking out my addition of brutal death metal... Anathematized one (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Because we have a whole bunch of sources for goregrind (see article) and none for "brutal death metal" a distinct subgenre. Find some and we can talk, but make sur they're not Internet webzines. Sources need to be professional; you described yourself as a professional source on someone's talk page... I assume this means you get paid by a print magazine or book compny to write about metal. Feel free to se som of your printed articles as sources to back up you claims. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad article

Needs to be expanded WAY more. It jumps around skipping whole areas of music and time that were important to extreme metal. I mean, it jumps straight from Venom, the first extreme metal band to death metal and black metal from the late 80's-early 90's. 76.114.42.231 (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"and sometimes with thrash metal."

I take issue with the sentence "The term usually refers to a more abrasive, harsher, underground, non-commercialized style or sound nearly always associated with genres like black metal, death metal, doom metal, and sometimes with thrash metal." This is for a few reasons. One is that I saw this article maybe a year or so ago, and the places of doom and thrash in this sentence were reversed. In my opinion it's more accurate this previous way, as thrash seems to be almost universally considered an extreme metal while there's more debate about whether or not doom qualifies. (Albert Mond (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

Melody

Extreme Metal doesn't have no melody. If it had no melody, it would be just the same note played all the time. Extreme metal sometimes has dissonant melodies, or melodies which are just too raw or too brutal for the mainstream audience. But it's still melody. And that's not even true all the time, there are many, many extreme metal acts which are quite melodic: (later) Immortal, Emperor, At the Gates, Immolation, Atheist, (later) Death et c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's more to melody than just "the same note played all the time"; however, you are correct. Extreme metal as a genre does not exclude melody per se. You might be able to make the argument that extreme metal has no vocal melody because the vocals are almost always harsh, as opposed to clean.MetalJon (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Characteristics/Structure

I am concerned with some of the language about extreme metal retaining the same key elements as pop/rock. In the majority of cases this is incorrect. In the same discussion (under Characteristics/Structure) where the presence of melodies is questioned it is stated matter of factly that extreme metal songs have chord progressions. This is often not the case. It is uncommon to find extreme metal songs that even contain basic triads, let alone diatonic chord progressions. Instead, homophony (generally taking the form of one guitar playing a single note or riff, with the other playing the same thing in harmony, thus creating a simple dyad--i.e. not a chord, despite what the Dyad article might say) and polyphony are the norms, with any underlying harmony being implied through riffs. One of the most common exceptions still isn't all that common: keys. When you actually do get a chord progression it will usually be from a synth of some kind. Other potential harmonic sources include sweep arpeggios, but these are rare in extreme metal (except for the more technical bands). Maybe because they are associated with 80s metal, or maybe because a lot of these guitarists actually aren't all that good. Of course, this isn't always the case. Sometimes you can find sections that include chord progressions (almost always homophonic, with the two guitars each playing "half" of the chord), but this is not the norm.

Moreover, it it worth mentioning that a lot of extreme metal eschews pop song structures, like the ubiquitous AABA form. Extreme metal songs tend to be as loose with the song's structure as with its harmonic content. And finally, it should also be noted that extreme metal songs rarely confine themselves to a single key center and modulate quite freely and at times chromatically. This is in the absence of coherent key changes that would be readily apparent under cursory harmonic analysis. Instead, songs are more often simply said to be "loosely E" or "loosely B." The presence of so many non-scale tones in the absence of a traditional harmony based around chord progressions is one of the defining tonal characteristics of extreme metal. MetalJon (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

History/Early development

"The early 1980s saw the development of speed metal and thrash metal, two distinct but nonetheless closely related styles that both drew influence from punk rock (particularly the emphasis on very fast tempos, 2/4 or implied 2/4 time, and brief songs found in hardcore punk)."

What? 2/4 time? That's the time used for polkas and marches. I've never heard of a punk song ever being written in 2/4. And what is "implied 2/4" supposed to be? And the influence of hardcore on speed/thrash through "brief songs" seems dubious to me. Can we cite some examples of short speed/thrash metal songs? I'll eat crow if I'm wrong, but this looks like another couple of glaring errors to me. MetalJon (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thrash Metal

Question, the Extreme music article states that "An example of what was once deemed (or would have been deemed) extreme style that is no longer considered so is thrash metal..." , while it links to this article, in the note about it, it doesn't mention Thrash. So one of these pages needs editting, but which one? It's a somewhat minor point, but it's inconsistant. Dace59 13:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There are also internal inconsistencies in this article. While the introduction says thrash metal is "sometimes" considered extreme, the Early Development section says that the success of the Big Four proved that extreme metal could be commercially viable, which is of course wrong. Just because the Big Four had some commercial success doesn't mean extreme metal as a genre can be commercially successful. MetalJon (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Diversification

Is it worth noting here that black metal developed as a sort of counter-genre to death metal? MetalJon (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Blackened Death/Doom

Maybe we should include this fusion genre in this article, since it is an official genre, It is the fusion of the 3 primary extreme genres (Black Metal, Death Metal and Doom Metal) and there are many bands that play songs of this style (Gatlord, Dragged into Sunlight, Velvet Thorns, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.10.95.236 (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is an offical extreme fusion genre and should be in this article. ABC paulista (talk) 14:11, 07 May 2010 (UTC)

Find a reliable source then, or please stop adding it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia's topics an reliable source? ABC paulista (talk) 21:55, 07 May 2010 (UTC)

Abolutely not. Please read WP:RS. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You guys are way off the marker with this one..

Hardcore metal is NOT Extreme metal. Hxc metal is metal influenced by hxc/hxc punk. Hence, hxc metal should definately not redirect here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.80.54 (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Doom Metal and Sludge Error

First off, Doom Metal was forming in the early 70s with acts such as Cathedral and Pentagram, NOT the 80s.

Second, Sludge is NOT a sub-genre of Doom Metal. Sludge was borne out of Hardcore Punk and Metal, much like Grindcore and such. Sure, some modern Sludge acts exhibit characteristics that could be seen as "Doomy", but it's for heaviness, but because of Doom influence. Furthermore, bands like Eyehategod that created the style relied on Punk influences. It's as much a Punk genre as it is a Metal one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.239.0 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Article Layout

Most genras of music here on Wikipedia have a layout specific to music articles. Is there any particular reason this one isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocohall (talk • contribs) 03:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is horrible and needs some serious help

We need some people to overhaul this article completely. Finding some sources should help. There are things in here that are jusr ridiculous. It's too general at some parts and unnecessarily speciric at other parts. I'm not sure subgenres of the main extreme metal genres need to be mentioned. And speed metal? Really? This article needs lots of work. It's ugly and could be so much more useful and encyclopedic. This could be such a bigger more important article and it has just been left in the shitter for way way too long. Navnløs (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A really great resource

Just found this awesome source about extreme metal production. Right now I'm busy on the wikify June drive, but I'll try to incorporate this source into the article.--3family6 (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a good source. The very first band they talk about is Slipknot. I mean, come on. I don't think they're talking about the term "extreme metal" on that page. They're just using "extreme" as a generic adjective. As in, "wow, this is some extreme sounding music." But it's not about the genre umbrella term. Navnløs (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I actually do think it does refer to the umbrella term for the most part, as most of the bands mentioned are extreme metal, and the producer they talk to definitely does extreme metal. Now, the Slipknot mention is rather odd, but this is the only band they mention that probably lies outside the nebulous term of "extreme metal." And Slipknot tends to be on the more extreme side of alternative metal, and it does use extreme metal elements, particularly with its drumming (and drumming is one of the main focuses of the article, which might explain the band's inclusion). But just this one mention doesn't mean that the entire article is discounted. Also, unless the article explains exactly what styles of metal it is talking about when it says "extreme metal," there is no reason to assume that it doesn't refer to the umbrella term.--3family6 (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Epic Doom

I have removed epic doom, as it clearly isn't extreme. It's melodic and uses clean vocals. Anyone disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

epic doom is an extreme metal genre because 1. it is a subgenre of doom metal and 2. dark lyrics and heavy instrumental sound is what makes doom metal extreme, not shouting and fast instrumental sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.3.242 (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This entire article is horrible

There appears to be some kind of slow motion edit war going on on this article, but in general I think the whole article is just horrible. This metal "taxonomy" that people seem to care about so much (well, given the backwards and forwards edits) isn't actually sourced anywhere, making the discussion a bit silly. I've lost the thread of what is and is not considered a "derivative" versus a "fusion" genre/subgenre, and have certainly not seen any reliable sources clarifying this, just a lot of editor comment-lining. Do you think you guys could agree you kind of consensus on talk, bringing some sources actually discussing the article in depth, before dragging this out for months? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least for me, talk pages seem kinda useless. Everytime that I try to discuss anything in talk pages, no one answer me...

Anyway, I always saw on wikipedia this separation subgenres of derivatives. To what I saw here, derivatives evolve from some genre, but becomes a different ando independent genre, not being an subgenre of the first. In Thrash metal's article, it's cited that Black metal, Death metal and Groove metal are derivatives of Thrash, but aren't subgenres. Are considered proper genres. In Speed metal's artcle, it's cited that Power metal, and Thrash metal are derivatives of Speed, but aren't considered his subgenres. The same goes to Death/doom artcle, that cites Gothic metal and Funeral doom as derivatives, but the first is an full genre and the latter is considered an Doom metal subgenre.

These discussions show what I say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thrash_metal/Archive_1#Subgenres_Of_Thrash

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gothic_metal/Archive_5#Doom_metal_.3F.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thrash_metal/Archive_1#merge_groove_metal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Speed_metal#Power_Metal_.26_Speed_Metal_get_confused — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABC paulista (talk • contribs) 21:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You've missed my point. Where are these terms discussed in reliable sources, not Wiki talk pages? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right at this point, but there are no sources here that cite Groove and Gothic as subgenres of Thras and Death/doom, respectively.ABC paulista (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There are, at present, no sources in this article discussing any of these (sub)genres, in depth, as derivatives of each other. This is my issue... there's a lot of heat about the taxonomy; what is a genre, a subgenre, a fusion genre, and a derivative genre; but it is all based on the personal opinion of a couple of (disagreeing) editors. If such a taxonomy exists (which I doubt, in the absolutist terms you're talking about), it needs to be sourced. At present, it's a mess. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this latest mess is my fault. I was trying to clean up the article based on the content that was already in it. ABC paulista is correct with the treatment of derivatives. I was not focusing real hard on the article because as of last week I've started a 40-hr a week full-time job, which means I made some messy edits recently. I never viewed the recent batch of edits as a war, but rather two editors trying to reach an agreement and consistency. Generally, I like what ABC paulista has done with making the derivatives their own section. Of course, none of this addresses the sources problem, though for the record, groove metal has thrash and death cited on its article, but I'm not sure how good those are, I haven't really checked.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Fusions of Extreme Metal and other types of Heavy Metal/music

Shouldn't there be a minor list of fusion between Extreme Metal and other Metal/Rock genres. Like, for example, Industrial Black Metal, Black gothic Metal and Death 'n' Roll, etc... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chibi kain (talk • contribs) 16:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, this page definitely needs some more information about this stuff. Anathematized one (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sludge metal isn't a fusion genre of extreme metal and punk becuase sludge metal is not extreme metal at all

sludge metal is also not a fusion between extreme metal and southern rock. although it is influenced by southern rock it does not come directly from it and as i said earlier sludge metal is not an extreme metal genre.

death 'n' roll. as the name implies is a fusion between death metal and rock and roll. not hard rock. i believe that the source has been misinterpreted. although entombed's album, 'wolverine blues' sounded a bit hard rock influenced it did not come directly from it. Brynn the Grim (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, Sludge Metal is a fusion between Doom Metal and Hardcore Punk (with traces of Southern Rock), and Doom Metal is an Extreme genre. Plus, Sludge Metal is considered a Doom Metal subgenre and fusion genre, and as Doom is considered extreme, all it's subgenres and fusion genres are considered too.

About Southern Rock, many Sludge Metal bands incorporated some of the aesthetics of this genre in it's origin, putting it in the mix.

About Death 'n' Roll, all the sources that are in the Genre's article cite Hard Rock (and some cite 70's British Heavy Metal) as influences. But none state Rock and Roll as an influence.

Besides, they are all supported by verifiable, reliable sources. ABC paulista (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

all genres of metal are somewhat influenced by doom metal. metal hammer magazine has cited black sabbath as a doom metal band and it's a well supported opinion that black sabbath were the first heavy metal band. therefore all metal bands would be either directly or indirectly influenced by doom metal. this would mean that if sludge metal was extreme metal, all metal genres would be extreme, making the entire term for extreme metal become meaningless.

southern rock has influenced only some sludge metal bands and therefore i believe that in brackets in should say so (see speed metal underneath primary genres).

as for death 'n' roll. although entombed's 'wolverine blues' contained traces of hard rock i don't believe that we should assume that this applies to all death 'n' roll bands/artists. again the name death 'n' roll implies a fusion with rock and roll and the wikipedia article on death 'n' roll supports rock and rolls significant influence on the genre. Brynn the Grim (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Black Sabbath was not the only metal band in the late sixties. I'm not going to go through the list, the Wikipedia heavy metal article goes through it all in detail. So, while I think the doom metal listing is debatable anyway and a minority opinion, even granting that, there are still like 8 to 10 other bands that helped formulate heavy metal, so it doesn't matter anyway. I did fix the sludge listing under Southern rock to reflect that it is only sometimes combined. As to whether sludge is extreme metal, a quick ghits search seems to indicate that it is directly called such. Second, just because something was derived from extreme metal I don't think necessarily means that it is itself extreme metal. Thank you for discussing this on the talk page.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A genre influenced by another and one being a subgenre of another are totally different. A subgenre is considered part of the main genre "family" (Sludge Metal is considered part of the Doom Metal genre), but one genre can be distinct of the genre that influenced it (Black Metal and Death Metal were greatly influenced by Thrash Metal, but aren't considered Thrash subgenres).

No reliable sources cite rock 'n' roll as an influence. And Wikipedia's rticles aren't considered reliable sources here. ABC paulista (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Metalcore

There are a lot of wrong thoughts about Metalcore:

1. Metalcore is supposed to be to much Hardcore and things like that. But Crust Punk and Grindcore are 2/3 Punk/Hardcore and 1/3 Thrash (Death) Metal, Deathcore is ½ Death Metal ¼ Thrash Metal and ¼ Hardcore Punk (actually Deathcore is ½ Death Metal and ½ Metalcore but Metalcore is ½ Thrash (Extreme) Metal and ½ Hardcore). 2. Metalcore is not extreme enough. Well, not if Metalcore should meet the specifications to be called Black Metal. But many bands like Threat Signal, Johnny Truant and Parkway Drive are a lot more extreme than Industrial bands like Rammstein or Gothic bands like Within Temptation with clean female vocals when on the other hand Metalcore uses Grunts and is far more faster and especially more aggressive. Also very soft Avant-garde and Folk Metal bands are far more softer than Metalcore bands. 3. Last, Metalcore is supposed to be to mainstream. Well, Death Metal bands like In Flames, Thrash Metal bands like Slayer and even Black Metal bands like Cradle of Filth and Dimmu Borgir get more or the less as much attention on MTV, Slayer even wins Grammy awards. Metalcore is Mainstream, but only for an Extreme Metal band because it is a relatively new genre and it is not the most extreme variant of the Extreme Metal group. Also, Metalcore can only become really mainstream if the whole Extrem Metal group would become mainstream because they all share some things like grunt, blast beat and so on. These things are to extreme, aggressive, fast and not melodic enough for the mainstream. Many people who like Death Metal like In Flames or The Haunted also like Deathcore like Heaven Shall Burn. The thing is, because almost all genres in Extreme Metal uses Grunts and Screams, or at least frequently uses it, it makes it to extreme for many normal people and Metalheads to listen to it.

Finally, there are some people that try to deny Metalcore at just the same way as old granny’s refused to accept Rock n’ Roll, thus denying it without any clear reason. Give at least real arguments to deny it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.147.24.49 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This incoherent nonsense. I particularly like your "point 1", with its neat little packaging of genres. Which 1/2, which 1/4? At least they add up. Source your claims or please... go away. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to rebuff every single point you just made in a quite concise fashion:

1. No one has ever criticized metalcore on the grounds that it is too close to hardcore. Individual groups, perhaps, but by no means the entire genre. Thrash metal itself formed as a union of speed metal and hardcore, certainly in the case of Slayer and Anthrax. So no one really minds if there's a big hardcore influence, because it's by no means something new and aggressively modern.

2. This is just you making the same point over and over again. You claim, quite accurately, that many industrial, gothic avant-garde and folk bands are much "softer" than metalcore. And you're quite right. But those genres AREN'T IN THIS ARTICLE, SO THAT POINT IS UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.

3. This point APPROACHES validity, but falls flat ultimately. Yes, it is certainly true that many existing extreme bands get a lot of media attention, but you used some rather poor examples. In Flames are a melodic death metal band, which makes it questionable whether they still constitute an extreme form of metal. Cradle Of Filth have consistently denied being a black metal band; they might wear the corpse paint and scream, but their biggest influences are Iron Maiden and Judas Priest, rather than Burzum and Mayhem. Dani Filth, when asked what their genre was, even once described it as "heavy funk". And with regards Slayer, it's quite simple: the song that won them a Grammy (Eyes Of The Insane) is NOT extreme. They've run out of steam in their old age and have resorted to melodic singing about socially relevant topics and nu-metal style chord progressions. They ceased being genuinely extreme in the Diabolicus In Musica/God Hates Us All era.

4. Fine, I'll deny metalcore (or portions of it at least) WITH a clear reason. SOME metalcore bands are extreme: just look at Converge. They're extreme because they utilize screaming vocals, amelodic guitar riffs, unconventional song structures and time signatures and very fast tempos. At the same time, SOME metalcore bands are NOT extreme by any means: just look at Bullet For My Valentine. They're not extreme because they have predominantly sung vocals, very melodic guitar riffs and chord progressions, highly conventional verse-chorus-verse song structures and mid-paced tempos. Unfortunately, what happens is both of these bands (and a host of others) get lumped under the same genre. Just like some alt-rock bands are more extreme than others (compare, for example, the Pixies with AFI), some metalcore bands are more extreme than others. Eventually someone will have to draw a line in the sand, or come up with a new term to more accurately describe the differences. The point in this case is simply that you argued your case very poorly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cacodyl (talk • contribs) 12:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If Thrash is extreme metal, than Metalcore is extreme metal. Metalcore is overall heavier than most Thrash. BFMV could be counted as Thrash as well as metalcore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.3.236 (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you read the article, but metalcore is listed...ABC paulista (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Djent

I don't care if you consider it a genre or not, would music referred to as "djent" be classified as extreme metal? It seems to be related to Technical Death and Mathcore, both of which are definitely extreme metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.3.236 (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No. Djent is related to Progressive metal. Some bands take Tech-Death and Mathcore as influences, but it isn't Djent's feature. And even if they were Djent's start point, it only could be considered part of this article if it is an extreme metal's subgenre. ABC paulista (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Intro sentence

"Extreme metal is a broad term for metal subgenres of a more aggressive style than traditional metal."

This is a rather worthless intro sentence, since "traditional metal" redirects to "heavy metal music", and extreme metal is a part of heavy metal. The purpose of an intro is to summarize what the article is about, and this sentence does not do that. Can someone come up with a better intro? IronChris | (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

..."heavy metal" now has two distinct meanings: either the genre and all of its subgenres, or the original heavy metal bands of the 1970s and 80s style sometimes dubbed "traditional metal". -Heavy metal music 68.47.1.63 17:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well... basically, from the examples the page lists, extreme metal is any genre of metal that isn't the earlier metal bands, like Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, etcetera... So maybe "Extreme metal is a term which differentiates latter forms of heavy metal music from the progenitors of the genre." Or something in that vein? That's all I'm getting from what's on the page so far. --Dayn 09:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In the opening sentence, the phrasing "loosely defined umbrella term" is used. Isn't this some sort of pleonasm, where "umbrella term" would be just about enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:FD5D:4B80:224:E8FF:FEF3:C20D (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but still you must also exclude Power Metal, Hair Metal ect...

Neutrality

Not merely because I'm an extreme metal fan myself, but from a general point of view, I think the word "counterculture" is quite a loaded one. While it might be argued that the (early) black metal scene is a counterculture, I fail to see how doom or thrash metal scene fall into that category. MammonI.Dumah (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and calling it "by definition" a counterculture is borderline completely incorrect. At least according to this article it's by definition a style of music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.160.131 (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Who removed thrash and who added speed metal?

Someone removed Thrash metal from the list of genres, which is stupid because we all know thrash is the pioneer genre of extreme metal. And speed metal? Really? Speed metal is just NWOBHM sped up. I could turn "Living after midnight" into speed metal by simply playing the tape at a faster speed. Thrash metal is different because of its abrasive sound, extremely fast speed and often dark lyrical themes, as well as its incorporation of shouted or screamed vocals, as in the case of Slayer, Dark angel and Exodus.

No one removed Thrash metal, it's well cited in the article. About Speed metal, a reliable source (Kahn-Harris's book, Extreme Metal: Music and Culture on the Edge) cites it as one of the extreme genres. ABC paulista (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't in the infobox

You added at the fusion genre infobox. Thrash isn't considered a fusion genre, but a derivative of Speed metal.ABC paulista (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

....D'OH!!!

Speed, thrash, and doom are not extreme metal

Extreme metal ONLY includes death metal, black metal, and grindcore. I have a very reputable source that verifies this. Sam Dunn, anthropologist and well-respected heavy metal scholar, defines extreme metal in his series on metal evolution. Here is a link to the episode on extreme metal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoHOgfEoTlc — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinGrem (talk • contribs) 02:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Sam Dunn may be known it the heavy metal circles, but his works are highly controversial, mainly the one that was the base for the Metal Evolution series: Metal: A Headbanger's Journey. His negative approaches to more agressive genres like Black metal, total forgetfulness of Doom metal and its subgenres and the inclusion of some bands and genres that usually aren't seen as Heavy metal ones like Linkin' Park, Shock Rock, Grunge, pre-Black Sabbath bands and others, in his Family Tree are still themes to debates and criticism.

Even so, some written sources like Kahn Harris's Extreme Metal: Music and Culture on the Edge do cite these three genres, more Doom than the other ones, and since Wikipedia in general gives more credit and weight to written media than to documentaries and online media, it seems more reasonable to mantain them here. ABC paulista (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree entirely, except that Wikipedia shouldn't give more weight to written media. Does the medium matter as long as the content is reliable? Especially since print media is becoming less common and less relevant in many instances.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, but WP:V and WP:RS still hint that professional textual media, be it in form of journal, newspaper or digital, are more verifiable than other types of media. Maybe in the future some changes in Wikipedia policies about its treatment to some kinds of other-media sources might be necessary, but that's neither the case now, nor the focus of this discussion. ABC paulista (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617183213/http://www.stylusmagazine.com:80/reviews/phazm/antebellum-death-n-roll.htm to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/phazm/antebellum-death-n-roll.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image

User:ABC paulista it doesn't seem to be a standard right now but why does that matter? The use of infobox images is certainly not discouraged and I believe it would be useful to include them in more genre articles. Do you think that including the Venom image is detrimental to the article?--MASHAUNIX 11:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it would be particularly detrimental to the article itself, but at the same time I don't see any usefulness to the inclusion of concert images in infoboxes, since these kind of photos hardly address the musical part of the genres, illustrating more the cultural part (imagery, lyrical subject, cultural movement) of them, and infoboxes are more illustrative to the musical part.

Although adding images on infoboxes to illustrate the genres could be useful, standardizarion is a big and important part of Wikipedia's guidelines, and judging by the current Metal article's infoboxes, it seems that trere is a overall consensus to not use them on infoboxes (for whatever reason). So, before starting adding them, I think that such matter should be addressed first within the project before taking some action. ABC paulista (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus, it's just never been considered. Find a relevant past discussion or give some arguments against including the image.--MASHAUNIX 15:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I've already gave my reasoning. Read my first paragraph and the first part of the second one. Also, WP:CON explicitally says that consensus can be reached outside discussions. ABC paulista (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Your only argument is that there might be consensus against it and you offer no evidence.--MASHAUNIX 23:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, read again:

I don't think it would be particularly detrimental to the article itself, but at the same time I don't see any usefulness to the inclusion of concert images in infoboxes, since these kind of photos hardly address the musical part of the genres, illustrating more the cultural part (imagery, lyrical subject, cultural movement) of them, and infoboxes are more illustrative to the musical part.
Although adding images on infoboxes to illustrate the genres could be useful, standardizarion is a big and important part of Wikipedia's guidelines

And the image does neither address the musical part of the genres, nor support standardizarion since all other Heavy Metal articles have no images in infoboxes, so this being the exception, consequently going against standardizarion. ABC paulista (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - An infobox image is not appropriate for a page with such a wide topic (IMO), unless there is some kind of genre title card. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice, at last we've started an actual discussion. In my opinion, it would be beneficial if most genre article infoboxes included images to illustrate the aesthetic associated with a genre. ABC paulista is right in suggesting that there is a "musical" and "cultural" part to a genre. However, these parts are in fact inseparable; cultural context shapes sound and vice-versa. The genre infobox actually reflects this: cultural origins are the second field below stylistic origins and the "scenes" and "other topics" sections also generally include cultural info. Including an image can further supplement this. Every genre's aesthetic manifests sonically, but for most it also manifests visually in art, clothes, objects, places etc. I think it is obvious that this is especially true for heavy metal, which tends to be just as striking visually as it is sonically. As I said before these areas are not separate; visual style reflects musical style and vice-versa. Therefore, an infobox image gives an immediate idea of the orientation of that genre, especially in the case of metal. For a reader who has never been at an extreme metal event, its dark and hellish style should be immediately illustrated.

Your comment is accurate, Mlpearc, which is why I included an image of Venom who span several core genres. However, wouldn't you agree that there is considerable unity in the aesthetic of thrash, doom, death, black metal? For instance, all are associated with darkness (e.g. black clothes), striking imagery (e.g. hellfire), and long hair.--MASHAUNIX 22:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean, no one "band" image is going to be appropriate and constant edit wars/discussions about why whatever image is there, shouldn't be. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Well in my opinion Venom are fairly representative of extreme metal as a whole. If there are "constant edit wars/discussions" then sure it should not be included, but we can't say that there will be. So far we are only discussing whether infobox images are appropriate at all.--MASHAUNIX 18:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

About the infoboxes, 80 to 90% of them are composed by musical aesthetics, with only one or another citation that is related to the cultural part of it. Even the "Cultural origins" section in infoboxes isn't much related to the "cultural" part of the genre, normally citing the orgins of the genre overall. But while the musical part is easier to address because all subgenres share some distingushable traits that link them into one major subject, the same can't be said about the cultural part of them, since Heavy Metal as a whole have darker and heavier imagery than most other musical genres and it's subgenres can cover all kinds of thematics and lyrical content. Even if some genres are born affiliated to some kind of movement and some musical characteristics are changed, and subgenres appear depending of the band's thematic, all genres cover many kinds of subjects and ideologies that cannot be summarized in one image.

Most images are about bands and/or concerts, and they are hardly capable of addessing the genre as a whole, being more specific about the band itself or a part of the article, but almost never about the article as a whole. Also, darkness, striking imagery, clothing and stuff, with a few exceptions, are pretty much standard in all Heavy Metal subculture and these kind of images in most times fail in show the particularities of each genre. ABC paulista (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

So do you or do you not agree that metal is generally consistent in its aesthetic and that the way it manifests musically and visually is closely associated?--MASHAUNIX 18:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe that overall Metal is consistent aesthetically, but I see it as a point AGAINST putting images in infoboxes, because the imagery is so consistent that it is almost the same for all subgenres, and I argue that for a image to be added in a infobox it must explicitally show some traits that are mostly associated to its respective genre.

With that said, I don't see the musical and visual parts in Metal being closely associated to each other. Its imagery is kinda vague and appliable to all subgenres, and it rarely chages from subgenre to subgenre. ABC paulista (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Extreme metal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68d2q7uOw?url=http://heavymetal.about.com/od/ordoobsidium/fr/Ordo-Obsidium-Orbis-Tertius-Review.htm to http://heavymetal.about.com/od/ordoobsidium/fr/Ordo-Obsidium-Orbis-Tertius-Review.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/phazm/antebellum-death-n-roll.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Post-metal

User:ABC_paulista Yes there is no direct source for this, but the discussion of the genre's characteristics, origins and development in the reworked article clearly suggests an extreme metal influence. Neurosis and Godflesh, who released what are now considered the first post-metal records in the early 1990s, have both been considered extreme metal bands. Both bands incorporated elements of thrash metal and doom metal; the majority of post-metal since carries an audible doom metal/sludge metal influence and has more recently also become associated with black metal. The characteristics which tie post-metal to conventional metal – aggression, darkness, morbidity, screamed/growled vocals – are all typical to extreme metal. So while post-metal is, much like metalcore, not clearly associated with any one specific extreme metal genre (though I think an argument could be made for doom metal as a foundational influence), the association between the two "umbrella genres" is obvious. If you disagree, please at least give me an example of any single post-metal band that does not incorporate elements of an extreme metal genre.--MASHAUNIX 16:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Djent

Djent should either be listed as a derivative if not a subgenre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganondox (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Derivative of what genre? ABC paulista (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Nu metal as a derivative

Shouldn't nu metal be included as a derivative of extreme metal, since it has extreme influences such as down-tuned guitars and screaming/growling vocals? And thrash metal is also one of it's stylistic origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalheadgamer (talk • contribs) 00:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really. Its articcle does cite Death metal and Thrash metal as influences, but no sources state that they were key elements to Nu metal's formation, unlike in the other cases. The fact that thrash metal is cited as one of it's stylistic origins is not really supported by the sources. ABC paulista (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

djent

Djent is a form of extreme metal (extreme metal + progressive metal) should it be listed on the page as a fusion, derivative, etc.. Davatki (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the sources don't state that Djent has relation to Extreme metal as a whole. Maybe some bands employ some "extreme" characteristics, but it is not intrinsicate to the genre overall. ABC paulista (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Doom metal and speed metal

The source given on this page to include doom and speed metal is "Extreme Metal: Music and Culture on the Edge" by Keith Kahn-Harris, however within the book I can only find thrash, black and death metal cited as being extreme metal genres. Because of this, these should both be removed if nobody can find a reliable source supporting their inclusion. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

No, on the first pages of the Introduction it does cite all these genres, in the end stating that "The above-mentioned genres are frequently referred to collectively as extreme metal." ABC paulista (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I've searched and searched and can not find this statement you're referring to. Issan Sumisu (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The link I provided here have the pages. On Page 2 it cites Speed metal (although treating it as the same genre as Thrash metal), on page 4 it discuss Doom metal a little bit and on the page 5 there's the phrase I mentioned. All part of the Introduction section, and "What is Extreme metal?" subsection. ABC paulista (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Avant-Garde Metal

Avant-grade metal is in derivative forms, but doesn’t have a source that I could find. ~SML • TP 16:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Doom metal

Joel McIver's book Extreme Metal II specifies that doom metal isn't a style of extreme metal, saying that he mistakenly put it in his first book, and has seen realized that it doesn't fit. I think he should discuss its inclusion because it already appears very out of place in that it is the only down tempo style, with some definitions of extreme metal saying that it has to be up-tempo, and every other style is influenced by hardcore, which leads to the infobox on this page even needing to specify that only this one style isn't influenced by it. It's also the only style that doesn't include any kind of screamed, growled or yelled vocal (generally that is, obviously death-doom bands exist, but they're fusing the style with death metal). It seems very out of place. Issan Sumisu (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

There are also other sources that say doom metal is a part of extreme metal. But you might find some others that say otherwise. But as of now, I would be leaning to keep it in this page. ~SML • TP 11:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Doom metal is a bit tricky because, while the majority seems to consider Doom metal to be extreme because it is the slowest and probably the most underground of all (being the least accessible for listeners and the least known of the main metal genres, to the point of its complete omission of Sam Dunn's original metal genre tree), some make the distinction between Extreme Doom subgenres and Non-extreme Doom subgenres but there is no consensus of what subgeres to include under the extreme umbrella. So, I think that until we find another compromise about what subgenres to cite here and what not, we should cite them all to avoid WP:POV. ABC paulista (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources

@ABC paulista:@Issan Sumisu: We should rewrite the paragraphs so it doesn’t contain unsourced statements. I’m sure there are a lot of usable sources for that. ~SML • TP 21:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. But I don't think that there are many sources out there that discuss extreme metal there than using the term as a superlative.ABC paulista (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you think Issan? ~SML • TP 22:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sixty Minute Limit: I agree, there are ebook versions of "Extreme Metal: Music and Culture on the Edge", "Extreme Metal II", "Precious Metal: Decibel Presents the Stories Behind 25 Extreme Metal Masterpieces" and "Dissecting The Art of Extreme Metal" all available online which would be very useful in rewriting them.

Good, then we have a little project in our hands. ~SML • TP 22:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

This could be useful. ~SML • TP 13:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

We should have a history section. I’m going to start it because I have some stuff talking about Sarcófago. ~SML • TP 15:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That's true, I was thinking about starting work on it earlier, but didn't end up getting around it. Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I was also wondering on having a List of bands section. ~SML • TP 15:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Since it's an umbrella term, I'm not sure that would really work out, since we have lists of bands for all the subgenres. Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I don’t know if this is helpful. Oh, and we should try to follow this. ~SML • TP 19:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this could be atleast a C class. ~SML • TP 13:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Bathory is missing

Batorhy had a much bigger influence on the sound of black metal than venom. venom only came up with the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.178.183.72 (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

They can be added at any point, it makes sense Venom are here since they were the first extreme metal band, it just so happens nobody has ever decided to add Bathory. Issan Sumisu (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

With credible sources, anything is possible. ABC paulista (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)