Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Edited Related Styles

12/20/05 - Removed what I felt was redundant information (already covered in the history section) from the section on subgenres and related styles. Moved link to "heavy metal genres" into the "underground metal" section.

Let's lose the related music section

Most of the subgenres and related music styles metioned in this sections are already covered in the history section. There's a lot of redundancy there, and this article is already too long for an overview.

"White" music?

Heavy metal is by no means "white" music. It is heavily based on traditionally-black blues, and one of its pioneers, Jimi Hendrix, was hardly white. I just think that this is a silly distinction to make, and doesn't really add much to the article.

It could be noted that most fans and musicians of heavy metal are white, but it certainly is not "in opposition" to black rock and blues.

--AaronS 15:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

White Metal, however, is a term coined to religious "metal," as an opposite to "Black Metal"

Metal IS white music.

Metal just sterotype as white music but if you consider music white or black that is wrong because i belive that music should be coulour less

Most fans of metal are white, as are most metal musicians. Metal generally closely related to western culture, as well as being influenced European classical music. I wouldn't say that metal is strictly 'white' music, but it DOES have strong Anglo connections.

To label music to ethnic groups is nothing better than labelling them negative stereotypes, and should be avoided. Metal does have strong classical (european) influences, however blues and soul originated from the soulful tribal music of african tribes, and these both play important parts in the development of metal. (You seriously think the Blues scale, Pentatonics, Hexatonics, Bebop scale came from classical music?) RZ heretic 09:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

To anyone who thinks it actually matters, there are several wonderful metal bands featuring "ethnically special" (if you'll excuse the PC) members. One of my heroes, Killswitch Engage's Howard Jones, is a perfect example. Jada Pinkett Smith (yes, the actress- Will Smith's wife), front's an all-black metal project called Wicked Wisdom. Another multi-ethnic group that rocks my world is God Forbid, whom I recommend to anyone who loves metal. One of the best "blasting" drummers ever is Mike Smith of Suffocation, who's snare-based percussion assault, while reminiscient of classical methods, is a rare treat in today's world. Women are also getting involved- heavy bands such as Kittie, Arch Enemy, and Bloodlined Calligraphy are all fronted by female vocalists (screamers, if you will). Check all these out. Personally, I love the diversity and wish it wasn't so hidden that we have to have arguments over whether or not it exists.

What about MC5?

It seems to me that any discussion of the origins of metal that fails to mention MC5 is decidedly lacking.

Do we need all these pictures?

While beginning to add captions to the album covers, it occurs to me do we really need all these pictures. I can see why many albums are on there (Zeppelin and Sabbath) but Celtic Frost don't get mentioned in the text but get an album cover.

I would unlink

• Image:ToolAenima.jpg|left
• Image:KyussBluesfortheRedSun.jpg
• Image:QuietRiotMetalHealthalbumc
• Image:CelticFrostIntothePandemonium.jpgover.jpg

Comments? Jackliddle 00:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I think the pictures would be fine if they fit in. The Tool album, for example, is in the middle of a paragraph about Eddie Van Halen and guitar shredding. I've changed that, and tried to add more appropriate pictures. This article needs a lot more work, but it's very late right now... -leigh (φθόγγος) 11:40, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Origin disuputed redux

The references to early usage of the term by Dave Marsh and/or Lester Bangs are precisely the type of probably-apochryphal stories mentioned later in the article. As we've discussed before, an actual reference to such a usage would be grand but is unlikely to appear. I've removed this claim, as well as replacing a paragraph about the Burroughs usage that made little sense as written. Jgm 17:47, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Origin disputed

Quote: "According to one version, it was coined by a critic for Rolling Stone Magazine, who in 1967 said that the music of Jimi Hendrix was "like heavy metal falling from the sky"." This would be in dispute. I searched through the early years of Rolling Stone magazine at our state library and did not find that quote "like heavy metal falling from the sky". I do know however that there is a claim by Chas Chandler that it appeared in a New York times article. Similarly there is no qoute of that term in the New York Times Index 1966-1972. Unless something more substantial can be used to contradict my research, the article should be amended to correct that factual error on Jimi Hendrix. Cheers Iam 02:54, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Double checked 1967 issues of Rolling Stone magazine. Here's the deal: The magazine was first published on November 9, 1967, so it wasn't too difficult to find issues during 1967 as only 3 issues were published for that year (Every fortnight). The first issue (9/11/67) had John Lennon on the front cover (a still from the film How I Won The War), the second (23/11/67) had Tina Turner, the third (14/11/67) had the Beatles and friends (from the Magical Mystery Tour). Issue 4 didn't appear until 20/1/68. So for starters the 1967 date for that quote is wrong. Secondly I cannot find any attribution for that quote between 1968 and 1971. I'm beginning to speculate it's nothing more than fantasy. A check through the New York Times for the years 1965-1975 also did not turn up that claim made by Chas Chandler. This is what's known for sure - It was in definite use by May 1971, in an article published in Creem magazine by Mike Saunders, he uses the term "heavy metal" to describe the music of MC5 and Led Zeppelin in comparison to a new album by Sir Lord Baltimore. Iam 10:50, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

I'm convinced that, at least the way it was stated, we had it wrong. I took a stab at an alternate wording. I suppose the whole line could just be removed, but the theory that the first usage of the term came from a rock critic seems pervasive enough that it should at least be mentioned, if not claimed known true. Of course the best thing would be an actual reference. . . Jgm 14:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. If someone can provide a reference to that Rolling Stone quote with an issue number, page number and date to refute my research, it would be most appreciated. So far all leads have turned up blank. Iam 01:27, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

How about this? Deena Weinstein, author of Heavy Metal: the music and its culture mentions this article in this interview: "Or another example, the wild goose chase I had hunting down the answer to the question "Who named heavy metal?"- There were a few books and articles that all said it was done by Lester Bangs in his CREEM piece on Black Sabbath. Well it took much searching to find a copy of the magazine, at a library about 15 miles away. And when I got there, and Xeroxed the piece, and read it, the term "heavy metal" was NOT there. Nor was it in the second part published two months later. It turned out that another writer had used the term a year earlier and his (Mike Saunders in his review of Sir Lord Baltimore) was the first time it was used to describe a style of music." 1971 is quite late, yet, this seems to be the most accurate source so far.

It seems that what we really have is: a) the phrase 'heavy metal thunder' in a Steppenwolf song; b) the phrase 'heavy metal' being used by Burroughs in the 60s, referring to addictive drugs; c) the unconfirmed, but famous "heavy metal falling from the sky" in a Hendrix interview that no one is able to trace back; d) the above quote. The current article also mentioned that "The song that made the term heavy metal official, was the song "Painkiller" of Judas Priest, which was said "the drums sound like heavy, metal objects are banging"". Besides being poorly formulated, I am quite convinced that this is false, with Painkiller being only released in 1990, long after the term 'heavy metal' had been established (as witnessed by many songs with 'heavy metal' in the title that were released in the 80s, e.g. Helloween - Heavy Metal (Is The Law); Holocaust - Heavy Metal Mania, etc.

I still think the story about the "heavy metal falling from the sky" in the Hendrix interview should be mentioned, though it's absolutely true that a disclaimer about the accuracy should be added. Leaving it out altogether seems a bad idea: the story is so widespread that people will actually may look it up on Wikipedia. Joost 10:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

No mention of the new york dolls, will david johanson ever get the credit he deserves. Someone should really explain why the vocals in heavy metal can be hard to understand. I would gladly but I don't know why they are. They should also explain the different singing styles and why they aren't just all clean vocals.

--Arm

---

Real metal doesn't have rapping vocals or DJs. Just that nu-metal crap that survives only because of MTV. Nu-metals is just a fad thats almost died out and not as established style of metal as say, power metal. --Arm

---

Questions:

• In the Heavy metal (music) article, Heavy Metal and Black Metal are said to (only) belong to the same family. On the other hand, it is said in the Black metal music article that it is a subgenre of Heavy metal. Isn't there a light contradiction here?

• Could someone tell what is the difference between Heavy metal and Hard rock?

• Is Speed metal a subgenre of Heavy metal? Which bands?

Thanks for the clarifications! - User:Olivier

---

I've been adding material to nu metal, and it occured to me that perhaps an article at metal (music) would be a good kind of index. It would descibe the evolution of heavy metal and newer brands of it, and talk about how the more traditional styles of the '80s etc. have influenced the newer bands, and vice versa (eg. Metallica's song for Mission Impossible: simplier guitars in verses etc.).

It would need to talk about:

• Heavy metal (music) as a start point
• the progression of metal through the influence of hip-hop; introduction of rap and other vocal styles, and DJs
• crossover, rap metal, rap rock, etc.
• the use of distorted guitar in pop and techno; can be attributed to influence of rock and heavy metal

-- Sam

---

Shouldn't Hair metal be covered or at least linked to? AxelBoldt 06:43 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

The existing text seems to call hair metal "glam metal." Which perhaps is a more neutral name for it, but I added a line pointing to the hair metal article to that section. -- IHCOYC

---

There doesnt seem to be a category that covers bands like Suicidal Tenencies and Sepultura - is it thrash? speed metal? Htaccess

Both bands fir under the thrash metal category, though Suicidal Tendencies were also regarded as a "crossover" band (between hardcore punk and metal), while Sepultura are sometimes considered a death metal band. Thrash metal and speed metal are synonyms -- Jim Regan 03:24, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Actually thrash and speed metal are not synonyms. A common misconception, possibly stemming from the fact Metallica evolved from thrash to speed. Sepultura covered a lot of styles, from death-thrash, to straight up thrash, to 'post-thrash'/'groove metal' to now hardcore.

---

The author says the following about the word "love": "...compare the entire song list of Iron Maiden's many albums which will offer not one use of the word to the knowledge of this contributor..." I guess this is a memory slip of the author during the typing since they do have the song "wasting love" on the album "Fear of the Dark", and also on two live albums: "a real dead one" and "live in donington". This obvously denies that sentence. But, to make things clear, this is not a heartbreaking sweet (i.e. commercial) love song, it is a very dark and soul-tearing song that dennounces and critics the hypocrisy seen in human relations, so the author's point is sustained in essence. By the way, this is an intense and well written article about Metal. Thanks ! congrats, Chuck

---

Great article. One substantive comment: Calling punk rock a branch of heavy metal needs some support. Punk's stylized primitivism and DIY ethic contradicts heavy metal. Punkers certainly hated Mötley Crüe.

I agree. Tuf-Kat 07:46, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'd say what was meant is that modern punk owes as much to heavy metal as to the original punk bands, though the opposite is also true. There's certainly been a lot of cross-pollination between the genres, though more with hardcore punk than "regular" punk.

There are several genres which are the direct result of mixing punk and metal; Motörhead and Thin Lizzie were considered acceptable to many British punks; NWOBHM bands played punk influenced riffs mixed with metal influenced lead guitar - Iron Maiden are probably the best example of this; thrash was originally NWOBHM played faster, but Metallica and Slayer took on board punk influences for their second releases, and became metal bands it was OK for punks to like (Green Day play snippets of Metallica live, Sum 41 play Slayer etc); grindcore mixed death metal with punk - Napalm Death's best known song is their cover of Dead Kennedy's "Nazi Punks Fuck Off"; grunge was started by a bunch of punk bands who also listened to Black Sabbath; Black Flag and Discharge started off as punk bands, but grew their hair long, and started playing music that sounded more like metal; Ministry was an electronic "band" started by a punk, who came back to punk and moved on to metal; Sepultura's early audience consisted mostly of skinheads; they've gone on to work with Jello Biafra, and Chaos A.D. sounds more like a hardcore punk record than a metal album etc. etc. -- Jim Regan 23:38, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm coming to this from the perspective of a punk, who occasionally listens to metal, just thought I should lay my cards out. I don't like that comment in the page and I will take it out, or perhaps just change it when I finish here. The impression given by the article is that punk is a variant on metal, which is not true. What is true, like mentioned, is that there has been a lot of "cross-pollination". Hardcore bands became thrash bands and grindcore bands, there are areas where the line between punk and metal are blurred so substantially I can't tell the difference. Grindcore is a good example, as is some crust punk and hardcore. That being said, we don't say rap is a form of metal, even though linkin park raps (that's if you consider nu metal to be metal at all). Just because the genres have been fused, doesn't mean they should be mentioned in the article. If you want to talk about every genre metal has fused with, go ahead, but that will take a long time.

---

The beginning of the article claims that heavy metal lasted twenty years. This could maybe use additional clarification. Just to pick one example, why is nu-metal not included? (I'm not saying this should be changed, just that the reasons for that time-frame, even if generally accepted, should be explained).

I removed the bit about not understanding the influence of Bach on heavy metal meaning that one does not understand Bach in general because this doesn't make any sense to me. If any cares to articulate a defense of this claim, feel free and we can discuss it. Some of the other stuff about the relationship between heavy metal and classical music struck me as POV, relying upon the idea that classical music is uniquely able to express humanistic ideas and that heavy metal is sole modern exponent of this ability. Many, such as myself, disagree with this and don't know how to articulate the idea in a neutral way.

There are some other opinions in quotes which are uncredited. These have been deleted barring future attribution.Tuf-Kat 07:46, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't get the Bach thing at all. He did a lot of chromatic stuff, and "Fugue in Dm" gets played a lot by metal guitarists, but I'd be clutching at straws to come up with any reason for singling out Bach - the main motif from "In the Hall of the Mountain King" could easily be a Slayer riff, for example, and "Flight of the Bumblebee" has the sort of descending chromatic run that many metal bands use frequently. -- Jim Regan 23:38, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

This curious text appeared in the article body:

<style> hr { display: inline; -moz-box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0 0.1% 0 0.1%; font-size: -moz-initial !important; } hr:before { white-space: pre; content: "\A"; } hr:after { white-space: pre; content: "\A"; } </style>

It appears to be in a programming language that I do not understand. It displays as raw source code in Mozilla 1.3.1. I deleted it so that it does not appear in the article itself, but I am preserving it here in case it does something important or needful that ought to be restored. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:04, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's CSS, and shouldn't have been there. -- Jim Regan 23:38, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

This thing had lots of good contributions but no structure; I've sectionized and made a first attempt at a framework. I didn't delete anything and at this point haven't added much, so some areas make more sense than others, and there is still some repetition. Perhaps someone can move the album cover graphics to more sensible places in the text. Jgm 15:47, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I think a proper article and definition for True Metal needs to be given. I removed the link to "True metal", as the article linked only refers to elemental metals and not to music at all. -- Zarggg 06:15, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Beatles Yer Blues

I believe The Beatles song "Yer Blues" should be added to The Beatles list of songs that influenced Heavy Metal. Sure, Helter Skelter has the riffs, the drumming, and especially the bass guitar, but most of its Heavy Metal acclaim is due to Charles Manson fascination with it. Yer Blues as performed by the Dirty Mac (John Lennon, Eric Clapton, Keith Richards, and Mitch Mitchell from The Jimi Hendrix Experience) on the Rolling Stone's Rock N Roll Circus is definitely one of the first Heavy Metal songs. Some of the bootlegs of the band rehearsing the song are amazing. You got Lennon's bluesy, depressing song with lines like "The eagle picks my eye, the worm he licks my bone, I feel so suicidal just like Dylan's Mr Jones." Lennon's voice is angst driven and you can really feel him yelling, then you got Clapton's awesome guitar solos, Keith Richard's amazing bass line that is both bluesy but able to find a melody, and of course Mitch Mitchell's drumming is heavy.

"Yer Blues" and "Helter Skelter" were never released as singles and didn't appear to the public until The White Album came out in December 1968. Rock 'n' Roll Circus was recorded on December 10 & 11, 1968, shelved and never released to the public until October 15, 1996. On the other hand, Iron Butterfly's debut Heavy was released in October 1967, in July 1968 they released In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida. Steppenwolf's "Born to be Wild" came out as a single on July 13, 1968, so they predate the Beatles and Rock 'n' Roll Circus. Led Zeppelin's "Communication Breakdown" was recorded in October 1968 and released as a single on March 10, 1969. The band Earth changed their name to Black Sabbath in January 1969. I am yet to be convinced that the Beatle songs mentioned so far had an impact in the creation of "Heavy metal". The chronology just doesn't add up. Iam 11:13, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

---

Shouldn't we add a link to Grindcore in the genre table? I'm not doing it myself because I'm somewhat new here and don't know if this has already been debated, but if there's no objections I think we should; I know grind is not strictly metal, but it's close enough (at least as much as nu metal, IMHO) and would be useful to those learning about the genre. Lets not be genre purists, I say. Thrash sure wouldn't be what it is without the punk influences, and yet I don't see many questioning thrash's "metalness". MikeCapone Jan 22, 2004, 00:50 (UTC).

Mike: Go for it. Being new is no excuse! Jgm 01:14, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree, as long as you add it to all the pages that have the table (i.e. everything currently linked to from within the table). Tuf-Kat 01:17, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

To clarify: the point of being selective in including genres in the table is to not let the table get out of control in size, not to specify which genres are "metal enough" to be considered. That would, of course, be a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Tuf-Kat 01:19, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I will. Hopefully this will lead a bit more traffic to the Grindcore page and encourage people to work on it, because right now it is lagging behind the other heavy metal pages in quality. MikeCapone Jan 23, 2004, 03:54 (UTC)

Well, I did it but when I only had a couple to do I realized that not all the tables on the pages of the sub-genres were the same. Some are missing some genre; I'll go over all of them later this week to make sure they are all consistent with each other. MikeCapone Jan 23, 2004, 04:30 (UTC)

Trends in music

These are the trends currently identified on the timeline of trends in music. I thought I'd collect them here to see if anybidy wants to comment on the selection. Tuf-Kat 00:23, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

1968 in music

Music of the United States

Blue Cheer begins recording, and become legends of the American proto-heavy metal scene

1969 in music

Music of the United Kingdom

Led Zeppelin's first album, Led Zeppelin, is released; it is an enormously influential psychedelic blues-rock

1970 in music

Music of the United Kingdom

T. Rex's Ride a White Swan is considered the beginning of true glam rock

Black Sabbath begins recording a dark and gloomy form of heavy metal, laying the groundwork for the genre's intense diversification by the late 80s

1971 in music

Music of the United Kingdom

Black Sabbath's Paranoid and Led Zeppelin's Four Symbols are enormously influential albums in the development of heavy metal

Music of the United States

Funkadelic releases Maggot Brain, an early fusion of soul, funk and heavy metal; releases from Roberta Flack (Roberta Flack & Donny Hathaway), Isaac Hayes (Black Moses) and Sly & the Family Stone (There's a Riot Goin' On) similarly influence the development of a more pop-oriented funk and soul

Alice Cooper creates a distinctive kind of glam and heavy metal-influenced shock rock

1972 in music

Music of the United Kingdom

David Bowie releases Ziggy Stardust, which marks the height of glam rock and is an important influence on the development of punk rock; similarly influential albums by Lou Reed (Transformer) and Mott the Hoople (All the Young Dudes) are also released

Deep Purple releases Machine Head, one of the first pure heavy metal albums

• Machine Head is a 'pure metal album'? Yeah right! The last thing ANYTHING produced by Deep Purple could be called is 'pure metal'. Deep Purple isn't a heavy metal band, though they are often perfunctorally cited as an influence on the development of metal. I suspect this is more a gesture of respect towards these elder statesman of hard rock than an accurate assessment of their influence, which in my opinion, is marginal with respect to subsequent metal and non-metal bands alike.

1975 in music

Music of the United Kingdom

Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" and its accompanying music video revolutionize the possibilities of progressive pop

1976 in music

International trends

Hard rock and heavy metal bands like Aerosmith (Rocks), AC/DC (High Voltage), Blue Öyster Cult (Agents of Fortune) and Judas Priest (Sin After Sin) release landmark albums that gain unprecedented success for heavy metal

• Aerosmith and Blue Oyster Cult are not heavy metal bands, and neither could be more different than Judas Priest.

1978 in music

International trends

Important releases cement the sound of heavy metal and begin to move it towards the mainstream; this includes albums from Blue Öyster Cult (Some Enchanted Evening), Van Halen (Van Halen, Judas Priest (Stained Class, Killing Machine), Ace Frehley (Ace Frehley), Rush (Hemispheres) and Styx (Pieces of Eight)

• Geez. Are you ever the epitome of one of those geeks who classifies any band heavier than Air Supply as metal. Look - Rush is not heavy metal. Styx is not heavy metal. A band is not heavy metal simply because they have a song with a power chord, or have employed a little guitar distortion here and there.

• You cite Ace Frehley's solo album as a significant development in the history of metal? Are you daft? The only thing the Kiss solo albums signify is that the 'classic Kiss' era was decidedly over. The Frehley album, which wasn't even a metal record, is remembered chiefly for the radio friendly pop song "Back In A New York Groove". And then you cite Rush's (a progressive hard rock group, not a metal band) "Hemispheres" in the context of metal "moving towards the mainstream", which is absurd as this is one of the more obscure albums of a band that - although tremendously talented - was hardly noticed by "the mainstream".

1981 in music

Music of the United States

Venom's Welcome to Hell is the beginning of black metal

1983 in music

Music of the United States

Several bands important in the future development and popularization of thrash metal form, including Megadeth, Metallica and the Red Hot Chili Peppers; Metallica's Kill 'Em All was especially important, defining speed metal

heavy metal begins its run of mainstream chart success with hair metal and pop bands like Mötley Crüe (Shout at the Devil), Whitesnake (Saints & Sinners), Van Halen (Diver Down), W.A.S.P. (Animal (F**k like a Beast))), Quiet Riot (Metal Health) and Def Leppard (Pyromania) being most popular.

Suicidal Tendencies fuses hardcore punk with heavy metal

You have a tendency to lump apples with oranges. Oh and incidentally, Van Halen wasn't a 'hair metal' band.

1984 in music

International trends

Thrash-influenced bands like Dokken (Tooth and Nail), Celtic Frost (Morbid Tales), Hellhammer (Apocalyptic Raids 1990 A.D.), Mercyful Fate (Don't Break the Oath) and Helloween (Helloween) come to dominate the European metal scene

Music of the United States

• • DOKKEN was thrash influenced? What planet did you grow up on?

Stryper's The Yellow and Black Attack is the first Christian metal album and sets the stage for later Christian artists in punk, hip hop and other genres

Releases from Run-D.M.C. and the Beastie Boys begin fusing hip hop and rock and roll/heavy metal

Van Halen's "Jump" is the first heavy metal song to top Billboard's pop charts

• • Jesus Christ. Van Halen was a metal band (at least at first), but 'Jump' was NOT a metal song. It was synth pop crap that predictably 'jumped' up the billboard chart.

1985 in music

International trends

Aerosmith begins its return to popular acceptance with Done with Mirrors

• • <smacks head> AEROSMITH IS NOT A METAL BAND

1987 in music

International trends

Death's Scream Bloody Gore helps to define the burgeoning death metal scene

Music of the United Kingdom

Napalm Death forms grindcore

Music of the United States

Guns N' Roses releases Appetite for Destruction and dominate the American music scene for the year with an arena rock and thrash metal-influenced sound; in Europe, Celtic Frost's (Into the Pandemonium) influence and sales peak

• • Do you know what 'thrash' is? There isn't a scintilla of thrash influence in the sound of GNR. Early Metallica and Anthrax is thrash - go listen to some.

1989 in music

International trends

Black metal emerges out of thrash with bands like Anthrax (State of Euphoria) and Sepultura (Beneath the Remains)

Music of the United States

Bands like the Red Hot Chili Peppers (Mother's Milk), Faith No More (The Real Thing) and Fishbone (Truth and Soul) bring funk metal to its commercial pinnacle. Many of these bands, along with Anthrax, Ice-T and others also fuse hardcore hip hop with thrash metal and similar influences

1990 in music

International trends

Paradise Lost emerges at the forefront of the doom metal scene

Music of the United States

Hip hop and indie rock begin to influence metal, with pivotal releases by Primus_(band) (Frizzle Fry), Jane's Addiction (Ritual de lo Habitual), Anthrax (Persistence of Time), The Sisters of Mercy (Vision Thing), Pantera (Cowboys from Hell) and Megadeth (Rust in Peace) revitalizing the genre

1991

International trends

A distinctively Scandinavian death metal scene emerges, especially in Norway at first, soon extending to Sweden and Finland with bands like Entombed (Clandestine), Amorphis (Dismet of Soul) and Therion (Beyond Sanctorum)

1992

International trends

Kyuss (Blues for the Red Sun) and Monster Magnet (Spine of God) help invent stoner metal

Music of the United States

Rage Against the Machine debuts an energetic fusion of heavy metal, punk rock and hip hop

• • The most abused, misused and misunderstood term in the lexicon of music has GOT to be 'punk'. Look kid, Rage Against the Machine is NOT 'punk'. Very heavy band to be sure, but there is no punk influence here. More like a Marxist version of Led Zeppelin on steroids.

1993

International trends

Radiohead (Pablo Honey), Stereolab (Transient Random Noisebursts with Announcements) and Tool (Undertow) release critically acclaimed debuts showcasing a new sound in hard rock and heavy metal

1995

International trends

Power metal begins to break into the mainstream in continental Europe, with bands like Stratovarius (Fourth Dimension) and Tad Morose (Sender of Thoughts) being popular

Beck (Odelay), Tool (Ænima), Sepultura (Roots) and KoЯn (Life Is Peachy) release metal-influenced albums that dominate the year's sound in popular music

2001

Music of the United States

Important nu metal releases from System of a Down (Toxicity) and Tool (Lateralus) define the burgeoning scene; Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory is the top-selling album of the year in the United States.

Neither System of a Down nor Tool are nu metal. This is by the bands' own admission, and also technically they're completely different in essence from nu-metal. Main themes in nu metal are existential angst and helpless agression against society; SoaD's lyrics and themes are socio-critical on a political level, Tool's themes are deliberately cryptic. This reflects in the character of the music itself; both bands only real relationship to nu metal is the level of commercial success they've been having concurrently with the nu metal explosion. A better description of System of a Down would be crossover metal, or as the band's page has it eclectic metal.--Egregius 17:23, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - neither of them are nu metal. Simplistically, nu metal can be defined as having aspects of rap, which neither of those bands have. And Tool has been around since the early 90s, so they could hardly be considered to have contributed to the "burgeoning" scene in this manner. AdamW13 06:55, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

While trying to find where White Zombie fit into the heavy metal heiarchy, I searched for Industrial music. I eventually found it under Alternative Metal but I noticed that alt-metal is not found in every instance of the table, although it is in a couple. Is the table not a boilerplate entry then? Could it please be updated to include this importance faction of the heavy metal universe? TimothyPilgrim 02:47, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

The table should be the same in all the articles in which it appears. Feel free to fix it! Tuf-Kat 07:35, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

I created a new MediaWiki message for the seriesbox: Template:Heavy metal music, all you need to do is include {{msg:heavy_metal_music}} in the article and the article is transcluded across all pages when changes are made. No need to update each individual page! See the electronic music series and other examples. --Lexor|Talk 09:23, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! That's exactly what it needed. MikeCapone feb 27, 2004.

That's exactly what I was hoping someone could do! TimothyPilgrim 19:26, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

---

The Metal navigation bar

How one adds article to the metal navigation bar (the floating "table" with links to different metal articles in Wiki)? MathKnight 18:11, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you would like to add another link to the table, please mention it at MediaWiki talk:Heavy metal music. To add the table to another article, type {{msg:heavy_metal_music}}

Thanx. MediaWikiTalk:Heavy metal music. MathKnight 13:40, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Footer?

I'm inclined to prefer this series as a footer, such as the one at User:TUF-KAT/Fun with tables. Any thoughts? Tuf-Kat 08:15, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

What was wrong with my external link TUF-KAT? [64.231.193.59]

There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of such lists all across the Internet. Most are of no interest to anyone other than their creator. If metal-rules.com is a particularly useful or well-known site, link to their main page. Tuf-Kat 02:00, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Metal-Rule's list is the most informative I've come across. It is not just a mere list, there are also comments about the top 10 albums, and there's something to learn from there, I believe.

Iron Butterfly

Shouldn't Iron Butterfly get a little more notice than just a mention of their album title? I don't know much about metal in general, but I thought that they were one of the major early bands. I think I remember reading that Doug Ingles of Iron Butterfly had classical organ training. Can anyone confirm that? If true, seems like that would be worth mentioning in the section on classical influence in heavy metal. Isomorphic 23:38, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Iron Butterfly was a one hit wonder who probably would never be mentioned in the context of heavy metal if there wasn't a heavy metal in their name. For chrisakes, why should Iron Butterfly's Inna Gadda... be construed as any more influential in the development of metal than say, the Chamber's Brother's "Time Has Come Today" or especially Ted Nugent's '68 classic "Journey To The Center of Your Mind" (a better candidate for 'first metal song' than many other contenders).

Weasel Phrase

"Some would call the period an era of "selling-out", in which bands like Blue Öyster Cult achieved moderate mainstream success and the Los Angeles hair metal scene began finding pop audiences, especially in the 1980s."

Who were these "some" who call it a period of "selling-out"?

Attempt at alleviating bias towards US bands

I proposed a few edits at the beginning and in the middle of "History". It seemed overly biased towards bands of US origin and "hair metal", whereas many metal gurus (such as BNR, of the very useful reference www.bnrmetal.com) would put the NWOBHM at the center of the development of the late 70s/early 80s. Even granting a bias towards a US audience, NWOBHM bands like Iron Maiden have sold millions of albums in the US, and it seemed unbalanced to have a first paragraph that highlights the L.A. hair scene (half-admitting that it was most relevant in the 80s, although the sentence begins with "1970s") without mentioning the mixing of punk and metal in the NWOBHM, a product of the late 1970s (as correctly stated in the NWOBHM encyclopedia entry). Also the phrase about "coming full circle" gave the impression that Mötley Crüe was some kind of "culmination" of heavy metal, whereas it was just one branch of a much greater phenomenon.

I wish BNR would help out!

Grand Funk Railroad

You can't be serious in putting Grand Funk Railroad under "key artists" for heavy metal... right?

well, I didn't put it there originally. I agree it is barely metal (if it is at all) but you deleted a whole description of noise vrs. technique, as well as a image of quiet riot. Sam [Spade] 22:15, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed about Quiet Riot, thanks for restoring it before I did. (I would actually dispute that images of Quiet Riot and Tool are relevant, but this edit was unintentional and I'm sorry.). I know newness doesn't count as an excuse for misediting, so I won't use it.

About the description of noise vs. technique, that was not a mistake: to me the whole little paragraph seemed to be connected to GFR, and the paragraph was in any case out of place under "key artists". I would delete it again, but I guess you would put it back again. I should also add, in general this is an amazingly well-written and comprehensive entry.

Actually newness is the best excuse I can think of ;) I don't intend to "edit war", or "revert duel", or whatever. If I did, I would just ignore the page for 6 months or so, and then re-insert grand-funk ;). I was also dubious of the usefulness of mentioning grand funk, but I listened to some during this time, and found it vaguely "metal-like", kinda in the same way jimi hendrix is. There are other, similar bands (the WHO, Pink Floyd, etc..) who provided patrimony for modern metal. How to illustrate this best I don't know. Noise vrs. technique is still an issue, w grunge/garage in opposition to "classicly influenced" / symphonic metal. I know this concept can be better expressed than by referencing grand funk, but I also think some mention of metal pregenitors would be ok too. Sam [Spade] 00:24, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pseuds Corner

I'm thinking of submitting the Classical influence section of this article to Private Eye... Andy Mabbett 22:13, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hair metal

In reading through this, the biggest point of contention I have is that Guns N' Roses is lumped into "hair metal" ... While certainly they broke out in the middle of it, and came out of the L.A. scene, and the "Welcome to the Jungle" video featured Axl's most glam look ... their music is nowhere near the likes of Ratt, Poison, etc...

Further, the comment about "hair metal" is rather disparaging, and painted with too broad a brush. I think it should be acknowledged that "hair metal" is a more deragatory term, and that "pop metal" may be a better description.

And the early stuff, such as Mötley Crüe, Def Leppard, Dokken, Dio, the Scorpions, etc... have plenty of artistic ability. It's baloney, really, to say that this stuff is just pure homogenized crap. ... However, it is true that later 80s stuff clearly was taken over by every two-bit band trying to capitalize on the trend -- Tora Tora, Trixter, and all that junk. In my opinion, this is no different than when grunge was co-opted by an endless stream of boring copycats that continues to this day.

I hope someone with more time, energy, and knowledge than I do will re-write some of this stuff, because I believe it's an unfair representation.

--AdamW13 16:58, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think G'n'R is a whole lot like Ratt and Mötley Crüe, especially early work by all three bands. I do think that for the purposes of the (as you say) broad strokes that any huge-scope entry like this must be painted, G'n'R is much, much closer to Ratt and Mötley Crüe than to e.g. Iron Maiden or Black Sabbath, i.e. within the grander scheme of "heavy metal" they're all hair metal.

As you say "hair metal" was originally derogatory, but then again, so was the name "Big Bang theory": it stuck, and that's that whether you want it or not. At least all Americans I talked to about it know the term "hair metal", so it seems reasonable to use it in the entry. I think it would be much harder for most readers to name an example of a "pop metal" band, but this is more an issue for the List of heavy metal genres.

--Marcus B 18:48, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I still totally disagree about GNR ... they are not like Ratt and Mötley Crüe, even when painting with broad strokes. They broke the mold. They are in no way "hair metal" within the grander scheme. Having long hair doesn't make you "hair metal" - and I still maintain that that monicker is unnecessarily deragatory and dismissive of many of the bands that are being lumped into it.

I really feel as though the authors of this entry doesn't understand the genre.

AdamW13 06:49, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I also find the suggestion that GNR might be compared closely with bands such as Ratt or Mötley Crüe or characterized as 'hair metal' somewhat absurd. I think most people familiar with these bands would agree that GNR was as different from Ratt and Mötley Crüe (and their ilk) as they were from bands like Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. I think GNR's sound reflected more of a classic rock influence (Stones, Cream, etc.) than any of these other bands. I think one might also want to distinguish between 'pop metal' and metal that happens to be popular. I think a band like Def Leppard, which resisted being labled a 'metal band' and aggressively sought a wide audience may be fairly called 'pop metal', whereas a band like GNR is more accuratey understood as a metal band that happenned to be popular.

"Mainstream Popularity"

This is a segment of the taxobox (I don't really know why, but there it is). It had a claim that heavy metal was sporadically popular in the US but consistently and hugely popular in Japan, europe, etc. I don't buy it, and have simplified the statement (which again, I think is silly for a genre as fragmented, long-lived, and diverse as this one). It's possible my simplification is too simple -- we can discuss here if needed. Jgm 13:34, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • • yes but it is mainstream popularity not just popularity.like black metal's mainstream popularity=none. im going to revert that one for now...
      • Not following you. The statement that "Hair Metal" is the only widely followed branch of HM in the US is simply wrong. Jgm 12:27, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • I agree with Jgm on this one. There's a large following of death metal and power metal in my state, let alone other parts of the country. Zarggg 04:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • The popularity of heavy metal varies by the subgenre. As they said, hair metal was (I repeat WAS) popular in the US. In addition, thrash metal was once somewhat popular. I would also as nu metal to that list, as that is very popular today, possibly only second to rap music. 22:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hard rock or heavy metal?

I believe the article needs a clear line of demarcation between hard rock and heavy metal. This of course is based on my believe that there is a difference between the two. I would point to Black Sabbath's darker work as being the first heavy metal - the song "Black Sabbath" being a prime example. What distinguishes it, in my view, from hard rock is firstly, the lyrical content. Hard rock tends not to concern itself with "heavy" subject matter eg: death, philosophy, Satanic themes, etc. nor have the same obsession with melodic chromaticism and tritone intervals. While hard rock does use the tritone, it uses it much more in passing, as the "blue note" rather than a melodic staple. That is basically the line I would draw.

Thoughts?

--Thedangerouskitchen 14:26, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Distinction of Rock influence vs. Actual Metal bands

I just noticed that some refernces to earlier rock bands seem to imply that the bands are actually part of the heavy metal genre by referring to them as proto-metal, It might help to more directly acknowledge that The first Metal bands, in current thought, would be Black Sabbath and possibly L.Z. Also, there seems to be a lack of information about power metal

Woohoo

Woohoo, please read about our NPOV policy. Your version of the history is far from neutral. Tuf-Kat 17:19, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

More Subgener suggestions

As sub-geners wouldn't Prong and Voivod be called nu metal. I also tought of calling them Liquid Metal because they are sort of different.

This seems a no-no to me. 'Liquid metal' is by no means an established genre name, and AFAIK the aim of an encyclopaedia like this is to reflect existing terminology, rather than to come up with new terminology.

Queen

In this article, I see no mention made of the band Queen. They're not one of the purest or premier "metal" acts, but the energy and sheer talent of their live shows truly did innovate what the standard was for live music events and influenced a generation of guitarists (Slash and Steve Clark) and especially frontmen (David Lee Roth, Axl Rose, George Michael, James Hetfield, Joe Elliot,endless list.) Also, their injection of humor was rather novel as well.

I'm a real newbie and have very little article experience, so i wouldn't dare try to fix this, but I'm hoping maybe a veteran Wikipedian can give this act a nod in the article, as I believe any expert will agree they deserve, at the least, just a mention.

IMO there is little need for this. Whereas Queen, especially in their 1973-1978 years, did a lot of stuff that bordered on being heavy metal or perhaps even crossed the border, they have never been truly considered a metal band. They have had a wide influence, yes, and even influenced a number of metal bands, but on the whole their influence on metal has been mostly marginal. If any mention of Queen has to be made at all, it should IMO be related to their influence on the power metal subgenre with all of its bombastic anthems. Then again, this would maybe be more aptly fitting on the entry for power metal. Joost 02:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

-Two words "Bohemian Rhapsody"

"Hair Metal"

Hey, I cleaned up the usage of the perjorative term "hair metal" while still keeping it in the article. It's a POV term that infers that the band has style but lacks substance- not true of all bands. I've also heard Van Halen described as "hair metal," so the definitions of it can be wide-reaching. However, I left it in the article, still somewhat prominently, as it is a widely used phrase by the general public. CinnamonCinder 00:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• This article and much of the surrounding discussion displays a basic ignorance of what the term "Hair Metal" refers to. The fact that you've heard Van Halen described as "hair metal" doesn't mean the definition is broad - it means whomever you heard clearly didn't understand what the term means. Heck, I've heard Michael Jackson described as a 'rock star' - should we then consider his music 'rock'? Of course not.

• Now, whether you like or loathe any iteration of Van Halen, they could never properly be described as "hair metal". Moreover, "hair metal" was never intended to denote a sub genre, or legitimate style of metal. Rather, it was a derogatory reference to bands such as Poison, who were regarded as poseurs by metal purists, intended to suggest they were more concerned with the way their hair looked than the way their music sounded. Now, to paraphrase Sammy Hagar: this is not my point of view, it's a fact, and you know that it's true.

Terms like hair metal and album metal are very opinionated. They really should be avoided from overuse ->> RZ heretic 09:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

List of classic metal songs

I removed this list. Such a list is somewhat unencyclopedic (it doesn't belong in this article, at least. perhaps on subgenre pages), but my chief objection is that it will be utterly impossible to achieve consensus on a list like this. -leigh (φθόγγος) 01:53, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

If I had noticed its addition, I would have done the same. Thanks. Tuf-Kat

Infobox

I must say I am a bit bothered by all the cluttering of genres in the infobox. From my point of view, because the number of self-acclaimed subgenres in the metal world is tremendous (e.g. Rhapsody's Symphonic Hollywood Metal or whatever they called it), and because the whole point of the infobox is to provide a quick overview, it may be a good thing to only mention those genres that are (more or less) universally acknowledged.

I will edit the page in the following way.

Subgenres ->

• Traditional (a.k.a. 'Classic' metal)
• Avant-garde metal
• Black metal
• Christian metal (strictly speaking not a genre, rather a subsubculture within the metal subculture, but worthy of a mention I would say)
• Death metal
• Doom metal
• Folk metal
• Goth metal
• Hair metal (which is disputed to be metal by some, but still worth a mention as subgenre I'd say)
• Neoclassical metal
• Power metal
• Progressive metal
• Speed metal
• Thrash metal

Fusion genres:

• Industrial metal (mix of industrial and metal)
• Metalcore (mix of hardcore and metal)
• Grindcore (form between hardcore and death metal)
• Sludge, stoner (roughly a mix of psychedelic rock, hardcore and doom metal)
• Nu-metal (a mix of alternative and metal)
• Alternative metal (ditto, I'm not sure if the term is widespread enough to warrant a mention, however)
• Rap-metal (mix of rap and metal)

Regional scenes ->

• Gothenburg metal
• NWOBHM
• Bay area thrash
• Norwegian black metal

• plus maybe German power metal and Swedish death metal (the first wave, that is, Entombed & co.)

Nonsense genres that IMO should be removed:

• True metal: yeah, we all know Manowar call themselves that, but besides power metal or classic metal with a lot of swords and silly fantasy lyrics I can't really see any stylistical traits. Especially musically this genre almost entirely coincides with power and classic metal.

• War metal: according to the link, this either refers to Australian War Metal, the music of Bolt Thrower, or to the genre 'Battle Metal'. Not an widely established sub-genre.

• Circus metal: in my 12 years of listening to metal, I have never encountered this term a single time either.

Vedic metal: never heard of, and there isn't even a link.

I agree. There are a lot of stupid little heavy metal subgenres that probably have no real usage, but I doubt would make it through Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. I tend to think, however, that if we have an article on the genre, it should be in the infobox. I'm not going to revert, because I don't care, but I think the articles should either be deleted or remain in the infobox. Tuf-Kat 02:34, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

After I removed the link to 'Vedic metal', a new link to 'Indo-Singapore Vedic metal' got added again. I don't feel like engaging in any edit-war, but personally I see little reason why there should be a link to 'Vedic metal' in the infobox. The main reassons are that firstly, 'Vedic metal' is not an established subgenre within the metal scene, and secondly, there isn't even any Wikipedia entry on 'Vedic metal'. When it comes to more obscure genres (e.g. Celtic battle metal, Australian war metal, Circus metal), it is my opinion that they should not be included in the infobox, because all the clutter makes the overview less good. The Metal subgenres category, which I just added to me seems the right place for a more comprehensive overview of subgenres, including all of the obscure stuff.

I will delete the link to 'Indo-Singapore Vedic metal' once again from the infobox. If you disagree about me doing so, please discuss it here. On another note, Gothenburg metal and Bay area thrash should definitely be included IMO, even if there are currently no articles about those styles, because these genres/local movements have both had quite a strong impact on the metal scene. Joost 13:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I concur with the above deletions.

I'm not really an expert on this subject but shouldn't Symphonic metal be included? In which other subgenre can we pu for instance Therion?

---

..Oh, pleeease! How are GNR and Van Halen heavy metal ?? Will somebody who has been to 70s, 80s and 90s gigs, has few 1000+ records at home and knows the scene FINALLY edit this mess about heavy metal or it won't be so long before some of these new kids proclaimes Eric Clapton to be heavy metal...! Thank you!

• Huh? GNR's "Appetite for Destruction" and Van Halen during the David Lee Roth period were both inarguably heavy metal bands, featuring that heavy, distorted guitar sound that distinguishes metal from merely 'hard rock'. However, I can see some basis for confusion at their inclusion in the genre if you were to focus exclusively on the later releases of these bands, where GNR took a sharp turn towards a more classic hard rock sound, while Van Halen abandoned their earlier, heavy sound in an attempt to appeal to the widest possible audience (establishing a pattern that would be followed later by such acts as Def Leppard and Queensryche).

Nu Metal is not a SubGenre of Heavy Metal

Nu Metal is intended as an insult to poser bands. I don't think it is a SubGenre of Heavy Metal. Tell me one band that would call themselves Nu Metal. Also check out the Nu Metal site and see how bands are shying away from the name.

I don't see why any of that matters to nu metal being a kind of heavy metal. Even if nobody in the entire world chose to self-apply "nu metal", that wouldn't change its classification. I've never really listened to any nu metal, so I don't really have an opinion on it, but the fact that bands don't choose to self-apply it doesn't mean anything. Tuf-Kat 20:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nu Metal is not metal. If a guy is named Bob, that does not mean he has no arms and floats in a sea. Just because some moron decided to call it that does not mean that it should be related to metal. It is like spelling knife with a k, what is the k for? To piss off kids learning to spell. Nu-metal is there to catch the eye of somebody more affiliated with the mainstream who may be looking into metal, but is indeed not worthy of recognition in any of these sections but one: The True Metal definition, just to demonstrate what true metal is not.

I agree with Tuf-Kat. What people think of a genre doesn't change what it is. Nu-Metal, despite people who state otherwise, is a type of metal. While the opinion of it is less than good, it grew out of metal. How this happned is unsure - some cite Faith No More's "Epic", others believe RMC & Aerosmith and, to the same extent, Public Enemy & Anthrax started the trend. Regardless, nu-metal should be included as a metal genre.

Raven 1959 15:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Gary's Gay

Someone added Gary's Gay to this page and it seems to have screwed something up (?) When I am logged out, I see Gary's Gay, but when I am logged in I can't.... I've cleared cache, forced refresh, etc, and I am not behind a proxy so that's not caching it.

Anyone else see this behavior?

What is heavy metal music?

I really can't understand heavy metal music. A few questions here:

• Why is heavy metal music so aggresive, with all the distorted electric guitars and loud screams?
• Some people associate drugs, crime, and occult with heavy metal. To what extent is this true?
• Are rock 'n' roll, oldies, and classic rock synonymous with heavy metal music?
• Is the hippie culture related to heavy metal music?

Thanks. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Heavy metal is a broad musical genre, which is divided in many subgenres, each with singular motivations and ideas. The associations made with negative behavior are merely an extension of what is already seen on the media as a whole. Parents who cannot admit their lack of skill in educating their children need to put the blame on something, and heavy metal often becomes the culprit in such cases. Heavy metal, if anything, helps people control their anger, in the same way practicing sports does. As for drugs and the occult, yes, there are subgenres of metal which deal with those, stoner metal and black metal, respectively. Stoner metal is not a widely popular genre, and thus cannot be considered influential, and black metal is mostly taken as a joke, both by bands themselves and by fans of the genre. Of course it is taken seriously by some people, but there are extremists everywhere, that's an universal truth. Mainstream rock 'n' roll and classic rock are not considered heavy metal, unless you are talking about Black Sabbath and, some would say, Led Zeppelin. Hippie culture is unrelated to heavy metal. The ideals of heavy metal are, essentially, "Dress whatever you want to dress, act however you want to act, be yourself no matter what; but respect the guy next to you". Aggression on the instruments and voice can be found mostly on heavy metal subgenres such as death metal and thrash metal, but are merely used as means of expressing an emotion. In this case, anger. Heavy metal is generally appreciated by people who are not very religious, open-minded and why not say, slightly leftist, but exceptions are common. There is even a religious subgenre of heavy metal, in case you are wondering: white metal. Hope I could adress your concerns. --Sn0wflake 06:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to elaborate a little on that. Distorted guitars are generally one of the distinguishing features of rock music any how, and strictly speaking, any form of metal, with its roots in rock, will necessarily in almost all cases feature distorted guitars. The emtions of aggression in metal(and genres like hardcore) often overwhelm the uninitiated listener. Arguably this is unwarranted. Mainstream music often has an upbeat theme and feel but positive emotions do not cover the full spectrum of human feeling. Just as there are sappy romance novels and movies and horror movies, there is music that brings about calm and relaxation and music that channels negative emotion and brings about a sort of catharsis. --Lone Isle 11:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

reorg

I have reorganized this article. I still have some other issues that I may work on, including the need for a few paragraphs under #history and #characteristics (both being summaries of the most important bits of their respective subjects), the use of free photos (not album covers) if possible) and possibly splitting out a subarticle or two on the history of heavy metal, origins of heavy metal or heavy metal (term). There was no significant content change in my reorg today, just moving and sectioning; I did remove the list of terms for metal fans (putting the two most important ones in the lead) and the see alsos, which I think are adequately linked to elsewhere in the article. I did all this reorganizing because this is a featured article and I seriously doubt it would have passed FAC today were it nominated for the first time (I think it's better now, but still needs inline references and some other things). Tuf-Kat 17:40, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

This article is FUBAR

As well-written and pleasing to the eye as this article is, much of the information is inaccurate or irrelevant and, on the whole, woefully incomplete. Even if the page includes the entire genre of Metal, rather than just the small sub-genre of Heavy Metal that includes bands like Black Sabbath and Mercyful Fate, information on bands like Queen and Toto doesn't belong within miles of here. To preserve the text, much of it could be moved to the proposed history of metal article or to Metal music, and the rest (ideally, but this part is extremely low priority) merged with Classic Metal.

I know that a litany of mistakes isn't going to be the most constructive or peaceful route to change, but it may well be the fastest and it's stuff like this that makes wikipedia a laughingstock in the metal community and leads god-knows-how-many newcomers astray. It's not a question of "purists" wanting everything their way, either, it's literally excruciating for anyone with a passing knowledge of metal to read something this bass-ackwards. Imagine Miles Davis listed as a romantic composer or a bat listed as an insect and you'll get some idea, but it isn't only the glaring errors, the article flat-out ignores 95+% of metal, which would be fine if it were restricted to talk about the actual sub-genre heavy metal, but it doesn't even know what it wants to be.

Bands discussed in the heavy metal article that aren't metal (Deep Purple, solo Osbourne and Zeppelin, maybe, deserve a brief mention, the others don't): Mötley Crüe, Ozzy Osbourne, Deep Purple, Rush, Led Zeppelin, Cream, Blue Cheer, The Scorpions

Bands that don't have any conceivable relation whatsoever to heavy metal or purpose in this article: Spinal Tap (yes, I know, but they're parodying rock bands, except for maybe Sabbath, and their music is far, far from metal), Van Halen, Jimi Hendrix, King Crimson, Jeff Beck, Jethro Tull, UFO, Quiet Riot, Def Leppard, Ratt, Guns N' Roses, Nirvana, Alice Cooper, KISS, Aerosmith, Thin Lizzy, AC/DC, Dokken, The Cult, The White Stripes

Bands for which it boggles the mind to think someone believed they belong in this article (I can't see what use rehashing the history of rock and roll is, especially bands like The Beatles which don't come remotely close to hard rock, and AOR has about as much metal influence as, well, The Beatles): Grand Funk Railroad, The Who, The Beatles, The Kinks, The Rolling Stones, The Yardbirds, Elvis Presley, Bon Jovi, Queen, T. Rex, David Bowie, Bauhaus, Joy Division, Toto, Europe, Survivor, Journey, Asia

If it's necessary, I could go into some of the more egregious mistakes pertaining to music theory (for instance, saying that most metal is derived directly from blues... yeesh). But really, this article needs to be cut back to information about Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Motörhead, Mercyful Fate, Iron Maiden, Saxon, Budgie, maybe a few other NWOBHM or slightly obscure bands that I and I suspect no on here knows or cares about, and progenitors like Deep Purple or Zeppelin while all the main links are changed to the Metal music article that I'm compiling. SonoftheMorning 05:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Culture and Islam facts

The comment about wearing black t-shirts in Islamic countries can be an arrestable offense I think needs documentation. I modified that comment in the Culture section with "in the most extreme cases," though now I think it should be either clarified/amplified or deleted. This is especially true given that in the USA wearing black is also seen as dangerous, think of the 1994 Arkansas child murders where the police & DA used the arrested teens' like of heavy metal music and black clothing as evidence of their guilt or Columbine where the black trenchcoats were seen as ominous signs of a murderous character. Rsugden 08:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the larger picture, that sentence is completely unnecessary and consists of a small exception rather than of a rule, so its removal would not be unfair. --Sn0wflake 01:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure who I'm responding to

Belated response to a user talk page comment by anon, presumably the author of #This article is FUBAR. I just started a new job, with hours that are odd for me, so I have little time for wikiing. Heavy metal is also not really my field of expertise, though I'm generally fairly knowledgeable in the subject. I agree that information on heavy metal music and metal music is not very well organized, though I'm not convinced that the solution you describe is ideal. That may be because I don't entirely understand what you propose. My advice is to go slow -- this is a topic that many people feel strongly about, and drastic changes may be poorly received if they are not explained beforehand. I'd suggest making an outline of just the section headings and the lead section ^[1] at a temp page like Metal music/temp and heavy metal music/temp -- that will give everyone a chance to look at the basic structure of what you're proposing and suggest changes. I can't guarantee that I'll be around for more than cursory help, but that would aid other editors in seeing precisely what you propose. Other than that, I also advise, if you haven't already, you review Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Many people use terms like "heavy metal" inconsistently and with varying definitions -- some of these people may be ignorant, but we must remember a hypothetical reader that comes across a reference to "heavy metal" and comes to Wikipedia for more information; even if that reference is using the term in a nonstandard or ignorant manner, we should explain how it is being used. With that said, we also have an obligation to organize the information on all kinds of music in the most useful manner possible. Tuf-Kat 07:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC) ^ In case you're not familiar with Wikipedia terminology: a "section heading" is the title to a part of an article and is enclosed with (equal signs (=)), and a lead section is the bit before the first section heading, ideally one to three paragraphs, which should give a brief overview of the entire field and, at least in this case, explain how the term that titles the article and any deviant titles that redirect to it are used (i.e. an individual looking for "heavy metal music" could easily end up at "metal music" by mistake, and the lead must explain how these and other similar terms are different, providing links to relevant other articles).

Here are very rough sketches of the first and most important of the changes as well as my plans to expound on the Metal music article: Metal music/temp and Heavy metal music/temp The categories page would also be changed. Feedback from any and all users very much appreciated, I am new here. SonoftheMorning 19:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Nice writing, but I think you need to find some significant external references to support your re-definitions here (that is, the distinctions you make between heavy metal, metal music, classic metal et. al), which seem to me to be personal and idiosyncratic. As Tuf says above, all of us have a different "music map" in our heads about where genre lines are drawn, and must be careful to avoid characterizing them as commonly-agreed-to. Jgm 20:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

For the sub-genres, these are basically the accepted definitions by metalheads, most far more knowledgeable than me, throughout the online community. All of them have a firm basis in the music (or are vital for clarity, in the case of "classic metal" vs. "heavy metal" vis-a-vis "heavy metal" vs. "metal"), but not necessarily one that is easy to express in words. It's difficult to find legitimate sources that support these definitions (which are subject to change over time), as most books and magazines on the subject are wildly inaccurate, but I'll try to dig up at least a couple semi-professional-looking websites.SonoftheMorning 21:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I should think the most logical way of distinguishing the genres is to gather them all at a Metal, which would then link to Heavy Metal, Classical Metal, and all other genres of Metal. Heavy Metal might be the correct name for the oldest kind of metal, but it seems to be partly "going out of style" as a name for all genres of metal. Today, Heavy Metal is most often used in the same way as any other genre of metal as a whole (Heavy Metal being, for example, Judas Priest, Black Metal being Darkthrone etc). To me, Death Metal is a subgenre of Metal, and not a subgenre of Heavy Metal. To me, and probably to many others, the chart of relation is: Rock - Hard Rock - Metal - Metal subgenres, or perhaps Rock - Hard Rock/Heavy metal - Metal - Metal Subgenres.

Also, I suspect it would be quite a feat to find a "professional" work about metal and heavy metal. The quality of this article, however, is of a much higher grade than the metal_music page, so in the end it might be as well to use this page as the basis. Shandolad 12:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

suggestion

I can see various album covers, but why is "Kill Em All" there instead of "Master Of Puppets" or "Ride The Lightning"? Surely those albums are a lot more influential and innovative than "kill Em All". Also there isn't any mention of "Peace Sells...But Who's Buying?" and "Among The Living". Also how has White Stripes been influenced by heavy metal? Whoever wrote that hasn't listened to "Get Behind Me Satan".

The album cover is provided by a contributor. He chooses one album he thought influential or representative. It´s a matter of taste, and he surely put something he thought were in the best interest of the article. In the cases of Metallica albums I really did not see a too strong point for changing Kill´em all for "Master of Puppets" or "Ride the Lightning" as all of them were very influential for metal. And while I agree about The White Stripes, perhaps one of Jack White´s many many influencies were metal, who could deny that if he states so? I did not know if he said something like that. If he didn´t then this is a personal conjecture based on poor evidence, so it should be removed, because White Stripes has nothing to do with Metal (unless, perhaps, in the use of the blues minor scale, which were the basis for old-style metal). Regards. Loudenvier 21:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Edited Cookie Monster Paragraph

Took out (exemplified by the Florida band Death) because Chuck Schuldiners singing is rather consistently high pitched to the extent of being in the near Halford range. I would say that makes him an unlikely candidate for exemplifying the "cookie monster" sound which is much more accurately exemplified by a band like Hate Eternal or Immolation.

New Wave of American Heavy Metal

I've added New Wave of American Heavy Metal to the Afd page. Please check out the deletion page and offer your thoughts. It would be much appreciated. I also removed it from the heavy metal template. --AaronS 03:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Metal music nonsense

I did put a "merger" notice in the top of the article Metal music, because it is pure nonsense to have an article entitled Metal music while there´s another, broadly accepted, article about Metal, which is this Heavy Metal Music article we´re discussing here. I did also put the merge-from notice in this article here, but someone removed it, but it´s still in the Metal music article. Some people are arguing that Metal music is not Heavy Metal. This is pure nonsense, it´s the same as saying that Rock is not the same as Rock´n´roll. I think the Metal music article must be merged in Heavy metal article (if there´s something there that is not already here), and it should be deleted afterwards - redirecting for eavy metal music. Loudenvier 21:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

MilkMiruku brought to my attention that rock and rock and roll are different. But in the case of Metal, there isn´t any difference: Metal = (Heavy) Metal. Perhaps Rock and Rock´n´roll is not the best analogy possible as I first thought. But quoting the Rock´n´roll article: " It later evolved into the various different sub-genres of what is now called simply 'rock'. As a result, "rock and roll" now has two distinct meanings: either traditional rock and roll in the 1950s style, or later rock and even pop music which may be very far from traditional rock and roll." one can still use the analogy to some extent, but excluding the fact that Heavy Metal has only one meaning and it is the same meaning as metal. Loudenvier 02:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Metal = heavy metal. Speed metal, trash metal, death metal, etc. are subgenres of heavy metal. I support either merging the metal music article with heavy metal music or deleting it altogether, since it's redundant. --AaronS 03:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Very strong disagree. Heavy metal has become a subgenre of Metal - which is also what I looked for when searching out wikipedia-articles on the whole spectre of metal music. I suspect this entire discussion continues below...--TVPR 05:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that this article is not structured to address a subgenre of metal; rather, metal as a whole, regardless of the connotations of the terms. WesleyDodds 10:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as most people's usage of the term goes, "heavy metal" refers to all brands of metal. The whole concept of restricting it to mean classic metal is absurd and confusing, and seems like a fairly modern development to me (I may be wrong here, but that's what it seems like). How is death metal not "heavy"? It sounds pretty heavy to me. As far as I'm concerned, there is simply no debate here - either "Metal music" is merged into this article or deleted. --belzub 00:11, 19 January 2006

Merging? I hope not

It may sound strange, but really, heavy metal and metal are quite different in many ways. Heavy metal has come to mean the older bands such as Judas Priest, Black Sabbath, and Iron Maiden. If you look at these bands, most of them are also classified as rock music. It was really only the starting point for the genre itself. Virtually no-one who listens to modern metal will call it heavy metal, it's a term that's outdated and really doesn't define the proper genre of music anymore. Compare it to pop rock (now just called pop music), a lot of people argue that The Beatles, in many ways started the pop rock movement. However, The Beatles are clearly defined as rock, not pop rock or pop. Why is this? Because, being one of the progenitors, they may have had elements of the new genre in their music, but it obviously isn't close to what the genre is today. Britney Spears and The Beatles don't really sound alike, for example. The same is true for metal. A band such as Cryptopsy doesn't sound like Iron Maiden or Judas Priest at all. Personally, when I went and looked for this article I had a hard time finding it and wondered if there was a page for metal. Looking under 'heavy metal' never crossed my mind once, though I'm familiar with the term. Just like someone normally wouldn't type in (or have to type in) 'Rock and roll' in the search bar to get to the Rock music page. The two options here, I think, are really that either both these pages are allowed to continue as they are, or the Heavy Metal article has a name change and this one merges with it. Heavy metal is just not a term in use anymore. Look at the genres. It's not 'Heavy Power Metal' or 'Power Heavy Metal'. They've come to mean similar, but slightly different things and Wikipedia should reflect that. On the metal(music) page, there is no subgenre for heavy metal, or mention of it at all. Heavy metal, as most people would think of it is more tied in with rock than modern day metal.139.142.23.159

I tend to agree. To me, "heavy metal" is a particular genre term whereas "metal" covers it all. The term "heavy metal" seems particularly antiquated in light of the fact that there are many other metal subgenres which are much more caustic; if you want to scare your parrents, you don't say "I'm going to a heavy metal concert", you say "I'm going to a death metal concert". "Metal" was a back-formation from "heavy metal", but I think heavy metal really is a proper subgenre of metal now. —BenFrantzDale 08:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot agree with it. Heavy Metal is the same thing as Metal. The fact that using the complete term "Heavy Metal" is becoming outdated, old-fashioned is meaninless in this discussion. What do you "feel" about the term Heavy Metal (old-fashioned, etc.) has nothing to do with wikipedia policy, which is to be encyclopedic. You will find today many maganizes with HEAVY METAL on their name, and other with only METAL (MAGAZINE X - The Heavy Metal Magazine, or MAGAZINE Y - The Metal Magazine). Both magazines will talk about bands like Canibal Corpse or Dream Theater, because they all are Metal or Heavy Metal. Pop Rock is a subgenre of Rock. The Spears thing is another kind of pop music, not pop rock in my opinion. I think it to be completely misleading to have two articles about Heavy Metal, one of them called Metal trying to pretend it is something different from Heavy Metal. Which is the most generic term? Metal or Heavy Metal? They are synonyms. You can go to one of the most respect internet METAL resource pages, the BNR Metal Pages [2]. The "slogan" of the page reads: "Welcome to the BNR Metal Pages, the Internet heavy metal encyclopedia. Online since 1995, the pages provide information and opinions on over 1400 metal bands, past and present. How could anyone here claim to have a greater understanding of what metal (ooops, heavy metal) is than Brian Russ (BNR page creator and sole contributor, he made that entire beast all alone). He is to me an authoritative (heavy) metal resource :-). Regards Loudenvier 12:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Another example of Heavy Metal (not Metal only) as THE generic term for this kind of music: Heavy Metal at About.com [3] Loudenvier

Good point. I suppose it is entirely possible that "metal" is simply short for "heavy metal" and that "heavy metal" also bears a connotation of early metal (late '70s early '80s) when the term was widely used in its entirety. —BenFrantzDale 13:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It´s not a supposition: Metal is simply the short for heavy metal. In fact, today, it is much, much more common to refer to Heavy Metal as simply Metal, and the subgenres also were named after Metal droping the Heavy part of the term. It makes a lot of sense, because of convenience: it is much better to talk about Power Metal instead of Power Heavy Metal. But from an encyclopedic and historical point of view this article must be named Heavy Metal not Metal, and the stand-alone Metal article must be removed as a redirect to Heavy Metal, and somewhere in the text of the Heavy Metal article there must be a place to state that Metal is now the most common form for the Heavy Metal term, and it means the same thing. Oh, yes, I forgot, it is all in my humble opinion :-) regards Loudenvier 14:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course. But yea, basically now I agree with you and with the merge. Although this page should say "aka metal". I'll add that now. —BenFrantzDale 16:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the page on Rock music, you'll notice it's not titled 'Rock and roll' music. That's because it's a term that's no longer in widespread use. Also, rock and roll music is the term that is now used only for the 50s and 60s style of rock music, not all rock music. Look at the articles. There are two. Should they also be merged? If metal is, then they definitely should be. Heavy metal is a term that, much like rock and roll is now used only to define the earliest works of the genre, works that barely even fit into what the genre is today. Most bands that sound like traditional heavy metal would be easier to define as hard rock, not metal as it is known today. If this article is to be merged, it should at least be labelled 'Metal, aka Heavy Metal' rather than the other way around. Why use an antiquated label for the music? It doesn't make any sense.137.186.154.255

Think this way: When someone come to wikipedia to learn about metal in general, what would he or she probably type in the search? I guess Heavy Metal is a much more expected candidate term. I think that in the introduction of the Heavy Metal article we should clear that Metal is used interchangeably with Heavy Metal. I think we are trying to apply to metal a reasoning applied to other older music style (rock). Almost nobody applies the term rock´n´roll to nowadays rock, but heavy metal, instead, is still in widespread (although somewhat declining) use. It´s a proper label for this kind of music. I think it would only complicate things trying to maintain two separate articles. The metal article as it stands today is of much lower quality than the Heavy Metal one. Both states almost the same things. I think it´s counterproductive to maintain both, and also misleading to some point, because it implies a much greater separation of both terms, a separation that really isn´t even small, perhaps only artificial. Loudenvier 03:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I still disagree. Metal is a much, much more common term now than heavy metal, except when describing a particular era (late 70s, early 80s. Maiden, Priest, Black Sabbath, etc.). I personally think many more people would look for metal rather than heavy metal.

Perhaps this is as good way to describe it: HEavy metal is a subgenre to the genre Metal. That is how I see it and, dabbling in metal myself, I can see how it would confuse a newcomer.

Metal, to me, is a different thing to heavy metal. Many people think this as well, though many also disagree. We need to properly reflect that, and perhaps it requires two articles to correctly do so (even if the one about metal is mainly a discussion of what it can mean). What we need to think about is what is the most appropriate for an encyclopedia. There are references above that show the terms to be synonymous - I suggest that people opposing the merge find references that discuss the differences. violet/riga (t) 08:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Some sources using the terms as synonyms:

• http://www.anus.com/metal/about/history.html [4] a thesis telling metal history
• http://brutalmetal.com/ [5] slogan = THE Heavy Metal Reference on the Internet!
• http://heavymetal.about.com/od/heavymetal101/a/101_history.htm [6] clearly states heavy metal as the general term - metal is a short form for heavy metal

There are many, many other sites using Metal and Heavy Metal as synonyms. If you google you will not think there is any controversy here. Metal = Heavy Metal in most contexts. Wikipedia strives to be encyclopedic. It will try it´s best to stand away from controversies. I think it would be much more controversial to try to separate Metal and Heavy Metal when both terms are almost universally used interchangeably. But I AGREE that in the section about the term Heavy Metal and it´s origins we have to state CLEARLY that the short term Metal is becoming increasingly more common, although magazines and articles tend to be titled heavy metal, they address the style simply as metal on it´s articles or discussions. This could be further emphasized if in the Heavy Metal article we used both terms without prejudice. Loudenvier 14:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support the merge. Everybody has their own personal mental map of genres; that doesn't change the fact that these are widely considered two terms for the same thing, and that the articles are hopelessly overlapping. Unless someone can come up with citations for a well-established and widely-accepted distinction between the terms (beyond which groups you personally feel fit into which category), there's really no other option. Jgm 16:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I support merging this article into the Metal music article. Cassandra Leo 08:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Heavy metal has a dual mean. One to refer to the whole of "metal music" and two to refer to a style as played by eg priest, maiden, sabbath.. etc Spearhead 10:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose the merge. Heavy metal is a subclass of the metal genre. It's easy to see there are a lot of bands listed on Metal, but not listed on Heavy Metal (and unfit to HM). Merger looks to me like a joke.--Luci S 00:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

How could Heavy Metal be a subgenre of Metal if it is a term that meant to encompass all kinds of metal music? You drop the "heavy" part from Heavy Metal for convenience and also to form others subgenre terms (speed metal, trash metal, etc.). By the way the Rock and Roll article clearly state that Rock and Roll has a dual mean: classic rock and roll and rock music in general. I´m now a litle inclined not to merge the articles, but the Metal article MUST be shortened just to explain it´s a term used in place of heavy metal, that many people seems to be taking it for the term that defines the genre, etc. The way things are now, the Metal article is just a worst version of the Heavy Metal article, and it only duplicates information already present in the Heavy Metal article. I think only someone insane would prefer to strip down the Heavy Metal article in favor of the Metal article. Loudenvier 12:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Also we should consider that the metal music article reguritates not only the basic history listed here, but the list of heavy metal genres. WesleyDodds 02:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said on the metal discussion page, this contention of yours ranges somewhere between irresponsible to outright disingenuous. The history on the metal page is vastly more comprehensive than the one here.

• If metal and heavy metal are the same thing, then what subgenre would Iron Maiden fall under? Slow-power metal? (which is an oxymoron really). And Judas Priest? Heavy metal started the other types of metal, but they grew alongside it, under the roof of "Metal".

Iron Maiden and Judas Priest are both New Wave of British Heavy Metal. This should be basic metal knowledge. WesleyDodds 07:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• The most respected source about metal bands (www.metal-archives.com) use the term Heavy Metal to identify that type of Metal played in late '70, see by yourselves. Said that, i can confirmy that internationally the term Heavy Metal is actually more often used to identify that type of Metal music that started all the genre in late '70 than used to define the entire genre. --Olpus

• Oppose. Conflation of the two terms is outdated and inaccurate, a few notoriously unreliable websites that are essentially jokes throughout the metal community notwithstanding. 67.4.150.92 21:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've now listed metal music under Articles for Deletion in order to provide a better forum for this discussion WesleyDodds 04:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Characteristics

"Cover versions of classic rock songs would become a standard part of many metal bands' repertoire. Notable is Mötley Crüe's version of "Helter Skelter" which very strongly brings to the fore the heavy metal undertones implied in the Beatles song."

I'm editing out this part because older rock cover versions aren't SO standard in Heavy Metal. A lot of bands do it, but just like, once in a while, and even so, it's mostly the older bands like Iron Maiden in their B-sides.

I have replaced it with one text that I found in allmusic.com --Eadl 18:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ozzfest vs. Dynamo Open Air

I would say that almost everyone important that was playing at the first Ozzfest has also played at 1995 Dynamo Open Air. I am not sure about the audiences (as they are hard to count when there are no-ticket stages), but I would say that DOA had a bigger audience and it also attracted all other headliners of the other metal genres (Paradise Lost, Gathering, My Dying Bride for gothic/doom e.g.). It was the only place where Nailbomb would play live. It was the place where about 10 bands released the recordings as LP's.

A few questions

I think this statement needs qualifying: Metal's profound influence on contemporary popular music is again seen in its effect on several bands in the garage rock revival set of the early 21st century. The White Stripes, Death From Above 1979 and The Yeah Yeah Yeahs, some of the most popular of these bands, often draw on the nascent metal of Cream, Led Zeppelin, and Black Sabbath.

Even if these bands were influenced by Cream or Black Sabbath (which I am not certain about), their sound and aesthetic is so far removed from heavy metal that I would argue for this statement's deletion.

Even more so with this one: This culture has been shown in the emergence of mini-moshers (usually young adolescent males who listen to heavy metal merely in order to appear "cool", and are very infrequently aware of the true meanings within the genre) and bands such as "Busted" and "McFly", who took advantage of the rise in popularity of rock/metal during the late 1990's, but took it to a pop music mainstream.

I think this needs re-editing, without any mention of McFly or Busted. Both of these bands come from a background of punk-pop with more mainstream pop influences, and I have no idea why either of them have been mentioned here. belzub

I agree with both statements Loudenvier 12:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I re-edited the "Controversy from within the genre" section. It's not great but it's better than before. I also removed the references to Bauhaus and Joy Division, as while they may have been influenced by Black Sabbath, I don't this is strong enough to merit a mention. belzub, 14 January 2006

Who's idea is it to say what bands are and aren't metal

The way I see it is that there are many of bands that are metal that don't get called metal because of what sub-genre they were in, like Kiss, Rush, Mötley Crüe, Ratt, Quiet Riot, solo Ozzy Osbourne, Kix, Guns N' Roses, etc. when in all honesty, I see them as being more metal then many of todays bands, like Bobaflex and Soilwork. I why is it that every Alternative and Punk Band are being called metal. The following I don't believe are metal: Limp Bizkit The Used Hawthorne Heights Aiden Atreyu Creed How are they metal. And I don't believe the following hair bands are metal: Enuff Z'Nuff Saigon Kick Europe Femme Fatale Night Ranger Damn Yankees But, hair bands like Ratt, Hanoi Rocks, Skid Row, Bon Jovi, etc. are because they have the instrument rules. All their guitars are distorted and they have great bass players. But, I guess everyone's opinion of what's Heavy Metal is different. So what is and what isn't? You be the judge.

"Hair Metal" Revisited

Hey, I cleaned up the usage of the perjorative term "hair metal" while still keeping it in the article. It's a POV term that infers that the band has style but lacks substance- not true of all bands. I've also heard Van Halen described as "hair metal," so the definitions of it can be wide-reaching. However, I left it in the article, still somewhat prominently, as it is a widely used phrase by the general public. CinnamonCinder 00:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• This article and much of the surrounding discussion displays a basic ignorance of what the term "Hair Metal" refers to. The fact that you've heard Van Halen described as "hair metal" doesn't mean the definition is broad - it means whomever you heard clearly didn't understand what the term means. Heck, I've heard Michael Jackson described as a 'rock star' - should we then consider his music 'rock'? Of course not.

• Now, whether you like or loathe any iteration of Van Halen, they could never properly be described as "hair metal". Moreover, "hair metal" was never intended to denote a sub genre, or legitimate style of metal. Rather, it was a derogatory reference to bands such as Poison, who were regarded as poseurs by metal purists, intended to suggest they were more concerned with the way their hair looked than the way their music sounded. Now, to paraphrase Sammy Hagar: this is not my point of view, it's a fact, and you know that it's true.

"Hair Metal" Replies

• First of all, let me tell you, it is true that "hair metal" was used as a pejorative term but not by metal purists, but by grunge public, record companies and media during the grunge movement. The term was unfairly picked up by the thrash and underground metal public seemingly as a derogatory reference to the "Mainstream Form Of Heavy Metal Music" due to which the thrash bands have remained in the underground and could not gain popularity and album sales. The media, or the so-called "metal purists" never called the "glam metal" bands as "hair metal". In fact, terms like "hair metal", "glam metal","cock metal", "sleaze metal", etc. all came out during the 90s by the then burgeoning grunge revolution, which was understandably a backlash against 'Metal Supremacy Of The Charts'. The angry underground metal crowd (of that time) unfortunately, but readily and quickly latched onto the terms and further slandered '80s metal'.

• In fact, during the 80s, all kind of Metal was called "Heavy Metal" !!!! After the mid-80s, another term was coined which was "thrash metal" which meant, bands which are thrashing heavily in the underground, but not getting mainstream attention (though still getting a good underground fan following). Tell me, why were Iron Maiden not called 'thrash', even though they were heavier than an average 'heavy metal' band of that time. It's because they were popular in the mainstream. Besides, as someone said above, those bands were way more "metal" than today's bands like Soilwork or The Used or shit like Limp Bizkit or Slipknot.

• A few years back, it was kinda fashion in the underground, that one should malign the 80s "Glam Metal" bands and/or their fans with words like 'posuer', 'crap metal', 'gay metal', 'pussy metal', etc. Doing this meant you're "KEWL". But now, thanks to people like the ones at [Metal-Rules.com] and bands like Children of Bodom, Angra and many others who openly cite "Hair Metal" groups as their influences, these things have lessened a bit. Still, there are fools like few of the ones above who claim the word "Metal" is their own authority and defame great legendary "METAL" bands.

New Rock Star 12:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger with metal music

I know this has been discussed, but I think it needs summarized and settled. Please state your preference here, with a very brief reason why, and use the subsection "discussion" to discuss in depth. I plan to list this on "Requests for Comment" after a few days.

Please use the following:

• Support merger "Metal music" into "Heavy Metal" music"
• Support merger "Heavy Metal" music into "Metal music"
• Against any merger

Ready...set....GO!!' maxcap 20:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

---

• Support merger of "Metal music" into "Heavy Metal music" I feel that the metal music article is kind of redundent, and doesn't make a clear distinction. Furthermore, I feel that the general public makes no distinction between the two and is more likely to plug "Heavy Metal" into the seach box. maxcap 16:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support merger "Heavy Metal" music into "Metal music" User:147.31.184.207 see discussion below

• Support merger "Metal music" into "Heavy Metal" music". The articles currently serve the same purpose (describing metal as a whole) and thus the history sections are redundant. The list of metal genres can be simply merged into Heavy metal music. Also, the use of "heavy metal" as a subgenre and metal" as an overall label is unsourced and seems restricted to metal fandom, which is not representative of the general populace. WesleyDodds 23:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support merger "Metal music" into "Heavy Metal" music" provided the following:
  • Not the complete list of subgenres, as currently existing on Metal music will be moved to the Heavy metal music article. Instead, a subsection "Subgenres of heavy metal music" is added with the most known and notable metal styles (I'd say heavy, black, death, doom, thrash, power, progressive). Copying the entire list would result in a too large article Heavy metal music, and too much clutter.
  • The redirect from List of heavy metal genres to Metal music will be undone.
  • In the place of that redirect, the complete list of subgenres can be posted in the article List of heavy metal genres, and on the Heavy metal music page a link to that article is provided as main article connected to the Subgenres of heavy metal music (i.e. Main article: List of heavy metal genres). How about this? Joost 01:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Without being funny Joost, your plan would be easier to just rename the Metal Music article.

• Support merger "Heavy Metal" music into "Metal music" As such, the article Heavy Metal music both contradicts itself, and facts. Firstly, most metal genres are commonly known in Germnany and England, and possibly Finland. I dont know about other places, but still. Heavy Metal, also cannot be a subgenre of itself, and as such would need to have its article changed, and also have the template changed. Second, we are back to the age old argument of Heavy Metal is defined by a specific set of variables, and most forms of metal lack most of those Variables. And thirdly, and finally, just because something originates from something, doesnt mean it is that thing. We originate from Monkeys/Chimpanzees/Gorillas - would you then call all Humans as Monkeys due to our origins? Leyasu 03:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support merger of "Metal music" into "Heavy Metal music" The decision to use such a narrow definition of "heavy metal" is arbitrary in my opinion. In my experience this usage is extremely rare and as I have said elsewhere, appears to be a relatively recent phenomenom. Belzub 20:12, 26 January 2006

• Support merger of "Metal music" into "Heavy Metal music" - please go ahead with the proposed merge. once there is *ONE* article (even if its ultra-long), it will be easier to decide what could be split out later if required. Zzzzz 15:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support merger of "Metal music" into "Heavy Metal music" - I think the article SHOULD explain that there is a growing tendency to use the short term Metal instead of Heavy Metal, and that Heavy Metal can mean also an strict era of Heavy Metal: the beginning. By the way, we did not originate from Monkeys/Chimpanzees/Gorillas, just read the article about evolution, on the other hand we are all primates, and it´s correct to call primates all of Monkeys/Chimpanzees/Gorillas and humans, just as it is correct to call any metal band a Heavy Metal band, it´s only a more general categorization. Loudenvier 00:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support merger of "Metal music" into "Heavy Metal music" as per Loudenvier and others. Jgm 02:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support merger "Metal music" into "Heavy Metal" music" Heavy Metal IS the symbolic and ultimate term.--TheFEARgod 20:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

---

yeah i think it should be listed under metal and have sub sets such as thrash doon ect....

By the way, if a merge is agreed upon, I offer to perform it. WesleyDodds 07:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

All forms should be listed, emmitting certain ones could be seen as neoglistic/biased. Leyasu 09:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Every listing of sub-genres could potentially be seen as biased. There is no complete list of sub-genres, and trying to make one will result in more controversy than it removes. An encyclopedia should, among other things, strive to be concise, not provide the most obscure of details, but lay out a clear and solid overview of the subject. Some details may be delegated to specific articles, and I think an article with the more complete list of sub-genres would be suitable, because the main article would otherwise simply be too long (there currently already [i]is[/i] a warning "This page is 36 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." on the edit page of Heavy metal music, so it really shouldn't get much longer). And what do you mean with 'neoglistic'? The closest word I know is 'neologistic' and I don't see how that makes much sense in this context. Joost 10:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I was using what i thought was a version of Neoglism. Your right, creating one is a hard job, but listing the most common terms as they are now is the best way to go. It also lits all genres of metal. Fusion or otherwise. However, there still needs to be a article on the genre of Heavy Metal, as this being an encyclopedia, its foolish to claim all genres of Metal are Heavy Metal when they lack core features of it. Thats like me saying all boats are forms of Cars, even though they lack wheels, land propolsion, and other car like things. Say cars and boats are both forms of transport, and were ok because thats a fact. See the point? Leyasu 11:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to give us us short description of what exactly "heavy metal" is? Also, it seems to me that what you call "metal" is derivitive of power metal, black metal, and thrash/speed metal essentially, am I correct?maxcap 20:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, we all agree that a merge should take place, and right now votes lean towards merging metal music into heavy metal music. Unless there are further objections, I'm going to start merging pretty soon.

Any last comments? WesleyDodds 04:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment is that the whole articles comments should remain, and that the Heavy Metal article should then explain the difference of the genre, to that of the encompassing term. It should also explain how not all Metal genres are Heavy, or share the core features of Heavy Metal. It should also have the history greatly expanded to explain the influence the different genres have had on the Worldwide Metal Community/Scene and their affect on each other. Leyasu 11:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

check out stoner rock, doom metal

The doom metal and stoner rock community gives all respect to Mc5 as do I but I am in complete in agreement they do not get the respect they deserve so spread the gosple brother.

Nerull Lives!!!!!!

Wikipedia is not a Soapbox, please refrain from such comments in the future. Leyasu 01:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Merger plan

Sorry it's taken me a bit to get around to perfomring the merge, but I've had some other things to take care of.

Here's my basic plan for the merger: the History/origins section of metal music will be merged into heavy metal music. There's a lot fo overlap anyway, but the sections on the 80's, 90's and 2000s will benefit most from this merger. Then I'll redirect metal music to Heavy metal music, and paste the genre list on List of heavy metal genres. Then there'll just be some tweaking of Heavy metal music and that'll be it. I'll be done sometime in the next day (I have to sleep right now). I hope everyone finds this plan to their liking. WesleyDodds 07:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And then people work on extending the history and explaining the difference between genre and umbrella term used by the public, correct/? Leyasu 11:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what I plan to do while merging the hitories. But until we find an adequate source to detail the debate, all I can provide is a short paragraph acknowledging that a debate exists for now. WesleyDodds 20:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Plan sounds ok to me. One quick question: should we raise the issue of metal fans attitudes towards 90s/00s fusion genres like Nu-metal and, more recently, metalcore? I know from my own experience there is a lot of (in my opinion justifiable) criticism directed towards these genres. I'm asking since Wikipedians are sometimes opposed to including such information (witness the page on the Simpsons, where what looked to me like an entirely reasonable section on the shows recent decline was deleted on the grounds of objectivity). Belzub 17:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Any sort of debates about the "metal-ness" of certain genres should go into the "Controveries from within the genre section" or the individual articles. I think it would mess up the flow of the prose if it's included in the History section. WesleyDodds 20:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

When i said to expand the history, i meant to explain the rise of the different waves of genres, and their affects on each other, and the scenes associated with them. Leyasu 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In the past Slayer´s frontman was asked to define Slayer: "Punk and metal, that´s what slayer is" was his answer. We all know punk IS NOT METAL, punk is to me a kind of opposite to metal. But how could you define Slayer´s sound any better? Nu-metal is another mix, a new mix. I almost despise all of the nu-metal bands. They seem to stick to a formula, and to go for "the more pop the better" attitude. But I can´t deny they share some metal characteristics. I think most nu-metal bands to be closer to Heavy Metal than most of Therion releases (I really can´t call Therion a metal band most of the time, although I like it very much :-). All this confusion is to say that nu-metal deserves a place in the history section, as it deserves a place in the controversy section too! Leyasu is fully correct (this time :-) ). Regards Loudenvier 05:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that generes for music are impossible. Some bands did such a wide range of songs, linking to Metal etc. Metal and Heavy Metal are mostly the same, certainly it is impossible to place one band into a particular camp. Really Heavy Metal is Metal, but Metal sometimes refers to more modern examples of the genre, Heavy Metal the older, related to Hard Rock. I think that making Heavy Metal part of Metal is ridiculous, they are largely the same, most new bands go into a sub genre of the wider term.

As for Hard Rock and Metal, is there really that much of a difference? It seems that they are almost the same music in some cases, with exceptions linking to the softer areas of Hard Rock.

Ozzy and Mr Crowley

Quote;"For example, "Mr. Crowley," (1981) by Ozzy Osbourne and guitarist Randy Rhoads, uses both a pipe organ and Baroque-inspired guitar solos to create a particular mood for Osbourne's lyrics on the legendary occultist Aleister Crowley" Unquote;

In reality Ozzy did not write the lyrics for the aformentioned song- these were composed by his then bassist Bob Daisley. In fact Daisley wrote the vast majority of lyrics on the first two multi-platinum Ozzy solo albums- although recent legal proceedings against the Ozzy management for unpaid royalties resulted in both bass and drum parts being erased and re-recorded on the CD re-issues of the late nineties.

Removal of contributions

Please, we must not start to remove every contributions made to the article. It´s normally better to let them in and wait for someone to improve over them, unless it´s a very, very bad contribution. If we start to remove all contributions that aren´t flawless we will scare away good willing people from this article, or perhaps from wikipedia. Let´s try to be a little more understandable from now on. At least some of the deleted contributions would better be dicussed on the talk page before deletion. Regards Loudenvier 17:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldnt normally remove a contribution, id copyedit it. More and more people are adding purely POV contributions, as which are getting removed. If you are skeptical of someone's edit summary, then check what they removed, and give your view to that editor on their talk page. Leyasu 19:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Metalcore Metion

" Ozzfest has had many metalcore bands playing at the festival and has helped gain the genre much popularity. Some see this style as nu metal's successor, whilst others believe that it will become popular and fashionable in the same way as nu metal."

The last sentence sounds like it repeats itself. Shouldn't it be something along the lines of "Some see this style as nu metal's successor, whilst others believe that it's the antithesis." I have no opinion on this matter, it just seems to me that that last sentence just repeats itself for no apparent reason. It also seems like a POV issue, as it's basically disregarding metalcore as a genuine metal sub-genre. If that were the case, shouldn't the oppositions views be held as well? Jewofunk 23:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. Mention it to user WesleyDodds if no users update it in the next 3/4 days. Leyasu 23:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Heavy Metal Men

The earliest memory of the word "Heavy Metal" in Rock was in a copy of "Hit Parader Magazine" around 1968 and referred to Frank Zappa & The Mothers Of Invention and Jimi Hendrix.

24.44.76.210 21:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Rush

You cannot denie that the band Rush has been a big influence on heavy metal bands, yet they arenot listed as influences.

Tags

Are the tags really necessary now? The metal music page does not even exist anymore, so what merge is there to take place.

Let's be honest; heavy metal is metal. Other metal forms are sub genres of heavy metal.

genre of rock

shouldn't the opening paragraph mention that it is a genre of rock music? it's not like it has its' own independent origins. i'm putting it up. also, i think that The Doors could be listed as an influence, especially lyrically. they were the first with dark, poetic lyrics. --Joeyramoney 04:56, March 12 2006

Put it up and it will be taken down. The reason its called Heavy Metal is because its not rock. Ley Shade 05:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

metal these days is seperate enough from rock to be considered a different genre. the second sentence of the article already mentions it's origins in the hard rock anyway. --MilkMiruku 15:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That's debatable. As I've debated with Leyasu in the past, heavy metal is commonly considered a form of rock music. Many heavy metal bands and genres are still rooted in stylistics approaches classifiable as rock. Just because certain subgenres have approaches that have little to do with conventional rock music does not make heavy metal a separate genre. By that logic art rock, punk, and alternative would be separate genres since each covers styles (Krautrock, post-punk, industrial and post-rock, for example) that are radical departures from what is considered traditional rock music.

it depends a lot on whether you include nu-metal, glam metal and such in heavy metal. I do not. Also, in such rock can be considered a subgenre of blues. Punk also borrows from rock, but is considered a separate genre as well. Spearhead 15:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I could argue this more, but right now I'm rather busy. In the meantime, I have no problem with metal not being mentioned as a form of rock in the article. For those who consider it rock it's already kind of inferred, and for those who don't there's nothing to explicitly say otherwise. WesleyDodds 11:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

rock and metal really have little in common these days; it shares some of its roots, but that's mostly it. You simply can't say that e.g. [[U2] is in any form related to Cryptopsy except that they use the same instruments. Spearhead 22:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

U2 isn't in any form related to Bad Brains or Belle & Sebastian either aside from instruments. And they're both considered rock. It's flawed to compare specialized left-of-center subgenres like death metal (Cryptopsy) and post-punk (U2), epsecially when U2 itself has a distinctive style. WesleyDodds 23:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Heavy Metal is a subgenre of hard rock music, this is not an article about Death Metal bands such as Cryptopsy, they do not define what metal is or isn't because they are merely a subgenre band as already mentioned. - Deathrocker 07:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Total Rework Needed

Until it was edited this article might as well have been called "A revisionist history and outlook of Heavy Metal from a Thrash Metal fans perspective"...

This is an article about Heavy Metal music, which is a subgenre of Hard Rock. Metal in its purest form refers to groups such as Black Sabbath, Blue Cheer, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple, that is what this article is about.

Thrash Metal, Glam Metal, Black Metal, Progressive Metal, Death Metal, do not define what metal is, as they are only SUBGENRES, they follow entirely different values and mix different musical elements which are not found in any of the original metal bands, which this as an encyclopedia should be focusing on.

Take a look at Rock and roll article, think of how many bands have gone under that label, but shared no values with the original bands of that genre since it first emerged.. hundreds of thousands. Are they included in that article? No. Only the bands that were pure and original to that genre are, because the rest fit into various subgenres of rock and roll instead,

I’ve tried to put this article on a more neutral tier until it can be fully brought down to just actual Heavy Metal bands (which should be much sooner, rather than later). Descriptions of various subgenres that emerged out of metal, from Thrash Metal to Glam Metal to Nu-Metal, belongs in List of heavy metal genres article not here. - Deathrocker 07:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

While I do agree there is a bit of "backwards-looking" history that is common in writings from the metal community, I argue against your assertion that the article nees a total rewrite. What you need to understand is that heavy metal, like punk rock, is a term used to refer to all bands of the style, before and after various subgenres emerged. Thus, we have a brief overview of the major subgenres and how they developed from the original hevay metal bands (I must emphasize brief, though; we certainly don't need a summary of the history of each one). I feel the article already puts adequate focus on how the existence of these subgenres defines the image of metal as whole throughout its history. Ignore the connotations regarding the title "heavy metal music"; this article has always been about metal as a whole, and that's what it was listed as a Featured Article regarding. This relates to the argument regarding merging this page with Metal music for with an encyclopedia, the content of an article trumps whatever it is referred to as. If anything, the title just helps with disambiguation. It's a bit silly to rewrite an article because the title might imply something else.

Also, the new subgenre headings in the History section ("Aggressive", "Technical") are subjective and arbitrary. WesleyDodds 10:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think user Deathrocker made a good point, but he may have missed all the previous discuissions about this article. This article is about two things in one: The classic Heavy Metal bands, that formed the style, and the meaning of Heavy Metal as a generall all-enconpassing term meaning all the subgenres of itself. That´s why we´ve merged the Metal article with it, per consensus. It´s article is about telling how it started, evolved and changed in time. The problem is that trash and death enthusiasts are the main contributors now, and they are a litle inclined to work more on the subjects they really know more, which is their prefered genres. The discussion of the genres should be very brief instead, and a link called: "Main article: Trash Metal" must be on the top of the section for Trash Metal on the Heavy Metal article. A good way to do that is to simply quote verbatin the opening passage on the subgenre article, and let anyone intereste follow the link to it. This way the Heavy Metal article will be kept focused and as brief as possible, and, hopefully much less disputed over by fans of Death, Trash, Gothic, Symphonic metal stuff (which I like... don´t get me wrong..). Loudenvier 14:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Some things I think aren´t good in the article...

I´ll try to post some of the parts I did no like. We could all do the same, so, afer a litle discussion we´ll end up with some basis as to how evolve the article further.

• Heavy metal singers have wide variety in sounds among them, from mid-range clean vocals, to high-pitched wails, to deep growls. The black and death metal scene tends to use distorted and guttural death grunts (exemplified by the band Possessed). Generally, it is hard to understand what the singer is "singing". Often, the text is considered to be too crude to be sung clearly (such as in Cannibal Corpse), but there are some bands (such as Eudoxis and Dark Shift) that will have more traditional lyrics obscured by the style of the singing.
  • I think we should change it because it uses a sole example of metal singing (black and death) and developes it too much, mainly the subjective it´s hard to understand what the singer is singin... stuff. It should use more traditional bands, perhaps mentioning only singers as examples. As is stands it should be on the Death or Black metal pages.

I´ve read the entire article right now, in a litle rush, but I think it´s fine and can´t point without further inspection any more parts I really dislike. I think it´s a litle derrogatory over nu-metal (I tell you punk is the opposite of metal, yet punk was a heavy influence on Motorhead, Slayer, etc. So how could we disaprove nu-metal other influencies? You and I may dislike it, but we should not be POV on wikipedia...). Post the parts you dislike it, let´s discuss it here, and bring it back into the article later, revised, and hopefully, better Loudenvier 15:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

'metal' as a specific style or as a catch-all term (here we go again...)

the recent edits to the article highlight one of the main problems with writing about the term 'metal'. i've been watching the happenings over the last few months, including the big change when metal music was merged to heavy metal music. now we seem to be back at square one with people arguing as to whether 'heavy metal'/'metal' refers to a specific sound or a grouping of styles. imo, the version Deathrocker is reverting to is better because it describes both original usage in the first paragraph and then the more modern general usage in the second (although i don't like the way some of it is worded; the flow sounds all wrong, and i don't agree that metal is not as "commercially successful" as the third paragraph makes it out to be (but whether nu-metal is a metal genre or not is an entirly other contentious debate). so, before things get silly (again), lets come to a concencus on this please. thoughts? --MilkMiruku 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we´re not going back to the old-feud Metal vs. Heavy Metal. That is settled. Deathrocker did not paid attention to the talk page. That´s it. And he changed too much things at once, I think this is the reason people keep reverting his edits. The section just above this one was a way to try to let people summarize their dislikes with/within the article. My complaint there still stands. I really hate that paragraph, when I get the time I will be changing it to use as examples Dio, Dickinson, Anders, LaBrie, Khan, etc, and will try exemplify singers from many subgenres. Loudenvier 21:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the last verison by myself and/or WesleyDodds. Is a good medium between the two... it focuses on actual heavy metal music, its characteristics and the prominent bands, aswel as incorporating short paragraphs about the subgenres that emerged out of it.

It also mentiones how "metal" as a term is used in modern times in relation to bands that have little to no connection with the original bands of the movement. It seems the only person reverting the article an "anonymous" IP AKA Leyasu, has no desire to even discuss their issues with the article. - Deathrocker 21:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact Heavy Metal has two meanings. This article is meant to encompass both. It should start telling the origins and many things about those original bands. After that it should enter in the discussion of the subgenres it spawned. Simple, yet not easy. Loudenvier 21:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert wars

People, let´s get sane. You´re starting a revert war on a featured article. This used to be a very good article. Now it´s starting to get completely amateurish. Although you think it´s great, the opening phrasing by DeathRocker is horrible. It tells way too much beforehand, it event deals with doom metal on the opening. It´s the wrong place. I have not time to discuss things further because I have to get out of the office right away. But let´s try to refrain from revert the article. This will grow wikipedia databases without purpose. Perhaps admin intervention will be needed and the page blocked from further edits. What a waste of time! Loudenvier 21:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

in reference to WP:NPOV#Undue weight, i feel that the dual uses of 'heavy metal' is important enough to be mentioned fairly early on in the article (and thus with a line or two giving a brief history of its subgenres to get the idea across) --MilkMiruku 21:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The first section reads as a brief overview of the original movement, its current status and use today. The sections that follow delve into the characteristics and further developments.

In the old version, if you read the opening section about heavy metal been a an offshoot of hard rock and incorporating blues influences, then scrolling down and the first picture you see is of a "Emperor" album, it makes the article seem ridiculous. The characteristics previously delved into components which were not found in the original bands, this belongs in the subgenres articles or the brief descriptions of them lower down the page.

The previous version was also highly bias and one sided POV against Glam Metal, which it not longer is... as a whole the article could do with some rewording (perhaps you have suggestions), but a rework was needed as most of the information was irrelevant to the article.

The fact that the vandal who keeps reverting the article refuses to even join this discussion is telling. - Deathrocker 21:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Borrowing from Rock and Roll article:

Rock and roll (also spelled rock 'n' roll, especially in its first decade), is a genre of music that emerged as a defined musical style in the Southern United States in the 1950s, and quickly spread to the rest of the country, and the world (rhythm sample). It later evolved into the various sub-genres of what is now called simply 'rock'. As a result, "rock and roll" now has two distinct meanings: either traditional rock and roll in the 1950s style, or later rock and even pop music which may be very far from traditional rock and roll (rhythm sample). From the late 1950s to the late 1990s rock was perhaps the most popular form of music in the western world.

This is a perfect opening! We should consider something like the following:

Heavy Metal is a genre of music that emerged as a defined musical style in the 1970s, having its roots in hard-rock bands which between 1967 and 1974 took blues and rock to create a hybrid with a heavy, guitar-and-drums-centered sound, characterised by aggressive, driving rhythms and highly amplified distorted guitars. It later evolved into the various sub-genres of what is sometimes now called simply 'Metal'. As a result, "Heavy Metal" now has two distinct meanings: either traditional Heavy Metal in the 1970s style, or later Metal which may be very far from traditional old-school Heavy Metal.

Heavy metal had its peak popularity in the 1980s, during which many of the now existing subgenres first evolved. Although not as commercially successful as it was then, heavy metal still has a large world-wide following of fans known by terms such as metalheads, headbangers and moshers.

I think something like that would be better? Don´t you agree? Loudenvier 21:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I did also think now that we should consider listing the names of the pioneers Deep Purble, Black Sabbath and the like in the opening too... Right?? Loudenvier 21:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Close... this is the version I think explains best...

Heavy Metal is a genre of music that emerged as a defined musical style in the 1970s, having its roots in hard-rock bands which between 1967 and 1974 took blues and rock to create a hybrid with a thick, heavy, guitar-and-drums-centered sound. Out of Heavy Metal various subgenres later evolved, some of which are referred to simply as 'Metal'. As a result, "Heavy Metal" now has two distinct meanings: either traditional Heavy Metal in the 1970s style, as exemplified by the likes of Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Blue Cheer, and others, or later Metal which may be very far from traditional old-school Heavy Metal.

Heavy metal had its peak popularity in the 1980s, during which many of the now existing subgenres first evolved. Although not as commercially successful as it was then, heavy metal still has a large world-wide following of fans known by terms such as metalheads, headbangers and moshers. - Deathrocker 21:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's pretty good. Athough it probably should say "As a result, "Heavy Metal" now has two distinct meanings: either genre as a whole or traditional Heavy Metal in the 1970s style, as exemplified by the likes of Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Blue Cheer, and others" WesleyDodds 01:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you guys got one subtle thing I did not. I´ve said "It later evolved". It´s wrong, "Out of heavy metal various subgenres later evolved" is the correct phrasing, because I had no intention of saying that Heavy Metal evolved implying it wasn´t a full-fledged genre by then, I was trying to say it rather spawned subgenres, not that it changed into other things. And you did also find a way to mention those influential bands! Loudenvier 01:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

i don't like either. one gives the wrong idea and the other just doesn't flow properly. a better suggestion would be "Heavy metal later developed various subgenres", which could then go on to say, "including thrash metal, death metal, black metal and ***whatever subgenres are appropriate to mention here**, a result of which being that metal has become more commonly used as an umbrella term to describe both heavy metal and it's descendent styles". --MilkMiruku 15:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be POV to mention any subgenre in the opening, and it is also useless. What you´re trying to imply with the new phrasing is already implied in the old. Perhaps just a rephrasing would suffice withou bringin in new elements (as the subgenres mentioning). And I did also feel it´s necessary to tell that Heavy Metal now has two distinct meanings. Metal as an umbrella term is already implicitly depicted on the original phrasing Loudenvier 19:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

why would it be pov? and just because more than one musical style shares a word in its title does not automatically imply that there is a direct or even indirect link between the two (i.e., power noise and power violence) so i feel it should be stated. i'm not going to bother regarding the last two sentences; from reading through the discussions above and viewing the past edit histories of the page it's plainly obvious to anyone that there is more than one meaning for "metal" in this world. as i noted above, check out WP:NPOV#Undue weight for the reasoning behind mentioning both of the generally accepted definitions.

Anyone else agree with me that the version written up by spearhead was probably the most appropriate version? I feel as if Deathrocker actually completely ruined this page. I will probably try to revert it back to its original Spearhead state within 48 hours. If anyone disagrees, please tell me so. But I feel as if for the time being bringing this article back to its original state is the best thing we can do, rather than leaving it with little to no mention of death/black metal (thanks Deathrocker), and with too much insistense on Doom and Glam Metal (again, thanks Deathrocker). --Nargos 04:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the revert to Spearheads version. Also i will point out that Deathrocker has been banned for one month due to several offences, most of which have been lohhed Here. As such, i do completely support this revert. Ley Shade 09:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I´ve read through the diff from those versions. While I agree that User:Spearhead version is better in almost every aspect, some authentic contributions were later added to the article that would get lost in a revert. But, apart from this minor issue, I agree with the revert, because those contributing for the better of the article will certainly revisit it again! Contrary to some opinions I think user Deathrocker had a point. This article was starting to become doom/gothic/death-centric. It must be avoided in the future. Loudenvier 13:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be a split article. One half detaling the Heavy Metal genre, as a unique form of Metal Music, and its own traits, per how it is typically seen by the worlds Metal Music Communitys/Scenes. The other half is meant to detail it as an expansion of how it has evolved and expanded into different metal genres, and the influences and actions they have on the worlds metal scenes/communitys. WesleyDodds was working to this end, and slow progress was being made towards that end, before Deathrocker tried to POV push and ballsed the whole article up.

I don't remember agreeing that it was going to be a split article. Certainly acknolwedge the dual meaning an so forth, but not completely separated into two overarching sections. However, I think it achieves that and the other objectives you listed in its current form. WesleyDodds 01:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The article shouldnt however lend to anything more specific than detaling the actions and influences of other things however, as other genres of Metal Music have their own articles. As such, reverting to Spearheads version and copyediting and expanding it is better, than trying to rewrite the whole thing from scratch. Especially when someone like Deahtrocker does it to reflect only their POV. Ley Shade 14:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well then, Spearhead's version it is. It obviously needs a bit of tweaking here and there, but is in any event far better than this current version. I"ll try to see if I have the time to revert it. If anyone else could do it, however, it would be greatly appreciated. I will in the meantime put up a TotallyDisputed tag on the article until it is reverted. If anyone does revert it, please take down the tage when you do, and indicate on the talk page that you have reverted it. IMHO, no "tweaking" should be done without any kind of consultation being done here. --Nargos 17:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the "totally disputed" tag is a bit much. WesleyDodds 01:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Given the issues that have come up with trying to further improve the article, I suggest that all changes beyond simple copyedit be brought up on the talk page first before implementation. Like Loudenvier said, this is a Featured Article, and we should restrain ourselves and analyze potential changes so we don't hinder the article. WesleyDodds 01:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well. Perhaps this might take a little while longer than I anticipated. I have taken down the tag,. as per your consideration. --Nargos 20:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Embedded text

What does everyone think about putting text at the beginning of the page so when you open the edit page text appears asking you to discuss major changes on the Talk Page? That way we can put off a lot of potential headaches. WesleyDodds 05:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Characteristics

The first couple paragraphs of the Characteristics section needs to be overhauled in my opinion. It never really defines metal above guitar riffs and drum beats, which is obviously not the extent of metal. The main reason I ask this is because of many arguments at the Nu-Metal talk page and at countless band articles, where people consistently declare a band "not metal" based on their perception of it, mainly due to the fact wikipedia does not have a clear definition of metal. Theunknown42 01:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

-->This is actually a good point. Lots of rock music has riffs and drum beats. What makes metal different? There is one line about diatonic scales. Someone should write something up - BUT USE A SOURCE!!!

Tenebrae (film)

hi, you might be interested to know that the above article about the early-80s Dario Argento horror film featuring a heavy score by Goblin (band) is currently a featured article candidate. as the editors of this article know what it takes to become featured, and argento's relationship with heavy metal is strong, it would be interesting to have your opinions. please vote "support" or "object" with your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tenebrae (film). thx. Zzzzz 11:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

the article is now featured!!! thx. Zzzzz 18:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Genre box

If you visit the Thrash Metal article and look at the genre box, it mentions Black Metal, Death Metal and Groove Metal as direct subgenres of Thrash rather than directly from Heavy Metal, as they aren't direct subgenres... and they already appear more fittingly in the Thrash genre box as subgenres they should be removed from this one. - Deathrocker 21:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

but heavy metal music refers not only to the original style of metal but also to metal as a root genre, so it would be best if all genres that are refered to as 'metal' are included in the genrebox. --MilkMiruku 22:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

When used as a slang term perhaps it would cover those others too..

But that has nothing to do with the actual musical lineage... I don't think common misconceptions should go over fact in an encyclopaedic article.

In the genre box, the description of the genre reads "Stylistic origins: Psychedelic rock, European classical music and British blues... Cultural origins: Late 1960s United Kingdom"

Black Metal, Death Metal and Groove aren't subgenres of that form of music described, so they don‘t belong in the same genre box... they're rather (as previously shown) direct descendents of Thrash. - Deathrocker 18:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

hmm.. it is a toughie.. the problem as i see it stems back to when metal music was merged into heavy metal music and list of heavy metal genres. personally i'd agree that "heavy metal" is best used to refer to the earlier styles of metal and "metal" is best used to refer to all metal genres as a whole, and i would have prefered it if this article had focused on the early style with "Mainstream Dominance (1980s)" onwards going on metal music, but the concensus of wikipedians was that "heavy metal" = both (thus it's use in List of heavy metal genres) and that heavy metal music should be used to describe both uses. (i don't think it's worth getting worked up over at this stage in the game as it's too close to call anyway and there would be too much opposition to change anything anyway.). so to sum up, i agree with you, but beware, the concensus doesn't, and your changes will make the article more confusing than it already is. i'll leave it up to all the metal aficionados here to decide the fate of their article. --MilkMiruku 19:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are direct descendant of thrash, but they are all ultimately subgenres of heavy metal. That's how all the infoboxes function. WesleyDodds 03:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

BPM

What about average BPM in heavy metal and its sub-genres? Psychomel@di_(s)cussion

Average bpm? Since funeral metal and grindcore are both in on this, you are not going to get very far trying to figure out an average bpm. marnues 02:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess there *is* at least a range of BPM to each sub-genre (Doom, Power etc.), right? Psychomel@di_(s)cussion 19:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

For genres like Doom Metal or Death Metal which define themselves partially by tempo, it does make sense to look at BPM. However, many metal genres like Black or Heavy do not conform well to BPM and will actually probably resemble the average BPM of any rock song. Then there's grindcore, which does its best to have huge BPM. I think there's one group which maed a song with a BPM of 1000. Its case specific I think, but definitely worth knowing in some of them. marnues 18:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle Metal

So, Battle Metal redirects here, Battle metal is a stub. And I recently created a Battle Metal entry, which is about an album by Turisas. It's quite confusing. Anyone knows how to fix it? (Sorry, I'm a newb.) Óðinn 03:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed Battle Metal to redirect to Battle metal. However, do we really want that page? Seems it was probably forgotten about. Maybe the album should be moved to Battle metal and attempts to find the genre should come here? The metal music project is going through some battles right now, so maybe this should just be ignored for the moment... marnues 03:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it makes more sense now. Although that stub article does look kind of forlorn and unnecessary... Óðinn 04:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I prodded it. It is a non-nontable genre with few bands/ genrecruft. Spearhead 15:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

My vote is for deletion. Move Battle Metal (album) to Battle Metal, have Battle metal redirect to the album, and then have a link to Black metal at the top in case someone goes there looking for the genre. That's how I see it anyway. marnues 19:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Óðinn 06:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)