Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

Lead guitar solos

The article's lead mentions the importance of guitar solos to heavy metal. The article, though, does not mention guitar solos (apart from mentioning bass guitar solos) in the Characteristics section. I added a sentence about guitar solos in metal, sourced to Robert Walser, a writer who is cited a number of times in this article. However, the sentence was reverted. So I am raising the issue here. Is it appropriate for the article to mention guitar solos as one of the Characteristics? ThanksOnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No because not all types of metal music use them, with some of the most popular bands in the genre like Linkin Park and Limp Bikzit eschewing them completely.Syxxpackid420 (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2015

Those are good points about Linkin Park and Limp Bizkit. The fact that some bands and subgenres do not use solos could be noted. Nevertheless, when writing an encyclopedia, we must make generalizations. Encyclopedias and university textbooks have many generalizations in them. For example, encyclopedia articles about symphonies from the 1700s will make a generalization like "symphonies usually had two trumpets." The fact that you can point out symphonies with more trumpets or symphonies with no trumpets does not make the generalization untrue or unhelpful. Generalizations are a good way to get across a general trend or tendency to the reader. Returning to the issue of guitar solos, a selection of sources state that guitar solos are an important part of heavy metal:

• "Virtually every heavy metal song features at least one guitar solo" (Robert Walser, Running With the Devil:Power, Gender and Madness in Heavy Metal Music. p. 50)
• "Guitar solos are an essential element of the heavy metal code...that underscores the significance of the guitar."(Deena Weinstein, Heavy Metal:The Music and its Culture." p. 24)
• "The heavy metal virtuosos demonstrated their calling in the guitar solo, which became an obligatory part of the music and a fixture in nearly every song." (A.J. Millard, The Electric Guitar: A History of an American Icon. p. 168)
• "The guitar as lead instrument is one of the cornerstones of heavy metal." (Essi Berelian, The Rough Guide to Heavy Metal.")
• "In most heavy metal songs there is an extended, virtuostic guitar solo..." (Stephen Valdez. A History of Rock Music.)

These sources could be summarized (summarizing multiple sources is permitted in WP) as "Guitar solos are an important part of many heavy metal songs."OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 04:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You are so far off what that section is about. I don't even have the energy to begin to explain. If others get involved I could add points. Seriously don't understand what you don't understand when reading that section. The other section you added a Source it says "others" and then mentions Parents Music Resource Center which is Clearly not Others. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Also if You read the article or even skim through, soloing and its Importance is Stressed in Various ways, throughout a Bulk of the article. Its inclusion is already there in a much more, dramatically professional manor, than anything your incessantly tried to add in the last few days. Its Already there, in Various Ways, in many different usages and explanations. You may want to read the Article, again or for the first time. If you don't understand I would get someone to explain it to you. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can comfortably say that guitar solos are part of the heavy metal genre, per the reliable sources listed here. Also, Kay Dickinson writes, "Heavy metal emphasizes the guitar solo as much as any subgenre of rock; nearly every heavy metal song features at least one such solo, and few other instruments are allowed solos. The guitar solo is a primary means through which the heavy metal performer expresses virtuosity; it is a forum for the display not only of musical skill and technical wizardry, but of a more diffuse masculine quality... Thus Eddie Van Halen's extended guitar solo on Van Halen is called 'Eruption,' a metaphor for male ejaculation." Also, Robin Sylvan says that the power chord is the first "signature feature" of heavy metal while the guitar solo is the second. Michelle Phillipov quotes Walser, Millard and others to say that "in heavy metal, the guitar solo functions as the genre's privileged moment of virtuosity", which is in contrast to death metal where the guitar solo, if present, is chaotic and brief. Binksternet (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No Actually we can't state anything, its already been stated Numerous times. Have you read the article, its all throughout the article. Are you both reading the article. Eddies solo is Already mentioned. Which is pretty proof Positive you haven't read it. Otherwise you wouldn't have even mentioned it. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

WOW. Eddies solo is called eruption? It states so in the article already. "Eddie Van Halen established himself as one of the leading metal guitarists of the era—his solo on "Eruption", from the band's self-titled 1978 album, is considered a milestone" in each time period it talks about soloing. In tune with the changing times and techniques. I guess you'd both know that if you read the article. Right. Thats one example. Do you both realize how many times soloing is represented better than what either of you are Pushing for. probably not. So "solos" are "important". Like Important enough that their Importance is Displayed throughout much of the article. Its totally awesome we are having discussion about adding material thats already there. Its awesome when people are well versed and familiar before they start tampering. Also the title "eruption" is Ambiguous. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You are clearly very concerned about something, but your argument is vague. I cannot for the life of me figure out what kind of problem you would have with an addition such as this, one that puts a little more emphasis on the solo. From the sources we have been discussing here, that addition is not really enough. There is nothing in the article that gives proper emphasis to the solo. The power chord is rightfully discussed in a subsection, but the solo isn't, and I think it should be. Binksternet (talk) 06:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree here. It's pretty iconic to at least the first two decades of metal. Vortiene (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Vague. Like saying theres mention all over the article all about Solos. Then again you also stated Metalcore origin was "melodic death metal". Yeah. OK. Vague. Well in this article it isn't vague at all.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no organized discussion of guitar solos, as there is for power chords. That's what I'm saying. Binksternet (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Right like in a skim this material was found in a about 1 1/2 minutes.metal's "most influential musicians have been guitar players who have also studied classical music. Their appropriation and adaptation of classical models sparked the development of a new kind of guitar virtuosity [and] changes in the harmonic and melodic language of heavy metal. "the "1980s brought on ...the widespread adaptation of chord progressions and virtuosic practices from 18th-century European models, especially Bach and Antonio Vivaldi, by influential guitarists such as Ritchie Blackmore, Marty Friedman, Jason Becker, Uli Jon Roth, Eddie Van Halen, Randy Rhoads and Yngwie Malmsteen".[32] Kurt Bachmann of Believer has stated that "If done correctly, metal and classical fit quite well together. Classical and metal are probably the two genres that have the most in common when it comes to feel, texture, creativity."[33"] "album filled with heavy blues rock guitar" "Eddie Van Halen established himself as one of the leading metal guitarists of the era—his solo on "Eruption", from the band's self-titled 1978 album, is considered a milestone" "New Jersey's Symphony X, whose guitarist Michael Romeo is among the most recognized of latter-day shredders." you're right. this article places no Emphasis on the Importance of solos. Actually it does, its spread out in different sections which provide a clear context, relative to the sections. This is a featured article and it will need many editors to be involved. Also someone who can actually write well enough for a featured article which "onbeyondZebrax" clearly can not by the mess displayed so far. Also has been pushing POV for days now.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing "clear" about guitar solos being spread around the article without having their own paragraph. If you don't have a constructive solution then step aside and allow others to contribute. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"you" don't think its clear. If I "don't have a constructive solution". Of course I have a constructive solution. Know what you're talking about and don't push POV, don't type falsehood statements such as “Yes, I think we can comfortably say that guitar solos are part of the heavy metal genre, per the reliable sources listed here.”, “There is nothing in the article that gives proper emphasis to the solo. The power chord is rightfully discussed in a subsection, but the solo isn’t”, “There is no organized discussion of guitar solos, as there is for power chords.”, “There's nothing "clear" about guitar solos being spread around the article without having their own paragraph”. Thats interesting, its already there where it should be. Also "melodic death metal" is Not an Origin of Metalcore.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Your comment above calling the statement "guitar solos are a part of the heavy metal genre" a "falsehood statement" is strange, given that another editor and I have just provided a list of WP:RS Reliable Sources stating that the guitar solo is a key part of heavy metal. My understanding of Wikipedia is that it should present what the most reliable sources say about the topic. WP:NPOV states that "achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias." The other editor and I have provided a variety of reliable sources supporting the point that "the guitar solo plays an important role in heavy metal." If you have reliable sources that present a differing point, such as articles stating that "in heavy metal, the guitar solo has the same role and prominence as it has in rock and blues", then please provide these sources, because "...the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." If you are against the Reliably Sourced statement that the guitar solo is an important part of heavy metal, please provide Reliable Sources which support a differing point.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 18:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

In context an editor coming to a talk page and stating something that is already there, "needs to be" is falsehood. This is what you usually do. Find a page and push your POV. Only this article is featured. Different rules apply. Look for "on beyondZrax" there will be about 250 edits. Many POV. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hardcore_punk&offset=20140630160224&limit=500&action=history and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hardcore_punk&offset=&limit=500&action=history..CombatMarshmallow (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Why do you bother writing "to" me. In the future everything you do or type will be ignored. If its inaccurate it won't be added and if its not about showing why you feel you have any validity pushing your "sociology" angle it will be ignored. have a nice day. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you have no intention of collaborating. Take a look at Wikipedia:Collaborations, which does not support your obstinacy. Your stance has more of WP:OWN about it, which is not going to work. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, you're not "me". So you have no clue what Im able or willing do to. Thanks For Your Concern. I don't agree with things that aren't right. If thats against how you feel, its not about feelings, its about what is right. Plus aren't you the editor that typed all of this “There is nothing in the article that gives proper emphasis to the solo. The power chord is rightfully discussed in a subsection, but the solo isn’t”, “There is no organized discussion of guitar solos, as there is for power chords.”, “There's nothing "clear" about guitar solos being spread around the article without having their own paragraph”. Yes, you are. So I would say if thats your understanding of an article you probably have no better understanding of my stance. have a nice day, until you write me again probably in less than 2 hours, tops. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Lyrical themes section identify the organization criticizing heavy metal lyrics as the Parents Music Resource Center?

Should the Lyrical themes section identify the organization criticizing heavy metal lyrics as the Parents Music Resource Center? The section on lyrical themes has a sentence about how heavy metal lyrics have been criticized by music critics for certain issues and by others for misogyny and occult themes. There is a "who?" tag after the word "others." No source is cited for the claim that others have criticized metal lyrics for misogyny and occult themes. One of the organizations that has criticized heavy metal for misogyny and occult themes is the Parents Music Resource Center. Two sources support this assertion.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The sentence: "Heavy metal's main subject matter is simple and virtually universal. With grunts, moans and subliterary lyrics, it celebrates...a party without limits.... [T]he bulk of the music is stylized and formulaic." Music critics have often deemed metal lyrics juvenile and banal, and others have objected to what they see as advocacy of misogyny and the occult. During the 1980s, the Parents Music Resource Center petitioned the U.S. Congress to regulate the popular music industry due to what the group asserted were objectionable lyrics, particularly those in heavy metal songs. " As a part of a featured article it can be assumed with a reasonable certainty that If "others" was "Parents Music Resource Center" It wouldn't just be in the Sentence that Follows it. Apparently "other" reliable sources criticized it but sources haven't been added. yet. When it says that The Parents Music resource center "asserted were objectionable lyrics, particularly those in heavy metal songs." It includes all, topics. Occult, sex, drugs, truancy, everything. The "others" is not implying PMRC. PMRC has its own sentence entry. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

References

there, its Done. Others has a source not a Citation.with this Book Source, CombatMarshmallow (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

References

this action was added. Its controversial.

According to Robert Walser, heavy metal harmonic relationships are "...often quite complex" and the harmonic analysis done by metal players and teachers is "...often very sophisticated."In her study of heavy metal chord structures, Esa Lilja states that "...heavy metal music has proved to be far more complicated than has been previously suggested." She states that heavy metal harmony typically uses modal harmonic relationships "...coupled with pentatonic and blues-derived features."

"heavy metal music has proved to be far more complicated than has been previously suggested." It hasn't been suggested at all. Also these are opinions. Not Facts.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

References

This part has merit and should be merged in above section. "...coupled with pentatonic and blues-derived features." CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

"...heavy metal music has proved to be far more complicated than has been previously suggested." This is not previously suggested. Even in the article..…..She states that heavy metal harmony typically uses modal harmonic relationships " That is Already is stated “Harmonically speaking, this means the genre typically incorporates modal chord progressions such as the Aeolian progressions I-VI-VII, I-VII-(VI), or I-VI-IV-VII and Phrygian progressions implying the relation between I and ♭II (I-♭II-I, I-♭II-III, or I-♭II-VII for example)” So you added something that says "as previously suggested" that has not ever been suggested, it makes no sense. Also the statement about Modal Harmonic Relationships why have it there instead of where Harmonic Modal relationships are mentioned already. Also what happened with this section being worked out first so people don't try and revert their point without reading and understanding it first. Thats what is supposed to prevent this. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The "opinions" of our reliable sources are what defines the topic. Music certainly has facts (tempo, for instance), but a very great deal of it is also emotional and subjective. That's why we tell the reader what are the main "opinions" described in the literature. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Late reply, but agree with Binksternet comment about opinions. One person's opinion can be another's fact, depending on their view of the topic. Per WP:NPOV, we should include relevant views in the article. That being said, I greatly appreciated the copy-editing that @CombatMarshmallow: did to improve the section. Ravensfire (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank You. Im glad to have anything I do appreciated. Thank you for telling me.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Should this have been removed.

"Welsh band Bullet for My Valentine's third studio album Fever debuted at position number 3 on the Billboard 200 and number 1 on Billboard's Rock and Alternative charts, making it the band's most successful record to date. In recent years, metalcore bands have received prominent slots at Ozzfest and the Download Festival. Lamb of God, a groove metal band, hit the Billboard top 10 in 2006 with Sacrament. The success of these bands and others such as Trivium and Avenged Sevenfold which have released both metalcore and straight-ahead thrash albums. Bands like Motionless In White have experimented with Metalcore further by including Gothic Metal and Industrial Metal influences. Other notable experiments include Asking Alexandria mixing Trance, this has led to an explosion of bands following this combination. One such band is Silent Descent who mix Melodic Death Metal with trance." not seeing the point of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Statik_N erasing it, at least twice. If its correct Id like to learn why, if its incorrect Id also, like to learn why. Its always an opportunity to learn more. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

References

RfC: Should the second paragraph of the Characteristics section have a sentence on the role of the guitar solo in heavy metal?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the second paragraph of the Characteristics section have a sentence on the role of the guitar solo in heavy metal? A selection of WP:RS reliable sources indicate that the guitar solo is an important part of heavy metal. The lead of the article mentions the role of the guitar solo. There are references to specific guitar solos or guitar soloists in the article, but the second paragraph in the Characteristics section, which focuses on the guitar, does not mention the guitar solo. As evidence that paragraph two does discuss the role of the guitar in heavy metal in other ways, there are two sentences on the role of the rhythm guitar in metal. If rhythm guitar is discussed for two sentences, then the role of the guitar solo should also be mentioned. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support a few sentences and even a paragraph about the guitar solo in heavy metal. Plenty of sources to draw from; a lot has been written. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you see consensus above. Re-read it if not. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support I'm not exactly sure why there isn't a specific portion already dedicated to this such discussion. Vortiene (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Guitar solos are the lifeblood of heavy metal. There are some genres that tend to eschew solos (metalcore and nu metal particularly), but I think it's no coincidence that those genres are often targeted by criticism that they aren't truly "metal."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Propose a Sentence here first. So Consensus can be reached and the sentence can be written well enough. Also, some peoples motives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Heavy_metal_music

Theres just now way you 3 don't understand. The characteristics covers Rhythm techniques. The Entire Article covers leads/solos. If this really gets around to having a "consensus" it will be shared around at all the places "onbeyerdzebras" shared it. you all are humorous at times. Read the Whole article in its entirety. ...oh you're not sure why, it hasn't been discussed. a simple read above would have done the trick, but here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heavy_metal_music#Lead_guitar_solos now you know, anyhow. so you three or four, only people pushing POV that something isn't in the article but is, are going to be given real consensus, Unbiased, consensus, by Many Editors. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC) 03:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess this is the Honesty we can expect here "Alright, I have now stopped watching this page, and hence there will be one less editor contributing. Vortiene (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)"CombatMarshmallow (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I've read the entire article, multiple times. There is no specific section dedicated to guitar solos as discussed in this RFC. Hence the support. I don't know where you are getting the idea that there is a section of this sort, because there is no such section. Regardless of the peppering of solo discussion in the article, there is no dedicated portion for this subject. This is an RFC, not a discussion as you have linked, hence why the support is arising now, as it's based on the fact that no section exists yet it is warranted. I can choose on my own whether to support or not to support. Instead of complaining about those who have different opinions, you can easily list a reason not to support it in your own contribution instead of going on a tirade about your view of the addition and how others are incorrect for not sharing this view. I am still watching the page because I want the article to develop, not be held from any editing by someone who makes personal attacks and acts passive aggressively to all editors that disagree with his/her views. Vortiene (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, sure. Its You and binkster who are Aggressive, if anyone. Solos are throughout the article. Its Sketchy when someone says something isn't there its shown to be, then says well theres no paragraph then when its shown to be more than perhaps a few paragraphs but spread out relative to the development of Heavy Metal music soloing, it changes to "well its not in characteristics". Im hardly complaining. I like to Debate, I like to make my part in keeping things accurate and Honest. Constantly changing reasoning sends up "flags". Also its not "peppering", in this article it makes very good/perfect sense that the soloing is mentioned throughout as the techniques and developments are relative to the time frame they originated in. So not only does it currently teach about soloing and techniques it also teaches by also putting in to context the time frame for the developments of Heavy Metal soloing as it is transpiring. In contrast Rhythm Guitar is 99% only in the Characteristics section. Could anything be improved, only if unbiased editors say it can and actually write something on the level. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should the article include a paragraph on the gender, race and sexual orientation of heavy metal musicians?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article include a paragraph on the gender, race and sexual orientation of heavy metal musicians? OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 16:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

A proposed draft paragraph on gender, race and sexual orientation issues in regards to heavy metal musicians appears in the section above. Reliable sources (WP:RS) indicate that most heavy metal performers are men and that there are few women bands. A respected author on heavy metal, Deena Weinstein, states that gender and race have an influence on which heavy metal bands hit the big stage. A reliable source, the editor of Terrorizer magazine, is quoted as stating that there are few openly gay musicians in metal. The heavy metal music article does refer to gender (the lead states that the music is known for its masculinity and machismo and the fan subculture section mentions that metal fans tend to be male, and then in the Mainstream section it says more female fans were added in the 1980s). The proposed content on the gender of heavy metal performers (mostly men) would complement the existing information about gender in metal. The proposed paragraph also has information on race and sexual orientation and heavy metal musicians, cited to reliable sources (notably Weinstein, who states that race is a factor which determines which bands hit the big stage). To my knowledge, the heavy metal music article does not currently cover the issues of race (apart from the fan subculture section which states that fans tend to be white) or sexual orientation (apart from the Physical gestures section that mentions the "heterosexist" nature of fans). As such, this would be a helpful addition to the article.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You , think its "helpful" whats the rush. is the Article going anywhere? Getting consensus is having enough Patience to see what other opinions are, not trying to "argue" online with, me. I made my points Against the Edition, you keep typing to me. You should instead be typing about why you feel its helpful. Even though its Not helpful. Heavy metal Music Doesn't have and isn't know for having issues with genders, race or sexual orientation. It is known for having issues with Religion. I think you're getting confused with "white power" music. By not waiting for Consensus you're pushing POV. Whats the Big Rush.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• See WP:BLPCAT We do not label any living person on the bases listed unless the living person self-identifies with that category specifically. Collect (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

(Comment) WP:BLPCAT applies to categories. This RfC does not propose the addition of any categories.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 18:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The practice is that in any BLP, we do not assert that anyone has any race, ethnicity, gender or sexual preference unless it is clearly self-identified. Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality (subpage to WP:BLP) inter alia. If we can not place a person in a specific category, we can not make the same barred assertion in the text of a BLP. Collect (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think such a section would be particularly helpful, and I'm not seeing any rationale for its inclusion other than "it would be helpful". Why would it be helpful? What point would be made, as it sounds like it could be somewhat misleading? HM isn't any more male-dominated than a dozen other genres, like reggae, rap, indy, ska, jazz etc, and for a section like this to be useful it should compare HM with other genres. There are always more males in bands than females anyway, regardless of the genre. Any sources to verify that a genre is male-dominated or white-dominated can be countered by the sheer number of female / non-white bands and musicians. So what's the point? As for sexual orientation, I'm at a loss as to why it matters. If Rob Halford's career had nosedived after his coming out, then there might be something in it, but if anything he's more popular than ever. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

(Comment)The demographic representation of performers in a genre is an important piece of information for an article. A reliable source has been provided which indicates that "[h]eavy metal performers are almost exclusively male". You can't try to disqualify that statement from a reliable source by listing female metal bands that you know of. That is WP:OR Original Research. On the other hand, if you have a reliable source that says that heavy metal performers are equally male and female, then you can provide that source. Regarding the assertion that any mention of male domination in HM would have to compare HM with other genres, that is not required in this article. Certainly, if this information is available, it would be helpful, but it a cross-genre comparison is not required. Sexual orientation in metal matters because a reliable source has published a statement about it. The editor of Terrorizer magazine has stated that there are very few gay performers in high-profile bands.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 18:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You're saying it's important; I'm asking why. You probably know that finding a source to verify a negative is next to impossible, so you'd just be creating a section with an imbalance that draws no conclusions, failing WP:UNDUE. It's not OR to state that female bands exist because they can be sourced, and it's plainly not the case that the only rebuttal of a source that says HM bands are "almost exclusively male" can be one that says they are equally male and female. The idea is to create a balance, not just add sources that support your point of view. You say there's no requirement to compare HM to other genres, well, that would just be exceptionally poor editing. If there's absolutely no context whatsoever to the point you want to make, it fails WP:NPOV and there is no point in it existing. Having spent about four seconds on google, I've found sources that talk about gay HM musicians. Only striking a balance with your sources would make this a useful section. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

(Comment) Why is information on the gender, race and sexual orientation of HM performers important? The idea of examining gender or race issues when studying a style of music is a relatively new trend. In Classical music, until recently, the history of Classical music was taught without any reference to gender or race. While most of the Classical composers were white males, nothing was noted about this, and music history focused on their pieces, songs, achievements, etc. Then a new approach to music history was introduced in the 1980s--New Musicology. These music historians wrote about gender, race and sexuality in music. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 23:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain why it's useful or what points or judgements might be made specifically regarding the genre in question. If it has no actual bearing on the music and it's not examined, then there's no advantage to it. With regard to your example of Classical composers, the simple reason for most of them being white males is that in that era, in those parts of the world, practically everything was done by white males, whether that was music or anything else. That's a historical sociological discussion, not a musical one. I agree that it belongs in the subculture article, if anywhere. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The idea of discussing gender in an article about music is not some idea I just thought up. This article already makes several points about gender aspects of heavy metal. The lead states that "Heavy metal lyrics and performance styles are often associated with masculinity, aggression, and machismo.Later, the article states that attendees of "metal concerts do not dance in the usual sense. Deena Weinstein has argued that this is due to the music's largely male audience and "extreme heterosexualist ideology." The article also states that the "metal fanbase is largely young, white, male, and blue-collar". With the introduction of New Musicology in the 1980s, some music historians have focused more on cultural studies and examined the sociological aspects of musicians and institutions in which they perform and create music. There are now several decades of music history articles and research which take this sociological approach, examining issues such as the role of gender in music. There's a lot of articles online from music history professors making arguments about the impact that gender has on musical style and performance. You may not think that sociology has a role in music history, but we as editors do not get to decide on whether sociology should or should not have a role in music history. This is a question that needs to be answered by experts in the field of music history–rock music historians, music critics, music professors, and so on, who have published their views in reliable sources. As editors, our role is to report what the reliable sources on a topic say about this topic, with appropriate weight to the different points of view.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 22:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

References

I for one concur.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of what you're saying, and I personally don't agree with your total reliance on people like Weinstein or the validity of the relationship between new musicology and this particular genre, the section you added does not even begin to do what you're advocating. Of course sociology has a role in music history but this hopelessly generalised, very negative sociological view of this genre is misleading. Looks rather like WP:SYN. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Bretonbanquet, that the original paragraph proposed for this RfC is poorly written and suffers from POV issues.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Also in agreement with Bretonbanquet. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

this article probably not. Heavy metal subculture would probably be more appropriate. Apart from anything else the evidence suggests the situation is rather complicated and trying to sum it up in a few sentences will end poorly. On the racial side it is more complex than heavy metal=white (see Music of Japan#Heavy metal). While the statistics suggest that there is some kind of homophobia going on that seems odd given the areas where much of the metal fandom is based (OTOH the english football league still has no out gay players). Gender of musicians again should probably be covered in Heavy metal subculture since it pretty much follows what can be found in all popular western music.©Geni (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

(comment) Heavy metal subculture is explicitly about metal fans....the proposed paragraph is explicitly about performers and bands. Re:race, the source (LA Weekly) doesn't say all metal performers were white-- he states that there are few black (African American) metal musicians. So your point about Japanese metal bands is a useful one.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 22:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

(comment) I know you can't argue from precedent in other articles, but it is interesting to note that Rock music considers gender and race issues to be pertinent. The lead informs us that "The dominance of rock by white, male musicians has been seen as one of the key factors shaping the themes explored in rock music."OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 22:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"Gender of musicians again should probably be covered in Heavy metal subculture since it pretty much follows what can be found in all popular western music". I agree. try it over there. Frankly honestly, its not even written well. Even if it were a good addition. For a featured article it falls even shorter. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"source says men predominate in entire music industry" exactly what we have said to you starting 7 Hours ago. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Bretonbanquet. I don't believe that including such a section would be helpful to the article. Particularly the sexual orientation part. I think it would tend to politicize the article.
Richard27182 (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems like this proposal is a disclaimer — "You probably think heavy metal is homophobic, but here's why it isn't". It's unnecessary politicization of the article, where there really isn't an issue. — Confession0791 ^talk 01:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Question, are there RSs studying the sexuality of HM musicians? I think not, therefore this suggestion is inherently OR, apart from the BLP and other arguments made against.Pincrete (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete, Confession0791, Richard27182, CombatMarshmallow, Geni, Bretonbanquet: there are numerous RSs discussing homosexuality, queer issues, and feminist and gender issues in heavy metal music. On just the issue of homosexuality and queer studies, you have, from what I got in a very quick Google Search, the book Queerness in Heavy Metal Music: Metal Bent and the following web articles: [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. That's just a cursory sample. Regarding gender dynamics, you have even more. There's enough to write at least one entire Wiki article on. So we could definitely start with a section on this article, and expand from there. The way that the discussion process is going above I think is an example of the systemic bias on Wikipedia as elaborated in academic literature such as this.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

wow. Nice you shared something that talks about the "asshole consensus". Then say theres enough for a section. The question: should the "article include a paragraph on the gender, race and sexual orientation". There is a resounding no. Also, no one is "assholes" because its not deemed good for the article. "Gender of musicians again should probably be covered in Heavy metal subculture since it pretty much follows what can be found in all popular western music". I agree. Just as stated prior to today. There is no systemic "bias". Thank you for the Invite. No Thanks. I don't think it would be a good edition at all. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

CombatMarshmallow I don't agree with everything in that article I linked to, especially his academic name-calling (I have personal convictions that find such name-calling wrong). But he does highlight an important issue on Wikipedia, that over-all the consensus on many articles, perhaps most, reflects a masculine, hetero-normal viewpoint. Systemic bias is an issue on Wikipedia, to the point where WP:Gender gap task force was created as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. That doesn't necessarily mean that this particular article suffers from this, but it should be kept in mind. I agree that the RfC question violates NPOV, which is why I'm proposing something more neutral, "gender and sexuality in heavy metal."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If there is sufficient RS material to create a section, then include, but the way the RfC is phrased, invites the impression that OR is going to happen in a BLP, as if the question is abstract. Should there be a section on the homosexuality of Barack Obama? No because there is nothing to write about that I know, on Shakespeare, yes because a lot has been written. But we can't start with an abstract question about whether to include or not. And what purpose would identifying individual musicians fulfil?, even where it is in the public domain, that wouldn't say anthing about HM in general, just as we would not have such a section in 'actors' for example, unless the content is relevant to the subject and has been written about fairly extensively, beyond individuals. Pincrete (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete - I totally agree that we shouldn't over-focus on individuals and that the original RfC question is non-neutral. What I'm advocating for here is a brief (1-2 paragraph) section that would discuss gender and queer issues as regarding heavy metal, something that, as I showed above, there are plenty of reliable sources discussing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi 3family6.  I think the key sentence in your most recent posting is:   "There's enough to write at least one entire Wiki article on."   The original article focuses on the history and various subcategories of HM music, and it's a bit on the long side already. If you want to write about issues concerning homosexuality, feminism, etc. in HM music, I believe that that should be in its own article, rather than a section of the original article.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182 I agree in part. It should have it's own article, but a section over-viewing the issues should be here. The history and subcategories of metal are important, but so are things like subculture (which is included), lyrics and imagery (also included) and gender issues (only very briefly included). Since the sub-categories of metal have there own articles, why are they so long here? They could be shortened to allow that article to touch on other issues discussed in reliable sources.Italic text

I don't enjoy being accused of bias, let alone the unwise implication of the "asshole consensus". Hardly a good way to suggest any changes. Anyway, I reiterate my problem with this kind of thing: I don't see anything here that explains how HM is different from other genres with respect to gender and sexuality issues, or differs from the evolution of those issues in society in general. Rob Halford says HM and society were very different in 1980 compared to now, for example – well, who knew? What point is being made specifically about HM? Just because something is discussed in reliable sources, it does not follow that it is useful to an article. Another point is that all these sources are American, and I have a strong suspicion that all this is only an issue in the US, the only country in the world where people were surprised when Halford came out. Two articles I wrote about two of my favourite bands: 1) Thin Lizzy – even though the frontman was black, a real rarity in 70s rock, there was surprisingly little comment about that. It was basically, "well, so what?" 2) The Amorettes – female hard rock act who rock harder than most, and there's little or no comment on their gender in the press other than "they're female". So where's the issue to describe? What point of comparison would be made? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet As I said above in a different reply, I strongly dislike the academic use of profanity in the article that I linked. However, I believe that the points it raises about bias should be considered. All of us have biases, certain perspectives that we naturally have based on our background and life choices, that we bring to a subject. I'm not trying to pick on particular editors, but point out that there may be important things to say about heavy metal that right now are not adequately included in the article. You are wrong about all the sources being American - Terrorizer is a British publication, and, if you read the article, you will see that it has a British and Australian slant to it (that's an example of bias right there, and there's nothing wrong with that).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to the concept that everyone is intrinsically biased due to background and life choices. I don't wish to criticise you personally, but that's usually just a cop-out engineered by people who want a tool to dismiss those who don't agree with them. Some people succomb to an intrinsic bias, some deliberately bring bias to a debate; others do neither. Some of us at least are capable of looking at an issue dispassionately and without prior judgement. A few times I've asked the questions I asked in my previous post, but I've never received much of an answer. Anyway, Terrorizer is indeed British, I stand corrected. But having now read it twice, I can't tell you what an awful article that is; anything that states "we have the relative absence of sex from metal lyrics" surely cannot be taken seriously. He takes a narrow section of the genre and applies it to the entire show. Shame on Wikipedia if that's deemed a reliable source. Reliable or not, that it might be written from a British / Australian perspective is just that; it doesn't constitute bias per se. Incidentally, the British view of what falls under the HM genre banner is usually very different from the American view. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, we obviously have different understandings of what the word "bias" entails, and I don't think that this talk page is the place to get into that. That said, I'm working from the definition of systemic bias, which is that a given process of system favors particular outcomes. Systemic bias in Wikipedia has long been documented and discussed in numerous outside sources, and has long been an internal concern for the Wikipedia community and Wikimedia Foundation. Now, moving on from that, I apologize for not addressing all your concerns in my previous reply. I was leaving for work in a few minutes and left just a quick reply. I don't think the examples you gave of Thin Lizzy and The Amorettes necessarily prove anything. That those artists did not receive much attention for their racial background or gender doesn't mean that others haven't (or that others have). What is more useful, and worth noting on Wikipedia, are discussions not of particular artists so much as broader themes and cultural norms that permeate the genre. In the case of race, I have not noticed as much of a discussion of it as compared to gender in some of the literature that I've read, apart from particular genres such as black metal and Viking metal. That's not to say that there aren't such discussions, there are. And there probably are enough to warrant mention in this article, but that would be a different discussion unrelated to this RfC. Regarding gender, I personally have seen many discussions, and not just about particular genres. Now, what I'm talking about and proposing isn't just discussions that say "heavy metal is homophobic" or "heavy metal is misogynist," but discussions that examine how gender roles and identity in heavy metal are defined and enforced, and how these issues relate to the lyrical and thematic content of heavy metal. Music genres are ethnicities, and a Wikipedia article on a music genre should provide a broad, balanced look at all the major aspects of the genre, which might include more than just the musical traits and development of the genre. As to what sources to use, I'm not endorsing Terrorizer or any of the other sources I listed above. I merely gave those to demonstrate that gender and queer issues are widely talked about in literature about heavy metal. If a section (whether connected to a larger, separate article or no) on gender and queer issues in heavy metal to be created, I would expect the content to first undergo extensive discussion on this talk page first, and the sources vetted and analyzed so that we are using the best-quality sources that best illustrate and summarize the topic from a balanced perspective. These topics are important, just as the history of heavy metal and its musical characteristics are important. And I think that this article should reflect the broad facets of discussion as found in reliable sources, with all due weight considered and balanced.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Your points are taking up from OnBeyondZebrax as if you that editor. I agree with Bretonbanquet. Pretty much, fully. Also feel that Heavy Metal Music isn't going to be anymore understood after making a sociology style addition on gender, sexual preference and the like. The music won't be anymore understood. However I will add that if somehow some editors had an Intellectual, accurate and necessary addition that was deemed necessary by many, I personally wouldn't be "against" it. Currently am seeing nothing that would be good or helpful about it but did want to mention, if it became apparent, which I doubt, but if it became apparent in its need for inclusion of course my views would change.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, CombatMarshallow, for your willingness to work on this matter. I am not trying to speak for OnBeyondZebrax, but to further develop what they've proposed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi 3family6.  We apparently agree that the material in question should have its own article.  I think the only part we would disagree on would be how much of the topic should be mentioned in the original article.  I'll agree that the article contains somewhat lengthy sections on subculture, lyrics, and imagery.  But----- and you're probably not going to like this part----- those areas are entirely nonpolitical and uncontroversial.  (I'll agree that the portion about gender issues could be considered somewhat political, but as you point out, it's only very briefly included.)  But when you get into issues like race, sexual orientation, and (expanding the issue on) gender, some people would consider that as politicizing the article.  My suggestion would be to write your material as a separate article, and then either list it in the original article under "See also"; or add a very brief section (no more than a sentence or two) with a wiki-link to the new article.  I believe that that would be the most appropriate way to handle it.  Plus having the gender, race and sexual orientation material all in its own article would probably get it more attention anyway.  How do you feel about all this?
Richard27182 (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182, it's not so much a question of what I like, but what best represents the academic literature. I don't see how a sociological analysis of gender within the article would be "politicizing' the article, and if that's how some people see it, that's entirely their choice. I agree that to do proper justice to the topic, a separate article should be created. But I think the mention here should be however much it takes to summarize the stand-alone article adequately, whether a few sentences or two whole paragraphs. Another possibility would be to work much of the commentary into existing sections. We already have some discussion of gender issues by Weinstein, and those could be developed more in the sections they currently are in.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The idea of creating a new article on Gender and sexuality in heavy metal was proposed. I would be reluctant to create an article with that title, because rather than being seen as a legitimate "child" article that has split off from the main HM article (e.g., like creating a "child" article on Heavy metal music in the 1970s, a gender and sexuality article could be deemed an impermissible WP:POV fork. This type of article does exist (e.g., LGBQ poets from X country), but they are rare.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a POV-fork if it was created because it is a subject with enough coverage to warrant it's own article. The compromise Bretonbanquet proposed I think could be construed as a POV-fork, so that's something to consider.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Did I propose anything? I might have done, please remind me if necessary. I don't see any mileage in rehashing our theoretical arguments; we would probably need to see another proposed addition and discuss it directly. That my examples of non-white, non-male acts that received little or no attention for those qualities was dismissed rather sums up my point. If we're only going to talk about instances that back up an argument and ignore all those that don't, then I think any point that would be made would be very weak, not to mention unbalanced. Not only that, but any points to be made using sources specifically regarding subgenres should be made in those articles, not here at an article aimed at generality. Lastly, I think there's an important point that the very definition of heavy metal is widely debated and that's relevant here. To use a fictional example, if a source describes AC/DC lyrics as sexist or misogynist (and that's probably true), that's great but half the world considers AC/DC to be metal and the other half doesn't, and that applies to many, many artists. This is a very complicated genre and I think it's going to be difficult to formulate a section or article that accurately reflects the genre as a whole. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet The compromise attributed to you was that a separate article be created and then merely linked to in this article, or at most a sentence or two constructed. I admit that I was probably unfair in my dismissal of the examples you gave. If those examples are discussed in the literature of heavy metal as pertaining to race or gender, then they should be considered. I agree that the original proposal for the RfC as written by OnBeyondZebrax is unbalanced and lacks nuance.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I may have appropriated that proposal from someone else but either way, I think it's a good idea. No problem regarding your other point. If anyone has any further, more specific ideas about a separate article then let's see them here or provide a link. That seems to me like the best way to go. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad that we were able to come to a resolution. Any other editors want to comment on this? CombatMarshmallow? OnBeyondZebrax?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@3family6: @CombatMarshmallow: @OnBeyondZebrax:
      What proposal are we talking about here? "that a separate article be created and then merely linked to in this article, or at most a sentence or two constructed"? Does that mean that a new article would be created specifically on gender, race and sexual orientation issues as they apply to heavy metal music, with maybe a sentence or two in the original article and a wiki-link to the new article? That's essentially what I proposed in my last posting. Anyway if that's what we're talking about, I would fully support it.
Richard27182 (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I forgot to ping @Bretonbanquet: Richard27182 (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

One sentence is enough. Blackguard 05:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a sentence or two and a link to a separate article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

One sentence is enough and Propose the Sentence here first.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I wish to retract the claims about race and sexual orientation from the RfC. A sweeping claim about the racial composition of HM bands cannot be supported by a single newspaper article's statement. Similarly, a sweeping claim about the sexual orientation of HM bands cannot be supported by a single newspaper article's statement. However, there are multiple reliable sources that support the statement that the majority of HM performers are male, at least in certain periods of heavy metal history or in certain countries:

• "At least until the mid-1980s, heavy metal was made almost exclusively by male musicians." (Robert Walser, Running with the Devil:Power, Gender and Madness in Heavy Metal Music. Wesleyan University Press, 2014. p. 76)
• "Heavy Metal...is a music genre that is distinctly male:almost all of the performers...are men." (Kenneth M. Nagelberg, The Guide to United States Popular Culture. Popular Press, 2001. p. 373)
• "The...almost exclusively male composition of [heavy metal] bands" in the 1970s and 1980s (Andy Bennett, Cultures of Popular Music. McGraw-Hill Education, 2001. p. 48)
• "heavy metal (coming into prominence in the 1970s and 1980s) was a male-dominated and -oriented music". Women "were rarely members of metal bands." (Jacqueline Edmondson, Music in American Life:An Encyclopedia of the Songs, Style, Stars and Stories that Shaped our Culture. ABC-CLIO, 2013. p. 489)
• "Heavy metal...remains, overwhelmingly male-dominated. But since the beginning–and now maybe more than ever–strong metal women have put up their dukes and got down to it." Eddy lists several female performers and bands, such as Girlschool (Chuck Eddy, "Women of Metal" in Spin. July 1, 2011)
• "[h]eavy metal performers are almost exclusively male", with "exceptions such as [the all-female band] Girlschool being accorded attention most often for their singularity." (Mike Brake. "Heavy Metal Culture, Masculinity and Iconography" in On Record:Rock, Pop and the Written Word. Eds. Simon Frith and Andrew Goodwin. Routledge. p. 87-91)
• According to the Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal, there are few female heavy metal bands. (William Phillips and Bran Cogan. Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal. ABC-CLIO, 2009, p. 7)

A summary of all these sources could be made with a sentence such as "Until the mid-1980s, heavy metal performers were mostly men."OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 13:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be best to have at least one more sentence that covers the other demographic trends.©Geni (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"Until the mid-1980s, heavy metal performers were mostly men. The genre has seen relatively more diverse performers emerge since then."

I'm comfortable with including these two sentences and leaving it at that. Judging by the actual thousands of words written on this subject so far, if the debate continues for too much longer, I might just try to edit it in and be done with it. — Asgardiator ^{Iä! Iä!} 06:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone state why and what the reasoning is for a statement. These statements aren't in other music articles. Does it have to state the Obvious. Like Ive said yesterday anything can be something to learn from. Seems pretty pointless to add something that is true in Most Genres around the World.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

At least seven sources have remarked on the maleness of metal, as OnBeyondZebrax mentioned above. That's approximately one reference per word of the proposed sentence. I'm comfortable with that density of evidence. The sentence will look ridiculous enough as-is with seven^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]} references trailing it.

For the sake and sanity of everyone involved, the sentence should simply be added. In fact, I will do so unless someone provides a convincing argument to the contrary. It's high time that we resolved this discussion. — Asgardiator ^{Iä! Iä!} 18:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the point of stating the obvious. Anyone know the criteria. Never seen this kind of editing. "Music is something heard" CombatMarshmallow (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The lead of Rock music says that "The dominance of rock by white, male musicians has been seen as one of the key factors shaping the themes explored in rock music", and this point is also made in the body of the article, supported by a reference.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

So what would it say something like "The dominance of, male musicians has been seen as one of the key factors in shaping and developing the composition and subject matter explored in heavy metal music" or something similar. Can it be Based on that original sentence at Rock music. Curious.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Metalcore dispute

CombartMarshamallow installed a poor blurry image that he personally took of a little known band by the name Hogans Heroes, a band whose article gets 2000 views on this site. He/she is closely linked to the subject. I could care less about Bullet for My Valentine. What is clear however, from VH1 where they are listed among the main metalcore acts, and from their Billboard chart success which I cited, is that Bullet for My Valentine belong in the article. Killswitch Engage who are listed have less chart success with their albums on Billboard peaking in the 20s. VH1 and Billboard are reliable sources and aren't slanted by personal tastes. That is all I'm going to say on the matter.RyanTQuinn (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

What is "nonsense" You are engaged in an edit war, now currently with at least one Administrator. You have also done about 5 reverts all to your own POV after being told by at least 3 editors and at minimum one administrator, to Stop and Also, to take it to the Talk page, which were ignored and you made reverts anyway, to your own POV. Not nonsense. Truth.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

What is clear from this article is all CombartMarshamallow does is edit war, then throws around the label toward others. "at least one Amininstrator"...hmm lets make stuff up now too shall we? I've no time for games. I want Drmies to comment on this. You are closely linked to the band Hogans Heroes. You have written most of their article and took a blurry photo of them, then installed it on here. What is your involvement with this little known band? RyanTQuinn (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring all the issues regarding edit-warring, I do think the photo for Hogan's Heroes is particularly poor and should be replaced.Doctorhawkes (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

the picture shows what it needs to. heres who added it including one administrator 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=prev&oldid=681543799, 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/73.193.195.69 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=681529999&oldid=681529647 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=681513709&oldid=681510726 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=681508151&oldid=681504472 CombatMarshmallow (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Reading the comments made for those reversions, they are talking about undue weight for BFMV and the fact changes should be discussed on the talk page first, which I'm doing. I'm not advocating including any BFMV stuff, just the exclusion of the Hogan's Heroes photo, which is beyond poor for an article of this calibre. Doctorhawkes (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Ever edit here before. Those edits which you, seem to interpret to your POV. That isn't what they mean or imply. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Anybody can comment here, and all commenters have equal footing. My opinion on this issue is that the band Hogan's Heroes should not be mentioned at all in this article, as they are very little known, and not at all influential in metal. Sputnik and AllMusic do not have a biography on the band, which shows how little known they are. MTV's biography says they are primarily punk, especially skate punk. So let's keep them out of the heavy metal article. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't have any POV. I'm not opposed to anything besides bad photos. I now see that you took the photo and might feel a little defensive, but that photo is well below the quality expected for a featured article.Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It also could have been proposed to add a better photo. Its ok it will all be worked out. I don't feel defensive. The purpose of the photo was to have it that way to just show movement and energy not faces or sweat. It was taken way too far and he actually removed the group completely when he knows from the metalcore page they are a real pioneer. Its no joke. I only made the page because in my music I knew they were before everyone and was told here at wikipedia (around 2006) that they didnt have a page and the only way they would put them in articles the belonged was with a page. I waited 5 or 6 years, then just did it myself.All this stuff "and the band Hogan's Heroes has even less importance" not even accurate. Their importance can never be erased from Music History and being they were one of the first 35 bands ever in the chain retail stores, their importance doesn't rely on "binksternet" opinion. They are the 4th group in the whole state of NJ to ever get in the real retail stores in malls, everywhere, worldwide distribution, in the states Sam Goody, Record World, Tower, everywhere, with their Own Section. Buddy Holly was a few rows away in the vinyl and in the cassette section of hardcore punk they were with all the early minor threat circle jerks black flag cro mags everyone. People forget how small hardcore was and making it to the chain stores for a hardcore band back then was like a band getting a grammy. It was unheard of. The first people (from NJ) were Misfits, Samhain and Adrenaline OD. They had and have metal in their first demo and Bomb Guy Demo both from 1985 and songs are Hosted at American Hardcore movie maker Stephen Blush website. They are no joke.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"It also could have been proposed to add a better photo." That's exactly what I did do.Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I didnt understand replacing it now I do. I know some people in my state that can/should be able to get a picture. Meanwhile their material should be restored. Im not going to start reverting it. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

MTV "bios" are submitted by fans. Im the person who submitted it there. I should still have the password and can make it say "disco". They already had a page made for them and no one added anything to it, so I did. Anyone can, comment. How they got there is a good question. You were just canvassed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Heavy_metal_edits_by_CombatMarshmallow by that edit war editor. Also you aren't familiar how some bands are labels Multiple genres, sure you are. Making like there aren't references from Rolling Stone at their article isn't a good look. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You're not helping your case by showing MTV to be unreliable, as now there are fewer possible sources, and the band Hogan's Heroes has even less importance. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You really should edit what you know. You don't know this genre at all apparently. Its Ok Accuracy will prevail. I make statements about topics I know. So may case isn't to "you". However like I typed Rolling Stone is a Very Reliable source. Keep making pretend I guess. You know, theres a great chance you're mad at me because I am a really good editor and you added something way off from accurate at metalcore and I reverted it and since then https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metalcore&diff=next&oldid=669832482 this is Your Behavior. You are now making pretend they don't have consensus as a Metalcore Pioneer and are not related to Heavy Metal music? Interesting. If you are. Theres proof you already know. All of a sudden its new to you huh.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You stated "Sputnik" have no bio on the band but it Does say Metalcore http://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Hogans-Heroes/55331/ . Revert yourself.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

According to "binkster" who was canvassed by that edit war editor "RyanTQuinn (talk" along with another editor who hasn't participated, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OnBeyondZebrax#Heavy_metal_edits_by_CombatMarshmallow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Heavy_metal_edits_by_CombatMarshmallow they aren't "known" however people sell their releases and discography from all over the world. http://www.discogs.com/sell/list?artist_id=443726&ev=ab.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

"No one knows the band" yet heres Skid Row (American band) members wearing their shirt in Metal Edge magazine 1990 http://www.hardcoreinnonhardcoreplaces.com/?search=&tag_ID=&page=36&PHPSESSID=94a5269b7fd88d232327ef4bcd59ac46 (July 5 2010 post).

Also on the front Cover of heavy Metal Magazine Burrn from Japan http://www.ebay.com/sch/sis.html?_nkw=BURRN%20magazine%203%2090%20Skid%20Row%20Metallica%201990&_itemId=270491174829. from Sebastian's FB Hogan's Heroes Built To Last T-Shirt front cover https://www.facebook.com/sebastianbach/photos/pb.26257129808.-2207520000.1442697481./99635704808/?type=3&theater. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my views on the VH1 website article and Billboard chart figures on BFMV. Whether a source counts as a WP:RS is a complicated matter, to be sure. However, at the start of the guideline, it states that deciding whether a source is an RS should take three elements into account. 1.How reliable is the piece of work? 2. How reliable/authoritative is the author? and 3. How reliable is the publisher (e.g., how much fact-checking and editorial review of the work is done)? The author of the VH1 article on metalcore bands, Samantha Lizzio, does not appear to be an authoritative writer on metal issues. As well, with the VH1 website, as compared with a book or magazine published by a major, reputable publisher, we don't know if Ms. Lizzio's web article was reviewed by a fact-checker or an editor. Regarding the Billboard chart figures, WP:NOR states that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." What I understand that to mean is that we can't just take a record sales figure and use this to prove that Band X is an important metalcore band. I think what the policy is saying is we need to find a secondary source (book, article, etc) which takes the primary source material (Billboard chart figures) and interprets it and explains its significance. If you can find better sources, please provide them.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 02:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

True she is an intern who did copy editing. Anyone can submit an article to VH1 just google search "submit article to VH1" http://www.vh1.com/interact/terms/user_content.jhtml . She interned four months. Wasn't hired to write for them. Its great Bulllet for had great success. Hogan's Heroes are the pioneer of the whole section of metalcore without them and some others after there may not have been a metalcore music to play. Hogan's Heroes fit the whole criteria before there was one. Guitar solos, Metal Guitar sound and techniques, tremolo bar, harmonics, dive bombs, "mosh parts" later called breakdowns in almost Every song since 1984 and more. After studying this all very deeply and it became pretty amazing how many things they are before there was even an new genre name. They were already 6 studio recordings deep with this self titled Worldwide release recorded in 1989 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIq_Q7e14HE, the unreleased 7' recorded in 1988 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQd3EaRdHZqPQn8JdmvHyKQ, both songs appeared re-recorded for the second release, the first release recorded in 1987 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ysiR2kNdVY, even live in 1990 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ShFwKaDDbY&index=1&list=PLCFEAD78095450DAE, playing and sounding in a way most never sounded. Even in 1987 these are both over 1,200 people shows https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ShFwKaDDbY&index=1&list=PLCFEAD78095450DAE. Thought I read there is a thing on wikipedia where something is obvious. The first release recorded in 1987. The next groups formed 4 and 5 years later, 1988 and 1989 respectively. Hogan's Heroes formed 1984. This is 1985 second studio recording https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKzklv6ffSQ&index=2&list=UUUAyAZdfBcL9iRdlbOAlxAw some of, Hosted by Stephen Blush American Hardcore Author and Movie (Performer H) http://www.americanhardcorebook.com/punk24/ . This is studied a Lot. The text needs to be fixed the photo needs to be re-added like 5 of us have done already. They are the start of the recent trend. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"Removing photo and all mention of Hogan's Heroes per WP:UNDUE -- band is unimportant to the topic" this is just Plain Wrong.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Metalcore, a hybrid of extreme metal and hardcore punk, emerged as a commercial force in the mid-2000s decade. Through the 1980s and 1990s, metalcore was mostly an underground phenomenon; pioneering bands include Hogan's Heroesthis whole section removed was already Ok'ed by an administrator. Which can be proven. The reference is what they got by selling a whole lot of units and being in the chain retail stores. Being a "Pop Artist" - Popular Artist. Probably like 4% of all the hardcore punk bands released actually made it in to this book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonolog with Duane Eddy Elvis Sade Eric Clapton KISS etc. Thus why I used it as a reference. I guess it wasnt "clear" by the section titled "POP Artists".CombatMarshmallow (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Politics

I added this information to the metalcore article and to heavy metal. Binksternet (talk claimed I "work for the company" and is telling me I can't edit without asking via a warning. Cant a person just create an article that they understand and put them where they rightfully belong without being accused. Ive been accused of creating stuff after it took hours of searches on google. He claimed they were mage at "google" or something I have no idea. Unreal. Hogan's Heroes, Earth Crisis, and Integrity.

Meanwhile https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/OnBeyondZebrax&offset=&limit=500&target=OnBeyondZebrax created the Deena Weinstein article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deena_Weinstein&action=history and adds Deena Weinstein everywhere possible including at Heavy Metal music page and he doesn't issue a warning there but gives me one claiming I am part of some company.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

References