Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Heavy Metal Country of Origin #2

Hi, I made an edit in accordance with the deliberation seen in the other similarly-named subheading in this talk-page.

Now, I am being edit-warred by a user named Binksternet, who keeps reverting my sourced edit, one I was thanked for by two users, including an administrator of this page.

Can someone please help me out here? There is no justification to keep refuting the edit with no explanation on Binksternet’s part. This user also shut down the talk page we were using to deliberate over it. It seems like a distinct case of bias on his part; he’s looking for any excuse he can to refute an edit he personally disagrees with, one that others have already deliberated upon, agreed upon, and sourced, and he is not abiding by any of the rules I’ve become familiar with on this website. Grafton56 (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I would urge both Grafton56 and Binksternet to cease their edit-warring, before they are both blocked. This is not productive behaviour. Clearly there is disagreement about what is in the article, but this is not the way to resolve it and reach consensus. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, both parties can stop and wait for the SPI results. If Grafton is not block evading, then there is consensus to implement his change. If he is found to be block evading, it’ll likely be reverted per WP:BLOCKEVADE and WP:DENY. That said, based off of the discussions above, it will likely be reinstated in good-faith, in which it’s fair game to be in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Aaaaaand they’ve all been blocked as socks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Inevitably. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hot for Teacher an example of heavy metal?

Hard vaudeville rock maybe... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.49.11 (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say, and there’s already a source at the song’s article for heavy metal. Sergecross73 msg me 23:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

History date changes

I have small change propesitions in the sub history: 1. Origns date should be changed from late 60 and early 70s to the propased date late 60s and 70s Reason: the defining metal albums were released not only in the early 70s but in the mid to late 70s; namely the 70s albums from Judas Priest, Rainbow and Motörhead, before it got Mainstream with the New Wave of British Heavy Metal in 79.

2. Other heavy metal genres date should be changed to 80s and 90s since the genres discussed in the part developed in the 80s and 90s

3. Recent styles date should be changed to Mid 2000s to present since its already the 2020s with no defining era Pennywise.312 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

There’s been a lot of attempts to change it lately. Many have been way too specific for something like designating the general flow of an entire genre music. We need a consensus on what it needs to be changed. That includes what we change it to, and what’s wrong with the current version. Sergecross73 msg me 23:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The articles to rock music and rap music got more clear dates in the last days and the article to jazz music has already a fixed date canon.

It doesnt has to be as specific like the rock or rap article, but its clear that some changes are needed as there are so many attempts for change.

I think only two parts of the history subpart need a change.

1. Orign - stretch it to the whole 70s; the Mainstream subpart date schuld stay the same 2. Recent styles Pennywise.312 (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Etymology question

If William S. Burroughs used the terms "heavy metal people" and "metal music" in his novel "Nova Express" in 1964, then how can the claim be made that the 1967 album "Featuring the Human Host and the Heavy Metal Kids" by "Hapshash and the Coloured Coat" was the first use of the term "heavy metal" in the context of music? Maybe my calendar is out of date, but doesn't 1967 come after 1964? I'm sure that Burroughs didn't have in mind the type of music currently categorized as "heavy metal" today, but the term "metal music" is rather specific in its context. I could see if Burroughs only used the term "heavy metal people", but if he also used the term "metal music" in the same novel as well, to me that's definitively before the 1967 album.

Fgoron2000 (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen the hard policy at WP:No original research? You would need a third party source examining Burroughs and making the same conclusion you make. Your own analysis is not enough for Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2020

Punctuation: missing comma after ripped.

Change (under 1.3 Image and fashion):

The classic uniform of heavy metal fans consists of light colored, ripped frayed or torn blue jeans, black T-shirts, boots, and black leather or denim jackets.

To (classic comma):

The classic uniform of heavy metal fans consists of light colored, ripped, frayed or torn blue jeans, black T-shirts, boots, and black leather or denim jackets.

Or to (Oxford comma):

The classic uniform of heavy metal fans consists of light colored, ripped, frayed, or torn blue jeans, black T-shirts, boots, and black leather or denim jackets.
Schneckenberg (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Nice parsing! I went with classic. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the point of including this racist quote?

"Music critic Robert Christgau called metal "an expressive mode [that] it sometimes seems will be with us for as long as ordinary white boys fear girls, pity themselves, and are permitted to rage against a world they'll never beat".[62]"

What does this add to the article other than being hateful against white people? If a comparable comment was added to an article about a different music style and ethnic group it would (rightly) be deleted within minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:6400:65C0:DC69:879A:9F91:B309 (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems like it's just there to further support the idea that metal lyrics can be misogynistic, as the rest of that paragraph is stating, and it does definitely support that claim. It doesn't seem out of place, and personally I don't see how a quote saying that white guys are scared to talk to girls is "hateful against white people". I'm not sure I understand what the issue could be with it. Issan Sumisu (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. It's a famous high profile journalist's take on the genre. And decidedly not "hateful", it's just not particularly flattering. But we're not a metal fan site writing a love letter to metal music either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

How does that quote support the idea that metal lyrics are misogynistic? 2601:647:6400:65C0:DC69:879A:9F91:B309 (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

It's just an observation that Heavy metal has predominantly a white fan-base. Not its most significant attribute, but the quote is not focussed on that. And, overall, not the most complimentary assessment of the genre, but I don't see the racism. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

How does a quote about the racial makeup of metal fans belong in the section about lyrics, where race is not otherwise mentioned? 2601:647:6400:65C0:DC69:879A:9F91:B309 (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The intrinsic point of the quote is to leverage anti-white and anti-male sentiment to belittle metal fans. The point of its inclusion here is that some editors share those objectives. 72.71.204.196 (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF and dont cast WP:ASPERSIONS. You dont even know who added it, let alone their motivations for adding it. It's from a reliable source, and we'd need a lot better reason to remove it than the fact that you've extrapolated some wild tangential sentiments from it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't removed the quote already despite its intrinsically contentious nature because your objections are quite predictable. Rather than citing various guidelines in an effort to silence me, your time would be better spent either justifying the quote yourself or finding the editor that did include it and asking them for an explanation. 72.71.204.196 (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you think you're in the position to make demands. No one is required to debunk every baseless accusation you throw out. You don't have a policy based reason. You don't have a WP:CONSENSUS. And the page is currently locked from editing. You're the one who needs a better argument. I mean, you do realize that your "anti-white" and "anti-man" sentiment is coming from 79 year old white man, correct? Sergecross73 msg me 02:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm not making demands. That's just an objective fact. Why are you being defensive? Chances are it's because you fit into the category that I described in the first post of this exchange. Regardless, since you aren't engaging in good faith, you probably ought to stop. 72.71.204.196 (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

What does the race of the person who made the statement have to do with whether the statement is racist? 2601:647:6400:65C0:DC69:879A:9F91:B309 (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps "demand" wasn't quite the right word, but that comment was in regards to your comment from you on how I'd "better spend my time" - I don't need advice or guidance on how to participate in this discussion from someone who currently isn't persuading anyone with a policy-based argument. Anyways, I've already given my stance - that the quote is a valid comment by a veteran and prominent music critic, and I've alerted you of violations of AGF and ASPERSIONS, so you're right in that there's really not anything left to say at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 03:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't really care whether you feel you need advice or not. I care about the issue under contention. You've now replied twice with variations of telling me to shut up instead of actually defending the inclusion of the anti-white and anti-male quote being discussed in the first place. You're supposedly an admin — are you aware this isn't a forum? 72.71.204.196 (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I've argued my point, pointed out yours isnt backed by policy or consensus, and alerted you of AGF and ASPERSIONS, of which you have repeatedly violated. No one who understands policy would refer to that as a forum violation. I don't know what I'm supposed to be "guilty" of other than "not agreeing with you". Do you have any other arguments on the matter besides your subjective feelings of not liking it? Or are you just going to just keep casting aspersions on why no one agrees with you? No one has told you to shut up. I'm saying you need a more persuasive reason. Sergecross73 msg me 03:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The only point you've argued is one that was never contended by me or anyone else here, which is that the quote is from someone with qualifications as a music critic. Yes, it is. Irrelevant. The point under contention is that the quote is anti-white and anti-male. Do you think we'll have to go through 5 more exchanges before you're able to address these points? 72.71.204.196 (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

He's not saying that and it's not a valid reason for removal. The fact that it comes from a reliable source is a valid argument for inclusion. That's why you keep hitting a brick wall on this. You're wrong and that's all there is to it. Sergecross73 msg me 03:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Is the brick wall that you're referring to yourself? I can't identify any other source of opposition here: there is no edit war, just you repeatedly defending the inclusion of anti-white material while refusing to address the subject. 72.71.204.196 (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no "anti-white" material here, and you do not provide a convincing reason for removing the quote. This addresses the subject and provides a source of opposition. Consensus does not appear to agree with you. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I happen to think that Christgau's opinions are scattered through Wikipedia far too freely, but he is a well-regarded figure (in the US at least), and there is no good reason not to include his comments here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The reasons not to include the quote are a) it's unrelated to the paragraph and section it's in (metal lyrics), almost reading like a non sequitur, and b) it's pointlessly inflammatory and disparaging of white people. "ordinary white boys fear girls, pity themselves, and are permitted to rage against a world they'll never beat." Well-regarded figures have made all kinds of disparaging statements about various groups, does that mean they should all be included in Wikipedia articles no matter how offensive and irrelevant to the content? 2601:647:6400:65C0:DC69:879A:9F91:B309 (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• He's talking about the lyrical content
• If you have a problem with what this very notable and authoritative music critic has to say, I suggest you write to him and complain.
• "I disagree with him, and I don't like it" is not a reason to remove it from Wikipedia. You are free to disagree and free to dislike it. His opinion is still notable. Frankly, he could be way more insulting and it probably would still be acceptable for inclusion.
• In answer to your last question; yes. If it's notable and authoritative, then it's perfectly ok for Wikipedia to report on their opinion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"He's talking about the lyrical content"

No, he's actually not. He's talking about whether the band Korn is metal.

"Jealous of their turf, Korn deny they're metal; that's Judas Priest, all four-four pomp and guitar solos. But they nevertheless demonstrate that the essence of metal--an expressive mode it sometimes seems will be with us for as long as ordinary white boys fear girls, pity themselves, and are permitted to rage against a world they'll never beat--is self-obliterating volume and self-aggrandizing display."

The context is about metal's "self-obliterating volume and self-aggrandizing display" not about lyrics.

"If you have a problem with what this very notable and authoritative music critic has to say, I suggest you write to him and complain."

This is needlessly rude. You should find another vocation than internet jannie if you aren't enjoying yourself enough to be civil to people. 2601:647:6400:65C0:DC69:879A:9F91:B309 (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what he's saying. "metal--an expressive mode it sometimes seems will be with us... permitted to rage against a world" He's talking about metal which is "an expressive mode", and how else can one "rage" except through using words in the lyrics? The "self-obliterating volume and self-aggrandizing display" is what he thinks Korn demonstrates as "the essence of metal".

You can express rage lots of way other than song lyrics. For example I'm feeling rage right now that I'm wasting my time arguing with an imbecile wiki jannie but I'm not going to sing a song about it. 2601:647:6400:65C0:601D:5DBB:80A7:93D9 (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think I was being rude. I was trying to point out that your problem appears to be with Christgau. This is the wrong place for you to disagree with him. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You didn't come off as rude, that just seems to be the go-to response for the IP when you don't agree with them. The irony being that they're the one resorting to petty name-calling like "internet jannie". It appears they need to be linked to WP:NPA as well. Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Where else did I say someone was rude when disagreeing with me? Maybe you are confusing me with the other person in this thread. 2601:647:6400:65C0:601D:5DBB:80A7:93D9 (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I've assumed all of the anonymous IP edits have been coming from the same editor, as they all share the same writing patterns and bizarre jumps in logic. That's generally the case when anonymous editors appear and congregate in the same place, out of the blue, and nowhere else. Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You should keep your paranoid, moronic assumptions to yourself instead of stating them as facts. You'd be much better at your "job" that way. 2601:647:6400:65C0:C849:4988:F761:938 (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

If you're just going to resort to insulting people, the discussion is going to be closed down and the talk page locked from editing as well. There's no consensus for the proposed removal, and you're not going to move the needle with just devolving into attacking everyone. (Keep in mind no consensus = no change too.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Heavy Metal Navigation Boxes

Could someone please put all the Heavy metal templates in a navigation box (as has been done with Electronica, Rock music, and Punk rock)? 2601:C7:C201:C640:6402:2D5F:20D:8D78 (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL IS POPPY AND ROBERT CHRISTGAU DOING HERE???

The Women in heavy metal section has already tons of overlapping contents with the Characteristics section.

Now you guys bring Poppy over here??? Poppy is not metal. PMRC are posers. And Robert Christgau never likes metal. This section is trash! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vc06697 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

What the hell are you doing here with this attitude? (WP:SHOUT) isento (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

‘Women in Metal’ section balance issues

As a result of edits over the last year or so, the ‘women in metal’ section has acquired a pronounced Anglocentric skew, despite the UK not exactly being known for female metal musicians. The result is that it now devotes more space to documenting the opinions of British journalists, pop stars and non-notable academics, than it does to female metal musicians and their work, and presents an outdated, even stereotypical view of the genre.

Main section (first three paragraphs)

First paragraph (about the history of women in metal) – OK, but rather short. Needs to be expanded.

Second paragraph (about Poppy, Grimes and Rina S) – most of this is puffery based on an Anglocentric opinion piece in the Guardian (not a reliable source of fact). Needs to be trimmed back to just the fact of Poppy’s nomination for the Grammy. Also, the claim of 'first female artist...' is dubious:

• In This Moment was also nominated for the same award in the same year
• The article needs to be consistent on whether Halestorm is a metal band or not. The previous paragraph lists Halestorm as an example of a female fronted metal band, but then doesn't mention that Halestorm actually won the Grammy for the combined category of 'best Hard Rock/Metal performance' in 2012.

The third paragraph about women behind the scenes could probably be expanded, but it’s OK.

Sexism subsection

This is an important and potentially sensitive topic, but the current treatment is Anglocentric (apart from the first short paragraph about the US, it’s entirely about alleged sexism in the UK metal scene), long winded, does not include the views of current female musicians on this topic (for which sources exist i.e. interviews), is peppered with weasel words, contentious terms, and vague or redundant filler phrases, and a large chunk of opinion is copied verbatim from the Hill book but without the context that would be provided by reading the book. It also makes an unsourced claim that Hill is a ‘music academic’ (which doesn't seem to be supported by her ORCID bio).

Eggybacon (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding both sections of concerns - WP:SOFIXIT then. I don't believe anyone's challenging you. Some guy just expanded the section and wasn't able to account for the events of the entire world. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

OK - thank you for the feedback. I will make a start. on this. Eggybacon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was the guy who added the subsection, hastily and impulsively out of surprise that there wasn't anything about the topic in the article before. I don't remember how close my paraphrasing was, and I'm not going to argue over its quality, but I will say that this bio blurb of Hill says she's a university researcher and lecturer on topics related to popular music. So "music academic" seems like a fair description. isento (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yup, and same goes with the concerns about too much on Poppy/Grimes/Rina S. They were just done by some passerby over the course of a day or two. I support a mention of them, but I also support some trimming - all three are probably closer to "Cult following" than "commercial superstars". Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Side note - to be clear, I was actually referring to the guy who wrote all the Poppy stuff, not you, but as you note, it's the same sort of situation. Sergecross73 msg me 22:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2021

The re-direct to "Heavy metal (disambiguation)" should instead go to just "Heavy metal" (since it re-directs to that anyway). WockWole (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

For technical reasons, that cannot be performed. A bot will restore the (disambiguation) redirect. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

High Tide be added to the lead?

Should High Tide be added to the lead? “In 1968, Four of the genre's most important pioneers, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, and High Tide were founded.” They are consider the first proper British heavy metal band. Led Zeppelin wasn’t really heavy metal and Deep Purple didnt become metal until Deep Purple in Rock

Considered by whom? I am very familiar with the genre and I had to look them up. They're light years away from the level of success of the other bands mentioned. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thats not how it works. Do you really thing only bands that have sold over 50 million records can create genres? I am talking about importance to metal not the must popular.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RELIABLESOURCE to say they were influential though, that's the most important part of discussion? Quite a few would probably be needed to establish a consensus strong enough for them to be put in the lead. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. What matters is whether or not reliable sources commonly cited as "important pioneers". This is quite a bold claim, so you're going to want some pretty high profile sources saying it too, not just a passing comment from Loudwire or something. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

They are mentioned here as being important in the creation of british heavy metal. Probably the heaviest band of the 1960s as well.https://www.google.com/books/edition/Who_Invented_Heavy_Metal/o8TJwQEACAAJ?hl=en&kptab=overview --Fruitloop11 (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I just have to throw out here that High Tide are one of my top seven favorite bands of all time, I have read up every bit of material on them I could get my hands on (which is tough to do, due to how incredibly obscure they are), and I have never heard them described as heavy metal before now. It seems like a case of confusing general "heaviness" with heavy metal.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

At the end of the day Metal is rock music. It is rock music that is heavy and is really no different than any other heavy music. They are mentioned a lot when it comes to heaviest bands of the 1960s. --Fruitloop11 (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd personally say that with a few more sources it could be included in the body, but for the lead it seems WP:UNDUE, as the three bands mentioned are cited the majority of the time. The thing is also that, there are so many bands that have been described as starting the genre. For example, I've heard both Gun's debut and some songs off of Clear Light be described as beginning metal, but if we were to include every claim, there would probably be a list of a few hundred songs, albums and bands. Issan Sumisu (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I would agree. The entire article mentions High Tide once, in one sentence, right now. It's unclear why that makes it WP:LEAD-worthy. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Not taking it self so seriously

What, no spinal tap? 2601:248:4601:6FA0:F812:F54E:4B16:712B (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2021

In the first paragraph of section "Death Metal", the sentence beginning "Both groups have been credited with inspiring the subgenre's name, the latter via..." doesn't make sense because it follows a list of three bands, "Florida's Death, San Francisco Bay Area's Possessed, and Ohio's Necrophagia". We should change the "Both" to another phrase like "All three", and change "the latter" to explicitly reference "Possessed" (which is clearly the intended referent, as the linked album "Seven Churches" is a Possessed album). 2A00:23C6:949A:A01:FD75:9EFF:C451:D9E4 (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done . Many thanks! ––Sirdog9002 (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Heavy Metal is not subgenre of Rock

Can i please you to change text "heavy metal is genre of rock music" to "heavy metal is music genre". Because heavy metal is too different to be subgenre of rock. Borutck (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources, not individuals who come here with suggestions. Take a look at the literature and report back afterward. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. Additionally, the proposed wording is pretty awkwardly worded too. Sergecross73 msg me 03:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No. Vortiene (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

2nd FA review on heavy metal music initiated

I created the 2nd FA review on heavy metal music. Please your contributions to the article are welcome. --George Ho (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing FA status

I assumed that prior sections are sufficient enough, like issues about "Women in metal" status raises months ago. However, I was told that the FAR was out of process. I... I fail to see how, but to please others, here I am discussing the article's other problems. Four audio samples are still used, but I wonder whether they add anything else besides identifying what the genre sounds like. Also, some or many statements are tagged as uncited and/or "better source needed". One editor at FAR discussion pointed out that the article is dated, if not outdated. The article may need either rewrite or copyediting; that's just a random guess as I was skimming through the article. George Ho (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Pro-punk bias

The article contains numerous claims about the supposed influence of punk rock. This is mere opinion unless backed by sales figures or quotes from key metal musicians about how this could have occurred. Punk rock seemed to be most influential in the United Kingdom, but even then, very few punk albums had good chart success. For years, pro-punk people have been claiming and straining to convince others (usually just by sheer repetition) about how influential the style supposedly was. The evidence I see claims the opposite. Sales of heavy metal albums were huge compared to the puny likes of The Ramones. When I Googled a list of the top-selling punk albums of all time, the results were a set of 10 albums that all came out between 1994 and 2004, completely irrelevant for the rise of metal to the mainstream as described here. Punk rock sales did better in British charts than in American charts, and so where is the evidence that the big labels were all promoting punk rock, let alone that punk actually succeeded in displacing any other sales? All the hard evidence I've seen suggests that the impacts of punk rock was extremely limited, except to the extent that a few apologists could eventually convince others to repeat their dubious and over-simplified claims. (One of the key perpetrators of this fiction was probably Rolling Stone magazine, it seems, although I don't know why.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.240.117.95 (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've watched over (but not written) this article for many years, and I can't really say that's been a common point of contention. There's been a fair number of disputes over the years, and the article is not perfect by any means. But "pro punk propaganda" hasn't really been one of them... Sergecross73 msg me 21:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Punk rock was not a commercial success, but it's influence was quite substantial on both rock and pop, it's well-documented. I say that as not a fan of punk. —Confession0791 ^talk 22:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2022

Hi! This is my request: add this book (I am the author of it) in the bibliography chapter: Azzam Gómez, Marcos (2020). La Literatura en el Heavy Metal. Salamanca: LC Ediciones. ISBN 978-84-121754-4-8 (Thanks a lot!) 89.130.63.67 (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Refer to WP:conflict of interest. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The country where heavy metal comes from

The first official heavy metal bands (Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple) came from the UK. I think everyone can say that the genre is British and I don't think that development has developed as well in the UK as elsewhere; I don't think the United States helped develop the genre just because Alice Cooper, Kiss, Aerosmith, Van Halen and so on. adopted the style quite late in its formation, although even the US helped develop the genre is quite underdeveloped, there were examples of non-US bands that can be classified as heavy metal, such as Buffalo (Australia) and Flower Traveler 'Band (Japan), and the wiki page does not include them. I therefore call for the removal of the United States or any country other than the United Kingdom. Luis Trexxxx (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:OR to me. Ultimately the sources we use say that these bands and the US contributed to the development of heavy metal, so we say it too. — Czello 13:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

What makes a heavy metal band "official"? This has been discussed a number of times on this talk page before and is sourced in the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

ok, I wrote more than I should have apologized for the mistake. In short, I wanted to explain that the US had no influence on heavy metal music and I demand that it be eliminated and what has come to form the subculture, traditional heavy metal and NWOBHM is exclusively British, and the American bands mentioned above from the 60's and 70 adopted the style quite late. Luis Trexxxx (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

No. Vortiene (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

You haven't added anything to the discussion other than your opinion. Where precisely is the article wrong where it discusses genre origins within the United States? What sources do you have to back this up? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The prior discussion of this is available here. I personally support the inclusion of the U.S. due to much of the reasons cited in that discussion. Issan Sumisu (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't have an article and I don't understand why I should have one when I look at this page and I don't see any major US influence, and secondly I express my opinion because this is a talk page where if someone has a question or I see something wrong, I need to be informed on this talk page. Please show me if you can, where I'm wrong that on the wikipedia page more precisely in history: "Origins: late 1960s and early 1970s" I do not see any major American influence on Heavy Metal and I would ask you to clarify with a few articles and some Influential troops from that period so we can conclude this discussion, thank you. Luis Trexxxx (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

You are free to express your opinions on the talk page, but you are not allowed to write the article according to your opinion alone. You need to write it according to what reliable sources can verify. It's an encyclopedia, not an opinion piece in a newspaper. Sergecross73 msg me 03:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the "Origins: late 1960s and early 1970s" section? I count seven American bands mentioned by name in the first four paragraphs. Are they wrong? Who says? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

To add to this - does someone want to re-instate the reference that discusses place of origin? There was a Richard Havers article that was posted as a source that was mysteriously deleted: . And to the points being made by Luis Trexxxx, I'm not sure how you're claiming Alice Cooper, Jimi Hendrix, Blue Cheer, Ronnie James Dio and Elf, Pentagram, and the other American bands listed as influences, don't qualify as metal, when they were releasing music that sounded almost indistinguishable from the likes of Sabbath, Zeppelin, and Deep Purple around the same time period. 98.253.186.130 (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Luis Trexxxx is right heavy metal does not belong to American cultures and if a source was not mentioned I found one https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9781315569499-2/birmingham-andrew-cope 46.97.176.135 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

One book by one person doesn't negate all other sources. Maybe opinions differ. And that's even if the book said that Heavy Metal did not arise in America, which the summary sourced doesn't. It seems to discuss Birmingham only. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

References

This is basically your opinion, and saying that the US didn't made any contributions to heavy metal is just a very personal view, the number of editors disagreeing, the view on this in British or American media, and more importantly, the sources in this articles are just good indicators of that, there are various sources endorsing what was added here. This is mainstream knowledge as well (Not that it is a pre-condition, it isn't). Wikipedia is not the proper place for original research, and biases in general. This is also not the best place to expose your opinions on what's being discussed in the article, you can say, however, that the source was biasedly and improperly used. Sawyersx (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Heavy metal and classical music

The final paragraph of section 1.1.4 "Relationship with classical music" makes unfounded & uncited claims while suggesting the connection between metal and classical is largely spurious. Furthermore, the sole citation provided does not provide much evidence to support the arguments made. There is a wide body of published musicology literature documenting the strong similarities between metal & classical compositions. There was a phase in the 1980s that musicologists have referred to as metal's "period of classicization" (Heritage, 2016).

Most of the information provided in section 1.1.4. is very misinformed. I came here to recommend a serious reworking of this section which currently reads like "gatekeeping" and is not in line with contemporary musicology. There are many facets of metal and a good number have strong similarities to classical composition.

Each of the following articles, books, and primary sources contain a section on various commonalities between heavy metal and classical music (or an example, in the case of primary sources). In particular, the Lilja (2009) & Heritage (2016) reviews are the most thorough analyses. Each have multiple sections on heavy metal connections to "High Art" vs. popular music and chronicles the history of the "Metallization of the High Art Aesthetic".

1. Adorno, T. W. (1969). On the problem of musical analysis (Max Paddison, Trans.). In Leppert, R. (Ed.). (2002). Essays on music (pp. 162–180). Berkley, CA; London: University of California Press.
2. Bacon, T., & Wheelwright, L. (2014). Electric guitar. Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/A2256412 (accessed October 15, 2021).
3. Bangs, L. (1992). Heavy metal. In A. DeCurtis & J. Henke (Eds.), The Rolling Stone illustrated history of rock and roll, 3rd ed. (pp. 452–454). New York: Random House.
4. Berelian, E. (2005). The rough guide to heavy metal. London, New York: Penguin.
5. Bosso, J. (2012). Interview: Zakk Wylde on Randy Rhoads. Available at: http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/interview-zakk-wylde-on-randy-rhoads-534858 (accessed October 11, 2019).
6. Brown, A. R. (2015). ‘Everything louder than everyone else’: The origins and persistence of heavy metal music and its global cultural impact. In A. Bennett & S.Wacksman (Eds.), The Sage handbook of popular music genres (pp. 261–277). London: Sage.
7. Christe, I. (2003). Sound of the beast: The complete head banging history of heavy metal. New York: HarperCollins.
8. Dahlhaus, C., Anderson, J., Wilson. C., Cohn, R., Hyer, B. (2014). ‘Harmony’. Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/50818 (accessed December 23, 2019).
9. Eliot, T. S. (1948). Notes towards the definition of culture. Reprint (1983). London: Faber.
10. Elliott, J. (2006). Interviewed by Dave Fanning for Talks with Dave Fanning. Sky Arts 1 Television (broadcast March 14, 2013).
11. Fly, D. (2007). Neo-classical metal music. Available at: http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/lessons/music_styles/neo-classical_metal_music.html (accessed September 30, 2019).
12. Griffiths, P. Neo-classicism. (2014). In A. Latham (Ed.), The Oxford Companion to Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/opr/t114/e4701 (Accessed September 30, 2019).
13. Heritage, G., 2016. 4 ‘It’s Like a Mach Piece, Really’. Global Metal Music and Culture, p.50.
14. Johannson, J. (2011). Metal evolution. Part 10: Power metal. Sky Arts 1 Television (broadcast September 22, 2012).
15. Laermans, R. (1992). The relative rightness of Pierre Bourdieu: Some sociological comments on the legitimacy of postmodern art, literature and culture. Cultural Studies, 6(2), 248–260.
16. Leichtentritt, H. (1973). Music, history and ideas, 15th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. Lilja, E., 2009. Theory and analysis of classic heavy metal harmony. Advanced Musicology.# Lynch, G. (2014). Thirty great guitarists—Including Steve Vai, David Gilmour and Eddie Van Halen—Pick the greatest guitarist of all time. Available at: http://www.guitarworld.com/30–30-greatest-guitarists-picked-greatest-guitarists?page=0,5(accessed October 12, 2018).
18. Malmsteen, Y. J. (2011). Metal evolution. Part 10: Power metal. Sky Arts 1 Television (broadcast September 22, 2012).
19. Middleton, R. (1990). Studying popular music. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
20. Osbourne, O. (1997). Goodbye to romance. On The Ozzman cometh: The best of Ozzy Osbourne [CD liner notes]. New York: Sony Music.
21. Pachelbel’s Canon. (2014). Wikipedia. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachelbel’s_Canon (accessed October 13, 2019).
22. This Is Spinal Tap. (1984). Directed by Reiner, R. [DVD] (2004). Los Angeles, CA: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
23. Walser, R. (1993). Running with the devil: Power, gender and madness in heavy metal music. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.
24. Whittall, A. (2014). Neo-classicism. Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/19723 (accessed September 30, 2019).
25. Wilton, P. (2014). Heavy metal. In A. Latham (Ed.), The Oxford Companion to Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/opr/t114/e3192 (accessed September 30, 2020).
26. Wood, M. (1991). Rising stars. Turn up the volume 1. Directed by C. Foglio & W. Isham [DVD] (2000). Huntingdon: Quantum Leap.

trees (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Heavy metal is misogyny?

The article says the following, in the introduction: "The lyrics and performances are usually associated with aggression and machismo, an issue that has sometimes led to accusations of misogyny."

It's no secret that the heavy metal songs are agressive. However, the problem consists in associating the genre to machismo and misogyny. Firstly, those are too subjetive concepts. Secondly, that being exposed in the introduction, it seems vehement. In addiction, it's been used the word "usually". These kind of speech more or less asserts that that's what people of heavy metal do: to be misogynist. That's a great prejudiced to whom listen to the genre.

I endure a petition to the removal of the excerpt above. Lucas Alves Franceschetti (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say, and they said that. Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The excerpt was fundamented in only one source. And the Wikipedia readers expect more have more confidence in the information provided. Besides, how can you say it's an relieble source? That's difficult to prove. I suggest to remove the excerpt or to add a contrary proposition in a dialectical form, because we live in democracy, and that means more than one point of view. Lucas Alves Franceschetti (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a democracy, and there are weight considerations when presenting different views. --George Ho (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We see that Wikipedia proposes to be a neutral zone, no political bias. You see: "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 editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another".

It clearly promotes one particular point of view over another. Therefore Wikipedia is not doing what it says will do. Lucas Alves Franceschetti (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Based on that monologue, I'd guess you have little understanding of what Wikipedia does. The irony here is that what you're citing actually hurts your case. The current wording has no editorial slant - it's written according to a reliable source. Removing sourced content just because you, an editor, personally don't agree with it, on the other hand, would be the definition of editorial bias. Attempting to whitewash negative sentiment you disagree with is editorial bias. Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Please note that "accusations of misogyny" doesn't mean that the music itself is "misogynistic". It's just summarizing what commentators have said. You should find Andrew Cope's commentary in the "Lyrical themes" subsection. --George Ho (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand. This is the very first paragraph of the article about an expansive entire genre of music. It seems bizarrely weighted to have it included there.

The obvious comparison: Metal has been accused of being violent and satanic far more publicly and more often than misogynistic, so why wouldn't that be included?

By what measurement are editors saying anything should be in the first paragraph? My concept: The first paragraph should focus on what it is agreed about it, not than what some groups think about it because that's endless.

Examples of why violence would clearly be more interesting to mention:

- The Judas Priest suicide message lawsuit

- The Judas Priest suicide message lawsuit

- Ozzy Osbourne Suicide Solution lawsuit

- Marilyn Manson and the Columbine shootings

- Black Metal in the 90s (arson, murder)

- The PRMC debacle: (note the lyrical content section does not include misogyny) 121.99.212.198 (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding a mentions of violence or satanism, but still very opposed to metal fans still trying to whitewash documented claims of misogyny. Sergecross73 msg me 03:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

There's a whole Sexism section in the article, so clearly nothing's being whitewashed. What I'm saying is it read's quite silly with one randomly selected view in an intro paragraph.

There's an academic article here that argue metal's "abrasive tone and dystopian language implicitly and explicitly attacks norms, religion, the economic and political status quo, and social injustice." And I think that would be just as strange to have as a tagline.

My question was: where is the line for the first paragraph on a genre of music? People have over the years claimed metal is "bogan", occult, detrimental to the traditional American family, homophobic, satanic, racist, violent, causes suicide, causes anti-social behaviour, causes alcohol/drug addiction, is directly playing a part in bringing about the antichrist etc. 121.99.212.198 (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

But that's just it - per WP:LEAD, major points of the article should be covered briefly in the intro. If it has its own section, then it should be mentioned in the intro. And yes, there's been editors who want/try to erase the entire section too, so the attempts to whitewash over the years is very real. Sergecross73 msg me 10:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you can find additional sources to speak about opposing viewpoints to these accusations of mysogyny discussed in the article. As with the opposing viewpoint from Andrew Cope discussed by George Ho. Vortiene (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't belong in the lede. It should be under a "Reception" or "Criticism" section. —Confession0791 ^talk 10:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree, having in the lead is WP:UNDUE weight. — Czello 11:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with the original poster, the word 'mysoginy' here is absolutely inappropriate. There's deep issues about liberal and leftist bias in Wikipedia, this is an extreme example of narratives common to such groups that are added in a biased sense, and are not deleted from Wikipedia even after an editor raises the question and proposes changes. This is, like mentioned before, WP:UNDUE weight. Sawyersx (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, the sources making the claim originate from the early 2000s, well before culture wars of the last few years you're referring to. That prose in question was written many years ago as well. Please don't muddy the water with that sort of drama, what you're referring to is unrelated. Sergecross73 msg me 22:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wich years specifically? When a specific time lapse was cited in my reply here? You are the only claiming cultural wars here, and you are also trying to say that it didn't apply to the times of the sources used here. This is your opinion. You are trying to distort the topic with your accusations of drama, but the critics here are absolutely valid. Please don't muddy the water with personal opinions about cultural wars and their time lapses. Sawyersx (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Gauging by your reaction, you're probably not following what I'm saying here. The sources in the article say they were written 2000 and 2005. I don't know who added the prose, (I didn't) or when they did it, I'm just saying the sources themselves were written well before the time people were using terms like "leftist bias". If someone were trying to push a "liberal agenda" or whatever, to me, it seems like they'd chose a source from the last 4-5 years, not something from 22 years ago. It was not meant as commentary on your social/political views, just commentary that it doesn't appear you looked into the situation very clearly before starting to throw around accusations. (Something you also done with your follow up comment.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

"Misogyny" in lead

An earlier discussion on this talk page questioned the use of the misogyny in this article. The consensus was clearly that the claim was well sourced, and should remain. However, a further debate broke out about whether it's appropriate for it to be in the WP:LEAD, even more pronounced that it's in the very first paragraph. Users such as Confession0791, Sawyersx, and myself argued that it was WP:UNDUE weight for it to be in the lead, and should instead remain in a reception or criticism section. After HALitosis 9K and myself removed this, Sergecross73 has argued that there is not a clear enough consensus to remove this from the lead yet, so I'm starting this thread.

Here is the question: should an issue that has sometimes led to accusations of misogyny. be removed from the first paragraph and the lead of this article, and instead be kept to one of the subsections in the body? (Lyrical themes, sexism, or a new reception/criticism section?) — Czello 07:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• I am arguing remove from lead as I believe it to be WP:UNDUE, especially for the very first paragraph. There are only two mentions of misogyny in the lyrical themes section, which is what the lead is referring to. Therefore, current prominence of it in the lead clearly shows a big WP:WEIGHT issue. I think it's appropriate to be in the lead of Heavy metal lyrics, for example, as it is discussed more in-depth in that article and also is joined by other lyrical themes, and is altogether more appropriate. However, it looks very out-of-place in this article's lead. — Czello 07:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Czello and argue for the removal of this line from the lead. The inclusion of this line strikes me as out of place for the lead and would be better situated under the lyrics section. Being placed in the lead gives it undue weight, as stated by Czello.

Likewise, there are other articles on music genres that have no mention of accusations of misogyny in their leads, despite the existence of such accusations at an equal or higher frequency than heavy metal music. That inconsistency should also weigh towards the removal of this line from the lead, as it appears to run counter to our goals of neutrality. HALitosis 9K (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Retain per WP:LEAD, which says all major concepts should be summarized in the intro. There's an entire sourced section about sexism in the article. Majority of the arguments from people trying to remove it have been inexperienced editors more concerned with defending their preferred genre than accurately portraying the genre. Which is certainly not uncommon on Wikipedia - its happened all the time in the last decade of me keeping an eye on the article - but not acceptable all the same. I'm open to tweaking the wording, but not the outright removal. (Though let's keep in mind, the wording is already soft as it is, with wording like "has lead to accusations of misogyny".) Sergecross73 msg me 11:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  In regards to the sexism section: much of this section deals with sexism within the metal community. Once that's stripped away the mentions relating to lyrics I do not find carries sufficient WP:WEIGHT to find its way to the lead. On a side note, I find the idea that the majority of people seeking to remove it being an WP:IDONTLIKEIT situation to be a straight-up assumption of bad faith. I don't think any of us have indicated that. — Czello 11:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  The opening paragraph in the section is centered entirely around the music/musicians themselves, and a very basic search shows that there's no shortage of sources saying the same thing. I'd be happy to expand it, if that's the problem here. We've got:

  1. https://www.vice.com/en/article/rb8bnd/death-metal-misogyny
  2. https://www.houstonpress.com/music/metals-problem-with-women-is-not-going-away-anytime-soon-7858411
  3. https://www.kerrang.com/how-brutal-death-metal-is-confronting-its-misogyny-problem
  4. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/11/the-never-ending-debate-over-women-in-metal-and-hard-rock/247795/
  5. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/may/04/this-is-the-most-exciting-moment-ive-experienced-the-artists-changing-the-face-of-metal
  6. https://loudwire.com/double-standard-women-rock-metal/

  This is precisely why I say it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT/fans trying to protect what they like - type stuff going on here. A simple search found a litany of sources about misogyny in metal music. It is not a rare observation by any stretch of the imagination. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Remove or rewrite lead entirely – The lead also doesn't include anything about "Image and fashion," "Physical gestures," "Fan subculture," "Etymology," "Women in metal" or the last 40 years of history of the genre. It's not like we're just excluding one thing from the lead, we're excluding a lot in the summarization. I guess you could call the sexism section a "Controversy" section, which I do often see summarized in leads, but only when it's essential to the understanding of the subject. I don't think sexism is essential to understanding heavy metal, especially not within the first two sentences. Additionally, I think the mention in its current iteration feels kind of shoehorned into the first paragraph. I would however support rewriting the whole lead and incorporating sexism in a better way. Maybe a new paragraph that includes some of the aforementioned sections that aren't represented in the lead, then mention that it's a male-dominated genre, which has lead to sexism and misogyny (or something more elegantly structured). I would also not oppose the creation of a metal version of the Misogyny in rap music article. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Fully fine with rewriting or reworking. Just against the wholesale removal. Sergecross73 msg me 21:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – Going back to something HALitosis 9K brought up, "[T]here are other articles on music genres that have no mention of accusations of misogyny in their leads, despite the existence of such accusations at an equal or higher frequency than heavy metal music." Whether it's decided to keep this included in the lead or not, above all else, this article should be consistent with articles of other genres. —Confession0791 ^talk 22:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Completely WP:UNDUE, not even Hip hop music has it in its lead --FMSky (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  No.....whole lead needs to be rewritten. Moxy- 02:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think this is a good point. There's an entire stand-alone wiki page on misogyny in rap music [1] & yet there is no mention of misogyny in the hip hop/rap articles (let alone in the intro)... Not even in the horrorcore rap article. I think including this in the introductory paragraph for heavy metal risks (further) alienating female readers or distorting our perspective from the get-go. trees (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• With the lead as it currently is, I support removal of the concerned quote. I would not be opposed to the inclusion of mention of misogyny if the lead is rewritten in the way Fezmar suggests, but I agree with their point about it feeling shoehorned in. I also want to emphasise HALitosis' point about other genres not including similar mention in their leads (such as rock music despite it having a section about this very subject titled "Role of women"); this question may be further reaching than just this page and could lead to a greater overhaul of numerous genre articles. QuietHere (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with a sentance (as it is now), but could we counterbalance it with mention of female lead or fully composed bands from the late 90s on. Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  Ps, I think that the misogyny was mostly 80s, and doesn't apply anymore. Anyhow, anybody up for adding a sentance or the rise of female metal bands, many of whom were concurrent with or came from the Riot grrrl movement? Considering how metal clean up its act on many fronts from the early 90s on, a negative comment could be turned into a positive here. Ceoil (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  The six sources I provided above are all from the last ten years, and not strictly retrospectives about the 80s either. One headline is literally about "metals problem with women" not going away. I'm all for tweaking/rewording/whatever beyond just outright deletion, but I don't think the sentiment is that it's a historical problem long cleared up decades ago... Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Retain I see enough coverage of the subject in the article to warrant mention somewhere in the lead. Whether the lead could be improved generally, or whether it sufficiently covers other topics, is another question. Popcornfud (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
• Rewrite It is a huge article with many sections and a somewhat controversial topic. In my opinion, the lead is too thin and it needs to cover more issues than the ones now in it. Misoginy is only a small aspect of the social and cultural impact of heavy metal and should remain only if those other aspects are shortly addressed. Lewismaster (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Why should it be removed if the other problems aren't fixed? That would mean a significant element of the body would be removed from the article lead, and the other problems still wouldn't be fixed. Popcornfud (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Because it would be misguiding for the casual reader to highlight only one aspect and neglect the others. The article is not biased (WP:BIASED), but the lead could appear to be so. This does not mean that the sentence reports a false fact and it could remain while the intro is reworked. However, if the intro has to stay as it is that sentence has too much weight. Lewismaster (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Fairies Wear Boots by Black Sabbath is not about drugs

as Hand of Doom is not anti war. Fairies Wear Boots is about British skinheads (not Nazis at the time), written after the band was attacked by a group of them before a show. Hand of Doom is the song about drugs/addiction. 134.215.233.77 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Metal is not a subgenre of rock. It is it's own genre.

. 64.231.180.24 (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Every musicologist says it is a subgenre. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we go by what reliable sources say, not unexplained statements by anonymous editors. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Please change this. There is a big difference between the Rolling Stones, and Cannibal Corpse 138.34.52.248 (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

No. The genre of "rock music" covers a vast range, includes "metal", and encompasses both the Rolling Stones and Cannibal Corpse. Find a reliable source that says anything different and it will be given proper consideration. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Even outside of the fact that your argument doesn't gel with Wikipedia policy, it's a flawed argument even in a general sense. There's also huge differences between Cannibal Corpse, Ghost (Swedish band), and Led Zeppelin, but they're all frequented cobsidered to fall under the umbrella term of heavy metal. There's often large variations between bands of the same genre too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Misogyny in lead

Hate to bring this up again, but. Have come full circle on this, and think its not really fair, as we are talking about a tiny minority of bands here, who mostly date from the long maligned 80s hair metal scene. Its simply not fair to tarnish the whole "approach to music" with blemishes by a bunch of (mostly LA) musicians who were anyway just trying to shock as best they could; and the misogyny was more in the MTV videos designed by the major label record companies, although some of those bands were not innocent either. You could certainly see some of it coming back in the latter days of Nu Metal, but that period is largely disgraced, and given how metal has been developing in the last 15 years, with emph on musicianship, I think this is a very broad brush to paint a distant speck. Ceoil (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with your recent softening of the wording, if you're just referring to that. But still very against its complete removal. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Great! I also think a softened version should stay, but I might go further still in pin-pointing; hang on. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, just don't go too far. It's not that pinpointed. We've got high level sources calling it things like a "never-ending problem. It's more than just Fred Durst cranking out a couple questionable singles decades ago or something. Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2022

The Beatles were the first band to feature the heavy metal devil's horns on their album cover, Yellow Submarine. 2600:1700:5AC0:4000:8D49:9B7:82C8:ACFF (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

"Influences of other musical styles on Heavy Metal" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Influences of other musical styles on Heavy Metal has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4 § Influences of other musical styles on Heavy Metal until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"Heavy metal in Islamic countries" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Heavy metal in Islamic countries has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4 § Heavy metal in Islamic countries until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

There should be a criticism section..there are plenty of people myself included who hate it..there is a reason why they play it continuously at high volume in the Guantanamo Bay prison..there is a reason why they play at high volume period..it`s the only way they can get people to listen to it..at least there`s a point to rap it`s political..music is a combination of technique and interpretation..it`s all technique and despite what you`ve been told is not technically challenging lacks dynamics and interpretatively flat..comparing heavy metal to classical music is absurd..folk music is closer to classical music..so is jazz..classical music is by definition music that stands the test of time 2600:1702:2340:9470:C49C:E9ED:A1F:3338 (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:CSECTION. You're free to add some reliably sourced content about the negative reception of metal music, but piling up a bunch of negative content in a dedicated section isn't really the way to do it. Sergecross73 msg me 03:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

there is no way I`m going to waste a moment`s more of my time on this article..I`ve made my point..you may not believe this but there are people who don`t like opera..a lifetime studying music as well as drama maybe to get a 30 second spot in a company..there is no accounting for taste 2600:1702:2340:9470:2857:2879:FFF4:1410 (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay then. May someone be inspired to write by your idle complaining then. Sergecross73 msg me 21:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Or add a fully cited "Opera suxs" section to the Opera page ;) Its the same thing, and see how long that lasts. Ceoil (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep in mind talk pages are meant to discuss how to improve the article, not for discussing your feelings of the topic. —Confession0791 ^talk 14:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Much of the scholarly focus of the "noise" of heavy metal and rock in general, such as volume, feedback, distortion, etc., is already in the noise in music article. I'd say take a look at that first.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear community opposition (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

---

• Heavy metal music → Heavy metal
• Heavy metal → Heavy metal (disambiguation)

– Obviously the primary topic by a large margin. The only other thing that qualifies, Heavy metals, is already accounted for by being listed in its plural form. And then having a hat note like that "(This article is about the music genre. For the chemical elements, see heavy metals. For other uses, see heavy metal (disambiguation) " -- FMSky (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: pages with content, such as Heavy metal, are ineligible to be new titles in move requests unless they, too, are dispositioned. "Heavy metal → Heavy metal (disambiguation)" was added to this request to meet that requirement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that this exact move has been rejected at least twice previously:

• Talk:Heavy metal§Move? Dec 2011
• Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 11§Requested move 17 April 2016

the first one was a completely different proposal --FMSky (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

How so? The proposal was to move the disambiguation page from "Heavy metal" to "Heavy metal (disambiguation)". It was part of a malformed request to move the dab page so that the genre article could take its place (or have a redirect). Omair00 had made some clumsy attempts to cut and paste the contents -- which was quickly reverted. Omair00 then made this malformed and poorly articulated request to "revert" that reversion of their cut and paste move. older ≠ wiser 11:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Suggest to clarify with data whether there has been any substantive change that might affect the previous determinations. older ≠ wiser 16:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Addendum, there was another move discussion in Nov 2008 resulting in moving the dab page back to heavy metal (it had been boldly moved in May 2006--I can't find any corresponding discussion). older ≠ wiser 16:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• oppose doesn't meet WP:PT1 the music article gets less than half half of the DBA traffic [2]—blindlynx 16:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

probably because people who are looking for the genre (and expecting to find that by just searching for "heavy metal") are getting redirected to the disambig page instead --FMSky (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

my point is more than half of the outbound traffic from the dab page is to something else, so clearly the music isn't what the majority of people searching for 'heavy metal' are after17:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC) —blindlynx 17:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

ah ok, now i get it --FMSky (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

sorry for not being clear —blindlynx 18:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Heavy_metal indicates that in May '23 there were 1.4k incoming views, and in turn 837 outgoing views of the proposed primary topic, which is about 60%. This is typically not indicative of a clear primary topic by usage, but it's certainly debatable. It is however especially unclear because we see 346 incoming views coming *from* the proposed primary topic, so that's a bit confusing. I would prefer to track this data for a few months to try to figure out if this month's snapshot is an aberration or a part of a pattern. --Joy (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I wondered if this could be because of ambiguous incoming redirects. WhatLinksHere indicated a few possibilities like heavy-metal, all metal and even metal band which could conceivably be meant as chemistry terms or typos for chemistry terms? I checked https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/redirectviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-90&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&page=Heavy%20metal%20music but that didn't seem to indicate clearly what it could be, beyond a couple of hundred views of "metal band" and "metal rock"; at the same time it's unlikely that all of those views were ambiguous. Still, it might make sense to disambiguate those and see what the readers do with them. --Joy (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The fact that the chemistry concept is at a plural title is irrelevant, as it is not an obligate plural like pants or scissors. This is borne out in uses in text:

• Pyura chilensis: "Vanadium is a heavy metal, considered toxic at any more than incidental levels"
• Conflict in the Niger Delta: "Lead is a heavy metal that accumulates around regions that produce extreme amounts of fossil fuels"
• Hyperaccumulator: "Thlaspi ochroleucum, is a heavy metal-tolerant plant, but it accumulates much less Zn in the shoots"
• Reproductive toxicity: "Cadmium is a heavy metal used in jewelry making, electronics, welding and galvanizing steel"
• Leaded copper"Lead is a heavy metal toxin".

Any one of the examples of metals in that group is individually called a "heavy metal", and that concept is of greater historical significance than even the most awesome of music genres. BD2412 T 02:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose the medical topic is quite prominent. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't understand what the problem is. Searching for 'Heavy metal" already takes me to a disambig page. Sandbh (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you even know what this discussion is about? --FMSky (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Evidently not, in terms of its benefit. Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

You should probably take a closer look at what is being proposed here. No one is suggesting things aren't working right, they're contemplating what content should be located at each location. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

What content should be located at each location seems to work fine. If the proposal is that this could be made better then I'm not seeing the business case for so doing. Sandbh (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not necessary. —Confession0791 ^talk 03:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Amazing argument --FMSky (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Heavy metals can obviously also be seen in the singular. And there's nothing wrong with appending "music" for clarity. Unless you don't actually think it is music of course... -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2023 (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.

"Soul metal" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Soul metal has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 27 § Soul metal until a consensus is reached. Tollens (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2023

Add the Oxford comma to the lists of 3 contained in this article. PlantRulx (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: MOS:SERIAL the Oxford comma is not required, as long as it is consistant within the article. RudolfRed (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Metal is it's own genre, not another rock subgenre. Please change.

Change it 38.143.53.98 (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion isn't shared by music critics and musicologists. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

We go by the stances of professional music publications, not anonymous opinions on the internet. Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)