Talk:New wave of British heavy metal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Article merged: See old talk-page here —Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualSteve (talk • contribs) 23:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

NWOBHM history

(Edit on 22/08/2009) - Motorhead weren't NWOBHM, all references to them removed for obvious reasons.

Motorhead now reliably sourced. magnius (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(25/08/09) Reliably sourced? How about from someone other than those sure-fire experts in Heavy Metal, BBC News? Or maybe AllMusic next, those who consider Priest NWOBHM, for the same reason - selling big c. 1980? Edited to remove this idiocy from someone who obviously doesn't understand what Motorhead predating the NWOBHM means.

Iron Maiden were formed on Xmas day 1975. IN which year were Motorhead formed? QED.MarkCertif1ed (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

(5 November 2009) The BBC source was a mirror of Wikipedia's Motorhead page, and thus not a reliable source. I altered it to the reference used in the Motorhead article. (I don't think they belong at all, but I'd rather not re-open that can of worms.) 64.24.25.76 (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Does the whole second paragraph of the history section look like drivel to anyone else? It's the same sort of weasel words and uncited ranting that you'd find in an 8th grade report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.149.134 (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Connection between Traditional Heavy Metal and Power Metal? I fail to see much connection between Motörhead and Blind Guardian. Admittedly, Motörhead's not the best representative of "Traditional Heavy Metal," if there is such a thing, but I still don't see it. Maybe power metal is descended with Judas Priest and Iron Maiden, but so is... well, almost all of metal. --leigh

No German metal bands on the list? Why? While not acctually from Britain they were in the same timeline, shared the same musical influences, played largely the same kind of music, used the English language and interacted with the British scene a great deal.

I agree, Scorpions should be on here, even though they were German they still played heavy metal and NWOBHM.

Scorpions? What the hell? Let me explain what the NWOBHM was; it lasted from roughly 1979-83/4, and was made up of British metal bands, Many of whom were very young and using the punk-stlye "Do It Yourself" aesthetic, ie pressing thier own singles and occasionally albums or arranging their own gigs. Judas Priest, Motorhead, AC/DC and Scorpions have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, and it's something that really does irritate me, being a fan of the genre. Motorhead were formed in 1975, which happens to be the same year as some real NWOBHM bands such as Witchfynde or Iron Maiden, but Motorhead were already established players, and pretty much had a record deal within a few months. Judas Priest had been around as a band since 1969, which obviously means they are not part of the movement - they're mistaken as part of it by Americans, who seem to think that thier breakthrough album, 1980's British Steel, qualifies them to be part of it, not the fact that they were already one of the most established metal bands on the planet, already successful in the UK, Europe and Japan, and been recording albums since 1974. As for Scorpions and AC/DC... What the hell? Scorpions are German, and had been together in one way or another since 1965, though going down a heavier route with Michael Schenker joining in 1972, a year before their debut album - no way! Same goes for AC/DC; wrong country, been around since the early 70s, though it should be noted a lot of the band (4 of the 5 current members) were born in the UK, and were at their most successful at the time; still, this is no reason for them to be part of it. Anyone idiotic enough to think that (Compared to actual NWOBHM bands) would probably consider Bonnett-era Rainbow, Dio-era Black Sabbath, or even Ozzy's early solo work as NWOBHM! Similar story with Budgie: One of Black Sabbath's rivals in the early 70s (Ok, not so much a rival, but a similar sound, and 2 UK Top 40 albums), but becoming popular again in the late 1970s and early 1980s with John Thomas replacing Tony Bourge on Guitar, introducing a more modern style than their previous mixture of Funk, Metal, Hard Rock and Prog-Rock.

The only old guys (As compared to, say, Diamond Head, who formed the band at ages 16-17 in the late 70s) who can be considered part of it could be Quartz; debut album 1977, formed in 1974 as Bandy Legs, changing their name after becoming a full-on metal band having supported Black Sabbath. Thier record label went bust, and relaunched themselves with a slightly harder-edged style with a series of independent releases, culminating in the "Stand Up and Fight" album in 1980, thorugh Neat/MCA (Yeah, NWOBHM indie label with major label affiliation!). As for foreign guys... I guess Nightmare (of France) and Swedish metallers EF Band and Syron Vanes could be called part of the movement, coming over here and becoming part of it (Nightmare and Syron Vanes being signed to Ebony, the NWOBHM label which was also home to Grim Reaper). German bands part of it? Yeah, right... I admite Mad Max have a rather NWOBHM-ish sound, but were never actually involved in it at all, solely came about making similar music at a similar time... this was all a British phenomenon, as Geoff Barton wrote recently in Classic Rock Magazine, one of the "Most Fertile" periods in British Rock.

Link between NWOBHM and power metal? Cloven Hoof, Elixir and Satan (Blind Guardian covering Satan's "Trial By Fire) fit that perfectly, as do Holocaust to an extent. Ever heard of the "Death Metal" EP featuring a few noted German power metal bands? That was released in the same way as a NWOBHM one (ie cheaply and independently to get attention), so as well as the music, the spirit went with it.

Now, having released this anger and proving how sad I am, I shall leave. Want to see a bigger, better list of NWOBHM bands, with occasionally patchy discographies? www.nwobhm.com, which also includes a fair few post-NWOBHM bands. That big chunk of text [No] thanks to: AdmiralvonAxehaufen.

I believe that Motorhead, Judas Priest, and Iron Maiden get called NWOBHM because they rose to popularity in the USA in the earky 1980s. AC/DC and Scorpions often get classified, and possibly Dokken occasionally, because they sound a lot some NWOBHM bands. And who classifies Def Leppard as HAIR METAL anyways. They are one of the true NWOBHM bands, just like Saxon, even though get classified as Hair Metal, which is stupid as they sound nothing like Warrant and Winger. And, also, couldn't Whitesnake be considered NWOBHM as they did come out of Britain in the late 70's, or were there some memebers from other countries?

I have reinstated the list of bands. Why it was deleted ? Racklever 07:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Many faults in the logic and reasoning here:

NWoBHM originated in Britain. It went on to quickly be a worldwide phenomenon, picked up, changed and accelerated by bands of whom Metallica is the best known example.

European bands, especially the Scorpions, Trust, Krokus, 220Volt etc., American bands (e.g. Dio - and yes, being totally fair and unprejudiced, the horrible Hair metal bands) and even Australian bands (AC/DC) CAN be considered part of it - there is no earthly reason why not, and the writer above does not provide one - he simply states it as if it's some kind of provable fact.

It is also reasonable to include old school bands, particularly those who modified their sound and style to go WITH the NWoBHM - bands such as Judas Priest, Black Sabbath, AC/DC, Motorhead, etc, who ALL had brand new up-to-date, genre-leading sounds on the albums they released in 1980 (the genre I refer to is Heavy Metal - remember, NWoBHM was the movement - the drive to create NEW Metal music).

Don't discriminate because of their age - that has nothing to do with it. NWoBHM isn't only about the bands who formed at that time, as anyone who went to the Soundhouse, or other heavy metal discos that formed on the back of SH will tell you.

It's no co-incidence - these bands wanted IN on this NWoBHM thing - so don't deny them that! Only Def Leppard wanted out - but they started the same way as other "proper" NWoBHM bands, by playing in a style reminiscent of Priest and AC/DC, and recording on their own, self-financed label. Bludgeon-Riffola, IIRC.

...and I'm not American, I'm British and consider myself one who "was there" at the time of NWoBHMMarkCertif1ed (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Whitesnake as NWOBHM? Can't see that myself, seeing as the earlier versions of the band were already established players (David Coverdale, Jon Lord, Mickey Moody, Bernie Marsden etc) who had been on the UK scene since the late 60s/early 70s... and their earlier stuff's more blues rock/hard rock than anything else... it's the right era and country, just the wrong style, and these guys were't exactly new to the music scene, I think Jon Lord was almost 40 when he joined the band! Def Leppard's earlier stuff is NWOBHM, but once you get to Hysteria... blatant hair/pop metal, compare it to High 'N' Dry and it just doesn't rock anywhere near as hard! - AdmiralvonAxehaufen

Whitesnake is New Wave of British Heavy Metal, according to David Coverdale himself:

http://noisecreep.com/whitesnake-team-up-with-judas-priest-on-summer-tour/ http://newwaveofbritishheavymetal.com/tag/whitesnake Whitesnake#Early_years_and_commercial_success_.281978.E2.80.931983.29

I think it ought to be pointed out that the New Wave here was not necessarily new artists, but the Post-Punk revival of Heavy Metal. British Heavy Metal had received a fresh new set of influences from Punk, since the UK was home to the Sex Pistols and the Clash, among many others cited by New Wave acts. In a sense, the New Wave was across the board, including Pop music, like the solo careers of Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins, after having been part of Genesis. So, when Blackmore, Ozzy, Coverdale, or Dio were going solo in the 1980s, they had responded with a similar approach that Metallica, Megadeth, and Pantera later did in the 1990s by embracing the Grunge and Alternative Metal scene rather than either ignoring or rejecting it.

So, it is incorrect to say that the established artists were not part of the New Wave, because they gave the New Wave credibility through cultivation and appropriation. It is correct to acknowledge that the older acts went through newer phases, keeping up with the times. Metallica, for instance, was notorious for not giving the finger to new blood in the industry, and they got accused of selling out over it. The purists said Megadeth didn't sell out because of staying less radio-friendly, even though there had always been the same level of distinction regarding radio-friendly by that point.

How would anybody characterize Skid Row, for instance? Youth Gone Wild sounds like a harbinger of Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit more than anything else, like John the Baptist before Jesus Christ, yet they are called Glam Metal for zero reason. I can definitely remember seeing MTV playing Youth Gone Wild, Smells Like Teen Spirit, Enter Sandman, You Could Be Mine, Cats in the Cradle, and others like Janie's Got a Gun on the same playlist of Headbanger's Ball. Red Hot Chili Peppers and Faith No More were 1980s acts that formed the basis of Rage Against the Machine and Korn part of Nu-Metal in the 1990s, and there is no real way to limit them to a genre either.

To get back to the issue of putting, say Whitesnake or Def Leppard into the category, it would be ridiculous to say that the presence of John Sykes or Steve Vai in the former, or Steve Clark in the latter, would not have brought that same type of approach to the Heavy Metal that was missing in the early 1970s. Also, Vivian Campbell was in both bands, and there was a pretty heavy personnel rotation between scene musicians that still goes on to some degree. Randy Rhoads, Yngwie Malmsteen, and Eddie Van Halen, all fit the profile of Post-Punk guitarists. They learned their skills from Iommi, Blackmore, and Page, but they got their style and attitude by fusing with Punk. Even the first Van Halen album had a song called Atomic Punk signifying their relation to the scene.

Whitesnake actually began with Deep Purple's Come Taste the Band, since the majority of band members were to join the later roster. Again, Deep Purple even had Joe Satriani on their team when Blackmore left, in reaction to or in parallel to Steve Vai joining Whitesnake. Vai was Satriani's student, playing the same type of Post-Punk Heavy Metal, aka New Wave of (British, at least with DP and WS) Heavy Metal. It can be argued that the baggage from the early 1970s made New Wave elements seem like a veneer, but it was still a whole makeover of their image from what they were accustomed to, and by the 1990s, they had run out of steam and couldn't keep up any longer.

Metallica, Megadeth, and arguably Pantera, represented the American response to the British scene, but what was called Thrash Metal had been essentially the same. Mercyful Fate and King Diamond were from Denmark, but there was little difference other than Black Metal blueprints for the corpsepaint followers in Scandinavia of the 1990s. I would not distinguish NWOBHM from other countries on a genre level, only note that it was a local scene of British musicians having parallels elsewhere. Who could limit the New Wave of Depeche Mode and Duran Duran simply to Britain either? It was international, and in mostly English-speaking countries, with some German and Scandinavian participants rounding out. Who doesn't think Oasis and Bush have anything to do with the American Grunge or Alternative scene on a genre level? Try to envision the long way around for The Offspring's influences from British Punk and the American scene of Thrash Metal, but they are classified as Punk regardless of the fact that they would not be who they are without Metallica and the others having gotten Punk influences also from Britain, when combined with the traditional Heavy Metal in something like a funnel of stylistic evolution.

Traditional Heavy Metal does not rely upon shredding to create song-length riffage. Any gander at AC/DC, for instance, shows that they got their presence from Deep Purple, with the Ian Gillan style of screaming, but their guitars are extremely traditional, and their lyrics were more on the side of Robert Plant. There is zero influence from Black Sabbath other than possibly in tone, but very faint, and no Punk sources at all either. That is what anybody could deem conventional Hard Rock, with only a slight Heavy Metal intensity. Aerosmith followed the Rolling Stones template, but they had a very Heavy Metal style as dark as Black Sabbath on tunes penned by Brad Whitford, like Round and Round, Nobody's Fault, Kings and Queens, or even Kiss Your Past Goodbye from as recent as Nine Lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.98.141 (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a good distinction to makeMarkCertif1ed (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Scorpions

Scorpions can't really be considered NWOBHM but anybody who thinks that they weren't a big part of this simply wasn't there. I was. First saw Iron Maiden (aka The Plastic Cockneys ) supporting Scorpions in Sheffield. The style of Scorpions is far more NWOBHM than say Judas Priest - who although also big at the time were decidedly old school metal - in a similar crowd to UFO. Whitesnake - just a Deep Purple spin off, a la Rainbow - but again a big part of the metal scene at the time - not mutually exclusive

Def Leppard were considered Sheffield's finest - first saw them Manchester Free Trade supporting Sammy Hagar. This was definitely a NWOBHM gig - Hagar rescued from obscurity in Montrose by the DJ at the Bandwagon Soundhouse, and played likewise by DJs at northern clubs such as the Newcastle Mayfair, and the Dewsbury Turks Heads. But Hagar was neither British nor NWOBHM and Leppard seemed to bite the dust as far as metal fans were concerned when they did the picture disc with the spangly high heeled boot on the front. Sold out as they say

At the end of the day it doesn't matter - they were good times

81.178.209.180 (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This NWOBHM 'genre' is a bad idea, this has been uploaded by somebody who has not accurately referenced entries and has no first-hand experience. There are many primary sources available on this subject. Until someone who knows what they are talking about amends this page, it will remain hopelessly inaccurate and misleading for music historians. (Worst Wikipedia page ever!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.68.32 (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

NWoBHM is NOT a genre. It was a movement that spread worldwide, sparked other genres and helped propel heavy metal music to the monster it is today. To try to define it within tight boundaries is foolish in the extreme. It was also not exclusively British - only in origin. There is no reason I can see that some of the European, American or even Australian bands around who heavily influenced the movement could not be considered NWoBHM. For the same reason, old school bands could easily be considered NWoBHM - Priest are a shining example, as are Black Sabbath and AC/DC. All bands re-invented themselves and their sound, the latter 2 with new vocalists. I would think of Dio as a NWoBHM band even though RJD was not British.46.33.159.2 (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Oi?

i think that oi! has alot less to do with heavy metal being influenced by punk than say D-beat, if we're gonna choose one subgenre of punk to highlight as the largest influence on the NWOBHM. SO, i deleted the note saying that the NWOBHM was related most closely to oi! in punk rock because thats completely unfounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.215.229 (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Steve Zodiac/Vardis

No one has produced a reputable source for these Vardis/Steve Zodiac claims after quite awhile, I think it's time we deleted this information as it's not reputable/verifiable and hence is likely original research/random claims. --predatorfreak 04:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing

I've made some changes to the article by rewriting the introduction, scrapping unreferenced material, adding a reference, and a reference section. Thoughts? --Broadbandmink 20:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference was OK but did not require the "introduction" section heading as it rm'd the lead. Articles require a lead-in. It has been restored. 142.167.93.132 20:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. I'm still quite green when it comes to standard procedures here on wikipedia. I'll try not to mess up too much. However, I've made some further changes to the genrebox and would very much like some opinions about them. --Broadbandmink 15:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was stupid..

The article gets locked.. why? Because I reverted 2 damn edits. And there's people who revert more than three, and they don't get warned, banned and the article doesn't get locked. If buddy would actually just explain his changes/how Motorhead are NWOBHM, then I would have stopped making my changes. Go ahead.. revert this without any explanation, too.

142.162.192.29 (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I protected the article because of a content dispute. The article needed protection because of the edit war and I took appropriate action. Feel free to work out the problems you are having here though, friend. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 18:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I changed an major....... to a major......... 156 reverted it, I'm guessing that was an accident. Please fix, as we all know it's an. As for edit war, 156 wasn't explaining his changes in the edit summary. That's why I kept reverting. So, please explain how Motorhead are NWOBHM. They started in 75', released an album in '77 and had one in ready in '75. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.192.29 (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Iron Maiden, Def Leppard and Saxon all started prior to the NWOBHM era... but, like Motorhead they are still included in the list of NWOBHM bands. In All Music Guide's article about the era they include Motorhead along with the other bands mentioned (as well as Diamond Head) as NWOBHM bands. In All Music Guide's List of key albums from the NWOBHM era... Motorhead place 4 albums in their top 20 listing. And, just to note, in AMG's Top Songs of the NWOBHM era... Ace of Spades in Number 1. All Music Guide is a considered a reliable source... and the single opinion of an unemployed Newfoundlander is not a reliable source. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note: Chris Ingham's "Book of Metal", Deena Weinstein's "Heavy Metal;The Music and it's Culture", David Konow's "Rise and Fall of...", Garry Sharpe-Young's "Definitive Guide" and Robert Walser's "Runnin' With the Devil"... all books that have been cited on many Wikipedia heavy metal related articles... include Motorhead in their sections dealing with the era. And all are viewed as valid sources. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll stay with my own theory of them not being NWOBHM. But, "reliable sources" is all that matters here, so I'll let it stay. You could have just said that on the edit summary instead of continuously reverting until the article was locked. It can be unlocked, now.

142.162.206.206 (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and to clarify: Iron Maiden, Def Leppard and Saxon didn't start prior to the NWOBHM era. They all released their respective debuts in 79/80. But, this is probally irrelevant as we've agreed to leave Motorhead there.

142.162.206.206 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

??? Iron Maiden formed in 1975 - same year as Mo_head. Saxon formed in 1976 and Def Leppard formed in 1977... all at least 2-4 years ahead of the NWOBHM era. All were releasing singles from the outset of their careers... to no success. Yes, Motorhead recorded an album in 1976... but the record complany rejected the album and it didn't get released until after their successful Overkill and Bomber albums began to spearhead, what would eventually be known as, the NWOBHM movement. Once they released the Ace of Spades album... Iron Maiden, Def Leppard and Saxon just rode their coattails into the North American market. 156.34.226.160 (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

They all released their first albums in 79/80. 142.162.206.206 (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Including Motorhead. Their first "unrejected" release was in 1979. Once it was successful their first recorded work was released following the release of the Bomber album. 156.34.226.160 (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You said Saxon, Iron Maiden and Def Leppard started prior to the NWOBHM era. They released their respective debuts in 79 and 80. So, how'd they start prior to that era? And I'm pretty sure Motorhead's first was in '77, it was rejected in '75, then released in '77. 142.162.206.206 (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Saxon and Iron Maiden started in '75 and '76, though. It doesn't matter when they released their debuts. I do agree that they are NWoBHM for sure, though. Iron Maiden is the NWoBHM, lol. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's late 70's-early 80's. If it doesnt matter when they debuted, then Saxon and Iron Maiden arent NWOBHM. :S

142.162.194.79 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm too confused. NWOBHM = British metal bands that PEAKED in the late seventies-early eighties. Is this how Motorhead is one? Does the make Judas Priest one?

Not peak. Just initial success/acclaim beyond England. Judas Priest aren't NWOBHM. They found their initial success and were an international touring act around the same time as Wishbone Ash and Thin Lizzy. Many NWOBHM bands got their first chance at touring in North America as an opening act for Judas Priest. 156.34.231.56 (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So, it's success in the late 70s-early 80s. Judas Priest were really popular in the late seventies-early eighties, so this makes them NWOBHM.

142.162.193.115 (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't success... its when each band beyond their region. For Motorhead, Iron Maiden, Def Leppard, Saxon and other bands associated with the NWOBHM movement this all snowballed for them starting in mid 1979 and continued through 1981. Many of the bands that found their 15 minutes during this era also folded shop before the era ended. Judas Priest released their first album in 1974... they were playing the Reading Festival by 1975 and by 1976 had a major label recording contract with global distribution and were an international touring act.(I saw them in 1977 on tour with REO Speedwagon!?!?) A full 3 years before the NWOBHM era they had several gold discs and were already well established recording/touring veterans even in the U.S. JP are not even close to being NWOBHM. 156.34.231.56 (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Motorhead didn't start in 1979.

142.162.193.115 (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No they didn't. And neither did Iron Maiden or Saxon or Def Leppard who all atarted between 1975 and 1977. But no one beyond their home counties had heard of them until they all emerged at once. The NWOBHM era. Have a few more pints and ponder it a bit... you'll get it. No wait... you're in Corner Brook... you won't. 156.34.231.56 (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant they didn't release their first album in 1979. It was in 1975, if you don't count that as an official album, then their next was 77, which isn't 79.

142.162.193.115 (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

lol @ reverting all my edits to "initial" pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.193.115 (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just so ya know, you screwed up when reverting my edits to "HW." You erased something I didn't do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.193.115 (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Motorhead is often mistaken as a NWOBHM band. They are, in fact, not. Thank you, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.201.196 (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia... for a single editor's incorrect POV vs many reliable sources... the reliable sources win and the single editor... in this case, you... loses because their personal POV is wrong. You must be getting used to that. 156.34.239.151 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that reliable sources win. Even if I'm correct and they're wrong, like right now. Reliable sources will win even if what they're saying doesn't make sense..

142.162.163.112 (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC) This strikes me as a strange argument, in that a "reliable source" may be no such thing! As a NWoBHM fan at the time(1980-83 in my opinion) it seemed obvious which bands were "us" and which were "them". Rainbow Whitesnake AC/DC Motorhead Gillan etc were them, but Gillan UFO Priest and Motorhead were like cool uncles-they gave a damn. Saxon Maiden Leppard were NWoBHM but eventually transcended the genre marking the end of it (Pyromania/Worl Piece tour etc). Everyone seems to forget the close association with "new prog" ie Marillion Twelfth Night and iQ, and no-one remembers No Quarter (sob). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.115.171 (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Proper usage of the comma, paragraphing, and indenting would be nice. I still don't understand how Motorhead are NWOBHM. If it's bands that got popular in 78-82, but already started prior, then how is Judas Priest not one? Basically, what I'm saying is Motorhead and Judas Priest either both are, or they both aren't.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason Motorhead are an odd one is that during they grew in scale hanging with punk crowds and had punk fans. NWOBHM came along just when they started to get noticed by metal fans so they got sucked into it. Lemmy's argued Motorhead are punk, rhythm & blues and rock 'n' roll at various times (all basically the same thing in very different guises anyway). The band never asked for metal crowds, metal crowds came to them. Personally I would say they were a British band who became big IN PARALLEL with the NWOBHM (just like, say, Guns N' Roses came from the same place as all the hair metal bands from the mid 80s and are in many ways linked to that sound due to coming from LA and having similar influences but are also, definitely, NOT hair metal and grew in their own way despite fighting for the same audience at times).

If you are to say that they got big in parallel with the movement, the question is then: What makes bands NWOBHM? Being a metal band that followed a similar career path to a NWOBHM band? Motorhead did in a lot of ways, though they just about survived when most others did not. Or is it having the same kind of sound as NWOBHM? With Motorhead being one of the biggest metal bands of 79, I would imagine lots of bands were influenced BY them, hence the connection.

Motorhead lack most NWOBHM influences, spent time with different crowds (at first), and played speed metal (which is not the same as NWOBHM, they're just both faster/more intense than 'regular' metal). Their career co-incided with NWOBHM though, and there are a lot of NWOBHM bands that probably aped them in some form at the time (I wouldn't know).

Not saying they are or are not NWOBHM since it depends on your definition of the term. But thrown some useful lines in I think. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

I agree that many sources on NWoBHM are, in fact, unreliable - but please, smell the coffee! ALL metal bands who joined in the fun and helped drag heavy metal out from the underground where it skulked for so many years can be considered NWoBHM - we were inclusive, not exclusive. I never saw punks with huge mohicans getting thrown out of, say, a Venom gig - but if you tried going to a Clash gig with your AC/DC T-Shirt on you'd better be prepared for trouble in large amounts.

NWoBHM INCLUDES speed metal - Vardis, Jaguar, Raven, Overkill - it was NOT a genre or style. NWoBHM bands include Praying Mantis and Limelight (almost Prog), Gaskin, Angel Witch, Satan, Saxon, Venom, Tygers of Pan Tang, Spider - all HUGELY different bands with different spins on what heavy metal is.

There is little dependency on definition of the term - it's simple. NWoBHM was a movement, from 1978 to 1983, which massively increased the scope and appeal of heavy metal music in all its shapes and forms.

If a band played heavy metal music in that time period, no matter where they came from geographically, then they're in. If not, it's not NWoBHM. That way, NWoBHM fans can enjoy MORE MUSIC. :o) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkCertif1ed (talk • contribs) 14:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Request To Make a Savage article

The NWOBHM band Savage was a very important band that came out during the movement and they had a very big influence on Metallica and other early thrash bands. Just look at some of Metallica's demo pages and look for the track "Let It Loose" which is from them. We should also add them to the list of NWOBHM bands once the article is created.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.12.165 (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream popularity?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Wave_of_American_Heavy_Metal :

Mainstream popularity: Rise in worldwide popularity since mid 2000s

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Wave_of_British_Heavy_Metal :

Mainstream popularity: Popular in Europe, gained popularity during the 1980s in the United States

Really? NWoBHM was a lot more popular in other countries (such as the in the Indian sub-continent) compared to NWoAHM.

Nareshov (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Roll up your sleeves

Instead of conducting an endless argument regarding what bands belong and do not belong to this "genre" (movement would be the more appropriate term) people should concentrate on improving the state of the article, which as of now is rife with unreferenced material. To cut things short, I don't care what you come up with regarding which bands are "true" NWOBHM or what characteristics defines "pure" NWOBHM, just make sure that if you add absolutely anything, then reference it! -- Broadbandmink (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Judas Priest

The whole NWOBHM draws heavily from Judas Priest albums, Sad Wings of Destiny, Sin after Sin and Stained Class, particularly the inauguration of guitar duos with power chords and dueling musical themes (with the downplay of blues influences) and solos as well as the leather image and soaring vocals. A NWOBHM article with no reference to Judas Priest as a main influence is not only wrong but borders on malice as well.

http://books.google.gr/books?id=1-pH4i3jXvAC&pg=PA605&lpg=PA605&dq=%22all+music+guide%22+judas+priest&source=web&ots=XHdSFOz1HP&sig=BTkdrGBas-TnrjOFulnIkWfJR-c&hl=el&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

The All Music Guide is used extensively by Wikipedia, but just this once they are wrong and you are right? Even though I appreciate your contibution to wikipedia, this once you obviously don't know what you are talking about. 5 guys discussing and reaching a "consensus" can't change history. The fact that they were successful before the rise of NWOBHM is completely irrelevant. They are a MAJOR INFLUENCE to NWOBHM with their earlier works to the "movement" and a minor part of NWOBHM as contemporaries with the wave, with their latter works (Killing Machine, British Steel, Point of Entry). 91.132.83.67 (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lazy Writing

What exactly does this have to do with record labels choosing a particular scene to focus their efforts on?:

"Record companies also latched onto the L.A. scene over the NWOBHM scene because the L.A. bands brought them the one thing heavy metal hadn't yet brought into the fold - legions of female fans."

I sincerely doubt this belongs in the article. It's written in a very informal style, overall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.176.236 (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.218.17 (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The List of NWOBHM bands

Can anyone explain the critera used to decide which bands are included in this list? It seems to be very arbitary and subjective. Clearly there are many omissions. For example, no Handsome Beasts, no Trespass, no Sledgehammer, no Dark Star. As a start I tried adding Jameson Raid but the edit was immediately reverted. Why? They were a NWOBHM band that were signed - and as such surely belong on the list? Conversely Dumpy's Rusty Nuts are infamous as being an unsigned band - they proudly describe themselves as such on their MySpace.

Neither can I see that the list only contains bands that emerged during the NWOBHM - as bands such as Quartz and White Spirit were gigging in the mid 70s. I don't wish to rekindle the debate about whether Motorhead should or shouldn't be on a NWOBHM list, but... GILLAN? Is there really any possible justification for including this band? Neither their own wiki entry or the allmusic enty claims that they are NWOBHM. They may have hardened their sound up for the second and third albums and become more metal sounding to fit in with Heavy Metal's new popularity, but then so did Slade. They may have played to a heavy Metal crowd at Reading - but then... so did Slade. I think an established artist bending his sound to whatever is selling at the time (earlier Gillan albums were Jazz-Rock and Prog-Rock influenced) hardly makes Gillan a NWOBHM band.

Neither does notability seem to be a factor. You can't get much more obscure that Ethel The Frog, yet they are on the list. About their only claim to fame is that they were on an EMI 'Metal For Mothers' album - as were Sledgehammer, Trespass, Jameson Raid, Dark Star... SAHBfan (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I just added Judas Priest to the NWOBHM section

It's only right that Judas Priest is added to this section. If you think about it, they were one of the forefathers of the movement. They were also a major influence on many later NWOBHM and thrash bands. Mr. Brain (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Judas Priest pre-date the NWOBHM by almost 10 years. They were a well established international act by 1976, long before the NWOBHM era of 1979-1982. They do not need to be mentioned as a NWOBHM act because they aren't one. GripTheHusk (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

They performed and released albums during the NWoBHM. Their sound and even appearance changed significantly. Judas Priest WERE NWoBHM. So there.MarkCertif1ed (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. All sources cite Judas Priest as a major influence on the British metal bands that started playing in the late 70s and made up the NWOBHM. "Major influence" means that Judas Priest had their musical and visual style firmly established by 1978, when Stained Class was published. They did not change their sound or style significantly until Turbo in 1986. I don't think that performing and publishing albums in the period between 1979 and 1981 should be considered as the only reason for inclusion in the NWOBHM. Many other British metal bands were active and published albums in that period, including Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Thin Lizzy, UFO, Rainbow, Whitesnake, MSG, Nazareth and Uriah Heep, which were important live acts, were older or contemporaries of Judas Priest but are not considered for inclusion in the NWOBHM. In my opinion, the same treatment should be given to Judas Priest and mention them only as an influence on the movement. Lewismaster (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Still a completely arbitary and unexplained system for including bands?

I see Wolf has been included in the list of NWOBHM bands and the inclusion was not reverted.

Can anyone tell me why Wolf is worthy of inclusion when bands like Sledgehammer, Trespass, Jameson Raid, Dark Star, Cloven Hoof, Scarab, Split Beaver, Handsome Beasts etc. are not?

I'm not arguing against Wolf, but I still can't see the reason why the 'revert edit' button was hit when I tried to include some of the bands listed. They are all NWOBHM bands that were signed to a label (EMI in many cases) and released material. The first four were on the Metal for Muthas album. The Handsome Beasts were the very reason for creating 'Heavy Metal Records' which produced so many NWOBHM bands, including Witchfinder General. SAHBfan 82.112.155.154 (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, a small number of users have deterimined what sources are valid and what constitutes the genre all while claiming consensus. The group is includes a Wiki Libs and a King Öomie. It doesn't appear that there ever was consensus but even if there was, a consensus can change and this small group of editors seem to think that is not the case.Kevinskogg (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The list is purely examples - it makes me laugh that on genre (or in this case, movement, NOT GENRE!!!) defining pages, everyone wants their favourite band to have a mention.

I think there should be another page which is simply a list of all NWoBHM bands, then no-one can complain that their favourite isn't there when some other band is.MarkCertif1ed (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Budgie

I didn't realize at first that the Budgie source was a wiki-mirror, but what about the punk source which also mentioned Budgie as roots of the NWoBHM. What was wrong with that one? Spam? Rockgenre (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Amateur/NN source. The internet is a bad place to look for references. Books and paper publications are better. It is important to ignore overused and unreliable websites like Allmusic and find valid sources that pass WP:RS. There are aleady several discussions/consensus at the WP:RS noticeboard that Allmusic is not to used as a source (especially for genres) and yet new editors leap into the project daily and simply copy/paste content from that site to this one... which just reduces the value and reliability of Wikipedia. Fair Deal (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, if literature is what I need to get this band thier due, than you got it(this could take some time though.) Rockgenre (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Take your time. Come back in a year if that's how long it takes. Fair Deal (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a documentary that was on BBC 4 recently that includes commentary from Burke Shelley. Budgie were definitely a part of NWoBHM, even if they were on the fringes. They headlined Reading festival in 1982 - and almost any band that played at Reading can claim to be NWoBHM, IMHO. Sorry, no sources... :o)MarkCertif1ed (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

AC/DC

Yes, I know they're Australian (or kind of)

But I was wondering if the article should mention them for two reasons, firstly as a parallel development (Australia spawned its own version of punk in the Saints at around the same time as England), and secondly that their success was probably partly on the back of the NWOBHM, which created a scene and a subculture which helped them prosper.

Thoughts?--MacRusgail (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, AC/DC were part of the NWoBHM. They were also part of the scene that threw up Buster Brown, Rose Tatoo and Coloured Balls (Heavy Metal Kids) MarkCertif1ed (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No mention of Tommy Vance in this article?

Tommy Vance was well known for championing NWOBHM band on the Friday Rock Show on Radio 1. I haven't got the time to add a full reference at the minute so I thought I'd put it out there if someone wants to do it. Kaleeyed (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Racklever (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Extreme metal

From the article: "The era is considered to be a major foundation stone for the extreme metal genres; acts such as the American metal band Metallica cite NWOBHM bands like Saxon, Motörhead, Diamond Head, and Iron Maiden as a major influence on their musical style."

That's great and all, but I fail to see the relevance of Metallica's infuences. Metallica are not an extreme metal band, they employ melodies and only moderately distorted riffs; their popularity mainstream culture should also be a good indicator as to their non-extremeness. Can we get quotes/cites from an extreme metal band of some sort? 175.38.214.209 (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

They are certainly extreme metal - thrash metal is extreme metal. Popularity has nothing to do with extremeness. Dimmu Borgir is very popular, and are quite extreme. Also, Metallica is just one example. You also have Hellhammer, Celtic Frost, Bathory, Slayer, Sodom, I could keep going.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that thrash is extreme. Thrash metal is comprised primarily of, as I said earlier, conventional melodies, and riffs audible to the untrained ear (as opposed to death metal, black metal, and even metalcore, which people frequently complain are 'just noise'). Thrash metal does not feature the same level of vocal harshness that extreme metal does. Yes, you can argue this is all original research, and yes, it is (at least, it is according to Wiki policy), and that's why I'm not going over to the extreme metal page and crusading to remove thrash from their list. However, we do not need the Metallica quote here, and it would be better replaced with a band whose extremeness isn't in dispute. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right. Complete OR. Thrash metal is extreme, no question. It's only the subsequent styles that came later that make it seem less so. Now, I'm not sure when the term "extreme metal" was first used, but thrash is certainly extreme (especially when some sources even consider some speed metal extreme!). As to Metallica, thrash metal is what all the extreme styles except doom metal and kin originated from, so the band should definitely be mentioned.--¿3family6 _contribs 03:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If you read the article on extreme metal, you may notice that thrash doesn't meet a single criterion of extreme metal, aside from the presence of distortion. The only reason Wikipedia consideres it 'extreme' is because some reliable sources say it is, and very few (if any) dispute this assertion. Because this is OR, there's nothing that can be done to extreme metal's or thrash metal's articles, but it does not hurt THIS article to change the Metallica quote with that of another band. 143.92.1.32 (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Since thrash is extreme metal, there is no reason to change the Metallica quote here. If thrash isn't extreme, then neither are death or black metal, since all three terms were basically synonyms in the 80s.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And I have no idea what you are talking about with "doesn't meet a single criteria." Thrash meets almost all of them. And almost none of that article is sourced anyway.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Marseille

I did add Marseille who are described as NWOBHM on numerous sites but it was taken off because they're not described as such by allmusic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.72.136 (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You can't list ALL NWoBHM bands! I agree that Marseille were part of the NWoBHM - maybe someone should compile a page that provides a complete list?

You can get a head start on several metal sites that provide lists - one of the better ones is http://www.metalmusicarchives.com. By "Better", I mean that their list of NWoBHM bands is easy to copy and paste to your own page - but don't tell them I told you that LOL :o)MarkCertif1ed (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

NWOBHM → New Wave of British Heavy Metal

Ditch the bogus pronunciation - "/nˈwɒbm/". Perhaps in Europe - but there is not, nor has there been, one single writer, reviewer, fan, critic or aficionado in the Americas talking about "NuhWahbums". Blanket statement, incorrect for many who made it relevant. West of Land's End, we say - and always have - "En DoubleU Oh Bee Aitch Em" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.48.76.15 (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Spinal Tap

What about Spinal Tap? ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 03:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

What about them? MarkCertif1ed (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Yeah i think they should be added as NWOBHM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:9180:D01:12F:B7DA:B33E:15F1 (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The state of the article

After reading this page and seeing the poor state of the article, I must state my puzzlement at the lack of interest and work invested in creating a worthy addition to this encyclopedia. There are plenty of books, documentaries and web articles on the movement known as the New Wave of British Heavy Metal out there, but the article has only sparse information on its history, on the fans that created it and on the condition of the music in the UK at the time. So I decided to take action and completely rewrite the article, going very heavy on referencing and taking some bold decisions, which may result controversial:

1. I decided to separate the list of NWOBHM bands from this article and put them in the newly created List of New Wave of British Heavy Metal bands, where you can find more than 500 referenced bands, taken from Malc MacMillan's book The New Wave of British Heavy Metal.
2. I focused my attention on British bands which were founded between 1975 and 1985. No Judas Priest, no AC/DC, no Scorpions, no Motörhead (even if a section is dedicated to them). All references say that the movement was made of new young British bands, not already established acts. The time period is divided by British writer John Tucker in a first and a second wave and I followed this formulation.
3. I dedicated more space to the fans, which were just as important to the movement as the bands.
4. I expanded the section about the influence of the NWOBHM beyond a shortsighted Metallica-centered hint, writing about contemporaries on four continents and how the music generated from the movement created new subgenres (but not the abnormal number currently listed in the infobox).
5. I guess that the most controversial section will be the one about the music itself, because the music of the NWOBHM is still object of debate among critics and fans. I tried to be objective, follow the references and divide the musical styles in two recognizable groups, but I'm not a musician and the help of an expert would be welcome.

I'm working on minor adjustments and will upload the article and the list in the next few days. The main article will be immediately subjected to peer review and I hope in the collaboration and insightful suggestions of all music editors on Wikipedia to further improve this text on an important piece of British rock history. Lewismaster (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment and slight disagreement - I don't agree that established bands should be exempt at all. For starters, Motörhead were formed in 1975. as for others, they may have been around already but they most definitely contributed to the scene as a whole. Nuro G'dayMate! 01:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Contributed to the scene, but they were not a "new wave". Motörhead has its own section in the article, as there is contrast about its belonging to the NWOBHM. Lewismaster (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Some of this disagreement gets IMO very nitpicky. Bands like Motörhead, Thin Lizzy and UFO may not have been strictly part of the scene, but their influence was heavy enough that they're part of the discussion, especially considering that many international audiences were first introduced to the NWOBHM through those bands. It's similar to how Aerosmith fits in with seventies' heavy metal: they may not have been your definition of a 'heavy metal' band, but the audience overlap is almost total. Dementia13 (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The article is much improved from what it had been. My only issue with the content is the stress on the idea that the lyrics are almost exclusively "escapist." You've got citations on that, but I suspect that there might be a condescending tone to some of those references, and I'd like to see some balance. Saxon had a song about the Kennedy assassination, and several of their songs that look outwardly like songs about street fights actually reflect an undertone of social discontent. It would be good to incorporate more discussion of lyrical depth, even if it is what the one reference calls "street-level observations." I know how hard it can be to find good references on an older genre- I did the article on Progressive Rock, which is mainstream by comparison, but it was like pulling teeth to get information. Hopefully a little digging can turn up some authors who took some of the songs seriously enough to see them for more than their escapist aspects. Dementia13 (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

In the last month User: 99.126.248.39 have reverted multiple times the article, being for some reason offended by the fact the section of the British population movement known as the New Wave of British Heavy Metal was white and male. They are a well-documented facts that there were no prominent musicians of any other ethnicity in the hundreds of metal bands of the period, that the clubs were crowded with Caucasian kids and that females were not welcomed by the community of headbangers. It was a subculture composed essentially by white males and I think that reporting this fact is important in an encyclopedic article that features historical, sociological and musical aspects of the movement. Another detail that User: 99.126.248.39 apparently hates is the use of the term heavy rock, which was how metal music was usually addressed by the British media and fandom in the early 70s, when the term heavy metal was not used yet. In a historical perspective, I think that heavy rock is the right term to use when speaking about the music of Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and their contemporaries in an article where British media and fans are often cited. I explain here my reasoning for the use of those terms, which are sustained by abundant literature, and I would like to know the reasons for starting an edit war by User: 99.126.248.39. During the weeks of Peer review no observation was left on that page and a warning left on the user's talk page got no reply, which now I would like to receive. Lewismaster (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

What about Girlschool and Rock Goddess? Both successful FEMALE NWOBHM bands. Sex (and skin colour for that matter) are not relevant to this article imo.N. C. Fortune (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You are talking about a dozen female musicians in a movement that involved thousands of people. Male people. Girlschool and Rock Goddess are cited in the article as an exception. You cannot talk about the exception if you don't cite the general rule. I cannot understand how sex and skin colour are not relevant to define the whole movement. To me, it is like saying that Jamaica is not relevant for reggae or afro-americans have nothing to do with the blues. Lewismaster (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You are merely expressing your opinion that skin colour is important to the article. It is not a fact. Therefore it should not be in the article imo. I was there at many NWOBHM gigs and although there weren't many coloured people in the bands or crowds there were some. And to say that "females were not welcomed by the community of headbangers" is simply not true. There were many females at NWOBHM gigs again, i know because i was there. N. C. Fortune (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't express my opinion, but I stick to what the sources report as any good Wiki editor should do. The sources should indicate what is relevant or not and the sociological studies listed in the bibliography and various interviews clearly define the characteristics of the metal audiences of the early 80s. Deena Weinstein goes to great lengths in describing heavy metal society in those years and writes that "the members of the metal subculture are predominantly white, (...) except in countries such as Japan and Brazil. The performers of metal music are also overwhelmingly white. As was with maleness, 'whiteness' is not merely a demographic category but has a cultural significance" (Weintein p.111) and then also "in both Great Britain and North America, one could look over the vast sea of thousands of faces at a heavy metal concert and fail to find one black person." (Weinstein p.112) Reading through MacMillan book I found only one notable black musician in the more than 500 listed bands, namely Mel Gaynor who had a brief stint as drummer in Samson. Gerd Bayer writing about British metal and Thin Lizzy also states that "heavy metal is predominantly a white musical genre, both in terms of its musicians and fans" (Bayer p.185). Also watching the old footage in the documentaries cited in the filmography no female or coloured man appear in the lines outside the venues or in the clubs.

About the sexual composition of the audience, Weinstein writes "women are aliens in the heavy metal subculture because of their otherness" and "even if he has a girlfriend, a heavy metal fan prefers being with his buddies when participating in the metal culture, whether the activity is seeing a concert, listening to records, or talking about the music or the performers" (Weinstein p.135). Def Leppard in early interviews stated that "in England our shows were always ninety percent male" and "there's not very many female fans. In England normally it's the guys who wait out back for an autograph" (Fricke p.50). Also Raven stated that only when they were outside of the UK in Milan "were inundated (...) by women who put across that they wanted to do certain things, which never happened to us before" (Christe p.43). For more info about the audience composition just read these interviews with Girlschool [1], which are quite illuminating. And I could go on and on.

According to the many sources consulted, I can only assume that racial minorities and women had little or no importance in defining the section of population described in the article as the core of the NWOBHM. But if you have different sources that say the contrary, please submit them. I remind you that your presence in the clubs would qualify as WP:OR and is not acceptable for Wikipedia standards. Lewismaster (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

A similar discussion went on at Talk:Heavy metal music#RfC: Should the article include a paragraph on the gender, race and sexual orientation of heavy metal musicians? Lewismaster (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I can see your point Lewis but this is slippery ground. Having it come across as both gender and ethnicity biased starts to give it a very dangerous undertone. Nigel unfortunately Lewis is correct in that stating "you were there" is WP:OR and thus irrelevant, although you may not think so. My suggestion, as your now the lead on the article Lewis, is that their is a very specific section detailing the Gender and Ethnic factors, which again has it's own detailed section of Non-UK fans around the world. Otherwise it will possibly have the side effect of coming across as a "Nationalist Front" poster board. There were Women and non-Caucasians in the movement. I also would refrain from using terms such as 'coloured' or 'of colour' or the like, as this is specifically the sort of language that 'racist' groups of the USA have used for centuries to refer to African Americans. I'm just trying ensure the article read as factual, but polite and respectful, as it can, as a fan of the era and an editor on Motörhead and Iron Maiden, and I'm glad someone wants to put the hard yards in. Nuro G'dayMate! 01:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: I've also just realised the dates of this discussion....Nuro G'dayMate! 01:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the article has progressed a little since September 2015. Feel free to leave your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Wave of British Heavy Metal/archive1, where the article is now under scrutiny. Lewismaster (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thin Lizzy

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_lizzy

"Thin Lizzy are an Irish rock band formed in Dublin in 1969."

Note: fifth word in sentence above.

I noticed, so what? Lewismaster (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the person is trying to claim they are not part of the NWOBHM because they are an Irish band. For the record I don't agree with this assessment, as Thin Lizzy were an essential part of the Mid 70s music scene in London. Nuro G'dayMate! 01:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Wave of British Heavy Metal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 23:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for picking up such a daunting task. Take all the time you need and I'll try to tag along as you proceed with the article's review. Lewismaster (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Cool, I've listened to my fair share of the relevant bands (only watched Motörhead live, though), so I should be adequate enough for the job... FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• It seems many of the images are "size forced", but this should be removed.[2]

Done. I used the "upright" parameter only on one very large pic.

• "the only notable all-girl metal bands of that age." Has no source at the end of the sentence.

Added references

• I see a few more sentences that end without sources. I guess it is because the sources are used earlier in the same sentences, but I think it's best to keep them last... Or at least some source last.

I fixed three of them adding references. Another one is the intro to the Motörhead section where I summarize what is explained in the following and amply referenced paragraphs. I don't think that it needs additional references. The remaining four sentences without a terminal reference are lists of bands. In my opinion there is a conflict between accuracy, coherence and Wikipedia:Citation overkill here. I think that every band should have a source that justify their belonging to a particular list and I associated a reference (but they could be many more) to each band. If I had put the sources at the end of the sentences there would be a trail of up to nine references, which is deprecated by the MOS and would clutter up the article. I accept your suggestions to solve this little dilemma. Lewismaster (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for the delay, will continue tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The United Kingdom in the second part of the 70s" I'd say "In the second part of the 1970s, the United Kingdom etc."

Done

• No need to abbreviate decades, better to spell them out, 1970s, 1980, etc.

OK, done

• "As consequence of the" As a consequence might sound better.

Done

• "reached the record of 3,224,715" Reached a record.

Trimmed down

• "The percentage of unemployed, especially among young people of the working class, was exceptionally high after a three-year-long period of economic recession,[2] when the politics of both Conservative and Labour Party governments had failed to find solutions for the social distress of large parts of the population." This sentence seems very long and complex, could perhaps be split somehow...

I split those sentences and arranged them differently.

• "is considered by most observers a consequence" The long sentence this is from seems to flow a bit weirdly, not sure if "by most observers" is really needed.

Well, the sources I reviewd agreed on this phenomenon. I'm not sure that every opinonist would be in agreement with this vision of the facts. I cut it anyway.

• "These punks were politically militant" I'd say self-proclaimed punks.

Done

• "stage practices like pogo" Say pogo-dancing? Otherwise it might be unclear what this is.

Done

• "when the crowd of young people" Crowd seems a bit specific for a mass-movement. Mass instead?

Ok with mass.

• "heavy metal, which provided fun, stress relief and the companionship of their peers, all things stripped away from them because of their unemployment." From this sentence, it seems these characteristics are in contrast to punk music?

Changed the sentence to avoid any misunderstanding

• "and reduced drastically their activities," Drastically reduced.

OK

• "interest of the media, focused on "the more fashionable" Which intead focused.

Done

• "were the same that had supported the objects of their rage in the recent past." You haven't mentioned that punk bands disliked the big rock groups prior to this,

Did they? I remember fans of Led Zeppelin among punk musicians. Anyway, I did not research punk bands so much, but focused on the press beacuse what critics and journalist wrote was important to heavy metal music and as background to the NWOBHM.

I'm not sure what the sentence means, then? What was their "rage" directed at? I know punks disliked prog-rock, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You are right. The sentence is too confusing. It was about the music press raging against "old rock" bands, but I mixed in the fact that punk was supported by major labels. I removed it because it was not on topic and uninportant. Lewismaster (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• "left space in the mid-70s to the rise of other bands" left space for the rise other bands in the mid-1970s.

Done

• "to the rise of other bands" Other rock bands?

And done

• "and also upcoming bands Thin Lizzy,[33] UFO[34] and Judas Priest,[35] had tangible success" Also had tangible success.

Done

• "Motörhead were a band founded in 1975" Clunky, I'd say "The band Motörhead was founded in 1975".

Changed

• "Ian 'Lemmy' Kilmister came from the space rock "formerly a member of".

changed

• "which divides the critics about its belonging to the New Wave of British Heavy Metal." I guess not only critics alone write about this issue?

Added fans

• "Some of them think that" Some of these believe.

Done

• "precursor and inspirer of" Inspiration for.

Done

• "the renunciation to technical virtuosity" to:of?

Bad English!! Corrected.

• "the stage with the punk band" Remove second the.

Done

• You are very inconsistent in whether you abbreviate the name New Wave of British Heavy Metal or not. You can abbreviate it at every mention after first occurrence after the intro.

Done

• The caption of the "Denim and Leather" sample could mention the date of the song.

Done

• "was a musical movement that involved" By this point in the text, the readers know it is a musical movement, so just remove the first part and say "involved".

OK

• "prevalent male sex and white skin" That is a pretty odd way of saying it. I'd just say "being prevalently male and white"

Rephrased

• "though the movement appears strongly homophobic." This seems a bit POV, elaborate?

Weinstein and Walser are adamant in describing the heavy metal subculture as homophobic. Other authors and artists concur (Bob Halford waited for more than 20 years for his coming out). I will check on the sources and rewrite the sentence.

• "Michael Schenker and Eddie Van Halen were the most celebrated young guitar heroes of the time." But what do they have to do with this genre?

I added them in reference to the previous sentence, when I mentioned guitar virtuosos. Probably redundant. Cut.

• "reflected the newly-found cohesion of the movement" What is meant by this?

That they made a fashion statement, all of them were dressed in a similar way, instead of the kimonos, jumpsuits or bell-bottom trousers sported in the prevoius decade.

• "had the same look of their fans" As their fans.

Done

• "A relevant exception was" Any exception is relevant, I'd say notable.

OK

• " to enrich their performances very early in their career." Perhaps mention how.

It was a stage prop at the beginning, then became a kind of mascot.

• "and a giant evolutionary step for the genre." Too hyperbolic.

Changed to important

• "and found a larger consensus in the British audience" Acceptance among?

Done

• "Songs about romance and lust were rare" Doesn't this contradict: "were in general fuelled by 'first pints, first shags"

Apparently no. The citation from Tucker says that the exuberance of youth is what encouraged the boys to form bands but it doesn't translate in lyrics about sex. The "youthful fantasy" prevails in the lyrics over other topics at least in the first years of the NWOBHM. Nothing in comparison with American hair metal bands...

• "Thin Lizzy, UFO and Judas Priest were already playing international arenas" If these are not considered part of the genre, what is the point of mentioning them like this?

As a way to frame the period and underline how the new bands were really new in comparison with what I called upcoming bands in the background section.

• "contended space in the venues to punk outfits" Contended for space with?

Done

• If you're considering taking this to FAC, I'd suggest listing this for copy-edit, some of the sentences are rather convoluted, and the order of words seem a bit odd to me at places, but since I'm not a native English speaker myself, I won't make too many suggestions in this regard.

It was always my intention to submit the script to the League of Copy-Editors. I wanted a review of the article before that step. The Peer Review gave me little feedback and, unfortunately, it took seven months to receive a GA review.

• For example, the placement of "also" here seems a bit non-English: "attitude and looks caused also heated rivalries" I'd say "also caused".

I'll check my "also"s

• "It caused also the birth" Likewise.

corrected

• "was their DIY attitude" Explain.

I believe that the following sentence explains the meaning.

• "He transformed his nights at the Bandwagon in The Heavy Metal" Into?

Done

• "term became soon" Soon became.

Done

• "to touring extensively the UK" In the UK.

corrected

• "promoted definitely the" Definitely promoted.

corrected

• "to relevant national phenomenon" To a.

corrected

• "Maiden's debut album" Easter egg links are discouraged, name the album.

corrected

• "and embarked in their first" On their first.

corrected

• "music magazines different from Sounds" Other than.

corrected

• "Sounds publisher cashed in for his support to the movement issuing in June 1981 the first number of Kerrang!" This sentence has a very non-English structure.

Changed sentence

• "albums entered in many foreign charts" You can remove "in".

corrected

• "Their assault to the British charts" Assault on, but in any case, this phrasing is way too hyperbolic for an encyclopaedia.

changed to "attempts to climb"

• "culminated with Iron Maiden's" Culminated in.

corrected

• "to declare finished the New Wave of British Heavy Metal" Finished should come last here.

corrected

• "Def Leppard remedied to that" No need for "to".

corrected

• "releasing at the beginning of 1983 Pyromania" Put the album name after "releasing".

corrected

• "an album which renounced to much of the aggressive sound of their older music for a more melodic and FM-friendly approach." Not sure what is meant here in the context of the sentence.

rearranged sentence

• "and the smart use of music videos" Loaded.

changed sentence

• "recently born MTV" Born is too informal. Launched would be better.

Done

• "and delivering a fatal blow to" Too hyperbolic.

changed sentence

• "became also very popular" Also became.

corrected

• "with the first arriving even to headline the" Oddly written, you can just say "with the former even headlining the".

Done

• "the demand of new performances." Demand for.

corrected

• "So the New Wave of British Heavy Metal experienced a" No need to start with "so".

OK

• "created no classic rock recording." Recordings?

corrected

• "today that hodgepodge of styles" Too informal, you can say mixture or some such.

I liked the word. Changed as suggested

• "with most notable exponents the German Helloween" I'd say "with the most notable exponents being".

corrected

• "and the American Manowar" Remove "and".

"with the other side of the pond" Way too informal. Say Atlantic.

corrected

• "were the first European countries which welcomed" The first other. The UK is in Europe too...

Right! Corrected.

• "were born between 1978" Formed.

corrected

• "which published also recordings" Also published. Seems "also" often gets in the wrong place here...

I need to dig out my grammar book...

• "commonly abbreviated in NWOBHM" Abbreviated as.

corrected

• "started in the late 1970s in the United Kingdom" I'd switch 1970s and UK, since this is preceded by "nationwide".

OK

• All the fixes look good to me now. Did you find anything more on the homophobia issue? After that is somehow addressed, I'm ready to pass. FunkMonk (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I expanded the part about homophobia and added a new source. I hope that it goes in the right direction... Lewismaster (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Great, I'll pass it now! You could change "not dissimilar from the attitude" to "not dissimilar to". FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your great review. This was a long work which finally reaches a conclusion. Lewismaster (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2016 (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.

Thin Lizzy

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_lizzy

"Thin Lizzy are an Irish rock band formed in Dublin in 1969."

Note: fifth word in sentence above.

I noticed, so what? Lewismaster (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the person is trying to claim they are not part of the NWOBHM because they are an Irish band. For the record I don't agree with this assessment, as Thin Lizzy were an essential part of the Mid 70s music scene in London. Nuro G'dayMate! 01:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Good Artice review

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.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Wave of British Heavy Metal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 23:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for picking up such a daunting task. Take all the time you need and I'll try to tag along as you proceed with the article's review. Lewismaster (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Cool, I've listened to my fair share of the relevant bands (only watched Motörhead live, though), so I should be adequate enough for the job... FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• It seems many of the images are "size forced", but this should be removed.[3]

Done. I used the "upright" parameter only on one very large pic.

• "the only notable all-girl metal bands of that age." Has no source at the end of the sentence.

Added references

• I see a few more sentences that end without sources. I guess it is because the sources are used earlier in the same sentences, but I think it's best to keep them last... Or at least some source last.

I fixed three of them adding references. Another one is the intro to the Motörhead section where I summarize what is explained in the following and amply referenced paragraphs. I don't think that it needs additional references. The remaining four sentences without a terminal reference are lists of bands. In my opinion there is a conflict between accuracy, coherence and Wikipedia:Citation overkill here. I think that every band should have a source that justify their belonging to a particular list and I associated a reference (but they could be many more) to each band. If I had put the sources at the end of the sentences there would be a trail of up to nine references, which is deprecated by the MOS and would clutter up the article. I accept your suggestions to solve this little dilemma. Lewismaster (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for the delay, will continue tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The United Kingdom in the second part of the 70s" I'd say "In the second part of the 1970s, the United Kingdom etc."

Done

• No need to abbreviate decades, better to spell them out, 1970s, 1980, etc.

OK, done

• "As consequence of the" As a consequence might sound better.

Done

• "reached the record of 3,224,715" Reached a record.

Trimmed down

• "The percentage of unemployed, especially among young people of the working class, was exceptionally high after a three-year-long period of economic recession,[2] when the politics of both Conservative and Labour Party governments had failed to find solutions for the social distress of large parts of the population." This sentence seems very long and complex, could perhaps be split somehow...

I split those sentences and arranged them differently.

• "is considered by most observers a consequence" The long sentence this is from seems to flow a bit weirdly, not sure if "by most observers" is really needed.

Well, the sources I reviewd agreed on this phenomenon. I'm not sure that every opinonist would be in agreement with this vision of the facts. I cut it anyway.

• "These punks were politically militant" I'd say self-proclaimed punks.

Done

• "stage practices like pogo" Say pogo-dancing? Otherwise it might be unclear what this is.

Done

• "when the crowd of young people" Crowd seems a bit specific for a mass-movement. Mass instead?

Ok with mass.

• "heavy metal, which provided fun, stress relief and the companionship of their peers, all things stripped away from them because of their unemployment." From this sentence, it seems these characteristics are in contrast to punk music?

Changed the sentence to avoid any misunderstanding

• "and reduced drastically their activities," Drastically reduced.

OK

• "interest of the media, focused on "the more fashionable" Which intead focused.

Done

• "were the same that had supported the objects of their rage in the recent past." You haven't mentioned that punk bands disliked the big rock groups prior to this,

Did they? I remember fans of Led Zeppelin among punk musicians. Anyway, I did not research punk bands so much, but focused on the press beacuse what critics and journalist wrote was important to heavy metal music and as background to the NWOBHM.

I'm not sure what the sentence means, then? What was their "rage" directed at? I know punks disliked prog-rock, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You are right. The sentence is too confusing. It was about the music press raging against "old rock" bands, but I mixed in the fact that punk was supported by major labels. I removed it because it was not on topic and uninportant. Lewismaster (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• "left space in the mid-70s to the rise of other bands" left space for the rise other bands in the mid-1970s.

Done

• "to the rise of other bands" Other rock bands?

And done

• "and also upcoming bands Thin Lizzy,[33] UFO[34] and Judas Priest,[35] had tangible success" Also had tangible success.

Done

• "Motörhead were a band founded in 1975" Clunky, I'd say "The band Motörhead was founded in 1975".

Changed

• "Ian 'Lemmy' Kilmister came from the space rock "formerly a member of".

changed

• "which divides the critics about its belonging to the New Wave of British Heavy Metal." I guess not only critics alone write about this issue?

Added fans

• "Some of them think that" Some of these believe.

Done

• "precursor and inspirer of" Inspiration for.

Done

• "the renunciation to technical virtuosity" to:of?

Bad English!! Corrected.

• "the stage with the punk band" Remove second the.

Done

• You are very inconsistent in whether you abbreviate the name New Wave of British Heavy Metal or not. You can abbreviate it at every mention after first occurrence after the intro.

Done

• The caption of the "Denim and Leather" sample could mention the date of the song.

Done

• "was a musical movement that involved" By this point in the text, the readers know it is a musical movement, so just remove the first part and say "involved".

OK

• "prevalent male sex and white skin" That is a pretty odd way of saying it. I'd just say "being prevalently male and white"

Rephrased

• "though the movement appears strongly homophobic." This seems a bit POV, elaborate?

Weinstein and Walser are adamant in describing the heavy metal subculture as homophobic. Other authors and artists concur (Bob Halford waited for more than 20 years for his coming out). I will check on the sources and rewrite the sentence.

• "Michael Schenker and Eddie Van Halen were the most celebrated young guitar heroes of the time." But what do they have to do with this genre?

I added them in reference to the previous sentence, when I mentioned guitar virtuosos. Probably redundant. Cut.

• "reflected the newly-found cohesion of the movement" What is meant by this?

That they made a fashion statement, all of them were dressed in a similar way, instead of the kimonos, jumpsuits or bell-bottom trousers sported in the prevoius decade.

• "had the same look of their fans" As their fans.

Done

• "A relevant exception was" Any exception is relevant, I'd say notable.

OK

• " to enrich their performances very early in their career." Perhaps mention how.

It was a stage prop at the beginning, then became a kind of mascot.

• "and a giant evolutionary step for the genre." Too hyperbolic.

Changed to important

• "and found a larger consensus in the British audience" Acceptance among?

Done

• "Songs about romance and lust were rare" Doesn't this contradict: "were in general fuelled by 'first pints, first shags"

Apparently no. The citation from Tucker says that the exuberance of youth is what encouraged the boys to form bands but it doesn't translate in lyrics about sex. The "youthful fantasy" prevails in the lyrics over other topics at least in the first years of the NWOBHM. Nothing in comparison with American hair metal bands...

• "Thin Lizzy, UFO and Judas Priest were already playing international arenas" If these are not considered part of the genre, what is the point of mentioning them like this?

As a way to frame the period and underline how the new bands were really new in comparison with what I called upcoming bands in the background section.

• "contended space in the venues to punk outfits" Contended for space with?

Done

• If you're considering taking this to FAC, I'd suggest listing this for copy-edit, some of the sentences are rather convoluted, and the order of words seem a bit odd to me at places, but since I'm not a native English speaker myself, I won't make too many suggestions in this regard.

It was always my intention to submit the script to the League of Copy-Editors. I wanted a review of the article before that step. The Peer Review gave me little feedback and, unfortunately, it took seven months to receive a GA review.

• For example, the placement of "also" here seems a bit non-English: "attitude and looks caused also heated rivalries" I'd say "also caused".

I'll check my "also"s

• "It caused also the birth" Likewise.

corrected

• "was their DIY attitude" Explain.

I believe that the following sentence explains the meaning.

• "He transformed his nights at the Bandwagon in The Heavy Metal" Into?

Done

• "term became soon" Soon became.

Done

• "to touring extensively the UK" In the UK.

corrected

• "promoted definitely the" Definitely promoted.

corrected

• "to relevant national phenomenon" To a.

corrected

• "Maiden's debut album" Easter egg links are discouraged, name the album.

corrected

• "and embarked in their first" On their first.

corrected

• "music magazines different from Sounds" Other than.

corrected

• "Sounds publisher cashed in for his support to the movement issuing in June 1981 the first number of Kerrang!" This sentence has a very non-English structure.

Changed sentence

• "albums entered in many foreign charts" You can remove "in".

corrected

• "Their assault to the British charts" Assault on, but in any case, this phrasing is way too hyperbolic for an encyclopaedia.

changed to "attempts to climb"

• "culminated with Iron Maiden's" Culminated in.

corrected

• "to declare finished the New Wave of British Heavy Metal" Finished should come last here.

corrected

• "Def Leppard remedied to that" No need for "to".

corrected

• "releasing at the beginning of 1983 Pyromania" Put the album name after "releasing".

corrected

• "an album which renounced to much of the aggressive sound of their older music for a more melodic and FM-friendly approach." Not sure what is meant here in the context of the sentence.

rearranged sentence

• "and the smart use of music videos" Loaded.

changed sentence

• "recently born MTV" Born is too informal. Launched would be better.

Done

• "and delivering a fatal blow to" Too hyperbolic.

changed sentence

• "became also very popular" Also became.

corrected

• "with the first arriving even to headline the" Oddly written, you can just say "with the former even headlining the".

Done

• "the demand of new performances." Demand for.

corrected

• "So the New Wave of British Heavy Metal experienced a" No need to start with "so".

OK

• "created no classic rock recording." Recordings?

corrected

• "today that hodgepodge of styles" Too informal, you can say mixture or some such.

I liked the word. Changed as suggested

• "with most notable exponents the German Helloween" I'd say "with the most notable exponents being".

corrected

• "and the American Manowar" Remove "and".

"with the other side of the pond" Way too informal. Say Atlantic.

corrected

• "were the first European countries which welcomed" The first other. The UK is in Europe too...

Right! Corrected.

• "were born between 1978" Formed.

corrected

• "which published also recordings" Also published. Seems "also" often gets in the wrong place here...

I need to dig out my grammar book...

• "commonly abbreviated in NWOBHM" Abbreviated as.

corrected

• "started in the late 1970s in the United Kingdom" I'd switch 1970s and UK, since this is preceded by "nationwide".

OK

• All the fixes look good to me now. Did you find anything more on the homophobia issue? After that is somehow addressed, I'm ready to pass. FunkMonk (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I expanded the part about homophobia and added a new source. I hope that it goes in the right direction... Lewismaster (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Great, I'll pass it now! You could change "not dissimilar from the attitude" to "not dissimilar to". FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your great review. This was a long work which finally reaches a conclusion. Lewismaster (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2016 (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.

Great Britain or the UK?

One thing is unclear to me. Is the British in this about Great Britain, the island which includes England, Scotland and Wales or the UK, which includes that island and Northern Ireland? The lead describes it as a "nationwide musical movement that started in the United Kingdom" but other references are only to Great Britain. Is that because it was limited to that island or because the article is wrongly using Great Britain as a synonym for the UK? Valenciano (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No the British in this article refers to the United Kingdom. Mama's Boys for instance were from Northern Ireland, but still part of the NWOBHM movement. N. C. Fortune (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

British definetly stands for United Kingdom Lewismaster (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nwobhm.info/nwobhm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=351&Itemid=42
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nwobhm.info/nwobhm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=351&Itemid=42

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 24 April 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved —  — Amakuru (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

---

New Wave of British Heavy Metal → New wave of British heavy metal – The Wikipedia Manual of Style for Capitalization does not contemplate capital letters for musical movements. Compliance to the MOS calls to a move to an already existing page requiring the intervention of an Administrator. Lewismaster (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support – very commonly lowercase in sources (where it's capitalized is most often either defining the acronym, which we don't do, or in a heading in title case, which we also don't do). Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support—I had already raised this matter at FAC. Tony (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support: The sources do not uniformly capitalize this and similar phrases; if the sources are not consistent, MOS:CAPS has us default to lower case. This was already on my list of over-capitalized article titles to take to RM, and someone else beat me to it. We don't even capitalize entire music genres, so we would not capitalize a sub-sub-genre. Capitalizing this is like capitalizing "Belgian Techno-Industrial Dance Music". We are capitalizing overarching "movements" that transcend specific genres in the arts (e.g. Classical music, and Art Nouveau), though I'm not sure why or whether the preponderance of off-WP style guides would support that. I think this is specifically what leads to the urge to capitalize things like "Dubstep" and "New Wave of British Heavy Metal"; people mistake it for a "capitalize all arts categorization labels" idea, which it is not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Not Support' - All musical Genres should be capitalised. It does not give the required or correct inflection to see Small lower cased words in Genre or article titles. It's not "heavy metal" it is "Heavy Metal", nor is it "Punk rock" it is "Punk Rock", nor is it "Rock and roll" it is most specifically "Rock 'n' Roll", I could go on. As clearly this is already an English class, not a contextual reading, I'm already out voted. Well see if anyone else who cares about the Nuance and the Context joins in. Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 22:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

  Why should they be capitalized? When is it "Heavy Metal" and not "Heavy metal?" You've argued that we should care about nuance and context. How is capitalizing genres nuanced and contextual? Please provide actual examples, not just your preference.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

  Sorry, I've written this early after waking. It can be considered POV maybe, as that's not my intention, but I've never written them as anything but capitalised. Or maybe my use of the English language is incorrect, but to have the Effect of the words, lower case is considered a Soft tone rather than a specific 'HEAVY METAL' as the word is trying to imply. Again, it could just be me and my self taught Grammatical Written Word over the years, so don't mistake my meaning as **** the world (or this debate), please. I've always found it weird to read multiple genres in an info box and the next word after a full stop is in lower case. To my understanding this is not how we would/should use the written form. Again just putting it out there, others will clearly do the same. Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 00:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  Nuro, it's not incorrect of you to use them capitalized for emphasis if that's your style. But Wikipedia has its own style, as described in the WP:MOS, and part of it is to not capitalize when not necessary. See MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  Ah well, to quote: "..when not necessary..".. I do consider them, with regards to Genre's, as necessary. There all separate words and sentences, as far as I would consider them, therefore having lower case removes the Nuance. Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 01:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  The point is that we look for consistent caps in sources to imply necessary, so we don't have to rely on our feelings. See WP:SSF in particular. Dicklyon (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - per the rationale of above support voters.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - standard format CannibalSnacks (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304110141/http://www.gillyon.com/manowar_k47.htm to http://www.gillyon.com/manowar_k47.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080628091921/http://www.metallica.com/index.asp?item=600988 to http://www.metallica.com/index.asp?item=600988

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150614102809/http://www.regularrocker.nl/index.php/biography to http://www.regularrocker.nl/index.php/biography

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117015420/http://pictureofficial.com/band.html to http://www.pictureofficial.com/band1.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Punk

Moving from my talk page:

Dear fellow editor, I think that it's better to sort out what you perceive as missing in the New wave of British heavy metal article regarding punk rock in a talk page, instead of starting an edit war. The article has a long history and was rewritten and amended multiple times and haevily scrutinized before becoming a Featured Article; the topics you propose were already discussed during the promotion process with other editors and you may find traces of the debate in the various talk pages of the time. The article describes a movement rather than a music genre, and within that movement heavy metal changed style and acquired some new features, like the fast rhythms also used in punk rock. The Infobox Music Genre template at the top of the article could be eliminated altogether, but it was decided to keep it to remind the reader that the NWOBHM was a stepping stone in the development of heavy metal, which is the genre we are talking about. As it is written in the article, the movement began at the same time as punk in the mid 70s and grew parallel to it, remaining underground. You surely learned in the article the aspects the two movements had in common and how they were in contrast. What I would not say is that punk originated the movement or that punk rock is a stylistic origin for the new metal bands (although a few punk band changed their colours and went to play heavy metal in those years). Lyrics, musicality, ideology, attitude, appearance and stage behaviours were completely different. Motörhead and Judas Priest are the most cited bands by NWOBHM musicians as their influences and neither of them was a punk rock band. Motörhead had some musical traits in common with punk bands, essentially the fast rhythms and simple structure of the songs, but no music critic would say that Lemmy & co. played punk rock. At least the sources cited in the article say this. What you feel evident in your ear and mind is inconsequential, until you provide independent sources convalidating your opinion. However, various subgenres originated from the NWOBHM had obvious punk rock influences and adopted many themes promoted by the punk movement. By the way, some street punk bands fused the two separate genres punk rock and heavy metal in their music, so it should be listed in the "fusiongenres" entry of the template. Cheers. Lewismaster (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Lewismaster (talk · contribs)! And sorry, I did not mean to edit war. I only found it strange for punk to be ejected from the infobox when the text puts so much emphasis on the sonic borrowing and cultural contrast between the two movements in late 70s UK music culture. "Lyrics, musicality, ideology, attitude, appearance and stage behaviours were completely different" is, I think, a stretch; many of these dimensions had similarities, and others were explicitly defined in contrast to the other ("this is not like punk"), which is also a kind of relation. One need not say that "punk originated NWOBHM" or that "NWOBHM bands are punk bands" (which is indeed absurd!) to agree that there was a strong relation of mutual influence (both positive and negative) between the two "movements", and that since punk arguably began at least a bit earlier, it can be considered one among several genres (together with e.g. hard rock and prog rock) that contributed to the origin of NWOBHM. But whether punk is one of the "ancestors" of NWOBHM or not (which is perhaps not too important), they are definitely "cousins".

Also, is there not a double standard in you denying punk to have any influence on the origin of NWOBHM, but considering street punk a "fusion genre" of punk and metal? This is not in line with the evidence presented in this article (which is simply that "Discharge blended punk music with elements of metal"), and especially not with the evidence in the street punk article, which clearly defines it as a subgenre of punk. Discharge, who were close to metal throughout their work, were not the only prominent street punk band or the essence of that genre. One might as well say that because "Motorhead blended metal music with elements of punk" (and after all they famously saw themselves as closer to punk than metal), NWOBHM is a fusion of metal and punk; precisely what so emphatically rejected just a few sentences above in the same paragraph. The evidence at hand justifies an influence of NWOBHM on street punk, not its being a fusion.--MASHAUNIX 13:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the two movements can be considered "confrontational cousins" and many headbangers had the bruises to confirm that! However, I don't see where to find strong similarities between the 70s punk rock and heavy metal of the same period in the UK. Pub rock of the early 70s had some influence on both genres for sure, but their music developed indipendently. I also would not say that punk started in the UK before the new wave of metal did. The first NWOBHM bands formed in 1973 (White Spirit, Vardis), Raven in 1974, Iron Maiden, Motörhead and Angel Witch in 1975. As I said, there was an underground movement active already in the mid 70s when punk was on the front pages, while the new metal bands were still toiling in the local clubs without any media coverage. I am not a musician and have based all my assertions on what I read. I don't think that my sentence about the differences between punk rockers and headbangers can be considered stretched. Here's a list that comes from the punk rock and NWOBHM articles about those points:

Charachteristic	Punk rock	Metal
Lyrics	frank, confrontational and frequently commenting on social and political issues	usually avoided social and political themes in their lyrics, preferring topics from mythology, the occult, fantasy, science fiction and horror films
Musicality	emulated the minimal musical arrangements of 1960s garage rock, complicated guitar solos were considered self-indulgent and the musical prowess was considered unimportant as long as the music was simple and loud	musicianship was considered very important and virtuoso guitarists and vocalists regarded as idols
Ideology	British punk rejected contemporary mainstream rock, the broader culture it represented, and their music predecessors, many in the scene adopted a nihilistic attitude	young musicians were linked by a shared inspiration from the works of the successful heavy rock bands of the late 1960s and 1970s, and kept a sort of continuity with the earlier acts, formed a closed community of peers that exalted power and celebrated masculinity
Attitude	outrageus, innovative and defiant	detatched, conservative and homophobic
Appearance	calculated to disturb and outrage, punk haircut was originally short and choppy and the mohawk later emerged as a characteristic style, safety pins, tattoos, piercings, and metal-studded and -spiked accessories became common	long hair and jeans, black or white T-shirts with band logos and cover art and leather jackets or denim vests adorned with patches, metallic studs and ornaments, or for metal musicians spandex or leather trousers.
Stage behaviour	provocative, sometimes obscene, stage diving, gobbling	headbanging, air-guitar playing

Regarding the second point, I don't see any contradiction in considering the music produced by UK 82 street punk bands like Discharge a fusion of two distinct music genres. However, it is wrong to indicate the whole of street punk as a fusion genre. This fusion happened during the second wave of punk in the 80s, when the NWOBHM was already mainstream. Technically the Infobox Music Genre template indicate to use the "fusiongenre" entry when a music genre has additional parent genres, without necessarily being a subcategory of both. Street punk is a punk rock subgenre, but only UK 82 bands fused it with metal. The derivatives listed in the article are all metal subgenres which were spawned from the NWOBHM. Lewismaster (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I appreciate the amount of detail you have included in your reply! I am of course not denying any of these differences, and I take your point about the early origins of NWOBHM bands. But I still cannot see NWOBHM as an identifiable "movement" or "genre" before punk, but rather to a great extent a reaction against punk (which goes with your table), which simultaneously took a lot from it: the "provocative, sometimes obscene" attitude (though again, taken in the opposite direction) and the sound (which you mostly did not address), most obviously the fast tempos, which are a decisive feature of NWOBHM. But I think we can leave this disagreement over nuances unresolved, since the article is presented well as is.

Then, the way I have seen it used across Wikipedia, a "fusion genre" of two or more genres is never simultaneously a "subgenre" of one, since the only truly decisive roots of a subgenre are in its parent genre. So if UK 82 is a subgenre of punk, the definition of "derivative" on Template:Infobox music genre#fusiongenres will still fit its relation to NWOBHM better. But this is also a non-issue. Thanks again for elaborating your interpretation so explicitly, it is very useful!--MASHAUNIX 11:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It's OK. It is always fun to talk with other passionate music lovers on wikipedia. Lewismaster (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Intro para

A nonsense semi sociological unsourced discourse that is wrong factually and in implication. NWOBHM wasn't some sort of coherent movement either among bands or fans and given UK demographics then and who usually forms rock bands, what else would it be other than predominantly young, white, male and working class? Stupidnamerules (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If you agree that the headbangers were "predominantly young, white, male and working class", I can't understand why it is a "nonsense semi sociological unsourced discourse that is wrong factually and in implication." The source is actually a treaty on sociology. Lewismaster (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)