Talk:Grindcore/Archive 4

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grindcore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Comments

The article is quite good. However, there are some issues that could be improved.

• The historic development of grindcore isn't clear. Were there different subgenres in Europe and America during the 1990s?
• What happened after the 1990s? The section on 2000 isn't presenting this division anymore and has much fewer bands.
• Can you possibly make a statistic to show the development of grindcore bands over time?
• In the legacy section are several very short sections. Can you flesh them out?
• Personally, I would be delighted if I could listen to some more examples. You can use template:External media to link to online versions. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

First response

Hi; glad you think the article is decent; sorry I haven't begun responding earlier (was visiting my family).

• With regard to the Europe/U.S. split: There's not a firm stylistic division to the ways grindcore developed on separate continents; the paragraphs were broken up for organizational reasons. American grindcore has a somewhat distinct flavor, and "cybergrind" developed there (as remarked upon in the article), but to say more than this would violate WP:SYN.
  • I would prefer a merger of these sections(that's a suggestion not an order) and possibly a remark about stylistic differences between the different continents and why they exist/ed. Grindcore seems to have developed out of a fusion of different genres into different subgenres. So there's interest on how grindcore was first defined and then how the subgenres historically developed and are still developing. If there's a real break between decades, so be it, otherwise introduce other chapters for the narrative. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• As to the 21st century, again, without violating WP:SYN we can't comment on why there are fewer bands and a less distinct split between Europe and the U.S. It's possible that fewer bands formed, or just that the period is less well-documented at present.
  • OK, you might discuss the problems of sources about grindcore in an own chapter. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if I understand the question about the statistic. Do you mean with regard to sales, number of groups, stylistic changes, or something else?
  • Any useful statistic to show the development. As you pointed out, band numbers are problematic but sales could solve the problem to give the reader a clue about the development of popularity. The numbers of bands or subgenres may help to assess how much creative development there is. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• I agree that the legacy section is somewhat paratactic. I'll try to tackle this problem.
• I'll see what I can do about sound samples. There was one there that was removed for inadequate rationale. I'm still familiarizing myself with the copyright issues, and that's delayed the process. Aryder779 (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You don't have to care about copyright with Template:External media because you're linking. Youtube for example is a good source. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:ELNEVER = Use only "youtube.com/earacherecords" Cannibaloki 21:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, we will take care of this. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Organization of the article

Currently the eras of grindcore are defined according to the activity of the band Napalm Death. The band's official homepage states they're still active. Thus there can't be any post-Napalm death era. For this reason a totally new system for the history of grindcore must be introduced. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A totally new system?

There is a "post-Napalm Death era", because we're in the period subsequent to Napalm Death's emergence. Punk rock still exists, that doesn't make post-punk a nonsense term. According to Wiktionary, [1] the prefix "post-" means "after, later." A section of the page discusses grindcore later than Napalm Death's initial impact. All the sources attest that Napalm Death invented the term and established grindcore in its most widely recognized form. Therefore, it is logical to divide things up according to their nearest predecessors and inspirations, on the one hand, and later groups who followed them, on the other. The only ways to organize things are by chronology, by geography, or perhaps by subgenres. Previously, geographical and chronological markers were included, but you objected on the grounds that the significance in distinctions between European grindcore and American grindcore, or '80s and '90s grindcore, were not spelled out. To which I would reply that any attempt to do this would necessarily be a generalization, would probably be reductive, and wouldn't be supported by the sources. Aryder779 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, but the section post Napalm Death is compareably long. Can it be broken into smaller sections without commiting WP:OR? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur. It can be broken up without violating OR or SYN, based on continent or decade (easily verifiable empirical facts). In the past, you've expressed some reservations because it's difficult to make generalizations about the exact distinctions between '80s and '90s grind or Euro and American grind. I'll try to deal with this in the most elegant fashion I can. Aryder779 (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've since tried to work around this problem by a division according to UK, American, and European variants, with an additional paragraph covering more recent events. I'm doing the best I can, and I hope it's becoming clear how messy the history is, and how difficult it is to establish a clear continuity without violating WP:SYN. Aryder779 (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the new organization because it has a timeline and geographic locations. However, does this mean that grindcore was dead in the UK after the 80s or is this a history about British bands initiating a brushfire that spreads around th world and becomes prominent at different decades? Wandalstouring (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right that new grindcore groups stop appearing in the UK; the original groups still exist, but the style seems to emigrate to North America and continental Europe. I've implied this in the intro paragraph, but in the absence of a definitive source stating that grindcore stopped developing in Britain, we can't write that directly. Aryder779 (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Remaining problems

The lead is too short. try to make it a summary of the whole article content. Especially any reference to the legacy section is missing.

In Lyrics you start with Napalm Death's lyrics. Try to explain grindcore lyrics in general and go to examples like ND afterwards.

Reliable sources is a problem. note 2: What does this make a reliable source? Direct referencing to the magazines would be OK with links where the content can be viewed online.

• note 3: point out it's from havoc records, not just a relatively blank link.
• note 4: needs a new reference because it's a dead link
• note 5: Same as note 3
• note 15: dead link needs replacement
• note 36: what makes this blog a reliable source?
• note 38: can you refer to their original source?
• note 39: needs replacement
• note 41: How's that a source?
• note 49: dead link needs to be replaced
• note 52: is a dead link and needs to be replaced
• note 53: what makes this a reliable source?
• note 54: same as note 53
• note 55: same as note 53
• note 61: same as note 53
• note 62: same as note 53
• note 67: what makes this a reliable source?
• note 69: same as note 53
• note 72: is a dead link and needs to be replaced
• note 75: same as note 53
• note 81: what makes this a reliable source?
• note 82: what makes this a reliable source?
• note 84: links didn't work. what makes this a reliable source?
• note 92: same as note 53
• note 93: what makes this a reliable source?
• note 94: same as note 53
• note 96: is a dead link

Please fix these issues. Afterwards I'll take care of MOS. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted many of the dead links, some of which are redundant or support dispensable information I have deleted. A few of the others I will replace later. However, 1) some of the links that you say are dead work fine for me. 2) You seem to have doubts as to whether Allmusic is a reliable source. It definitely is. Allmusic has a paid staff. 3) At one point you criticize the inclusion of Earache's blog as a reliable source; I think this is fine, because it's from Digby Pearson (a recognized authority) and authorized by Earache. 4) I think that I have resolved most of these problems. If there are remaining dead links or sources you think are questionable, please let me know. Aryder779 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You seemed to also have a problem with using the RIAA searchable database as a source for sales, which I also don't think is a problem. I think the RIAA is a reliable source. I understand that its database status makes it unusual for Wikipedia, but I think it's fully in the spirit of WP:RELIABLE to refer to such an official source. Aryder779 (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you link to the saerch result instead of the search mask of the database? Wandalstouring (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've tried. This doesn't seem to be possible. Aryder779 (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've deleted the dead links you identified, and replaced them when possible, and deleted the information they backed up when it didn't seem possible to replace the source. Let me know if there are remaining problems. Aryder779 (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

GA on hold

This appears to be an orphaned review, seeing as how it's been one month since any comments were posted to it. The way I see the article in its present state, it is overall good, with the exception of a poor lead section, which fails to properly summarize it. Please see WP:LEAD for tips on improving this section. One thing that jumps out is the sentence in the lead, "The style was founded and named by Napalm Death in Britain,...", but when you read the history that's down in the second section, so saying that Napalm Death "founded" the style doesn't seem the most accurate here. The lead should also mention more about some of the influences in other music as well ('legacy' section).

As another note, perhaps one of the images used below could be put into the infobox? The infobox itself could use a little sprucing up, and an image would help here.

Here's how the article matches up against the six GA criteria:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I will leave this article on hold until June 2, 2009. If the lead isn't improved by then, it will be failed and removed from WP:GAN. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw the request for additional comments on the GA page. I see that the lead still has a citation needed note. I'm also concerned about organization revolving around Napalm Death, but I have fewer qualms about that than others seem to; perhaps I've seen an edited version. Another way to deal with the organization would be as "Early years: the Napalm Death era"; Genre development; Influence on other genres.

The article just stops. There seems to be no summation. Perhaps the last section of development should actually be "legacy: Influence on other genres." ???? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Auntieruth: 1) There is not a "citation needed" note in the lead. 2) I don't think Napalm Death receive undue weight in any way, because they are always covered prominently in sources on grindcore, as the acknowledged creators of the style. The article has indeed evolved quite a bit in response to comments. 3) I'm unsure how to "sum up" a genre which continues to exist, particularly without resorting to original research. The last section *is* in fact legacy ... are you suggesting a change to its title? That's an interesting idea. Maybe I'll do that.

Thanks for your input. Aryder779 (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up to 1): I see you must have been referring to the "citation needed" tag in the beginning of the characteristics section. That had escaped my notice. I don't think it was ever really necessary because the sources appear subsequently and it's an intro sentence, but I've added a citation there nonetheless. Aryder779 (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tackled the lead; I think it does a pretty good job summarizing the article now. Aryder779 (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The changes look good. The article is now a GA. Nice work! Dr. Cash (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Updates

I've tried to respond to most of your suggestions, and agree that they improve the article. Thanks for the tip on external sound links. Aryder779 (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there other divisions for grindcore than only the Napalm Death era? I expressed some doubts about a history based on decades that doesn't explicitly point out that there are differences between the decades. If there are no differences other than a pre ND-, ND- and post ND- era I'm fine.

There are subgenre distinctions, discussed in the body of the text, but not readily identifiable breaks with regard to decade or geography. Aryder779 (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Legacy section is very difficult to read. I asked you to flesh out the sections, not to merge them because I believe the merger makes it even more difficult to read. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about this. I'll try to address it. Aryder779 (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Heavy Metal?

Would Grindcore be considered a type of Heavy Metal?Xx1994xx (talk)

Yes. --Lordnecronus (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No - How can it be when it grew out from Hardcore Punk? When Napalm Death first started out they were considered an extreme style of hardcore punk and appealed mostly to the hardcore fans. Grindcore was massively rooted from Crust Punk (Doom, Amebix, ENT etc)and was linked to thrashcore (Intense Degree, Dr and The Crippens etc). It all got its first real publicity was through Radio One dj John Peel who also released records for them as Peel Sessions and on the classic "Hardcore Holocaust" LP. It is only naive Metal fans who don't remember or appreciate the extent and noisiness of hardcore punk back in the 80's. It is more fans who got into them during the 90's that think because it is heavy it is instantly a genre of metal. The main difference being punk relies heavily on rhythm (3-cords strumming) where as metal was more structured from proffessionally played hard rock with lead and guitar solos etc. Back in the 80's Slayer's Reign in Blood was regarded as the bounderies of metal being pushed to it limits. There is a BBC documentary titled "thrash to death" featuring Slayer & Napalm Death (obviously using death in the title after napalm death and nothing to do with death metal - death metal wasn't known then. It was the era of thrash metal & punk before death metal came to fame) which can be found on site such as Youtube which even quotes Tom Araya saying this. He even says that anything beyond Reign in Blood wouldn't make any sense and would fall into the bounderies of being punk. RottingSouls (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Youtube links that dont meet requirements

Links to youtube are allowed only under specific conditions WP:ELNO - the recent addition of numerous links fails to meet those conditions. In addition to the general invalidity of youtube links, the selection by a wikipedia editor of "examples" violates our no original research policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take your time and explain yourself.

• Under what conditions are youtube links allowed?
• Where is WP:ELNO refering to youtube(I read the policy and not a word about youtube)?
• How does a selection of links violate WP:OR? This policy doesn't mention selections of links. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the desire to abide by Wikipedia guidelines, and I admit that I'm unclear on policies with regard to audio samples and external links. I hope this conversation will be a learning experience for all of us. With that said, I find it hard to believe that sound files added as examples could possibly violate WP:NOR. It is well established by a variety of sources that tracks by Napalm Death, Brutal Truth, Carcass, and Nasum are indicative of grindcore. I can't imagine that such a designation could be seriously contested. Aryder779 (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The simplest description is our: dont link to a copyright violation. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We have solved this issue and don't link to copyright violation. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm no - none of these are posted by people who indicate that they have copyright permission to distribute the video and at least one specifically indicates that they do not. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Some official Earache videos from Youtube.com:

• Napalm Death - The Kill - Celebrating 20 Years of Scum: [2].
• Napalm Death - You Suffer - Celebrating 20 Years of Scum: [3].
• Napalm Death LIVE in Geislingen Germany 1987: [4].

I don't think they're representative at all, but...

Musicaindustrial (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

YouTube in general is a poor place to look for encylopedic content that meets Wikipedia copyright requirements (just as a general google search is a poor use of time for finding Wikipedia content). If people feel that audio examples are valuable additions to the article (and for an article about music, they very well may be), the search for usable material should definitely not start with YouTube. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit that I don't really understand how copyright issues work on Wikipedia, which is why I hadn't added soundfiles or links previously. If we add a video link to the Earache Napalm Death video, for example the live one from '87 in Germany, will that be ok? Do we have the legal right to do that? It's my understanding that no grindcore is public domain -- in every case there will be a copyright issue. Maybe it's alright with the Earache link since Earache owns the rights and has placed the material online, but I'm not sure if they would authorize a direct link from Wikipedia. Aryder779 (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia can link to a site that has the right to distribute the material - generally the official site of the copyright owner. On rare occasions, the person who holds the official copyright will post on youtube - in which case we could link to youtube, but my bet is that if they have posted it on youtube, they have posted it on their official website which would then be the preferred link. Some places to start reading to get a handle on Wikipedia copyright policies are WP:FAIR and WP:COPYLINK. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry mate, you just lost that bet... All videos featured on the Earache site [5] link to Youtube!

And Aryder779, we should look for other extreme metal labels on Youtube... Like Relapse, which has tons of grind bands. They have a section on Youtube dedicated exclusively their grindcore roster: [6]. Musicaindustrial (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I already asked vertigodess, the roster of Napalm Death and others, for some samples. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not detailed, but overall review

Greets. I've seen this article on GA review and I will just add some concerns to fix:

• Lead section
  • what means "extreme tempos"? I'd say that you mean "extremely fast tempos".
  • Expand the sentence about the "Lyrical themes" so, that you don't need to use the parenthesis = integrate those three bands into the sentence without using brackets. If someone, who has not idea about rock music reads the sentence, he is not going to understand that Napalm Death, Carcass and A.C. are band, so he will not understand the meaning of the statement.
  • expand the whole lead: add a paragraph related to history and mention maistream success, impact on music etc. - have a look at the 3rd paragraph of the lead of Heavy metal music.
• Characteristics
  • Make here an extra first section that describes grindcore more in general. Start simply with the instrumentation, typical lineup, vocals, typical techniques etc (for example from this source you already used). (again Heavy metal music could help with its style)
  • If some sub-section such as "Guitar tuning" is s very short, it could be better to intergrate it to the lead section of "Characteristics" (if you make one).
• History seems to be without any significant problems. Only thing: Split the "Grindcore after Napalm Death" into at least 2: 1 for the 90s and other one for "recent trends" or something. And rename the "Grindcore after Napalm Death" heading. It's too much Napalm Death headings
• "Sales" do not need a separate section. Move those facts to the history.
• Legacy: some paragraphs (1.,2.) are too short. Expand them or integrate them to the lead of "Legacy" section
• Try to improve the prose to me more engaging. Very useful reading can be found here.
• Avoid weasel words such as "Napalm Death took some impetus..". You can either replace them with some concrete word or simply leave out: "Napalm Death took some impetus from the industrial music scene..."
• The article expects some background knowledge from the reader. You typically jump into the content too quickly. You must start with the description of more basic things (especially "Characteristics", but the language style in general. Many statements can be unclear to a non-metalhead. When reading it, try to imagine you know nothing about rock music). This will expand it a lot.
• Sourcing seems tough enough to me. The article overall is good and should not have problems to pass GA. But if you want to go further (FA), expand it. Having a look at Heavy metal article will help.
• Fix/write the lead section after you are ready with the main body. It is easier because the lead is "a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article". So you'll just sum up the content of the article (WP:LEAD).
• Good luck with it. Time Waits for No Slave kicks ass at every scale. Cheers.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• One more thing- reliability of sources:
  • Online sites, Magazines: Everybody has writers, what we require is editorial oversight, someone checking the writing for accuracy - at least one level of editors above the writers. The easiest way is to stick to pages and magazines that have good reputation/name. If a website does not provide information about their writers and editors, it is not reliable. Check whether all of the sources are reliable and remove the non-reliable ones (if there are some). Pages, that are edited by a bunch of people (no matter how proffesional) who can publish what ever they want, are not reliable. It is also good if the writers (books), websites and magazine are recognized by other mainstream reliable sources. So I don't really see how are for example these sources reliable: [7], [8], [9]--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Will try to tackle all of this. If anyone else can help me, I'd appreciate it. Aryder779 (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I've done the best I could to respond to all of these concerns. Aryder779 (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Right. It is better now and the structure is solid. I think it can be a GA (but i must admit that i did not check the MOS and all of the sources). What do you intend with this article in the future?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional fixes. I guess someday I'd like to submit this for featured article status, but not too terribly soon. Maybe if a new definitive source comes to light at some point, the page will be able to reach its (more or less) final form. Aryder779 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Allright. I'll be around sometimes. Good luck!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 16:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So... When will this article pass the GA review? I'm looking forward to it. Musicaindustrial (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fuzz bass?

Although the article uses the phrase "distinctive bass tone" in reference to Repulsion, I think more mention should be given to this aspect of grindcore, as the static, ugly sound of the bass is one of grindcore's defining elements. Interestingly, Impetigo uses the reversal of this dynamic on some of their material, implementing harsh, fuzzy guitar with clean, jangly bass, giving it a more hardcore than grindcore quality. I think this information is valid to the grindcore article. 144.162.72.91 (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for it? If so, feel free to add! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have no clue where I would find such a source. A brief search turned up results in which fans were DISCUSSING the use of fuzz bass in a grindcore context, but no one attempting to dissect or define the bass tones of grindcore. 66.137.151.39 (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for sources

Does anyone have the March 2009 issue of Decibel Magazine? If so, is there any possibility they could scan the section on pornogrind and stick it up somewhere? I'm trying to better source the stub. Also of possible interest to some editors, apparently the June edition has a section on what it calls "slam metal". Could be interesting. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

crust punk

i think the crust influence in grindcore could be more presented in this article. napalm death and extreme noise terror were both crust bands before helping develop what we now recognize as grind. Abolishthedarkness (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Industrial

Industrial influenced grindcore??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erlandinho (talk • contribs) 23:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How about Post-punk? That's crazier. Theburning25 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Metalcore section

For the most part this section looks fine. However, mentioning screamo there incorrectly implies that it is a form of metalcore as opposed to post-hardcore. I don't think screamo necessarily warrants its own section by itself, but this is misleading.(Albert Mond (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

Question

This is kind of a burning question that needed to be asked and isn't really answered on the article. As most would notice; almost all extreme metal has a rhythm guitarist for the needs of the back-up sound and key-bridges alike... but most grindcore bands don't incorporate a rhythm guitarist; why is this? Is it because they're lazy which would tag-along with how short grindcore songs usually are and/or the members don't really have a lot of friends? (...Joking! Haha) But seriously would there be a meaning behind this? • GunMetal Angel 05:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Locust is not related enough to grindcore for it to be mentioned

I enjoy The Locust's music, so don't assume that I have a negative bias. But I do not believe the band has enough elements of grindcore to be mentioned in the grindcore article. Blast beats, extreme distortion, fast tempos and screaming/screeching are elements The Locust employs, but they are elements that do not exist solely in grindcore. Additionally, the lean towards avant garde techniques, complex structures and unusual synth elements further distance The Locust from grindcore's generally non-experimental, often minimal ideas. It appears to be a mix of elements from mathcore, post-hardcore, electronic/avant garde and a bit of powerviolence. Not grind. 144.162.76.185 (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOR WP:RELIABLE. 98.242.73.82 (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Duplicated information

There's duplicate information, especially about characteristics, in the opening section and the one following. I didn't check further down. Sorry I don't have time to do more than just point this out. Thanks, --Geekdiva (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I just ran across "grindpunk" in the Japanische Kampfhörspiele article stub. Is that a synonym for grindcore? Are there any others? I understand the names of similar musical genres can have fluid and overlapping boundaries for what type each name covers, but adding and explaining even near-synonyms would be helpful for us punk-ignorant folk. (As opposed to folk-ignorant punks? Schwa, I gotta get some sleep!) Thanks again! --Geekdiva (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Goregrind

The article says "goregrind focusses on themes of horror". "Horror" could either mean the fictional genre, i.e. the stereotypical topics of monsters, ghost and serial killers, etc. (see "Horror fiction") or it could mean "horror" in the sense of the psychological feeling of revulsion to something frightening (see "Horror and terror"). It's pretty clear that the first definition has only little to do with the themes of severed limbs, desecrated corpses, rot and decomposition, faeces, blood and other bodily fluids that goregrind tends to deal with. And the second definition doesn't seem specific enough. So to avoid confusion, it seems best to me to just change the text to "focusses on themes of gore and filth". While this may be partially overlapping with some definitions of "horror" it is a lot more specific, and a lot more applicable -- the genre isn't called "goregrind" for nothing. ;) RagingR2 (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)