Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 4

Missing bands from the 1970s

Uriah Heep released their first album in 1969. Lucifer's Friend in 1971. Trapeze's 1970 album Medusa was also commercially successful and exhibits most of the genres of early to late 1970s metal. They should definitely be added to the list of influential bands.

Hawkwind's early albums with Lemmy are a 50/50 mix of heavy metal and hard rock. Reviewers confuse and mistakenly treat them the same as Pink Floyd when their early albums are metal.

The Stooges (Iggy Pop) and MC5 (Kick out the Jams) need to be mentioned because they were the earliest hard rock, pre-metal metal core bands.

Chicago's first album from 1969, Chicago Transit Authority, contains a 6 minute feedback free-form heavy metal guitar solo.

Neu 2 (1972), the second album by the German band Neu is the first industrial metal album and laid the groundwork for later bands such as LaiBach and their heavy metal Let It Be cover album.

>>>Missing bands? Tell me about it. I spent about an hour one day creating a "proto-metal" article attempting to list all of the proto-metal bands that ever existed. Your info would have fit in perfectly, but the article was deleted. Now "proto-metal" just redirects here. Apparently someone thought that there wasn't enough info to justify a seperate proto-metal article. So instead we have a (too long) article on heavy metal with information such as yours being left out. Gotta love wikipedia.Orange ginger (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rammstein is the most commercially successful industrial heavy metal band and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.208.99 (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Metallica as main reference for Thrash Metal can be considered offensive

Since Metallica band had so strong political viewpoint about Napster and RIAA (maybe DRM as well), not only all of the work of Metallica must be boycotted, as well should not be cited in a so explicit way as from Heavy_metal_music Wikipedia english page. Bands like Megadeth deserves more respect than Metallica because of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.187.225 (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. We're trying to give a brief overview of the entire genre in the lead section, and Metallica's one of the genre's most important groups. And our job is not to tell people to boycott bands. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually thats really stupid metallica were if im right one of the first thrash bands so just because they sued napster(sireously get over it)dosent mean they suck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.36.29 (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Queen, the first non-blues based heavy metal band (Facts)

-Queen are the first non-blues based heavy metal band and one of biggest influence on Judas Priest music. Queen release his first album one year before Judas Priest. In the early '70s Queen are the heaviest band on the planet and the precursors of speed and thrash metal sound. In the early '70 Judas Priest are not an influential force because anybody knows about the band. The Judas Priest albums begun to sale heavily in the early '80s and today have sold only 30 million copies worldwide. Queen have sold more than 300 million copies worldwide.

-Queen are one of the biggest influence of Metallica, Iron Maiden, Guns and Roses, Judas Priest, Queensryche, Def Leppard, Symphony X, Nirvana, Helloween, Van Halen, Marlyn Manson, Styx, Yngwie Malmsteen, Sepultura, Steve Vai, Blind Guardian, Motley Crue, Scorpions and Motorhead amongst others.

-**Rob Halford (Judas Priest) about Queen: "All I've got on my iPod is every single Queen song and every single Judas Priest song. Queen were an incredible heavy metal band. I saw them on their first ever tour, at Birmingham Town Hall. They just blew me away." more info: http://www.queencuttings.com/cod/ClassicRock_oct2006.html

-If you think that Queen are not the first non-blues based heavy metal band, one of the best rock critics, GORDON FLETCHER, wrote in the Rolling Stone Magazine one year before Judas Priest first album release, in Dec 1973 this:

“Rumor has it that Queen shall soon be crowned "the new Led Zeppelin," which is an event that would certainly suit this observer just fine. There's no doubt that this funky, energetic English quartet has all the tools they'll need to lay claim to the Zep's abdicated heavy-metal throne, and beyond that to become a truly influential force in the rock world. Their debut album is superb. The Zeppelin analogy is not meant to imply that Queen's music is anywhere near as blues-based as the content of Led Zep I & II. No, their songs are more in the Who vein, straight-ahead rock with slashing, hard-driving arrangements that rate with the finest moments of Who's Next and Quadrophenia. There's a song on the album (remarkably reminiscent of "Communication Breakdown") called "Modern Times Rock 'N' Roll," and that's exactly what Queen's music is. They're the first of a whole new wave of English rockers, and you'd best learn to love 'em now 'cause they're here to stay. Regal bearings aside, Queen is a monster.”

Put Queen under speed metal if u want to include it....stone cold crazy and ogre battle are prime examples of it...metallica even covered STC! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.168.212 (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Magazine (1973) facts info:

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/queen/albums/album/199416/review/5942941/queen_1st_lp

-Queen are the first inductee in "Vh1 Rock Honors"

-Is an error to said that Judas Priest helped spur the genre's evolution by discarding much of its blues influence. The correct form: Queen helped spur the genre's evolution by discarding much of its blues influence; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paloma777 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is somewhat questionable; Zeppelin (Dazed & Confused), Sabbath (Black Sabbath, War Pigs), Deep Purple (Child In Time) and particularly King Crimson (21st Cetury Schizoid Man) had already begun this process of 'de-bluesifying.' Metal is defined by being distinctive from the blues, something that wasn't clear cut in the bands of the 1970's, veering from blues based rock to genuine metal, and the seperation was an incremental process that seems to have only been completed with the emergence of the hardcore influenced bands of the early 1980's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelzdking (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No matter how 'questionable' it is, they certainly deserve a mention besides one quote. They were a very influential band on pretty much every influential metal band out there from the 70's/80's. And they are mentioned in the pages of various sub-genres. Therefore, they deserve a mention in this page. Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Another early example of speed metal is Queen's "Stone Cold Crazy" from their 1974 album Sheer Heart Attack. The song was extremely quick-paced for the rock & roll genre and among the fastest Queen ever played. Other than the fast tempo of the song, Brian May's staccato riffs and Roger Taylor's jackhammer drums are similar to later metal styles."

from the Speed Metal page. This states that Queen were an influence on not only speed metal, but metal as a whole. As the jackhammer drumming is used by many metal bands nowadays. And if you can't deny their influences, as Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, and Metallica have cited them as major influences. So there is no reason why they aren't in this article. Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm as of now going to change "Judas Priest helped spur the genre's evolution by disregarding much of it's blues influence" to Queen, because on the Queen page it says that and has 2 sources. It isn't sourced here where it says Judas Priest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanthic-Ztk (talk • contribs) 07:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair. Zazaban (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In regards to Judas Priest, it says so in the body of the article. Now, I honestly like Queen far more than I like Judas Priest, but Priest is far more influential to the genre as a whole. Also, the Speed metal mention of Queen isn't sourced and is therefore highly dubious. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I got the Guitar collector's (N°10 March 1996) dedicated to Queen including many analysis of Queen's songs. And it underlines without any possible doubt the presence of blues influence in many songs. Note the analysis have been written by journalist and guitarist J.J Rebillard, who is, on a side note, a specialist of Blues. On p.36, for example, J.J Rebillard notes that the guitar lines of songs like "I want it all", "Fat bottomed Girls", "Crazy little thing" are built on the blues scale. He also notes that "Fat bottomed Girls" makes use of ternary rhythmic patterns typical of blues. Also "Crazy Little Thing" makes use of the Blues' Shuffle and the solo also has a swing feel (p.77). On his analyse he also notes that harmonic structure and tonality of "We Will rock" are in a blues tonality (tonality of "A blues" as mentioned)(p.75)even though only making use of a pentatonic major scale. I got many others examples, but I don't have much time now. Fred D.Hunter (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Weither that is true or not, it doesn't mean they don't deserve a far bigger mention than the one quote about Judas Priest. They influenced most of the influencial metal bands from the 70's, Black Sabbath being the most notable exception, though, Toni Iomi said that they were very largley influenced by blues.

"Queen have also been cited as a major influence on the "neo-classical metal" genre by Swedish guitarist Yngwie Malmsteen.[73] Metallica recorded a cover version of "Stone Cold Crazy", which first appeared on the "Rubaiyat — Electra's 40th Anniversary" album in 1990, and won the Grammy Award for Best Metal Performance in 1991. In the early '70s, Queen helped spur the heavy metal genre's evolution by discarding much of its blues influence;[53][64]the New Wave of British Heavy Metal followed in a similar vein, fusing the music with a punk rock sensibility and an increasing emphasis on speed."

that shows their influence on metal, with sources. They don't need as big of a mention as Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath, but not having any mention is just dening the facts. 219.89.106.179 (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We can't talk about every band at length in this article, seeing as how it has to address 40 years of heavy metal history. Frankly, Queen is not as important as you make them out to be. The amount of coverage given to them in this article is sufficient for the article's subject. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I supose. But atleast change the unsourced part about "In the mid '70s, Judas Priest helped spur the heavy metal genre's evolution by discarding much of its blues influence" as the one on Queen's page has two sources and says "In the EARLY '70s" you could make it something like "In the early '70s, English Rock band Queen helped spur the heavy metal genre's evolution by discarding much of its blues influence", although, the rock band part may confuse people not farmilar with early heavy metal. That's enough of a mention to keep me happy and saying Judas Priest were responsible for this is an incorrect, and unsourced, fact. Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Name Change

I believe that the name of this article should be changed to simply "Metal (music)" as heavy metal is a subgenre of metal, which includes music such as mid-to-late Metallica. In addition, the genre is most commonly referred to as simply "metal." Shralla 04:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree and disagree at the same time. This comment is characteristic of the same frequent confusion about the heavy metal term. You have to know that the word "heavy metal" is also the proper term for "metal" even though heavy metal is also a word used to refer to the original subgenre.

As I tried to explain countless times here, what many people fail to understand is the word "Heavy metal" can actually have several senses according to the context you're using it. There are 3 main different use of it.

1. the original meaning: Heavy metal can be used as a synonym of hard-rock.

2. The classic metal meaning: Heavy metal can be used to refer to classic metal bands which differ from Hard-rock by dropping blues roots.

3. the general meaning: Heavy metal can be used as as general word to refer to the whole genre including every subgenre.

The meaning you are referring to is the second one which is dealt in the classic metal article. While this very article deals with the 3rd sense the most general one. I wrote a clearly sourced explanation about this confusion in the article. But some guys erase it.

Frédérick Duhautpas 13:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, thats not a bad point, because on every metal website I go on, they refer to "heavy metal" as a subgenre of metal music. So I'd agree with a name change.Prepare to be Mezmerized! 01:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I wasn't aware of this at all. Could someone please cite a nice reliable (i.e., other than amateur website) source for this assertion that "heavy metal" is a "subgenre" of "metal"?—DCGeist 04:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of those websites aren't what would be considered reliable sources. Studies on the genre and its history (which are extensively sourced in this article) acknowledge the entire genre is properly termed "heavy metal". WesleyDodds 07:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

:lol: I agree most of those websites aren't what would be considered reliable sources. Unfortunately I'm not the kind to claim things blindly acording to stuffs written on websites: Guys, I DO have very serious sources (encyclopedias of music and of Metal that is) which clearly deal with the term Heavy metal as a subgenre(classic metal that is). So no it's not a bad point. Frédérick Duhautpas 09:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not contesting that; rather, the assertion that "heavy metal" is simply a subgenre of "metal". Which it isn't; the terms are oftentimes largely interchangeable, if not predominantly so. WesleyDodds 09:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Metal is just an abbreviation of heavy metal. Heavy metal is a common term for everything that is metal. Heavy metal can also refer to traditional heavy metal/classic metal. This name is correct. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 09:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I totally agree with both of you (WesleyDodds/Emmanuel)Frédérick Duhautpas 11:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I still think the name should be changed to Metal for the reasons stated before. Heavy Metal is a subgenre of metal. it is possible to visualize a big tree-like diagram that would represent all the subgenres of metal, heavy metal making a link to many but not all of them. SebDaMuffin (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is also the solution adopted by the German Wikipedia. I agree with the proposal to rename this article to "Metal music" and the "Classic metal" article to "Heavy metal music", which is "proto-metal" in the sense of proto-language, i. e. the most recent common ancestor of all contemporary metal genres (although there are still bands playing in the original style, of course).

Every fan I know (perhaps with the exception of some older people, especially US Americans) uses "metal" as the overarching genre term, not "heavy metal", which is "traditional metal". (There seems to be a difference in pronunciation, though: "heavy METAL" is the genre "metal", "if you mean the sub-genre, you're likely to say "HEAVY metal" for contrast, like "DOOM metal", "POWER metal", etc.) As a generic term, "heavy metal" seems to be used only by people who are not dedicated fans of the genre, and they usually will use it to include hard rock bands such as AC/DC, which a fan is less likely to do.

While "heavy metal" may sound more correct and "metal" like an informal abbreviation used by fans, I believe that a new differentiation has emerged of the sketched type. AC/DC can be called heavy metal, in Frédérick's sense 1, but never metal, which exclusively refers to Frédérick's sense 3.

As an aside, I believe that only eight subgenres can be uncontroversially considered primary, base genres, namely heavy, power, speed, thrash, death, black, doom, and gothic metal (even though this one may be considered a fusion genre with gothic rock). But this is only my personal opinion, even though based to some extent in observations. I just think that people who complain about the proliferation of subgenres should start with this octet to explain the variety of metal to outsiders. Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A reasonable compromise would be to rename this article to "Metal music" or "Metal (music)", rename "Classic metal" to either "Traditional metal" or "Traditional heavy metal", and turn "Heavy metal music" into a disambiguation page, or a redirect to "Metal music"/"Metal (music)", and explain the ambiguity directly on the "Heavy metal" disambiguation page. Outsiders may be unaware of the numerous subgenres, and thus of the problem. Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Total nonsense. WP:OR. WP:POV. Metal = heavy metal. Metal is an abbreviation of heavy metal. It is the same like hardcore = abbreviation of hardcore punk.  LYKANTROP  20:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Template

There is no template stating the subgenres at the bottom of this page. I strongly suggest that one should be added, but when I put one there, somebody, or something for that matter, deleted it. Thundermaster367 16:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That's because there's the infobox at the top. The footer is intended for subgenre pages. WesleyDodds 06:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to point out the fact that all the other articles like rock music, pop music, punk rock, hardcore punk and ska all have the footer template. Shouldn't this article match those and not be the odd article that doesn't have the footer template? Thundermaster367 10:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Manowar Dark Avenger.ogg

Image:Manowar Dark Avenger.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Retro-"metal"

This section is complete bullshit. Wolfmother are Hard rock, not metal, And very few people regonize them as metal. The source provided seems to know very little about the genre. Infact, I bet you could not find a reliable source which focus on metal that claims Wolfmother is Metal. While they may have some thing in common with proto-metal band lik Lz and Deep Purple, these similarites do not make them metal. Scipo 23:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I do think the term retro metal is a bit silly but I can see how people could relate wolfmother to sounding like early heavy metal bands such as black sabbath so... yeah, I don't know. I agree that they are more like "Retro" heavy rock or "retro" hard rock, borrowing their sound greatly from proto-metal bands however "retro-metal" is a term that I hear a lot to describe wolfmother & other bands emulating classic heavy rock/heavy metal sounds & it seems people I know know that kind of music as Retro-metal... So, yeah its a hard case to argue either way. I don't think it really matters that much though. --Fukhed666 02:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

There is an edit war seemingly going on here. Me and Caffienemetal are saying that heavy metal is similar to rock, while DCGeist says that metal is a subgenre of rock.

Now, I believe that metal isnt a subgenre of rock anymore. Maybe back when it was created, but not anymore. I mean, compare Necrophagist to Hinder or Plain White Ts, and then tell me that metal is a subgenre of rock. Anyway, if heavy metal were a subgenre of rock, then why does hard rock exist?

I personally believe that metal is a seperate genre from rock. Prepare to be Mezmerized! 22:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Er...I'm not exactly "saying"--i.e., expressing a personal opinion--that metal is a form of rock music. I'm restoring that basic definition per (a) the long-standing consensus view of editors engaged in work on the article and (b) the authoritative citation that immediately follows the definition. I have no doubt that equally authoritative sources supporting this definition could be added to the citation if anyone felt that was necessary. Please note for the moment the quote from the All Music Guide in the same lead paragraph that similarly refers to heavy metal as one of "rock & roll's myriad forms." Please note also how the definition of "heavy metal" begins in the online version of the Encyclopedia Britannica: "genre of rock music..." ([1]).—DCGeist 01:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I support DCGeist's view. Incidentely, did Mr Mezmerized and Caffeinemetal notice that I had provided an authoritative source supporting that Metal IS a subgenre of rock. This source is The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Music (2003). It is a recent encyclopeadia. I can't believe that they removed the claim while ignoring and saving the source which supports it..Frédérick Duhautpas 07:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DCGeist. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of sources. The sources in the article are clear. That's the wikipedia way. Kameejl ^(Talk) 07:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, heavy metal (meaning classic or traditional metal) represents a slight break away from rock music, but is still fundamentally rock music. Since this article is principally concerned with the original metal bands, it is strictly accurate to say they are rock bands. If this article was concerned with black metal, death metal, or some of the more experimental metal bands (Summoning, later-era Gorguts, etc), then it would be wholly inaccurate to say they are rock bands. If you want to make a case for that, go to those respective pages and do it. Here isn't the most appropriate place for that. Ours18 22:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No offence Ours, but I’m afraid you missed the point.

1. This article is not first concerned with classic metal bands. The article deals with the broader meaning of heavy metal which includes every subgenre. The one which is concerned with classic metal bands is the classic metal article.
2. The point is the global METAL music (including every subgenre) IS a branch of rock. Everything deriving (directly or indirectly) from rock IS a part of rock music.

Many people fail to understand that notably because Metal developed its own specific sub-culture which gives a feeling of stylistic autonomy.

Besides many people fail to understand that rock is here meant in its broader sense. Of course we’re not talking of Pop-rock here. Frédérick Duhautpas 06:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't either. Black metal and most death metal has no stylistic similarities with rock music in general beyond the most generic one of having the same instruments. There are no pentatonics. There are no verse-chorus structures. These are the two hallmarks of rock music, everything that doesn't fit into that always has some other descriptor attached to it ("progressive rock," "post-rock," and what have you). There is a genealogical link, yes, a musical genetic link, if you will---but there is also a genealogical and genetic link between birds and dinosaurs. A bird is nevertheless not a dinosaur. Same concept, it evolved into something else entirely. Talk pages are not forums, however, so I won't bother discussing it anymore. Ours18 05:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Counter-point: other forms of rock music have no pentatonics or verse-chorus structures. Two examples are Krautrock and post-rock. Both are still accepted as forms of rock music. WesleyDodds 00:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

the fandoms of krautrock and post rock aren't staffed by 14 year old remedial ed students —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As Heavy Metal is neither an institutionalized nor studious genre, it cannot be discussed under that particular set of generlized terms. Portions of Heavy Metal are directly descendant of rock, but certainly not all. It would be similar to say that electronica is a subgenre of rock, as it borrows a few elements from it. Naturally these are all popular musics, and all ultimately descend from the folk tradition, but one is not necessarily indicative of the other. Theintrepid 05:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fellow editors, I am very respectful of the difficulty of proving a negative, but we do not have a blank slate here. We have multiple authoritative sources affirming the positive in question: heavy metal and its derivatives consitute forms of rock music. Your argument is not unreasonable per se, but not one of you has yet come up with an authoritative source that contradicts the current language of the article.—DCGeist 06:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite the contrary: Heavye metal has been an instituation for nearly 40 years, and several academic studies have been performed on the genre, a number of which are cited in this article. They all classify heavy metal as a subgenre of rock music. WesleyDodds 00:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Grr... you got me there, but believe me, I am looking for a source that supports my theory. Prepare to be Mezmerized! 18:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You won't find one. This is because heavy metal is a type or sub-genre of rock and is not similar to rock but actually rock music. Thundermaster367 10:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what is there to argue about? YES Metal is rock music, and while it does not follow strict guidelines like blues and classical, it is nonetheless a stylistic departure from other genres of rock. Nobody here is saying Metal is NOT Rock music, it is, but not entirely the same as rock music. This is like saying Punk is only rock because it does not abide to a precise form. (Or better yet, this is like how powerchords are stressed in importance on heavy metal's page, when they are a lot more prominent in many forms of punk music.)

Historically speaking, with lots of sources, critics and by millions of fans and band members adopting the label, there is such a thing as Metal. How quickly we forget that Metal was a lot more influenced by Blues and Psychedelic Rock. I'll finish off by saying if we use this type of reasoning, we wouldn't have much genre vocabulary to speak of.

A fictional exemple - You have good musical knowledge and state; "Due to similarities and origins, we should call Rock N Roll and all Rock a 'harder style' of Blues". Then you proceed to use that statement as a reason to deny Rock from being a genre. Now, you and I know that'll never happen, even if the statement is true.

---

A fictional exemple - You have good musical knowledge and state; "Due to similarities and origins, we should call Rock N Roll and all Rock a 'harder style' of Blues". Then you proceed to use that statement as a reason to deny Rock from being a genre. Now, you and I know that'll never happen, even if the statement is true.

This is where I think you apparently missed the point: noone said Metal was not a genre when saying it is a subgenre of rock. So your example is not relevant. Any subgenre can be called a genre as well. Thrash metal is called a genre sometimes when it is also regarded as a subgenre of metal on a wider focus. Notion of Subgenre and genre often depend on which focus you refer.

Actually, what is there to argue about? YES Metal is rock music, and while it does not follow strict guidelines like blues and classical, it is nonetheless a stylistic departure from other genres of rock.

Since you're talking of classical, have you ever heard what contemporary classical music is ? Most of it is a drastic departure from Original classical. It includes avant garde music such as serial music,Electronic art music, minimalist music, Experimental classical music, etc... they all derive from historic classical music and yet they ARE all different from historic classical music. Yet they are classified as CLASSICAL: contemporary classical music. Because classical here is meant in its wider sense.

The same goes with rock. Sure HM is a departure from original rock. No doubt about this. But

Rock here is meant in the wider sense

(just like there are two different senses for "Heavy metal"  :

1. Heavy metal as a wider genre including every subgenre

2. heavy metal as the original 70/80s genre).

Rock can refer to original genre or to the wider global genre including any genre deriving from rock.

When claiming that metal is subgenre of rock, it is not meant that Metal is the same thing as 50s rock'n'roll or 80s poprock.Of course it is not. Just like Prog rock, punk rock or goth rock are different from them.

But heavy metal is just one of the branches of rock. Of course Metal develloped cultural autonomy and aesthetic specificity compared to original rock. Noone said the contrary. But still Metal(including Extreme metal) saves certain characteristic of rock ( even though they could be considered as minimal). This is why metal is considered as a subgenre of rock.

Many fail to understand it, because they consider metal to be harsher and more violent than original rock, therefore in their views, metal is different. Of course metal is. But I repeat it: what we call here "rock" is not the original rock'n'roll genre or the pop rock music ...no, we refer to the general sense of rock,the "rock music", this means any music descending from original rock. I mean the global entity: a guitar driven music, which has in common, the frequent use of riffs, of cyclic phrases,of preeminent drums beats, and a typical instrumentation (the basic instrumentation is generally: Guitar/(double- or guitar-)bass/drum and sometimes keys). Frédérick Duhautpas 21:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The war can be resolved by recognizing that heavy metal isn't a genre at all, it's a developmental phase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Heavy metal IS a genre but ALSO a subgenre of rock on a wider scale.

The edit war can be resolved by authoritative sources. It is already resolved.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there needs to be a differentation between metal in the blues influenced 1970's form of Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath et al, which is really a subgenre of rock for the most part, and post-hardcore metal which any musical study will tell you is not a subgenre of rock any more than jazz is of blues. Death metal, and especially black metal both have aesthetic, compositional and technical elements that are utterly removed from rock; something like Transilvanian Hunger is clearly not rock.Thelzdking (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please identify a couple of these musical studies that will tell us that post-hardcore metal is not a subgenre of rock any more than jazz is of blues? As noted above in this thread, and as cited in the article, several authoritative sources continue to characterize metal—as a whole—as a subgenre of rock. I have little philosophical stake in the matter and am certainly ready to see the language of the article changed—if there is a verifiable basis on which to do so. You say "any musical study" (emphasis added) will support your position, so it should be easy for you to provide us with a just a couple citations from reputable, published studies.—DCGeist (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. So many opinions. So many points. Here is a simplistic view of all of it from my opinion. Call it what you want. Genre, subgenre, cousin to, derivative of, whatever. It's all just titles. Most bands don't sit and think of the specific genre/subgenre they want to be classified as. They play what THEY think sounds cool and WE seem to need to put a label on it. I am trying to form a band right now and I am not thinking "I want to be death metal/black metal/grunge/metalcore/thrash metal/nu-metal/power metal/etc." I am going to play some hard shit that can be called elevator music for all I care. "Heavy metal" is defined as "a metal of relatively high density (specific gravity greater than about 5)" and as "a genre of rock music that developed between 1968 and 1974." Black Sabbath is commonly called the first heavy metal band and John "Ozzy" Osbournse said he didn't know what heavy metal was and it was a stupid name. When it's all said and done, it's all just rock! Feral Mind (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin are not heavy metal

According to Metal Archives, Led Zeppelin are clasiified as rock, thus they should be removed. If you listen to their music it is easily distinguished from the genre 'heavy metal'. Please, for the love of the gods, don't add a non-metal band to this page, Led Zeppelin is not METAL!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.180.156 (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is here again the same confusion about the term "heavy metal". Actually there are several meaning in which the term heavy metal word is used. These meaning imply different paradigms. Hence confusion and disagreement concerning the stylistic definition of some bands whether they are regarded HM or not.

in a restrictive meaning: HM only refers to early bands that dropped the blues influences that Hard rock implied. In this view only 70ties bands like Black Sabbath or Judas Priest can be labeled Heavy metal). This is the view implied by Metal Archive.

However in the original sense heavy metal was indifferently used as a synonymous to hard-rock. This view implies indifferently bands like Led Zeppelin,Iron Butterfly, Black Sabbath or Judas Priest.This is the view chosen for this article through a consensus. Even though the other paradigm is not wrong.

On a side note there's a third use of the word which implies the broader sense of Heavy metal including every subgenre.Frédérick Duhautpas 13:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, the Metal Archives is wrong. In fact, for a long time Zeppelin were considered the definitive heavy metal band. One example is an NME rock encyclopedia from 1977 that refers to them as such. Another is All Music Guide. Both are far more reliable sources under Wiki guidelines than Metal Archives. Additionaly, metal is a subgenre of rock music, so Zeppelin would be a rock abdn either way. WesleyDodds 00:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No Wesley, it's not that simple. While I agree LZ can be regarded as heavy metal, the metal Archive is not necessarilly wrong in this issue either. I do insist: There are different paradigms of what Heavy metal is. That's the reason of the disagreement. Besides there are even more reliable sources including encyclopeadias, metal guides or documentary such as "Headbanger journey" which consider that true heavy metal started with Black Sabbath, not LZ. The reason, as explained in one of my encyclopedia, lies in the fact the term Heavy metal can be used in two different contexts: 1. either as a synonymous of Hard Rock. 2. Either as a distinct genre from hard Rock.

So according to which meaning you refer, Led Zeppelin may or may not be regarded as Heavy metal. Because Basically they are hard rock.

On a side note, note that All Music Guide is far from being the most reliable source on music, while they are certainly serious, they also say a lot of crap which are contradicted by authoritative sources.Frédérick Duhautpas 06:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, which you've presented in past discussion here, but my main point we shouldn't rely on the Metal Archives for verification on whether or not Led Zeppelin is metal or not, when a number of far more reliable sources over the decades have explicitly said they are. Honestly, virtually everyone I have heard say Zeppelin is not a metal band are people who have done little or nothing to research the history and traits of heavy metal. This also ties into the "they can't be metal, they're rock" argument the editor used. I've seen a fair number of editors on Wikipedia that have this strange either/or definition of genres that ignores how genres actually work. You should see the mess on the Van Halen talk page. WesleyDodds 07:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

my main point we shouldn't rely on the Metal Archives for verification on whether or not Led Zeppelin is metal or not, when a number of far more reliable sources over the decades have explicitly said they are

I understand your point. Metal Archives, while they are serious, are not the most reliable source(cause they are biased sometimes). There are indeniably much more reliables sources which say LZ are HM,I agree, but there also are extremely reliable sources which don't consider them as HM, but as HR. So even if MA is not he most reliable source on earth doesn't mean they are necessarilly wrong concerning this issue. So I worry when I see people being too definitive about that issue, when there is actually a lot of confusion due to a lack of precision concerning the meaning of the HM word they're refering to. Anyway I agree and I understand your concern. Plus the general orientation of this article is to deal with the larger sense of heavy metal, which includes Hard-rock acts, which indeniably includes Led Zeppelin.Frédérick Duhautpas 08:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the term "heavy metal" has shifted in meaning since LZ broke up. The term originally refered to bands just like LZ; in fact, back in those days Zeppelin was probably one of the definative heavy metal acts. But nowadays people use the term differently. --Rosencrantz1 00:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Even though I advocate a somehow similar view to yours, I have to disagree with the core of your argument. While I agree that the meaning "heavy metal" has been used differently since LZ, I don't think you can resolve the issue arguing simply that the meaning has shifted

Sure it is definitely an issue about meaning shift, no question about it, but the issue is more complex than you seem to allow.

Actually the term heavy metal hasn't just shifted, it has multiplied its definitions through different extensions and shift over time. Yes the meaning has shifted. But it doesn't mean the older definitions and conceptions ceased to exist/to be used as the new ones appeared. Here the very core of the confusion you guys are in. There are different definitions of Heavy metal which are all still valid and in use. And many of you refuse to take in account there might be several meaning/conceptions behind that term. But there definitely are. Hence the debate, hence the controversies.

While I agree that in some modern conceptions of Heavy metal, LZ doesn't match the criterions of that definition, it can't be denied however that the original meaning may still be frequently used. As you can see many people and many referential modern sources still consider LZ to be heavy metal, because they refer to the original definition of HM...While some other people and other referential sources refer to some more recent conceptions of Heavy metal.Frédérick Duhautpas 19:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, it depends on your point of view whether you see LZ fit the label or not. Either you see HM and associated bands in historical context, which lands LZ right in the bulls-eye of the definition, or you apply today's genre boundaries (established by descendant bands of early HM) to older acts suchs as LZ. As the article uses the term in historical context, explains the origins of HM and the current state of HM, I don't see a problem with the views as they are currently represented in the article.. Johnnyw talk 14:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The article should avoid citing Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple as core heavy metal bands, and make the point they were founders, but not really bands within the genre; they were 'forerunners'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.36.61 (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree they were forerunners. Maybe also Blue Cheer were as well. But in my own little corner of the universe I always thought that heavy metal got the name because Led Zeppelin was made of a heavy metal (as in lead, plumbum, etc). "... go down like a lead Zeppelin." Also, concerning others' posts in the discussion, I tend to shy away from the word "modern" because it has connotations (such as abstraction and ambiguity) that don't necessarily mean the same thing as contemporary. --Trakon (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin is a band we can not call a full out metal band. They had a lot of acoustic folk songs and even at times Jimmy Page would use a mandoline. However they did write some metal songs. Whole Lotta Love is one of the first heavy metal songs and The Immigrant Song is indeed the first Viking metal song, but also Stairway to Heaven and Hey, Hey are far from heavy metal. So you can't make a heavy metal article without adding Led Zeppelin to it, because even if they weren't a full metal band, they still made metal songs as heavy metal was just starting. 68.102.235.239 (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The term metal in heavy metal has a lot more to do with the way Judas Priest dressed on stage with all the black leather and metal. A little bit like Iommi in Black Sabbath. That's when the term really got started and the media ran with it. I don't think that Black Sabbath is really heavy metal, listen to their music. Just because they were a little bit "gothic" for lack of a better term doesn't make them heavy metal. They were a hard rock band and forerunner to heavy metal, which was not truly born or mainstream until bands like Judas Priest came around. And there is no way anyone could ever say that Led Zeppelin is heavy metal. Way too much blues and acoustic for that. They are another forerunner. Maybe a section should be introduced called forerunners to heavy metal and we could include bands like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and Deep Purple, which are all not truly heavy metal bands. Zosomm90 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Heavy Metal has much darker, often epic, themes than Hard Rock (which is, basically party music), and a harder form of rock'n'roll). Black Sabbath are DEFINITELY(!!!!) heavy metal. Led Zeppelin are not. Well, some of their songs are MAYBE a heavy metal, but most of it is folk/blues/hard rock. ACDC is hard rock, too. I realize, however, that this sepperation between hard rock and heavy metal was established after the terms have been coined, so it's kinda like calling venom black metal. I think led zep should be mentioned in the article, but with a note that they're not really metal by today's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be said that Led Zeppelin helped influence Heavy Metal but are not Heavy Metal themselfs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.41.137 (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd struggle to see how Black Sabbath were not metal - their sound undoubtedly fits (the whole style of downtuning the guitars for a thicker sound was pioneered (by accident) by Tony Iommi), as does the Satanic horror-influenced imagery. Current doom-metal in particular is very close to their sound. Led Zep's influence can still be heard on folk-metal and Viking metal, but a listener only familiar with current music would not consider them metal.

acoustic keyboards

I removed the word "acoustic" from the sentence on keyboard usage in the Characteristics section. Most organs are electric. The excpetions are pipe organs, some types of reed organs, and a handful of others. The Hammond was definately electric, and so was the mellotron. As a general rule, anything you can plug straight into an amp without needing a mic is electric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.21.147 (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Recent trends: mid-2000s" section

Thanks for the correction, FD. This passage about "very successful" European metal acts seems to be attracting a fair amount of cruft, as fans put in their favorite bands. I feel pretty confident about the list of names we have at this moment--but I'd feel more confident if we could verify their relative success, which would also deter future cruft edits. Any thoughts on how we can best do this and how we can practically do this--Are reliable European sales figures available? Are there any Europe-wide hit charts? If someone came across an article in a reliable source actually naming the biggest European metal acts of recent years--as we purport to do--that would, of course, be especially helpful.—DCGeist 17:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I heard on the radio that in the UK, metal music is suddenly being accepted by a wider teenage audience in the UK, as mainstream audiences have gained an interest from emulating rock and metal acts with xbox 360 game series Guitar Hero, and thus the fanbase is increasing. It's not a new trend: they're going out and buying musc such as Judas Priest, having never shown interest in them beforehand. I think it's the same in the USA, and I think it's causing demand for old metal bands to come out of retirement, but I don't have verifiable sources. Just a note if you want to look into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.36.61 (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Obituary Suffocation.ogg

Image:Obituary Suffocation.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Rationale corrected.—DCGeist 20:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Iron Maiden Purgatory 29 second file.ogg

Image:Iron Maiden Purgatory 29 second file.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Rationale corrected.—DCGeist 08:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Classical influence section

I've edited this section (forgot to sign my edits - d'oh) as it appeared that it was written with the POV that classical is better than heavy metal. I've cleaned up the relevant sentences - I don't think, for instance, that it is relevant to state that Bach-inspired musicians "seldom make use of the counterpoint associated with the composer" since this is a stylistic issue - and the thing about power chords violating rules regarding consecutive fifths is also irrelevant, since many classical composers also abandoned Bach's laws of harmony well before heavy metal came around. Onesecondglance 10:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this part and I'm going to reply point by point to your objections. (sorry for my english, this is not my mother's tongue.)

• first, this is not a POV. Only facts. If I were biased against HM and wanted to argue this is an inferior genre, then how could you explain this is my favourite music?

• It doesn't state that Heavy metal is inferior to classical music. You did interpret it that way, but I never implied this. It's only implied that HM compositional approach doesn't match the criterions that make music "classical". It's said that classical music is erudite music, which implies a specific nature heavy metal is not characterized with. Because heavy metal is popular music, not erudite music.

• Before arguing about counterpoint, maybe you should get first informed of what it is. Because counterpoint is not an issue of style but of technique, this is a compositional technique, not a stylistic trait per se. I'm talking here of the academic counterpoint is an academic. Now this technique is generally only employed and mastered by erudite music, not popular music. Here's my point. But this is not to say it's inferior, this is just a difference of nature and of compositional approach.

• As for your point arguing that "many composers" would have abandoned the rules concerning the parralel movements...this is partially correct, but actually your argument is misleading due to a lack of specification. So your conclusion of it is erroneous. And so your objection is irrelevant. Let me explain:

1. first, rules about consecutive fifths are absolutely not "Bach's laws" as you call them. Here's your first mistake. It has been used long before him and was observed long after his death. This is a historical fact.

2. So the ambiguity of your "many composers" is extremely fallascious and misleading. Because it tends to suggest implicitely that most of the composers after Bach droped this rule. Which is completely wrong. If you know classical music you must know that ALL the traditional classical composers (including the most famous ones Mozart, Beethoven, Vivaldi, Paganni, etc...) sticked to this rule. The only occasional cases of exception to this rule concerning traditional classical composers (Mozart, Couperin most notably) was in case of a parodic use of them to mock their contemporary popular music which made extensive use of them. It must be added there's a stylistic rule that allows the use of exceptional parallel fifths in case of certains chromatic contexts. But that's all.

BUT this is only the modern composers from early 20th century who started to abandon this rule. And the style of these modern composers is very different from traditional classical music.

3. The 20th century modern composers (like Debussy, Ravel or Roussel) broke the rule and use indeed many forbidden parallel movements (Fifths, fourths and octave) But that was in a very controlled way to create specific effects. It has nothing common with the undifferentiated use popular music (such as metal) makes of them. Such composers didn't use it in every case without caring about them. They were aware of their use to create certains expressive effects, unlike popular music which is completely unaware about them and use them without caring/knowing about them. Classical modern composers never used harmonies in continuous power chords like metal does. So arguing they abandoned the rule doesn't help your argument, because their use is not comparable.

4. Anyway when it is said that Metal gets inspired by classical music it's generally meant "traditional classical music" which still observe this rule (Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Vivaldi, Paganni, etc...). So when metal bands try to play in their style, they break one of the most essential rule about their aesthetic, which is one of the elements of is one basic elements of the subtlety of classical. This rule is one of the defining stylistic element of traditional Classical, this is a part of the essence of traditional classical music.

Frédérick Duhautpas 12:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Frédérick Duhautpas makes generally sound points but it's not quite so clear cut on two points.

1) Consecutives: The stylistic and technical practise of avoiding parallel etc movement relates to "part" writing. It is true that in common practice parallel movement etc is forbidden between the parts. Argument can be made that that "block" guitar chords within an ensemble behave musically as a single part, therefore the fact that the chord movement consists of parallel octaves and fifths etc is irrelevant as long as the part behaves in an acceptable manner in relation to the other voices within the ensemble. Continuo parts played by renaissance and baroque stringed, and often strummed, instruments did not bother to observe strict voice independence within the harmonies they supplied to the continuo. Yet they observed correct stylistic practise. In my opinion it is the article's claim (supposedly supported by the footnote 21 to Arnold, Sadie, Kennedy) which is both simplistic and misleading.

2) "Erudite" in English simply means "learned". Whilst the music of the greatest composers reached great compositional heights there remains a vast volume of "classical" music that was created and produced my mere mortals, much of it also was the popular music of its time. Popularity is independent of erudition (if I may use that term). To imply that all HM is not erudite is IMO POV and I can understand why it is objected to. RichardJ Christie 01:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's my reply to your objections

1) Consecutives: The stylistic and technical practise of avoiding parallel etc movement relates to "part" writing. It is true that in common practice parallel movement etc is forbidden between the parts.

Sorry but that's wrong: It includes also the relations of lower parts (Bass/tenor) and higher parts (Alto/Soprano). Parallel fifths are indeed forbidden in bass/tenor and Alto/Soprano parts. Any treatise on harmony can confirm that.

The only exception to this rule about lower parts concern the parallel octaves.As a matter of fact, the parallel octaves resulting from the bass doubling (Double Bass /cello in orchestral works) are allowed. And also the octave doubling of some melodies is licit like Verdi used them in his male/female choirs. But certainly not when Polyphonic voice's leading is concerned. Now the vertical harmony of classical music(including accompaniments parts) is intimately connected to polyphonic logic.

At any rate I doubt you can provide many examples parallel fifths in the lower/higher parts in Mozart’s music or Beethoven for example even in accompaniments.

Argument can be made that that "block" guitar chords within an ensemble behave musically as a single part.

The concept of “block accompaniment” is more an approach of popular music practice than a classical one. Generally classical music doesn’t treat harmony as “block”, because it has a polyphonic comprehension of it and so cares the voices leading even in simple accompaniments.

I never saw any cases of parallel fifths in Beethoven, Schubert or Schumann’s Lieder accompaniments for example. So I don’t think your argument is relevant.

Even on classical guitar, I never saw in Fernando Sor’s compositions for example any case of licit parallel fifths.

Continuo parts played by renaissance and baroque stringed, and often strummed, instruments did not bother to observe strict voice independence within the harmonies they supplied to the continuo.

First I doubt you can provide many examples of what you're claiming concerning Renaissance’s music. Because continuo is a concept of Baroque music, not Renaissance. Sure there are earlier examples of continuo that can be traced back to late 16th century. But strict continuo is not really a common practice of Renaissance per se, but of Baroque.

As for your point concerning continuo, sorry, but I have doubts about what you’re saying. Seriously I’ve learned harmony on piano, training on continuo exercises as they were played on harpsichord (a string instrument), and I was expected to avoid any parallel movements. Besides I checked the resolutions of continuo bass in my books and I fail to see any case of parallel fifths.

Here’s an example I found here:

Can you tell me where you can see parallel movements in this example of continuo’s resolution?

Anyway even if you were right about this, it doesn’t dismiss the fact that later composers such as Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Paganini ect…didn’t use

1. Continuo
2. Parallel fifths in their accompaniments

So when metal bands refer to these kind of composers, they’re not in accordance with their deep practice.

2)Popularity is independent of erudition (if I may use that term). To imply that all HM is not erudite is IMO POV and I can understand why it is objected to.

Sorry but you missed the point. Of course popularity is independent of erudition. That goes without saying. But actually you’re discussing the terms “erudite” and “popular” refering to their literal common sense. But it has nothing to do with the concepts I’m here referring to. Here when I’m talking of erudite music/popular music, I’m just referring to the musicological tripartite classification (Serious music/ popular music/ traditional music). These concepts have nothing to do with your issues about being learned and popular.

Oh and by the way the word “popular” in “popular music” doesn’t here refer to the meaning "Popular= beloved" as you seem to understand (you talked of “popularity”, which makes me think you misunderstood it because here "popular" is not bound to the sense of the word "popularity" that is to say "being very appreciated by people" ). "Popular" in that context doesn't mean that.

"Popular" here only implies that this music comes from the average population, the lower class as opposed to the upper social class who listened to “serious music”.

Yes, I agree this social cleavage per se is no longer relevant, BUT the musicological categories the names refer are still relevant and still in use.

I also agree tags like “art” or “serious” music as opposed to “popular” sound elitist. And I don’t especially like them either. However the categories they’re referring to are perfectly real though. But that’s the way these categories are named. And there's nothing I can do about this. Today most of the musicologists and theoreticians use these terms without implying their social elitist origins. By these names, we just refer to the differences of nature which are perfectly real. But personally I prefer using the term “erudite” than “art music” or “serious music” because they indeed sound much more pejorative. And I am strongly against any condescending visions of popular music.

There are a certain numbers of criterions that define erudite music. And metal doesn’t match these. This is not only a thing I've been learned at the university, I also have authoritative sources about this, referential musicologists such as Nicholas Cooke and Nicola Dibbens clearly confirm this point. So no this is certainly not a simple POV of mine.

There's' no question that classical is generally classified as Erudite/serious/art music. These terms are even used as synonymous of classical sometimes. However, indeed there's a portion of classical music which is considered by classical theoricians as "light music" which is indeed closer to popular music. Such music include Johann Strauss's music for example. But still most of the great names (Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, etc...) are part of the erudite tradition not the "light music".

Frédérick Duhautpas 09:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I urge you to use caution in what you assume what I can or cannot provide, or you may wear egg on your face <smile>. You are dead wrong about renaissance or baroque guitar practice. Check out Instruccion de musica sobre Guitarra Espanola (Sanz 1675), Guitarra Espanola y Vandola (Juan Carlos y Amat 1639), Principios para eatudias el nobilisima y arte de la pintura (Jose Garciab Hidalgo 1693). These works (and others from 16th to 18th century) provide chord diagrams for use in consort and continuo situations. Performers then applied the fingerings according to the musical context in essentially exactly the same manner as jazz players do now (albeit with a somewhat wider tonal palette today).

I believe you completely miss my point regarding consecutives. Of course you won't find them in formally rendered accompaniments by Sor, Schubert etc but you WILL if you apply the practise detailed in the period publications given above. In an ensemble context the strummed or plucked chord is heard as a single voice, the ear does not sort out the four to six notes contained therein into SATB. RichardJ Christie 22:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I urge you to use caution in what you assume what I can or cannot provide, or you may wear egg on your face <smile>.

Well I don’t think I acted disrespectful or condescending to you, so I wonder what’s the reason that makes you reply to me that condescending way.

When I said I raised doubts about providing examples about Renaissance, I wasn’t presuming anything about your skills/knowledge or whatever you seem to have believed. It was just a simple way to say that continuo is a baroque concept, not a Renaissance one even though earlier proto-examples of them can be traced to late Renaissance. And I still do claim this. Strict formal continuo is a concept of Baroque, not Renaissance.

And on this point, no offence but I note you still didn’t mention any examples of Renaissance here, your examples are all from 17th century. So you didn’t respond to my reserve. A reserve that I would gladly correct if you could provide relevant examples.Anyway basically I didn't claim anything about parallel fifths concerning Renaissance.

As for your examples, thanks for providing them. I don't doubt your good faith…I definitely do trust you, but could it be possible to give me some visual example of parts of them, so I can see in which precise context such parallel fifths are employed?

On a side note did you find any kind of parallel movements in the examples of the Bach continuo I provided?

I believe you completely miss my point regarding consecutives.

Don’t worry, I didn’t miss the point. I perfectly understood you were referring to precise examples of continuo accompaniments which are indeed particular comparing to later Classical works. But I voluntary extended the argument to later classical and Romantic music as they are not concerned by continuo. And one thing is sure about strict classical and Romantism they don’t allow parallel fifths in their accompaniments. This is an important point.

Except a few exceptions, metal bands don't mention particularly ancient music like Renaissance or Early Baroque music as an influence rather they mention the most preminent classical figures like Mozart or Beethoven who don't use continuo.

So here I’ll take back my argument : even if you were right about ancient music continuo practice it doesn’t dismiss the fact that most influencial composers for metal such as Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Paganini, ect…didn’t use parallel fifths in their accompaniments or anything else in any parts.

So when metal bands refer to these kind of composers, which is most often the case, they’re not in accordance with their deep practice. So my basic point is still valid.

On a side note I’ll be interested to know if you have examples of Bach continuos where you can find such cases of parallel fifths. Which I still raise doubts considering the number of continuos I worked on.

Thanks and take it easy my friend, I didn't mean to offend you by any way. Frédérick Duhautpas 00:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What you generally say about great 'art music' compositional practise is accurate. It is not the forum to tediously debate the details in here. My original comment attempted to distinguish between the great composers and general performance (and the implied compositional) practises of the periods. I stand by it.

MOST importantly, the issue as I see it in regard to H Metal guitar technique is how the human ear perceives accompaniment parts in ensembles. It is a analytical mistake to apply common practice voice leading principles to such ensemble parts. They are perceived by the listener as one voice or part, admittedly with the implied colour information of major/minor/seventh etc. RichardJ Christie 11:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Classical influence section part 2

What you generally say about great 'art music' compositional practise is accurate. It is not the forum to tediously debate the details in here. My original comment attempted to distinguish between the great composers and general performance (and the implied compositional) practises of the periods. I stand by it.

Sorry but I doubt we can make such an arbitrary distinction between "general performance" as opposed to "great" composers. Many less known composers just did exactly what great names did at the same period. Anyway concerning the parralel movements great composers just respected the rules of the common practice of their time. This is not a practice they used just because they were the "great". Most of these "great" ones weren't even aware they would be regarded as "great" by following generations. "Great composers" just applied these rules because they were common to their time. And even less known composers like already mentioned Sor respected these rules...

Anyway it doesn't matter, because as already said:

1. Ancient music and what you call "general performance" are not or rarely cited as references by metal bands.

2. The metal DOES refer to the great composers.

3. And all these great composers composed following strictly the rules of parallel movements in any case until the end of the common practice period.

So my basic point about the loose adaptation of classical influences by metal remains untouched… No matter you would be right concerning certain exceptional practices of ancient music or some "general performance".

MOST importantly, the issue as I see it in regard to H Metal guitar technique is how the human ear perceives accompaniment parts in ensembles. It is a analytical mistake to apply common practice voice leading principles to such ensemble parts. They are perceived by the listener as one voice or part, admittedly with the implied colour information of major/minor/seventh etc.

I understand your point concerning human ear but I disagree. Sure any common individual ear behaves the way you’re describing. That’s indeed the way the average listener listens to music. But what you don’t seem to be aware is that a trained ear CAN individuate any constitutive sounds of a chord in any parts of an ensemble… not just recognizing their specific colours.

This is precisely what most of the classical composer were trained to do.

Why? You thought rules about parallel movements were just pure intellectual games from composers that couldn't really be discernable by the ear?

If you think so, you’re mistaken. The parallel movements are perfectly discernable by a trained ear and more: they WERE justified by the ear. The reason why they were rejected in terms of aural perception is the fact they were said to sound “hollow”. Well, for trained ears…

The polyphonic-trained ear is precisely one of the numerous points that make difference between art music and popular music.

On a personal note my ear has been trained thanks to Counterpoint, Polyphony and Fugue exercises and chords dictations . I can ear several voices separately in any instrument without too much problem. Sure I’m far from being as good as Mozart or Bach were at it. But I definitely can. So I can assure you this is possible. In chords dictations we were expected to dissect every constitutive note of a given chord with the ear.

Admittedly the more instrument and the more voices there are in the arrangement; the more it can turn to be difficult. Especially if you have polyphonic instruments that play chords with 6 or more simultaneous sounds. More difficult also when some parts are undermixed or played with lower dynamic as opposed to some louder.

But that’s certainly possible

How do you think 14 years old Mozart did when he famously succeeded to transcribe the complet score of the concert of Allegri's Miserere only by ear and memory just by listening to it once or twice, and without never seeing the score...which includes Polychoral parts and Keybords with 5-simultaneous-sounds chords including many polyphonic inner parts. If he could transcribe the exact arrangements of that work that’s because he could individuate each parts of the polychoral structure.

Recognizing chords colours may be helpful but not sufficient considering the multiple possible polyphonic parts of the work and the multiple chords positions possibilities…He necessary individuated each parts with his ear.

So sorry but my point concerning the difference between Heavy metal and classical music aesthic approach remains unchanged.

PS: Sure, regarding harmonic accompaniments as autonom blocks is the correct approach when analysing heavy metal or any popular music. No question about that. But this view doesn't apply to classical music from which metal gets inspiration. Because classical approch of harmony is intimately bound to a polyphonic comprehension of it which individuates each parts (including accompaniments). And this is where their deep difference lies. Frédérick Duhautpas 21:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please spare me the sermon and personal background. I think you worship the rules without an appreciation of what the rules achieve and of how and why they arose.

1) The "rules" only paraphrase "practise"

Have a wee think about what the "common practise" rules of voice leading, of which you seem such a champion, were endeavouring to ensure, and what type of musical ensembles and groupings of instruments first gave rise to their development. Then compare that to common performance practise in the periods under discussion and to modern folk or popular groups. RichardJ Christie (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please spare me the sermon and personal background. I think you worship the rules without a appreciation of what the rules achieve and of how and why they arose.

Please spare me the personal attacks and the condescending tone. I didn’t attack you. I never disrespected you.

I never tried to lecture you: I just tried to explain you historic facts and things about ear perception.

I think you worship the rules without a appreciation of what the rules achieve and of how and why they arose.

You think wrong. Don't presume what you don't know about me, my knowledge or my preferences, man. Frankly speaking I really don’t give a damn about these rules. I don’t particularly support them. Most of the music I listen to doesn’t apply them at all. Why should I care? So your supposition about my so-called obsession of rules is completely wrong. Rules are made to be broken anyway.

Anyway this is not an issue of personal preferences, but an issue of historical accuracy.

I’m stating the existence of these rules not because I worship them, but just because it IS a historical fact.

Like them or not, these rules did exist and they were applied by all the composers whose metal got inspired.

Keep on arguing whatever you want outside of this claim if you will, the thing is my initial point about this remains untouched...whatever your personal attacks or suppositions about me are. Oh, and don't worry about my "lack of appreciation", I've studied these rules and their history for years to know why and how they were applied.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Not meaning to butt in on a personal conversation here, but saying that being able to listen to music and hear individual lines is a separating factor between art and popular music seems fallacious. I am also able to do this, coming from a classical background, and this is one of the primary reasons I'm able to enjoy metal. In fact, I think it's almost essential to have some level of skill in doing so to be able to properly appreciate the more extreme forms, such as death metal, since to an untrained ear it will most likely just sound like noise. Being able to simultaneously follow the guitar lines, bass lines, drums (sometimes two or even three conflicting patterns in the same part), and rhythms of vocals, and being able to pick out the buried melodies is a skill many metallers I know possess. In this respect, metal is more akin to avant-garde jazz than mainstream rock, so I'm not sure it's correct to state it's a dividing line between art and popular music.Onesecondglance (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, first I have to say I greatly appreciate your healthy attitude concerning this issue. Because We disagree on some issues doesn't mean we have to be disrespectful. whatever, I'd be gladly disposed to respond to your objections.

Ok, let's begin...

But saying that being able to listen to music and hear individual lines is a separating factor between art and popular music seems fallacious.

I agree it would be fallacious, or at least misguiding from me to claim this. But unfortunately this is not what I’ve said. I didn’t say that individuating instruments was a crucial separating factor between art music and popular music. No, I said “a polyphonic-trained ear is one of the numerous points that make difference between art music and popular music”. By “polyphonic trained” ear I refer to the capacity of the ear to dissect in real time contrapuntal and harmonic structures such as fugue compositions. It is not about just being capable to individuate the different instrumental parts.

Of course it is possible to individuate parts by any common popular musician with little practice. I’m pretty sure many metal musicians can. The countless free tabs available on the web (including sometimes every instruments) are just the basic evidence that many metal musicians can do that. No question about that. Why? You thought I would disagree?

But this fact is really different from individuating simultaneously the four parts of a fugue in real time like art music composers can do. And this is where I think there’s an obvious misunderstanding here.

The fact that you focus on the individuation thing as if was all about individuating instruments parts of a song let me think that you are still not familiar with compositional techniques like counterpoint, polyphony*, fugue. And I think this is where your misunderstanding lie concerning my argument. (*Oh and btw... I'm talking of polyphony in the extended sense, not in the strict medieval sense)

To individuate instruments parts in a ensemble and to individuate the polyphonic melodic lines in a countrapuntal work is not the same thing, even though the latter can imply the former. (Because polyphonic melodic lines may be scattered on different instruments). The former doesn’t necessarily imply the latter. I mean that individuating instruments parts doesn’t necessarily mean the ear is able to individuate more complex polyphonic melodic lines in a contrapuntal structure.

The complexity of individuating parts I refer here doesn’t necessarily require several instruments. No, the polyphonic complexity can lie even with only one instrument. In others words the ear has to individuate simultaneously several melodic lines in one instrument. Bach often composed for only one keyboard and I tell you it’s far more difficult to individuate and keep in conscience the four or more melodies implied than to hear and individuate the parts of a death metal composition (no matter some might be conflicting.)

Don’t misunderstand my views however, I’m fan of extreme metal and so I’m extremely familiar with it (especially black metal and early 90s death metal). But I never heard anything in their compositional structure which could be comparable to the complex and organized structures of Bach’s fugues and other contrapuntal works, (I mentioned Bach because it is iconic but I could have mentioned more recent composers, say Schoenberg for example.)But unlike you, the fact it is less complex is precisely what I like about metal, because all those classical complex formal games can be really fastidious sometimes.

Metal is more direct; it strikes directly to your heart, while classical music often tries to seduce indirectly your mind with hidden subtleties that only the trained listener can discern. I like metal because it’s a direct punch in your face.

Metal is my favourite music, but sorry as a musicologist, I have to stay objective with the musicological truth. And there is no question classical music is much more complex in terms of compositional approach than any metal genre (including prog and technical death). I know this is something that many fans will deny because they want to stay in the illusion that their favourite music is the most complex music ever, which is naïve and biased, but comprehensible. (I think I would have react the same ten years ago). So they prefer accusing me of POV rather than to face the musicological reality.

However don’t misunderstand me; I’m not arguing that classical is superior or better. I have never ever implied that. In my views this kind of hierarchical approach using the complexity as a pretext is simply pointless. Because you’re complex doesn’t necessarily mean you’re better. I don’t think the complexity makes the grandeur of music. I think authenticity does. And one thing I’m sure is Metal doesn’t lack of authenticity.

Oh, and before some might misunderstand my point and argue that shredders can sometimes write very complex things, blah, blah…I have to say this is beside the point. I’m not talking of instrumental complexity here, no I’m here talking of compositional complexity. These are two different things.

Oh, btw I never said that the polyphonic ear was the ultimate criterion to make a distinction between art Music and popular music. I said it "one of the numerous points". But what separates art music from popular music is first the written tradition, and second the complex compositional techniques and theories implied in art music including the strict contrapuntal techniques.

Ok basically my post was longer (there was a part describing many differences of compositional approaches and stuffs). But I’ve realized here that the more I discuss and the more I seem to generate misunderstanding. So I will stop here concerning this issue. I’ll take these arguments if needed.

Besides I want to deal with others comments

In fact, I think it's almost essential to have some level of skill in doing so to be able to properly appreciate the more extreme forms, such as death metal, since to an untrained ear it will most likely just sound like noise

There’s an obvious amalgam going on here. Your argument is misguiding. I sure agree that an unfamiliar ear will probably perceive death metal as noise. No question about that. But I don’t think it is mostly due to a capacity of individuating parts. Many classical musicians I know think death metal is noise yet they certainly can individuate parts. Conversely, I had learned to love Death metal long before I was able to individuate parts. So I don’t think these two aspects are bound by any relation of causality.

I think the factors which make an unfamiliar ear perceive death metal as noise are rather its difference, its brutality, its heaviness, its speed, its frequent lack of melody. But It has little to do with the capacity of individuating parts as far as I can analyse the phenomenon.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think drawing this part of the discussion to a close is a good idea, since this bit isn't going in the article as it stands. I will say that I agree with many of your points, although I would point out that I do have an awareness of the concepts (fugue, polyphony, etc.) you mention. I think we're actually agreeing in many places here, it's just the way things have been phrased that make it seem like we're at odds. Certainly individuating parts is not "the be-all and end-all", but it's a skill that can be as equally useful in the context of metal as in other forms of music. Anyway, I think as above, 'nuff said here. Onesecondglance (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Classical influence section (3)

Ok, I appear to have sparked discussion on the subject, which is healthy if a little drawn out. I'm still concerned that the section in question doesn't accurately reflect the intention of metal musicians.

To prevent the possibility of repetitive reverts, I'm going to quote the text as it stands, with my suggestions marked. We can then discuss as necessary before altering the article.

The appropriation of "classical" music SUGGEST The use of classical influences

{fine through here}

generally do not try to observe the basic compositional and aesthetical exigencies of classical music. SUGGEST generally do not seek to mimic compositional and aesthetical exigencies of classical music. REASONING heavy metal as a descendant of rock music has it's own compositional forms, so stylistically we shouldn't be surprised when classical forms are not used.

Classical music is erudite music, whereas heavy metal is popular music.[30] The problem I have with this phrase is that "popular music" implies that it is written with the intention of selling records - I know that is not the strict definition, but it is what is implied. Since much of metal is deliberately confrontational, antisocial, and difficult to listen to for the uninitiated (and at least superficially celebrates outsider status), this sentence is just going to cause disagreement as the terminology can and will be interpreted wrongly by both sides of the debate. To be honest, I'm not sure what it adds to the article - the previous phrases make it clear that any resemblance is superficial. Perhaps we should state instead that any influence comes mainly from utilising modes and motifs more associated with the classical tradition than the blues tradition that is used in the bulk of other rock genres (including most types of heavy metal).

Players who cite Bach as an influence, for example, seldom make use of the complex counterpoint that is central to the composer's work. I'm still not sure this has any relevance, particularly if we include a sentence as above. Again, counterpoint is not a stylistic feature of the heavy metal genre, so why should we be surprised that it is not present? It also still implies that heavy metal is "simpler" than the "complex" classical tradition, which is a divisive stance to take.

Hope we can get some good discussion on this! Onesecondglance (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, first before reading what follows, perhaps you should read what I've said in the previous section concerning your others objections.

generally do not try to observe the basic compositional and aesthetical exigencies of classical music. SUGGEST generally do not seek to mimic compositional and aesthetical exigencies of classical music. REASONING heavy metal as a descendant of rock music has it's own compositional forms, so stylistically we shouldn't be surprised when classical forms are not used.

Of course we shouldn’t. I agree! Why you thought I disagree? Your argument is perfectly correct but that’s beside the point. Well, in fact I have the impression that you missed the raison d’être of this part. (Probably my fault, apparently I wasn’t explicit enough). But this part never was meant to put down metal. Absolutely not. You seem to have understood it as if it was a reproach against metal of not being able to observe exigencies of classical music or something like that. I’ve never said anything like that. It would be irrelevant to reproach them that, because metal compositions are not supposed/expected to observe musical rules from classical since it doesn’t descend from it.

This is precisely my point.

Actually the raison d’être of this part was just to dissipate the frequent misunderstanding of many fans concerning the idea that metal would descend of classical music just because it is influenced by classical.

But ok, if that part wasn’t clear about it, I'm ok to modify and specify it more clearly.

Ok, compromise - if we replace "try" with "seek" I am happy to keep "observe" instead of "mimic". That way we keep the sense you mean, and combine it with the line of division between forms I'd prefer to evoke. What do you think about this?

Classical music is erudite music, whereas heavy metal is popular music.[30] The problem I have with this phrase is that "popular music" implies that it is written with the intention of selling records - I know that is not the strict definition, but it is what is implied.

Heh? What’s the heck? What’s that got to do with anything? I never ever implied anything like this! And the Nicolas Cook’s quote/source I provided about it doesn’t imply anything like this either.

I really fail to understand how you came to misunderstand that part that way. The distinction between Art music and Popular music doesn’t necessarily imply any commercial factor. Who said that? Me?

Oh, yes, sure, you have these musicologists like Adorno who used to criticize popular music for being commercial but come on, that was in the 30s/50s! While this argument may still be valid for some current popular music (I think stuffs like Britney Spears), such criticism wouldn’t make sense with current extreme or avant-garde popular music genres which precisely don’t make music to sell out. I completely agree with you about that. And I think I’m sufficiently familiar with movements like black metal and avant-garde metal to be aware these genres certainly don’t intend to be commercial. So, sorry but your accusation here is completely unjustified.

This distinction between art/popular is a commonly admitted musicological category and it had absolutely nothing to do with your accusation.

No this distinction in the article was meant to underline the difference of nature between these to genres in order to develop the fact that metal doesn’t descend from classical at all. Nothing else but that was implied. Btw that’s why I even specified that Classical modern descendant is the contemporary classical music. This proves my intention.

So no, you really can’t accuse me of that.

Frederick, I'm aware that you've done some good work on clarifying the use of the terms "art" and "popular" music, especially on the avant-garde metal talk page. I certainly understand what you're trying to get at, and I'm not accusing you of misunderstanding either the definition or HM as a genre. My objection is on the basis that the vast majority of people won't - as you point out yourself, the distinction between art and popular is a musicologically defined one. I think the fact that we've been able to have a disagreement about this sentence despite both understanding what it is trying to say - with both of us first jumping to opposite conclusions about the other's understanding - shows that it has potential to cause confusion and, therefore, needs to be amended.

More to the point, whether or not we think the terms are correctly applied, I'm not sure whether the sentence is necessary at all. I *do* think we should mention that the "classical" influence is mainly due to a tendency away from more rock-traditional blues-based scales and chords, as this is important to explain to the reader what the actual sonic differences are. I think the reference you've put in is good - I would move this to a different part of the paragraph.

Players who cite Bach as an influence, for example, seldom make use of the complex counterpoint that is central to the composer's work. I'm still not sure this has any relevance, particularly if we include a sentence as above. Again, counterpoint is not a stylistic feature of the heavy metal genre, so why should we be surprised that it is not present?

First, as already mentioned, this part was meant to dissipate the frequent misunderstanding implying that metal would be some kind of new classical music. This belief was extremely patent in previous versions of that article. So, just for this reason, this specification has relevance here. It simply develops the argument as to why metal doesn’t descend from classical music.

Second, as already said to you a month ago, counterpoint is not an issue of style but of technique: this is a compositional technique, not a stylistic trait per se. What I mean is classical music is certainly not the only one to use counterpoint approach. Any music can employ this technique, even popular music, even though art music has favoured it much more.

There even are occasional examples of counterpoint in metal. Such examples would include Emperor's Prometheus album or Judas Priest's Painkiller album. But such examples are free counterpoint. It is written with instinct, it is not pure technical counterpoint like the one art music uses. Such examples of counterpoint don’t imply any theoretical orientation like art music implies. This is not strict academic counterpoint. It is much easier to write free counterpoint than academic one where you have to observe many interdictions and melodic obligations.

What I mean is I never saw any metal employ strict complex counterpoint. And this is one of the numerous points that illustrate (along with the parallel fifths thing) that metal by essence is not art music, and so doesn’t descend from classical music.

Ok, agree with your point here, apologies for not more closely reading your above reply. How about putting this on the end of the sentence about borrowing only superficial aspects? That way we can have a nicely balanced sentence:

"Heavy metal musicians focus on and borrow only superficial aspects of classical music, such as motifs, melodies, and scales, rather than more complex features, such as counterpoint, polyphony, and structural forms."

Readers can then follow these links to find out more about these techniques. "Complex" also qualifies (and is qualified in) the context of "superficial".

It also still implies that heavy metal is "simpler" than the "complex" classical tradition, which is a divisive stance to take.

Indeed, I certainly do imply this because that’s a fact. Art music's theoretical and compositional approach is far more complex that anything metal implies in terms of composition. That’s a musicological fact. But this claim was not meant to state the superiority of classical but to illustrate the fact that metal is not art music,and doesn’t descend from classical.

But as already said above, some of you apparently misinterpret this claim as if it was said that metal is inferior. I don’t imply this. Complexity isn’t synonymous to superiority. As already said, I don’t think the technicality and the complexity necessarilly make the grandeur of music. “I think authenticity does. And one thing I’m sure is metal doesn’t lack of authenticity. “

Beside I think (as some other musicologist one said) that metal’s complexity lies elsewhere…I think its complexity rather lies in the interconnection between music, instrumental technicality, theatricality, imagery, thematic universe, ideology, specific sociological customs, and so on…Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I've covered this as above.

Hi Frederick, thanks for responding. In an effort for clarity, I've replied inline with your comments, and put the new suggested text below. Hope this *is* actually clear and I've not just muddied the waters :O) Cheers, Onesecondglance (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The use of "classical" music by heavy metal musicans typically involves musical elements associated with the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras of art music.

...

Despite many metal musicians citing classical composers as inspiration, heavy metal is not the modern descendant of classical music. Heavy metal musicians focus on and borrow only superficial aspects of classical music, such as motifs, melodies, and scales, rather than more complex features, such as counterpoint, polyphony, and classical structural forms. Heavy metal bands, including progressive and neoclassical metal bands, generally do not seek to observe the basic compositional and aesthetical exigencies of classical music. Classical influence is usually limited to a tendency away from the blues-based scales and figurations fundamental to rock music, including other forms of heavy metal.

I'm ok with your suggestions.The only point where I don't completely agree is I don't see why the mention concerning the distinction between art music and popular should be removed. Yes you have a good point: this distinction apparently generates many misunderstanding. But I don't see why a sourced and admitted distintion (which is relevant in the context of this part) should be removed. I'm ok with specifying more about it to prevent misconception, but deleting it is extreme in my views. My proposition is to mention the distinction between art music and popular music in the same footnote as the quote of Cook and Dibbens.

In that footnote I would write something like this:

"Metal can't be regarded as a descendant of classical because classical and metal come from different cultural traditions and practices. Classical comes from art music tradition whereas metal comes from popular music tradition. See, e.g., Cook and Dibben (2001): "Analyses of popular music also sometimes reveal the influence of 'art traditions.' An example is Walser’s linkage of heavy metal music with the ideologies and even some of the performance practices of nineteenth-century Romanticism. However, it would be clearly wrong to claim that traditions such as blues, rock, heavy metal, rap or dance music derive primarily from 'art music'" (p. 56)Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy to add that footnote to the suggested paragraph and integrate into the article. Would you like to do the honours? Onesecondglance (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Well I suggested to put it as a foot note as a compromise for you. But still I fail to understand why the distinction between art and Popular music couldn't be mentioned in the main text. Especially considering it has relevance in this context and clearly explains why Metal doesn't descend from classical.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, oooppss...I just made changes to the Classical section, without realizing that there was a great deal of talk page discussion on this section. Sorry if I offended anyone. I took out the last sentence because I don't understand what it means: "Classical influence is usually limited to a tendency away from the blues-based scales and figurations fundamental to rock music, including other forms of heavy metal." Maybe a few words are missing?.................................................................Perhaps it could say "THE Classical influence IN HEAVY METAL is usually limited to a tendency TO GO BEYOND from the blues-based scales and figurations fundamental to ROCK AND HEAVY METAL." .....Anyway, I have a simple solution to this debate. Why don't we just find the most reputable, reliable sources (experts on heavy metal) who have written about the Classical music influence issue, and summarize their viewpoints?Nazamo (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Um...Ok, you're both going snap at me for saying this, but metal actually has been known to use both counterpoint and polyphony. And while I'll agree that metal certainly isn't a descendant of classical music, I would like to point out that certain types of art and progressive metal do in fact implement many of the the features associated with classical music.

I just thought I would give my view, since when I read this I was rather shocked at the hasty generalization.

You can go ahead and reply to this with whatever amount of scorn you choose to muster. I probably won't read it. Have fun arguing whether or not to include the world "popular" before the word "music" on a Wikipedia article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.121.196 (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Distortion and dissonance

Ok, there's a problem in the chord part. The new version concerning the dissonance thing (as it is now reworded) doesn't make any sense, technically speaking. Yet the original point was relevant though badly put. Here it was:

"The power chord makes possible a high level of distortion without unintended dissonance."

Originally the editor meant that the use of simple unique intervals as chords prevent the guitar to sound "unclean/ noisy/inharmonically" with distortion. Because full chords played with distortion sound "muddy"/"noisy"/"inharmonic" (these terms refer to the distortion resulting sound where the sound doesn't sound "clean"). The editor called this "unclean" sound "dissonance". But the word "dissonance" in this context, is unproper because musically speaking the terme only applies to intervals and not to the distortion effect, even in this case. So I suggested the word "saturation" which has been rejected. And Nazamo and DC reworded the sentence like this:

"Since the power chord is based on simple, often perfect intervals, it can be used with a high level of distortion without unintended dissonance."

But this phrase as it is worded is not only wrong but twists the original meaning of the phrase. Actually the phrase justifies the "clean sound" by the use of perfect intervals . But this is wrong . As only fourth, fifths and octave are perfect intervals. Now others powerchords include non-perfect intervals such as minor thirds, major thirds, minor and sometimes major sixths and diminished fifths, augmented fourths . Plus diminished fifths/augmented fourths ARE dissonances in the musical theory. And the use of the word "often" to qualify this claim doesn't change anything to irrelevance of this claim. Because this is not the perfect nature of some intervals that make the use of distortion possible without unintended "unclean" sound. But the fact the powerchords are simple and use only one interval instead of two or more. Full chords are too rich for distortion. Hence the fact guitarists only use "truncated chords" (powerchords that is) to avoid this "unclean" sound effect.

So here's the thing: You don't want the word "saturation", fine...but "dissonance" is unproper anyway in this context, so let's just find another proper word without twsting the original meaning of the phrase with inacurate comments. I'm suggesting the use of the word "inharmonic" which is often used by contemporary music composers to refer to noisy musical sounds. But I'm not specialist in physics and accoustic to be completely sure this is accurate in the case of sound distortion. Frédérick Duhautpas 08:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks DC for the clarification. That's exactly it!Frédérick Duhautpas 13:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This editing and rewording on the distortion and power chord issue is a great example of how sometimes there are simple concepts which all of the editors understand at a practical level...it's just that it is hard to express it in formal language. I mean, anyone who has ever strummed a guitar plugged into a distortion pedal set to 10 quickly figures out that if you play a chord with a root, third, fifth, and seventh, it just sounds like a chaotic noise....yet a root and fifth, even in the lowest register, produces a comprehensible sound. Thanks to FD and Dan for your efforts to reword and work on this section. The new word "inharmonicity" captures the idea well.Nazamo 14:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

From the article on power chords: "When minor or major chords are used with distortion, the relative intensities of each note's overtone series combine by non-linear intermodulation to form unpredictable sum and difference frequencies, which results in dissonance." It isn't sourced, and it's a mouthful, but if it's true then it most certainly would be termed dissonance in a strictly physical sense, if not in a musical theory sense. Ours18 12:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ours for providing this interesting quote. Well, I still don't find any second meaning of dissonance concerning that effect in any of my music dictionnary for the moment. But I don't necessarilly reject that possibility at least the way you put it. But if you are going to use the word "dissonance", at least it must be clearly distiguished from the classic "dissonance" meaning which refers to intervals and chords theory. Because this Distortion intermodulation effect is different from the qualification of intervals. I mean if you take a classic triad chord which is basically classified as consonnance, there's clearly a problem if you talk of dissonance about it when played with distortion. I mean there might be semantic confusion about the term. Because even with distortion, the classic triad is a consonnance in the musical theory sense. Another case is the powerchord with Diminished fifth/ Augmented fourth, it is a dissonance anyway no matter the distortion chaotic effect is avoided. So if you guys want to speak of dissonance, it must be clear that it doesn't refer to a musical theory sense. Which means no link to the consonnance & dissonance wiki article.Frédérick Duhautpas 15:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "dissonance" as applied to the frequency effects of distortion is absolutely proper in a physical sense and common in colloquial discussions of music. However, as the article section in question here concerns the technical characteristics of heavy metal, I've come to agree with your preference to avoid using the term altogether in this context.—DCGeist (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but as I said, I'm really not sure about my use of the word "inharmonicity". I suggested it because that's the way concrete music and electroacoustic music composers call noisy sound objects. But though it sounds explicit and convenient, I'm not sure this is a proprer term in this particular case...Sorry, I lack physics and acoustic knowledge to be sure. I mean the word "inharmonicity" is supposed to be applied to noisy sound objects which are constitued with partials and not with hamonics. But guitar sound is constituted with harmonics, not with partials afaik. That's why I'm not sure. Maybe use of the terms "intermodulation noisy effects" or something would be more appropriate though less explicit for the reader. Don't know. Any opinion guys?

Nah. Its good the way it is. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 19:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have come across the "intermodulation distortion" issue raised by Ours18. The "fuzzbox" article in Wikipedia claims that intermodulation distortion may produce frequency components at the various sums and differences of the frequency components of the input signal which will be not be harmonically related to the input signal, leading to dissonance. That is, when you play a "C" with extreme distortion, you may get harmonic overtones which are not in the key of C. If you just play a single note or a fifth, this is OK. But if you play a triad (C, E, G), you will get a clash of dissonance from the overtones generated by the E. I have added this into the power chord/distortion section. When I find a reference I will post it. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's interesting and I sure don't deny the effect described. We sure agree that distortion applied to full chords or others intervals create some "disharmonious sound". but I'm still not convinced one can use the term "dissonance" in this case ,even though your theory could make sense. The term "dissonance" concerns the classification of INTERVALS exclusively. Here the issue doesn't concern the intervals but the sound effect and the overtones.

if you play a major third with the distortion, no matter the distortion, the third interval is and will remain a consonance with respect to western harmonic theory. no matter the distortion, a major triad is and will remain a consonant chord with respect to western harmonic theory. So I think it is misguiding to use the terme dissonant here because it's confusing effects with interval nature.

Unless you can provide sources where it is explicitely stated that the word dissonance can be used differently, I'll stick to the standard definition to dissonance in music theory. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how distortion works, or how that sound is attained electronically, but I do know that what OnBeyondZebrax said is true. Check out 'Harmonic series in music' which will tell you almost everything about it. But, in short, and string vibrating on a guitar oscillates at a number of different frequencies at a time, only one of which, that being the lowest frequency, we hear. So, supposing that we played C on a guitar string, it would in fact be oscillating at the frequencies of C, an octave above, G fifth above that, and further up, to C, then E, then G, then Bflat, then C, and then D, so on and so forth. Assuming that one could hear ALL of those overtones at equal volume, playing one note may sound dissonant all by itself, but it would further become disharmonious the more fundamental notes we played, adding to the total number of overtones. It's this reason that a major chord played on an overdriven guitar sounds terrible. It's because of the consonance nature of the perfect fifth and the perfect octave that these power chords are used. They're not to inharmonic, but they're not too empty sounding, like single notes or octaves may be. But like I said, I don't know how distortion works. It may not be the harmonic series at all that we hear, but something else. I've played an electric guitar before, and it's not always that full chords sound inharmonic, or even more dissonant intervals, like tritones, or major thirds. My ear can pick them up.

That may solve the 'dissonant' dilemma, but whether or not a major/minor third or a tritone can be called a power chord, like the original page claims it can, as per the image provided of Megadeth's 'Addicted to Chaos', is another argument. Any thoughts? My opinion is that only the root of a chord and the fifth, in any voicing, can be considered a power chord. It's labeled such because of it's flexibility within the musical language of popular music. Saying that other intervals or chords, like the ones illustrated on the original page, can be power chords is like saying ANY chord can be a power chord. 24.76.29.71 (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Man, I'm already perfectly aware of what harmonic series are. That's part of my job. So no need to explain me what it is. Anyway you're not explaining anything by refering to harmonic series with respect to the disruptive effect of distortion.

Anyway that's beside the point. I'm not contesting the intermodulation effect you guys are describing! Of course it IS real'! What I'm contesting is not this phenomenon but the use of umproper term to discribe this effect. In music theory terms of dissonance and consonnance refer to the nature of Interval (music).

In strict tradtional music theory,

1. the term dissonance is NOT used to describe harmonic series
2. the term dissonance is NOT usedto describe sound itself
3. the term dissonance is NOT used to describe one note
4. the term dissonance is NOT used to describe disharmonious sounds due to sound effects.

The term dissonance only refers to intervals (and chords including them).

Now intervals and sound (timbre) itself are just not the same things.

"playing one note may sound dissonant all by itself"

No, it may not. In regard to the classic theory ONE note alone CANNOT be considered dissonant. Because by essence Dissonance refer to intervals and intervals necessarilly imply two notes. Just read the description of the dissonance article and you'll see what I'm saying: dissonance refers to intervals (and to chords including them). it is not used to describe sound itself.

Look, no matter how disharmoniuous the distortion effect may be when playing a major chord, the major chord by definition is still a CONSONNNANCE (not a dissonance) with respect to music theory. So I'd rather use the term " disharmonious" than "dissonance". Because the use of "dissonance" here is improper in context of music theory.

On the other hand, I'm not excluding that the term "dissonance" might be used in some other sense. But such a sense isn't related to the strict classic music theory. Indeed, we could assume there might be a different meaning, say in the field of physics for example, using the term as refering to sound. That's possible, I don't know. But should there be another meaning of the dissonance term, it would have to be clearly specified and sourced. Because refering to the classic theory here is a nonsense. One shouldn't link it to the dissonance article because refering to the STRICT musical definition of it dealing with intervals. otherwise this creates an nonsensical amalgam.

As for the issue concerning power chords, I'm sorry but it is aboslutely not said that any chord can be considered as power chord. That's a misconception. No, it is just said than other intervals (different from root fifth) may be used as component in power chords.

A true chord is built up with THREE DIFFERENT notes at least, not less(for instance C,E,G). Now a power chord by definition is characterised by only TWO DIFFERENT notes. The classic example being the root-fifth one. However it has been showed that other intervals may be used as components of a (two notes) power chord, such as major ones or minor ones. On a side note, this part of the article you're contesting is clearly sourced with a referential magazine specialized in guitar and music theory.("Shaping Up and Riffing Out: Using Major and Minor Power Chords to Add Colour to Your Parts," Guitar Legends, April 1997, p. 97).Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote of this article:

"[...]Root/fifth power chords are neither major nor minor- they're ambiguous. [...]Whether a chord is major or minor is determined by the presence of a major or minor third. The trouble is when you're using a lot of gain and you add a major or minor third to a root and fifth, you end up losing those two important factors I just mentioned - Clarity and cut. However, if you ditch the fifth and play just the root and third together, you can get away with it, even when using mondo distortion. Figures 5-8 are movables major and minor root-third power chords shapes that work when you're using high-gain sound."

Merge

I merged the funk metal article into the funk rock article. Understandably, funk metal is real, but there was no oppression to the merging. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 01:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Rise of the term "heavy metal"

Although the term was coined in the early '70s (as a genre designation), I've seen evidence from a variety of sources that the term was not widely used until at least the late '70s, right when the genre was at the verge of splitting into a myriad of subgenres. I checked the New York Times historical index for usages of the term as pertaining to music in the 1970s. You may question why I'm using the Times as an authority on the matter. I think it provides an interesting window into how the adult culture of the 1970s viewed the genre. Only about two dozen articles showed up, the earliest from 1974. They applied the term "heavy metal" to groups such as Led Zeppelin, Queen, Mountain (who the hell are they?), and Black Sabbath. The term was frequently placed in quotation marks, separated by hyphens, and almost invariably followed by the word "rock." The impression was of a form of music wholly alien to Times readers, as if Dr. Evil were describing it. Here are a few quotes, which sound almost comical today:

"Led Zeppelin is among the founding fathers and leading advocates of a brand of music that goes by the label of 'heavy-metal-rock.'" -- Henry Edwards, Feb. 2, 1975, p. X20

"Even harder than hard rock is heavy-metal rock, brutally aggressive music played mostly for minds clouded by drugs and often performed by power trios, meaning guitar, bass and drums with as much amplification as they can afford." -- John Rockwell, Feb. 4, 1979, p. D22

"So-called 'heavy-metal' rock, a crude exaggeration of rock basics that appeals to white teenagers, got its start in the late 60's (Cream, Mountain) but proliferated in this decade, above all with Led Zeppelin." -- John Rockwell, Aug. 13, 1979. p. C16

None of the articles even hint at anything NWOBHM or beyond--they focus entirely on classic rockers, including a number of artists not normally considered metal today (by anyone), such as David Bowie and Foreigner. There is obviously a certain derision attached to the term, and the original bands to whom the term was first applied generally considered themselves some other genre, such as blues (which is definitely true of Zeppelin and Sabbath).

A number of sources I've read (such as Essi Berelian's Rough Guide to Heavy Metal) note that it was not until the late '70s that groups began applying the term "heavy metal" to their own music, as opposed to simply being labeled as such by the media.

The Wikipedia article would benefit from discussing more about the evolution of the term. marbeh raglaim (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff. And you brought back happy memories of growing up in New York and reading John Rockwell, who did us all a service by forever defining "square."—DCGeist (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

you need to remember that rock music in general was alien to anyone much over 30 in the 70s. oldsters still thought of the moptop beatles (just 10-15 years old - think of radiohead or nirvana now) as new & hip so black sabbath was totally beyond their ken. there's an interview on youtube with zeppelin where they get asked if their music is similar to the beatles' and page & plant are just wtf?

you only started hearing about nwobhm in the mid-late 80s to differentiate it from hair metal or speed/thrash, etc

Actually, I think the term NWOBHM was coined in the late 1970s by a music journalist. In any case, the bands it encompassed existed around the late 1970s, but they may have taken a while to gain recognition in America. It preceded speed/thrash, as well as hair metal. (I believe the term "hair metal" was introduced in the '90s, and retroactively applied to '80s bands.) marbeh raglaim (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

you're right about hair metal being a >90s term, but whether you call it glam metal (as we did) or hair metal, it's the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Getting back on topic, I'm still trying to figure out more about the evolution of the term "heavy metal" so I can update the article accordingly. I think it should indicate that the term didn't really become widely used until at least the late 1970s, or that groups didn't self-identify by the term until that time. But I'm trying to find credible sources to back up that statement.

The article observes that people once used the term interchangeably with "hard rock." But the example it gives is weak: a 1983 article describing Aerosmith as both hard rock and heavy metal. There are still many people today who would say the same thing. Also note that in one of my quotes from before, even John Rockwell made a distinction between hard rock and heavy metal as early as 1979. When exactly the distinction arose is a good question, because I found that many of the groups referred to as heavy metal in the 1970s would generally be classed as hard rock today. Sometimes I had the sense that the writers were calling a group "heavy metal" as a put-down, and avoided the term if they liked the group.

I know the term "hard rock" is considerably older than "heavy metal," and it undoubtedly underwent a sense evolution too. In the 1960s articles, I found even Chuck Berry described as hard rock. marbeh raglaim (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Christe and Bangs mentions are fine, the section is adequate as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.179.241 (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's adequate, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved. Also, why bother to leave your opinion here if you're not going to back it up? This place is for discussion. It's pointless to just contradict what I said without explaining why. marbeh raglaim (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Some mention of Sandy Pearlman should be made here. Wikipedia's own article on Pearlman mentions him as the possible originator of the term "Heavy Metal Music". Pearlman was a jounalist at the time, and the term is "said" to have been borrowed from a term to describe the dense iron core of a star which is collapsing into a black hole. Blue Oyster Cult's song "Heavy Metal - The Black and Silver" is a perfect description of such an event. CLewis216.67.92.66 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In the DVD 'Black Sabbath: the Last Supper', it is mentioned the term heavy metal was first used toe describe Black Sabbath in theri early years by a critic (I think in the USA) who was expressing dislike for their style in a review of one of their performances. He wrote something like "it sounded like a lot of heavy metal crashing together". Isn't this therefore a verifiable orign of the term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.36.61 (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Use this in Etymology at the start.

The first band described as heavy metal was the Jimi Hendrix Experience in the late '60s. They were described as "heavy metal falling from the sky". Also, they were one of the most important proto-metal bands. π₰₯ ĬLʡ$Φǚɭђµπt₴ŗ ₯₰π 09:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Sandy Pearlman says "he is widely regarded as the originator of the term 'heavy metal music'" while working for Crawdaddy Magazine. The article lists 4 credible sources. From one source, in an interview with Pearlman, he says, "It's not like I thought up the term 'heavy metal' -- I'm just the guy who stuck it to music. Some people tell me that William Burroughs 'invented it', but that's just a good joke. That's ignorant. They have no knowledge of scientific terminology. The truth is, I first stuck it on one song by the Byrds, 'Artificial Energy'."

Others possibly credited with originating the term are Lester Bangs and Lou Reed. 216.67.92.66 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC) CLewis

Power metal was formed in the 90's?

Many, many people think Manowar founded Power metal with their first album, which was released in 1982. Blind Guardian formed in the early 80's as Lucifer's Heritage, and made Power Metal from the start. There are more examples... Also there is no mention of the fact that many, many people count most of the NWOBHM-bands to the Powermetal Genre. Beagels (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Which just shows that their idea of "power metal" isn't power metal in the current sense. Musically, Manowar is essentially traditional heavy metal, like the NWOBHM bands. Blind Guardian's first albums were rather speed metal. Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No single band "formed" Power Metal. It was sort of a combined effort because a lot of bands in the 90s took a ton of influence from speed metal bands in the eighties. They took Helloween's double bass drumming and combined it with the melodic speed metal riffs from bands like that. Popular belief is that Helloween themselves created Power Metal. In reality they more or less formed the prototype for it and later bands built off of this. But power metal in the modern sense crystalized in the 1990s. And there are many "styles" of power metal.70.65.9.247 (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but I would still say that power metal fromed in the 80's. It's just like the people who say Venom and Bathory weren't black metal and they only set the foundation. They're still black metal. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tiamat and Samael

Why does article state that Tiamat and Samael were first symphonic black metal bands? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.28.234 (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

metal

just thought ud be interested-the word metal is used 420 times in the article.Д narchistPig (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No not really... Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

End of the article

I do not mean to sound like a whiny bitch, but at the end of the article there are two minor mistakes. It wrongly states that Lamb of God is a metalcore band and that Children of Bodom is a melodic death metal band. LOG is usually considered post groove and COB as power metal (with melodic influences), by people who know about classification of this kind of metal music. I mean to a person who listens extensively to goregrind, LOG and KSE might sound similar, but they aren't. 203.129.237.35 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree with the above but to get more specific, bands like Lamb of God are in a slightly new genre called N.W.O.A.H.M. which is of course the New Wave Of American Heavy Metal. This genre or subgenre or whatever isn't mentioned, unless I overlooked it. If not, it should be. The metalcore page says "New Wave of American Heavy Metal" is another term for metalcore but it's really more of a subgenre of it. There are many subgenres not mentioned but it would take forever to type them all. Feral Mind (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Popularity Peak

In the infobox for this heavy metal article, it states "worldwide, peaking in the 1980s" for the entry under mainstream popularity. I find this to be an extremely USA-centric claim. Yes, we are all aware that glam metal was something of a popular and fashionable fad during the 1980s in the United States. But is there any evidence whatsoever that anyone can produce to verify that heavy metal's popularity in Europe, Asia, South America or Australia peaked in the 1980s? I find it incredibly hard to believe that heavy metal was more popular in Europe during the 1980s than it is today, given the large number of bands, festivals and media outlets that have emerged in Europe since the 1980s devoted to the genre. I propose removing that questionable claim of peaking in the 1980s and just leaving the entry as worldwide.--Bardin (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, nobody made a comment after all this while so I took the liberty of changing the entry to Worldwide, peaking in the United States during the 1980s. --Bardin (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Even then, it didn't dominate the US charts as much as it currently does in much of Scandinavia (and that's if you class Bon Jovi and Poison as metal). In much of Europe (Scandinavia, Germany, Italy, Poland) it has consistantly been the biggest form of guitar music. It's also among the most popular Western music in Japan. Although it's dwarfed by Coldplay and Arctic Monkeys and the like in the UK, Metallica and AC/DC have both topped the UK album charts in 2008--MartinUK (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Including the Encyclopaedia Metallum in the external links section

www.metal-archives.com is one of the top 500 most-visited websites in nine countries and one of the top 200 most-visited in Croatia ( http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/metal-archives.com ). It has more visitors per month on average than such popular websites as the official websites of Rolling Stone magazine ( http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/rollingstone.com ), Vh1 ( http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/vh1.com ) and Allmusic Guide( http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/allmusic.com ). It is the seventh most popular music website in the world.( http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=27 ) As such, I feel that it warrants mention in the external links section of the article, and am thus adding it. Ours18 (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you noticed what music sites are more popular than the Encyclopaedia Metallum on alexa.com? Just wondering whether you think we should add external links to A-Z Lyrics, Metro Lyrics, CDcovers.CC and 6arab.com all over wikipedia then. I noticed you've been through this before. Your post here prompted me to do a little investigation regarding wikipedia's stance on notability regarding websites, particularly whether traffic ranks and popularity are relevant. The result is that I have nominated the Encyclopaedia Metallum article page for deletion. I hope the irony is not lost on you. --Bardin (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would sites not especially relevent to metal be added to the external links section of a metal article? Ours18 (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your question is a bit off but I'm assuming you're asking why a site that is relevant to metal not be added in the external links. The answer if they fall under any of the criterias listed under the wikipedia guidelines on links normally to be avoided. I note that the Encyclopaedia Metallum is not considered a reliable source by wikipedia's standards so it falls under the second criteria. --Bardin (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm aware that the site does not 100% meet Uncle Wiki's criteria for a reliable web source. My point was that the sites which are more popular have nothing to do with metal and thus would have no place in the article even if they were more "notable" and met this site's criteria. As it is, MA is the most popular music source for metal fans, and leaving it out as an external link is not fair to those who wish to look further into the genre than Wikipedia's limited scope. Ours18 (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

religion in metal, why not included?

i realize that wikipedia tries to make everything seprate from religion and stuff, but the fact that christian metal not only exists but is very popular, especialy here in the US, is undeniable. even well known metal bands such as As I Lay Dying and Killswitch Engage ARE lyrically christian bands. many other bands also try and include morally positive lyrical content in their songs, even if they do not outright proclaim a faith. there are tons of bands like this and its unfair to not include something regardgin them. its not a personal beliefe, but it is a fact that this type of music is a major contributor to the genre, thus it should be mentioned in the article.

Uhm, that's total crap and those bands aren't even metal. Yes there have been a few Christian metal bands (though by and large there have not been many [especially lyrically]) but religion in music is not very important. It's a total seperate thing. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, which religions are used by heavy metal bands so massively? Do you think you can find a source about islamic heavy metal, judaic heavy metal, hindu heavy metal? Do you think that something like that does exist? I've never heard or seen anything like that. The bands do have some believes, ethics, but that does not create their own religions or make them a band of some religion. Most of heavy metal lyrics are have the same themes. Heavy metal is actually a religion on its own. Only lyrics/culture-related metal subgenres on wikipedia are oriental metal, viking metal, nazi black metal and such nonsence that actually does not exist. Only religion that has enough heavy metal bands is christian heavy metal.

I hope you realize a lot of metal is very Anti-Christain. Ever listened to Slayer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.208.56 (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Killswitch Engage is not a christian band in any way, and it is metal Navnløs, like it or not. Oh, I wonder if you have read WP:CIVIL, but i'm sure you get that a lot around here. --Kmaster (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Though I do not think it is worth that much of a mention, it could be added. In the movie Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, some woman who I assume is a music historian or something says "If we did not have Christianity, we would not have metal as we know it". And the thing that made metal become "bad ass" was mainly the fact that people saw it as "satanic" and that they were being bad, and rebelious by listening to it. I think a paragraph would help add some more infomation to the article, and could also add to a mention of stereo-typing. As I said, not much of a mention is needed, but a bit would help add to the article. 219.89.106.179 (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Too much stereotyping

I'm impressed that this is a featured article. It's filled up with simple misinformation, stereotyping WITHOUT NOTICE. For instance, the remarks on "art music" and "lyrical themes" are as universal as is "all chinese fight gong fu". This kind of generalization is surely not what we all expect of a free encyclopedia. Arthur Gabriel de Santana (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Then help fix it. We are supposed to aim for generalizations and commonalities here on wikipedia when describing a genre, but then again, I don't edit this page much, so I wouldn't know what exactly you are talking about (I focus on the different metal subgenre pages mostly). Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The part concerning heavy metal not being art music is sourced with authoritative musicologists references. So I really don't care you think it's misinformation. If you think you know better than scholars, then provide other scholar sources that deny their claims. Period. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether the opinions come from scholars or not, they are still opinions and should not be used or implied as facts, as this violates the 'no point of view' policy Wikipedia has. There is no way to prove that heavy metal is not art, and so it should not be stated on here. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Wikipedia, maybe you can ask them to change their policy RationalHeretic (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Was heavy metal always "fast?"

Early heavy metal was actually seen as very slow by 1970's punk fans. 1970's HM was also slow in comparison to earlier forms of rock music. It was Motorhead who pioneered the very fast punk-like pace played by many of the more recent HM bands.Smiloid (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. Good edit.—DCGeist (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

actually if you look pass black sabbaths fast songs such as paranoid their is a doom essence looks at the song black sabbath by them its very doomy and satanic and lsow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.36.29 (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Stylistic origins

Hard Rock is not a stylistic origin of heavy metal?--  LYKANTROP  09:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Grindcore

This is about somewhat of a conflict between me and a few other people, where I argue Grindcore as being a definitiv fusion genre in Heavy metal, as Allmusic.com agrees. Anyways, answer if you want to discuss about this. UberHeadbanger, 28 May 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 22:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Theres no denying that Grind is associated with Extreme metal(Death metal in particular), but being associated doesn't make it a fusion genre. Grind started as, and still is a punk subgenre. Allmusic is only reliable because its staff are "professional critics", not because its info is accurate(which it usually isn't.)Inhumer (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

True, but have you studied music. I personaly haven't, and I do not want to go againts what people who exerce a profession in the domain say. I'm just reporting things I read. Maybe you do have a degree in music, I do not know, but all you did was contest my two sources, my first being the documentary Metal, A headbanger's Journey. Anyways, I'd like to have more responses to this. UberHeadbanger, 21:32 28 May 2008 (EST)

Not on a scholarly level, but as s music fan, I've done a lot of personal reading and research. I usually contest allmusic being used as a source no matter what subject. To me, it seem like the person who wrote the Grind entry on amg went "Napalm Death are Death metal now, so Grind must be metal." or "Its heavy and has harsh vocals, so it must be metal." without doing any actual research. I also don't see how a film is a reliable source. I'd also like to hear other opinions..Inhumer (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The website Allmusic and the documentary film Metal: A Headbanger's Journey are reliable sources, regardless of any disagreement one might have with their content. Do you have any reliable source to support your contention or are you relying on your own original research instead? --Bardin (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not know films were reliable sources. I learn something every day. I'll search for some sources tomorrow.Inhumer (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It will be hard, because as with most Hardcore punk subgenres, "reliable sources" are few and far between.Inhumer (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are few and far between? I beg to differ. There are plenty of sources for something as relatively well-known (or notorious) as grindcore. A casual search on google books revealed the following:

• "Grindcore is a subgenre of Death Metal featuring extremely fast tempos and a less distinct and controlled sound than is found in conventional Death Metal." From an essay written by Keith Kahn-Harris in this book at page 86.
• "The most extreme form of heavy metal music is known as "grindcore" for its grinding sound and for the influence from the "hard core" offshoot of punk music. Grindcore bands attempt to be the most extreme of metal bands - the loudest, the fastest, the most gruesome." From this book at page 373.
• "Under pressure from hardcore, the rhythm of heavy-metal kept getting faster and faster. In the mid 1980s, New Yorker's Nuclear Assault, a spin-off of Anthrax, invented "grindcore" with Game Over (1986), and perfected it with Survive (1988)." From this at page 277.
• "In a general sense, hardcore is used to signify more extreme variants of a culture form (eg. hardcore pornography, with its explicit sexuality). Sometimes it is abbreviated to 'hard', as in 'hard trance', electronic music with higher beats per minute. Several extreme styles of heavy metal also draw on the concept (eg. grindcore)." From this book at page 131.
• "By today's standards, speed metal was slow, and it quickly gave way to grindcore with its more accelerated tempi." From this book at page 57.
• "Through all of this, perhaps the most excruciating styles to which heavy metal gave birth were industrial, grindcore, and that beast known as death metal." From this book at page 249.

--Bardin (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about sources where the people actually did their research and didn't just assume the heavy music automatically equals metal(Note that I didn't say that the sources you provided weren't reliable). No one is gonna write an article or book on an obscure hardcore punk genre, and yes, I said obscure. No Grindcore band has ever become notable for being said genre. Grind would be as well known as Power violence if it wasn't for Napalm Death and Carcass becoming Death Metal bands. Inhumer (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, without even bothering to check the source, that last book can be completely discredited simply reading that sentence over and over again, and then trying to find multiple reliable sources which agree that industrial (a clear-cut spin-off of electronic music) originated with metal. And the fact that one of them talks about pop culture and then discusses grindcore can also be ignored, since grindcore has almost no presence in pop culture whatsoever. The third source in that list goes against every written history of grindcore and metal I've read or been told by fans, which is that grindcore was started by Repulsion and Napalm Death (not to mention that Nuclear Assault is pretty much universally agreed to be a thrash and crossover band). Ours18 (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not bothered looking through any of those books in detail either but I assume that the last book was referring to industrial metal and that the other simply refers to popular culture in the broadest sense (i.e. anything that is not high culture). --Bardin (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at sources and arguments of both sides, I must say that UberHeadbanger is absolutely true. He showed reliable sources (I am adding the link allmusic grindcore) with assistence of Bardin and the other side did not say any proper arguments. Only original research. I think Wikipedia should present grindcore as sources say: fusion of death/thrash and hardcore.--  LYKANTROP  18:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've observed this argument for a while without having a strong opinion. In the punk rock article, on which I've done a lot of work, we've had the following language for a long time: "The anarcho-punk scene also spawned bands such as Napalm Death and Extreme Noise Terror that in the mid-1980s defined the heavily distorted grindcore style, a close relative of the early death metal sound." That phrasing is on the fence (as I've been) about whether grindcore qualifies as a fusion genre or not. Given Bardin's really superb research, I'm convinced that grindcore does indeed qualify as a fusion genre and belongs in the heavy metal infobox.

I agree that the third source adduced by Bardin does not qualify as reliable as it is essentially self-published via iUniverse. However, the five others all qualify as high-quality sources, whether or not Ours18 agrees with their historical analysis or not. Of those five sources, three are from the most respectable rank of scholarly publishing houses: Temple, Routledge, and Wesleyan. By the terms of WP:Verifiability, Bardin's research has virtually closed the case on this debate.—DCGeist (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a helpful passage from Natalie J. Purcell's Death Metal Music: The Passion and Politics of a Subculture, published by the very respectable McFarland ([2]):

Across the sea, in the UK, Napalm Death would release Scum in 1987. The two-sided album was extremely influential. Though side one featured very punk-influenced guitaring, the second side displayed the impressive Death Metal guitarwork of Bill Steer, which would spur the Grindcore movement. The tempos of the album were incredibly fast, with quadruple-time beats and extremely short songs. The album also featured deep grunted vocals advocating leftist politics. Napalm Death followed Scum with the equally extreme 1988 release From Enslavement to Obliteration. Soon, British Grindcore bands like Unseen Terror, Ripcord, Heresy, Concrete Sox, Carcass, The Electro-Hippies, and others began popping up.... Carcass "adapted the Grindcore formula to include more metallic, chugging sections."

—DCGeist (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, I really hate "verifiability, not truth" and "Wikiality"..Inhumer (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In general terms, I agree with you. That's why when there is any dispute over truth, it's always important to seek out multiple high-quality sources and, if they disagree, to reflect that. While I agree with your hesitation concerning Allmusic when it comes to debatable historical points, the fact is that we've now got six high-quality published sources (five of Bardin's six and the one I just added) supporting grindcore's inclusion and none refuting it. That seems pretty definitive. It may just be possible that your understanding of the truth hasn't been correct. On the other hand, your research may turn up something that will keep the question open. Frankly, it would take something as well-researched and detailed on the relevant topic as Purcell's book is to convince me that her description of the truth (which is supported in more general terms by Bardin's sources) isn't conclusive.—DCGeist (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel that anyone who actually did any in-depth research on it would see it as what ist is/was, a want to push Punk as far as it could go. Refer to my response to Bardin for the reasoning as to why there are few sources for Ours18 and my side of the argument.Inhumer (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And did you do such a "in-depth research"? If yes, why don't you present the research to us? The sources where you have the research from? If you can't show us the sources of your "in-depth research", it is probably an "in-depth original research".--  LYKANTROP  07:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I know I'm technically right, I know when I've lost the "battle", so theres no need to go on with this any more. Though I'm curious as to how it is the fusion genre of a genre it predates by 2-3 years. ND and Siege both formed and recorded music in '81-'82, while Possessed and Death didn't record music until around '84.Inhumer (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a simple question to answer. Possessed recorded their first album in 1985, while Napalm Death in 1987, the same year Death recorded their first album too. Siege recorded their first album in 1994. And don't forget Grindcore's Black Metal influence, Venom recorded their first album in 1981. I rest my case. UberHeadbanger 12:54, 31 May 2008 (EST)

ND had 4 demo released before 1984 and Sieges Dropdead demo was released in 1984. Black metal had little to no influence on Grind. You have to realize, kid. I actually know what I'm talking about.

To extrapolate on and summarize the argument made by Purcell, Napalm Death was essentially a straight-ahead anarcho-punk band from its first release in 1984 until 1987, when it incorporated death metal–style guitarwork on the second side of Scum and essentially invented grindcore. That historical analysis presents no chronological problem.—DCGeist (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Siege is a hardcore band (1) and Napalm Death also played hardcore until 1987's Scum (2). First mentions about grindcore have been in late 80s (3). Death metal has its pure non-demo releases already in 1985 as for example Sepultura's Bestial Devastations (4). Thrash bands like Slayer had "death" tendences already in early 80s. There is nothing like grindcore until late 80s. You better use your vivid imagination for something more useful.--  LYKANTROP  21:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Genres exist prior to being named.The first mention of Heavy metal as a genre was in '71, 3-4 years after bands like Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, and Sir Lord Baltimore formed, but it still existed. And don't you dare talk down to me like I'm an idiot.Inhumer (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't talk down to you and I am sorry if it looks like I would, but I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to show us some sources? And why is it so difficult for you to understand that if you have no sources for your statements, then they must be your original research? That is all.--  LYKANTROP  08:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

With the majority of people on my side, I'll be puting Grindcore back as a fusion genre. I'd ask everybody not to take it off, Bardin had enough sources to support this argument, therefore please do not touch it. UberHeadbanger 18:18, 29 May 2008 (EST)

Isn't it a kind of punk metal? I think it's even on the punk metal list. so it should be a fusion genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

HEAVY METAL made in ENGLAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The pionners are Black Sabbath, and the pop metal is from England too, beacause the first glam metal band was Def Leppard .

• the american wikipedia SUCKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.44.241 (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sabbath weren't solely responsible the creation of metal.Inhumer (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Size

This article is too long. I think we should divide it.User:Fangusu 20:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

New good source

I just found one good reliable source about heavy metal in general: link. You can use it for the article.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivium's Crusade

In the metalcore section Trivium's Crusade is listed, however in this album Trivium drop the metalcore of the Ascendancy and play thrash metal (similar to metallica). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.64.145 (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivium is still considered a metalcore band, that's possibly why. And The Crusade is hardly thrash metal.--Kmaster (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent trends / Chart success

The article currently states the following:

In Europe, especially Germany and Scandinavia, metal continues to be broadly popular. Between 2003 and 2008, the melodic death metal band Children of Bodom, symphonic extreme metal act Dimmu Borgir, and power metal groups HammerFall and Blind Guardian each placed two albums in the top 20 of the German charts.[155] HammerFall's Chapter V: Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken (2005) reached number 4 in Sweden and Threshold (2006) hit number 1.[156] Most successfully, the melodic death metal act In Flames took both Come Clarity (2006) and A Sense of Purpose (2008) to number 6 in Germany;[155] each album topped the Swedish charts.[157]

I have to say that does not sound very impressive. Why use the top 20 placement for the German charts when there are bands that have done better than that? Subway to Sally, Blind Guardian, Within Temptation, Scorpions, Judas Priest and I'm sure others have cracked the top 5 of the German charts while Nightwish, HIM and Iron Maiden have all released albums that landed at number 1 - all within the past few years. In contrast, Hammerfall has not even cracked the top 10. As for In Flames, why are they tagged as "most successfully"? It seems rather NPOVish to me. Who are we comparing In Flames to and on what basis? The last two Iron Maiden albums also went to number 1 in Sweden. But why Sweden in the first place when we can use their neighbour Finland instead? More metal bands, I believe, have found chart success in Finland than Sweden. Opeth, Children of Bodom, Nightwish, In Flames and Sentenced have all chart topping albums while others like Dream Theater, Charon, Judas Priest, Poisonblack and Within Temptation have had their albums peaked at number 2 or 3. Bands like Lullacry, Poisonblack, Entwine and In Flames have hit the top 5 on the singles chart in Finland while Nightwish, Charon and Ensiferum have hit the top spot. With Ensiferum, we have a folk metal single at the very top of a music chart. With Nightwish, we have one band that has released 12 different singles that have all reached the top spot of the music chart. Where else but Finland? I just feel that if we are going to trumpet chart success as evidence of heavy metal's popularity in Europe, we can surely use better examples. --Bardin (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• We can only include what we can verify. Do you have access to Finnish chart information? That would be great.
• The relevant paragraph focuses--in terms of continental Europe--on the popularity of bands that hail from there. But you're right, I've added a clause should be added to make clear that UK bands like Judas Priest and Iron Maiden also remain very popular on the continent.
• I've been slowly going through the German and Swedish chart records for both the bands that we mention and several others that were once included without sourcing, but in fact were not nearly as successful. We can continue that process (and, of course, add Finland if you have a link to that data) with the bands you mention.
• The "most successfully" clause is, as you suggest, unnecessary. I've cut it.—DCGeist (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It's actually the same source as the Swedish charts, only with the web address changed to finnishcharts.com instead. --Bardin (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thank you.—DCGeist (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Technical metal

There was an article "technical metal" and it looked like this. Now it is redirected to Progressive metal. I am not somebody who supports "technical metal" being or not being redirected to "progressive metal" or something like that. What I want to say is that those two genres (if "technical metal" does exist) are not synonyms. Technical is not the same as progressive. If we want to keep it redirected to prog metal, it should also be mentioned and explained in the prog metal article (according to WP:redirect). What do you think?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot of neologism gets redirected to other articles. Proto metal redirects to this main heavy metal music article. Troll metal redirects to viking metal. Pirate metal redirects to folk metal. It's not always accurate: Running Wild is hardly folk. As far as I know, technical metal is more of a description than a genre. Like epic metal. As for mentioning it in the progressive metal article, it all boils down to sources ... as always. --Bardin (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What if we make a list of these pseudo genres in Heavy metal subgenres? With introduction saying that they are not real genres, but just terms that are sometimes used for the description of the music. I think that the redirection to some existing genre does not solve it. I mean "troll metal" is not even a neologism. Neologism is something that has been recently coined. Troll metal and many others will never be coined. It is also not according to the WP:REDIRECT and WP:NEOLOGISM policy to just redirect them. We can't really define what should be redirected to which article (as you said). So lets just list the sourced ones in Heavy metal subgenres and delete the other ones.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

1990s and 2000s, mid 2000s

I think it should be added, that many bands tried to combine heavy and aggressive extreme metal with more melodic elements. I mean, melodic death metal was invented, so was melodic black metal, slayer released seasons in the abyss, metalcore (does anybody remember when metalcore was still good?). Nirvana and their effects on the demise glam metal should be mentioned, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Black Sabbath 1970 albums

It says in the article that Iommi de-tuned his guitar because of his injured fingers, which is true. However, as I believe other wikipedia pages will confirm, I am pretty sure both 1970 albums were released in standard (E) tuning, and the de-tuning to C# was not actually used, or at least not recorded, until Master of Reality. This page makes it sound like this was done from the beginning. Can anyone definitively confirm/deny this fact? Mad2Physicist (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the first two Black Sabbath albums - Black Sabbath and Paranoid - are in standard tuning. TV appearances(Paranoid) and live in paris 1970 show Tony Iommi already post-injury with his rudimentary plastic tips. I could cite references later on but for now, on a guitar point of view, many Black Sabbath songs on the first 2 albums are partially or fully in the key of E

Basically, N.I.B., Sleeping Village, Wicked World, Paranoid, Iron Man, Planet Caravan

He only detuned a year or so later. Similarly, from Master Of Reality onwards(well up to the Sabotage album) there is a number of songs written for a key of C#

Embryo, Children Of The Grave, Lord Of This World, Into The Void, Supernaut, Snowblind, Under The Sun/Everyday Comes And Goes --Feral-wedgE (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

Why isn't there a criticism section on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.213.119 (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

How, pray tell, do you criticize a style of music? Beyond trying to argue that it doesn't sound good, which is pretty bleeding subjective, I can't think of much. Zazaban (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You cite sources, like with all information on Wikipedia. Hyacinth (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Music criticism doesn't necessarily "CRITICIZE" in the everyday sense of the word. Music critics analyze, assess, and discuss issues about the way a song (or an entire genre of music) is composed, interpreted, performed, understood by audiences (or MIS-understood by audiences), etc. You say how do you criticize a style of music? This issue was raised in the article on the Western genre of films. An editor said how can you have criticism about the ENTIRE genre of Western films. Well, even though each Western movie is unique, they often share some key elements...the setting in the US Western plains, deserts and canyons; horses, cowboy hats, revolvers, rifles, etc; a wandering "Man With No Name"-type fellow with a mysterious past who rides into town; crooked, villainous killers and robbers; good honest townsfolk...etc, etc. Film critics analyze, assess, and discuss how these standard clichés, stock characters, and stock storylines are used to form the Western genre. In the same way, even though every metal band and metal song is unique, they often share some common elements (see the Characteristics section of the Heavy Metal article....emphasis on the powerful sound of a distorted electric guitar, etc.)OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That strikes me as unnecessary. Other music genre articles do not have criticism sections and it could be taken as very POV. Zazaban (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Are all other music articles currently perfect and complete? Hyacinth (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, but I think a criticism section would be fairly POV and pointless. Music cannot be objectively criticized. Zazaban (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel this article should only have positive statements about heavy metal? Hyacinth (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism is defined as evaluation [3]. Evaluation is both favorable and unfavorable. As such there is no reason that a section which was "critical" of heavy metal would need be POV. Hyacinth (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, go ahead, but I don't think it will go over very well. Zazaban (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because people don't like something doesn't mean it isn't good. Hyacinth (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The criticism of the genre is threaded throughout the article, which is how it should be done. A separate section would create and unbalanced POV. Such sections are discouraged on Wikipedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structures that can imply a point of view. Can you give us an example of favorable and unfavorable evaluation of heavy metal in the current article body? Hyacinth (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice the parts about the genre not being generally critically acclaimed? WesleyDodds (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So you can't. Hyacinth (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I gave you an example. The article acknowledges that the genre is not generally well-received by critics. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, based on the assumption that evaluation should be placed throughout the article as appropriate what criticism is missing? Or rather, criticism of what is missing? Hyacinth (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you assuming there is criticism missing? If you have any particular criticisms of the genre in mind, please mention it, but asking for more criticism without specifics won't get us anywhere. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't our job to present an evaluation of music genres. Zazaban (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked the original question, and the reason why is that usually certain topics on wikipedia include a criticism section. I mean, the "resistance" to Heavy Metal is a part of the history of this subject; but I was definitely thinking more along the lines of evaluation of Heavy Metal by other contemporary musicians. I have a particular criticism from an early Punk band trashing on Metal. But I wanted there to be a crticisim section to be opened before I suggested one.

Another thing is, i think there are too many subdivisions on this page. Heavy Metal as we know it really ended in the early 90's. But that's another subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.213.119 (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

. . . What? Every single source about the genre refutes that claim. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There really shouldn't be a section for people who have 'trashed' metal. That would seem fairtly POV. Zazaban (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the irony is that Heavy Metal's very identity developed partially through criticism. So, to say there shouldn't be a crticism section, particulary where other genres express their opinion I think is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.228.136 (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Photos and illustrations in article

Hi, On July 18th, 2008, an editor removed many of the photos from the article on the grounds that they were unnecessary. Rather than start a useless edit war, and revert the change (and then the editor takes them off again, etc, etc.), I have brought this issue to the talk page to see what y'all think about photos and illustrations. To start from the basics, you are allowed to include photos and illustrations in articles, as long as you follow some WikiRules (from WP:Images in Help)(pls correct me if this isn't right). First of all, the photo must be OK from a copyright perspective (which means either you have a Fair Use Rationale or the pic is a "free" public domain photo or a pic from Wikimedia Commons. As well, the photos/pics should "near relevant text", "large enough to reveal relevant detail without overwhelming the surrounding article text", not of "Poor quality ...(too dark, blurry etc.)" or where the "subject in the image is too small, hidden in clutter.." etc................................................................................................................I think that we should discuss whether it would be useful to have a REASONABLE number of pictures in the Heavy Metal article. The Wikipedia Images guide does acknowledge that too many photos can make the article hard to read. So what would a reasonable number of pix be? Perhaps one per section as the maximum??............ As well, it would seem fair to ensure that the pix cover more than just UK/US bands..................I argue that pictures will be helpful for this article because, as the article points out, the Metal scene contains various non-mainstream and even underground bands. Readers may not have seen a black metal band wearing a nail-studded vests, or an underground death metal band in their stage outfits.....Anyway, I'm just hoping to prompt some discussion, so we can get a consensus on whether, or how to go about adding pictures and photos to the article.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply, there's too many unnecessary photos and they are messing with the page formatting. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Led Zepplin is Hard Rock, not Heavy Metal

Zepplin sounds nothing like Heavy Metal, even compared today Black Sabbath still sounds "heavy". Zepplin is a Rock & Roll band, not a Heavy Metal band. You fail sir, you fail hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.22.231 (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin was considered Heavy Metal at the time and is a major influence on the genre. Also, it is generally not a good idea to insult people here. Zazaban (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, every reliable source classifies Led Zeppelin as heavy metal. Metal isn't just stuff descended from Black Sabbath; it's quite diverse. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin were considered heavy metal at the time? For those of use old enough to have seen the band in concert "at the time", they're still heavy metal. And Black Sabbath weren't exactly a heavy metal band before mid 1969. Their music resembled something closer to Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac or the first Jethro Tull album. Their own unique style of music flourished pretty quickly in the short few months leading up to recording their debut. The impact of the first two Led Zeppelin albums on Black Sabbath, and every other early heavy metal band, is immeasurable in the history of the genre. It was what it was, and it still is. And every reliable source backs it up which is all that Wikipedia needs. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Who originated the term Heavy Metal?

This is from an ongoing discussion under the section 'Rise of the term Heany Metal'. It seems to me that one Wikipedia article should correspond with another.216.67.92.66 (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC) CLewis

Some mention of Sandy Pearlman should be made here. Wikipedia's own article on Pearlman mentions him as the possible originator of the term "Heavy Metal Music". Pearlman was a jounalist at the time, and the term is "said" to have been borrowed from a term to describe the dense iron core of a star which is collapsing into a black hole. Blue Oyster Cult's song "Heavy Metal - The Black and Silver" is a perfect description of such an event. CLewis216.67.92.66 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In the DVD 'Black Sabbath: the Last Supper', it is mentioned the term heavy metal was first used toe describe Black Sabbath in theri early years by a critic (I think in the USA) who was expressing dislike for their style in a review of one of their performances. He wrote something like "it sounded like a lot of heavy metal crashing together". Isn't this therefore a verifiable orign of the term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.36.61 (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Use this in Etymology at the start.

The first band described as heavy metal was the Jimi Hendrix Experience in the late '60s. They were described as "heavy metal falling from the sky". Also, they were one of the most important proto-metal bands. π₰₯ ĬLʡ$Φǚɭђµπt₴ŗ ₯₰π 09:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Sandy Pearlman says "he is widely regarded as the originator of the term 'heavy metal music'" while working for Crawdaddy Magazine. The article lists 4 credible sources. From one source, in an interview with Pearlman, he says, "It's not like I thought up the term 'heavy metal' -- I'm just the guy who stuck it to music. Some people tell me that William Burroughs 'invented it', but that's just a good joke. That's ignorant. They have no knowledge of scientific terminology. The truth is, I first stuck it on one song by the Byrds, 'Artificial Energy'."

Others possibly credited with originating the term are Lester Bangs and Lou Reed. 216.67.92.66 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC) CLewis

Others credit a 1971 Creem magazine review of Sir Lord Baltimore.Inhumer (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that's correct. Mike Saunders of Creem Magazine, which is mentioned in the article. My point is, if one possibility is mentioned in the article, shouldn't there be some slight reference to the other possibilities as well?

(Note: I have not found any actual quote from the Crawdaddy archives as of yet that references this term, but their May 1968 article on the Byrds has Pearlman saying several times that the song 'Artificial Energy' has the "densest sound of all", which may help to explain why the term Heavy Metal was chosen to describe what he refers to as "sonic density".) 216.67.92.66 (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC) CLewis

I did find another quote from Pearlman on the subject at http://ebni.com/byrds/lpnbb.html in which he says that he was looking in the periodic table of elements when he decided to make use of the term. 216.67.92.66 (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC) CLewis

On Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, Alice Cooper says that the first time the term 'heavy meta' was used was in an interview with him sometime in the 70's, not sure if it's true, does anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.30.224 (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Cooper's claim is clearly not supported by the evidence. Please read the article section discussing the etymology of the term "heavy metal".—DCGeist (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Half the article has disappeared

And I can't pinpoint exactly when it went. Zazaban (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you referring to exactly? Because half the article has definitely not disappeared. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's back now. Odd. Zazaban (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone seemed to add something within a reference that made everything at the end of the article and all the cat and interwiki go into the reference section. I've reverted it, Screambloodygore667 is the culprit. A lot of the genres he added in his metal list are in the infobox already or is in heavy metal subgenres. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 06:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding a see "this and that" for more info to recent trends section

Is anyone against me adding a see for more information links for the "Recent trends" section? Such as: :For more details on this topic, see Metalcore and Melodic death metal since it's the basis of what that section talks about and those 2 genres have become majorly popular recently, especially in the US for metalcore and melodic death for both Europe and the US with stints in Asia (mostly Japan). We can't add in old links like thrash metal for its reemergence and power metal as well. What do you say? −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 02:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just wanted an opinion before I did since the sections above it all use that style. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

BLACK SABBATH,DEEP PURPLE,LED ZEPPELIN......

• They are

BRITISH bands

• they are the PIONNERS of heavy metal
• so the HEAVY METAL made ONLY! in uk

• wikipedia musis is so yankee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.44.241 (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop spamming your opinion all over wikipedia, you'll get blocked at this rate. Zazaban (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Speak of the devil, so you have. Zazaban (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

indeed heavy metal is originated in the UK,it's not a matter of luck that many metal fans r wearing the union jack pins all around the world(same occurs with punk rock)..apart from some branches of it which r originated in germany or scandinavia (power metal,speed metal) or (thrash metal) etc respectively —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.217.127 (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

http://classicrock.about.com/od/a1/ig/Black-Sabbath/ heavy metal made in ENGLAND!

http://classicrock.about.com/od/a1/ig/Black-Sabbath/

• black sabbath The first band Heavy metal OBVIOUS!
• the Heavy Metal made 100% in England

and the first hard rock song helter skelter by the beatles, so... hard rock made in england too.

• NOT in united stades!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertrocker (talk • contribs) 04:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. Also, two words: Blue Cheer. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Blue Cheer or Helter Skelter good examples of early 'metal'. Sure, the music's loud, but that hardly proves anything. Some would claim that the first hard rock song was Purple Haze, recorded in england to be sure, but by an american artist. Ultimately it would be correct to say that 'metal' was largely (but NOT exclusively) developed and sustained commercially in the uk in the 70s, but it was hardly an exclusively british phenomenom. Then again, most 70s 'metal' bands were british, and most such bands (british or otherwise) were primarily successful mainly in the uk (and to a lesser extent northwestern europe and japan. And, correct, that is by no means a good link. Harmanicus (talk) 17.11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot still to be written on this, but Wikipedia's not the place for it, see WP:OR. But if you're interested in the deep roots of Heavy Metal, try to find a recording of The Masters Apprentices' 1966 hit Undecided, or an even heavier hit song Red in the Night of about the same time and can't remember the band name and would love to know it - not even sure whether the band was Australian or not, but the song got a lot of airplay in Sydney and then disappeared, and was IMO a very early Heavy Metal song. Andrewa (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually Black Sabbath were the first metal band —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.36.29 (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Heavy Metal" as a describable genre of Rock was already around before Black Sabbath. "Helter Skelter" wasn't the first Hard Rock song, and is more of an example of Hard Rock going towards Metal. (Albert Mond (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

Personality of metal fans

According to [4], metal fans are gentle people who are at ease with themselves. OK so this just blew everyone's cred, but is it worth adding to the article? Totnesmartin (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is not a scientific study, then we cannot add it. The link doesnt work, btw. The article doesn't say the opposite, does it? And since nobody :-) thins that metal fans are bad, cruel and pig-slaughtering satanists, why should it be necessary to add that they are gentle people? --hroest 14:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

In formatting the references, I came across some that I don't believe are reliable. I have commented them out for now. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted for now. There's no reason to change the reference style for the entire article, especially to template format; they aren't mandatory and in fact, templates make things more cluttered. As for the sources you think are unreliable, post them here on the talk page so we can review them more effectively. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

allmusic

I do not find this statement appropriate from allmusic in the article,"Allmusic states that "of all rock & roll's myriad forms, heavy metal is the most extreme in terms of volume, machismo, and theatricality". The reasoning for this is that, while allmusic is certainly a good source citing discography and such, to allow it to be used to cite such a subjective view in an encyclopedia you better have an actual author who has credential in reviewing several forms of music to use it in an encyclopedia article. Now this is meant to be a featured article, yet it is a stain to allow such a transgession to pass on a featured article. The paragraph written on allmusic which gives this biased statement has NO author cited; this means that we are pretty much left with citing this statement purely on the credibility that allmusic "knows" what it is talking about. But how do we know? Allmusic provides certain indisputable things like discography, but credibility itself must come at least with a person and not from a site. Anyone can put up a site, but the credibility can only go as far as the person who wrote it. Allmusic however does not give us the author; I have no idea who made this statement. It is dangerous to give this much "power" and credibility to a site as a whole. Even journals, periodicals and books, give an author. If one of these sources started publishing information without an author, then we can imagine how ridiculous that can be! Even well known, respected journals with good editors MUST give us authors for their articles who have the credentials to back up their articles. But at least these journals and periodics have editors, but with a website we must be even MORE vigilant in this requirement. And to take it even FURTHER, we must definitely be stressful in this requirement as we are dealing with a subject as subjective as music and we are putting it in an encyclopedia which is supposed to have a NPOV. Therefore, it is not acceptable for an encyclopedia. I see anyone who continues to put it in an article without justification (enyclopedic justification) I will see as vandalism and someone influenced by personal interest too much to be editting for the sake of a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.60.163 (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic is a fine source for genre information. In fact, it is used throughout the article. You treating it as "vandalism" is not assuming good faith on the part of others, and you cannot forcefully impart yout personal opinion on others. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Allmusic is a fine source for genre information" is a personal opinion. I, however, provided a justification for why I see it this way. The very sentence reeks of personal opinion. You force your personal opinion on me and everyone that reads the article by including it. You are not providing me justification however, you just say it is "fine". Does that mean I can pull a site and say it is "fine". The statement does not give genre information, it glorifies it OVER other genres; rather than informing it gives heavy metal, unashamed, a place over other genres. It even uses buzz words like "extreme." What is "extreme"? I could never imagine seeing this statement is an actual, reviewed encyclopedia because it would never BE in an encyclopedia. Again, extreme; a buzz word. It leaves much to be desired on what it means, and worse I have no PERSON in which to cite it. You can't just use random paragraphs from sites. No citation, no author, no go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.60.163 (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to apologize for my uncivility, I just wanted to make sure that it is not reverted without a talk entry. Some people just revert and move on. I wanted to stress that a failure to discuss it is not acceptable or productive editting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.60.163 (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What about chemical heavy metals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.60.163 (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Slayer and the skinheads...

There are many things about this article to comment about; being a student of music and heavy metal for over thirty years and having a music collection spanning from today backward; predating even Blues as a genre, I can speak to the history and development of heavy metal at some length. There are many things about this article that are right on, in my opinion, and few that I have issues with.

That aside, the thing that bothers me the most is actually something that is factually incorrect and has nothing to do with Heavy Metal. It's stated as fact in such a casual way that I just had to add this correction.

Original text:

"Slayer attracted a following among far-right skinheads, and accusations of promoting violence and Nazi themes have dogged the band."

Correction:

"Slayer attracted a following among far-left skinheads, and accusations of promoting violence and Nazi themes have dogged the band."

Skinheads (neo-Nazis, if you will) are a movement in the vein of the National Socialist Party (Nazi) (1930s - 1940s). This was a movement of the LEFT, not of the right. Of the primary three 'isms' of the 20th century; Communism, Socialism, and Fascism, the Nazis were actually fascists with heavy socialist influences (see the Nazi Party 25-point doctrine). The only thing 'far-right' about them was the fact that they were right of Communism and the more 'pure' 'Bismarkian' Socialism. This does NOT make them far-right or even right wing. In fact, it was the Holocaust that caused them to be labeled 'right.' Up until the Holocaust become such a publicly known horror show, it was common knowledge around the globe that this was a 'progressive' movement; a movement of the far-left 'liberals.' After the Holocaust hit the news, the 'right-wing' label was assigned to the Nazis and it's been with us ever since.

A simple correction, but a very important distinction to those that are interested in being true to history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.40.44 (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the Nazis are known as an extreme right-wing movement by virtually all mainstream historians writing in the English language over the past half-century, including major figures ranging from the liberal A.J.P. Taylor to the conservative Paul Johnson.—DCGeist (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The socialism part is a bit of a misnomer, really. What it is was was that the idea of promoting right wing and conservative ideas went so far that the nazi's encouraged that it be PART of the government system, hence the "national" part in national socialist. Nazi's are an example of when right wing politics goes to far to secure itself, pretty much the same as when far left wing politics turns into dictatorships and personality cults when IT goes to far to secure itself. Both really almost meet somewhere behind the "left-right" spectrum, its really weird and subjective. But to confirm, fascism is far right as communism is far left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.60.163 (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Lyrical Theme section

It currently begins with an untrue stereotype. "Common themes in heavy metal lyrics are sex, violence, and the occult." If you go to www.metal-archives.com you will see that the most common themes are not simply "sex, violence, and the occult." I think people should know a bit more about what they are writing about before they go and edit the section. The rest of the section was okay, but I had to edit it a bit in order to fix the first part, as parts of it would have restated some of what replaced the untrue stereotype at the beggining.

The first paragraph briefly summarizes the most common themes. The second paragprah gives some examples. The third was left alone. RationalHeretic (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The statement is based on comments by a secondary source. Browsing through Metal Archives and judging what the lyrics are about it's an acceptable substitute. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. No primary topic. Dabpage restored to Heavy metal

Given that heavy metal redirects to heavy metal music and that the genre is almost universally referred to as heavy metal (even the article begins with "Heavy metal" and goes on to refer to the genre as "heavy metal" dozens of times as opposed to only three uses of "heavy metal music"), the article should be moved to "Heavy metal."--Marcus Brute (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Support Agreed. There is little use in having 'music' tagged on the end. Zazaban (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Heavy metal re-directs to the heavy metal (disambiguation) page... as it should. The term can mean a lot more than just the music. Metal fanboys can't just assume that Wikipedia readers will come to the project expecting that link to go to the music. I may be a fan of the sub-genre... but I have the the common sense to understand that 99.99999% of the world's population couldn't give a flying f*ck if the music existed at all. Wikipedia is a neutral project written for all. It isn't some amateur metalhead fansite. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Note. Heavy metal originally used to direct to heavy metal music. It was redirected to heavy metal (disambiguation) today. Tassedethe (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Note. While an unchallenged longstanding redirect from a given topic name to an article indicates that article is probably the primary topic for that name, it is not definitive evidence. If one wants an article whose name has multiple uses to be at that name, not disambiguated, it must be shown that the topic of that article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that name. I don't see that the supporters of this move proposal have done that. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed move. No clear primary meaning, the chemistry usage is about equally prominent to the musical one, so instead the disambig should be moved to the undisambiguated name. Andrewa (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support Heavy metal has several thousand incoming links of which the vast majority refer to the music. This is an order of magnitude more than for Heavy metal (chemistry). Tassedethe (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• The page clearly needs disambiguation of all its incoming links, not just dab-by-page-move of the music ones. That's why Heavy metal should be a disambiguation page; then Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links applies. --Una Smith (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Tassedethe presents the most compelling argument so far that the musical usage is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Heavy metal. The number of incoming links is a legitimate tool for determining whether a given usage is the primary meaning of the term in question. This argument with more details and basis might convince me, but for now I'm voting oppose. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• oppose as per reasons above. It is a term with multiple meanings, not just music. Fair Deal (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Just because a term has multiple meanings does not mean it does not have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The issue here is whether the music usage is the primary topic, and I don't think that's been shown. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. From the stats tool: in October, Heavy metal music got 138,313 hits. Heavy metal got 34,386 hits (it then redirected to Heavy metal (disambiguation)) and Heavy metal (disambiguation) itself got 2,640 hits. Heavy metal (chemistry) had 3,089 hits. From this I deduce that: (a) Heavy metal music is by far the most popular meaning of "Heavy metal", by several orders of magnitude; (b) most people arriving at Heavy metal are looking for the music. Sam⁵ (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Now, that's what I call a sufficiently compelling argument. I'm sold. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

By that argument, Heavy metal music might as well be moved all the way to Metal, oh and Heavy should get the same treatment as Heavy metal. Seriously, to me those stats say (1) most readers looking for an article about heavy metal music go directly to Heavy metal music and (2) the incoming links to Heavy metal are due for disambiguation. --Una Smith (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? There is no evidence that most people who search for "metal" are looking for this article. And dabbing the incoming links to Heavy metal is a solution looking for a problem, since probably all of those intend to link to one same particular article, this one. The point that you keep ignoring is that this article is clearly the primary topic for Heavy metal. Whether it's also the primary topic for Metal or Heavy (which I seriously doubt), are separate issues. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Heavy metal redirects to Heavy metal (disambiguation), which means in effect Heavy metal is a disambiguation page. That is as it should be. I would move the content of Heavy metal (disambiguation) to Heavy metal. --Una Smith (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The quite-notable chemistry usage of the term "heavy metal" prevents us from doing this. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just because another usage is "quite-notable" does not mean this usage cannot be the primary topic. For example, the adjective meaning pleasant is also a "quite-notable" usage of the term "nice", but Nice is still about the city in France. There are a myriad of similar examples illustrating what primary topic means. Please review the relevant criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Same as above. Fred D.Hunter (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Same as above. --WickerWiki (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Begrudging Support. I came here ready to oppose this move, but then I read all the comments. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clearly states in order for an article to have as its title a term that has multiple uses, it has to be "much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia ... (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings)". So the burden is on the supporters to show that heavy metal is much more used as the music than as the chemical usage which is its namesake. The fact that Heavy metal redirected to this article (until this proposal was made), the apparent domination of internal links to this article as compared to other uses of heavy metal noted by Tassedethe, combined most importantly with the very revealing hit count stats provided by Sam⁵ above, all add up to overwhelming evidence that, surprisingly, this topic is the primary topic for Heavy metal. As much as it bothers me to see a musical genre that I personally detest trump the chemical usage that I respect and is the music's namesake, I see no choice based in reason other than to support this proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as per the reasons posted already. Peter Fleet (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose see Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Be precise when necessary --PBS (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Note about re-direct

note: despite the consensus to not have Heavy metal re-direct here, the change was attempted anyways. It has been reverted back to the proper dab page re-direct for now but some diligence should be taken to make sure it doesn't happen again. The Real Libs-speak politely 11:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

It seems this proposal is motivated by a need to disambiguate links that is long overdue. Periodically, all incoming links to a disambiguation page should be disambiguated. This proposal would in effect disambiguate only those links that should go to Heavy metal music, leaving all the others not disambiguated. Disambiguating is a chore, but I am willing to help. Care to hold an editing party? The chore is easier if you first identify and fix any templates that link to the disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all incoming links to a dab page should be dabbed, but I don't believe that is the issue here, since apparently, until this proposal was listed, Heavy metal redirected to this page about the music, and not to the dab page. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. It was originally a bad faith re-direct created by a fanboy that was corrected way back in September. The correction was undone by a user unfamiliar with the original creator who was warned (and nearly blocked) several times by an administrator about his personal pov re-directs that favoured his love of music over anything else. The uncorrected re-direct slipped through the cracks until this convo sounded the alarm that the proper re-direct had been undone. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Regardless of his bias, making Heavy metal redirect to this article seemed to be consistent with actual usage, according to the hit counts cited above, and the criteria provided at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe early Heavy Metal most likely derived from the nuances of electronic synthesized sound explored prominently by Pink Floyd. While modern electronica and techno can trace their origins to the experimentation Floyd endeavored, so too does the rise of modern rock and heavy metal, both of which rely exclusively on the duality of electrified accoustical equipment and the filtered synthesized sound which results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.116.94 (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Once this requested move is resolved, I will request a move of Heavy metal (disambiguation) to Heavy metal. This will put the disambiguation page back where it belongs: in place of the current redirect to the disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Request to relist I think this proposal needs to be relisted and get more input than from 10 editors. It seems to me that many opposed to this move simply assumed that since there are other uses, the topic name should be a dab page, and are not even aware of the compelling evidence sprinkled throughout the comments supporting the notion that the musical genre is the primary meaning of the term per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. While 6 out of 10 so far are opposed, Wikipedia is not a democracy and discussion should continue because the facts, I think, are clearly in favor of supporting this proposed move. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As someone who recently redirected Heavy metal to Heavy metal music (before I knew of this discussion), I hear what your saying. I had an identical view, but after reading all the comments and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which state If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". which is what Una Smith proposes. My main concern is that if it's renamed all the future links to Heavy metal not destined for Heavy metal music will never show up on Wikipedia:Disambiguation_pages_with_links so they will not be fixed. There isn't a clear consensus to rename and it will help keep links maintained if Heavy metal becomes a dab page. --Faradayplank (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic" guidance at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies here, since that "which article" wording is referring to discussions about which one of two (or more) articles is the primary topic for a given name or term. The issue here is whether the music genre is the primary topic vs. there is no primary topic. In other words, I'm not aware of any extended discussion about which of the musical and chemical articles is the primary topic. What I do see is a well reasoned argument for the position that musical genre is the primary topic, and not one for the opposite view. The majority never-the-less appears to favor making Heavy metal a dab page, but Wikipedia is not a democracy, so it will be interesting to see what the admins will do. I still think relisting and soliciting more input is most appropriate. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A Google scholar search returns

• about 24,400 for "heavy metal" music
• about 56,500 for "heavy metal" mercury

Google books

• 2,110 on "Heavy metal" music
• 1,870 on "Heavy metal" mercury

So AFAICT there is no primary topic here. --PBS (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Disambiguate

Keeping Heavy metal as a disambiguation page makes it possible to have no incorrect links to related articles, by disambiguating them all. Disambiguating them means editing all the articles linking to Heavy metal, and fixing the links so they point where they should. You can help. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. --Una Smith (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nu Metal's decline

I'm not gonna go bashing the genre and say it shouldn't be included, but I think a bit more about it's decline could better inform people. The article, in its current state, suggests that most of the nu metal bands simply disappeared. though it does say that Bands like SOAD were still very popular after the decline of nu metal, it doesn't say much else about it. It could be added that one of the main reasons for the genres decline was the fact that MTV stopped focusing on nu metal and diverted their attention to pop punk bands like Good Charlotte. Also, could be added that many of the nu metal bands changed their sound after the decline. An example would be Linkin Park who've presented a rock sound with a grove feel and U2-esque ballads. Just a thought here, but the part about the genre could also include the fact that many people do not consider it to be a real genre, as it has few defining characteristics and many of the bands who fall under said genre have little to nothing in common appart from the time they came out. Even the wiki page on it (which needs serious inprovment, might I add) is very sketchy on what defines a nu metal band.

On the recent trends section, it should be noted how bands have recently been saying stuff like "Real metal is back" and "hail true metal" and that kinda thing since about 2004. Due to the decline of nu metal which wasn't considered 'true' by many metal fans. I'm not quite sure how to word it, but it could be mentioned in the opening few sentences.

Any thoughts? Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer is that this part of history is not well-documented by secondary sources yet. We might have to a wait a few years. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

yeah, I've struggled to find much on the genre myself. I just thought it would be a good addition to the article. Oh well, it will be there in due time. Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look through my Metal Hammers when I get a chance. Interviews with people like Machine Head and Devildriver might be useful, as the former were once nu-metal and the latter's singer once was. Mastodon also stand out as an old-fashioned 'true' metal band with a classic ethos who have achieved wide acclaim, and vaguely gone beyond the scene.--MartinUK (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture caption regarding the 'devil horns'

Is it possible to change picture caption reading "Fans raise their fists and make the "devil horns" gesture at a concert by Estonian heavy metal group Metsatöll in 2006"? The devil horns are barely visible in the picture and I think I saw one, maybe two. Would it not be better to change it to "Fans raise their fists at a concert by Estonian heavy metal group Metsatöll in 2006". It would sound and fits better with the picture. 122.57.30.224 (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The fists are more prominent, but I see at least three sets of devil horns, and mentioning them better matches up the picture with the text in the accompanying subsection.—DCGeist (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the most stupid article on wikipedia!

How can you talk about metal music without talking about Marilyn Manson. Thats what he does its his calling and you talk about every fuckin band out there except him. whats up with that. anyone agree?

In fact, the article does mention Marilyn Manson.—DCGeist (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, pwned.Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

lol troll —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.102.122 (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See also

A Headbanger's Journey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal:_A_Headbanger%27s_Journey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.22.24.222 (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Your point? Zazaban (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)