# Talk:Machine Head (band)

I have edited the first sentence of this article to reflect proper grammar.  Although I believe this change goes without saying, it seems more than surprising to me why this grammatical error has gone unnoticed by a fairly large group of editors.  When discussing a band, you are referring to a singular noun, the band, not the band members.  This means one must follow correct grammar principles by providing a grammatically correct verb afterward.
The article has been edited to reflect this principle.  Thank you.  Megazodiac 22:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not "proper grammar". A band is not like a corporation; it is not a corporate body but a group of people under individual contracts. Doubtless this is why The Beatles and most other band articles on the English WP follow that standard and refer in each case to the band as "they". I've done something to eliminate the singular in such references here. Harfarhs (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I see my change has been reverted, but it's not tenable to approach grammar that way. Even the writers of articles where some effort has been made to retain the singular can't really believe in what they do, for they revert to the plural when they are not concentrating on their artificial 'principle'—see here ("Metallica has been listed as one of the greatest artists of all time by magazines such as Rolling Stone, which ranked them at no. 61 on its 100 Greatest Artists of All Time list.") and here ("Since its formation, Exodus has released ten studio albums, two live albums, one compilation album, and a re-recording of their first album.") The lede of the Exodus article, in particular, is a welter of unnecessary confusion. Harfarhs (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Does this even exist?  and, if it does, can anyone supply me with it so I can get a screenshot and add it to the videography?   DMighton 17:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I found it.  DMighton 05:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly removed for copyright reasons. If you have a suitable picture that satisfies copyright permissions, please feel free to upload it :) Mosh 21:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If Machine Head are to be classed by a certain sub-genre of metal, two things really need to happen: 
1. There has to be a rationale for the classification in the 'Sound Debate' sub-section. They've been considered for about 10 different metal genres at different times, so this can't be stressed enough.
2. If there is to be a rationale, some form of substantiation would most definitely help. Either a recognised critical opinion or perhaps even the band's own thoughts. Encyclopaedia's aren't meant to reflect one person's particular opinion.
Hey, I've added some refinements to this part of the article, feel free to comment. Someone add necessary links if necessary. --Rp81 05:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the reference to mallcore in the article as it implies that the term is a valid musical genre when in fact it's a derogatory slur used to demean certain styles of music. Also, I'd like some quotes or references in the genre debate section, simply saying that some call them nu-metal is very vague and not very encyclopedic.
Currently, the band is described as metalcore, nu metal, thrash, and heavy metal. I think that groove metal and nu metal for their mid career describes their genre enough.  Why put heavy metal? That is redundant as groove metal is a form of heavy metal, and heavy metal in the genre box implies that they play music like Priest and Sabbath.  What stops people from calling Cannibal Corpse heavy metal, because death is also a metal subgenre?  I'm also not sure where thrash and metalcore come from either.  And why was groove metal removed????  Who thinks this should change?

I wonder if you even know what thrash metal is. --Pasajero 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If Machine Head isn't groove metal, no band is. Of course, the boundaries between musical genres, especially when so closely related to each other, are rarely clear. I think it's not a big deal to categorize them both as as trash and groove. Why are metalheads always so nitpicky when it comes to categories? --Christoph.W 17:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Groove Metal is a stupid made up genre, Machine Head are part of the New Wave Of American Heavy Metal. True they don't sound like Sabbath but Sabbath was early Heavy Metal, things develop. Machine Head should just be labelled as Heavy Metal or just plain Metal. Jay794 (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Groove metal is no "stupid made up genre" as it can be sourced and groove metal is often used by the press in combination with Machine Head. MH is considered one of the initiators of groove metal. MH have changed their style throughout their career, groove metal being a prominent genre. Kameejl (Talk) 18:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I've never heard Rob Flynn say "I would call Machine Head Groove Metal, I've heard him say "we play heavy fuckin' metal" though. I think we should remove "Groove Metal" until the matter has been discussed further. It sounds like POV to me Jay794 (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
We don't need Flynn to say what genre music he plays, we need the press. The press has clearly called them groove metal. As it is properly sourced I'll put back GM. Kameejl (Talk) 09:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
So basically if a member of the press says Slipknot are Pop music, that makes them pop? I don't think so Jay794 (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that makes them pop, but it's very unlikely that a member of the press will say Slipknot is pop, no serious music critic is gonna label them pop. As long as the source is reliable we may use it as source. That is how wikipedia works. We only cite (third party) sources; no original research is allowed. please read WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc. Kameejl (Talk) 12:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
They are a groove metal band. Just because a band calls themselves something it doesn't mean its true. Motorhead don't consider themselves a metal band, but they are still widely accepted as one. I added the Groove Metal tag back. Bloodredchaos (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

From the article:

It has been said that Machine Head was one of the heaviest metal music bands to rise during the 1990's. Their first album, Burn My Eyes (1994), is widely acclaimed to be as pivotal to heavy metal as Slayer's Reign in Blood and Metallica's Master of Puppets.
Two questions: by whom has it been said, and by whom is it widely acclaimed?  Without any context for these claims, they look like a fan of the band trying to talk it up, and frankly that just isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 21:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
<-- i am not a fan and not the author but it is true about what was said imo.
The "imo" at the end pretty much means that the original point is correct. What you're saying is that it's correct in your opinion. The article needs to be documented fact, not the opinion of some people who say so on here. For the record, I agree with the statement being discussed, but that doesn't make it correct. IainP (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps replace it with a mention of them being one of the 'notable' metal bands of the 90's... Burn My Eyes was the highest selling debut record on Roadrunner for quite some time, after all. Notable is quantifiable, 'heaviest' is wishy-washy.

Mentioning they had the highest-selling debut album would be good too, especially if anyone knows how long that record stood for, who broke it, how much they broke the previous one by etc? IainP (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
IIRC, It was Slipknot's self titled that finally broke the record. Don't have a link for it atm, but will post if I find anything.

Hi, I still have reviews of BME from various magazines, and they were all talking of Machine Head being the heaviest metal band to emerge for some time.  Not as extreme as Slayer or Morbid Angel, for example, but pretty damn heavy - especially for a band who sold so well.  So I think the article is articulating what was felt at the time accurately.  I don't know which band had the highest selling album before Machine Head, but I know BME sold about 400-500,000 worldwide, which is pretty impressive for a debut album on an independent metal label.  Ian

In which case can I suggest something like "Magazine reviews at the time rated Burn My Eyes as the heaviest album to come out for some time. Despite this, it sold impressively well, shifting some half million copies despite being on an independant metal label."? If you can cite some of those reviews (don't need to quote them, just add as references at the end) then so much the better. IainP (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to debate statements like 'by whom', then every article would simply be a list of sales figures, disographys and band member lists. Music is not a specific thing that can be quantified, it is all a metter of opinion. Nobody would debate that they were one of the heaviest bands of the mid 90's, and arguning that it is not apropriate to state this is silly pedanticness - Neil

I agree with Neil here to an extent, but so you know magazines such as Kerrang!, Metal Hammer, etc, were all going on about Machine Head being the heaviest band to emerge for some time. Also see the way Slipknot's debut album was reported by the rock press. Ian

If nobody objects, I'm going to go all Wiki on the discography and move it to a page of its own (obviously with a link to take the reader there). I'm doing this with the Megadeth and Iron Maiden pages, also. In line with those two, I'll reformat the discography to include thumbnail pictures and so forth. Planning to do this on/around Jan 1st. IainP (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Im querying the statement that Machine Heads biggest show to date was 2005's Wacken Open Air festival.
The Wiki entry for Dynamo Open Air states in 1995 Machine Head played to an audience of over 110,000
Przystanek Woodstock in 2012 was the biggest show they've ever played.
550,000 people in attendance according to this site.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FotherMucker99 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC) 

Encyclopaedia Metallum classifys Machine Head as a Half-Thrash / Groove Metal unit. Half-Thrash and Groove Metal are basically the same thing, but I would really appreciate it if people would stop taking out Groove Metal and replacing it with Heavy Metal. Yes, they are a Heavy Metal band, but a sub-genre of it called Groove Metal.
surely download festival in 2004 was there largest audiance

What's the deal with 2 separate people allegedly saying the exact same thing:
"We play music that straddles the line between prog and traditional rock. I think we make prog-rock more listenable without cheapening the progressiveness of it. The complexity of our music appeals to people who like technical playing, but the arrangements are not so extreme that they fly over the average listener's head. It's a good balance."
—John Campbell, Lamb of God biography (Lamb of God)
We play music that straddles the line between prog and traditional rock. I think we make prog-rock more listenable without cheapening the progressiveness of it. The complexity of our music appeals to people who like technical playing, but the arrangements are not so extreme that they fly over the average listener's head. It's a good balance. ” 
—Dave McClain, Machine Head Diary (Machine head (band))
(accordingly, this question will be posted verbatim in both talk pages)
--srostami 06:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
oeps, my bad... fixed MH article. Thanks, I made a mess when I tried to improve the MH quote layout. Emmaneul (Talk) 00:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

from a comment in the history: we can say that mid-career albums are nu metal, so we should put it in Connacht 16:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Machine Head being thrash metal? Whose grandma wrote that there? I wanted to remove that ridiculous notion immediately, but knowing wikipedia I'd get reverted anyway. Really, Machine Head is NOT thrash metal. Not at all. 81.242.132.127 20:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Machine Head have always pulled in huge elements of thrash metal, and it's not an unfair classification. A good few of their songs are blisteringly fast and thrashy. 64.90.217.245 05:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the boundaries between trash and groove can't really that clearly defined (IMHO). --Christoph.W 23:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ehm but if you would'nt consider those many fast songs from their early career, to be thrash-metal, i can never understand
your POV at all. They started as thrash-band. At least BME is PURE THRASH_METAL. There's hints of groove-metal, but it's still pure     thrash. Metallocalyptica 19:31  9 october 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter if they're thrash metal or not, enough critics have labelled them as such that it can't really be disputed a great deal over whether or not to include it. James25402 (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Some dates need to be added to the section "The Blackening". It says April 18, but what year? 2005, 2006, 2007??? Talk User:Fissionfox 10:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone (I don't know how) should update the sales of the band especially for The Blackening. Skeeker [Talk] 09:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There must be some interesting person, who has really lots of time to check Wikipedia and change articles as he likes it. Somebody just likes to say that Machine head is Thrash, Heavy and even Metalcore and writes down - Do not change it without discussion-. Ok man! MH has nothing to do with Metalcore, and it is NOT Thrash Metal ... Do you know the band called Metallica? If you do, you probably could know Master Of Puppets.. and you also could know Slayer. ..Does Reign in Blood sound like Machine Head? NOT! MH is Half-Thrash or Neo-Thrash. But mainly, Burn My Eyes was one of the first albums, that defined groove metal. Later The Burning Red and Supercharger are even Nu Metal. There is no Metalcore in MH. Here are two reliable cases: http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=335 and http://www.rockdetector.com/artist,5471.sm so do not mess with me! ! ! !. You probably just dont like Groove Metal or what and listen to MH, but it is not a problem of an encyclopedia! You have no privilege to tell others not to edit something if you show no reason and if the statement I edit was wrong before and is correct after that and fuck you if you are gonna make here edit wars man..--Lycantrophe (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow dude, u sound really annoyed, hope this isn't a personal attack on someone, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks for more info. Just out of curiousity though to me, and obviously I speak for myself only "Groove" and "metal" are two completely different things, if something is "groovy" then it can hardly be something that makes you want to jump around in the mud listening to slayer whilst getting thrown around by other big dudes who think the same as you. Just a thought. Jay794 (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

yes I was pretty annoyed. It just annoys me when I give 4 evident sources of some information and somebody deletes it without saying a word. But ok man...Of course I dont want to make personal attacks, but that person who I was talking about should read something about this: Wikipedia:Five pillars.  And about the groove metal... It is a normal genre. It is normal when bands fuse more genres together. "Death" and "Jazz" are also two completely different things and some bands play fusion of pure classic Death Metal and pure classic Jazz together (good example :http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=10074). Or Funk Metal... And actually in Groove metal it is not about "beeing groovy" as in black metal it is not about beeing black or beeing dead or even death in death metal. Just have a look to the Musical traits in Groove Metal to know why it is Groove Metal. Take Care!--Lycantrophe (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Kameejl - 1. Groove Metal is Not Half-neo-post thrash. It is associated with groove metal but is not GM, so be accurate please. You also cant say it is Thrash Metal and Heavy Metal. MH does not play Thrash Metal - do you know what Thrash Metal is? Or do you just like how it sounds in association with MH? Read Wikipedia:Five pillars please! And Classic Heavy Metal is it not too. Black Sabbath is Classic Heavy Metal. And if you mean Heavy Metal as a hypernym for all these metal subgenres - we do not write it down in this case - it is self-evident.
2. Why is urban dictionary an improper source?--Lycantrophe (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? I never said anything about thrash metal, or classic metal I just reverted your changes as they contained unreliable information. And why should I read the 5 pillars? After months of editing and thousands of edits I've had plenty of time to read most policies and guidelines. So, I won't read them again any time soon.
And firstly, we do write heavy metal as hypernym in many cases, certainly when bands fall in between genres and genres are debated (like in MH's case). The template guideline even tells us to do so. Secondly, urban dictionary is not a reliable source, just like mp3.com, myspace, etc. A website where anybody can write down made up gibberish is not reliable. Citations from these kind of sources are not allowed per WP:RS.
Maybe half/post/neo thrash is not the same as groove metal (this is something that is very hard to prove, and I know because I tried) but having 2 genres linking to the same page is just non-sense. Keep groove metal in the infobox, mention the others in the articles body if you really feel the need to have them in the article. I will revert your changes as it features unreliable sources. Kameejl (Talk) 15:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I know what you talk about. I dont want to argue with you and I am not attacking you. The problem was that MH is generally a Groove Metal band. They made some experimentation with Nu Metal but they are classic of GM. And somebody (I thougt it was you (article history) so if you wasnt -I AM SORRY) just deleted my well-founded information (Encyclopedia Metalium and Rock Detector - or sth. like that), such as the fact, that MH is groove m., and wrote down real nonsences without any proof. Heavy Metal, Groove Metal and Nu Metal is for me acceptable. But if you see for example All Music Guide and all the album comments there, there is no problem with categorizing MH, as in Metal Archives. Why should an encyclopedia (such as Wikipedia) describe a definite Groove metal (or post- thrash if you want) band as a heavy metal band only because the readers of the article, who make the senceless discussion about the MH genre, do not know that MH is Groove Metal, although professionals do? The only ones, who debates MH genre are some wikipedians here, no one else - that does not make MH an unclear-genre band. --Lycantrophe (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

More important than Demmel collapsing onstage because of dehydration, the next day, in Zurich, on December 7th, he learned his father passed away. However, he played the show that night, and then flew back home. He insisted that The Black Crusade tour continued without him, now guitarists from Arch Enemy, Trivium and the bassist from Dragonforce are learning to play Machine Head songs, the band's official site said.
In fact you can see all of this on their website. Noirdez (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good information, but what is the point in adding it to article in that form? Couldn't we shortne it? IronCrow (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed it because it was way too large. Shorten it to one/two sentences and provide sources. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Towards the end of The Blackening section, it sure reads like one. For example, it speaks of an "upcoming" show in September 2007, for crying out loud. This needs to be reworded to fit current-day terms. Reminds me a lot of Korn's "Recent Events" section. Dark Executioner (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Free pix: [1]
Sorry, I don't have access to flickr. Would you care to retrieve some images yourself?
It takes like 5 minutes to sign up. M3tal H3ad (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
*In the lead, you cut from 1992 to 2007. Better to shorten the first para (members, formation date), and then discuss career in the 2nd

"music with each other" --> "music"
Yeah, the lead needs a significant reshuffling of content...
Ref 1 isn't online, so how can you have an accessdate?
I removed it. I thought all sources nedded accessdates.
"made from Duce dealing speed and marijuana." - due to the potential criminal issues here (eg. in the Bernard Fanning FAC I had to remove a comment about him plagiarising because of the source used), an easily accessible online source would be favourable, if possible (and reliable)
Done. By the way, nice job on Fanning.
"Rick Anderson of All Music Guide..." - you quoted AMG last time; any other reviewers?
AMG is the only reliable one up until Through the Ashes of Empires.
"specifically the rapping vocals that were still present." --> "especially for the ever-present rapping vocals.", perhaps?
Done.
"The band was turned down by multiple record labels in the United States, when Roadrunner USA, interested in the new album, offered Machine Head an offer for another record contract." - they were turned down while they were offered a contract? Reword
Done.
"awarded the album an almost perfect score of" - well yeah, we can tell that 9.5 out of 10 is almost perfect, you don't really need to say that :)
Done.
...and a note on my talk page when done, please. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Passed. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Shibby. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

whats this mumbo jumbo about a gang confrontation and flynn/duce fearing for their lives?
it has to be bogus..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt head16 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 

Did you even care to look up the sources? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 20:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Where is the source? I've never heard of Flynn and Duce ever being threatened by a gang, and I'm interested in reading it. Dark Executioner (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see it. Can't believe I never heard of that. Dark Executioner (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the demo of Burn My Eyes's Block: link. Robert Flynn looks like Castro when he was young :) ...--  LYKANTROP  16:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I noticed that the Discography, Members and Awards and Nominations sections are indented under the references section. I looked at the source to try to edit this and correct it, but on the edit page everything appeared to be in the correct order. This seems to have happened in one of the last two revisions of the page, sometime today. I am still new and don't want to try to correct this and risk making it worse. Interestingly average (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

thrash is basically defined by the chugging sound of the rythm made by the guitar. Just as Heavy Metal as a whole evolves into a wider sound. so did thrash metal which is just a sub-genre of heavy metal.
Stop trying to box every thing as different categories genre junkies!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.254.123 (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC) 

That can't all be in past tense anymore. Alert to someone who knows more about it. 3pointswish (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have jsut uploaded about 10 photos to WikiCommons that I took at Sheffield Arena on Friday. So yeah, you can use them were-ever you want because I issued them under CC liscense. [2] REZTER TALK ø 12:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

On the music videos section, exists a video ("Take My Scars") that don't have a reliable source as reference to prove their year of release and the director's name. So, if you known some kind of source like an interview (magazine, internet), DVD, CD (booklet too), VHS, etc. Help us! Regards, Cannibaloki 06:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, take my scars was released on Roadrunners "Drilling The Vein" vhs. I have that and have just watched it through. Sadly there is no credit for the director, but at the end of the Take My Scars video its does quote "copyright Machine Head 1997". Photo of the screen shot I took is here. I would say that confirms the video for the year 1997.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobGarage (talk • contribs) 12:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
At the end of this video (after show all the music videos), don't have a list of credits similar to a movie? Cannibaloki 14:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I checked that. no full list of credits. On later "drilling the vien" VHS that Roadrunner did they did credit the director. But on this, the first one, they didn't. The only details it gives its the copyright holder and year at the end of each individual video (as per screen shot above). sorry. BobGarage  —Preceding undated comment was added on 15:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC).
 Cannibaloki 15:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nu Metal should should be listed as (mid-career) rather than (early). Machine Head's early material was 'Burn My Eyes' or 'The More Things Change...'. Which were the Groove/Thrash Metal sound they are most known for. Duck610 (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone add a chart showing the dates of when members were/are in the band?
VenomousConcept (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What was wrong with that photo that someone put up? I thought it was quite good. It showed all the members, unlike the live photo. Can we have it back?
VenomousConcept (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a blatant copyright violation, taken from the band's website without permission. ~ mazca talk 19:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough. I do think wikipedia worries about copyright too much though, which is why so few articles have pictures, which is a shame.
VenomousConcept (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not just the risk of Wikipedia getting in trouble - I honestly doubt many bands would have a problem with us using publicity shots like that on Wikipedia. The reason we're so restrictive is because we're trying to make a "free content" encyclopedia that can be reused by others and republished - so restricting the amounts of "non-free" photographs is important.
But yeah, I do agree that having a clear photo of the whole band would be nice - the live one we've got does a good job of conveying the energy of a live performance by them, but not such a good job of identifying the band members! ~ mazca talk 19:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know for sure but i can sense some elements of death metal or melodic death metal in their blackening album.i have managed to find a source but i thought i better discuss it here first. anyone feels it should be added?  --Knightrider abhi (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A months ago I noted that Machine Head stuff appeared on The Sopranos in the form of a poster and a t-shirt. The Sopranos was a huge Emmy winning show on HBO, and I thought it was noteworthy so I added it. Looks like it is gone now. Why isn't that info noteworthy here? Neanderthalprimadonna (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Guys groove metal and thrash metal are the two genres that describes MH the best. Musically they they take influences from different genres but their basic and most referenced sound is that of groove/thrash. So before changing the genre in the infobox PLEASE PROVIDE RELIABLE SOURCES before editing thank you. Genres like death metal or melo death are not referenced. Please remove such things--Knightrider abhi (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The article describes the band as Heavy Metal but the genre section on the side doesn't say Heavy Metal. That doesn't make any sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brayness (talk • contribs) 14:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 

Thrash and groove metal are two heavy metal subgenres. Cristian MH (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Machine Head may have gotten their earlier groove metal material much more popular in their later years, but what first got them famous was the nu metal style of The Burning Red and then Supercharger. For a number of years, Burning Red was their best-selling album - it had sold even more than Burn My Eyes. (Of course, after that album was "discovered," it skyrocketed in popularity, and every album after Supercharger returned to groove metal.) I tried adding it in already (see article's edit history) but Teh Trasher kept reverting me and suggested I bring it up here. I suggest adding "1999-2001" after the nu metal tag if it is added (which it should), linking '99 to The Burning Red and '01 to Supercharger.
Groove metal may be what they're known for now, but for a while, and when they first got into the mainstream, they were a nu metal band. Please consider this. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a problem with you adding nu metal to the infobox, as long as you can use reliable sources to back them up instead of linking to other articles. Your way of going about things is using general observations and opinion rather than facts, however, and you were asked numerous times to bring it up here first, which is why I think you were being reverted. This is not uncommon, though. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 00:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The sources say that the albums are nu metal, and not the band.-Teh Thrasher 06:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Machine Head (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071026020331/http://www.machinehead1.com:80/bio.html to http://www.machinehead1.com/bio.html
Added archive  to
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080103010421/http://www.ozzfest.com:80/static_content/view/alumni.html to http://ozzfest.com/static_content/view/alumni.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071226174652/http://www.lambgoat.com:80/features/interviews/machine_head.aspx to http://www.lambgoat.com/features/interviews/machine_head.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Machine Head (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150628212934/http://www.billboard.com/artist/276909/machine+head/chart to http://www.billboard.com/artist/276909/machine+head/chart
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe that Robb Flynn plays rhythm guitar as he is the singer, and Phil plays the lead primarily. Any opinion on this matter?
--67.87.104.25 (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

To say that Flynn is the rhythm guitarist just because he is the lead vocalist is completely opinionative, just as much as it is incorrect. Flynn and Demmel often share solo duties, hence why they are listed simply as "guitar", rather than one being lead guitar and the other being rhythm guitar. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 03:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes they both share solo duties but Demmel seems to do it more and it also says on Machine Head's facebook page that Phil is the lead guitarist. It is really up for debate but I believe what I see--67.87.104.25 (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Mike DeNicola--67.87.104.25 (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

And that, my friend, is the definition of original research. You might want to fix up your signatures as well. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 21:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Im sorry but what does original research mean?--Miked1992 (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)miked1992--Miked1992 (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I will fix the timeline if possible with the guitar roles distinguishing between Robb and Phil, because Robb plays rhythm roughly 60%/40%, and Phil Lead 60%/40% I am hoping that I can differentiate instead of putting down just "guitars" since both guitarists trade leads from time to time, thanks--Miked1992 (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Miked1992--Miked1992 (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that there's a 60/40 split (or thereabouts) is the reason why it says "guitar" (without using lead/rhythm) – we don't need to overcomplicate things by changing the members section and timeline to say "rhythm and lead" and "lead and rhythm", as it's unnecessary. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 22:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Machine Head (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080521104002/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=44955 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=44955
Corrected formatting/usage for http://https://www.billboard.com/artist/machine-head/chart-history//
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606225912/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=3145 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=3145
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfi=383&cfgn=Videos&cfn=Billboard%20Comprehensive%20Music%20Videos&ci=3062015&cdi=8462966&cid=10%2F29%2F2005
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015224258/http://roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/showreview.aspx?reviewID=1066 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/showreview.aspx?reviewID=1066
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110914085526/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.Net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=118898 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.Net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=118898
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806191651/http://www2.kerrang.com/2009/08/the_2009_kerrang_awards_winner.html to http://www2.kerrang.com/2009/08/the_2009_kerrang_awards_winner.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401231338/http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/unto-the-locust-hits-22-in-the-us to http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/unto-the-locust-hits-22-in-the-us
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130225033719/http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/machine-head-and-bassist-adam-duce-part-ways to http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/machine-head-and-bassist-adam-duce-part-ways
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Machine Head (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105113924/http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/20-years-ago-today to http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/20-years-ago-today
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150120003637/http://www.theentertainmentnexus.com/interviews/rag/mcclainDave.htm to http://www.theentertainmentnexus.com/interviews/rag/mcclainDave.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081017232045/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/showreview.aspx?reviewID=51 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/showreview.aspx?reviewID=51
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001000000/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=71033 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=71033
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081017232016/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=75009 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=75009
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090218165211/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=83324 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=83324
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529165618/http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/mh-announce-the-eighth-plague-tour to http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/mh-announce-the-eighth-plague-tour
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529165618/http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/mh-announce-the-eighth-plague-tour to http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/mh-announce-the-eighth-plague-tour
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120184856/http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/machine-head-at-download-2012 to http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/machine-head-at-download-2012
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Machine Head (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228004940/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=74311 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=74311
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080217153210/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=90726 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=90726
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111014101132/http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/new-single-locust-out-today to http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/new-single-locust-out-today
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002154107/http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/unto-the-locust-gets-slammed to http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/unto-the-locust-gets-slammed
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120514050801/http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/machine-head-soundwave-2012 to http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/machine-head-soundwave-2012
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927033353/http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/machine-head-at-wacken-2012 to http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/machine-head-at-wacken-2012
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217022704/http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/machine-head-at-graspop-2012 to http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/machine-head-at-graspop-2012
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503062825/http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/the-2012-mayhem-festival-cruise to http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/the-2012-mayhem-festival-cruise
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120920181912/http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/mh-win-best-international-band to http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/mh-win-best-international-band
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004011444/http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/new-live-album-machine-fucking-head-live to http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/new-live-album-machine-fucking-head-live
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117221645/http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/pre-order-mfhl-receive-free-ep to http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/pre-order-mfhl-receive-free-ep
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203042150/http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/machine-head-announces-new-bassist to http://machinehead1.com/board_posts/machine-head-announces-new-bassist
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109110515/http://www.metaljudgment.com/albums/machinehead_supercharger.html to http://www.metaljudgment.com/albums/machinehead_supercharger.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

There are ongoing disputes about how Logan Mader and Chris Kontos should be listed in the members section due to the fact that they are nto returning as full members for the Brun My Eyes anniversary tour. User:4TheWynne seems to be the main editor who is insistent on them being listed as former members but this is not clear to the reader that they are currently performing with the band. Therefore I would make the following suggestions:

Personally, I think option C is the best as it is clear that currently they are performing with the band but also have a history. Once the BME tour is complete and their status within the band reaffirmed then they can be moved to the former members section. But whilst they are in the band (in any capacity) it is misleading to list them as former members. MetalDylan (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I think either option A or C are best, I'm leaning more towards A, but either works just as well in my eyes, as they will be members of the band, even if it's not for long. Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem with Option A is that the two members are listed twice, which is unnecessary, and the problem with Option C is that "Current members" refers only to official members, which is why I removed them from the current members in the infobox as well – yes, they are currently touring and working with the band, but there is nothing official beyond that. Option B is the only thing that I believed could work, as they are former members of the band but are still working with them (just with less emphasis placed on the latter); however, if this is seen to be an unpopular option, then I propose this instead:

I've never seen this done before, but it places less emphasis on the "former member" part and more on the fact that these guys are currently working with the band. If/when they stop working with the band, they would be moved back to "Former members" and have "touring member 2019" placed on the end, which is how I've seen it formatted at several other band articles where this has been the case. This would not be represented on the timeline, however, as representing touring members on timelines is generally discouraged.  4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 02:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Option C is the best choice as it clearly states that they are only currently touring members which means it is logical to have them in the Current Members section. This avoids them being listed twice and does not infer they are official member just that they are currently performing with the band. Given that it is not known how long the BME tour will last and what the status of Mader and Kontos will be post-tour it is prevalent to have them listed as "2019-present". MetalDylan (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Alternatively...

MetalDylan (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Once again, these guys aren't official members of the band – that's what the "Current members" section is for, and touring members (which don't have to be split into current and former) are listed separately. They would only be listed there (and in the relevant section of the infobox) if they were to rejoin the band full-time. Option D avoids placing them under current or former members, and indicates that they're currently working with the band and that they also have a history, as you say. I was talking about post-tour when I mentioned the "touring member 2019" part (or 2019–whichever year the tour finishes, if it goes beyond 2019) – of course it would say "2019–present" during the tour. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 10:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Option E avoids any confusion by altering the heading (slightly) to read lineup instead of members. The fact they are not official members is indicated by both this and the fact it says touring for 2019-present. This the clearest possible way of showing the members and (IMO) a reasonable solution. MetalDylan (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)